In accomplishing this, however, it is immoral to revoke another human's right to the product of his mental and physical effort - his property.
It is evil to steal from Bob and give to Jane, and this will always be the case, even if Bob is rich and Jane poor.
(This may not have been true in the case of a rich feudal lord or monarch whose wealth came by forcible economic rape of the people, BUT, in American capitalism, wealth is CREATED by the producer of value through mental or physical effort. The value is in the created good or service. Men voluntarily trade monetary markers of value for that CREATED value. Except for those rich who became so and thrive by lobbying (bribing) the government to favor their company/interests with legislation, regulation, or the competition stifling tax code --- except for those evil parasites --- wealth in America is NOT come by through the oppression of others, but through the creation of value. Many have never understood this, and still talk as if all wealth came to be through a manner of theft.)
There are many many practical 'system' reasons that the stealing from Bob to pay for Jane's health care is wrong, and many reasons drawn from the poor results such stealing yields, but the bottom line - the real reason is that Bob has a right to life which includes a right to dispose of the product of his work and mental effort as he sees fit. To deny him this right to dispose of his effort is to deny him the right to support his life. There is no such thing as 'partially' destroying a right.
So, you can not create some new medical right (which is an economic "right" by the way) without negating the right to property, and thus the right to life. This is true of any so called economic 'right.' If someone receives without working, then someone has worked without receiving. If that ' work without receiving' was not voluntary, that man or woman is a slave. This is wrong. It is to bleed dry the life from the healthy for the sake of the dying.
This is true in all economic endeavors that place the so called interests of the tribe or the group or "society" above the RIGHTS of the individual. It is just more ugly and absurd to do so in the health arena.
We see the sick baby without medical insurance, and say - "wouldn't we ALL give some of our wealth to help her? *shouldn't* we all do so?" The answer is likely yes for most, and it *should* be done through voluntary giving. The moment we try to use the power of the government (the legalized force of a gun at base) to force *all* to give, we have destroyed the right to property, to life. Though we envision such heart wrenching sights as the sick child, we should not forget that the more common reality in universal health care is the stealing of money from the average family or average income worker to pay for the astronomical health care costs of the millions who choose to smoke, drink, drug, or eat themselves to ill health and death. Much more common will be the loss of some struggling family's small vacation (through the certain higher taxes which will be required) to pay for an obese heroin addict's methadone clinic and eventual liver transplant. There are countless such ugly real scenarios which this sort of legislation WILL create.
I am a physician in socialized medicine - the military health care system. The bureaucracy is astounding and the best and brightest physicians are fleeing the system. The 'weeds,' those angling only for promotion, those playing politics, the bean counters, the 'regulators,' all thrive in this system. Those men/women honestly attempting to most efficiently and effectively provide medical care, die in such an environment. They leave. They become fed up and go practice elsewhere. What, when there is no elsewhere?