Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Why the Vehement Opposition to the Health Care Bill?

It is definitely a sensitive subject.  There certainly has been major corruption in the industry, so the question for me is not 'does this need fixing?', rather, 'what is the answer to fix this?'  The reason why I vehemently oppose the government controlling this industry is simply because it is not within their Constitutional power to do so.  With all the bailouts and now this, it is estimated that the government controls at least 1/6th of industry now.  The problem with that is the more government control there is, the more susceptible we are to tyranny. 

Our nation was founded for the very reason that a group of people were not okay with a government run nation - they wanted freedom from government - that is the essence of America.  What rings very true with me is, if it isn't right on a personal level, it is never right on a government level.  For instance, would you ever force your neighbor, friend, brother, sister to choose an option for their life because you thought it best for them?  Would you then proceed to impose fines against your neighbor because they didn't agree and obey you?  You certainly would not.  How, therefore, is it right that the government do the same? 

If your brother came to you and said, ‘you make three times more money than I do, therefore, you owe it to me to make the stakes even and give me half of your income, okay?’  No, it would probably not be okay with you.  So why is it okay for the government to redistribute the wealth?  It is not. 

I don't propose to know all the specific answers, but I do know that third world countries in crisis are often offered assistance in business, because business creates independence, production, and jobs.  For instance, my friend, Cheri, assists African women sell their handmade jewelry or baked goods.  She doesn't write them a check every month to sustain their lives.  She doesn’t keep them dependent on her so that inevitably one day they fail when she can’t produce anymore.  She empowers and enables them to sustain and prosper their own lives, so they may become independent from her, their tyrannical government, abusive husband, poor village, etc.
 
If a woman worked to make her jewelry and chose to be mentored by Cheri and improve her family’s living conditions, would it be fair for the rest of her village to come and pillage her house and earned income?  No, it would not be.  So does that mean the tyrannical government should squash her and penalize her and make her take care of the rest of her village because of what she has accomplished?  No, that would not be moral either, though, no question, the people are in need.  It seems it would make the most sense for Cheri, or people like her who have the skills, to step up and OFFER (not force) mentorship in business to help stimulate the village for those who chose to better their lives. 

So bringing it back to health care, I agree reform is needed, but the answer lies in a true free market and competition, not in our government.



2 comments:

Stacey said...

I can appreciate the analogy here and I think it may be a decent approach to some questions of government, but I think there are a lot more moral layers when it comes to health care. To be fair with this line of thinking, you would have to also go along with the following idea. "Would it be fair if your neighbor made his own decision not to carry insurance and then showed up at the emergency room door bleeding and in dire need of medical care to be told, "I'm sorry, but you made your own decisions and you are not my responsibility." and allowed to die? Or worse yet, your neighbor's child? We are all in this together, and to some extent, we have moral obligations to one another, the question is where the lines should be drawn.

Angela DiGiovanni said...

Hey Stacey! Thanks for your thoughts.