Follow Neal Boortz on

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Listen: Weekdays 8:30-1pm ET

Nealz Nuze

Posted: 9:01 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010

NOW .. THIS "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION" THING 

Previous Posts

By Neal Boortz

I posted this Tweet yesterday on Twitter (@talkmaster):

"The very idea that a health ins co should have to insure someone for a pre-existing condition is beyond asinine."

That Tweet prompted this idiotic response from @Gills57

"Because people with pre-existing conditions deserve to die Is that really your talking point?"

You know ... I see a response like that from someone and I just sit back and scratch my head (as did a few Twitter followers). Is this what passes for reasoned thinking these days? No, you footstool .. my "talking point," as you put it, is that it makes no logical sense whatsoever to require an insurance company to sign someone up for an insurance policy to provide coverage for an even that has already taken place. If you applied for homeowner's insurance after your house burned down it is a pretty safe bet that you're application will be declined. If you call Geico and try to insure your car after you've wrecked it, you're unlikely to get coverage for that wreck. Can someone please explain to me then just why it is generally accepted that a person ought to be permitted to contract a disease first, and then buy insurance to cover the costs of that disease after the fact? If that's the routine, they why would anyone ever buy insurance until they're actually sick?

Now .. here are some hard truths that are going to anger some of you. First, you have no right to health care. To obtain health care you must have access to the services of a health care practitioner and the products manufactured by drug and medical implement companies. To claim a right to health care you are claiming a right to the time and property of some other person. How do you then balance your claim of a right to a portion of that person's life against their own right to protect their lives and property? The argument for a right to health care simply cannot be sustained until you are willing to accept the idea that one individual in our society has a right to the life and property of another.

Second point: Your medical misfortune does not constitute a lien on my life or property unless I have voluntarily entered into a contract with you. Yes .. if you have diabetes or some disease that is going to cost you $20,000 a year, or more .. that's sad. Less sad if you ate yourself into that situation .. but sad nonetheless. As sad as it is your medical condition gives you no claim on my bank account. You can rely on your own resources, your family, your church, a charity or the voluntary goodness of strangers all you want; but to use the government as an instrument of plunder to seize the property of another for your health care needs is immoral .. no matter how grave your condition may be.

In a nutshell .. you have no right to good health. You do have a right to pursue a healthy lifestyle. Exercise that right responsibly and things might turn out better.

 
 

Neal Boortz's Latest Tweets

 
 

© 2013 Cox Media Group. By using this website, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement and Privacy Policy, and understand your options regarding Ad ChoicesAdChoices.