Rights are the limits of what other people are allowed to do to you. There really is no such thing as a "right" to health care.... What you mean is "entitlement".
This statement is only half true and conservatism's central flaw. You assume that all liberty is
negative (something that keeps you from doing something to me) and no liberties are
positive (something that allows me to live, function, and be a productive member of society). Now, the right to life is a very broad claim to make. To live, one must have breathable air, drinkable water, editable food, and freedom from disease. Restricting access to those basics is a violation of the right to life. Therefore, if there is a right to life, then there must also be a positive liberty right to basics needed to live. Without those rights, the right to life becomes meaningless.
The moral problem...with government-funded healthcare (and confiscatory taxation in general) is that the state forces money from its citizens without their consent. This is the government's real crime, because it violates the right to property.
All rights have limits. You have a freedom to speek, but you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded hall. You have a right to assemble, but you cannot form a lynch mob. You have the right to privacy, but the state can get a warrent to search your home if you kill someone. Simply put, if you do something that shockes the public consciencious, the state must intervine and do right. If someone has enough money to "live-it-up" with abandon while another works 2000 / year and cannot afford health insurance, that shockes the consciencious.
The other problem is that government provides many services that only it can provide (military, police, fire, water, lights, roads, etc.) that you must pay for. If you drive on the roads, you have to pay the gas tax.
Agreed. If people can't afford healthcare, perhaps attending college and getting a good job will help.
Not everyone can get these jobs. We have to have people who do "menial labor" to clean surgical suites, deliver hospital meals, type up dictation, etc. They work hard; maybe harder than you do. They have as much right to life as you do. They have a right to life even if they never have a job because
life is a right.
I always hear the comment about "not being able to afford to go to college." Funny enough, people with a zero income get school completely paid for with a simple FAFSA being completed. The loans are even enough to cover living expenses.
Too bad your GOP friends in Congress are going to gut Pell Grants and programs that help inner city kids get into college.
We should not give money to people who are to lazy to get an education.
I graduated from Vanderbilt University, got a job, and then got downsized. That arguement doesn't work with me...at least until the current GOP president can scare up some jobs. Currently, since Jan 2001, he is 1/2 million in the hole.
Socialist Healthcare is a term coined by Republicans to scare people into not believing that all people have a right to health care and that a society does not have a moral obligation that all its citizens have access to health care.
Yes and no. However, conservatives do use that term to scare people. The simple fact is, people want more government spending more than they want tax cuts. Witness what happened in 96 and 98 after Gingrich cut taxes and spending in 94 and 95. Bush won big in 02 and 04, but
Bush is no fiscal conservative.
If you think its hard enough to get access to doctors now, wait til you change to a socialized health system where:
1) you are going to bankrupt current young doctors who paid for medical school
2) prevent doctors from specializing since its not cost-effective
3) are ASSIGNED to an overworked doctor who has no incentive to work hard
Oh yeah, and then try to tell patients that they:
1) Dont have a choice in doctors
2) Dont get to go straight to a specialist
3) Have rationed care
4) Can't sue
5) Dont have access to the latest technologies
There is another big problem with most of the conservative arguements on this thread: They are all claim and no warrent. Where is the evidence? Anyway, who cares? No US politician will ever suggest socializing health-care (like what we do with the military and highway maintainence). Even Clinton's plan was not socialist.
FYI for those only worried about their paychecks: The administrative costs of private insurance are higher than with Medicare because of strict public accounability that private plans do not have. The savings could be spread among many people including doctors.