I wonder if people even think about what they are saying?

I have a friend that has organized a citizens group in Wyoming. His group is attempting to get a state constitutional amendment passed that would guarantee a citizen’s right to make their own health care choices, basically making the Obamacare law illegal in Wyoming. He forwarded me an e mail exchange from someone who opposed their initiative. The gentleman who wrote against allowing people to have the right to their own health care decisions basic argument was “I think this is a good idea for everyone so the government should be allowed to do it”. Just to make sure I did not mis-intrepid his argument I have directly quoted him below (in red).

“I feel you're driven by some deep-seated, Libertarian, freedom creed run amok. In order for society to function, we must live co-oerativel This is the basic flaw, in my opinion, of Libertarianism. Just one simple example; there would be no National Parks in a Libertarian world.

I think the auto analogy holds up quite well; we want to require that people have health insurance so that they don't do harm to our local hospitals and the entire health care system by becoming a burden on all of us when they require expensive care. I don't ever plan to smash into someone in my car and cause them $300,000 worth of hospital care, yet I carry insurance for such an eventuality - as I should. As everyone should. As everyone must.

Yes, there are some preventive care things that would be covered by Health Care Reform. This is simply good economics (never mind the humanitarian side of the issue). My electric co-op hands out FREE compact florescent light bulbs because it makes good fiscal sense. We should do the same with preventive care for the same reason. We're trying to manage costs here. Auto insurance companies rewards safe drivers (lower premiums), so in a sense they are paying for preventive care if you maintain your vehicle.”

I had to really think on how to frame an argument with a person who thinks we have to much freedom.

Also how do you explain that nothing is free. His electrical co-op pays for light bulbs it gives to it's members. He is a member so he paid for the bulbs. We can hide the cost or pass it on but in the end the citizens pay for everything.

My first problem with his e mail has nothing really to do the health care decision but might explain why his logic is so flawed. Like so many liberals he just assumes his view is correct. He points out that in a more free society that there might not be any federal parks, like it is a absolute given fact that no federal parks is a bad thing. Now I like federal parks as much as the next person, I have yearly passes to the federal park system, my father has a life time pass to the federal park system, I support the federal park system with a donation every time I visit one but I am not arrogant enough to think everyone hold my view or interest. I am sure there are many people who have no use for the federal park system and think it is a complete waste of tax money, money that could be better spent on say providing health care.

My real disagreement to his line of thinking is where does the federal government get its power to mandate that citizens must purchase a particular product? Is there anything that restrains the federal government and if so what is it? In my view the only thing that restrains the federal government is the US Constitution. That document definitively calls out exactly what power the federal government has.

If you think the general welfare clause (1) gives the federal government unlimited power to do whatever it thinks is best then the government has no restraint, why did they even bother writing the rest of the constitution? Why not just say “the federal government can do whatever it thinks is best”? If this view is correct, the government could use the general welfare clause to say “we have decided it is best if all black citizens sit in the back of the bus”.

If you think the laws written by Congress and signed by the President are what limit the government, then there are no restraints: the government can write laws that give them the power to do any anything they want. If this view is correct, the government could pass a law that says “all black citizens must sit in the back of the bus”.

If you think majority elections limit the government’s power then there is no restraint. The majority can elect people who can do anything they want to the minority. The majority could elect representatives that go to Washington and pass laws that say “the majority want all black citizens to sit in the back of the bus”

The thing that prevents any majority from discrimination against any minority, even a minority of a single citizen is the Constitution and I see nothing in the constitution granting the federal government the power to make me buy health insurance. Now if you believe the government has no restraints what so ever then you can easily justify any behavior by the government. That line of thinking works well in Cuba. (Actually didn’t Castro just admit that it didn’t?)

My second disagreement from our liberal friend is the auto insurance analogy is weak. First, auto insurance is mandated by the state governments not the federal; state governments have more leeway to enact personal protection laws. Second, auto insurance protects me from being harmed by someone else, mandatory health insurance protects me from myself, big difference. States have an obligation to protect me from being harmed by another citizen. It is true that we have laws that make hospitals provide healthcare to anyone, and that is used to justify support of mandatory health insurance. The argument being that people who do not buy insurance are a burden on everyone, but if a person cannot afford health insurance so we have to pay for their insurance aren’t they still a burden on society? If the government has the right to protect me from myself, what is to prevent the government from banning sports like football or skiing or anything that the government deems bad for me personally.

As the writer correctly points out to have a functioning society we must cooperate. Co-operation is me donating to the United Way, co-operation is me paying my taxes to support the government, and co-operation is stopping on the side of the road to help a person with a flat tire or giving someone a ride. Co-operation is even supporting chartable programs through state, county and local government and private institutions. The federal government, with no constitutional authority, ordering me to contribute to the United Way or buy a product I do not want with the threat of going to jail if I don’t is coercion, and that is exactly what any government wealth re-distribution system or personal protection law is doing.

Even if the citizens were to pass an amendment to the constitution that gave the government the power the liberals seem to think it gets from the general welfare clause, I would still oppose this health insurance bill because it will not have the desired effect.

The President has now admitted after a recently released CBO report that the bill will not lower health care cost as we were told. (2)

Already we have seen a number of instances where the new health insurance bill has hurt the availability of health insurance.

We now know that HAS type polices will be much less affordable for employees because the new bill restricts the amount the employer can contribute to the plan. Think about that for a minute, the government now says the employer is not allowed to pay for as much of an employee’s heath insurance as they used to!! This is helping? Here at the company I work for this will cost the employee thousands of dollars a year in out of pocket expenses.(3)

McDonalds now says it will be forces to drop its lower level health care because it does not provide the list of required features the federal government mandates and the company cannot justify the higher expense for entry level and part time workers.

All major insurance companies have now discontinued their child only policies. You can no longer buy health insurance for just your child because the insurance industry research shows that people will not worry about purchasing insurance until a child gets sick, they can just sign them up then and the insurance company must provide coverage. After the sickness is over you could just drop the policy and sign up again when you need it. The fines for not having insurance are lower than paying for the insurance so you are money ahead. (4)

The Presidents insistence that you if you like your insurance you be able to keep it is an absolute lie. HAS programs are being legislated out of existence, federal mandates are driving many policies out of existence and most of the mandates are not even in effect yet. This year hundreds of thousands of Medicare subscribers will be force to switch policies because the new health care law restricts how many plans an insurer can offer to subscribers. Somehow choice has become a bad thing. (5)

People are willing to trade away their liberty for the government provided security of health insurance, or protection from the unknowns of the free enterprise system. But how many more liberties are we willing to give up? The thirst for a problem free existence and perfectly safe existence provided by daddy government in the end will leave us with no security at all unless we do exactly what daddy government tells us to do. We will have traded freedom for tyranny, traded the chance to be anything or do anything in exchange for the mandate to be or do whatever daddy government demands.

So many people today see liberty as some kind of an intellectual excessive, something that does not really exist. We have lost the connection that liberty is a very real thing.

(1) We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(2) http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

(3) http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/248846/ten-tax-increases-obamacare-avik-roy

(4) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/health-insurance-providers-administration/story?id=11701760

(5) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/25/new-medicare-rule-means-m-seniors-switch-drug-plans-year/