Just about every aspect of the citizen's life is allocated by the Government as a 'privilege' or a 'right'.
At least in America a penniless parent has the freedom and the right to watch his child die of TB or cancer because he cannot pay for treatment.
On the other hand a penniless JW parent has the right to refuse a transfusion for a child, and the state has the right to save that child's life. Maybe the poor (let's face it that's who you are really talking about) maybe the poor should all become Christian Scientists and refuse all treatment for their kids, then the state will pick up the tab.
CONTRADICTION?
Was the rescue effort in New Orleans a privilege visited on the mainly black and poor? How happy I am that the rich and better off could afford to evacuate themselves beforehand.
If your boat goes under off the coast, if you are wealthy enough to own a boat, you should have to pay the cost of your rescue.
If your child is trapped in a fire and you have enough income then you should be charged for the rescue of your child.
If you cannot pay then drown or fry.
Getting a disease like cancer is no more your fault than being shot dead by someone with the money or the freedom to buy a lethal weapon.
Under the constitution the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. That pursuit is protected under the law. Since health is essential to happiness, the best possible health care should be available to all so they can continue thier pursuit.
The main problem is that the health services are under the influence of the insurance and pharmaceuticals companies. They ensure their own huge salaries (and health schemes for their employees) while the poor are just told do make do or die.
This whole "let them die if they cannot afford it" thing is so heartless. And I bet many who think along these lines also think "let them die if we can afford to bomb them."
After all, buying one less missile would pay for the chemo of a woman with breast cancer.
HB
