I would argue that inalienable human right's do exist, or at least did exist, and are supposed to be safeguarded by the very people who are currently in the process of figuring out how to strip us of whats left.(government)

The magna carta, constitution, charter of rights etc were laws put in place to limit governmental interference in it's citizens daily lives, and ensure their inalienable human right's were not infringed upon. They are not documents that tell us what we can and can not do they are documents meant to tell government what they can and can not do. People have seen time and time again how dangerous government can become if allowed to grow to the size they represent today. The cost of freedom is constant vigilance and I believe we the people are asleep at the wheel.

No there is obviously no law that says one human can kill another. However the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness clearly says that you can not murder me,(if you do your infringing on my right to life) and that I will defend myself with lethal force if necessary.

So does universal health care fit? I don't think it does. It can be argued that healthcare will contribute to ones happiness sure, but health care at the barrel of a gun doesn't fit the bill. If you are in need of healthcare you should be free to pursue it, that is your right. Forcing someone else to provide it goes against that person's right.

Finally you will say nurses and doctors want to provide health care to all who need and I would say, take away the financial incentive provided by government at end of a barrel, and you will see how quickly people change their mind. With out funding, people who practice health care would do so with great hardship to them selves and their families, and if they chose to do so it would be their right. We don't have health care because of government, we have healthcare in spite of government interference.

You acknowledge that government gets in the way of employment, I acknowledge government gets in the way of employment, health care, education, environment and a whole host of other public matter's they have no business sticking their noses in.

In conclusion to my rant, Is it your contention that if not for government people would not receive health care? I can say for sure that not every citizen would receive the same health care, some may get no health care some would get exceptionally good care. Is that preferable to what we have now where all but the rich receive a very low standard of health care? I think that is what this all comes down to.

You may think in the scenario I have outlined only the rich would get exceptional health care but that is not exactly true. Health care standard's would be community based. Which means that rich, middle class and poor would all benefit from a community with a high standard of health care. Rich people from communities with a poor standard would certainly travel to a community with better health care and would most likely pay a higher premium for health care to help offset health care for the poorest.

What we could achieve if government didn't divert resources from where it is most needed to where it is not needed at all has no limit's. Government imposes the limits. Restricts our right's and our freedom's and makes us believe that our neighbors are the problem.