What am I missing?
I already addressed his comments. He's not proposing scrapping Britain's system for the same reason none of the Democratic candidates for President is proposing a government take-over of health care like they have in Britain.
How can you disagree with this position?
the equal right of everyone to care and comfort when they are born, when they are ill, and when they are dying.
I think that's a lovely sentiment. If he said "access" instead of "right" I might even agree with it. I make a distinction between the right to non-discrimination and the claimed right to have someone else pay. I'm comfortable with that distinction.
If we move into a paradigm where people have the right to "free" health care, that really is a departure from our current government paradigm. To make such a departure, we need to think carefully about it, not just fall into it because it's a lovely sentiment. I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't do it, only that it's a huge departure, not a small step.
Look at police protection as an analogy. Having the right to be safe in our homes and persons is a lovely sentiment, too, one with a much stronger, more elemental, basis than paid healthcare. Yet we don't that right. If we are victimized by a home invasion, physically injured with property stolen, the police will try to bring the culprit to justice. The police do not protect us from the crime other than in the vaguest of ways, they only punish the offender. They don't compensate us for our loss. They don't pay our medical bills. And they most certainly don't provide any specific preventive services. They primarily act after the face. If you are threatened and want protection, they don't assign you a guard or move you to a safehouse. If you want that, you get friends to help or hire your own security.
If you apply that same paradigm to health care, it means a trip to the hospital when your appendix bursts. It doesn't mean an annual mammogram or a lifetime supply of Lipitor. If we were going to increase the government role to reduce our risks from hazards, I'd put the money into protecting people from stalkers before spending it on protecting people from heart attacks. Protection of people from other people is a more elemental role of government than protecting them from cholesterol, yet we don't do that now. We're taking a big step if we place cholesterol above stalkers in our priority scheme and start funding health protection rather than police protection. If you want to do the former, start with the latter. Then you have a better argument for the former. |
