Hold Onto Your Wallets: Here Comes “Free” Health Care!
“I do not believe you can have universal health care without having a source of revenue.” These were the words uttered by presidential hopeful John Edwards on Saturday, March 24 when questioned about whether or not it is possible to have universal health care without an accompanying tax hike.
John Edwards, the wealthy former United States Senator from North Carolina is proposing a massive federal tax increase—to the tune of $120 million—with the cost to be saddled by the hardworking American taxpayer. Unfortunately, for the people of this fine nation, it appears as if the Edwards-style socialist experiment is also being endorsed by just about all of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.
According to the Baltimore Sun, the Edwards plan will require employers to cover workers or pay for a plan that will, require the feds to set-up competitive health plans, permits consumers to choose between private plans or a government plan, and mandate through fiat that all taxpayers participate.
Edwards, along with Obama, Clinton, Dean, and others who believe that health care is a “right” as equal to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are playing the cards that Democrats play the best: the federal government is the source of all good. You can trust Washington. Therefore, surrender your freedom and buy into our scheme. Sound familiar? They also did this to infest the U.S. public education system with federal control and mandates that have dragged down the American education system and taken away local control.
You see, the pols mentioned above think that We, the People are collectively stupid. They also feel that decade after decade of social engineering to teach us about the federal government’s “compassion” for the people has helped to lull America into a collective state of malaise in which we will simply welcome such an intrusive plan with open arms: “Help us Washington, please!”
It is important that Americans begin separating the policy issue of health care from the constitutional and financial ones that are overshadowed by the Democratic propaganda campaign.
This is not about health care. Democratic candidates are not proposing universal, federal health care plans because they care about our well-being. They are offering up a feel-good, cradle-to-grave health care system for the purpose of control. By taking away your right to manage your own health care choices without federal intrusion, they are placing the issue under their total control.
Less choice and freedom for you. More power, money, and control for them. But remember—they are doing this because they care about you.
Before I am accused of opposing health care for Americans, let me plainly state that I very much support more people being covered by reliable health plans. However, I vociferously oppose any effort by the federal government to inject itself into personal decisions such as health care. I would sooner have no health plan than one forced upon me by power-hungry politicians.
It is disgraceful and insulting for these particular candidates to continue to tell us that health care is a right, as significant as free speech, freedom of religion, the free press, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial, the right to protect oneself from self-incrimination, and the right to vote to name a few.
As equally disturbing is the passion with which these candidates gleefully suggest that they will simply raise our taxes to pay for Leviathan’s growth. Edwards shrugs off $120 billion as if it isn’t a lot of dough. Perhaps working families ought to understand just how this program will be paid for—through their hard work, industry, and labor.
Finally, the most outrageous piece of all this is the callous disregard for the United States Constitution held by folks like John Edwards. An accomplished attorney, one would think at one point in his career he would have read the greatest document ever composed, especially the Tenth Amendment, which clearly notes that even if government is to invent new rights such as health care, that it do so (or determine not to do so) at the state level.
It is time that we separate out the three very different issues at play here. First, the policy issue of health care which Governor Mitt Romney proved is best handled by the states. Second, the financial issues surrounding what will be a costly, intrusive bureaucratic program that will result in a massive tax increase. And finally, the constitutional issue that will allow the feds to bully individuals and businesses into letting government care for them from womb to tomb while ignoring the actual Bill of Rights.
Nathan R. Shrader can be reached at nathanrshrader@yahoo.com
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
While I generally disagree with you, you provide a well-written and persuasive arguement. I am very much a constitutionalist, but I see the Health issue as something that is slowly crippling our nation, and is doing nothing but adding to the disparity in wealth between the middle and upper class.
One note, Mitt Romney proved very little about Health Care in MA. He simply signed into law a policy that was the product of years of work from his Democratic Legislature. To compliment that, he actually vetoed (Yes, we have the line-item in MA) the components of the bill that are now being used to fund it.
If one thing can be learned from Massachusetts\' health care program, it is that the federal government MUST play a major role. Our system is still very imperfect, lacks funding, and is very dependent upon a federal medicaid waiver.
Health Care needs to be fixed, it is only a matter of whether we do it now or later.
Health care is simply not something that our taxes should be raised to pay finance… largely between the individual and their doctors.
I understand that premise entirely, my question is how will the system ever fix itself? Something has to give….
We can\'t continue to have people who are willing to pay for insurance, still be unable to afford it.
They end up getting free-care, and raising the price for all the rest of us.
Judging by what we\'ve seen in the past eight years of corporate America, do you really believe that the doctors will fix this themselves? We need to be honest with ourselves….
I find it interesting that $120B seems like a sizeable amount to Mr. Shrader to pay for universal health coverage, while we spend around $8B a month unwillingly subsidizing Mr. Bush\'s askew take on Manifest Destiny.
Something tells me Mr. Shrader is not one of the 50 million Americans who find themselves without any type of health insurance. Perhaps they would be thankful for an alternative.
And, come to think of it, perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans would lead happier, more productive lives by choosing a heartfelt vocation, instead of desperately clinging to jobs they hate because they are deadly afraid of being caught without health insurance in the event of a medical emergency.
Stop a war, heal a nation. Who woulda thunk?
While I generally disagree with you, you provide a well-written and persuasive arguement. I am very much a constitutionalist, but I see the Health issue as something that is slowly crippling our nation, and is doing nothing but adding to the disparity in wealth between the middle and upper class.
One note, Mitt Romney proved very little about Health Care in MA. He simply signed into law a policy that was the product of years of work from his Democratic Legislature. To compliment that, he actually vetoed (Yes, we have the line-item in MA) the components of the bill that are now being used to fund it.
If one thing can be learned from Massachusetts’ health care program, it is that the federal government MUST play a major role. Our system is still very imperfect, lacks funding, and is very dependent upon a federal medicaid waiver.
Health Care needs to be fixed, it is only a matter of whether we do it now or later.
Health care is simply not something that our taxes should be raised to pay finance… largely between the individual and their doctors.
I understand that premise entirely, my question is how will the system ever fix itself? Something has to give….
We can’t continue to have people who are willing to pay for insurance, still be unable to afford it.
They end up getting free-care, and raising the price for all the rest of us.
Judging by what we’ve seen in the past eight years of corporate America, do you really believe that the doctors will fix this themselves? We need to be honest with ourselves….
I find it interesting that $120B seems like a sizeable amount to Mr. Shrader to pay for universal health coverage, while we spend around $8B a month unwillingly subsidizing Mr. Bush’s askew take on Manifest Destiny.
Something tells me Mr. Shrader is not one of the 50 million Americans who find themselves without any type of health insurance. Perhaps they would be thankful for an alternative.
And, come to think of it, perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans would lead happier, more productive lives by choosing a heartfelt vocation, instead of desperately clinging to jobs they hate because they are deadly afraid of being caught without health insurance in the event of a medical emergency.
Stop a war, heal a nation. Who woulda thunk?
I notice that the majority of opponents to a universal health care complain about increased taxes yet they are happy to pay thousands of dollars each year towards private health insurance.
Sure - taxes will go up under a universal health care system. But that will be offset by the fact that the taxpayers or their employers will no longer have to pay for private health care. In the case of a worker currently paying for their own health care, they will have more take-home pay as the health care tax will be nowhere near as high as their private health care premiums.
For those who have their employer paying for health care, they will most likely benefit from the savings to their employer by getting a pay rise.
The fact that businesses won’t have to factor health care costs into pricing will mean that they will be able to reduce the market price of their products, thus making them more competitive.
There are other advantages to universal health care. Uninsured workers who would normally need a long time off work when ill due to not being able afford a doctor will be back at work a lot sooner.