Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) notoriously made the following statement earlier in the week:
Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’
Leaving aside the ridiculous nature of Reid’s comments comparing opponents of health-care “reform” to opponents of ending slavery, let’s attempt a little deductive logic exercise to clear the matter up a bit. This will help us find a more accurate comparison between government health-care subsidies and slavery.
Deductive logic is a line of reasoning where, if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. It is structured something like this:
- Premise no. 1: All men are mortal
- Premise no. 2: Socrates is a man
- Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal
We can use this method to compare the relationship between government subsidization of health care and slavery in the following way:
- Premise no. 1: Forcing one person to work for another person is slavery.
- Premise no. 2: Taking earned money from one person and giving it to another person is forcing a person to work for another person.
- Premise no. 3: Government subsidization of health care is taking earned money from one person and giving it to another person.
- Conclusion no. 1: Therefore, government subsidization of health care is forcing one person to work for another person.
- Conclusion no. 2: Therefore, government subsidization of health care is slavery.
So there may actually be a link between health-care “reform” and slavery after all. Only, it’s not the one Harry Reid suggested.