Sick and Sicker
That is the name of a documentary that Logan Darrow Clements is trying to make to rebut Michael Moore's upcoming "Sicko" which touts Socialized Medicine.
In an interview with Frontpage Magazine, Logan explains why.
He said, " I simply don't want the government to force me and everyone else into
socialized medicine. I don't like being forced around when I haven't done anything wrong and I can see that nearly everything that government does is a complete and utter failure, often with deadly consequences."
This is one part of what my blog is trying to say. In a democracy, votrepreneurs (politicians) are slowly taking away more and more of our freedom as the state grows more powerful. Votrepreneurs gain and retain power by distributing other people's money to benefit his group of voters. He dreams up new ways to spend that money through mainly ineffective government programs. In so doing, the government grows in size and intrudes into lives. As a result, we end up with less liberty.
As stated in my earlier article, "Did America's Founders want Democracy", I argued that they wanted to give the people liberty and not democracy. Loss of freedom has happened in the case of Canada's Socialized Health system, according to Clements.
He said, "People are not aware how close we are to having socialized medicine or single payer foisted upon us. Everyone will be forced into this system rich and poor, old and young. If it is designed like Canada's system it will be illegal for you to pay for faster treatment even if you want to. If you have a life threatening condition or you are in pain you'll simply have to wait in line for your turn to be treated through the government system.
Why are we waiting?
Government bureaucrats will decide if and when you get treatment. But the affluent pro-liberty people who could fund this movie just don't realize how close we are to disaster. Perhaps they won't realize what a disaster it is until they need medical care a few years from now and it resembles a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles."
I don't want a faceless government bureaucrat deciding for me when I can have treatment and what kind of treatment I am allowed to have. The best way for us to receive our health care is through the free market. The free market gives us, well, more freedom. We are free to choose what kind of treatment we can have and when.
Besides, government intervention have usually been costly failures. Clements explained why.
He said, "The reason that nearly everything that government does is a failure is because everything that government does is an act of force. You are forced to do X. You are forced to not do Y. It takes money by force from its rightful owner and gives it to another person. As humans our primary tool of survival is our mind. However, when the government forces us around we are unable to use our mind. Instead of each person using their own mind and acting in their own best self interest we are forced to act in a way that suits the political interests of the people that made the law."
The basic problem with Socialized Medicine is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody - be it government (ie other taxpayers) or insurance companies (ie the shareholders) or yourself pay for your health care. If you are not paying for your own health care, you are passing it to government or the insurance companies. Trouble is that when you don't pay for it, you demand more and the best health care. If the government passes a law that says all lunches are now free then you eat steaks instead of hamburgers. It works the same for health care which the Europeans are finding out. As a result, health care costs have ballooned.
Those on the left who tout Socialized Medicine should study the effects it has on places that tried it - Canada, UK, Sweden etc. In the run-up to the elections next year, we can expect votrepreneurs to come up with their Socialized Medicine schemes.
Barack Obama has unveiled his Health Care plan. As usual, it involves buying votes with other people's money - the time honored way for votrepreneurs to gain and retain power. He proposed that the scheme be funded by eliminating Bush's tax cuts which has propelled the US economy the past few years. Obama estimates that his scheme will cost taxpayers $65 million. His scheme is not as expensive as that of John Edwards who estimates would cost $120 billion. So far Clinton has not come up with details of her own plans. I guess she wants to see which way the wind is blowing.
But you can be sure of this. Whatever, they come up with, it will be a combination of tax increases and a degree of coercion of employers, insurers and individuals. With coercion comes a loss of liberty to all of us.