In response to those who claim that Universal Healthcare is our right because it promotes the general public welfare: I’m with you that there are some issues with our current health care system. But do you really thing that letting the government take it over is the way to go?
From my perspective it seems that less government interference (and less big pharma special interests group pushing policies that big them a leg up on others) would best promote the general welfare you speak of. Consider veterinarians. Or, contrast private and public health care service in any country that has implemented the scheme. Consider the benefits of competition.
It seems that placing it all in the hands of a bureaucracy would be much worse that what we have now: no accountability to produce and no competition to innovate = less health care available, less efficiency, and less (virtually no) medical advances. Also, why would you want to become a doctor, only to become a slave to what will sure to be a bureaucratic mess, especially one where your rights are considered to be inferior to those who are ill. Thus we lose the incentive to attract (and reward) the best talent.
I believe we have a right to choose whom to exchange with to acquire health care, and even to study medicine ourselves and provide for ourselves and our family healthcare. But, when we start to claim right to the fruits of the labor of others, we are on dangerous ground. We are only respecting freedom so long as it applies to us, and we are infringing on the blessings of liberty of those around us.
I believe we both have the same values and want to bless the lives of others – no-one wants more people to go hungry or sick. This is sincerely what I believe on the subject.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.