And yet there is a Constitutional right to a lawyer in most criminal cases if you can’t afford one. I can assure you, while public defenders might not get paid well and maybe many can’t afford their student loans, they are not slaves.
But that case is more defensible: the enforcing of the rule of law is powerful for freedom. So sacrificing some freedom to get a lot of freedom is an easy case.
Health services do not relate to freedom, but to the cost of insurance. If the government can provide a cheaper healthcare then it should provider a cheaper healthcare, and citizens can choose the government's plan and it will eat out the competition.
Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance?
In no country ever is private healthcare and competition banned. There is a free* hospital across the street from me and I have private healthcare.
It’s about acknowledging that a) it is cheaper for everyone if people with no money go to the doctor early, because a GP is 1k% less expensive to society than a hospital bed runout. This is one of the reasons healthcare in single payer countries is ~50% per capita.
B) people without money don’t deserve to die because they are poor and should have basic treatments, even when it is their own fault they are poor and make bad decisions.
* I pay tax which pays for the hospital
Isn't that all forced "slave labor" by this same argument?
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…”[1]
[1] Article 25 UN Declaration of Human Rights
My point is definitely that you have an obligation to provide society funding for healthcare even if they don’t pay. Just like the military will defend them even if they don’t pay, or a firefighter will put out their house.
