It amazes me that the progressive line of "healthcare should be a right, not a privilege" is not criticized more often on its intellectually bankrupt terms. The most glaring thing about it is its obvious discrimination against food and hungry people: if healthcare is necessary and thus a human right, why not food? After all, we may only go to the doctor once a month or once a year, but we EAT FOOD AT LEAST TWICE A DAY. By the "healthcare is a right, not a privilege" logic, universal single-payer groceries should be on the Congressional floor as well.
But it's not. Why not? Well for starters, we don't have mandated employer food insurance. You figure out the rest.
And if you take everything society needs as a "right, not a privilege", pretty soon housing, clothing, beds, toothbrushes, computers (to do schoolwork, for example), etc. are "a right, not a privilege." And why should we assume our direct democratic friends should stop there? Why shouldn't every citizen have a right, once all their living needs are taken care of, to happiness? Shouldn't good music and good books be "a right, not a privilege?"
Yet this is exactly what would happen if the government were easily able to nationalize healthcare. There's no reason to assume they'd stop at healthcare, not with thousands of starving and shirtless people thanks, again, to government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's what I'm concerned about. People say the government should do this, or that, but they always laugh when you say "but why would they bother to draw the line at that?" And I don't see why they would, either. That seems to be a popular mindset for today's idealistic liberals. "Kids should have a right to blahblahblah..." It's frustrating.
ReplyDelete