The notion of the "right to health care" contains a number of implications. First is the "right" of the individual to make demands upon his neighbors; his neighbors must financially underwrite his neighbor's health costs. Second, this demand on his neighbor's income contains--at least for the present--no demands upon the recipient for this largess. He may drink excessively, smoke, take drugs, weigh 600 pounds without any consequence to his health care coverage. Third, this "right" for health care demands the physician to acquiesce. This "right" constricts the rights of the physician who is now legally required to respond to the patient's demand. The physician is bound, indentured without his approval.
People are worn out by taxes. Taxes are unjust, inefficient, misdirected, misspent, skewered by influence--all of these and more--but the small necessary taxes somehow justify the larger unnecessary ones. Taxation in the average citizen's mind is a huge slush fund that sometimes is of benefit to the payer, sometimes not. It is the physician in this relationship that is of interest here. To take a free man, a physician, and bind him in a relationship without his consent--that accepts an infringement on personal freedom and that is new. Some jobs are created as indentured--like policemen or firemen--, some are created as jobs for the common good--like utilities--, but to take independent individuals and absorb them into a system and require thenm to serve without their consent--like eminent domain or a military draft--that is new in this free country.
And the thoughtless attitude towards the physician's liberty should chill everyone, even the most devoted who have entered the subsidized life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment