"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
-Gerald Ford
The US healthcare system is not in a good state. Nearly one sixth of the US population is uninsured. Our Healthcare system is very expensive and is continuing to get more expensive. It accounts for 15% of the US GDP, higher than any other country. Healthcare costs are also the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.
The dismal condition of the healthcare system has prompted many to call for the government to provide more healthcare services. Some have even suggested that healthcare should be entirely funded by the government universally for all citizens, like in Canada and most European nations.
While, sadly, I must admit that many European countries have socialized systems which are superior to our own healthcare system, I am nonetheless opposed to Socialized Medicine (though I firmly believe there need to be radical changes made to our healthcare system). Most of my reasons for taking this position are typical, that healthcare is a service best left to the market forces of the private sector, and that the high taxes it would entail would hurt the economy. But there is yet another reason to be opposed Socialized Medicine, one that is rarely mentioned but no less important.
It has to do with self-ownership. If the government assume responsibility for caring for our bodies, then it would have a stronger case for regulating them. Since the government would be paying for health services, the sickness of one would affect the wallets of all.
As analogy, think of all the laws and regulations governing automotive transportation. First, you need to acquire a license to drive at all. The car you choose to drive needs to be registered with the government. It needs to be inspected annually. Once you’re finished with all that, there are laws governing how you drive, like speed limits, stop lights, stop signs, etc. All this makes sense, because driving is and - by its nature - has to be in the public sphere. The choices that one driver makes could potentially endanger the lives of other drivers on the road, so the government is well within its rights in this area (with the exception of the seatbelt law, of course).
But what if personal health were in the public sphere? What if the personal health choices of one individual affected everyone else? Well, the answer is that the government would have a plausible argument to govern our health choices just as it does our driving choices.
This phenomenon is already taking place. Recently, Trans fats were banned in New York City restaurants. Responding to critics who said the regulation infringed on personal liberty and personal responsibility, proponents of the ban argued that it was justified because the negative health effects of trans fats were being paid for by the taxpayers (in part). This argument is used to justify other infringing regulations too, like smoking bans in bars, seatbelt laws and laws relating to marijuana and alcohol.
Socializing our healthcare system would be a step in the wrong direction with respect to personal liberty. This is an important point because it highlights the relationship between a free-market economy and civil liberties. The more services the government provides for us, the more it is in a position to demand more authority over our lives, regardless of the initial compassion upon which the service was based. Gerald Ford’s words continue to ring true.
10 comments:
Well, it's kind of started already. Texas governor Rick Perry just signed a bill into law that would mandate all girls recieve an HPV vaccine in the 6th grade (age 10-11?). This is already causing a stir because the religious-right thinks the vaccine makes it ok for teens to have sex and the female-left can't wait because HPV leads to cervical cancer which is apparently an enormous killer.
Socialized medicine would negate any argument that either side has in this matter because if the government is paying they can mandate what they choose.
A very interesting point I've never considered. I see where you're coming from, and what you're warning of is a possibility. But how likely is it?
Slippery slope arguments often turn out to be an overreaction. Do we have any measure of how Europe's healthcare system have impacted their liberties? Depending upon how long Europe has had its present system, we might be able to discern whether your fears are founded or not.
Something I neglected to point out: this country has, by and large, done an excellent job of giving the national government powers that have the potential to be abused, but simultaneously constructing restrictions to limit that power. Of course there are exceptions that are of great concern (recent precedents set by Bush on detainment procedures, for instance), but they're trivial compared to what COULD have happened.
Legislation for socialized health care would have to include a LOT of limitation on what the government can do.
“Slippery slope arguments often turn out to be an overreaction. Do we have any measure of how Europe's healthcare system have impacted their liberties? Depending upon how long Europe has had its present system, we might be able to discern whether your fears are founded or not.”
I think the strongest evidence justifying my fear is that it is already happening; our freedoms are already being taken away in the name of (collective) health. I’m not sure if it’s right to compare the US to Europe in this regard, since many European put socialized systems in place a long time ago. However, I am aware of certain abuses in Europe relating to health. Most recently, France banned smoking in all restaurants, including cafes, nation-wide. In the Netherlands, I’ve heard of talk of banning trans fats (nation-wide). I’ve also heard of cases of coerced euthanasia in some Scandinavian countries.
“Something I neglected to point out: this country has, by and large, done an excellent job of giving the national government powers that have the potential to be abused, but simultaneously constructing restrictions to limit that power. Of course there are exceptions that are of great concern (recent precedents set by Bush on detainment procedures, for instance), but they're trivial compared to what COULD have happened.”
Please provide examples for this claim. Consider Social Security numbers. When the Social Security System was first introduced, civil libertarians complained that the SSN# would become a Citizen ID Number, and that is exactly what has happened.
Also, let me point out that the threat comes mostly from state and local regulations, not federal. Constitutionally, the federal government lacks the authority to make such laws. The only thing the federal government could do in this capacity is use it’s power of the purse: threaten to withhold funding from states which don’t place certain restrictions on its residents.
"The only thing the federal government could do in this capacity is use it’s power of the purse: threaten to withhold funding from states which don’t place certain restrictions on its residents."
And they already do so in other realms. Montana recently had to post and enforce speed limits (of 80mph) on interstate highways throughout the state where previously there existed none. These are federal roads that are served and protected by state agencies (ie. Montana State Highway Patrol) but the funding for maintenance and repair comes from the federal government. The feds applied pressure in the form of witholding maintenance costs and Montana caved and posted speed limits.
Yeah, its a kind of loophole the federal government uses to wield more power over the states than the framers intended it to wield.
Though I disagree with the universal banning of smoking in restaurants, I don't think that's as frightening as the things you seem to be worried about in the US. There's ample evidence that second hand smoke has a detrimental effect on health, so that example doesn't serve your purpose well: that issue has more to do with personal accountability (one's obligation to keep his nasty habits to himself) than with a perceived attempt by the government to limit the amount of money it has to shell out on healthcare.
The banning of trans fat, as well, doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. I think the surgeon general recently declared that obesity is the nation's number one health problem, meaning it's even worse than smoking. I'm not in favor of big government, and the idea of regulations on what we can and can't eat is unsettling, but this situation may be well founded.
Coerced euthanasia, on the other hand, is exactly the sort of thing that we should be worried about. This example illustrates the legitimacy of your concerns. As I said, if any socialized healthcare legislation were to be introduced, strict limits and oversight would be essential.
"Please provide examples for this claim. Consider Social Security numbers. When the Social Security System was first introduced, civil libertarians complained that the SSN# would become a Citizen ID Number, and that is exactly what has happened."
I stated originally that there were exceptions, and the existence of such exceptions hardly indicates that federal power has never been tempered. Now, here's an example of power being tempered:
In the 1930's, during the Great Depression, congress enacted and FDR signed the National Industrial Recovery Act. The NIRA was passed in an attempt to create fair competition in an otherwise fucked up economy--it allowed the President to regulate what certain industries could and couldn't produce, and how much they could charge for their products--it was basically price fixing. A few Jewish poultry businessmen were arrested for not complying with the act, but they appealed their case up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court then struck down the law for two reasons: A) it argued that Congress cannot arbitrarily give the President legislative abilities, and B) that congress, as stated in the constitution, can only regulate commerce between states, not within one state (and the poultry brothers' business was localized within New York, I think).
There's another example of federal power being balanced within the same case. FDR didn't like the Supreme Court's decision, so he asked Congress for the power to appoint one SC justice for each current justice over seventy. This would effectively allow the president to appoint additional judges who would favor his political viewpoints during virtually any time (as most SC justices are elderly).
Now, even though FDR was extremely popular, and his party had a majority in Congress, Congress (including members of his own party) told him to fuck himself. FDR, during the next election, proposed his own candidates to replace his party members who voted against his request. None of them beat the incumbents.
Another great example took place in the 1950's. Workers in the steel industry were, at this time, meeting with the steel unions to negotiate a new contract. They couldn't agree to one, so the workers went on strike. This was during the Korean war, and President Truman was worried that the strike would constrict the supply of resources for the war.
Truman went ahead and tried to make the steel industry government property so he could order the workers back to their jobs. The steel companies, however, contested the executive order in the Supreme Court, and the SC struck down Truman's order, arguing that such powers were no enumerated in the constitution.
Truman tried a similar thing prior to that with striking railroad workers. He asked Congress to draft the workers into the army so that he could order them back to work. Congress said, fuck you.
History abounds with examples of government officials or bodies attempting to overstep their boundaries and being completely rebuffed. As I said, our country's record is not entirely clean, but my point remains: we've done a pretty good job of keeping government bodies in check in the past. We've already demonstrated our ability to establish limitations where necessary, and so there's certainly no reason to think that proper restriction with respect to socialized healthcare is out of our reach.
As far as it being handled by state governments, you may be right. But bare in mind that state law is trumped by constitutional law. And the constitution doesn't allow things like being forced to eat exclusively government manufactured health bars.
And yes, the federal government does have the power of the purse. I believe that Congress also threatened to withhold funding for roads and highways to pressure states into adopting above 21 alcohol laws.
“Though I disagree with the universal banning of smoking in restaurants, I don't think that's as frightening as the things you seem to be worried about in the US. There's ample evidence that second hand smoke has a detrimental effect on health, so that example doesn't serve your purpose well: that issue has more to do with personal accountability (one's obligation to keep his nasty habits to himself) than with a perceived attempt by the government to limit the amount of money it has to shell out on healthcare.
The banning of trans fat, as well, doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. I think the surgeon general recently declared that obesity is the nation's number one health problem, meaning it's even worse than smoking. I'm not in favor of big government, and the idea of regulations on what we can and can't eat is unsettling, but this situation may be well founded.”
A private restaurant has the right to serve any kind of food it wants. It also has the right to allow its patrons to smoke. If you don’t like it, or your concerned about the health effects, then go elsewhere, or just have a home-cooked meal. Personally, I despise smoking. I also am very health conscious and avoid eating trans fats. But I do not trust the government enough to let it determine what is good and bad in terms of health. Let the individual decide for himself. The government may be right in this case, in determining tobacco and trans fats are bad, but it is wrong in others.
The best example of this is prostitution. Often, the rationale for outlawing prostitution is that it spreads disease. This is false because people go to prostitutes anyway. It would makes more sense to legalize it. Then the government could monitor it, make sure the prostitutes get tested monthly, etc.
The real reason the government against it is because the government is heavily (and increasingly) influenced by Christian Conservatives. Christian Conservatives are against legalizing prostitution because they hate sex. And if it were legalized, more people would go to prostitutes. It has not much to do with health for them. But by using the health rationale, they’re able to impress their religious values into law.
Another example is the Christian Right’s opposition to this vaccine for the disease that causes cervical cancer. Since the disease is sexually transmittable, they argue that it would encourage teenage girls to have sex.
This is the danger. In an ideal world, we could trust government to decide what is good and what is bad for us. But I don’t trust them. Many of them have Hidden agendas. Or they could just be honestly wrong about certain issues.
"History abounds with examples of government officials or bodies attempting to overstep their boundaries and being completely rebuffed. As I said, our country's record is not entirely clean, but my point remains: we've done a pretty good job of keeping government bodies in check in the past. We've already demonstrated our ability to establish limitations where necessary, and so there's certainly no reason to think that proper restriction with respect to socialized healthcare is out of our reach.”
The thing about FDR. He didn’t need to appoint additional justices, since the then-current ones changed their positions and stopped deeming his proposal unconstitutional. It’s call the switch in time that saved the nine.
Since, FDR the federal government has steadily wielded more power over the states, mainly because of the failings of the Supreme Court.
In the constitution, it states that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has broadened this clause to allow absolutely anything. The Fed Govt. can now outlaw pretty much any product it wants.
California tried to legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, but the Fed Govt. said no. It was taken to the Supreme Court. The defendant argued that California has the right to legalize marijuana, that the Fed Govt. only has the authority to prohibit California (and citizens within California) from transporting it to other states.
The court disagreed. Their bizarre reasoning was that, by legalizing marijuana, California affects the national market for that substance, and makes it harder for the Fed Govt. to regulate it. It’s a clear violation of state’s rights.
Check out the case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raich_v._Ashcroft
Michael -
You stated that you don't want the government determining and legalizing what is healthy for us, but then you argue that if prostitution were legal, the government could regulate it. Doesn't your latter point contradict your former?
Anonymous-
No. My point was that, hypothetically, it would be regulated if it were legalized, and thus safer. So, even if your sole concern is public health, then keeping prostitution illegal doesn't make sense. Even if you don't care about individual liberty at all, there is a good health argument justifying legalizing prostitution.
Given this, I came to the conclusion that many conservative politicians just use the public health rationale as an excuse to impose their religious values onto society.
However, as someone who IS concerned with individual liberty, I probably wouldn't favor any kind of regulation. Market forces would be enough of an incentive to motivate brothels to be as safe as possible, in my view.
Post a Comment