Kip's Law Sighting: Doctor Michael Hébert
---
A physician-blogger is shocked, shocked to learn that some people — competent adults — make a voluntary decision to do without health insurance:
That would reduce female breast cancer rates to zero, and is no different conceptually from compulsory insurance, or compulsory mammograms, or compulsory fill-in-the-blank.
Meanwhile, this nonsense that "the public has a right to weigh in on" the question of personal behavior and choice is a lie that I have debunked before. It is the social contract — a fiction to begin with — turned on its head.
The government (which is not "the public") taxes us against against our will, then spends our money on us (or, more likely, on someone else) and then, with an insolence that would make Louis XIV seem like an amateur, insists that — since "the public" is supposedly paying the bills — "the public" also gets to control our lifestyles, our financial choices, and every other personal decision that they may happen to disagree with (i.e., want to "weigh in on").
That is the malignant thinking of simplistic (and lethal) Marxism, not the "modern" or "enlightened" thinking that its advocates pretend.
Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.
(Via Kevin, M.D.)
Is it acceptable to allow people to choose to be without health insurance? I say no. There are too many common, potentially devastating medical illnesses lurking out there. If Cindy were to find a lump her breast, for example, she would probably lose her job and her health, go bankrupt, and eventually, after prolonged suffering, end up on Medicaid. She would also, with her pre-existing condition, be uninsurable for the rest of her life. It should not be the public's job to pick up the pieces when an individual takes a risk and loses out. While one Cindy is a small risk for a society to take, a million of them is a serious risk, and one the public has a right to weigh in on.If that is the case, then why not just require mandatory pre-emptive mastectomies for all women over 21?
That would reduce female breast cancer rates to zero, and is no different conceptually from compulsory insurance, or compulsory mammograms, or compulsory fill-in-the-blank.
Meanwhile, this nonsense that "the public has a right to weigh in on" the question of personal behavior and choice is a lie that I have debunked before. It is the social contract — a fiction to begin with — turned on its head.
The government (which is not "the public") taxes us against against our will, then spends our money on us (or, more likely, on someone else) and then, with an insolence that would make Louis XIV seem like an amateur, insists that — since "the public" is supposedly paying the bills — "the public" also gets to control our lifestyles, our financial choices, and every other personal decision that they may happen to disagree with (i.e., want to "weigh in on").
That is the malignant thinking of simplistic (and lethal) Marxism, not the "modern" or "enlightened" thinking that its advocates pretend.
Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.
(Via Kevin, M.D.)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
15 August 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.