The Northwest Times

THE TROUBLE with compulsory health insurance programs lies chiefly in the fact that such fancy government plans have so little in common with our American way of life. Most all of us will agree that health is a desirable thing to have. But even an utter simpleton knows that you cannot get "health" by compulsory action. The catch is that health is politically desirable. As a goal of the government for its citizens it means "votes." Just like most any handout the government can think up.

Sure, I'm in favor of health, and I'm opposed to sickness. I want to be healthy. It's definitely a good thing. So is clothing. I'm all for the idea of having enough to wear. Such things are necessary. Another thing that comes in handy is food. Most people like to eat, and I believe find it rather important. The American people therefore, require groceries. Like any politician, I'm definitely for all these things.

Bedrock Principle

BUT I'M definitely not for a huge bureaucratic machine that would feed, clothe, and "doctor" the American people. I would not like for these things (nor the host of other things always being suggested to Congress) to be done for me by a paternalistic, bureaucratic, federal government that always seems to be athirst for more taxes to expend so as to hire more government workers. I am not interested in having other people pay for things to be supplied to me for "free."

In all fairness, I would say that the idea of forcing me to chip in for John Doe's groceries, or clothing, or doctor bills - to be supplied to him by the government - is certainly not the kind of political policy that has made America a great and prosperous land. This thing is bedrock. It is principle.

False Security

SHOULD THE government tax people to see that everyone is supplied with food? Obviously, no. Neither should it tax to provide medical care. I am opposed to compulsory health insurance, therefore, because it has little in common with the American way of doing things.

If you are a worker, it will take money out of your paycheck that you might want for other things. If you are an employer, you will be required to match the amount taken from each worker's paycheck. (This cost you will have to pass on to the customer, thus increasing the cost of living for us all.) If you are self-employed, you'll pay the full three per cent or whatever it is raised to later.

I am against this socialized medicine plan because it fosters the false idea that it's possible to get something for nothing, just by letting the government take charge of things. It is another example of state supported "security" that makes nobody secure and does nothing except put the whole American system in real danger. It promises to cost so much within a few years - in payroll and other taxes - that not even its backers dare estimate how much. Yet, it is offered all "for free."