Thoughts on Universal Healthcare

Our country is structured so that the powers of government are clearly delineated and, theoretically, are restricted to only those powers that are named in our Constitution. The original purpose for this structure was to ensure freedom by restricting the areas in which government could interfere. The quest for Universal Health Care demonstrates that this concept has been fundamentally lost, and that our country is no longer governed by a limited government, but instead is governed by a government that simply carves out areas in which the populace can operate. The population of this country has come to expect government intervention in all areas of life, even in an area as intimate as our personal healthcare.

We have all heard of the single mother who cannot afford to purchase healthcare for her sick child. We have all heard of the factory worker unable to purchase health care to treat his latest attack of cancer. People hear these stories and feel sorrow, sympathy, and the need to help. Some give to charity, others help individuals that are in need, but for most, the question that immediately arises is: What is the government going to do about it? People have come to believe that each and every problem that arises today should be handled by the government. A disaster strikes: What is the government going to do about it? Fuel prices rise: What is the government going to do about it? Children need health care: What is the government going to do about it?

Well, for starters Universal Health Care requires the initiation of government force against unwilling individuals for the good of the collective. Under any Universal Health Care plan there will be victims. The victim will be any individual who is forced through government taxation to give up his or her earnings to pay for the healthcare of another individual against his or her will. The fact that the government is the entity initiating force as opposed to some common bandit does not change the immorality of the act.

Imagine for a moment that a neighbor’s family member is ill. They do not have the money or insurance to care for that family member. However, they know that you keep a large amount of money in a safe in your home and they decide to take it to pay for their family member’s health care. You come home one day to discover that your safe has been opened and your money is gone. You would rightly call this theft and would condemn it as immoral. Upon learning of the reason for the theft you might feel some sympathy, but you would condemn the method in which your neighbor sought to satisfy their need. Stealing, as any child would say, is wrong.

Consider the same scenario, only instead of the neighbor acting independently he gathers a majority of your neighbors and they take a vote. The result of the vote is that since the neighbor has a need, and you have the ability to satisfy that need, the neighbor will be entitled to break into your home and take the money from the safe. Upon returning home you find the money missing, but a note is attached to the safe. It reads: “By order of the neighborhood committee this money was taken for the common good.” Do you feel any different? You shouldn’t. Stealing is wrong.

The fact that Universal Health Care will undoubtedly be voted into law by politicians riding a wave of populace euphoria does not change the fact that each and every recipient of public health care will be stealing. If you are not comfortable with stealing your neighbor’s cash in a time of need you should feel no better about voting for Universal Health Care. If you do, remember your vote the next time you tell a child that stealing is wrong.