>>>>>>>>>>"health care is NOT a right"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>that marks you as a savage Kevin. You want to live a "devil take the hindmost" society .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Health care cannot be a right for the simple fact that care is provided by people. If one has a "right" to care then one has a right to service from another person. You cannot resolve the civil rights of the provider with the right to care of the patient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We co-operate and live in a society for some benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No one is arguing otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I call Kevin a savage not in a derogatory way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do the kids say it...oh puh-leese!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>but to mark the fact that he doesn't believe in society and , I suppose, neither do you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe one's labor and its fruits belong to the individual, not the community and not the State. Thus, I believe in a free society. I suppose you do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's pretty Darwinian -- the more capable can keep everything they make and the rest can go hang. I agree with Nick that a civilized society should not operate on that basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>We do not live in "should" land. We live in a country of laws and this is a question of freedom and are we going to have any. If so, one must allow citizens to make decisions with which we disagree. If we're to be free property rights, must be preserved because without them other rights are meaningless. We are already dangerously close to forced labor with the current laws regarding mandatory care in emergency rooms. I do not believe we've overstepped the line yet as the requirement is limited to emergency rooms and no one is forced to work there. However, should we mandate medical care to all, while dictating compensation for the provider, we will have further damaged our right to private property, namely our own labor and its fruit.
>>>>
>>>>This thing about doctors being enslaved or forced into labor by health coverage for the currently uninsured keeps coming up. Is it something going around on conservative talk radio or in the blogosphere? It seems like quite a reach to me.
>>>
>>>Actually, that is already happening with Medicare doctors. There is an extreme shortage of doctors who take Medicare in many areas of the country. The amount of $ paid for their services is so low that they cannot afford to treat Medicare patients and keep their clinics running. It takes too many patients to recoup their costs. Most don't even want to mess with the necessary paperwork. It's not wonder there are some out there bilking Medicare for $ (not excusing the practice in that comment).
>>>
>>
>>I understand all that. The cost of malpractice insurance is one thing that has driven some doctors away from practicing, I know for a fact. But slavery? Forced into labor? That's the part that seems like a reach to me. And I'm curious why all of a sudden I seem to be hearing it left and right.
>
>It's been around since 2005 at least (used in an editorial about Canadian medicine), and in 2008 in New Zealand:
>
>http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/01_15/editorial02_2_01.html
>
>Medical slavery
>
>In the midst of all the outrage and controversy regarding the fee 'agreement' and its revised version, did anyone notice the new 'defined term' on page GP 37 of the fee schedule? I haven't seen a thing about it from the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), or my regular source of info, The Toronto Star — have you noticed they're the only ones with the details of the revised fee 'agreement'?
>
>The Ministry, in a true Orwellian doublethink classic move, has come up with the 'not eligible for payment' service. This is a service that's 'insured' but not paid for. The definition published is followed by a commentary, specifying that "patients cannot be charged for services described as 'not eligible for payment' as they remain insured services." That means, fellow medical slaves, that we must provide it for free.
>
>As far as I can see, this definition has only been applied to "Any service rendered by the same physician to the same patient on the same day that the physician renders major eye examination ...". But that's not to say it ends there. I shudder to speculate what's next on the 'not eligible for payment' but still 'insured' list. And what will we do about it? Nothing as usual. We can't seem to pull together to accomplish anything, and our erstwhile leaders at the OMA seem to be as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to dealing with the Ministry and its frightening agenda to reform medicine in Ontario.
>
>— Dr Barbara Watts, Orangeville, ON
>
>
>and here in New Zealand in 2008:
>
>http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?libzpr=528
>
>It's in the forefront now due to the discussions and real possibility of nationalized healthcare here in the U.S.
>
>(At least you didn't shrug it off as a 'right wing talking point.' :o)

Nationalized health care? That isn't even being discussed. (By the administration, not on the UT <g>). The Obama administration is talking about a government plan, to cover the uninsured as well as others who find it attractive, in addition to the private health care plans that already exist.