mutilated misquotes 
from Collins Richey's 3 Dec 2005 classic prose
may follow:

" I, and I am not alone, do not know what the answer is. On the one hand

There is no answer except 'It can't be done', if the question is 
'What is the best system for the government to provide free, instant 
and universal medical care'.

If that is not the question (but it sure seems to be the way that the 
medical care issue is most often approached), then please tell me 
precisely what the question is.

Also, please allow me to ignore the 'Americans' reference in your 
first sentence below.  Whatever geography we call 'home' at any 
particular instant, we far too easily allow artificial constructs 
such as political boundaries to cause [we the people] far too much 
difficulty far too frequently.  Problems such as medical care, or 
from where and whom may one buy a two by four, do not have inherent 
political boundaries.

" I believe that we (Americans) should be doing more for those who
" through no fault of their own cannot afford proper medical care under

If any individual would like to help anyone else, I am not aware of 
any moral prohibition against them doing so.  And when an individual 
is making their own choices about who is worthy of being helped and 
the go/no go definition of (the otherwise undefineable) 'no fault of 
their own', there sure is much less need for these huge, costly, 
unwieldy, insensitive and unresponsive bureaucrapcies (fema, anyone, 
or, say, the welfare industry?).

There is, however, at least one strong moral prohibition (the one 
against theft - remember the comment way back in the beginning of 
this thread about respect for private property?) against an 
individual, absent the their explicit consent, being compelled to 
help someone else, whatever their situation.

" the current system. OTOH, the answer is not a Hillary care system
" where the individual has no choice and where procedures can be termed
" "elective" at the whim of a governmental body.

I completely agree that the above sort of system is no answer - 
except for the bureaurat/politician seeking a lifetime sinecure and 
may everyone else be damned (and we most likely are ,-).

In fact, the situation is quite black and white:  either the legal 
system (usually and incorrectly referred to as the 'justice' system) 
recognizes the inalienable moral right of the individual to do as 
they choose with their own property or it does not.

R
-- 
http://www.quen.net

"Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and
acids.  The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government
stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it.
No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and
no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to