Health care is not basic such as food, shelter, water, and clothing. People could endlessly invest and there is no guarantee that good results will be achieved. It is not right to establish a uniform health care welfare right or to consider hospice a part of health maintenance. Hospice being considered a covered benefit would result in medially politicizing all elements of personal conduct and constraining free choices. And we know from the prohibition of alcohol in the United States from 1920 to 1933, that maintaining people’s choices never goes well. The ban resulted in overburdened courts, penal system, and police. US district attorneys “spent 44% of their time on Prohibition cases” (Florien). All this time spent on prohibition takes away from the people that really needed the police and courts to protect them and their possessions and bring justice, “not enforce a religious sec’s morality” (Florien). Even with good intentions the prohibition of alcohol still led to more physical harm. Since alcohol was illegal, its purity could not be regulated. Ironically, it also increased the amount of people that drank and got drunk. When you tell someone you cannot have something, often times that thing becomes more desirable and when people did go out, they had to finish the whole bottle because you couldn’t be seen with it. This dilemma made hard liquor more popular, it was easier to smuggle and more
Health care is not basic such as food, shelter, water, and clothing. People could endlessly invest and there is no guarantee that good results will be achieved. It is not right to establish a uniform health care welfare right or to consider hospice a part of health maintenance. Hospice being considered a covered benefit would result in medially politicizing all elements of personal conduct and constraining free choices. And we know from the prohibition of alcohol in the United States from 1920 to 1933, that maintaining people’s choices never goes well. The ban resulted in overburdened courts, penal system, and police. US district attorneys “spent 44% of their time on Prohibition cases” (Florien). All this time spent on prohibition takes away from the people that really needed the police and courts to protect them and their possessions and bring justice, “not enforce a religious sec’s morality” (Florien). Even with good intentions the prohibition of alcohol still led to more physical harm. Since alcohol was illegal, its purity could not be regulated. Ironically, it also increased the amount of people that drank and got drunk. When you tell someone you cannot have something, often times that thing becomes more desirable and when people did go out, they had to finish the whole bottle because you couldn’t be seen with it. This dilemma made hard liquor more popular, it was easier to smuggle and more