...not sure where I stand on it. Is it a good idea to make it a right, like the Democrats seem to be pushing? I mean, if we do, what about housing, education, food, even? I mean, what's the difference, really? I'm assuming that the idea behind the whole thing is that citizens need their health in order to fully enjoy their liberty and such, and therefore it should be available to all, regardless of income. Definitely sound reasoning, and it sounds like a good idea. On a philosophical plane, the intrinsic worth of one human being, to me, isn't any greater or less than another, regardless of income. But on the subject of rights, what's the difference between health care, and, say, housing? Transportation? Education? Aren't these all things we need to enjoy our liberty? Does that mean they should all be rights too? And if they are, then the government would seem bound to provide us all with those things too. And that's socialist, right? Not that socialism is a bad thing in and of itself (it's actually probably the ideal form of government), but I think history has shown that socialism and the human condition do not mix with very good results.
Even as I write this, I'm not sure health care should even be a "right" on par with, say, a right to a trial by jury or something Constitutional along those lines. Not to get too originalist here, but our nation was founded on the principle that everyone fares in this life according to the effort they put forth. Basically, you reap what you sow (or what you make others sow, as the case often was). The incentive to work hard and be successful came from a realization that you had to earn it yourself, and the government wouldn't help you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a modicum of government charity. Things like welfare are good if properly administrated and used, as with all things, in moderation. But if the government starts giving things like health care away as a right, doesn't that, in some way, reduce the incentive we have as individuals to work our hardest and be as successful as we can? I mean, if the government is giving me what my family and I need to live, what's my only other motivation to work hard and be successful besides greed or pride?
Isn't that doubly true if we tax the rich to fund programs like these? Again, I can see the rationale--the rich have more, they can probably survive a bigger tax hit. So I understand things like a graduated tax bracket. But isn't a surtax to fund this health care bill a little too much? The typical joke is that the only ways to get rich in America are through crime and inheritance, but isn't the reality that most rich people are rich because they worked hard to get there? Or am I being too optimistic about the American work ethic? This idea to tax the rich to fund health care doesn't sit right with me. It seems like the government is blatantly taking hard-earned money over and above typical taxation to fund a program that most of these people don't want or need. Look, I'm just as middle-class as the next guy, and I doubt I'll ever be rich enough to fall into the bracket of people the Democrats want to tax for this program. But the principle of the matter is just as applicable to all--you should be able to keep the money you earn without too much government leeching off of you.
So how else do we fund it? I don't know. Nothing makes any more sense. But that doesn't mean this is a good idea either. First the stimulus, now this...I'm starting to worry that our government is getting a bit mad with power. So...I guess I answered my own question. I guess I'm against nationalized health care.
Posts
