Greed vs. Life

Hunter at Daily Kos gives a very typically pitiless and accurate take down of the conservatives' arguments against universal health care, in which he unmasks the freedom vs.socialism/government argument for a what it really is: an argument for greed over life.

You can read Hunter's whole impeccable argument, Steve King is still a rotten human being by clicking the link. But a few excerpts bear highlighting:

The freedom of the healthy, it is presumed, will be abridged if they are taxed even a penny to pay for the less healthy. The freedom of the decently well off will be compromised, it is argued straight-out, we consider it a national interest to care for people those "well off" individuals deem it unnecessary to care for. 

[...] The future potential of a need for health care among all living humans would seem to be a self-evident premise, and existing federal law provides that they will be cared for in emergency situations, whether they have preemptively "entered into" that commerce or not. The hospitals and other institutions responsible for that care are already actively engaged in—and mandated to— provide that commerce. There's no opt-out there. There is no citizen who does not benefit from that explicit federal guarantee of some very basic level of care, even if they, like Mr. King's Randian supermen, never actually need to partake of it. They are in that commerce. They benefit from it.

[...] The conservative argument is that there is no underlying right to health care, there is no obligation to provide citizens with that care, and that establishing a tax or fine or program to provide that care is in fact the true infringement of rights and freedoms, as some people might be put out by it. This argument is considered implausible in nearly all other aspects of government: There is no opt-out of defense spending, if you do not wish to pay for it. There is no little box to check if you do not want your tax dollars to go towards transportation spending, or infrastructure improvements, or courthouses, or police forces, or fire prevention efforts. These are decided legal issues. The notion that the rights of a certain small subset of the greedy and amoral are being wounded by requiring them to partake of a federal program to insure all others would seemingly be a rather asinine proposition. For millennial conservatism, however, it is not. 

[...] The "right" not to be taxed is being weighed against the "right" of poorer or less fortunate citizens to live, and the outcome of that question is honestly being presumed as debatable, even though there are precious few other contexts in which you could debate the question and not be considered, for lack of a better phrase, a goddamn monster. 

 Read the rest of it. It's well worth it.