login about faq

Shouldn't the government provide basic reasonable care freely?

asked Nov 11 '10 at 18:44

Michael's gravatar image


edited Nov 12 '10 at 02:07

jasoncrawford's gravatar image

jasoncrawford ♦

Rephrase this question:

"Shouldn't the government force some people to pay for other people's healthcare?"

Because that's what "government-provided" healthcare means.

The answer is no: it's vicious in theory and a disaster in practice. Vicious, because it violates the rights of citizens to use their money as they see fit. A disaster, because it inevitably leads to rationing and controls.

See also:

answered Nov 13 '10 at 03:15

jasoncrawford's gravatar image

jasoncrawford ♦

First, consider that everything done by a government is done at the point of a gun. (Too bad we don't spell it 'gunverment.') Should healthcare be forced on people? If no, then extend that to: should healthcare be forced from people? (You might want to note that Obamacare does both of these things.) The proper role of a government is protection. The raison d'etre for governments is to subordinate might to right. Healthcare doesn't enter into it. Healthcare is a product, like shoes and legal services, and it has to be produced by the efforts of some individual(s). What one produces, one owns, in a free society. Doctors and EMTs and nurses and physiotherapists own the fruits of their efforts as much as a seamstress or painter does. In the simplest way, the government doesn't have any healthcare to provide. Why the government shouldn't undertake to do whatever is necessary to be able to provide such a universally welcome and beneficial product is that it can't be done without outright theft. If every single person can afford all the health care they want, there's no need for the government to get involved. If they can't all provide for themselves, it is necessary to make someone else pay for it. Which means it is necessary to violate property rights to do so. But if the government goes into the theft business, they have violated their charter purpose, which is to subordinate might to right. And that's why the government should not provide healthcare, or health insurance, or, for that matter, any such goods at all.

answered Nov 11 '10 at 20:40

Mindy%20Newton's gravatar image

Mindy Newton ♦

To add to what's already been said -- who gets to decide what "basic" and "reasonable" health care is? In a free market, each individual decides the answer to that question based on his needs and what he can afford -- or he can request VOLUNTARY private charity (in which case the donor has a right to impose conditions on his gift). When the government pays for health care, it's a bureaucrat who will tell you how much care you're entitled to and how much of someone else's care you have to pay for. If you're Catholic and don't want to pay for abortions? Too bad. Don't want to pay for someone else's substance abuse counseling? Again, too bad.

answered Nov 17 '10 at 07:07

stellavision's gravatar image

stellavision ♦

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Share This Page:



Asked: Nov 11 '10 at 18:44

Seen: 4,647 times

Last updated: Nov 17 '10 at 07:07