args

Universal Health Care

Universal health care never has, never will, and never can exist. There are countries which steal exorbitant sums of money to provide universal health insurance- But this is not synonymous with care, because, since the government is the only party paying for health insurance, and they are not receiving the benefits (or rather, they receive different, special benefits, for being government), they are motivated to limit costs. Since it is a state run enterprise, limiting costs by promoting efficiency or innovating is out of the question. The only way to do it is to make it law that the doctors charge less. Since this means the doctors are slaves (along with many other laws that attend state interference in health care, such as the laws requiring doctors to care for every comer, and of course taxes, which mean everyone is a slave,) fewer people want to be doctors. This limits supply. Which means you get put on waiting lists, on which some people happen to die. Not universal then is it? Now of course, it wouldn't matter if it really was universal health care. Either way, it's still universal taxation, universal slavery. A slave is anyone treated as though they exist for the sake of another person, rather than being treated as though they exist for their own sake. Theft is not compatible with the target of the theft existing for their own sake. Voluntary trade of value for value is, but state health care does not achieve that, namely the "voluntary" part, and by monopolizing health care, it reduces the quality and thus on net does not achieve the "Value for value" part either. Of course, this is difficult to observe, because, this will come as a shock to you, but every country, whether they claim to have "universal health care" or not, including the US, has state run health care. The insurance companies are "private" in name only, so long as congressional law rather than the law of individual rights decides who they are allowed to ensure, for what eventualities, at what price, and to whose benefit (taxes). The only thing that remains private about it is, occasionally, the development of new medicines. A "universal health care" program in the US, would cause the same factors to affect our development of medicines as the factors in the countries that currently have such programs- development would slow to a trickle, because the payer (Congress) would be motivated to keep new drugs off the market as much as politically possible to keep it's budget down. They put price controls on private drugs, killing development of those, and then take over development and turn it into a circus act. The science of health care would essentially be frozen in stasis. "I've lived in Europe, Asia, Canada, and the US and have some experience with health alternatives" No, you have experience with the system of explicit state control of health care. and the US system of implicit state control of health care. You have not experienced free-market health care. "Such an issue cannot be proven in absolute terms" Reality is absolute, why can't a political program be? For those who do not understand the extent to which American health care has already been slowed by the state, I invite you to read this article... bit of a long one :D http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...