Rand Paul: A Right To Health Care Means Slavery

Here’s a perspective on the notion that everyone has a right to health care: Senator Rand Paul points out that demanding a right to a service like health care means demanding that other people provide you with that service.

And what right do you have to demand that other people provide you with anything?

“With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses. … You are basically saying you believe in slavery,” said Paul (R-Ky.), who is an ophthalmologist.

This is spot on, and it’s not just doctors who are enslaved by this sort of thinking. The people you’re asking to pay for or subsidize these services are enslaved too.

“Slavery” is certainly a strong word, but I think it’s the right word when you’re talking about forcing people to provide/pay for services for other people with the force of law.

Rights mean freedoms. Freedoms aren’t forcing people to pay for things for other people. But this is the fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism, right and left.

Conservatives believe freedom means equality of opportunity, meaning everyone is free to provide for themselves. Liberals believe in equality of outcome, meaning wealth redistribution or whatever else it takes to achieve what they believe is “equality.”

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • robert108

    You’re right, port; “slavery” is a little strong; it’s more like conscription, where a portion of your wages are taken for the purpose of providing for others, at their convenience, not yours. As a result, the achievers, who pay higher tax rates, bear most of the burden of providing this service, which is a punishment for success. Not the way to run a good economy.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    “Slavery” is something Democraps have historically understood and enjoyed imposing . They have missed the good old days, but they have recently discovered, and have begun to implement, a new, much more universal version. They have become cleaner, meaner slavemasters, and have extended their reach into future generations.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      That sounds about right, if you are partially deranged. You guys should run on this grand idea.

      I hope all GOP hear this call of the cuckoo bird.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        You are becoming more and more incoherent and are depriving me of one of my pleasures: Making fun of you. If you keep making fun of yourself to the point where I cannot do better, there is no point in my responding and the attention you crave will be substantially diminished. Do try to be less idiotic. The darkness will come soon enough.

  • awfulorv

    When Social Security was enacted in the thirties was it provided retroactively, to everyone? Even if it was the expected age at death, at the time, was less than the minimum age to collect benefits. These are quite different circumstances. We’re talking about 35 year old baby machines, lounging on a couch in Oakland, eating Cheese Puffs, smoking Menthols, and drinking 40s, with Diabetes, Obesity, Heart problems, maybe Aids, etc. And we’re supposed to provide medical care for her for forty years? My only question is why?

    • borborygmi

      Moral dilemma time for the conservatives again. Her children don’t have enough to eat or not eating properly, they probably have asthma or a myriad of other health problems and will only get worse and they didn’t volunteer or beg to be born to horseshit parents and we are suppose to support them until they are 18, Why?

      • JustRuss

        We do not have a societal responsibility, we have a personal responsibility. When there is no family or friends to take the children there are (were) orphanges. But those were usually run by a religious organization who got donations, and oh no we can’t have that!

        The main difference is that you believe people are evil, and must be forced to help. We believe that people are basically moral and those that have the means to help will help. What liberal tax and spend social programs have done is take away personal moral responsibility.

        • borborygmi

          The Liberal viewpoint can be expressed like this (nothing new) Societies will be judged on how the weakest members are cared for. This sentiment is expressed by Ghandi ,and many others.. Conservative Viewpoint> Societies will be judged on the freedom given the individual to act. Of course with freedom comes responsibility. Could it be said then the individual has a responsibility for his fellow man and how he treats his fellow man is how he will be judged. The Golden Rule was written for the individual. Hopefully the individual isn’t a masochist.

          • robert108

            Unbalanced. Another measure of a society is how it treats its achievers with respect.

          • borborygmi

            The individual who has achieved will have respect in proportion to his treatment or fulfillment of his responsibilities toward his fellow man. If you are a successful business man but are a horses ass you will be remembered as a horses ass.

          • JustRuss

            Yes, it can be said the individual has a responsibility to his fellow man. Currently government is taking that responsibility away but forcing people to do it. It removes all compassion from the act.

          • http://enigma-cypher.blogspot.com/ Enigma_Cypher

            It also removes a great deal of efficiency from it as well.

          • borborygmi

            I agree

          • http://enigma-cypher.blogspot.com/ Enigma_Cypher

            The systems implemented by other countries to provide for the “right” to health care are failing. One of the biggest reasons is that central planning is doomed to failure. Social Security is on the edge of collapse, medicare/medicaid are abused quite frequently. Both are gigantic and unnecessary money-pits.

            As for caring for the weakest members of society, I only give to charities if I am certain that my money will be spent appropriately. What I mean by this, is that, the money I donate will be spent on the truly needy. Not on salaries for the charity’s employees or on free handouts to people who have probably never worked a day in their life.

            Government-run “charities” are rife with abuse and incompetence. I don’t resent giving of my money to help people who actually need it, but I very much resent it when the government takes my money, and gives it to whoever they decide deserves it. Whether they’re giving it to some welfare-wench who has five children, doesn’t work and is at Wal-Mart every Tuesday buying new DVDs (I’ve had the unfortunate pleasure of knowing people like this) or giving it to some failed company, in the form of massive bailouts (like GM).

          • borborygmi

            You are correct when giving to charity. Investigate and find out how much goes to the cause and how much to administration.

  • Mike Adamson

    The list of things we have a “right” to is pretty short IMO. Healthcare isn’t a “right” any more than having groceries is a “right” but ethically I believe it’s the correct thing to do and it’s better for society over the long term for practical reasons too.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Where do your ethics come down on forcing others to pay for what you want?

      • Mike Adamson

        My ethics fully support collecting taxes to pay for reasonable healthcare for all.

        • robert108

          Nice dodge, but it all comes down to the same old question: Who decides what is reasonable, and how much each person has to pay?

          • borborygmi

            Moral dilemma time.

          • robert108

            Only if you’re an ideologue. For the practical realist, it’s about what works.

          • Mike Adamson

            It’s called representational democracy. We elect legislators who decide what is reasonable and how much each person will pay. We elect our leaders based on what they say they think is reasonable and how they plan to do it. If I don’t like Party X’s approach then I vote for party Y. If I don’t like either then I vote for A or B or C, assuming I have that many options. If I don’t see a party that reflects my wishes then I start a new one and if that doesn’t work then I move to a paradise where the markets are free and nobody smokes or I secede from the Union and declare the Independent Republic of Low Tax Free Choices Government Off My Backistan.

            That’s how life works.

        • http://enigma-cypher.blogspot.com/ Enigma_Cypher

          Who gets to decide what “reasonable healthcare” is? Who gets to decide how to distribute it? More importantly, where in the US Constitution is legislating a “right” allowed?

          • Mike Adamson

            It’s not a right.

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    What I have wondered about is all the people in the health care industry who are proponents of Obamacare. Do they actually think they will work less for more money under such a scheme?

    • borborygmi

      “What I have wondered about is all the people in the health care industry who are proponents of Obamacare. Do they actually think they will work less for more money under such a scheme”
      I have heard some say “Instead of $180,000 I will be paid $160,000/ I guess I will buy my beamer next year. ”

  • WOOF

    A physician has an obligation to treat people.

    Paul probably forgot.

    Paul is a certified Opthamologist acording to his self-anointing and self-created National Board of Ophthalmology.

    The American Board of Ophthalmology, which has been around since 1916, thought he should pass a test. More slavery.

  • Jamermorrow

    You can’t have a right to anything that has scarcity. Unless you supply something and can trade it for goods and services you don’t have a right to anything.

    • robert108

      The pollution and hijacking of the concept of “rights” started with the Dems in the Fifties. They supported a legitimate right, the right to vote, and then parlayed it into a “one size fits all” political meme for anything and everything they wanted to force on the American people. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution, and are very specific.

  • borborygmi

    Moral dilemma time for the conservatives again. I guess Mr. Paul doesn’t support medicare either. I wonder if he accepts medicare or medicaid patients?

    • Jimmypop

      moral dilemma? not if youre actually conservative…….. you dont have the right to take anything from me, as i have no right to take anything from you.

      you might be shocked how much we evil conservatives give to charity…and how much more wed give if we got to keep our cash….plus, those dollars are FAR BETTER managed, and would thus be more affective, than any of your government programs.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher
        than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households
        give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average
        liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

        — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

        • borborygmi

          How can this be. I thought the general opinion of liberal households are run by unemployed leaches living off of welfare or unemployment yet they make more then conservatives.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Normally it would make a person think, wouldn’t it? One’s mind might just drift into reminiscences of “Animal Farm.”

  • Jimmypop

    so far all the people with paul in their names are doing well with the public….too bad the mainstream ‘conservatives’ dont care to actually fix anything.

  • Guest

    I saw the whole exchange. You took the quote out of context and the headline is inaccurate, given the extent of what Senator Paul said.

    Nice, though. Just false.

  • Guest

    Why don’t you post the video of the entire exchange between Paul, Sanders, and the health care experts… if your interpretation of this snippet is correct.

    It’s not and you won’t. This is an out of context claim and unrelated conclusions are drawn from it.

Top