Obamacare: The Word “Rationing” Comes To Mind, None Dare Say It
Jul 27, 2009 7 Comments ›› Erik Wong
Above: National Health Care anyone?
The Boston Herald:
Let us for a moment adopt the proposition that health care is in fact a “right,†as pretty much every liberal politician has told us.
Now let us consider how President Obama’s health-care bill would work. An official body – staffed with government doctors, actuaries, economists and other experts – will determine which treatments, procedures and remedies are cost-effective and which are not. Then it will decide which ones will get paid for, and which won’t. Democrats call this “cost-controls.†But for the patient and the doctor, it’s plain old rationing.
Now, imagine if the government had a body of experts charged with figuring out what your free-speech rights are, or right to assemble, or worship. Mr. Jones, you can say X and Y but not Z. Ms. Smith, you can freely assemble with Aleutians, Freemasons and carpenters, but you may not meet in public with anyone from Cleveland or of Albanian descent. Mrs. Wilson, you may pray to Vishnu and Crom, but never to Allah or Buddha, and when you do pray, you cannot do so for longer than 20 minutes, unless it is one of several designated holidays. See Extended Prayer Form 10-22B.
Of course, all of this would be ludicrous.
Which is the whole point. Health care cannot be a right, because rights cannot come from government. At best, they can be protected by government. The Founders understood this, which is why our Bill of Rights is really a list of restrictions on the government in Washington. “Congress shall make no law . . .†is how the First Amendment begins.
Now, this isn’t to say the government can’t or shouldn’t provide health care to everyone. Indeed, the Constitution says that government should promote the “general welfare.†And people of good will can argue whether or how much government-provided or subsidized health care fits under that mandate.
Historically, the American people are keen on any proposal that expands freedom and are skeptical about anything that constricts it. Generally, this means that advocates for every new program or policy – from welfare to gay marriage – try their darnedest to frame their case in terms of extending choice and freedom.
The interesting thing is that it seems Americans have discovered that talk of health care as a “right†doesn’t mean expanding their own freedom. It means, at best, expanding the options of others at the expense of the middle class and, naturally, “the rich.â€
Last Wednesday, Obama used very conservative, even free-market language to sell a program that is actually still premised on the left-wing nostrum that health care is a “right.†His plan will create “a marketplace that promotes choice and competition.â€
Now, Obama has come nowhere near meeting the burden of proof that the still inchoate and murky proposals in a still half-baked health-care bill will do anything of the sort. The only way it can actually “save†money is by rationing care. But Obama understands that he cannot sell his health-care reform in the language of the left.
So, it’s a bait and switch. If anything, the overriding idea behind Obama’s approach seems to be to rush his “public plan†into law and expand its generosity over time. Last Monday he even proclaimed, “The time for talking is through.â€
In fact, it almost sounds like he actually does want to ration free speech, too.
