Neal Boortz: Moochers need free-market dose
What’s the most surprising element of the current health care debate?
That would be the belief many government-educated Americans have that the Democrats pushing this health care takeover actually care all that much about their health.
This whole debate — and the Democrats’ attempt to seize control of a sixth of our nation’s economy — would have ended long ago if the American people had realized that this is about creating dependency on government and nothing else. Look, if these moochers had any concern whatsoever about the availability and quality of health care in this country, they would have turned the free markets loose.
There has never in the history of mankind been any social or economic system better able to improve the standard of living of the people, and that includes health care, than the competitive free market — a system, by the way, currently despised by the ruling (not governing, ruling) party in Washington. Our friends the Democrats, knowing the power of the free market, wouldn’t so much as propose allowing you to purchase health insurance across state lines, let alone give you the same tax breaks if you were to purchase health insurance on your own that your employer gets purchasing it for you.
All right. So, I’m not going to be able to convince you that your friends the Democrats are just out to grow government and their political strength. I can, however, use the words I have left (they really need to give me a bigger word budget) to dispel you of this absurd notion that you have a “right” to health care.
How do you receive health care? Compare health care to your right to free speech. All that is necessary for you to exercise your right to blab away on almost anything is for other people to refrain from stuffing a sock in your mouth. Not so with health care. Health care is a service. Free speech isn’t, nor are the other rights enumerated in our Constitution. Someone has to provide you with health care. They either have to administer to you personally, or they have to provide you with drugs or medical implements. To claim a right to health care, then, is to claim a right to either the time or the property of the people with the skills, the drugs or the equipment you may need.
Get the point?
You have NO right to a portion of another person’s life, or to their property. None. Therefore, you cannot have a right to health care.
Think about this: Once you perfect a claim to a portion of another person’s life or property for your health care, where does it stop? Do you then have a similar claim for shelter or three squares a day? How much of that person’s life and property belongs to you? How much can they protect from your ever-growing dependency on government?
You know ... I need to write more columns at 1 a.m. Clearly I nailed this “right to health care” thing. Perhaps I should quit while I’m ahead, but I’m going to spend a few more words stating the obvious.
How’s this swine flu thing working out for you?
Have you had any problems finding your swine flu shots? Tell me how you like that rate of return you’re getting on all of the money that was confiscated from you for Social Security!
And have you noticed that you can get your oil changed faster than you can work your way through the line at a post office? Private sector vs. government.
Are you really paying attention to the choices you’re making here? No? Well, isn’t it about time?
Neal Boortz’s column appears every Saturday. For more Boortz, go to www.boortz.com.