Universal health plans are unfair

March 10, 2008 —

No one in this country has any more right to health care than they do a loaf of bread. Liberals love to chastise me when discussing health care. They love to point out that it's not "nice" to deny health care to someone who needs it yet cannot afford it. In short, in issue after issue, they love to legislate kindness. The government should not seek to be kind, it should seek to be fair, and there is a big difference between the two.

Before I go any further, I want to state that I believe children should be universally covered. I think it's unfair to punish a child for the irresponsible actions of their parents. I also believe that children do not have the full capacity to care for themselves when it comes to acquiring health insurance.

However, the underlying concepts of Democrat health plans are fundamentally flawed: it should not be my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's health care. Using the liberal "nice" argument only gets someone so far. Am I then required to pay for my neighbor's food? His vehicle? His luxuries? I am not a charity.

Then there's the "roads" argument. "Well, why do we pay taxes at all?!" some liberals will yell. "Why don't we just all pave our own roads!"

Roads, like many other municipal services, are used by everyone. That justifies using tax dollars to fund their maintenance and construction. Not everyone is taking grandma's pills. In fact, she's the only one taking them - why should we have to pay for them? I know, I know, to be "nice."

Hillary Clinton wants to go a step further. Instead of just implementing universal health care, she has a plan to require everyone to purchase health insurance. She even says she's interested in garnishing workers' wages if they do not carry health insurance.

It's the most freedom-restricting plan I've ever heard from a major presidential candidate. It should be my right to either have - or not have - health insurance.

I'm sick of rewarding the irresponsible and the unprepared in the name of "kindness." Social security is a prime example. So is a progressive tax system.

Requiring those who make more money to pay more taxes is not fair - and arguments that say so amuse as much as sadden me. Left-wing Democrats love to tell someone who reaches a certain income level that "they don't need the money anymore." They love to spend what they don't have.

I often quote the fictional Sam Seaborn of the NBC drama The West Wing on the subject of taxation: "I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid 27 times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of 26 other people..." He continues, "but I don't get 27 votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house 27 times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet 27 times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for 22 percent of this country."

How do we get the government, as well as the presidential candidates, not to see the rich as walking charities? When will legislation seek to be fair, and not nice?

When will we stop funding irresponsibility and non-preparedness? Sadly, I don't see an end in sight.