Indeed. But where we're on a planet where a very small number of people have the same total wealth as half of the planet, would taking more money from that very small number of people be a bad thing?
Yes, that would be a bad thing. People have the right of property. If the government can simply declare that something I own is now something they own is the destruction of the right of property.
What are they going to do with it anyway?
This is delicious. Somehow we are allowed to simply take stuff from the wealthy, presumably because they are greedy, because... why? Is not taking stuff from someone else arbitrarily also greedy? They own that stuff so what they do with it should not be my or your concern.
It cannot be taxed? Wouldn't not paying tax be a form of subsidy?
Perhaps. It would also be a means of subsidy that would be about as fair as we can get. We need only establish that the product or service falls into something "fundamental" and therefore is free of any government interference. At a minimum any product or service that is "fundamental" but not declared so by the government should be taxed no more or less than any other common product or service.
You have the right to eat? Really?
I presume that any free nation would recognize the right to live. That would include basic biological functions like eating, drinking, breathing, etc. I think I understand your confusion. You seem to assume that a right compels a government to provide. It does not. My right to eat means that the government cannot interfere with my ability to grow crops on my own land, purchase food from another, dictate what I may consume, and likewise cannot interfere with my ability to provide food to others. If you believe that a right obligates a government to act then you would be confused because very few people expect the government to provide the populace with the food it requires.
The person gets to choose the price that the provider and patient agree upon. So... the Government gets no tax on that at all? Really? Not even VAT?
In most every society I've seen on earth the government recognizes that people need to eat. In order to assure that the government does not interfere with people getting the food to live we see that food is not taxed. If we declare that medical care is equally protected under the law as a necessary aspect of the right to live then medical care should also not be taxed.
The Government can and certainly will interfere. In everything. (They are generally interested in politics - and as an advert here a few years ago said - "If you're not into politics, you're not into anything." Or, as I prefer to think of it "We will meddle in everything")
Just because the government can does not mean it should.
You'd generally want your Government to be interested in somebody trying to give health care in a sewer (The place) or operations being done by somebody who is claiming to be a doctor who isn't. (The manner)
No, I wouldn't. If someone is injured in a sewer then I'd want them to get medical care immediately. If you make a blanket statement that no person is to provide medical care outside of a licensed and inspected medical care facility then emergency care is impossible.
Claiming to be a "doctor" is misrepresentation, and has little to do with getting proper medical care. If *I* deem someone qualified to perform surgery on me then that should be my decision alone. This is also why health care costs so much in many parts of the world. The costs of satisfying the government that one is qualified to be a surgeon is so high that the only way to recover that cost is through exceedingly high fees of those that provide the service. The costs are also so high that a person typically cannot fund this process on their own, they need to get some sort of government subsidy (like going to a military academy) or government backed loans (because very few banks are willing to make a loan on such a high risk of failure occupation).
This is a vicious cycle. The government places costs on health care. No person can afford this on their own. The government steps in to pay for it. With government paying the bills then people don't care so much about the costs. Costs rise. Government steps in to pay for it. Costs rise more. Taxes rise to pay the subsidies. People pay more and more for less and less actual care. If people were required to pay for the care they needed on their own then prices would fall naturally. If the government didn't regulate medical care into financial oblivion then competition and market forces would force poor providers out of the market.
I believe that a compromise can be reached. People should be able to obtain medical licenses from the government. The reason being that if you want to provide medical care to people, and the government is paying for it, then the government should be able to decide who is qualified to offer that service. If I choose to get medical care, and pay for it myself, then I should be able to chose to go to a government licensed provider or not. Likewise someone that chooses to offer those medical services to me, and is not licensed to do so, then they should not be punished for providing that medical care.
My body, my choice, right? Or is that only something that applies to specific people, at specific times, in specific situations?