Thomas Jefferson
warned us, "The natural tendency of things is for liberty to yield and
government to gain ground." We see this today. Instead of "change you can
believe in" is universal health care actually about enlarging government and
changing the character of the American people.
The potential to
tie government benefits to a popular loyalty was recognized in the late 1800s by
Otto Von Bismarck. The Iron Chancellor of Germany changed the character of the
German people by instituting social security. He made the government responsible
for the elderly and removed that responsibility from adult children. He thereby
made both dependent upon the largesse of government. Adult children would be
free to benefit from the fruits of their own labor without the burden of their
parents. This was to ensure that in exchange for their sustenance in old age,
everyone would be loyal, obligated and dependent upon the government. Bismarck
thereby successfully created a culture of entitlement and dependency while
hiding the long-term costs.
Now imagine today
the run out cost of millions of U.S. Social Security recipients collecting far
more than they paid in and how the costs have been hidden. While we may not have
to pay directly for our own parents' care, we are unable to avoid paying for
everyone else's. "Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and
Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon.
Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17
percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent." -- Richard Fisher,
president, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
(dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm)
Other changes
threatening the American character go beyond Social Security, which at least
creates the illusion of being an insurance annuity bought with our own payroll
taxes. Not long ago people were ashamed of not paying their bills. But for some
Americans their character has already been changed. We see TV ads appealing to
overextended borrowers: "You don't have to make your mortgage payments"-- "You
don't have to pay your credit card balances," and soon you won't even have to
pay your medical bills.
After years of
conditioning, some people actually believe the politicians who tell them they
have a "right" to government health care, and the right to have someone else pay
for it. A "right," however, can never be a right if it imposes a burden on
someone else. Upon reading the daily Letters to The Editor, it's clear those
writers favoring universal health care believe other people should be "forced"
to pay their doctor bills.
Not only is this
a powerful incentive to support universal care but a powerful incentive to vote
for those in Congress promising such health care. People forget a government
that can take your property, put you in jail, and sentence you to death today,
may be able to deny you end of life care tomorrow. Particularly, if you cost too
much in the last years of your life. "Almost a third of the money spent by
Medicare -- about $66.8 billion a year" reported
Newsweek, "goes to chronically ill
patients in the last two years of life,"
newsweek.com/id/215291.
What happens if the government decides to curtail their care? More and more
people are awakening to a military "Whiskey, Tango Foxtrot" moment. (WTF --
formerly SNAFU).
Today politicians
tell us: give us your money (taxes) and you shall have not only food stamps,
affordable housing, subsidized mortgages, buses and trolleys, utility life-line
rates, free parks, libraries, beaches and health care, (To each according to
need), but also middle-class subsidies for Amtrak, Chrysler and GM, farmers,
bankers, insurance companies, SBA loans, operas, symphonies, sports stadiums,
ball teams and their owners, golf courses, convention centers and subsidized
government health care too boot. (To each according to political contributions).
The Democratic
Party has apparently adopted the unofficial motto: "To each according to need,
from each according to ability," but sanitizes it by another name ... "Tax the
Rich!" Their bible, George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," is a primer on
transposing the meaning of words. To be fair however, Republicans have joined
Democrats in taking from the rich to give to the poor, taking from the poor to
give to the rich, and taking from the middle class to give to the middle class.
This, in exchange for votes and political contributions. Both parties build
coalitions by making people dependent on entitlements and transfers of wealth.
Once politicians,
Democrat or Republican, learn that "All political power comes from what you can
do to -- or-- for someone," they've got it made. Those who take from Peter to
pay Paul can always count on Paul's support. No wonder there are more than
80,000 lobbyists in Washington asking for a share of the fishes and the loaves.
When everyone is both winner and loser all are pitted against all jockeying for
government handouts. And once granted it's nearly impossible to rescind any
handouts as perceived losers mobilize into effective voting blocks.
Government has no
money, no miracles of its own. Before injecting money into the economy to
conjure jobs and benefits, it must first take money out of the economy, through
taxes or borrowing. This is our money, earned by us, first taken then returned
minus handling charges. When the government assuages voluntary health insurance,
establishes a monopoly, and make everyone dependent upon government everyone
loses the freedom to choose and pay for the cheapest private alternatives best
suited to their specific needs. Unfortunately, the government doesn't allow
insurance companies to provide cheap coverage. The last thing we should
voluntarily entrust any government with is the power over life and death
decisions. Think about China's one-child life policy or Colorado Gov. Lamb's
assertion that "Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way."
Remember: When
government assumes responsibility for paying our health bills it assumes
responsibility for our lifestyles. Just as the government has a right to now
dictate the salaries and jobs of companies that accept government bailouts to
save taxpayer money, shall it also have the right to determine what food we eat
-- is it healthy or not? To save taxpayer money shall bureaucrats decide whether
to pay for risky motorcycle and skiing accidents, and at what age we still
qualify for expensive bypass surgery? Is Congress concerned about your health
care or your votes? We're going backwards from the future. History has proven
the dead hand of government is never able to match the living "invisible hand"
of the free market.
Schnaubelt, president of Citizens for Private Property Rights, has been a
commercial real estate broker for 35 years and was a San Diego
city councilman
from 1977-81.
