I feel a little like the man from the Ayn Rand Institute who was on Glenn Beck. Not that I'm an Objectivist by any stretch. But I feel like the whole debate regarding health care reform misses the point. The debate here is no debate at all. Conservatives rail against a government takeover of health care. Liberals claim that every person deserves health care. But the roots of this problem go back to basic questions of political philosophy. And the debate reveals the generally homogenous philosophies of our politicians.
As the man from ARI rightly pointed out, the real debate here should be about whether or not government has the right to take your money and give it to someone else. And this debate rests on whether or not we agree with our Founders that rights come from God and that if government has the right to define our rights, then our rights are never safe. But we are actively trying to create new rights. No longer do you have the right to life, liberty, and property. You now have the right to health care. Not only do you have the right to health care, but you MUST have health care. Regardless of whether or not you want it.
Few Republicans would worry about natural rights principles (Ron Paul, and perhaps Bachmann, Demint, and Coburn. Perhaps.). But this is the critical issue at play here. Because when government tells you that you must do something, inevitably, someone has to pay for it. Which means that property rights suffer. When government creates rights, other rights suffer. This is the question, and where we should be focused. Until entitlements are dealt with, nothing will be solved. And until we once again embrace principles of natural rights, entitlements will never die.