It's a brilliant plan to convince people that medical care is a right, and that right should be regulated by the government. If I was wanting to pull off fraud on a massive amount of people, this is how i would do it. When questioned, i would call those people uncaring, killers and ask them why they hate sick people- rather charitable medical care existed for those less fortunate or not.
Of course we all want medical care for the masses. The question is which is the best way to deliver it. An honest discussion will never happen. For an honest discussion to occur, one would have to admit that emergency care has not and could not be denied. Secondly, one would have to admit that there are clinics established to help those without insurance, even major surgery such as a spinal fusion that a lady I know had. She paid nothing.
Charity is charity. Charity is good. Charity is necessary for a society.
But, if we are to buy that charity is best delivered by the government. And that an entire industry must be nationalized/socialized/communized for the government to deliver this charity. And that the delivery is equal to all, no matter what has been paid into the system. Then this line of thought should be equally applied to all charitable needs that involve life and death. Not just the most lucrative one, or the one most easy to persuade people. Equal- I keep hearing this word, but it seems most don't actually understand it. However, this is no longer charity. When one is taxed, and government decides who receives, it is not charity.
So for discussion, let's just call health care a right in 2017 America. If you buy this as a right argument (you can't call it charity), then you must agree to the following. People need housing more than medical attention. Housing is a more immediate threat to life than medical attention. Shelter and food are part of the core neccesities of life. Since shelter is a core neccessity, and people may die without it, the government should nationalize housing. With nationalized housing, millions of homeless will have housing who currently do not have access to housing. With nationalization, we will all have equal access and equal housing no matter how much you contribute. Of course, the tax will be based off of ability to pay, the exact same as health care- no difference what so ever. Some with bigger families, no matter their ability to contribute of course will use more housing.
People with these huge over sized housing plans will be charged a luxery tax so that in a short period of time, housing will become more equal. It's obviously the right thing to do since it's right there in the Constitutuon. Right to life, and housing, and medical care, and food. It's right there next to free speech and their right to other people's property- their money through taxes for purposes other than national business.
As was stated earlier, people have more need of food than medical care. Without food, in a short period of time we would all die. Therefor, since medicine must be nationalized to deliver this charity, scratch that. I mean this right of health care, then it is obvious that food and it's production and delivery must be nationalized as well.
The government can relieve you all of your little farms and ranches because as is known, the government can run things more efficiently.
I'm sure no matter what industry you work in, the government can always be more efficient.
The bigger the government, the more efficient.
Ask Communist countries throughout history. Communism and not a free economy with charity is what built America. It's what made America a leader in the field of medicine. Matter of fact, though one of the youngest countries, it is a leader or near the top in many industries. All thanks to the nationalization of them.
Look out North Korea, you've got competition now from aged baby boomers wanting someone else to pay their medical bills and the millenial morons living in their parents basements!
If as a state, you decide to enact such madness, I say good for you.
