Congressman Paul: Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

[LnGrrrR]

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.

The way I see it, health care does affect all of us, as emergency rooms are forced to take care of the insured and uninsured alike.

As well, there is a public safety risk associated with no health care. Those who go undiagnosed can spread disease to a large section of the population.

Finally, the argument that gov. health care is only useful for the poor seems off to me. Why would it only be in the best interest of the poor? Because the rich could afford otherwise? But surely, the rich could afford a higher class of police service if the same method was used?

What if we ran our fire and police departments the way we run our healthcare? You could get an instant police response if you paid so much for per month, you could get a lowered level of response if you paid less, and no response for those who couldn't pay. (Perhaps, like emergency rooms, we'd allow people with no coverage access to 911 for emergency situations.)

The same goes with fire departments. If your house burns down, and you have no fire insurance/coverage... well, sucks to be you. The fire department might put out the fire to prevent it spreading, but they could then bill you whatever you owed them, even if turned out to be thousands of dollars.

The argument that something is equally useful to poor and rich is a poor one in my mind, because if we were to go straight libertarian, and make everything fee-based, the rich would obviously be able to make more use of such services.

[Geezerballer]

The legitimate role of government can be determined if you remember that “We the People” delegate certain powers to it. I have the “right” to protect my home, therefore I can delegate that right to government in the form of a police force to do it for me.

On the other hand, I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay my doctor bills. I can not legitimately delegate to government power that I do not possess.

[LnGrrrR]

The legitimate role of government can be determined if you remember that “We the People” delegate certain powers to it. I have the “right” to protect my home, therefore I can delegate that right to government in the form of a police force to do it for me.

On the other hand, I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay my doctor bills. I can not legitimately delegate to government power that I do not possess.

Woah woah woah. Step back here.

That "we the people" do ent also stated the right to "life", liberty and happiness... you can't just take the liberty portion and leave the life out.

You could just as easily say, "I have the RIGHT to live, therefore, I can delegate that right to government in the form of a universal health care bill." Just as one could easily say, "You have the right to protect yourself by buying your own guns, and not making me spend MY money on a police force."

I just think that's a poor argument, regardless of where I stand on the health care bill.

[RandomGuy]

Just because something can be rationed by ability to pay, doesn't mean it should be rationed that way.

[Marcus Bryant]

Just because something can be rationed by ability to pay, doesn't mean it should be rationed that way.

And currently it is not purely done so. The state has intervened significantly in the provision of health care, and distorted it greatly.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i wonder if there are pro-obamacare darwinists?

[Marcus Bryant]

i wonder if there are pro-obamacare darwinists?

Oh, of course not.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Oh, of course not.

something tells me quite a bit of people here are going to sidestep that question. oh well.

[Geezerballer]

You could just as easily say, "I have the RIGHT to live, therefore, I can delegate that right to government in the form of a universal health care bill." Just as one could easily say, "You have the right to protect yourself by buying your own guns, and not making me spend MY money on a police force."

I think the second part of your argument is better than the first, so what then defines the limits of the role of government? If I have the “right” to use government to coerce people to pay for my health care, certainly I have the right to housing and food as well.

My definition of a “right” does not include anything that someone else must provide. I have a right to life. That doesn’t mean I can force someone else to provide me w/ food, shelter, and healthcare.

[LnGrrrR]

something tells me quite a bit of people here are going to sidestep that question. oh well.

Are you asking if people believe in Darwin's theory? I mean, I agree the theory works, but don't necessarily think we should follow that theory when it comes to policy.

[LnGrrrR]

I think the second part of your argument is better than the first, so what then defines the limits of the role of government? If I have the “right” to use government to coerce people to pay for my health care, certainly I have the right to housing and food as well.

My definition of a “right” does not include anything that someone else must provide. I have a right to life. That doesn’t mean I can force someone else to provide me w/ food, shelter, and healthcare.

I agree with you that the second part of my argument was better.

Technically, if you really wanted to limit the government to libertarian ideals, it'd mostly be there to sign treaties, run the military/national guard, and run the court system, and the state government would run the courts and national guard. That's about it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Are you asking if people believe in Darwin's theory? I mean, I agree the theory works, but don't necessarily think we should follow that theory when it comes to policy.

i see. your "life", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i follow you now.

[LnGrrrR]

i see. your "life", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i follow you now.

I was just playing Devil's Advocate there.

Honestly, I'm wondering what you mean by "darwinist". Someone who believes the theory, or someone who thinks that is a good moral theory to live by?

[Marcus Bryant]

something tells me quite a bit of people here are going to sidestep that question. oh well.

I take it you were referring to 'social' darwinists, no?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I was just playing Devil's Advocate there.

Honestly, I'm wondering what you mean by "darwinist". Someone who believes the theory, or someone who thinks that is a good moral theory to live by?

I take it you were referring to 'social' darwinists, no?

someone who simply believes in "survival of the fittest" in every facet of life.

[LnGrrrR]

someone who simply believes in "survival of the fittest" in every facet of life.

I would be very surprised if the number of liberals who also believe in social darwinism is greater than say... oh... three people.

[Geezerballer]

Technically, if you really wanted to limit the government to libertarian ideals, it'd mostly be there to sign treaties, run the military/national guard, and run the court system, and the state government would run the courts and national guard. That's about it.

My understanding of libertarian ideals is that it relies on the system of “layered government”. The Federal government would be limited to what is described in the Cons ution. States would be free to experiment w/ various laws/programs. Some states would outlaw abortion, some would legalize drugs. The benefit would be 50 individual experiments and we could see what works and what doesn’t.

Is it going to happen?-Nope. The most likely scenario is a disintegration similar to what happened to the U.S.S.R. The differences in culture are growing too far apart between the left and the right for us have such a powerfull centralized govt.

[Galileo]

guns = a right = you have the right to buy them

health care = a right = you have the right to buy it

[Supergirl]

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

...says a politician who has some of the best health care in in the country for him and his family.

OK, wit, why don't you start by turning over your policy --and the policy of everyone in your family who may be covered --- to the poorest uninsured cons uent you can find.

Have you ever noticed it's only people who can afford to buy health care, or afford to pay the hospital bills if they don't have it, who complain about health care reform? You don't see a lot of poor diabetics who can't afford to buy their insulin without their healthcare plan complaining, hmmm?

[Supergirl]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...y/1151492.html

HEadline of the story: Poll: Canadians like their health care, despite grumbles

Uh, what was that about people with socialized medicine wanting to go back, Mr. Paul? I thought so. Seriously, what a wit.

[Wild Cobra]

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

If that's all he talked about, I'd be fine with it. He wanted to immediately withdraw from Iraq once we were already there. That would have left the region in complete chaos.

[Wild Cobra]

i see. your "life", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i follow you now.

How can someone pursue happiness when the government keeps getting in the way?

[LnGrrrR]

If that's all he talked about, I'd be fine with it. He wanted to immediately withdraw from Iraq once we were already there. That would have left the region in complete chaos.

I think that's kinda the point of an isolationist though. He's gambling that the whole place would go to , and they'd fight each other, as they've continued to do for generations.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...y/1151492.html

New Ipsos/McClatchy online polls find that patients in Canada are indeed much more frustrated by waiting times to see medical specialists than patients in the United States are, and slightly less happy with the waiting times to see their family doctors.

The online polls surveyed 1,004 U.S. adults July 9-14 and 1,010 Canadians on June 5-7. They aren't scientific random samples, don't statistically mirror the population and thus have no margin of error. Rather, they resemble large focus groups to help see what people are thinking about a particular issue.

Hardly convincing.

[Marcus Bryant]

Speaking of " wits."