The author compares socialized medical care, renamed “Medicare For All”, to other successes in American history, namely “The American Revolution, ending slavery, desegregation, extending the vote to women and minorities, fighting the Third Reich, expanding civil rights, space exploration.” With the exception of space exploration, those other achievements are victories on behalf of individual freedom. Once the goal was won, the job was done. It was up to individuals to make the best of their freedoms.
But socialized medical care is a completely different matter. It is the opposite of individual freedom. Rather, it imposes a new burden. It would be an ongoing burden borne by tax payers for the benefit of non-tax payers. It is at heart a perpetual giveaway from wealthier Americans to less wealthy Americans. It is a permanent subsidy from one sector to another.
The author argues that we should support this system because, who knows, it just might not fail. Perhaps not, but this does not address the chief objection to socialized medical care, which is really the same objection to any socialist system. That objection is a moral one — not an objection as to its feasibility. It is not moral to demand resources from free people that will be handed over to others who merely promise to do good with it. It is a noble thing to voluntarily care for one’s fellow man, but to involuntarily force contributions from others, allowing them no further say in how those resources are administered, is an affront to individual freedom.
One can justify care for the elderly (Medicare) or poor (Medicaid) as a necessary compassion. There is no similar justification to demand government control over those who can and should provide for themselves.
As we see with failing Obamacare, passing a law and hoping for the best is rarely a recipe for success.