PLEASE NOTE: My girlfriend wrote the following and she said I could repost it here. I did not write this, but I fully support everything she wrote.
I haven’t wanted to comment on this much because I think we’ve already lost. A paradigm shift has happened in the last decade or so, and when this issue comes to the table, I believe there’s a better chance that my side will lose. Nonetheless, I believe the best way to bring about good change in the world is to spread your ideas, and however meager my means to do so, I’d like to continue.
The very popular belief today is that socialized health-care is right, moral, necessary, and even possible long-term. Call it what you want, national health-care or universal health-care, but when you throw out phrases like “cooperation not competition,” socialism is what you’re talking about. I don’t say that because I expect you to think ’socialism’ is an inherently dirty word; I say that to make something abundantly clear. When you speak of socialism, you are talking about forcibly eliminating competition, and therefore, eliminating superior ability and/or free choice. This is the evil of socialism that is easier for some people to understand. The goal of not having competition within health-care by means of government intervention means people will not be free to chose which doctors they think are better, who they would like to reward with their patronage, and who ultimately prospers in the health-care industry because of their superior ability to provide care. This is what competition essentially does, and you when talk of eliminating it, that is what you wish to get rid of.
And what is this “coorperation” you’re talking about? What does it do? If you’re speaking about a world where cooperation exists but not competition, I can only assume you mean that better doctors are forced to “cooperate” with worse ones, tying up more of their time and effort and bringing everyone down to the level of the worse doctors. But this is only the traditional defense of the capitalistic view of health-care, and I believe my central argument is much better.
What is very disturbing to me is the idea now that health-care is seen as a right. It’s the idea of people that if they need something and it exists, then they are automatically entitled to it. It’s as misguided and deadly as people’s belief that they have a right to job, a right to a house, to food, and to clothing. In no way do these things fit into the definition of a right or are they congruent with a harmonious society of men, according to man’s nature. If these things were actual rights, what would that entail? It means that other men have to provide things for you. It means they are obligated to serve you, and that force is justifiable against men who do not. That is essentially slavery.
If you would counter that it doesn’t mean force is justifiable, what do you think socialized health-care is? What do you think any amount of government-intervention is? It’s initiating force against human beings. The government takes the money of people to pay for you by force and the government regulates the health-care industry by force. What’s the alternative to disobeying the government’s laws? Being thrown in jail by the point of a gun, revoking your liberty entirely.
The real definition of a right is entirely different and is congruent with a peaceful society. The real rights were laid out eloquently, although not completely, in the Declaration of Independence as rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These are all rights to action and are derived from the nature of man himself. A man, being a thinking, reasoning being with volition and ability to conceptualize the world around him and the ability to develop a concept of ’self’, must have freedom to exercise this volition and reasoning of his mind. In fact, it’s his only means of survival. In short, this is where rights come from, and they basically mean, “Stay out of my way.” They mean man must be free to speak, think, create property, enjoy the fruits of his labor, and pursue his own happiness without the threat of force from other men. Rights are not a claim on other men; in fact, they are just the opposite. They are principles which state that no man can have a claim on your life. To call anything which other men create and which sustains or improves life a “right” is to pervert the entire concept and ultimately lead to the elimination of rights.
It’s hard to look at these issues when the subject at hand concerns sick and dying people, I understand. We all have a degree of good will towards men and we don’t want people to suffer and die. This is why socialists have made this their first and most concentrated issue to attempt to pass in America. They know emotions can cloud the ability to think about the implications of something. Of course when they say, “Socialized medicine will cause more people to live,” even though that’s yet to proven, we are moved to action. But what good is more people living when the life you’re talking about isn’t worthy of man? Morality isn’t utilitarian and it doesn’t lie in how many people at any given time are able to live. Man is more than just a statistic, and must, at all costs, be treated as his nature entails, with full freedom to live guided by his own conclusions. Remember, utilitarianism has been the defense of several atrocities throughout history, including slavery, and murder is committed when people stand by the mantra, “For the good of the group.”
I could further expound on the origins of medicine and its relationship to humanity just to put it into perspective more, but I think I’ll save that for a possible Part 2 continuation of this.
