One of the more popular arguments against government run health care is that it costs too much money and is inefficient. Just look at the high taxes and long waits for care in Canada.
Yeah, sure, there’s that. But I think the greater danger, the greater cost is a loss of personal autonomy and the ability to make our own health decisions. This point was made clear by the recent comment by Hillary Clinton in discussing HillaryCare 2.0 reported by the Associated Press, “She said she could envision a day when ‘you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination.’” You don’t submit to the government system, you can’t work. How’s that for personal freedom.
That’s almost as good as her health-care rationing quote of 1993. The then first lady said in a Senate hearing, “people will know they are not being denied treatment for any reason other than it is not appropriate — will not enhance or save the quality of life.” For anyone who thinks that this sounds reasonable, ruminate on the subjective nature of the word “quality.” Think of someone else deciding what your quality of life should be. Think of your 20-year-old self determining whether or not your current quality of life is acceptable. Think of a government bureaucrat who thinks mental disabilities are a crime against nature, then imagine him being the person who approves or disapproves health care treatments for your developmentally disabled child based on “quality of life.” Think of someone like former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm who thinks the elderly have ”duty to die and get out of the way” making your decisions about your elderly parent’s health care access. Think about it a little and realize why the Clinton’s efforts to socialize health care failed miserably.
In the massive smackdown that Hillary and Bill received in the great socialized medicine debacle, I think they probably realized that you can’t go straight to the rationing. At least not in your arguments. Fortunately for them, we’ve been slouching toward a government take over of personal health decisions for a while. It’s the oughtness that’s doing it. “They ought to do something about: trans fats, fat kids, fast food ads, disease-of-the-day, etc. , etc., blah, blah, blah.”
Never fear, citizen, they’ll save you from all the unhealthiness. It’s Socialized Medicine to the rescue! It will pay for all the health care that the law determines you need. Meaning taxpayers will pay for all the health care that the law determines you need. And not just you, who so obviously deserves publicly funded health care, but all those unhealthy people in their unhealthiness get “free” health care, too. For more information on mediation you’ll have the ability to create a business with powerful tools and resources that levitra samples learningworksca.org are effective and easily accessible. As humans we are all wired in such a way that we are on the constant lookout for a better deal. sildenafil online pharmacy Finally, if you are unlucky to get into the disease, treatment and medicine has carried an amazing revolution to give them a larger penis permanently, which cheap cialis is not possible with any of the side effects for a few hours after taking this medicine. It may also combat long term diseases such buy generic viagra learningworksca.org as osteoarthritis. (Of course, the obvious burdens to society will be offed through that denial of “inappropriate care.”) But what about the obese, lazy, smokers? Why do I have to pay for those guys to keep doing stuff that’s costing me more money?
The government will have a solution for that, too. It will be decided by those who decide (politicians, “thinkers”, and media-types) that what was really “mandated” was not government provided health insurance, but government provided health. Since we’re wasting all this “free” health care, they are going to teach us to be healthy.
I can envision this scenario:
You walk into a restaurant and scan your “health card.” The server presents you with a menu based on the data from that card. If your relatively fit, you receive a menu with steak on it. When you order the steak, the server tells you that your health profile indicates you’ve already had your red meat allotment. You may choose the chicken or the fish. Giving you the once-over, she really recommends the fish.
“April, you crazy right-wing paranoid person you, that’s never going to happen. Tee-hee.”
Why not? Let me ask you how you feel about paying for the enormous health care costs of someone who’s life choices are making him sick or hurt? What about paying for that a few million times over? Are you saying that you’d just sit by while your neighbor eats himself into the Guinness Book of World Records and then gladly pay for the crane to move him to his specially made hospital bed where you’ll gladly pay for his long term care? No, you’d say, “If I have to pay for your health care, you are going to stop eating everything you see!” What about that punk kid who parachutes into the wilderness and emerges 3 weeks later with a broken arm and some funky infection. Do we have to pay for that guy, too? What about the coordination-challenged who fall constantly or cut themselves while cooking. Can’t somebody do something about these people before they break the bank?
Once government starts administering health care, it won’t be long before they start managing personal health. Once on that road, the list of “things that are bad for you, and therefore illegal” will grow. There will be incentives and “bonuses” for those who lead healthier life styles, penalties and fines for those who don’t. Maybe we won’t have “health cards” monitoring our habits. Maybe we’ll just have “Twinkie taxes,” higher gasoline taxes (to encourage walking, don’t ya know), and tax breaks for those who meet certain health standards. The motivation and the effect is the same: government control of our most basic choices and habits. That’s not a price I’m willing to pay.
For some good stuff on freedom, check out these posts:
Dana on property rights and freedom at Principled Discovery.