The other night while listening to Hillary Clinton pander to the most vulnerable of our citizens, the poor, I was struck by what she said regarding healthcare. Overwhelmingly in the past few years (elections), the candidates from the far left have continued to proclaim that healthcare is a right and that poverty is a “moral issue”. What exactly does that mean?
Well, a moral issue is an issue of character by definition. So unless politicians are saying that to be in poverty is to lack moral character, I don’t think that is accurate. Unless of course, you equate government reliance to a lack of moral character, then I would agree with the previous assessment.
For those who have never seen what character actually is, let’s identify what character should look like. Character should include a healthy work ethic, honesty, self reliance and care for others. So for one to be reliant on government to either increase the minimum wage rather than educated one’s self to earn a “living wage” or to provide healthcare for treatment of illness, reliance on the funds of others is a moral issue. It’s an issue centered on the morals, or lack thereof, of the individual reliant on government. I’m sure that’s what the politicians mean, right?
As for the “right” of healthcare… I’m sure I read that in the Bill of Rights. For something to be a “right” it must be something attainable to an individual that is not required of or belong to another individual. Of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, none of them contains anything that is the property of another individual or group. In fact, all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are negative rights, in that, they are rights the government does not have, like the right for government not to abridge your right to free speech or the right for government not to search your property without a warrant.
So you should notice that you don’t have a right to a car, a cell phone, or a house. Those are commodities that belong to either individuals or companies that can be purchased, and you have the right to attempt to acquire those commodities by payment or agreement. If you decide to take a car, however, by force because it is your “right”, you could get beaten up by the owner and most likely will end up in jail.
The same goes for healthcare. If healthcare is a right, then it should be attainable to everyone without having to take it from another. So what Hillary Clinton is saying is that you have the “right” to force a doctor to treat you without compensation, because healthcare is your “right”. Or you have the “right” to force Bill Gates, without promise of repayment, to pay a doctor to treat you because healthcare is your God-given right. I believe there is a term for that … oh yeah, it’s called SOCIALISM. Socialists believe that everything belongs to the collective, including your property, your time and your person.
Sorry, I don’t buy into the LIE that healthcare is a right. That’s just another way to buy the votes of poor people and those who have no self-respect so that they don’t have to pay for what they have. Hillary knows that once people are reliant on the government then she can guarantee they’ll “need” the government to survive for the rest of their lives.