KipEsquire makes a good point:
My point here is simply that a “right to health care” ought to include a “right to a kidney.” If such a right is impossible (and it is), then so too is “universal health care.” Stated differently, “socialized medicine” and “universal health care” are not synonymous. It is not “fear mongering” to use former term rather than the latter “” it is simple intellectual honesty.
Related posts:
- Is universal health care worth the long waits?
- Universal health care: Slim chance?
- Universal health care oxymoron
- Will universal health care lead to a physician shortage?
- Primary care incomes and universal health coverage
- Does universal health care favor the irresponsible?
- Do we almost have universal health care already?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
Wow, so by Kip’s reasoning, where he equates a right to healthcare with a right to a kidney, our right to life (which everyone here seems to agree on) could include right to healthcare. Wow! makes sense!
And Kip’s critique of utilitarianism is irrelevant because people who believe in fundamental rights are not utilitarians. Utilitarians could see anything as beneficial or harmful depending on how they “calculate” things while rights are immutable.
And what exactly does Kip think think capitalism or free-market economics is based on? The assumption that individuals will try to maximize their own utilities above all others.
Comments on this entry are closed.