Obama has unwisely outraged old people by trying to fund socialized medicine on their backs. The Republicans sense an opportunity for political gain, as well they should. But what do they conclude?
WASHINGTON — Republicans are targeting older Americans worried about President Barack Obama’s health overhaul plans with a “seniors’ health care bill of rights.”
The six principles outlined Monday by the Republican National Committee include protecting Medicare, prohibiting rationing of health care based on age and making sure government doesn’t get between seniors and their doctors.
The geniuses in the Republican Party have decided to guarantee socialized medicine for old people as a right. They might score tactical points against the Democrats with this move, but they are making a strategic blunder that ensures they lose the war. By conceding that Americans — at least the old ones — have a right to medical care, they are giving up the essential point in the argument against nationalized health care.
Only by standing firm for the principle that there is no right to health care — that there is no right for one individual to expect any goods or services from others — can those who oppose socialized medicine win.
As Yaron Brook puts it:
“There can be no such thing as a ‘right’ to products or services created by the effort of others. And this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.
“You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services—no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a ‘right’ to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.”
This is why I fear we won’t get out of this without some major expansion of government in the field of medicine — even though most people would rather the government do nothing. We’re in for it because we have two parties in Washington, DC: the Crusading Socialists and the Befuddled Socialists. It’s the CSers vs. the BSers, and you can make those initials stand for what you will. The Befuddled ones have demonstrated with their inability to think in principle why they are losers.