Skip to content

“Medicare for All”? Really?

The U.S. House of Representatives is attempting to shove another “Medicare for All” bill down the throats of the people, with extremely unrealistic mandates, and Laurence Vance has 3 big questions that are not being asked about it.

Vance’s questions are:

1) Is it constitutional? 2) Is it the proper role of government? and 3) Who should pay for health care?

Vance notes that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to get involved in health care or health insurance, that it’s not a proper role of the government to get involved in those things as well as many other things, and that no American is entitled to receive health care at the expense of another, meaning involuntarily.

But I also have some questions. Many people now are being indoctrinated to believe that we have a “right to health care,” that is, a right to have someone provide us with medical care when we demand it. Does this include, for example, a fat slob who doesn’t exercise and who eats junk food and doesn’t particularly care about his weight, his health, his heart, his arteries? Should he be included in the “All” who have a “right” to health care, or “Medicare for All?” If so, why should this slob’s neighbors be forced at gunpoint (which is what involuntary taxation is, quite frankly) to have to chip in to pay for providing him with the attention of a doctor when he has his heart attack or stroke? Sorry to be blunt here. Bottom line is, if this guy doesn’t care about his own health, then no, he does NOT have a “right” to force his neighbors to care for him. (If neighbors still want to care for him, then they can always do that, voluntarily, if they want to.)

Same thing for smokers. I know, there are far fewer smokers now than there had been in the past. But they’re still out there, and being litterbugs and throwing their cigarettes down on the ground at the bus stop or wherever. Now, these people KNOW that there’s a good chance that they’re giving themselves lung cancer, heart attacks, and other ailments, because of their smoking. Should they, too, have a “right” to force their neighbors to have to chip in to provide them with health care? I say no. And please don’t give me this “Well I’m addicted, and I’ve tried to quit but can’t” crap. The smoker is voluntarily lighting up a cigarette and putting it up to his mouth and inhaling, and repeatedly. No one is forcing you or threatening you to have to do that. It’s all by your own free will. (If you can’t quit, try hypnosis. One of my mother’s friends did that many years ago and it worked, after she tried everything else.) I don’t believe that people who smoke like chimneys or do other hazardous things to themselves should have a “right” to force their neighbors to provide them with a doctor and medical treatment.

What about people who drink like a fish? Okay, I’m sure you get my point.

No one has a “right” to demand his neighbors give him medical care, no matter what ailments one has, no matter what “preexisting conditions” one has.

What we do have a right to is to not be robbed, by criminals on the street or by criminals from the government. We also have a right to keep all our medical matters private and not be required to give any personal information to anyone including government bureaucrats, our medical matters as well as our financial and other personal matters.

We also have a right to be left alone by bureaucrats. If they want us to participate in some scheme that we don’t want to participate in, then we don’t participate in it, and they don’t send armed goons after us and throw us in a cage if we don’t comply. That is exactly the kind of Soviet or fascist society these people in Washington, the real crazy ones in power now, want. They are police statists who want to force these intrusive schemes onto us whether we like it or not, and if we resist, they send the armed thug police after us, kick in our doors and kidnap or shoot us dead. That is the nature of the socialist ignoramus, it has always been that way, and it always will be that way. These people in Washington reject the idea of freedom because when people are free, the crazies in Washington lose the control over others they crave so desperately.

Published inAuthoritarianismHealthObamaCareSocialism