Congressman Paul: Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

Congressman Ron Paul
14th District of Texas

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Posted by Ron Paul (07-20-2009, 12:30 PM)

link

PJTV Invites Citizens to Engage in Virtual Health Care Forum on July 22 http://pr-canada.net/images/M_images/pdf_button.png http://pr-canada.net/images/M_images/printButton.png http://pr-canada.net/images/M_images/emailButton.png Posted by Editor Monday, 20 July 2009 Pajamas TV will host key lawmakers, health care specialists, and policy experts in a Virtual Forum on Health Care at 7:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 22 that will be streamed live at www.PJTV.com. PJTV is encouraging citizens to join the discussion about the consequences of government-run health care by submitting questions, comments and ideas through email, PJTV.com, YouTube and Twitter. Questions will also be accepted during the forum on July 22.
In the days leading up to the July 22 forum, citizens can submit their text or video input via several online communications channels. They can visit http://www.pjtv.com/healthcare, and follow the instructions there. They can also email their text or video questions to [email protected]This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . For video submissions, participants must include their full name, hometown and a contact phone number, and videos must be 30 seconds or less. During the July 22 webcast, viewers will be able to send in their comments via email and Twitter.

"PJTV is bringing the health care debate into the homes of our nation's online community with this interactive forum. With the future of our health care system at stake, concerned citizens deserve to have their voices heard on this issue, and PJTV is providing the forum to make that happen," said Roger L. Simon, CEO of Pajamas TV.

Featured participants in PJTV's Virtual Forum on Health Care include House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, and Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI), the top Republican member on the House Ways and Means Committee. John Goodman, President and Founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis will also be participating along with other experts on health care policy. The forum will be hosted from Pajamas TV's Washington, D.C. studio by "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds and will include PJTV commentators and bloggers from studios in Los Angeles and New York City.

This forum is the latest installment in PJTV's coverage of the health care debate. Just this week, PJTV released an eye-opening hidden camera video expos , hosted by PJTV entertainer Steven Crowder, that reveals the failures of the Canadian socialized medicine system. To watch the video, visit http://www.pjtv.com/v/2153.

About Pajamas TV

Pajamas TV (www.PJTV.com) is a conservative and center-right Internet TV company. Working with conservative think tanks and bloggers, Pajamas TV started production in September 2008 as the first online TV venture to be given a sky box at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. The Pajamas TV headquarters studio is located in El Segundo, Calif., with remote studio locations in New York City and Washington, D.C. In addition, PJTV brings in many contributors via web cams.

For more information about the online forum or to schedule an interview with a Pajamas TV representative, please contact Megan Franko (ext. 148) or Romney Beebe (ext. 118) at (703) 683-5004.

Source: Pajamas TV

I think he's right, but the good is a necessity which eventually almost always turns into not quite a right, but a social service. like garbage collecting and policemen.

are policemen a right?
are garbage collectors a right?
are water utlities a right?
are sewers a right?
are firefighters a right?
is electricity a right?

..none of these are rights but the need almost turns them into rights. these utlities and social services have to be monitored by the government to keep costs down and protect the consumer from getting reamed.


...and I think that is all Obama wants......an easier way to monitor this necessity or at least turn it into a utility that is monitored for cost at every turn.

Agreed here that, for this essay to be effective, Ron Paul needs to state what ARE rights, and what ARE goods. Specific, concrete examples.

Do people have the right to have policeman in their city? Or is that a good provided?

In fact, what rights can't be explained away as goods? Certain things like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc etc. But any service provided by a person could theoretically be considered a 'good', except perhaps the right of a defendant to a lawyer.

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

Everything in life is a good until it is secured as a right. The only question is whether a good should be secured as a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

---

can't never? wow!

I guess also if he never wins he wouldn't be a congressman. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chode_regulator

can't never? wow!

I guess also if he never wins he wouldn't be a congressman. :rolleyes

---

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.
I'm talking about primaries and winning his party nomination...

"can't ever"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Agreed here that, for this essay to be effective, Ron Paul needs to state what ARE rights, and what ARE goods. Specific, concrete examples.

Do people have the right to have policeman in their city? Or is that a good provided?

In fact, what rights can't be explained away as goods? Certain things like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc etc. But any service provided by a person could theoretically be considered a 'good', except perhaps the right of a defendant to a lawyer.

---

Presumably, Mr Paul thinks all these things ought to be up for grabs, or at least up for discussion.

In some places county participation is crucial; in others, that of cities. From time to time the powers of the state will promote the general good: highways and bridges, dams and maintaining parks and rest stops and dredging up a good beach for summer vacationers.

Free ferries at Port A.

Law enforcement.

Ag programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

---

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

---

I'll take your word for it. I only recall many conservatives talking pretty highly about the guy and his ideals, but when it's time to vote in the primaries he never seems to get enough votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

---

So isolationist = pussy now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'll take your word for it. I only recall many conservatives talking pretty highly about the guy and his ideals, but when it's time to vote in the primaries he never seems to get enough votes.

---

Everything except his military stance. In a posy 9/11 environment, that killed his chances with conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So isolationist = pussy now?

---

OK, pussy is the wrong word for him. I like him as a congressman, but he doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief. That's a deal breaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Everything except his military stance. In a posy 9/11 environment, that killed his chances with conservatives.

OK, pussy is the wrong word for him. I like him as a congressman, but he doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief. That's a deal breaker.

---

So wanting to refrain from engaging in international wars = doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief?

I believe it was George Washington who held the belief that America should stay as neutral as possible, and not get into entanglements with other nations, whether as an ally or enemy.

I seem to recall him being a decent General as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

---

Thats because most conservatives are Republicans, and Ron Paul, he dances to the tune sometimes, but is a Libertarian at heart.

And to LnGrrrR's question, I bet Mr. Paul would say that if a city wants to pay for firemen or policemen, thats their right, but the federal government shouldn't. Remember, libertarians, and republicans are theoretically about a small federal government that does two things, protect states from each other, and protect the US from foreign threats, and let the states handle all the rest internally...

In other words, if your state wants to provide services, have fun, if it doesn't, ok. The Federal Government SHOULD NOT.

This is hardly a new distinction. What Ron Paul calls "rights" are sometimes called "liberties" or "negative rights". "Negative" doesn't mean bad, it means that this kind of rights do not obligate others to work for me (presumably being paid for by the government). What Ron Paul calls "goods" are sometimes called "claim rights" or "positive rights". "Positive" doesn't mean good (or bad) here, it means that this kind of rights obligates someone to work for me, e.g., the right to a lawyer, right to education.

None of these are 100% either way. The right to free speech might require government regulation or law enforcement (as as example of where there is a cost involved, many cities want large demonstrations to pay the police bill).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Thats because most conservatives are Republicans, and Ron Paul, he dances to the tune sometimes, but is a Libertarian at heart.

And to LnGrrrR's question, I bet Mr. Paul would say that if a city wants to pay for firemen or policemen, thats their right, but the federal government shouldn't. Remember, libertarians, and republicans are theoretically about a small federal government that does two things, protect states from each other, and protect the US from foreign threats, and let the states handle all the rest internally...

In other words, if your state wants to provide services, have fun, if it doesn't, ok. The Federal Government SHOULD NOT.

---

And I'm fine with Ron Paul stating that clearly. However, I feel the reason he does NOT do such is that he knows it makes him sound more radical, and it might dissuade some who agree that healthcare is a good from agreeing that police and fire services are also 'goods'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And I'm fine with Ron Paul stating that clearly. However, I feel the reason he does NOT do such is that he knows it makes him sound more radical, and it might dissuade some who agree that healthcare is a good from agreeing that police and fire services are also 'goods'.

---

Well, firefighters aren't something provided at a national level.

Police, with the exception of the US Marshals, and the FBI (which shouldn't exist in its current form), are also not provided at a national level.

Why should health care be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

---

:lol

I'm glad to know that the purpose of our national defen...er, military is to prove the size of our collective manhood to the world. Since the state is now to be used to make up for our shortcomings, why stop at external state action?

Police and fire protection arise naturally in the best interest of everyone. It is hard to run and live in a city where people get murdered left and right and whole city blocks burn to the ground. They are also cheap to provide as a few unskilled people can provide coverage to a large area. They are in the best interest of the government, of the people, of the poor and of the rich. The same applies to trash pickup and sewage.

Government health care is the complete opposite. It is expensive, requires skilled workers, population coverage per hospital/clinic is small, and it is only in the best interest of the poor.

Ron Paul doesn't get support because he is considered a radical nutjob to the GOP. Has nothing to do with a specific policy. All of his views are against neo-conservatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Well, firefighters aren't something provided at a national level.

Police, with the exception of the US Marshals, and the FBI (which shouldn't exist in its current form), are also not provided at a national level.

Why should health care be?

---

Ah I can see your point. And yes, I would prefer a state-run healthcare of sorts.

I wonder, are fire and police departments mandated by federal law?