“In the socialists’ view, all that should count is need.” Does this mean that a smoker in ‘need’ of treatment for emphysema and a practicing homosexual requiring treatment for AIDS will be treated as equals? Or does one get treatment preferences over the other because of the PC factor involved in the manner in which the condition was acquired? While there can be no doubt that both conditions are derived from extremely poor behavior choices; is one ‘poor behavioral choice’ more politically ‘acceptable’ than the other?

There are so many errors contained within universal health care that one almost doesn’t know where to begin.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND PRIVELAGE

To put it bluntly; a right is a privilege irrevocably coupled to an attendant responsibility. You have the ‘right’ to drive, provided that you assume responsibility for carrying liability insurance. Get caught without it and the consequences may range from fines to revocation of the privilege. Likewise; the privilege to vote is coupled to the responsibility of good citizenship. Non-citizens, regardless of the opinion of ACORN, are not allowed to vote. The privilege of work is coupled to the attendant responsibility of demonstrating the skill set required of the position.

The only exceptions to these criteria are the God Granted rights; the ones extended to all humanity. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However; while it is the right of every human to pursue happiness, there is no guarantee one will ever attain happiness. This ‘right’ may not be construed as placing any responsibility on any specific human, or group of humans, to attain happiness for someone else at their expense.

Housing, marriage, living wages, health care: All of these are privileges only. Privileges to be bargained for in the open market; privileges acquired by trading work, money, or skill for the item in question. When progressives claim these as ‘rights’; they deliberately skew man’s compact with society by demanding a ‘double’ privilege.

If a person who has no money demands health care as a ‘right’; he not only demands an acquired privilege (health care) for no work, he also demands access to another’s work to acquire that privilege. He demands that government use force (all government is force) to extract money from others in order to ensure his ‘free’ access to health care. In this case; two wrongs don’t make a ‘right’.

THE LOGIC OF RATIONING

While it is possible to ‘promise’ equality of health care; it is not possible to guarantee equal access. There must be economic equilibrium. Drive the cost for a commodity to zero and one can easily imagine the ‘demand’ would drive toward infinity. How much gas would you put in your car each week if it was free? Would you limit yourself to just what you needed to get by? Or is it much more likely that you would start driving to the mailbox at the end of your 50 foot driveway each day? No one washed a rented car. If there is no penalty to pay for ‘overusing’ a system overuse is certain.

With regard to health care; as demand increases, associated costs must increase. The federal government does not possess unlimited resources. In fact, it only possesses those resources it may confiscate from taxpayers. In order to avoid becoming a ‘health care plan with an army’; we’ll have to control cost somehow.

The challenges of a baby born with one or several congenital defects being kept alive with incubators, respirators, micro-surgeries, and around-the-clock attendance by medical professionals; gives that newborn every possible chance for survival. Their future potential contribution to society cannot be measured. The only immediate estimate that can be provided is ‘virtually unlimited’. A ‘seasoned’ citizen who requires a hip replacement, insulin, chemotherapy, or some other esoteric combination of medical care to survive: Potential; not so much.

Rationing of a fixed amount of health care dollars cannot be avoided under such circumstances. It is easy to comprehend that the most effective distribution of health care dollars would be on the young. And that this calculation would have to be revisited and refined as the patient aged. It is inevitable that you reach a point where the investment no longer pays and it is time to ‘take one for the team’.

THE RIGHTS OF WHOM

Universal health care is being marketed to the American People under the disguise of a personal right. This is not the case. The state has NEVER been interested in the rights of individuals. The state’s ONLY interest is the continuation of the existence of the state.

Universal health care grants the state the ‘unlimited’ right to control EVERY aspect of the lives of its contributors. Who is born, how they live, what they eat, if they are cured, and when they die. As your ability to contribute to the continuation of the state declines, so will the relative importance of your ‘continuation’. At some point logic dictates that the state decide that further investment in your existence is not in the best interest of the state. As such a system is constantly refined over subsequent generations; we eventually arrive at that point of total state control over the means and access to all things required for existance in accordance with your associated ‘value’ to the omniscient state. All you have to do is imagine Gattaca . Now mix in a considerable dose of Logan’s Run , and eventually toss on a garnish of Soylent Green .

This is the only eventual destination such a policy will lead a civilization to.