Ron Paul says healthcare not a right

Government funded health care is NOT a right.

 

Lets all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.Whatever that means.

Who decides what type and how much care everyone will get.What doctor can I see.Am I too old to get the hip replacement.Have I been bad and not taken care of myself and now will be punished by being denied care?

How many children can I have?What about cosmetic surgery,a sex change operation.Who will decide that.How much will the doctors make?What if the gov't doctor screws up, can i sue?Can I sue the gov't because they assigned me to a shity doctor?

Will the drive to inovate be squelched because the profit will be taken out.

Won't people use as much health care as possible because they want to get thier fair share?

Health care will become more rationed than it is now,that is my prediction.

Look at people who have no co-pay, so many go to the doctor for everything.I worked with a guy who went to the hospital about once a month for some damn thing or another,I mean needlessly.Guy probably consumed more heathcare in one year than I will my entire life.

If someone has real problems like type 1diabetes, cancer, or whatever I do believe they should get help and i think they generally do.

I have compassion.What I don't have is trust in some corrupt system.

Whatever.Kumbaya

 

Now I have to get an alias because I said too much and probably had some typographical errors.

 

yes that one. the one where granny used up every cent she paid in in one years time and then continued to draw on from age 65 to age 90

 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights that every person on this planet should have. There is no right to healthcare.

The difference is that healthcare for someone that does not pay, requires a portion of someone else's life to pay for it. It's that simple. Someone must work a certain portion of their life, through force of gov't, in order to pay the way for others.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z-1ZfFBMf8s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z-1ZfFBMf8s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I understand that in the USA, healthcare is currently not a right. The question is, <i>should</i> it be? If someone is dieing, should it not be their right to have their government try to keep them alive? Or should healthcare simply be limited to those who are privelaged enough to have the amount of money necessary to receive the care they require?

Perhaps I am missing the point, but they way I keep thinking about it is from the viewpoint of someone sick who is also poor. They should die because they cannot afford the necessary care?

 

It was mentioned before that for them to have a 'right' it means that the money must be taken/stolen from someone else to pay for it. BUT as Paul says,the slack would be taken up by Church hospitals/charity. Evolutionary psychology says we are hard wired to display the traits that helped us survive in the trees/caves.(Those 'survival' genes were passed down).If i'm sick this week,you help me.If you're sick next week,I help you.Most people don't like seeing a baby cry.We would all try to save a drowning person.In a true free-market society I would imagine the wealth would be tremendous.I for one would find it hard to stomach a person dying in the street and if I paid no income tax,I'd be more likely to do something further for their welfare.

 

Fast
Good
Cheap

Choose Two.


Without blowing up the whole system and starting over, we'll never be able to have all three. The trick is going to be reaching the best compromise to incorporate as much of these three characteristics as possible.

Fast and Good- What we (USA) have now. Its expensive

Fast and Cheap- We'd have to lower the standards to allow more people to practice Medicine. The quality of care would diminish

Good and Cheap- This is the single payer argument, but the problem is that it tends to take longer to receive care. Canada and UK are prime examples

 

Do the Canadians and UK citzens think thier systems are good and cheap?Are you satified with your system?

Anyone.