Liberty
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
"He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
"He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
--George Orwell, Animal Farm
13 comments:
You know who didn't have any choice? The uninsured who will be able to get healthcare when they couldn't before. The bill is flawed, but it's a hell of a way from Red Dawn. But... there's a black man in the whitehouse! I guess everything else is semantics?
@ Harlo: By trotting out the President's race as an issue, it seems to say more about the accuser than the accused.
It's not the cover of a book that concerns me at all, it's the content inside. In this case, I disagree with the President and Democratic party's Health care plan. Many other methods to reform health care and extend coverage were possible without having the government impinge upon the personal liberties of Americans. They studiously avoided the lower cost, and less intrusive methods of trying to solve the issue.
Moreover, had the President and Congress focused on fixing other entitlement programs currently on the verge of collapse such as Medicare and Social Security, then personally I would have more faith in the government's ability to manage this new endeavor. Instead, history shows that the best intentions of our government (regardless of party) lead to a failed programs.
Much like Caesar and his fateful decision, I believe the Democratic party has in a sense crossed the Rubicon. Caesar's military move, in effect began the end of the Roman Republic. I believe this particular action, no matter how well intentioned, is akin to that pivotal moment, changing forever our own Republic.
I respect your right to voice (and post)your contrary opinion. Besides, I really like the Red Dawn reference, even if I personally do not feel the need to shout "Wolverines" and take up arms. I am more about ballots than bullets myself. See you at the polls in November.
So you take issue with the executions rather than the philosophy? Because that was not the impression I garnered from the initial post. Making it illegal not to have healthcare doesn't strike me as a brilliant solution, but I don't regard it as the death of freedom. Why can't people oppose the bill with some sense of perspective? Your furor weakens your arguments more than anything else, I think, and if you really think healthcare reform is necessary, why ride the same wave as Palin and the other populist assholes dominating the discussion?
A sad day indeed. Is this how our freedom ends, not with a bang but a whimper? Of course, to those who celebrate today, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. But for those of us who lament, freedom is the only thing of true value. Ave Atqa Vale liberty.
"Making it illegal not to have healthcare doesn't strike me as a brilliant solution"
Yeh, but now it's illegal to not have INSURANCE...pay up brothers! The insurance companies are laughing their way to the bank.
@Harlo
By the passage of this bill, citizens of the U.S. have currently lost some of their liberty to the Government that is supposed to serve them. Regardless of stated noble intentions, the method, intent, and content of the bill made in does matter as it is indicative of the true intent. You yourself state making it mandatory (illegal not have it) is an issue. Yes it is an issue, one of control, not of trying to better the health of 10% of Americans.
You read in far too much to my point based upon your own prejudices and assumptions, and by doing so fail to see my rather simple point:
We in the U.S. wake up this morning less free than we were the day before. If that simple fact does not trouble you or at at least raise cause for concern, then there's nothing more I can say to you.
By the way is it odd the government now controls student loans as part of the health care bill? Now if you need a loan for higher education, the government controls your ability to get it. That's an unsettling thought because if you disagree with which ever party is in control, will that impact your ability to get a loan or a higher education? I don't know, but history would show at some point some government or party will abuse that power, they always do.
Canada has universal health care insurance, paid for through taxes. No health care system is perfect, but I rest easier knowing I can go to the hospital or the doctor, at any time, and I don't pay for the visit. As a Canadian, me and my family have used our health care system many, many times, and the negative reports that are being fed to the American people about Canadian Health Care are not our experience at all. I have always received timely treatment.
Lots of other western democracies have universal health care. All of Western Europe in fact. IIRC, in Germany, health care insurance is also mandatory, but, similar to the US solution, you can choose any private provider you want.
I think a universal health care system like the UK's or Canada's would serve Americans better, but at the end of the day, I guess that is not my debate, but yours.
I'm saddened to see the demonizing of universal health care. I have a cousin in Texas. His greatest fear is not losing not his job, but his company health care plan.
Incidentally, Canada provides universal health coverage at a cost of roughly 10.5% of GDP. American health care does not cover everyone, and costs closer to 15%. The problem is not that health care is inherently expensive, but that health care is the US is treated as a profit-making endeavour. In Canada, public hospitals are essentially non-profit.
I really enjoy your blog, and apologize for having stuck my nose in where it don't belong.
My feelings about the health care issue aside, I have problems equating the passage of a health care bill with a man marching on the capital with an army. A matter of scale if nothing else.
@ Paladin-
First I very much appreciate your opinions and your reasoned points. That you happen to be a Canadian citizen (instead of U.S.) does not make your points any less valid or poignant. I very much appreciate divergent and reasoned contrary views as it helps me to better understand and think about my own views to see where I am wrong.
My Step-brother has lived for the past 9 years in Calgary with his Canadian wife and 2 kids. His wife is a former nurse under your health care system and suffice to say their experiences with Canadian health care are not positive. That does not mean their view is the one truth, simply that they have had negative experiences that cause them to dislike nationalized health care in contrast to the U.S. system.
That does not mean the U.S. system is not in need of some fixing, just that our President's plan is a bad one in my estimation and that the full effects of it are not yet known by the President, the Congress, nor the people they were elected to serve.
From a financial standpoint we already have 2 bankrupt entitlement programs no one is attempting to fix and we have compounded those issue with a 3rd in a time where we are really near bankruptcy already as a nation. It is a difficult and frankly worrisome path which we now venture down as a nation.
@Narmer
I can understand your dislike of the Rubicon reference. My point is not that Stormtroopers or revolutionaries have seized are capitol. My point is Caesar bringing troops into Rome fundamentally transformed the Republic of Rome. Rome had already slowly been sliding, and Caesar's move was the tipping point away from Rome being a Republic. That is my point with regards to health care. Our own republic seems to have been sliding away from its Constitutional roots toward something else. Socializing health care, making the purchase of it a requirement for citizenship, and giving the government (regardless of party) control over a formerly free market enterprise comprising 1/6th of our economy seems like a Rubicon-esque tipping point. My explaining it does not make it an accurate example, but for whatever reason it stands out as comparable in my mind.
Thanks for taking time to discuss, not rant, and I now return you to our regularly scheduled gaming shenanigans. :D
Keep Calm and Carry On!
Game on.
:D
Maybe a comparison to the reforms of the Gracchi brothers. Many patricians felt their programs were against traditions and an infringement upon freedom. In some cases the patricians were correct. No military moves by the Gracchi, though, just reforms.
@ Paladin: It is good to have the input from someone from the Great White North. One thing about this debate puzzles me though: the focus on whatever % of GDP the US spends on healthcare. Healthcare and defense spending seem to be the only segments of the economy that people worry we are spending too much on. But why? If the US spends 2% of GDP on ipods (a figure I am making up) would that mean we have an ipod crisis?
Why isn't the fact that the US spends 15% of GDP on health care a sign that people in the US value healthcare and thus want to consume more of it? To return to the ipod reference, if our spending on ipods as a percentage of GDP increases I don't think anyone would think we are in a crisis or bat an eye.
The difference, I suspect, is twofold. First, there is the assumption that spending on healthcare will continue to increase at ever higher rates until it consumes a huge portion of our economy. I humbly submit that cannot happen: there are not enough doctors or health care providers to allow it. Second, I think many do not like to consider health care as any other product or service that must be paid for. It is different, and therefore should be available without cost to the consumer.
The second point is really a moral sentiment, and is I think the biggest driver of the debate. At the end of the day many just think it isn't fair that this is something you should have to pay for. Scheming politicians argued the first point as a supposedly neutral reason to enact legislation that really addresses the first.
If this program actually reduces the percentage of GDP that is spent on health care, or even comes in at budgeted cost, it will be the first such federal entitlement in US history. And to those who believe in the moral point, well as the man said TANSTAAFL.
@Narmer-The Gracchi are an interesting reference point. Depending upon who you read, they are described as noble "power tot he people" reformers, or manipulative opportunists manipulating the people for their own political ends. Frankly you can argue both and I tend to think they started with a noble idea, but it became perverted as they gained power and then caused them each to succumb to the power corrupts maxim.
With regards to our own President, well he is a politician and like any politician, there is what is said and that usually is contrary to what they actually mean to do. I hated (and still do) the ill named Patriot Act. So to the promise of health care may well be a curse in reality.
@IDG, well said.
Post a Comment