Posted by
BrianR on Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:29:41 PM
The “Golden Rule”: He who owns the gold
Makes the rules.
“The power to tax involves
the power to destroy”
Chief Justice John Marshall
As I’ve previously written, the debate out here in Leftifornia rages on concerning universal and/or “mandated” health insurance for all residents, with the basis of discussion being not whether it’s a good idea, but simply which form it will take. Unfortunately, this discussion seems to be migrating to the national forum, with many purported conservatives buying into the idea.
This is a very bad omen for us all.
It’s couched in deceptive and emotional rhetoric: compassion, safety net, for the children, the poor, societal responsibility, etcetera, ad nauseum. But the bottom line is it’s just another form of either entitlement or taxation – depending on its form of implementation – and both come with a very high price and heavy burden to a free society.
We already have a governmental system that’s become unconstitutionally intrusive into personal life choices as exemplified by laws regarding smoking, seat belts, helmets, trans fats, fast food restaurants, light bulb choices, and a host of other issues, all of which is rationalized under the umbrella of some alleged “cost to society”.
To differentiate the plans, universal health care (UHC) is health insurance provided by the state as an entitlement, while mandated health insurance (MHC) is exactly what it sounds like: a legislated requirement that all people be insured, generally with government providing one of the insurance options. In both cases, this is going to require additional taxes be paid by those who are able to pay them, and will obviously require subsidization for those “unable” for whatever reason to cough up the moolah.
So from Square One, we’re talking about more taxes on those who are productive and, probably not coincidentally, most likely already covered by a health plan.
But the far larger problem is that once the government truly controls health insurance – and under either plan that most surely is the end result – we can kiss our freedom of choice buh-bye. Because from that point forward, there is a clearly quantifiable true price in insurance exposure to all human activity, and as the provider of insurance the government will be able to set the premiums at will based on their own actuarial “analysis” of the health care cost exposure of any activity.
You like skydiving? Forget it, the risk’s too high to allow that. Smoker? Prepare for Draconian premium increases. Twenty pounds overweight? Premium surcharge for THAT indulgence. No more Big Macs at Mickey D’s. Your next milk shake at Coldstone Creamery will be made from soy milk, and only non-dairy creamer at Starbucks; forget the sprinkles and whipped cream on top. You’re not feeding your newborn the prescribed baby formula? Penalty! Police “studies prove” that being out after a certain hour makes one more prone to victimization by violent criminals? Curfew! Literally ANYTHING can be couched as a “health issue”.
Worst of all, the whole idea of government interfering in this issue is predicated on a lie. Many if not most of the uninsured are that way by choice, particularly young people who don’t perceive a need for insuring their own good health. As for those who do have a real need, they’re already provided a safety net through the hospital system we have in this country. Stop emergency room abuse, and we’ll go a long way toward solving the problems we have in our health care system in this country.
True liberty, by definition, entitles people to make their own decisions – good OR bad – and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences without government dictating those choices, or insulating them from their own bad choices. Granting government that power also grants it the power to determine and define what is a bad choice. Once that happens, liberty is simply…. Gone.