In my quest to understand the truth about our nation's history and the original understanding of our republic I came to a conclusion. Liberty is a very difficult concept for people to truly embrace. Liberty at its heart is the ability to live as we choose for ourselves. As a nation of laws and not of men we can do so within certain limits. What I am coming to understand is that Liberty also puts a great responsibility on the individual. This is coming to light in the ideological debate that is before our nation today about what role the government should play in our lives.
I believe there are two main issues at play. First is the notion that current politicians in congress are trying to sell; that they are creating the right to healthcare. But this is not the basis of our government. This is a positive understanding of rights rather than a negative one. The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence explain that our rights are a natural condition of our existence, and that government cannot take them away. This is the basic foundational principle of limited government in our constitutional republic. Rights have been instilled in us from God who created us. Even if one does not believe in God this principle is still valid. The mere fact that you are a human means there are things about your humanity that should not be taken away. In this way those members of congress that are trying to "create" a right for the American people are wrong. Rights don't come from the government. They of course are free to believe this, but our system of government does not allow it. If they (or the reader for that matter) really believe that rights should be determined this way…that is a choice. But they need to have an open and fair discussion about this before they try to pull the wool over your eyes.
This begs the question…How are they able to sell the notion that they create your rights? This is the second issue at play. The answer highlights the importance of the individual in our constitutional republic. We are in danger of losing liberty because we as Americans are beginning to lose our backbone. Living with liberty, as it turns out, takes hard work and courage. Liberty places a great responsibility on the recipient. It means YOU are responsible for YOU. The more you ask the government to take care of you, the more liberty is lost. The problem is that it is not a proportional balance. It is exponential. You may ask for healthcare but what you get in return is the government having control of your body and the status of your citizenship. The current healthcare bills threatening to pass congress put a mandate on people to buy a product as a condition of citizenship. And as a natural condition of government, it will create an enormous bureaucracy to administer healthcare that will necessarily reduce your access to it. Healthcare is only one current and practical example of the ongoing ideological fight in our society now.
This is not a lecture from my high horse, but merely a call to others to think about this concept. For it is the most important concept to ensure our free way of life. It took the improper and aggressive action of congress to wake me up to what is happening. I am trying to share with others what I have learned. That living with liberty means that individuals have to exercise self control and self responsibility, just as God asks us to do. If you’re wondering what this means for those who are poor, can't afford healthcare, unemployed, or live day to day; my answer is stop asking the government to caudle them and treat them like children! Start treating them with respect; treat them like capable human beings. Grab someone's hand and help them get back on their feet. If you have identified a need in your community…do something about it…don't ask an entity with coercive powers to do it for you. Protecting our rights, it seems, is our responsibility. A difficult question to me and the reader is…What are you going to do about it? Comments, as always, are welcome
I generally try to stay away from this subject because there are such polarizing positions that it is almost like walking into a lion’s den. So I am going to try to discuss against a couple of your points.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that congress is trying to instill something in America that the government has no right to control, something has to be done about the raise in payments with the decline in coverage. It has been shown in the past that it is cheaper to provide basic preventative care than to treat the same person in the ER. Without health care that person continues to go to the ER and skips on the payments. So do we simply start turning people around that are at the door needing medical assistance because they can’t afford health care? This I believe goes into your point that a God has instilled into Humans certain rights, and the right to be healthy regardless of income is one of those rights. (Income - a man made entity that is not a part of God’s rights. Our society says if you make a certain amount of money then you get awarded with something that everyone should have access to). I agree with you that there is a better solution out there than grouping everyone into the same care, but the collective of humans are too busy trying to advance their own self interest to stop and help a person that might be coughing up blood on the sidewalk.
I had a similar discussion a while back with someone who was adamantly against health care, his response to the question of turning someone around at the ER is that there are non-profit clinics for such cases. The problem with this is that the truly skilled doctors in our country are increasingly moving away from such medicine and into private medicine due to the lack of funding and support for such clinics. A point for no health care is that with universal health care there will be a need for doctors and subsequently colleges and universities will open the doors reducing the quality of doctors that our country has come to expect.
I agree that it is up to us to do something more than just leave it to the government, the problem is that very few will. So many people are against anything that the government is doing that they take to little consideration to the fact that something is being done. Should it be passed? No, but they are talking about it and listening to what the public wants.
The big problem? We invest too much money in researching, developing, and implementing our right to kill, which is ok with a lot of people (I am fine with it). Why is that a right that we leave to the government (or turn a blind eye to) but refuse to allow them to make us healthy? Defense is a necessity but why can’t we use a fraction of that money and allow us to help the people that need it?
I know there are a lot of ramblings and different paths in there, but I try to put in examples while keeping it to the point. I am not for or against this version of the health care, but I want something done that will allow the basic privilege to everyone. I do not believe that you and I can change this without the assistance of the government. I look forward to your response.
Homebrew, thank you for opening a dialogue. I appreciate your comments. I have some questions for you. What would you die from first lack of food or lack of healthcare? You sound like a reasonable person so I would venture to say you think lack of food would kill you faster. Why don’t we ask the government to provide our food? Do humans have a need for shelter? What about water? Markets provide all of these basic needs that I have mentioned, yet we don’t ask the government to provide them. Is there a right for you to be fed? Hydrated? Is there a right for everything you need? The answer is no.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1950’s food prices were somewhere around 18% of the average family budget. Now it is 8%. Also in the 1950’s healthcare accounted for 4% of the average family budget. Now it’s more like 18%. What accounts for the difference? Food has remained within the free market, and healthcare has been heavily regulated by the government and separated from the consumer. When was the last time you told a doctor you would write a check or pay in cash and asked them to negotiate the price if you did? You would find that they will most likely be more than willing to negotiate. The federal government won’t let health insurance companies compete across state lines and have structured the way they can provide care. The government has separated you (the consumer) from the heath care industry by regulation. How does more government regulation somehow remove that separation? And how does that make the healthcare industry the bad guy?
Meanwhile in medical industries where people pay more out of pocket such as plastic surgery and lasic eye surgery, prices are dropping and quality of care is going up because people act in their own self interest (not to be confused with selfishness). Patients have the ability to say "don't go to that doctor he stinks". Doctors have the option to create pay plans for their patients. Some doctors have tried to make creative pay plans for their regular customers only to be told they can't by the government because they aren't an insurance company; even though it provides cheaper better care. The idea that government run healthcare is somehow better is a lie. Everyone makes the cost argument. I have not heard one politician, or anyone else for that matter, argue that this healthcare bill will actually improve the quality of care…because it won't. I had government run healthcare for five years when I was in the Marine Corps...take it from me...it sucks.
Not only that, but if the idea was to provide healthcare for the unemployed and the poor it would have been done already. We have cobra (for unemployed or between jobs) and Medicaid (for the poor). Medicaid is so bad that most doctors won't take it. They have to hire an entire staff just to keep up with all of the regulation and paperwork. Why don't politicians call for reforming and streamlining these programs? The answer is because it’s not about providing healthcare...it’s about looking good for their constituents...another term...and for the progressives it’s literally about telling you what to do. If healthcare was allowed to exist in the free market...we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. America is founded on free thinkers who come up with good ideas to lower cost and improve products or services. We already have doctors and other medical professionals who will do just that...but right now they can't because Uncle Sam is trying to get into the Nanny business and getting in everyone’s way.
I completely see your point about the food and housing, and actually the government does pay for what I can say most of my life necessities right now (GIBILL). I know that this is a separate subject but I rely on that check every month to provide for my basic life necessities. My point is if a person where to volunteer for their health care (or general government aid) that happened to be run by the government wouldn’t that still be a better reform than what it is now?
ReplyDeleteI never said that how the politicians have it now is the way to go; I actually hope that it does not pass. My point is that at what point is the government being a government and when is it interfering. We applaud the government for giving tax breaks to small business but frown when they bail out the big ones (the government should have left them to fail, regardless of my house price it would have leveled out). I am a true believer in letting the free market remain free, what I am concerned with is that by allowing health care to happen without reform* we get into an area that peoples’ lives are in a threat. We all asked why there weren’t more swine flu shots at the beginning of flu season, without the government they wouldn’t have been available to more people and as a result caused more suffering.
One more random point that has nothing to do with the topic but needs to be said about government involvment, without governmnet aid there would be money to find such amazing items such as immunizations.
So maybe the next post should decipher at what point is it classified as government control vs just government doing what they should do. This is a difficult question that I ask myself regularly.
*by reform I mean just as you said, reform what is in place. Not replace the free market.
Wow this is the reason that I started this blog. Thank you for that question. At what point is the government being a government and at what point is it interfering? I don't have an answer for that question. I could definitely give plenty of examples to highlight when the government is getting in the way, but I have not really thought about determining the threshold at which a proper government becomes improper. I will take your advice and study that question and make it into a future post.
ReplyDelete