Two more arguments against Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care...
Ahhhh....just think of how great that would be. Everyone receiving top-rate care for all types of ailments and illnesses. Everyone's right to be cared for being being properly righted, bleeding hearts all over the country are being properly inoculated by Big Brother...

So romantic.

But is the warm fuzzy picture in your head still warm and fuzzy if your heard-earned tax dollars were paying for a mentally ill patient's right to sex through legal prostitution?

I'm not joking, but it sure is funny!
from TimeLeader.com

"Denmark’s government ruled in 2001 that institutionalized citizens have the right to have sex and that caregivers must even take them to visit prostitutes. (Prostitution is legal in Denmark.) According to a January dispatch from Aarhus, Denmark, in London’s Observer, Mr. Torben Vegener Hansen, 59, who has cerebral palsy and lives at home on government assistance, is challenging the government also to pay for prostitutes to make house calls, claiming that he is unable to have sex manually because of his illness and must be accorded this “human right” by a service similar to the government’s meals-on-wheels program."

And all that is possible through the beauty of Universal Health Care

Another article came across my desk. This one discusses the complexities involved with booming biotechnology and how it puts some poor souls in the precarious position of having to make a decision between doing their job and standing up for their beliefs.

Two points:
1. Why is the government involved? To me this issue is very simple. Person A owns Material X, which Person B would like to have. Person B buys Material X from Person A on a mutually acceptable price. If both parties are happy, than why is government needed? In a real life example how about this:
CVS owns Morning After Pill. John wants to buy Morning After Pill. John buys Morning After Pill from CVS.
Pretty simple to me.....

Ok, let's make it complicated!

CVS owns Morning After Pill. Frank is a CVS pharmacist. John wants to buy Morning After Pill. Frank thinks Morning After Pill is evil. Frank can either a) sell Morning After Pill to John, b)look for a new job where he does not have to make such hard decisions or c) ask CVS if he could work there but not sell Morning After Pill. Then, it would simply be CVS owner/managemnt to decide the policy to set for employees like Frank.

Where is government needed in that example?
What if CVS (gulp) fires Frank who is just trying to live his life and make a living and put his beliefs into his career? O well, good luck with a new career Frank!

But shouldn't Big Brother step in and force these companies and people to do what's right?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because they can make that decision on their own! And if you think that CVS is wrong for firing Frank, then DON'T SPEND MONEY THERE!

2) Why is the government involved?