Healthcare cannot be “given” by gov’t because it isn’t produced or owned by gov’t.
The expertise, equipment, technology, medicines etc. have monetary value. This value cannot be taken by force and “given” (without payment) to those gov’t deems deserving without tremendous injustice to those from whom the resources were confiscated.
Every example we have seen of “charity by force” features those at the receiving end endeavoring to become and remain “qualified.” We’ve seen the crippling of incentive and the degrading, multi-generational impact of entrenchment.
Is there a moral argument for turning a situational and likely temporary problem into semi-permanent underclass for whom opportunity is a “threat” to their “benefits”?
Those who foot the bill by force become resentful and discouraged; their efforts to better their lives showing ever-diminishing returns and an “official” position of disfavor.
Welfare by force of law is immoral because it does harm and we know it does harm. It is also is impractical because it creates an unsustainable drain on the public treasury.
There is nothing charitable about applying a demonstrably failed approach to healthcare.
For over 200 years we managed the care of our bodies without a “national healthcare program”. Were people dying in the streets?
At the time ObamaCare was enacted roughly 15% were not covered; some of whom had elected to forgo coverage. Many of the more persistent problems had their origin in gov’t force.
More freedom is the answer.
Freedom to buy insurance from a company in a neighboring state
Freedom to form groups outside of companies
Freedom to participate in Medical cooperatives
Freedom to self-fund routine care and carry catastrophic-only
Freedom wasn’t broken. But welfare by force of law has proven over and over and over again to be a corrosive, corrupting and debilitating approach to “charity.”
The political left has amassed terrific power to government on a single argument: “Don’t people have a basic human right to ___________?”
Filling in the blank with the various necessities of human living, they’ve framed the debate around anecdotes and shamed their opposition with labels like “heartless.”
A Natural Human Right is the liberty to act in one’s own behalf.
Self-determination being an intrinsic human trait, our liberty to own, author and pursue the betterment of our lives is accurately described as “inalienable” because it’s part of what makes us human.
The moral limit to individual liberty is the point at which its exercise impedes that of another. The old American adage, “Your rights end where my nose begins” reflects an ingrained and intuitive acceptance of this most basic of shared moral values in American society.
The legitimate exercise of one’s own rights cannot include laying claim to the time, expertise, talents, creativity, earnings or resources of others. To say that some people – for whatever reason – have a legal claim on the lives of others is to condone servitude or slavery.
The result of our elected Representatives’ inability or unwillingness to make this argument is a constant expansion of central-gov’t control, waste, fraud, abuse and a semi-permanent underclass of people entrenched by government-provided subsistence.
It’s time we begin framing this debate around the timeless principles of human liberty on which our nation was founded.