GraniteGrok

This could have been filed under Healthcare - I chose Proper Role of Government instead.  Tell me, what is the difference from one organization FROM AN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM aspect that comes along and says:

• "Pretty nice <insert your valued object here> you have here; a pity if something were to happen to it."
• "Nice to see you're in good health - want some jail time?"

And yes, you know who the first is, and you know that it the second has been written into the Healthcare bills now floating around in DC.   Dr. Paul Hsieh normally blogs on geeky stuff over at GeekPress (a daily stop for me).  Nope, not a geek doctor - he is a board certified medical M.D.

Here, he takes a whack at not the medical implications of Obamacare but the ramifications of Government forcing people to not only purchase something they may not wish to, but what it must contain and at what prices (emphasis mine).

Suppose the mafia came to your town and forced everyone to purchase all their meals at mob-approved restaurants. The mafia would also select the menu items.

If you liked broccoli but their vegetable choice was spinach, then tough luck. Everyone would also have to purchase dessert, whether they wanted it or not. And if some customers couldn't afford the high-priced meals, the mafia would force you to "contribute" to cover their bills.

Most Americans would be outraged at such violations of their basic rights. But this is precisely what the president and Congress want to do with health insurance.

The recently passed Pelosi plan is essentially a national version of the failing Massachusetts system of mandatory health insurance -- a plan that has led to skyrocketing costs and worsening health care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily determine what constitutes an "acceptable" plan. Hence, this creates a magnet for special interests seeking to include their pet benefits on the required insurance menu.

Massachusetts residents must purchase numerous benefits that they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, drug abuse therapy and chiropractor services. If you'd rather purchase low-cost catastrophic-only insurance without those options, tough luck. Mandatory insurance thus violates the individual's right to spend his own money for his benefit according to his best judgment.

...To add insult to injury, the president has called the Congress' plan a "moral imperative" that will promote "choice and competition."

If Obama truly wanted to promote choice and competition, he would propose fewer government controls -- not more. State governments should eliminate mandatory benefits.

Insurers should be allowed to offer low-cost catastrophic plans and to sell policies across state lines. Individuals should be allowed to use Health Savings Accounts for routine expenses. Such free-market reforms would greatly lower insurance costs for millions of Americans.

...Free-market reforms that lowered costs while respecting individual rights would be smart politics.

Where would meals be better and cheaper? A city where customers could choose between restaurants competing in a free market? Or a city where everyone was forced to buy all their meals at a few mafia-controlled restaurants?

Like the mafia, Congress wants to make you an offer you can't refuse. At least the mafia doesn't pretend that it's acting for your own good. 

In addition to GeekPress, Dr. Paul Hsieh is a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine

Both organizations have guns - one set is illegal and the other stands in front of the politicians that proudly proclaim (like my CongressCritter, Carol Shea-Porter) "We're from the Government, and if you don't buy this from our Governmental Exchange, you're heading to the hoosegow".

Freedom - sadly, plays no role in this - not even a Progressive Politician's tertiary concern...yet, that is what our country was founded on.

Jon Henke over at The NextRight also linked to the good Doctor.  He also brought up a little video from Mary Katharine Ham:

Nowadays, one ALWAYS has to be on guard as to who wishes to force you into their actions, their policies. ALWAYS ask - does this allow me MORE Freedom, or LESS? More Choice (or less - even if they say it is "good for me" or a "more enlightened view"?) or LESS Choice (in either thought or actions)?