Tuesday, December 23, 2008

A bit about 'universal' health care


Regarding my prior post 'Yeah, what they said';


The original post at Ranting's of a Sandmonkey, moving towards a divided world - I had to post this in the comments.


Slippery slope it is indeed.


Adam said: “…public healthcare is free at the expense of tax-payers (something most of us consider a good thing,…”

Well, no, most of us don’t consider it a good thing. There are several problems with state sponsored health care. One of which is that taking the profit motive out of health care effectively stops the advances of medical science. Worldwide socialized medicine treats it’s subjects using techniques, pharmaceuticals and equipment developed by profit based medicine (primarily the U.S.). I suppose it’s great that the rest of the world can take advantage of the gift of life given to it by the U.S., but that doesn’t mean that state health care is the best thing since sliced bread.


The other problem is the placing of ones health as a burden on society, and therefore subject to government control as the prior commentators talk of. If one’s body is subject to control by the state it is nothing less than a loss of liberty. Couching it in terms like ‘responsibility’, ‘duty’ or ‘obligation’, while making it more palatable does not negate the loss of freedom entailed.


In a society where the people have already traded their freedoms in order to be cared for, this conversation is really moot. The deed is done and all that is left is the rationalizing we see here.


But a society that is still nominally free must guard against the encroaching tide of state sponsored guardianship in the name of equity. Following that path leads to a uniformity of will that is as oppressive as a jail cell.



No comments:

Post a Comment