Socializing health
care is 'the wrong thing to do'
By Thomas E. Niuman Jr.
(Published 1992, News Courier, Charleston,
S.C.)
Many people have endured the agony of being told that the
lifesaving treatment they need is not covered by their health care plan, and many more
surely will if the Clinton's plan is adopted. Universal access does not mean unlimited
care.
Imagine we all have a "right" to health care,
what will life be like? We won't have to worry about trivial things like choosing a
doctor, because that will be done for us, by the "alliance."
We won't have to make tough decisions about how much of our
income to devote to medical care, because the "alliance" will decide that for us
too. Federally mandated and administered compassion (i.e. socialism) is a cowardly
substitute for real compassion. It makes it too easy for us to say "they'll be taken
care of," instead of "I should do something to help." Government enforced
compassion causes resentment by the taxed, humiliation of the "helped" and
deprives the individual the satisfying warmth that is a natural part of genuinely helping
someone.
This country was made great by individual initiative, not
government. There are many organizations - the March of Dimes, the Red Cross etc. - that
use voluntary support to help supply health care to those in need. They do this through
compassion with donations of time, money and material from the local community, and they
do it far more efficiently than any government bureaucracy can or will.
Another argument is that it costs too much. It is still
true that "you get what you pay for." We have the best medical care on the
planet, because we've paid for it.
Then again, maybe we have paid more than we should have,
which can be explained in two words: Medicare and Medicaid. These two federal programs are
previews of what we can expect if the government really gets its fingers into health care.
Removing competition from our health care system (socializing it) will give us mediocre
care from an inefficient, expensive bureaucracy.
Finally, Hillary Clinton stated recently that she wants
universal coverage because it's "the right thing to do." It is precisely the
wrong thing to do, economically and morally.
If we choose to make our government responsible for health
care, is not the next logical step to make it also responsible for our health? And if it
is responsible for our health, is it not then obligated to do away with any identifiable
health threat? Alcohol, caffeine, tobacco products and movie theater popcorn must all be
legislated out of existence (or more accurately, into the black market).
Perhaps the most persuasive argument against socialized
healthcare is a moral one.
Why should a government be chartered to do something that
it would be immoral for a citizen to do? Why should the government be allowed to forcibly
take your property (money) from you and give it to another person (the health care
recipient)? They shouldn't, but if Bill Clinton has his way, they will.
Free enterprise, competition and personal liberty made this
country, and they can save it, but we must have the courage to take "the road less
traveled". Have we learned nothing from the worldwide collapse of socialism?
