Friday, February 15, 2008

Why National Health care will kill your freedom

State-funded health care has always been the flagship project of modern-day welfare statists. Golda Meir is famous, among other things, for diverting funds from the front during her tenure as a minister in 1948, so that the Israeli state-funded health care system could be funded.


Varying arguments exist at to its effectiveness and cost – arguments from cost, life expectancy, infant mortality, and blah, blah, blah. I do not possess the intellectual and statistical tools necessary to properly discuss the effectiveness of this measure, but I will do so once I've researched the issue.


But there is something that should be really glaringly obvious.


Let us suppose that we have a state-owned health care system in place. For simplicity, suppose that this a system where people simply pay for the system from their tax money.


So here are Citizen A, Citizen B, and Citizen C. Should citizen C start smoking – and potentially, cause himself lung cancer – he will thus hike up the health care expenditures of our theoretical country, and thus jack up the health care bill of A and B. If previously, banning smoking was an issue for two or three prudes at best, now citizen A and B have a vested monetary interest in voting for a smoking ban.


When a group of people believes that they're acting for their own self-interest, they may eventually switch to another avenue of profit if the current one doesn't work as well as they expected it to. Conversely, if a group of people believes that they're acting for a higher cause, they'll often get disillusioned, tire of it, and leave. But teach people they can do both at the same time (in the way that teachers' unions persuade everybody that by whining for higher pay, they are actually 'securing the future of our children) – and you have yourself a truly relentless contingent.


Now here are Citizen A and Citizen B – they're well-persuaded that by destroying the hobbies making C's life worthwhile, they're both doing him good and improving their own paycheck. Do you imagine how miserable these two are going to make you?


Consider the United Kingdom with its variety of health-related media fads – a struggle (recently) against smoking in pubs, for compulsory 'health food' in schools, and now, using health as a justification for fingerprinting children. Because, you know, a monitored child is a healthy child. Consider in this vein Israel, with the government still struggling against alcohol consumption. Oh, and consider the War on Drugs.


How does that tie in all of a sudden, you ask?


Once you've persuaded society that it's good and proper to have A and B to pay for C's health care, then the best and most important argument against the war on drugs, against bans on the food-of-the-week, against regulations on how much fashion models may weigh – the argument that a person owns his own body – loses all weight forever. If A and B are compelled to pay for C's health expenses, it would be downright immoral for him to live a lifestyle that keeps A and B's expenses up.


Nationalized health care is the last brick in the wall encasing our freedoms. Once it's in place, it's pointless to rattle our chains and shout "For the love of God, Montressor!"


In that story that doesn't help anybody, either.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Basalism said...

Socialized health care can definitely work. All we have to do is ban innovation and only allow medicine developed before 1950, before treatment was expensive and effective. Then we can all get equal health care and will be able to pay for it.

10:48 PM  
Blogger Allanea said...

That's a point, too.

7:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home