Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Liberty vs.Tyranny: Healthcare Edition

Mark Steyn lays out the only argument against socialized medicine that matters, and it has nothing to do with numbers, cost, accessibility, government inefficiency, lack of doctors, inevitably declining quality, or unsustainability. While all these elements present incontrovertible arguments against socialized medicine, this is ultimately about liberty. Before America all of humankind had always lived with someone's boot on its neck. Socialism is the government's boot on your neck, and it's inherently un-American. Read on.
Health care is a game-changer. The permanent game-changer. The pendulum will swing, and one day, despite their best efforts, the Republicans will return to power, and, in the right circumstances, the bailouts and cap-&-trade and Government Motors and much of the rest can be reversed. But the government annexation of health care will prove impossible to roll back. It alters the relationship between the citizen and the state and, once that transformation is effected, you can click your ruby slippers all you want but you’ll never get back to Kansas.
It's like Israel and the Arabs. They only have to win once, and if they do we're all pretty much toast.
Government-directed health care is a profound assault on the concept of citizenship. It deforms national politics very quickly, and ensures that henceforth elections are always fought on the left’s terms. I find it hard to believe President Obama and his chums haven’t looked at Canada and Europe and concluded that health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. He doesn’t say that, of course. He says his objective is to “control costs”. Which is the one thing that won’t happen. Even now, health care costs rise far faster under Medicare than in the private sector.

By the way, to accept that argument is to concede a lot of the turf: Why is the cost of my health care Barack Obama’s business? When he mused recently as to whether his dying grandmother had really needed her hip replacement, he gave the game away: Right now, if Gran’ma decides she doesn’t need the hip, that’s her business. Under a government system, it’s the state’s business – and they have to “allocate” “resources”, and frankly at your age your body’s not worth allocating to. Why give you a new hip when you’re getting up there and you’re gonna be kicking the bucket in a year or two or five or twenty?

[snip]

And, if you disagree, so what? In a free society, Mr Smith should be free to be excessively prudent and over-pay to be over-insured, and Mr Jones should be free to conclude that he wants to pay cash down and get the best price for his broken leg. But a government system usurps both Smith and Jones’ right to calculate their own best interests.

[snip]

“Morality” is always the justification...What’s so moral about relieving the citizen of responsibility for his own health care? If free citizens of the wealthiest societies in human history are not prepared to make provision for their own health, what other core responsibilities of functioning adulthood are they likely to forego? Oh, Smith and Jones can still be entrusted to make their own choices about which movie to rent from Netflix, or which breakfast cereal to eat. For the moment. But you’d be surprised how quickly the “right” to health care elides into the government’s right to tell you how to live in order to access that health care. A government-directed medical system can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state undertakes to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place – or declining to treat you if your persist in your deviancy: Smokers in Manchester, England have been refused treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk have been told they’re ineligible for hip and knee replacements...

Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, says there’s nothing wrong with the state forbidding treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices”. And apparently the “pro-choice” types who jump up and down in the street demanding that you keep your rosaries off their ovaries are entirely relaxed about the government getting its bureaucratics all over your lymphatics.

Ultimately, it’s not the nationalization of health care but the nationalization of your body. Right now, if you want an MRI, it’s between you and your doctors. In a government-run system, if you want an MRI and you can’t get one, it’s the government’s fault. And the government should do something about it.

[snip]

So elections dwindle down to a sterile argument over how to “improve” the system: The left-of-center party usually pledges to throw money at it. The right-of-center party is less enthusiastic about that, which generally makes it suspect on the issue, so it settles on some formulation to the effect that it can “deliver” better “services” more “efficiently”. In other words, the only viable rationale for the right becomes its claim to be able to run the leftist state more smoothly than the left.

[snip]

The leaders of the two soi-disant “right-of-center” parties competing to see who can grovel most abjectly before the state monopoly. That’s the Republicans’ future if they collude in the governmentalization of health care – as Democrats well understand.

When health care is the government’s responsibility, it becomes its principal responsibility. Because the minute you make government the provider of health care, you ensure that, come election time, the electorate identifies “health” as its number one concern. Thus, in a democracy, the very fact of socialized medicine seduces the citizenry away from citizenship.

[snip]

But the acceptance of the principle that individual health is so complex its management can only be outsourced to the state is a concession no conservative should make. More than any other factor, it dramatically advances the statist logic for remorseless encroachments on self-determination. It’s incompatible with a republic of self-governing citizens. The state cannot guarantee against every adversity and, if it attempts to, it can only do so at an enormous cost to liberty. A society in which you’re free to choose your cable package, your iTunes downloads and who ululates the best on “American Idol” but in which the government takes care of peripheral stuff like your body is a society no longer truly free.

In a nanny state, big government becomes a kind of religion: the church as state. Tommy Douglas, the driving force between Canadian health care, tops polls of all-time greatest Canadians. In Britain, after the Tube bombings, Gordon Brown began mulling over the creation of what he called a “British equivalent of the US Fourth of July”, a new national holiday to bolster British identity. The Labour Party think-tank, the Fabian Society, and proposed that the new “British Day” should be July 5th, the day the National Health Service was created. Because the essence of contemporary British identity is waiting two years for a hip operation.

They can call it Dependence Day.
It's evil, wrong, un-American, and absolutely fascist. It has no business in my country. Obamacare must be destroyed in any form.

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:10 AM

    So you think the big insurance companies can survive a little competition. Hey, did you hear it is going to be OPTIONAL? Like, that means you don't have to use the PUBLIC OPTION if you don't want to. However, you will enjoy the more reasonable costs the private insurance companies will have to provide to you when they face some REAL competiton.

    Unless you are shilling for the insurance companies and in line to get some kickback money from the trillion they stand to gain by defeating a PUBLIC OPTION. They've been staging a coordinated effort to disrupt townhalls where they circumvent the rights to ligitimate townhall participants by their shouting down everyone. There's some lobbyist pac in Washington sending out marching orders to all the crazies who are so fucking stupid that they'd vote against their own best interest or the best interest of this country. The insurance companies are who you should be going after here, not the government for trying to bust their stanglehold on our economy. It will be sweet freedom to but up the racketeering insurance companies!

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, the reason they won't survive is because the government will lose money. The government is willing to pass off costs to the taxpayers.

    Did you know that originally, Medicare, which was not to outlaw private insurance for the elderly, but was to be there when people couldn't get the private insurance, ended up driving out the private insurance companies. This was because government doesn't mind losing money.

    Look, Medicare is broke.

    So the public option may temporarily be optional, but it will soon become the only option.

    I'm also at a loss why people believe that we can continue to spend this time of money. Has anyone seen IOUSA? The Comptroller General stars in it and states that we can not financially keep spending like we are.

    We also have China telling us that they will destabilize the dollar if we don't control spending.

    If the private insurance companies ran their companies like Congress runs the "Social Security Insurance" program, they would be in jail.

    Enron looks like child's play compared to SSI and Medicare's financial books.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sure thing, anonymous! Just so long as you promise not to take a single penny from a single person who doesn't vote DNC, then it's almost ethical! It is fascism, pure and simple, just like the bank and car takeovers.

    ReplyDelete