The US congress passed the health care bill to provide medical covered to uninsured Americans on March 21st. The bill was passed without a single republican Vote.The bill would “provide” coverage to 95% of the legal residents of the country. It will put an “end” to insurance-company practices like denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. This will be extended to adults too, through expanded high risk pools. Health care plans will be offered to individuals who are not covered by their employers. A large part of it would be funded by a new set of taxes, and high levy on high priced insurance policies. It is hailed as a historic “victory” and a big move towards “social justice”. Some of us less naïve, however, would call it Government tyranny and a takeover of the Insurance system. It would only shift the costs to premium players, increase litigation, spending and debt and the cost of equipment and insurance. High taxes would only discourage productivity and hamper production of wealth. As Cannon and Tanner observed, “The paradox of a ‘‘right to health care’’ is that it discourages the very activities that help deliver on that ‘‘right”.”
Is health care a right? It should be obvious that there are no such positive rights. A right shouldn’t infringe the rights of others. Ayn Rand wrote in ‘The Virtue of Selfishness”, on the Medicare of the 60’s: “Medicare is an example of an out of context goal. “Isn’t it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?” its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: Yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight—it’s the good, isn’t it? There would be no controversy about the moral character of some young hoodlum who declared: “Isn’t it desirable to have a yacht, to live in a penthouse and to drink champagne?”—and stubbornly refused to consider the fact that he had robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that “desirable” goal. There is no moral difference between these two examples.”And this: "The next time you hear a discussion of Medicare, give some thought to the future—particularly to the future of your children, who will live at a time when the best brains available will no longer choose to go into medicine."
Don Watkins, of the Ayn Rand Institute hits the nail on the head: “You are not your brother’s health care provider: According to the American ideal, men are not their brother’s keeper--we are independent individuals with inalienable rights to support our own lives and happiness by our own efforts. That means taking responsibility for your own medical needs, just as you take responsibility for your grocery shopping and car payments. It means no one can claim that his need entitles him to your time, effort, or wealth. Where is the willingness to defend this ideal by saying, 'Your health care is your responsibility--and if you truly cannot afford the care you need, then you must ask for private charity--not pick your neighbor’s pocket to pay for it'?
Is health care a right? It should be obvious that there are no such positive rights. A right shouldn’t infringe the rights of others. Ayn Rand wrote in ‘The Virtue of Selfishness”, on the Medicare of the 60’s: “Medicare is an example of an out of context goal. “Isn’t it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?” its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: Yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight—it’s the good, isn’t it? There would be no controversy about the moral character of some young hoodlum who declared: “Isn’t it desirable to have a yacht, to live in a penthouse and to drink champagne?”—and stubbornly refused to consider the fact that he had robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that “desirable” goal. There is no moral difference between these two examples.”And this: "The next time you hear a discussion of Medicare, give some thought to the future—particularly to the future of your children, who will live at a time when the best brains available will no longer choose to go into medicine."
Don Watkins, of the Ayn Rand Institute hits the nail on the head: “You are not your brother’s health care provider: According to the American ideal, men are not their brother’s keeper--we are independent individuals with inalienable rights to support our own lives and happiness by our own efforts. That means taking responsibility for your own medical needs, just as you take responsibility for your grocery shopping and car payments. It means no one can claim that his need entitles him to your time, effort, or wealth. Where is the willingness to defend this ideal by saying, 'Your health care is your responsibility--and if you truly cannot afford the care you need, then you must ask for private charity--not pick your neighbor’s pocket to pay for it'?
Posts
This is one of the most ill-conceived act by the Govt. of US and eventualy the entire nation will pay the price for it. Not only is it bad economics but is immoral & unethical.
ReplyDeleteThe real concern is on the moral aspects though as it is the mis-conceptions on the moral aspects that gives legitimacy to the politicians to propose such amoral acts