GOOD LUCK
REDSKINS
liberalfirstlongoriginal
Wednesday
June 19th, 2019

earl watt mugL&T Publisher Earl Watt

 

When one political party wants more and more government while the other wants the least amount of government possible, it can be easy to get lost in the arguments since they rarely tell you their goal is more or less government.

Health care is a big issue right now since the massive government involvement of Obamacare has seen rising costs and astronomical deductibles as well as seeing the mandate struck down as unconstitutional.

To push for an entire government takeover of health care, a goal of the Democratic Party candidates for president, they tell you that health care is a “human right.”

That makes it sound much better, doesn’t it? After all, who wouldn’t support human rights, something that is intended for all?

And that is how the slippery slope begins.

Is health care really a human right?

We first have to determine what we mean when we refer to human rights.

According to the United Nations, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.”

Human rights tend to be about the protection of an individual, and they do not require any service from someone else.

The gray area, if any, might be education, since teachers are required to teach others in what may seem to be in support of the human right to an education.

But not all countries have a public education system like we have in America, where the law requires all children to attend schools or be taught at home while passing state-issued competency tests.

Parents can still educate their children without the public system if they choose.

And teachers are considered underpaid for what they do for society as a whole.

Could you imagine what the health care system would be like if doctors were treated the same as teachers? If you believe health care is a “human right,” that would be the end result at some point.

If you notice in the UN definition of human rights, it includes freedom from slavery.

Merriam Webster defines a slave as “a person held in servitude as the chattel of another.”

Health care cannot be a human right if it requires one person to be in servitude to another, and that is exactly what doctors would become in a single-payer system that the Democrats are proposing.

It won’t start that way, of course.

It will start by eradicating private health insurance and allowing the government to become the single payer to all medical professionals for services.

Over time, as is typical of government, doctors will receive smaller and smaller reimbursements for their services, and with no other options, doctors, teachers and other civil servants will all be about the same level.

They won’t tell you that.

But they need the transition of the facade that someone else is paying for your health care rather than you, which again removes the human right aspect.

Human rights are not what the state provides you but are what you were born with.

The Declaration of Independence addressed this when it said “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

We are born with human rights that are not granted by government. Rather, government is supposed to protect them, according to the Declaration when it said, “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Government can’t demand one person to provide services to another and call that a human right.

Every person should have access to health care, and for the poorest among us, we need a safety net so they can receive necessary treatment.

And those who want socialized medicine are free to advocate for it. They just can’t call it a human right when it clearly is not.

If health care is a human right, then why not groceries, vehicles, alcohol, cigarettes, a house, and the list goes on and on.

This is the real goal — socialism. If you can get one domino to fall, like healthcare, then the rest will topple as well.

What incentive would there be to try to be rewarded for your work when others receive the benefits of labor without working at all?

The only people experiencing a higher standard of living would be the ruling class while everyone else would be living like North Koreans.

They won’t tell you that because they know you want to be the captain of your own ship. You want to decide your own standard of living by being willing to work for it.

We all want the government to make sure it’s fair for everyone, but we don’t want them dictating what level of health care we will receive.

We need changes, to be sure, and we should all be having a conversation about how to increase access (we could start by allowing more students into medical schools to meet demand and create competition), but we should reject claims that health care is a human right which is just a ruse for a government takeover.

Pick your language/Elige su idioma

Liberal Income Tax-front