>>>>>>>>>"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.
>>
>>I couldn't tell you as I do not listen to talk radio and read only a select few blogs, and those are mainly financial. That being said, if you're starting to hear it more then I'm glad, because that is what is happening. One cannot have an honest discussion about health care without acknowledging that the care itself must be provided by people. Now, if you mandate care, regardless of how, you are mandating the people who provide the care. What would you call it? Duty? Are doctors bound to provide their services? What about programmers? What if those programmers are working on health care related software? Should they be mandated to write and maintain that software for a regulated fee? Who determines the fee?
>
>Oh, come on, Jake. You're tying yourself in knots. Slavery and forced labor are about individuals. It's not the same thing at all as saying a higher overall amount of care will be needed. (The market will take care of that, won't it? <g>)

What if government seeing severe shortage of doctors in urban hospitals (this situation may worsen with government option implemented) will decide to lengthen mandatory medical residence term from 3 to, let say, 5 years? Please, consider before jumping up that these hospitals will be ordered to accept government-sponsored plan. Would it somehow fall within your definition of labor enslavement?