Applying the Aspirational Values
- Choosing to support another person with their healthcare is a wonderful act of voluntary kindness that aligns with the Aspirational Values.
Applying the Legal Principle
- 3L differentiates morality from the law and, as such, does not recognize any ‘right’ that requires aggressing against others - such rights are called positive rights. Forcing people to pay for other people’s healthcare is therefore a violation of the Legal Principle.
- There is no shortage of claims some people assert to live at the expense of others. All such claims require violating the Legal Principle. Two wrongs never make a right.
Healthcare affordability and quality
- Healthcare affordability would improve in a free-choice healthcare system vs a state-monopolized healthcare system. The US healthcare system is not free-choice, but has hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that limit supply, suppress innovation, and therefore increase costs and worsen outcomes. The UK’s NHS is free at the point of use - unsurprisingly, demand exceeds supply and wait times can be long.
- Removing the numerous artificial constraints (regulations) within the healthcare system that don’t align with the Legal Principle would allow a ‘free-choice’ healthcare system to flourish. With providers and consumers of healthcare then able to act freely according to their will, the quality and supply of care would increase, improving the affordability of care. The excess regulations and distortions to market pricing of incumbent healthcare systems have lead to decades of rising healthcare costs.
- In a free society, standards of living also rise, meaning greater disposable income to spend on healthcare. The dual impact of lower healthcare costs and greater disposable income would mean many more can afford healthcare. For those that cannot afford it, there are many voluntary ways we can help those less fortunate than ourselves.
- Another downside of a socialised healthcare system is that it
Bad actors