|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Saturday, 04 July 2009 00:00 |
|
How do you view Independence Day? Do you see it as a day to celebrate the independence of 18th century American colonists from the King of England? Or do you see it as a day to celebrate the independence of the individual from a controlling and unjust government? Is July 4 primarily about American history--or about individual rights?
To me, it's definitely the latter. Yet if I'm right, there's little to celebrate. Yes, we still enjoy freedom of speech, thought and very important political freedoms in this country. I won't make light of these. I won't pretend there's no difference between living in the United States and, say, China--or Iran, or North Korea. But as I watch our government slowly strip the individual of nearly all of his economic rights--to keep what's his, and not to punish his success--I cannot help but wonder: How long until political rights take a hit? If the vast majority of voting Americans believe that the government may do whatever it pleases in the name of "economic security and stability"--even when its policies plainly lead to just the opposite--then what other rationalizations will a majority of my fellow Americans soon permit of our phony, deceitful politicians?
You can't have totalitarian rule in one arena and total freedom in another. The government that feels entitled to your wealth and your body--as in the nationalization of health care, and the nationalization of energy production ("cap and trade")--will sooner, rather than later, feel just as entitled to choose how many children you have, what books or web sites you read, or with whom you choose to associate. I will celebrate Independence Day today--but only warily. If and when a majority of Americans come to understand that our current government is operating on the very same premises as the King of England all those years ago, we'll have something much more important to celebrate. |
|
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Friday, 03 July 2009 00:00 |
There's a lot of talk of the "public option" health insurance to be offered to all Americans--funded by taxes, of course. But what about the "option" of the doctors? Health insurance coverage means nothing unless there are doctors and surgeons to provide it. What if they don't want to participate in it? If Americans are supposed to have the option to take government coverage, or not, will doctors and surgeons likewise have the option not to accept it? Many doctors refuse to take various forms of private sector insurance. Will government "let" them do the same? The failure of anybody to even ask this question further proves the inherent dishonesty in this so called "debate" over national health insurance. Proponents of national health insurance know full well that the question is irrelevant. The purpose of the "public option" is to ensure that private options are driven out of business. The most private option of all is the exchange, dollar-for-dollar, between doctor and patient. Shopping for health insurance in a totally deregulated market would be another option. None of these options will be allowed by the current regime. Why? Because they get in the way of government control. Under the coming monopoly, patients will be forced to undergo medical care only as the government prescribes it. Doctors will have the "option" to work for the government--or close up shop. Under a government run system, the only option is gunpoint. And that's no option. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Ethics
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Thursday, 02 July 2009 00:00 |
Comic Wanda Sykes once said, "The older I get, the less I care--about a LOT of things." Funny, and true, if only a part of the truth. Here's how I view it, from the perspective of middle-age: The older I get, the less I care about the things I never cared about--and the MORE I care about the things I do care about. In other words: Life becomes more valuable with age. And what you value, as well as what you don't value, becomes clearer all the time. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Wednesday, 01 July 2009 00:00 |
I wonder how universal health coverage will sit with trial lawyers who make money in the malpractice business? Once all Americans are covered by government insurance, how will malpractice claims be paid? Doctors will have even lower incomes than before. Of course, to the socialists who now run things, that's a good feature of socialized medicine since, according to them, money is the root of all evil, at least in medicine. As it is, malpractice premiums are skyrocketing to where many doctors must close up shop. Once all or most medicine is public, like most schools are public, will trial lawyers sue the government on behalf of patients? It will be interesting to watch it unfold, if and when government becomes the insurer of everybody. I know that in Canada and Europe, malpractice claims are reportedly lower--and they have universal health care (with little or no private sector care) in those countries, as well.
One wonders: What will the trial lawyers do when there's no money left for which to sue? The new American credo of "spreading the wealth" has many consequences.
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 123 |