Today the public attention is largely focused upon health care, and an animated and vociferous chorus of socialists cheers and demands for health care as a "right." Many millions of people listen and find themselves agreeing, saying that it would indeed be a wonderful thing if nobody went without superb health care. Almost everybody wants the less fortunate to be better off. And millions of others say to themselves what a wonderful thing it would be if the government (meaning taxpayers other than themselves) paid for their own health care costs. Almost everybody wants something for nothing.
The opposition to the government takeover of the medical industry is in reality largely missing the point. The social conservatives point out rightly that the government will have to ration health care. To some degree or another this will absolutely be true. The argument then goes that the government will kill old people to save money. While this is certainly a final solution to the issue of the long term financial viability of a socialist America, it is certainly at this time a great stretch bordering on scare tactics- but not totally. The other argument that I have heard is that the government will promote and pay for aborting more children, especially those who will become special needs children, and therefore the government takeover of the medial industry must be stopped on moral and ethical grounds. Again, this may be so, but it is peripheral. The key to understanding the debate on what its proponents are calling health care reform is understanding itself.
The first things that need to be understood are the terms.
What is the big deal that the socialists in the Democratic Party call health care a "right?" What is a "right" anyway? Understood classically, rights involve those functions of my being which no person or group of people may morally or ethically take from me or deny me. I will detail this at length soon, but suffice it to say that health care is not a right as is personal liberty (which includes the right to free speech and the prohibition against slavery), but is in fact a "good." What is a "good?" A good is that which is the creation of some one's labor like televisions, bagels and bottles of beer. Related to goods are services which, though intangible, are also the product, the creation, of some person's labor. These include haircuts and tango lessons. Services then are really a subset of goods. They are merely intangible goods. Health care then is a combination of goods and services- the services of medical staff and the inclusion of goods like medicines and medical equipment. Not one person will argue with me claiming that health care then is not the result of the labor of many people- doctors, nurses, assistants, chemists, assembly-line workers, pharmacists, administrators and various other people.
If I had a right to health care then I could claim the labor of all of these aforementioned people without paying. If I take this health care from them without paying them then I have robbed them just as if I had stolen a loaf of bread. This brings us to another term.
Need. I need food to live. A want is something I desire. A need is something without which I will die. Food and a place to sleep and medical care are all needs. Medical care may not always be a need, but at some point in your life it probably will be. If I have a right to health care then I also have a right to food and sometimes shelter. I will die if I am left in the snow or heat of the desert. I will die if I do not eat. I will also die if I do not have water or air, which brings us to some interesting circumstances. I need air so I just breathe it. Air for all practical purposes is superabundant. This means that there is plenty to go around; no one has to make it- it is just there. Water is abundant but not superabundant. There is plenty of fresh water, but not in all places and at all times. (It is interesting to note that most of the costs associated with water are those of transportation- getting the water to the people.)
Health care, unlike air and water does not simply exist. It must be created by the work of people who do not all wish to work for free. If I claim health care as a right then I am saying that I have a right to the health care worker's labor. Even if I take the health care from the people who have provided it and pay them fifty cents on the dollar I have still robbed them. I cannot force the car dealer to sell me a $20,000 car for $10,000. We all know that the robbing of a person's labor is known as slavery. What then is it if I take the money to pay for my health care from my neighbor without his consent. Well, then I have robbed my neighbor and he will probably not invite me over anymore. Instead of that, what if I take the money out of the safe at the rich mans house on the other side of town. I will just threaten to hold him prisoner until he hands over the cash. Again I have robbed him. What if everyone on my block goes with me to the rich man's house and performs the same action? Now, because we are many and he is just one, I am well on my way to saying that we have taxed him. A point to be made is that health care like any other good is created by labor, and that if it is not stolen outright by the enslavement of health care laborers then it must be paid for either with money I earned or money I didn't earn that someone else did.
The opposition to the government takeover of the medical industry is in reality largely missing the point. The social conservatives point out rightly that the government will have to ration health care. To some degree or another this will absolutely be true. The argument then goes that the government will kill old people to save money. While this is certainly a final solution to the issue of the long term financial viability of a socialist America, it is certainly at this time a great stretch bordering on scare tactics- but not totally. The other argument that I have heard is that the government will promote and pay for aborting more children, especially those who will become special needs children, and therefore the government takeover of the medial industry must be stopped on moral and ethical grounds. Again, this may be so, but it is peripheral. The key to understanding the debate on what its proponents are calling health care reform is understanding itself.
The first things that need to be understood are the terms.
What is the big deal that the socialists in the Democratic Party call health care a "right?" What is a "right" anyway? Understood classically, rights involve those functions of my being which no person or group of people may morally or ethically take from me or deny me. I will detail this at length soon, but suffice it to say that health care is not a right as is personal liberty (which includes the right to free speech and the prohibition against slavery), but is in fact a "good." What is a "good?" A good is that which is the creation of some one's labor like televisions, bagels and bottles of beer. Related to goods are services which, though intangible, are also the product, the creation, of some person's labor. These include haircuts and tango lessons. Services then are really a subset of goods. They are merely intangible goods. Health care then is a combination of goods and services- the services of medical staff and the inclusion of goods like medicines and medical equipment. Not one person will argue with me claiming that health care then is not the result of the labor of many people- doctors, nurses, assistants, chemists, assembly-line workers, pharmacists, administrators and various other people.
If I had a right to health care then I could claim the labor of all of these aforementioned people without paying. If I take this health care from them without paying them then I have robbed them just as if I had stolen a loaf of bread. This brings us to another term.
Need. I need food to live. A want is something I desire. A need is something without which I will die. Food and a place to sleep and medical care are all needs. Medical care may not always be a need, but at some point in your life it probably will be. If I have a right to health care then I also have a right to food and sometimes shelter. I will die if I am left in the snow or heat of the desert. I will die if I do not eat. I will also die if I do not have water or air, which brings us to some interesting circumstances. I need air so I just breathe it. Air for all practical purposes is superabundant. This means that there is plenty to go around; no one has to make it- it is just there. Water is abundant but not superabundant. There is plenty of fresh water, but not in all places and at all times. (It is interesting to note that most of the costs associated with water are those of transportation- getting the water to the people.)
Health care, unlike air and water does not simply exist. It must be created by the work of people who do not all wish to work for free. If I claim health care as a right then I am saying that I have a right to the health care worker's labor. Even if I take the health care from the people who have provided it and pay them fifty cents on the dollar I have still robbed them. I cannot force the car dealer to sell me a $20,000 car for $10,000. We all know that the robbing of a person's labor is known as slavery. What then is it if I take the money to pay for my health care from my neighbor without his consent. Well, then I have robbed my neighbor and he will probably not invite me over anymore. Instead of that, what if I take the money out of the safe at the rich mans house on the other side of town. I will just threaten to hold him prisoner until he hands over the cash. Again I have robbed him. What if everyone on my block goes with me to the rich man's house and performs the same action? Now, because we are many and he is just one, I am well on my way to saying that we have taxed him. A point to be made is that health care like any other good is created by labor, and that if it is not stolen outright by the enslavement of health care laborers then it must be paid for either with money I earned or money I didn't earn that someone else did.
This is the heart of the issue. No one would be clamoring for the nationalization of the health care industry if the taxpayer thought that he was only going to get what he paid for. He wants it only because he wants something that he doesn't want to pay for. It is as simple as that. If our elected officials devised a plan that would ensure care as good as what we get right now and then followed up by telling us that everyone in America will be covered and that it would only cost the average taxpayer 30% more than what he spends right now on health care the people would revolt. The problem is that everyone wants something for nothing.
So the focus of the middle of the country becomes reform. Certainly there is a lot that can be done. However, as long as any considerable element of the legislation focuses on the idea of something for nothing there will only be trouble down the road. But who cares? Promising something for nothing is how you buy votes.
Posts
1 comment:
Oh yeah, it's going to be a right, so get out of the cart and start pulling
Post a Comment