The issue of ‘health care’ is clearly a trigger for many people — especially on the political left. Contending that access to ‘health care’ is not a ‘right’ seems, to certain people, a declaration of open war — an affront to everything they believe in; a deliberately contrarian effort to undermine ‘progressive democracy’, etc.

I would like, in one sense, to extend an olive branch to these people. I could emphasize, for example, that I am a genuine advocate of voluntary mutual aid, of a ‘gift economy’, etc. I could point out, also, that even though I don’t believe in their vision of ‘socialized medicine’, that doesn’t mean I am opposed to, e.g., grassroots health-care cooperatives (though the particular form of ‘health care’ these cooperatives proposed to practice could be a matter of serious contention). I could try to mollify the proponents of neo-Marxist ‘socialized medicine’ in various other ways. Ultimately, however, I shouldn’t have to.

Having engaged with and listened to such people over the years, one thing is clear: the term ‘voluntary’ means nothing to them. They believe in, and have little or no scruples about, using coercion to get what they want. And what they want (amongst other things) is ‘health care’. And not just any sort of ‘health care’; no, the form of this health care isn’t really up for debate. No, we’re not allowed to vote for or really have any sort of meaningful say in the sort of ‘health care’ we receive, and are forced to pay for; we’re supposed to shut up and accept it.

Advocates of ‘socialized medicine’ often use the example of children suffering from cancer to reinforce their arguments for universal, tax-payer-funded ‘health care’. This is an effective means to squelch debate and disarm a potential critic. After all, what kind of monster doesn’t realise and acknowledge the tragedy or suffering of a child afflicted with cancer?

The people who forward images of the ‘hairless cancer child’ (hairless due to the chemotherapy) and plaster these icons of suffering all over social media are, for the most part, probably well-intentioned — thought not well-informed. They are not well-informed because they are unaware of, or have chosen to deliberately ignore, the actual causes of cancer (which is a vast topic in itself).

Aside from these witless social media addicts, there is another cohort who is, or at least should be, much more well-informed: medical professionals. They are aware that — despite over 50 years of the ‘War on Cancer’ — incidence is still increasing. They are aware — or at least should be — that a ‘cure’ for cancer, despite intermittent hype and fanfare, is still ‘over the horizon’. Yet they still trot out images of dying cancer patients as a justification for ongoing public spending on ‘health care’ — as if their ‘health care’ and interventions can actually rescue these people.

Meanwhile, anyone who mentions potential causes of cancer other than ‘genetics’ — e.g. environmental toxins and toxins in food — is dismissed out of hand. Generally speaking, the high priests and ministers of the medical cult expect people to shut up and not ask questions — as long as us commoners continue to subsidize their expensive, unwieldy and ineffective (and often dangerous) ‘health care’ system of course. With every passing year, their system has more the appearance of an elaborate grift than a public service to humanity — at least to anyone paying attention.

Going back to the poster child suffering from leukemia …​ It’s not people who question the wisdom, efficacy and morality of modern ‘health care’ systems that are the monsters; it’s the people who exploit such children in order to further their own agendas.

To anyone who argues that people have a ‘right to health care’, I would state firstly that what you probably envision as ‘health care’ — as typified by state-run, allopathic health care systems — is not actually ‘health care’ in the first place. With certain possible exceptions — e.g. emergency surgery, laser eye treatment, etc. — it is at best an extremely expensive system of symptom management, and at worst is an actual threat to health. So it doesn’t really make sense to refer to this as ‘health care’ in the first place.

Secondly …​ Even if it was a system of genuine ‘health care’, you still wouldn’t have a ‘right’ to the service. By and large, your health is your own responsibility.

There is no justification, for example, for a middle-aged man who has spent 25 years knocking back 15-20 pints of lager a week demanding that someone else pays the bill when he discovers that he has cirrhosis of the liver. One could be more sympathetic to someone with, say, cardiovascular disease. But again …​ Are we to accept that their diet and lifestyle — over the course of years and decades — had no impact on their outcome? That they had no control over the situation? Over their own body?

There are situations where people become ill through no fault of their own — e.g. childhood illnesses. The problem here, in part, is that orthodox medicine more-or-less point-blank refuses to fully and properly explore the actual cause of such illnesses. Any one who tries to discuss the potential dangers of vaccines, for example, or suggest that they may be partly responsible for the modern epidemic of illnesses becomes a persona non grata.

This dilemma is quite likely going to intensify over the coming years. On the one hand are people who have a rigid view of health and illness (based largely on the ‘germ theory’ or ‘genetic factors’). They admit effectively no debate or dicussion on questions of human health — or indeed how we look after and govern our own bodies — but simultaneously expect the public to allocate vast sums of money to their hospitals, bureaucracies and ‘research’.

On the other hand are a questioning, circumspect bunch — who point out that humans looked after their own health for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before ‘modern medicine’. They point out that — just as our ancestors managed fine without modern ‘health care’ — we can manage fine without it now also. Indeed, they wager we might be much better off without it.