GraniteGrok

It is now the case that the general public, according to THIS Gallup poll, no longer believes that Government should be responsible for that aspect of life. In addition, that number support Government responsibility as such is falling, and falling FAST (and those opposing it rising as quickly)!

• Concentrated solely on ideology - society MUST provide for all
• Concentrated solely on ideology - as with Hillarycare - ONLY Government is able to provide for it.
• Their rush to pass has not gone over well - they have gotten caught on "closed door" aspects of how these MASSIVE bills are proceeding.  The public is not amused.
• As think tanks, concerned citizens, the blogosphere have raced to keep up, the news of the MASSIVE tax increases have come to light - Joe and Jane SixPack are starting to think of the tradeoffs (healthcare for MUCH less in their pockets) the bill requires
  
• As think tanks, concerned citizens, the blogosphere have raced to keep up, the news of the MASSIVE increase in Government Intrusions have come to light - and people are increasing nervous and anxious in a society that is still more individualistic than collective.  Americans generally don't like to be told what to do.
  

None of which seems acceptable - and I am sure that there will be a backlash in 2010 if this passes.

The biggest problem that VERY few pundits have discussed has been

Er, what did we do before Big Government by Progressives arose?

The answer?  We did it.  Ordinary citizens, banding together in a voluntary basis, to help those in need.  Before "charitable organizations" became professionalized and dependent on the Government for funds, individuals volunteered their time and money, forming societies that cared for the destitute and those down on their luck. While that aspect of American life has not yet disappeared, this healthcare bill may well put the nails in that coffin:

"welcome to healthcare a la DMV with the compassion of the IRS."

And yes, the IRS IS involved in our supposedly new and improved Government Cradle and Bedpan - failure to do what THEY say to do, pay the fine, go to jail - and the IRS "shall" be the entity utilized to do the checking ("PROVE to me that you are insured!").

Well, over in the UK at the Adam Smith Institute, where they have had Universal Healthcare since the late 1940's, they are now beginning to have a "Back to the Future" moment: re-exploring that which had been done and had, by historical examples, worked (emphasis mine):

Welfare without the state

Earlier this month the Adam Smith Institute hosted a TNG meeting at which Chris Mounsey spoke on the problems and possible solutions to the welfare state in the UK. As part of his speech he highlighted the value of ‘friendly societies’ or co-operatives as one of the possible solutions, collectives that had previously existed in much of Britain and functioned well prior to the National Insurance Act. As he pointed out, amongst the benefits of these organizations are that they are more needs based and are able to prevent many problems such as fraud and lack of accountability in the government run system.

We already have about $60 Billion in fraud in the present Medicare system; I am just SO tired of Progressives yakking at me that they will now take care of that - I agree with most that if you have don't so by now, you CAN'T!

Although the rise of government welfare has had a similar impact on US private welfare as in the UK, the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) has survived the onslaught and is insightful in considering how private welfare can function outside of the state.

Members of the church fund the program; on the first Sunday of every month everyone skips two meals and donates the saving from those meals. If a member loses income, becomes unemployed, etc. they meet with their local leader and together they determine the needs of that individual or family, and assistance is given accordingly.

So, what's the BIG difference?  That word that I keep saying that Politicians of all stripes run away from or spend thousands of words denying:  Accountability

Accountability is at the center of the program: if an individual is on Church welfare he must meet with his local leader each week to determine what progress he or she has made and what else might be done to fix the situation – often families are asked to sacrifice items such as cell phones and cable television before financial assistance is rendered. The Mormon Church also has its own employment services that help individuals seek employment through networking and Church run companies and organizations. There are even private markets, referred to as Bishops’ storehouses, in which individuals can purchase food for nearly 90% below market value while they are in the welfare system.

Gee, invoking self-responsibility - holding people to account!  No more "victim" status as an excuse, no more "the dog ate my homework / paperwork / turned off the alarm clock"-isms.

After all, if someone is no longer motivated to help themselves, let's face it - they are gaming the system.  Government systems CAN be gamed to do so - I've listened to it, watched it, and in some cases, had to pay for it as a former operator of a daycare center that had to deal with the Government and its "clients" (I still think "wards" is a better use of terminology).

The program that the Mormon Church has developed creates a sense of accountability and helps people improve their circumstances rather than slowly becoming dependent upon the system. Co-operatives are able to do what no government can, by creating true accountability and fostering the importance of self-reliance and accomplishment. Yet religious commonality is not necessary to create the type of ‘friendly society’ the Mormon Church has. Private groups like this could flourish if it wasn’t for one major problem: the government does not allow you to opt-out of the state run system. If the state allowed an opt-out option for those who can confirm enrollment in a private co-operative, things would improve dramatically and private co-operatives would spring up everywhere.