Rights

Walter Williams speaks my language. While some may take issue with his definition of a "right" (The New Oxford Dictionary's first listing for nouns is: "that which is morally correct, just, or honorable" which obviously has implications different than what Williams is saying) decent housing, free healthcare, a steady job are simply not "rights" in a free economy. If you can't afford beef, you substitute chicken; if you can't afford chicken, you substitute potatoes or something else. Now I'm not saying a type of dinner is on the same scale as healthcare, but the fact is, if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. If you really want it, you'll have to get smarter, work harder, or decide against something else. Also, you get what you pay for. In every country that rates higher than the US in healthcare, most have some sort of private healthcare, paid for by individuals. And without fail, everyone that can pay for it, even if it straps their budgets, do. They know the best healthcare is the private one; they know from experience. It will be no different here. Government run healthcare will be free, slow, inefficient, and mostly inept. To hope differently is not glass-half full or optimistic, it's utopian, uneducated, and crippling.

Check this out. The highlight, "The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion. Rich and educated people not only receive better goods and services in all areas of life than do poor and uneducated people, they also tend to take better care of themselves and their possessions, which in turn leads to better health." Was that too harsh? Szasz doesn't think so, and neither do I. That last sentence is the key one, and one that people do not want to admit.