Universal Healthcare - more reasons to get Government out of the loop
I was struck, once again, by the sage words of Professor Walter E. Williams over at Town Hall concerning Universal Healthcare (reminder, he was one of our first guests on Meet The New Press, ll bolded emphasis is mine.
Then read what yet another of our NH Legislators wants to do (after the jump).....sigh....
Liberty Versus SocialismA fortnight ago, I wrote about Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282 that would have imposed fines or revoked licenses of food establishments that served obese people. Fortunately, the measure died in committee. State Rep. Ted Mayhall, one of the bill's sponsors, justified it by saying that he wanted to bring attention to the fact that "Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program."
His sentiments were expressed by quite a few readers who didn't necessarily support such a measure but opined that if a particular behavior or lifestyle imposed costs on others through tax-supported health care, the government had a right to intercede.
Similar justification was used for laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists. After all, if one exercises his liberty to ride without a helmet, and has an accident and becomes a vegetable, society has to bear the expense of taking care of him.
I've said for years that if someone chooses to ride without a helmet, let them. However, they had better have stickers all over the bike and helmet stating that they had insurance. If not, the EMTs had the ability to just leave them by the side of the road. Dr. Williams is right - why should all of the citizenry, via their government, be forced to care for those participating in risky behavior?
Note: my son rides....without a helmet. I consider him an adult perfectly able to make his own, rational decisions. And yes, I have informed him that if he dumps the bike and makes a vegetable of himself, expect no help from me....buy insurance!
The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death?
[snip]
Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.
He's right and all one has to do ...
There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise. Would you support government-mandated exercise?
You might argue that it's none of government's business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I'd ask: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It's a measure to prevent schools from serving "junk foods" such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from "unhealthy" meals at school, would you want government to also protect them from unhealthy meals at home?
When I was 14 or 15 years old, smelling myself, I thought I could take over the house. My mother told me that as long as she was paying the bills, I was going to do what she said. That's great for a parent/child relationship, but do we want the same relationship between government and its citizens?
Then I read this at the Concord Monitor and just cringed again. Here all around us are the sobs of people screaming that healthcare insurance is too expensive. I've said, over and over again, that one of the largest reasons that healthcare IS so expensive is not the doctors, the hospitals, the drugs, or the expensive equipment, it's
Government.
And here is yet one more sterling example:
Most of the cost of insurance can be directly attributable to government mandates. Someone thinks that something is a good idea, or that something is unfair, or we have to help everyone, and then you hear that insurance has to pay for it.
Great, one more person's good idea and truly believes that WE all have to pay for that good idea.
I keep believing that the Republican Party is supposed to believe in less intrusive government. Yet they keep sticking their hands in eveyone's wallets?
The mantra here in NH used to be "lower taxes is the result of lower spending" - cannot blame this one on the Dems can we?
And it should have stayed personal, too. Look, I'm not the most svelte of folks, but if I want to lose weight, I have no intention of demanding that government take care of me via mandates to insurance companies.
Once again, we see people who can make law that just don't get real economics. Mr. Clegg, the insurers are not going to ante up the extra cost. No matter what he may say or think, this is effectively a tax, via a mandate to issue coverage, on those that purchase insurance here in NH.
I hope we all remember him the next time we pay our insurance benefits.
Remember all those folks that are "uninsured"? No you know some of the reason why....
Comments
Posted by: ken | March 9, 2008 10:24 AM
Posted by: doug | March 9, 2008 1:05 PM
Posted by: skip | March 9, 2008 2:31 PM
Posted by: Randy | March 10, 2008 9:49 AM