SnowSquirrel
May 30th, 2009, 9:05 pm
Why Nationalized Health Care Must Be Stopped
The debate over health care is about to take us to, and possibly beyond, a red line of danger. We must stop certain threats we face from ill-intentioned types of "reform."
There's widespread agreement that America's health care system needs to change. President Obama and the Congress have announced in the last few days that this topic needs to be handled this year, and that they intend to present a bill within the next month. [1] Obama's personal lobby group has announced a "grassroots" marketing effort to begin June 6. [2] Unfortunately, "change" is being redefined as "more government, less freedom," and health care is no exception. Because of the push for greatly expanded government control over health care, we are all in danger.
The first reason for this danger is that the politicians' plan is massively illegal. Although the details of the scheme are yet to be determined, two key features have emerged. One is a huge expansion in taxpayer-funded, government-controlled health care without even the excuse of "it's for the old and poor." The other is a "coverage mandate." By a mandate, Congress means that each of us will be ordered by our government to buy health care, and punished for disobedience. The astonishing thing about this ambition is that there is absolutely no legal authority for Congress to do any such thing. Now, parsing the Constitution and explaining the exact powers of Congress is a topic for another day. But it's crucial to understand that our country's Founders did not build a government with a general-purpose power to do absolutely everything the public might want. Claims about a mysterious "general welfare" power wither when tested against the historical context, the 10th Amendment, and a basic sanity check of what the Founders were trying to do. [3] As it's sometimes said, "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have."
Because there is no Constitutional authority for our federal government to provide or control medical insurance or health care, our government is trying to seize new powers without any legal right. Morally and legally, it would put itself in the same category as an off-duty policeman who decides he's also now a judge, jury and executioner. Such a person would be a criminal and a threat to everyone around him. Ask yourself whether there is anything at all our government may not do, if it has our consent to ignore the Constitution. Are any of your rights safe? Ask a German, a Russian, or many other foreigners whether governments can be trusted with unlimited power.
The second problem with nationalized health care is that it will not only lead to legal corrosion, but to personal invasion. More so than any other industry, medicine offers chances for a shrewd and power-hungry government to, more or less literally, violate us. The modern understanding of "health" is holistic, looking at a person's entire lifestyle. Once Washington gets its claws on our "health," its grip will tighten. That is, once Congress is put in charge of seeing that we're healthy, it will have logical reason to order us to exercise, to eat an approved diet, to bike to work, to have approved hobbies. Sure, making healthy choices for ourselves is a good idea -- but do you want some whip-wielding federal agent threatening you with higher taxes unless you finish your vegetables? Is that really the sort of government our Founders had in mind? The fact that the obnoxious manipulation will likely be done through raising taxes, then offering "rebates for healthy living" makes it no less oppressive. Corrosion of personal freedom is inevitable under a national health system as its complexity mounts and politicians find new ways to abuse it.
Economic corrosion is a third danger. Since this is the federal government we're talking about, it will need to contain the inexplicably rising costs of its own corrupt bureaucracy, by rationing. You'll be lied to that this form of rationing is somehow fairer than free negotiation in a free market, on the grounds that the wise, honest minds of Congress are in charge. Since American doctors will be under unprecedented bureaucratic control, and since they'll eventually be forced out of the relative freedom of the private system, doctors will have reason to quit. Why become or stay a doctor if you'll work under conditions inspired by Fidel Castro's communist utopia? And make no mistake, it's a ruse that we'll "only" be creating a "public option" while preserving the free market we supposedly have today. Rather than opening the market to full capitalism and innovative new solutions, we'll be going the other way. We'll be subject to a monolithic, tax-subsidized monster that decides who lives and who dies. Meanwhile, new regulations will tie down the same private sector we call too bureaucratic today. At least one Congressman has openly said that the "public option" is part of a strategy to destroy private insurers and force everyone into a government system. [4] How many more are saying that in private? Even representatives of the private insurance industry have proposed a devil's bargain of mandates -- forced participation -- in exchange for universal (forced) coverage of the sick. [5] This deal would effectively make private industry an arm of the national welfare state. The "private" companies would be told who to cover, what to charge, and what to provide, and forbidden to make decisions on the basis of their own interest. And when the system fails, the trouble will be blamed on greedy capitalists, like the bankers who were ordered to make bad mortgage loans to help the "underserved."
Underlying the intrusive nature of government health care is a horrible philosophy: the idea that we're all children of the state. If a gigantic, centralized health care system were as wonderful as we're told, it wouldn't need government help. We'd start the system on the free market, and sign up without having the money taken from us by force, in taxes. But no, we're being told that we must have a system where participation is mandatory and disobedience is punished. Regardless of the Constitution, regardless of personal liberty, regardless of rationing and other harm. What if some of us don't want to pay for the grand plan or be subject to its rules? Tough, we're told; it's for our own good. It's for our own good that our government wants to break the law, invade our personal lives, willfully destroy a capitalist industry, and establish itself as having power to do anything at all that suits its fancy. Fellow Americans, we have heard this level of arrogance and greed for power before. The Declaratory Act, the work of King George III's Parliament, claimed the British Empire's right "to bind the colonies and people of America...in all cases whatsoever." To do anything that the weak, helpless subjects of His Majesty needed to have done to them, for their own good. [6] Americans didn't tolerate such a malicious claim then, and we shouldn't tolerate one now, no matter how it's disguised. The goal of nationalized health care is centralization, socialism, collectivism, control, power. If we allow the type of supposed "reform" that's being pushed right now, we will have no legal, moral, or political defense against any form of the government's future demands. We will have confessed that we are children who will take our medicine as ordered, even knowing that the foul-tasting stuff is actually corrosive poison.
To defend ourselves, we must stop the collectivists' plan. We must attack the philosophy head-on, fight the legislation every step of the way through Congress, and sound the alarm in all media. If necessary, we must have states protect their citizens in the name of our Constitution from illegal federal laws. Because government power ratchets up but not far down, nationalized health care is not a problem we can let slide, then hope to fix after the next election. We must draw the line here and now, or we will lose a crucial piece of our freedom. Let us now redouble our efforts against this government snake-oil, and prepare to repel the imminent attack on our liberty.
References:
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5049813.shtml
[2] http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_health_care_reform/2009/05/22/217416.html
[3] See particularly the Federalist Papers, #41, which explains that the phrase "general welfare" was only meant as part of a power to levy taxes. Claims about a "right to health care" deserve more attention elsewhere, but the point here is that the Constitution recognizes no such "right" or any authority to provide it.
[4] http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html -- the video is currently down on claims of copyright violation, but a summary quote remains by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and she elaborates in an article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jan-schakowsky/why-hilda-needs-universal_b_119714.html .
[5] http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_Act
The debate over health care is about to take us to, and possibly beyond, a red line of danger. We must stop certain threats we face from ill-intentioned types of "reform."
There's widespread agreement that America's health care system needs to change. President Obama and the Congress have announced in the last few days that this topic needs to be handled this year, and that they intend to present a bill within the next month. [1] Obama's personal lobby group has announced a "grassroots" marketing effort to begin June 6. [2] Unfortunately, "change" is being redefined as "more government, less freedom," and health care is no exception. Because of the push for greatly expanded government control over health care, we are all in danger.
The first reason for this danger is that the politicians' plan is massively illegal. Although the details of the scheme are yet to be determined, two key features have emerged. One is a huge expansion in taxpayer-funded, government-controlled health care without even the excuse of "it's for the old and poor." The other is a "coverage mandate." By a mandate, Congress means that each of us will be ordered by our government to buy health care, and punished for disobedience. The astonishing thing about this ambition is that there is absolutely no legal authority for Congress to do any such thing. Now, parsing the Constitution and explaining the exact powers of Congress is a topic for another day. But it's crucial to understand that our country's Founders did not build a government with a general-purpose power to do absolutely everything the public might want. Claims about a mysterious "general welfare" power wither when tested against the historical context, the 10th Amendment, and a basic sanity check of what the Founders were trying to do. [3] As it's sometimes said, "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have."
Because there is no Constitutional authority for our federal government to provide or control medical insurance or health care, our government is trying to seize new powers without any legal right. Morally and legally, it would put itself in the same category as an off-duty policeman who decides he's also now a judge, jury and executioner. Such a person would be a criminal and a threat to everyone around him. Ask yourself whether there is anything at all our government may not do, if it has our consent to ignore the Constitution. Are any of your rights safe? Ask a German, a Russian, or many other foreigners whether governments can be trusted with unlimited power.
The second problem with nationalized health care is that it will not only lead to legal corrosion, but to personal invasion. More so than any other industry, medicine offers chances for a shrewd and power-hungry government to, more or less literally, violate us. The modern understanding of "health" is holistic, looking at a person's entire lifestyle. Once Washington gets its claws on our "health," its grip will tighten. That is, once Congress is put in charge of seeing that we're healthy, it will have logical reason to order us to exercise, to eat an approved diet, to bike to work, to have approved hobbies. Sure, making healthy choices for ourselves is a good idea -- but do you want some whip-wielding federal agent threatening you with higher taxes unless you finish your vegetables? Is that really the sort of government our Founders had in mind? The fact that the obnoxious manipulation will likely be done through raising taxes, then offering "rebates for healthy living" makes it no less oppressive. Corrosion of personal freedom is inevitable under a national health system as its complexity mounts and politicians find new ways to abuse it.
Economic corrosion is a third danger. Since this is the federal government we're talking about, it will need to contain the inexplicably rising costs of its own corrupt bureaucracy, by rationing. You'll be lied to that this form of rationing is somehow fairer than free negotiation in a free market, on the grounds that the wise, honest minds of Congress are in charge. Since American doctors will be under unprecedented bureaucratic control, and since they'll eventually be forced out of the relative freedom of the private system, doctors will have reason to quit. Why become or stay a doctor if you'll work under conditions inspired by Fidel Castro's communist utopia? And make no mistake, it's a ruse that we'll "only" be creating a "public option" while preserving the free market we supposedly have today. Rather than opening the market to full capitalism and innovative new solutions, we'll be going the other way. We'll be subject to a monolithic, tax-subsidized monster that decides who lives and who dies. Meanwhile, new regulations will tie down the same private sector we call too bureaucratic today. At least one Congressman has openly said that the "public option" is part of a strategy to destroy private insurers and force everyone into a government system. [4] How many more are saying that in private? Even representatives of the private insurance industry have proposed a devil's bargain of mandates -- forced participation -- in exchange for universal (forced) coverage of the sick. [5] This deal would effectively make private industry an arm of the national welfare state. The "private" companies would be told who to cover, what to charge, and what to provide, and forbidden to make decisions on the basis of their own interest. And when the system fails, the trouble will be blamed on greedy capitalists, like the bankers who were ordered to make bad mortgage loans to help the "underserved."
Underlying the intrusive nature of government health care is a horrible philosophy: the idea that we're all children of the state. If a gigantic, centralized health care system were as wonderful as we're told, it wouldn't need government help. We'd start the system on the free market, and sign up without having the money taken from us by force, in taxes. But no, we're being told that we must have a system where participation is mandatory and disobedience is punished. Regardless of the Constitution, regardless of personal liberty, regardless of rationing and other harm. What if some of us don't want to pay for the grand plan or be subject to its rules? Tough, we're told; it's for our own good. It's for our own good that our government wants to break the law, invade our personal lives, willfully destroy a capitalist industry, and establish itself as having power to do anything at all that suits its fancy. Fellow Americans, we have heard this level of arrogance and greed for power before. The Declaratory Act, the work of King George III's Parliament, claimed the British Empire's right "to bind the colonies and people of America...in all cases whatsoever." To do anything that the weak, helpless subjects of His Majesty needed to have done to them, for their own good. [6] Americans didn't tolerate such a malicious claim then, and we shouldn't tolerate one now, no matter how it's disguised. The goal of nationalized health care is centralization, socialism, collectivism, control, power. If we allow the type of supposed "reform" that's being pushed right now, we will have no legal, moral, or political defense against any form of the government's future demands. We will have confessed that we are children who will take our medicine as ordered, even knowing that the foul-tasting stuff is actually corrosive poison.
To defend ourselves, we must stop the collectivists' plan. We must attack the philosophy head-on, fight the legislation every step of the way through Congress, and sound the alarm in all media. If necessary, we must have states protect their citizens in the name of our Constitution from illegal federal laws. Because government power ratchets up but not far down, nationalized health care is not a problem we can let slide, then hope to fix after the next election. We must draw the line here and now, or we will lose a crucial piece of our freedom. Let us now redouble our efforts against this government snake-oil, and prepare to repel the imminent attack on our liberty.
References:
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5049813.shtml
[2] http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_health_care_reform/2009/05/22/217416.html
[3] See particularly the Federalist Papers, #41, which explains that the phrase "general welfare" was only meant as part of a power to levy taxes. Claims about a "right to health care" deserve more attention elsewhere, but the point here is that the Constitution recognizes no such "right" or any authority to provide it.
[4] http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html -- the video is currently down on claims of copyright violation, but a summary quote remains by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and she elaborates in an article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jan-schakowsky/why-hilda-needs-universal_b_119714.html .
[5] http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_Act