The Kerry Acceptance Speech touched on a sore spot of mine: National Health Care as a Right. The whole concept has always rankled me, no doubt. But today some thoughts jiggled around in my mind and I came up with yet another reason why I oppose this wrongheaded idea.
It has to do with the concept of individual rights. The thing about most individual rights, is that they are, well, individual. In other words, the exercising of individual rights does not require someone else to lose or gain any rights.
Example, Free Speech Rights: I have the right to speech. You also have the right to speech. And, my right to speech does not dictate that you have to listen to me.
Example, Religious Freedom Rights: I have the right to practice the religion of my choice. You have the right to practice the religion of your choice. My choice can not be allowed to interfere or restrict your choice, and vice versa.
I could go on like this, but instead lets skip ahead to National Healthcare as a Right: I have the right to healthcare. You have the right to healthcare. But whoops, my rights might interfere with your rights, because you might be a doctor. And what if I can't afford what you are charging for the services I need?
Two possibilities come to mind.
1) The government forces you to charge a price that I can afford, (below the actual cost of the services), and thus depriving you of a living.
2) The government denies me the services, or puts me into a special queue where I might have to wait for months before I can get the services I need.
Anyway you look at it, National Healthcare as a right involves depriving some people of essential liberties (Doctors) for the benefit of others (Patients). Thus, I argue that National Healthcare should never be construed as an individual right. It is nothing of the sort.
It would be much more accurate to describe it as yet another wealth transfer program.
I'm beginning to be a tad annoyed by the reactions of certain all-powerful bloggers whenever there is a disagreement... or perhaps even a spat... between two female bloggers.
"CATFIGHT!"
Personally, I think this type of response is to be condemned as contributing to a false stereotype of how women behave. When Al Gore calls me a digital brownshirt, I might respond by calling him a barking moonbat, etc, but no outside observers would ever shout "Dog Fight!", now would they?
So why should a piece of legitimate criticism by Michelle Malkin of the smutty Wonkette be reduced to the blatantly sexist term "CATFIGHT?"