Why do we think the government is a better arbiter of our health insurance than the individual or company with which we choose to do business?
Real health care reform looks like this: No government “takeover.” Not forcing individuals to buy health insurance. And, most importantly, it would:
Allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.
Allow individuals to buy their own health insurance.
Decouple health insurance from employment.
Allow people to deduct cost of insurance from taxes.
Initiate tort reform so that doctors won’t be forced to practice defensive medicine.
For the folks whose fondest dreams have included government paid health insurance, they’ve always wanted more control over the individual in the name of benevolence. HL Mencken once said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.“
It’s really not about “insurance” or “health care,” it appears to be more about people who think they know more than their fellow man and making decisions for him.
But who are these people? Are their motives more pure than our own self interest? Should we cede our individualism and this corner of our liberty because it’s the right thing to do for others? That’s not what religions preach. They don’t equate government giving with charitable giving. They’re NOT the same. One is confiscated, the other is freely given. Why does government preach this, then? When government grows individualism necessarily retreats. It’s a contest between liberty and tyranny.
Watch this exchange between noted economist, Milton Friedman, a libertarian/conservative and noted liberal Phil Donahue. After watching ask yourself who should be in charge of us then?
