Views as expressed in the profile....

Topic: Socialised Healthcare. Since you ticked all the right 'yay I'm a socialist' boxes, away we go. The government has no place to force individuals, businesses and hospitals to carry the unfair burden of providing health insurance of those who are without. There is no right to obtain health care, or any value, at others expense. Any Attempt to secure an equivocated "right" to health care must by necessity violate someone's actual rights - those forced to pay for it. Socialised health care violates the rights of patients, businessmen and doctors to act on their own accord. In reality this produces an effect where their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services is stifled. The errors that exist in social health care are bound to the altruistic principle that health care should be mandated according to patient need, regardless of ability to pay, regardless of risk to insurers, regardless of the expertise of the doctors and hospital staff. It is a stance that wishes to avoid reality. It is not practical and even worse it does not work. Socialised care is inimical to its goals. The UK and Canada are prime examples of such - the UK has a lower cancer survival rate than many other European nations. Why? Because the time for diagnosis is longer under national health care. Canada has an even worse Health Care system than the US. Despite advocating "free health care" - the reality is much more damning. Around 1/30 are on a waiting list for such limited medical care that is provided and such waiting lists are measured in months. http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.cbsnews.com... The needs of one individual are not a moral claim on the production of another. Those who can not afford to pay for their own health care should rely on private charity - not on government compulsion of income earners, not on the theft of those deemed productive enough. It is government regulation that enforces insurers to insure no matter the risk, for all possible health services that raises the cost of insurance, not "greedy" companies. It is simply by necessity from the forceful action of the government that says - you will do our bidding in this - you will be a company but run as we demand - and this is fascism. We don't expect house insurers to insure the cost of planting a garden. The government has no business in demanding the equivalent of health insurers. Rhetoric that such force is necessary to ensure affordable medical care is a farce. It is the government's extended interference in the market that has created the huge medical care costs. Any one individual truly apprehensive about the uninsured is more than welcome to aid them in paying for their insurance. Likewise anyone truly concerned with creating affordable health care should support not for more government regulation, but for an end to the government's interference in the field of medicine. Doctors are not slaves of the state. They earned the ability, the skills necessary to perform medical procedures. They should be free to practice to whom they wish, when they wish. Perform what procedures they wish to per their employment. Find employment in whatever sector they wish. Instead of socialised health care, the only proper alternative is free market reforms that reduce costs and reward individual responsibility - and most importantly value individual rights. Early such reforms include eliminating obligatory insurance benefits, repeal laws that forbid the purchase of health insurance interstate, allowing individuals to use savings accounts solely for routine health services and expenses and to purchase low cost, catastrophic insurance for major expenses.