There is a fundamental difference between a right to a lawyer and to medical care.  The primary difference being that the lawyer exists under the legal/government realm.  You are forced to abide by the legal system.  Therefore, you have a right found by the Supreme Courth authorized by our constitution to a lawyer.  But that right is not absolute.  The right to a lawyer only exists if you can not afford one.  And as you stated, all lawyers are not equal and in your opinion, most public defenders are substandard.

Medical care is not under the realm of government control.  You don't have to goto a doctor schooled in western medicine if you choose not to.  And the public does provide emergency medical care for those unable to afford it.  Plenty of free clinics exist for all major medical needs. 

But what you're advocating for is equal healthcare for all, which by your own statements is not similar to the legal system as all lawyers are not equal.

All the other services you mentioned exist in form of property protection and under the contract clause Locke describes.  You are unable to enforce the law and put out fires on your own, so a portion of your taxes go to provide these public services.

Is that a real question or argument?  If we follow that logic, then I should not be responsible for any programs institued by any politican I didn't vote for.  So any bill not voted on or created by Ohio's two senators or the 6th congressional district allows me to claim exemption.  And since I didn't vote for one of those senators, I guess I don't have to follow any bill he wrote as well.

But since Bush was able to go to war with the votes and funding of the congress, your argument falls flat.  I could even go a step further and blame this whole mess on Clinton for not dealing with Bin Laden in the 90s. 

You can come up with a better argument than that.

wow I am pissed, I wrote a huge reply to this and of course the website crapped out when I hit submit.

Anyway....

No one has the right to health care.  A right is something man is able to do without impedment from others in nature.  I have the right to free-speech because I can say what I want without assistance from others.  I have the right to defense because I am able to defend myself against attackers in nature.  Rights are not something granted by a government entity nor are they something that requires the willing or unwilling contribution of others.  From someone who claims to have created Capitalism and understands it well, you sure don't understand the concept of the free-market.  I'd assume since you understand Capitalism (meaning you read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith) you would also be familiar with John Locke who also is an inspiration to the US founding fathers.  As Locke said, we have the right to life, liberty and property.  Forcing a segment of the population (Doctors) to perform a serivce at a pre-determined amount for all that come by is not liberty.  You may have the right to live, but you don't have the right to services provided by others.

Since 10% of the population utilized 70% of all medical resources in this nation, I fail to see how providing "free" care for all is advantageous to society.  Ecspecially considering that the segment that utilizes most of the resources often contributes little to nothing in terms of the economy and same programs they utilize.  I would not be opposed to the government creating an entirely optional program ran not for profit that people could join for their health insurance needs.  So long as this program is entirely funded by those who enjoy its benefits and not at the exspense of others.  This of course would never happen as demonstrated by the tragedy of the commons.  For those not aware or familiar with this tale, it symbolizes the problems of a collective effort when a segment of the organization is able to use more resources than they contribute thus limiting the amount of availability to others.

Socialism and fascism are one in the same regardless of how some would try to imagine or convince us of otherwise.  Both fascism and socialism place the needs and desires of the populace at the will of the government or collective and remove individual identiy and ownership.  Afterall, the world's most famous Fasist, the Nazi party, identified themselves as a socialist party.

If America does instate a socialist medical program, I hope they go all out and resemble something similar to 1984.  Obese and unhealthy people need to be required by law to stay within certain weight ratios and exercise regularly.  Afterall, if I'm paying for your care than I should have a say in how you live your life.  If the government is responsible for your health care, than that responsibility doesn't stop at the doctor's office.  All activity deemed unhealthy needs to be outlawed as to not burden the system.  Such policies are already going into affect by banning smoking and trans fat in foods.  I say take it a step further and immediately abort all fetuses found to have geneitic defects or problems that would require extra medical care.  If society is responsible for the health of the nation, than society should put in laws that ensure that health and ability of equal care to everyone. 

Hopefully my above comments outrage people who read them.  Hopefully they feel such a system would be a violation of their personal rights and ability to choose what is best for them.  Because I feel the same outrage when someone says I should be responsible for their care because they have made decsions that hinder them from gaining their own care.

Need does not necessiate access to service.  This is best demonstrated by the Ayn Rand dialogue below:

Ragnar Danneskjold: "But I've chosen a special mission of my own. I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in."

Hank Rearden: "What man?"

Ragnar: "Robin Hood."

Ragnar: ". . . [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures - the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich - whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."

The Pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld
From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

Health care is currently available to almost all American citizens who want it.  The majority of the uninsured are the youth of America who don't feel they need such coverage because they see no reel risk of serious illness or disease.  Your typical 25 year old doesn't need to worry about cancer or a heart transplant, so why should they pay for a service they don't need? 

Freedom means the ability to make choices on your own without permission from others.  Mandating a government plan to force tax payers to pay for the needs of others isn't freedom - it's socialism.  I should only have to pay for services that I use; I'm not responsible for the lives of others. 

Some of you would do well to read The Cost of Rights and Free to Choose.  Specifically if you care about understaning what constitutes a right and what a true free market and freedom is.

When the government has the authority to seize any assesst it deems valuable and thus a risk, we can wave good-bye to freedom.  So we're going to nationalize health care and let the government control our economy.  Does this seem absolutely absurd and against the very grain of what made America great to anyone else?

These realities only enforce my desire even more to run for office once I get done with the Army.  Someone has to stand up for freedom and individual rights.

http://www.new.facebook.com/photo.php?p … d=12302955

me in the desert

http://www.new.facebook.com/photo.php?p … d=12302955
125 degrees outside, after walking around in full body armor