Argument: The government funds fire-stations, why not universal health care?
This argument is largely a counter-argument against the following arguments:
- Universal health care violates the rights of other citizens - This argument is a conservative argument based on the notion that providing a service to one citizen via tax-money violates the rights of the citizens that are taxed and burdened to make the service possible.
Comparable services that the government provides universally via taxes
- Firemen that are paid by the government to ensure that everyone is protected?
- Police are government funded so that everyone can equally gain access.
- Roads are government provided so that everyone can have equal ability to engage in commerce and so-forth.
- Equal access to water is ensured by the government as well.
- So, why shouldn't access to health be something that is universally supplied and funded by the government?
If taxing for these services does not violate the rights of other citizens, then why would taxing for health care?
Taxes are collected for the above ends, taking the property of the citizenry in order to provide goods and services to the broader citizenry or simply to a section of the government that is in dyer need of these services. Nobody argues that taxing a citizen so that a policeman can protect another citizen is a violation of the first citizen's inalienable rights. Why would this point be disregarded when addressing health care? Is protecting a citizen in a hospital different than protecting a citizen on the streets of London? No.
Taxes are a legitimate means of providing services, and don't generally "violate" the rights of citizens
The opposition to universal health care often argues that taxation for health care violates the rights of other citizens. opposition's argument against taxing some citizens for the sake of other citizens is simply an argument against all taxation.