Insurance Bureaucrats v Government Bureaucrats

An oft-used argument on the political Left is that the United States is the only industrial country that doesn’t have nationalized healthcare. We have been debating this question since the Truman administration recommended a national healthcare system, so there must be a reason why it has gone on so long.

A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution does not reveal an intrinsic right to healthcare (an aside: 17 September is Constitution Day; you might take the opportunity to carve 15-30 minutes out of your day and read it. For me it is an annual ritual).

Yet, regardless of which side of the issue you happen to find yourself, there seems to be consensus around a few things. First is the notion that no one should be denied medical care if they need it. A second is that healthcare costs too much. A third is that the system we have needs reform.

If these three broad areas can be agreed upon, why are we still arguing? Some would solve these three problems by imposing on all Americans a government-run healthcare system. I disagree and am in the good company of millions of Americans who are uncomfortable surrendering to government bureaucrats the power to make their life-and-death healthcare decisions.

Some opposed to a government-run healthcare system argue that the government cannot control costs or eliminate waste. Others believe that in an effort to control costs, unaccountable, faceless “death panels” will use a government-devised formula to decide who receives care and who does not. Still others say that we cannot give the government control over one-sixth of the national economy (the size of healthcare spending in the US) because it is too expansionist and will only serve to politicize healthcare decisions.

These are all compelling arguments when one considers that the recent spate of bailouts, stimulus and government takeovers have been poorly conceived, badly managed, added trillions of dollars to our national debt, and failed to make a real difference in the lives of the average American family. This is not a partisan statement: The bailouts began under the Bush administration in May of 2008.

Although these are powerful arguments against a government-run healthcare system, they are not sufficient. The central question is a much more fundamental and much more American one: It is a question of freedom, choice and personal liberty.

The reason that healthcare is not in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is not that we are a callous nation; it is because unlike all the other nations, industrial or not, ours was established on the principle that each person is sovereign. Each and every individual is endowed by his or her creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Among the family of nations we are alone in the belief that We the People, simply by the fact of our existence, are imbued with all sovereign rights and power, and that we give a portion of it to form government which is subservient to the individuals who consent to its formation. In every other country in the world it is the exact opposite: The government (or monarch, dictator, etc.) is sovereign, holds all the power and rights, and bestows some of these to individuals. This is an important distinction. It is the difference of being a free citizen or a subject.

Healthcare decisions are intensely personal and intimate, and should be made privately and in concert with one’s doctor and family. They are decisions that do not lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic, top-down mentality.

The fundamental questions you need to ask about the healthcare debate are these: Who owns your body: You or the government? Who has the right to make decisions that affect your body and your health? Are you a free citizen ready to exercise your freedom or are you a subject?

It is my belief that the reason the debate has gone on for 60 years is that some have forgotten the principles upon which our nation was founded. Those of us who advocate for a private healthcare system need to remind our fellow citizens of our unique heritage. Once we do, we can throw off the notion that government bureaucrats can tell us what kind of healthcare system we may have and we can then get on with the job of devising a private healthcare system befitting a free people.

[Note: In the 17 June Red and Blue column I offered for your consideration my prescription for what should be included in health reform legislation. To read it, please follow this link http://insideriowa.com/index.cfm?nodeID=18005&action=display&newsID=3665].