Rather than violating the rights of medical practitioners, is it not a better idea simply to break the trusts that make health care so unaffordable? I agree there should be real reform -- but we should not be satisfied with phony reform.

Rand Paul's policy on health care puts the issue in a singular light. First, he draws distinction between real health care reform and phony reform. Real reform, he states would emphasize free market economics and would allow consumers to buy health insurance from providers from a wider spectrum rather than from the artificially manipulate market that we see today. As Paul says, state and federal laws place restrictions and exactly who can buy what from where -- and this is the real heart of the problem because it allows health insurance companies to charge higher and higher premiums and places greater and greater restrictions and demands on medical providers as a result. Real reform would break the artificially constructed monopolies, which would naturally force competition (which is how a free market works),...

It plays into the hands of the monopolists by compelling everyone to buy into the system whether they like it or not, and it also makes medical practitioners slaves of the consumers. Since the consumer has a "right" to receive medical attention, the doctor has no "right" to refuse: he is made the slave of the citizen. With real reform in a free market system, says Paul, it would work much differently: doctors could be free to work as much as they liked -- and their services would be affordable because of competition from elsewhere -- to be exact, from the free market.
Works Cited

Tenant, Michael. "Rand Paul. Right to Healthcare is 'Slavery'." The New American.

2011. Web. 3 Apr 2012.

Paul, Rand. "Can Healthcare Reform Affect the Economy?" Rand Paul U.S. Senate.

2009. Web. 3 Apr 2012.