Collins Richey wrote:
On 12/4/05, R. Quenett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Wow, R. Pigs do fly, and I'm skating on Hell's ice rink! I can find
nothing but agreement in what you say. Individual liberty vs. coercion
is the eternal struggle.
Going back to health care, a few months back, the WSJ had some articles
on the European health care problems. It seems that governments were
restricting certain procedures to contain costs. Unfortunately, not all
the governments were restricting the same procedures. Several bright
people in need of care simply crossed borders to get the care they
needed, and billed it back to their government. (They are one big happy
union now.)
I haven't heard much about it lately, but there are bigger stories.
I guess the real solution is to try adding some elements of the free
market to the US medical system. Goodness knows, we have tried
everything else.
-- Alma
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
