- Thread starter
- #81
Do you want to provide unlimited government healthcare for everyone regardless of condition, regardless of cost? Because if you don't, you're just as guilty of what you're trying to blame on others.
Here are the two factors left out of your consideration of the equation:
1. Historically, the progressive theorem is based on government determining exactly what rights an individual has, and, by extension, how one may live- or if one should live.
This is the antithesis of our founding principles.
2. You have no way of knowing how much 'healthcare' there will be in the future, nor how much will be needed, other than your conjecture.
Could there be medical and scientific breakthroughs that will obviate rationing? Well, historically there always have been. As long as we have a free market to reward such breakthroughs.
I suggest that we remain consistent with the principles that have made this country the 'shining light.'
The individual, not the state or the collective.
The free market 'rations' healthcare on one's ability to pay. Just like it 'rations' everything else.
If you are content to have a society where personal health is proportionate to personal wealth, then you are hardly in a position to condemn the possibility that government provided healthcare (to those who can't otherwise afford it) might have some limitations that could be characterized as rationing.
I've seen your post, and, based on same, know that you are not changing the subject accidently.
I have no problem in debating the free market, but the import of the last post is that your implication that it is the province of a (progressive) government to determine an agenda beyond the limited one assigned by the Constitution is the question.
To review, my thesis is that Progressives, the predecessors of modern liberals - not classical liberals, who, as you know, are more akin to conservatives with respect to the individual, have much in common with fascists.
This is not to say that today's liberals or if they wished to be called progressives, believe in genocide or gas chambers, but that they subscribe to a view of government as all-encompassing in every sphere of life.
They believe, as do fascists, that "It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives."
While we can argue about how much healthcare costs, and to what extent each of us getws the healthcare we need, that is not the basis of the OP.
The similarity in principle between fascism and progressivism is.