We are free so that we may love and do what is good. Because of this, I find assertions and arguments that healthcare reform measures will diminish our freedom and should therefore be opposed to be less than convincing. We uphold the value of a free society not because freedom is an end in itself – it isn’t – but because a free society affords us the best opportunity to achieve the common good. And even in a society with the greatest possible freedom, restrictions on freedom would still exist and be necessary for the common good.
The idea that our public servants would require us to participate in a health insurance plan seems especially outrageous to some people, but even this idea, while I’m uncertain as to its prudence, doesn’t cause me much concern. We, through the institution of our government and other social structures, require each other and ourselves to do certain things in order for society to function effectively and justly. Generally speaking, we have to pay taxes, find and maintain employment, converse on telephones, use some means of transportation, get an education, shop at grocery stores, and fill out paperwork. Society demands a lot from us, and these demands place limits on our freedom, but, if our power to do the good is not diminished, we are not really less free because of these limits.
History has shown us that free societies can become enslaved to dictators, tyrannical systems, and more subtle evils such perverse appetites. I don’t dismiss the possibility that our country could cease to be a free society: recent grave offenses against our freedom and the common good are not hard to spot, but I don’t buy the argument or share the fear that giving our government a greater role in our healthcare system necessarily takes us a step away from a free society.
I understand that people are concerned of losing our freedom and there is concern of a government takeover. All I can speak of is from a personal veiwpoint. Losing insurance the last six months has taken freedom away from me to get the right healthcare my daughter needs. Without money or benefits one loses freedom. I am trying to find a solution to this. I am listening to both sides of the fence.
I suppose it’s unpatriotic to say it, but it does seem that “Give me liberty, or give me death,” and the even more extreme “Live free or die” are not words to live by. Certainly there is no hint of New Testament values in them.
I am fighting for freedom in my own way. I don’t believe putting everybody in the same box and telling the whole world to subscribe to your ideals is freedom. I have a biblical viewpoint but I don’t believe in shoving down others throats is freedom. I believe in liberty and grace.
There is simply a fundamental difference — a difference of kind and not degree — of a free people chosing to order their society a certain way through parlimentary democracy as opposed to the commands of an authortarian dicator. I just can’t take seriously the charge that we are losing the “freedom” to choose to decline health insurance for oneself and one’s children when it is being made by those who would never think of going without health insurance for their families.
If something is given away for free, it will be taken for granted. If it is taken for granted, it will not be cared for. If it is not cared for, it will fall into ruin. If it falls into ruin, it is useless.
If something is given away for free by a democratic government, that thing is subject to the whims of legislators who come and go and whose opinions change with the time of day. The more politicians have to give, the more they can take away, the more they can corrupt and ruin.
The argument is not simply that we will be less free (which we will). It is that we will become less disposed towards government that best facilitate the common good.
Zach,
You mean like national defense?
I get the point about the costs of healthcare being out of sight and therefore out of mind, but there are ways of minimizing the perception that a publically funded healthcare plan is free. If, for example, pay-checks showed the exact amount going to fund the program, people would be more likely to keep the costs in mind and seek to keep them as low as possible.
If something is given away for free, it will be taken for granted. If it is taken for granted, it will not be cared for. If it is not cared for, it will fall into ruin. If it falls into ruin, it is useless.
Zach,
What is going to be “given away for free”?
“If, for example, pay-checks showed the exact amount going to fund the program, people would be more likely to keep the costs in mind”
Like when people have their income tax withheld, and at the end of the year think they’re getting free money from the government?
If you want them to keep the cost in mind, have them pay it separately, and by themselves in one lump sum on the 1st of November. They’ll not only keep it in mind, but will keep it in mind when they vote a few days later.
Kurt:
The problem with your argument is it can be legitimately asked whether or not this bill is really the result of a free people putting their beliefs into practice.
Not even the legislators themselves know what is in the bill.
The bill is the result primarily of giving and taking between interest groups including insurance companies and medical groups that hope to benefit financially.
The bill was not even made available to the people of this country to ponder and make their views known to their representatives.
Your idealism is nice, but the process of passage of this legislation and the profit-oriented interests still calling the shots call your claims into question.
It’s true that people have to pay taxes, but so far as I’m aware, if the current bills pass it will be the first time that people will go to jail if they don’t buy a product from a private entity.
Not only that, but in some instances the product in question will be worthless. Many states, for example, mandate that health insurance policies cover quack treatments and forms of “alternative medicine” that, scientifically speaking, have little to no medical value. If someone wants to buy an insurance policy that covers such things, I have no objection. But I see no reason why I should have to do so.
Jerry,
I know what is in the bill. I read it. I don’t see the problem.
Blackadder,
Can’t you go to jail in some states for refusing to buy auto insurance?
It’s true that people have to pay taxes, but so far as I’m aware, if the current bills pass it will be the first time that people will go to jail if they don’t buy a product from a private entity.
Blackadder,
Not so fast. The House and Senate bills must be reconciled. The Senate bill imposes a $750 fine per adult (limited to $1500 per household) for not buying insurance, and there are no penalties except that the IRS may deduct what you owe should you be due a refund.
The House bill does not send you to jail for not buying insurance. There is a fee (or a fine, or a tax — apparently it’s not clear yet what it will be considered), and if you refuse to pay that, then there are penalties, phased in over a period of years, which I suppose could result in criminal prosecution.
I agree with Blackadder. The bill is too intrusive.
wj,
Some states require you do buy auto insurance if you own a car. The health insurance mandate, by contrast, applies to everyone who has a pulse.
David,
Here’s my source for the jail claim. Even if it was only fining people for not buying a private product, that would still be a first, and in my opinion a big deal.