HEALTHCARE – A “Right” or a “Privilege”?
Joseph Sullivan
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders - the declared Socialist candidate for President in 2020 - is releasing his new initiative today which would provide government-paid health insurance for all.
He asserts that “healthcare is a right - not a privilege!”...
Not so fast Bernie!...
Like so many Democrat-Socialists these days, Sanders uses the spoken word to elevate his statement-of-opinion up to the level of being a statement-of-fact. Socialists are all adept at claiming “facts” and “rights” where none actually exist. It’s as if saying that something is a “fact” - absent any proof - makes it a fact from that point onward! Those unable to apply “critical thinking” are easily drawn-in by such things.
In fairness to Senator Sanders, he’s certainly not breaking any new ground with his assertion that “healthcare for all” is a “right” in our country. So far, it’s been just beyond their reach. Their ultimate objective is a distribution model based on “Medicare” - modified as a platform for universally provided - and taxpayer-paid healthcare for all while driving the healthcare insurance industry out of business which is attractive and desirable among anti-capitalists.
What they claim as a “right” is actually a “service” where medical providers and hospitals deliver healthcare to patient-consumers.
Previously, payment for healthcare services varied - ranging from self-pay (cash or monthly payments), private health insurance as well as government-funded “entitlement” programs. The government-paid model was originally intended as a “safety-net” for those who lacked the ability to pay and/or did not have privately paid health insurance. Medicare was later passed into law as a part of Social Security and was intended primarily for senior citizens and disabled Americans. As such, these benefits were passed into law with strong bi-partisan support.
The Social Security Trust Fund was originally designed to take payroll taxes collected from current wage-earners and place them into a secure fund for the eventual benefit of those aforementioned seniors and disabled Americans. Congress subsequently “raided” the SCTF repeatedly to finance other forays into additional social programs. Further, the definition of “disabled” has been broadened over time to include persons unable to work due to drug addiction and alcoholism, etc. Most recently, non-citizens can now qualify to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits so long as they have paid into the Social Security System through payroll tax deductions.
Currently, the Social Security Trust Fund is overly committed and under-funded because of the combined effects of an exploded base of beneficiaries and Congressional re-appropriation of SCTF funds into programs that should have been funded otherwise. (Congress has accomplished this by essentially putting an IOU into the SCTF -promising some unspecified future date of payment). And so, the Democrat-Socialists have pressed-on with their abuse of the government-funded “safety-net”, putting the future solvency of the entire program in jeopardy. As is always the case, they are ready and willing to expand programs into deficit-spending - ”kicking the can” of paying for this bloated, sinking system down the road for someone else to resolve – most likely the next generation of American tax-payers. None of this has been resolved to date... and no solutions are offered by those serial-abusers of the “social safety net”.
The manner by which “opinions” are asserted to be “facts” is a political tactic designed to confound a simple-minded audience who lack the ability to differentiate between “opinions” and “facts” – instead of feeding on class-envy…
When matter-of-fact statements such as Sanders (and others) make about providing “services” without cost (to the individual) - there is a false presumption created that the services are “cost-free”. This accounts for why healthcare consumers go to the Emergency Room to obtain re-prescription of medications or treatment for “ailments” such as a common cold or flu – (none of which require treatment at an “Emergency Room”). This demonstrates that when there is no cost to a consumer - there is no self-imposed discipline that would limit the consumer from frequently using (abusing) the opportunity to receive medical services in a place intended to treat real “emergencies”.
Real “facts” are stubborn things... as they should be. As such, the assertion of “facts” and “rights” needs to be held up to the sterilizing light of day. In a world filled with “takers” and “givers”, it’s an important distinction. Unchecked, individual “rights” codified into law will always reach-out beyond their original intent.
“Incrementalism” is the gradual process of growing the scope of standing law into purposes that were not intended as a part of the original law when it was passed and implemented. Social justice activists too often succeed in incrementally changing the law through legislative action, liberal court decisions and by over-reach by government regulators.
[Remember this the next time you encounter someone who complains that voting in elections is just a waste of their time – or when someone tells you that it’s actually a good thing when the Congress is controlled by a political party which opposes the administration of the current president.]
“Eternal Vigilance” must be the watch-word… and this describes and defines us as “Conservatives”.
