Go read Ronald Bailey's recent article on national health care.

This reminded me of a blog post I saw last week following the Canadian Supreme Court's decision that a law prohibiting private health care is unconstitutional:

There's no remotely plausible due process rights violated by this law. What we have here, in other words, is not merely "substantive due process" but "liberty of contract," the jurisprudence used by the United States Supreme Court to strike down maximum hour and minimum wages laws prior to the New Deal. This law is unconstitutional only if there's a fundamental right to buy a contract to provide private health insurance. The perniciousness of this argument can hardly be overstated.

Uh, excuse me? You have no fundamental right to seek and pay for medical care not provided by the government? If that is not a fundamental right, than what is? And even if I concede that it is not a fundamental right (which I won't), how in the hell could the belief that it might be "pernicious"?

Share this

Cripes, that's twisted.

Cripes, that's twisted.

Wow, normally I would say

Wow, normally I would say that libertarian criticisms of left-wing people as fascist megalomaniacal control freaks with a innate revulsion towards freedom and choice would be unfair exaggerations. But in this guy's case, I guess not.

Another priceless quote:

Moreover, there's a fundamental illogic here. If the rights of personal inviolability are violated by the public system's excessive queues, then sure the state is obliged to provide a remedy for everyone, not merely those who can afford private insurance.

I... don't know what to say to that. He just asserted that more people suffering is better than less people suffering because it wouldn't be fair to those who wouldn't be lucky enough to avoid that suffering. And the implicit assumption that any lack in the public system is due to inadequate funding/support/implementation rather than a fundamental flaw.

I will grant him one thing: honesty. He truly realizes that things like societies asserting basic human rights are indeed in conflict with his vision of socialized health care. It's not often the enemies of freedom reveal themselves so clearly.

The author of that post and

The author of that post and I had a discussion about the thing here. For some reason, he objected to my labelling of his idea as "evil.' :)