All Life Insurance Tips

This is too all "Supporters" of the "right" to Universal healthcare?

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory? Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantation's, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow plucker's develops—it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course—but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services—the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied hair cutters, some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better. Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government?—having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government? If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen—it is already starting to happen—under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing? Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them. You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, right less animals laboring to fulfill your needs. Tell me what you think. I have asked this question before and one of the main arguments went along these lines *Note this is quoted from the user Trollio Lioliolol* "Why should there be millionaires while there are hungry children? The constitution recognizes the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It assumes that it is a self-evident truth that all people are created as equals. Health care is not a luxury car. It is not a dream vacation to Las Vegas. Heath care is a matter of the right to life and liberty. Why should someone give up their life because of a lack of money? Why should someone give up their liberty to pay debts for health care? Health care is not a commodity that gets used up. There should be plenty for everyone. The United States is still, BY FAR the richest country in the world. Why can't we afford to care for our sick and needy? Aren't we the beacon of justice and truth in this world? What example do we set for the third world when we cast off our old, sick, and weak as callously as a dictatorship would? PEOPLE first, Profit second." Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy. The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life. The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property. The reason I have asked the question a third time is because I found the other answers lacking.

Public Comments

1. It is very simple. Everyone in the US has a right to a basic standard of care, not premium care like facelifts, but an agreed upon basic standard, and that is provided by taxing everyone. It's a very simple concept. But if you still can't quite grasp it, then just consider the current medicare system and if it applied to all americans, not just seniors. Again, quite simple. This is no different than the government providing a basic standard of education for every child, or free access to the court system to resolve their private disputes. It's there for those who need it, and everyone pays. Seriously, this is the third time today you have asked this same question. Do you keep forgetting? Also this is not your question, you have plagurized part of an article by a anti-reform think tank called AFCM which is paid by the drug and insurance industry to try to stop healthcare reform. Do you have original thoughts or do you just parrot insurance industry special interests? A guy named Leonard Peikoff is the real author of most of your question.
2. Bismark wrote: The sole purpose of an economy is to deliver a standard of living to the people He was no 'pinko' either. There are also very sound social and economic reasons. Much the same reasons that education, and law enforcement are not left solely to the markets You seem to prefer the arrangements in the 16th century - 'private wealth and public squalor' I hoped the world had moved on at least a little
3. Hows that new bong working out for ya?
4. You need to break up your "question" into smaller pieces. The whole purpose of having a government is to protect the citizens from deadly perils. Even the ancient Egyptian government stored grain and offered free bread to protect people from starvation in time of famine, as well as providing an army to protect them from invaders. Catastrophic health problems kill many more people than war or starvation, so it is just another protection that most of the people in the world have expected their government to provide for the past 100 years. We are just behind the curve.
5. You are making this way too complicated. Here is the easy way to prove that health care is not a right: If there are no doctors, who will provide you with health care? If something only exists because it is created by the labor of another, then it is not a right. No peron's labor is required for me to speak, I just start flapping my lips. Nobody has to listen and I don't have to make sense, but it does not require another person's labor for me to do it. I can do it just be the simple fact of being human. Health care does not magically pop into existence out of thin air, it ONLY happens as the result of another person's labor. Therefore it is not a right. The fact that a majority of our population can't understand such a basic concept proves the failure of our government run schools.
6. Well, it seems like you've found a good way to illustrate a bureaucratic nightmare. But why should we think that a centrally run health care system must degenerate that badly? Because "government can't do anything right!"? Absurd. They've done a lot of things quite well. At least you have the honesty to declare openly that you don't believe access to health care is a right that must be provided by society to those who can't afford it for themselves. There are many who will not admit it, knowing that that will expose them for what they really are. Instead they just imply that "everyone will be just fine" if we would only "get government off our backs". They used to actually say that, by the way. Now they just imply it. I'm not quite sure what to make of that. Maybe they feel that they've swayed public opinion to their side enough that they no longer need to deny that they feel just fine with the idea of fellow citizens in inescapable poverty. We all know that Thomas Jefferson did not declare that we have a right to happiness. Had he done so, then we would not know of him today at all. He would have been far too simple minded to have achieved greatness. And when he spoke of the right to life he was not saying that we must have the ability to work and collect wealth in order that we might live. He was merely saying that government and individuals have no right to take our lives away from us. The fourth amendment does not grant us the right to work and collect wealth in order that we might buy property. It merely prohibits the government from arbitrarily taking our existing property. I'm sorry, but a lot of your logic seems to be nothing but non sequiturs. It has nothing to do with the topic you brought up.