Jeremy E. Sarber

To some, the conservative-versus-liberal debates are nothing more than mere politics that have little meaning in the grand scheme. To me, nothing could be farther from the truth. In my observations of world and American history, I am under the belief that at the founding of the United States of America, we were given freedom like no other nation in history has ever known. In other words, it may very well be that we as Americans have had the maximum amount of freedom that anyone has ever had on this earth while still maintaining law and order. So if we are to change at all through federal legislation or by rule of the Supreme Court, the only place we can possible travel is down and away from liberty.

Policy after policy has stripped the American citizen of his/her individual liberty. Over the years, the federal government has grown in size and power. Consider the country to be on a balanced scale. On one side is our once-limited centralized government and on the other side are the people with their freedom. With each step of government growth, the people and their freedoms shrink in size and weight. If there can only be so much power in a nation at one time, the scales have certainly tipped to the advantage of Washington planners and politicians over the last 100 years or so.

Allow me to give you an example. One of the greatest changes in the individual’s relationship to the government was the introduction of Social Security. During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt wanted to avoid as much damage from the Depression as possible. It was a noble goal. When trying to pass the Social Security legislation, Roosevelt said:

[Economic] security was attained in the earlier days through interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other. The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security. There, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it…this seeking for a greater measure of welfare and happiness does not indicate a change in values. It is rather a return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion.

While I believe in Roosevelt’s sincerity, he successful tipped the scales by offering what any fascist or communist leader knows is necessary in order to gain power over a sovereign people…security. This security is made attractive to the people by doing two things. First, the government must convince the people they are unable to obtain this security on their own, generally through no fault of their own. Second, the government must convince the people the government is able to provide that security for them. Though Roosevelt admitted in the above quote that Americans were quite capable of providing their own security, he claimed that society was too complex anymore to continue that practice. He also claimed the government, with his leadership, could compensate for the private sector’s lacking inabilities.

I doubt it would be breaking news to anyone if I told you that Social Security is a dismal failure. We are led to believe that our government diligently manages the money in which we pay into the program and that it will be returned to us at retirement. This is hardly true. The payroll taxes are spent by the government from the moment they are deducted from the employees’ salaries. The United States Treasury simply issues IOUs to the Social Security Administration year after year. The only way for the Treasury to pay for its debt is to borrow the money, run a surplus, or have the Federal Reserve print some money. The debt grows deeper and deeper which means we are only stealing the future earnings of our grandchildren. This is far from “security”.

James Madison once wrote:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Not too many people have the courage to speak out against such programs because in doing so we would be deemed uncompassionate by society. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are so virtuous in theory that many refuse to denounce them or work to abolish them even in light of the inevitable economic collapse they threaten upon us. I am personally less concerned about my tax dollars than I am about each loss of liberty and the widening gap between the government and the people.

Benito Mussolini, best known as the Father of Modern Fascism, understood and believed in a simple principle in which dictators to follow, such as Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler, would also adhere to and put into practice. It was obvious to Mussolini that government and religion would always be in contrast to one another. In his mind, it was not enough for government to avoid religious rule or affiliation. If government was to grasp and hold absolute power over the people, the people must be convinced that politics is a religion and that the State is a god. In other words, religion must be replaced in the eyes of popular culture with the government.

How could that ever be possible? How could a people of faith, regardless of their particular religions, ever be persuaded to believe in the government as though the government was God? This is a much easier task than what it may seem. In fact, it is a lesson straight from the Bible.

In approximately 1050 B.C., the nation of Israel underwent a drastic change when its theocracy (rule by God) gave way to monarchy (rule by a king). The Israelites had been oppressed by the Philistines for many years and desired to have “a king judge [them] like all the nations”. They wanted this new king, not only to administer justice among them, but also go before them in battle as their general. He would be a permanent military leader who would keep them free of other nations’ rule. Israel was not satisfied without a tangible ruler. They felt comfortable in following the examples of other nations, despite the favor they had in God’s sight. Ultimately, King Saul would come to oppress the people through heavy taxation, which included stealing land, and by drafting people to work for him and serve in his army. The people wanted God removed from their nation and they got exactly what they asked for.

It is true that history repeats itself. While the world has never again seen a theocracy like Israel once was, citizens of most nations have followed their example by surrendering their own liberties at the promise of security made by would-be rulers. Mussolini and others came to realize that by promising security, both military and economic, the people would willingly relinquish their own sovereign power to the government. This still occurs today even in the United States of America. If a presidential candidate makes a campaign promise to raise the minimum wage, provide for the poor by skimming from the top of the rich, and so on, he is sure to be praised and elected. But as Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.”

Give me liberty or give me death may be a tired expression, but what can be more precious to us than liberty? Let’s say, for example, the federal government raises the minimum wage by a dollar. This may seem as an act of compassion and even quite heroic, but in all reality it is not helpful even to those would benefit by the wage increase. Is is better for a man to be promised a dollar more an hour and lose his job or to make the same wage and keep his job? The answer is obvious. But when government mandates that each business pay a certain amount to their employees, often those businesses cannot afford to employ as many people. When it comes to welfare programs, a man is promised financial security that only assures him, at best, sustainability, when the true cost of his security comes from the pockets of another which otherwise could have provided him a job that would earn him more. In other words, the welfare program that gives him “security” has robbed him and the free-market of liberty.

When it comes to the cause of liberty, nothing terrifies me more than nationalized or universal health care. Ultimately, a State-run health care gives the government power of life and death. This would be the greatest invasion of our unalienable rights as citizens of the United States and as human beings that has ever been seen in America. What is most chilling is that this may come to pass with thunderous applause by its future victims.

We are told that 47 million Americans are without health care. What we are not told is that 9.5 million of those 47 million (46.6 million to be accurate) are not American citizens. 17 million live in households earning $50,000 or more and could afford to purchase insurance if they so desired. 18 million are younger (18-34) and likely choose not to buy insurance since they are in good health. The elderly who we hear about that have lost their health care for one reason or another have generally gained new coverage within a year (about 70 percent). This is hardly the epidemic that politicians such as Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama make it out to be.

The issue of health care really begs a bigger question: Is health care even a guaranteed right? Health insurance is presented to us as though it is a necessity which, in turn, we are to assume is a right. But even if we might conclude it is a necessity, does that make it a right in which the government ought to guarantee to every citizen?

Food, for instance, is an absolute necessity for life. There can be no debate about that. But does that automatically imply that government has a responsibility to supply meals for every living citizen? No, it does not. Imagine if we could travel back in time and speak to an American slave of the past. What if we were to ask him, “Would you rather be enslaved and have your food provided for you by your master or be free and in charge of providing your own meals?” The answer would undoubtedly be on the side of freedom. So why then would we be comfortable in our day in giving the government power to feed us, knowing that with such power comes the power to revoke or deny that same food from potentially ourselves and others? Perhaps it would be argued that government would never do such a thing. Yet, once they have that power, it belongs to them to do with it as they please. History should be a red flag to us that every power yielded to the State can be and likely will be abused.

What kind of abuse can there be with nationalized health care? The possibilities are nearly endless…and horrifying. It would be in the government’s power to grant or deny health coverage to every person. The decision would be based on, not case by case or individual by individual, but by a bureaucratic formula. For instance, let’s say there is a 5-year old girl that is diagnosed with terminal leukemia. The doctors all say, as is often the case, that she will not make it. They may provide the treatment but with a skepticism of its benefit. Yet, they still provide the treatment because the girl’s health coverage is willing to pay for it. Under universal health care, the doctor would input the girl’s family history, medical past, and current diagnosis into a computer of sorts. The computer then would weigh out the situation, whether it is worth the money (which the government would have only a limited amount for health care), and determine whether or not they will pay for her treatment. She would likely be refused treatment even though there have been thousands upon thousands of cancer survivors who have “overcome the odds”.

Consider that the government only remains “in business” through working citizens paying taxes. So what advantage is there to the government to pay for the health care of any citizen that does not contribute enough or will not contribute for a long enough time (in their calculations) to society? The elderly would be denied coverage. So-called terminal illnesses would be denied coverage. A smoker who develops heart disease would be denied coverage. As I said, the possibilities are endless.

Let us not forget either the cost of this endeavor. Put simply, there is only so much money to go around. If our current social welfare programs are broke and adding continuously to our debt, how can we possibly afford another program and to this magnitude? Practically speaking, we cannot.

Yet, it is nearly impossible to dissuade liberalism. The liberal believes a eutopian society can be created here on earth that would match the one in heaven, where every person is in perfect equality. First of all, this can only be accomplished, again, if we put our government in the position of God as an absolute and sovereign power. Secondly, not every person’s needs can be met by government unless government takes everything from everyone and disperses it equally. While it might seem that such socialism would lift everyone up to a state of blissful equality, in reality, it oppresses everyone down to a state of subjection, tyranny, and poverty. It would not free the slaves, it would enslave the free.

We must look critically and, at times, outside-the-box at every policy and decision made by our government. We should study the matter and discern the potential effects of each cause. So what would a universal health care plan accomplish? We need not look far.

Here are a few headlines straight from the newspapers in Great Britain (provided by Mark Valenti’s Liberty Page):

• Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
• Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
• Number of children going to hospital to have teeth pulled soars by 66% since 1997
• NHS ‘failings’ over elderly falls
  

• Learning disabled ‘failed by NHS’
  

• Cancer survivor confronts the
  health secretary on 62-day wait

• Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients
• Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog
• Our cancer shame: Survival rates still lag behind EU despite spending billions
• Failing hospital ’caused deaths’
• Health gap drive ‘wasted money’
• Longer GP opening hours branded wasteful ‘PR exercise’ by doctors
• “Political meddling” threatens general practice, warns GP leader
• Children at risk through lack of training for doctors and nurses, report warns
• Chocolate should be taxed to control obesity epidemic, doctors are told
• 1,000 villagers wait for a dentist after just one NHS practice opens
• Study that proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer’s drug ban
• NHS charges to rise in England
• Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
• NHS under fire over waiting times
• Government procrastination blamed for
  HIV-contaminated blood tragedy

• Specialist nurses ‘vastly overworked’
• Hundreds of operations cancelled at Lothian hospitals
• Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients
• Stroke services are ‘UK’s worst’
• Hospitals curb caesarean births
• Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors
• Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
• Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
• NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists’ contract
• Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals
• Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS
• NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay
• Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her
• Dental patients face care lottery
• Lung patients ‘condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs’
• Women in labour turned away by maternity units
• Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report
• Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries
• NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she’s ‘too old’ for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery
• Patient ‘removed’ from waiting list to meet target
• NHS patients told to treat themselves
• NHS is ‘failing patients’ despite record funding
• NHS rationing rife, say doctors
• One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
• Audit Office asked to investigate record £500m NHS underspend
• The drugs the NHS won’t give you
• UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
• One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards
• Specialist stroke care ‘lottery’
• Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
• Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
• UK health service “harms 10 percent of patients”
• 5,000 elderly ‘killed each year’ by lack of care beds
• Dental Socialism in Britain
• Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend
• The money addicts: it’s your cash they are gambling with
• NHS chiefs get luxury car deals
• Secret NHS plan to ration patient care
• British Healthcare To Be Rationed
• British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients
• National Health Service – Grappling with Deficits
• Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS
• Life-saving cancer drugs ‘kept from NHS patients by red tape’
• NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care spending
• Alzheimer’s sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital drugs
• We all pay a price for our ‘free’ NHS
• 2,000 British doctors out of work
• UK health ‘unsustainable’
• NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims
• British boy to go to India for operation
• NHS failed to stop doctor raping scores of women
• Top crimewriter funds drugs for cancer victim refused by NHS
• Report says NHS is mired in huge debts
• U.K. set to restrict smoking
• NHS ‘fund bias’ against men may cost 2,500 lives a year
• Doubts on funding NHS ‘monuments’
• 17 million reasons why we must improve hospital meals
• Figures show more patients waiting for operations
• Scarcity of NHS dental treatment is revealed
• Why NHS Opposes ‘Treatment by Demand’ for the Dying
• 800 queue for NHS dentists
• Hundreds more heroin addicts to be given a fix on the NHS
• British health service facing nurse exodus
• About 400 patients a year in Scotland succumb to MRSA
• NHS debts soar to over £1bn
• British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists
• U.K. Liberal Democrats Would Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care
• Number of NHS Bureaucrats ‘Rising Faster Than Health Staff’
• ‘£500m hole’ in hospital budgets
• 1,000 Scots desert NHS every week
• British NHS facing financial crisis
• NHS drugs regulator to withdraw approval of Alzheimer’s treatment
• NHS waiting list rises
• Tumour patients hit by NHS shortages
• NHS financial crises set to outlast winter
• NHS 24 ‘priority’ callers wait four hours for advice
• ‘No strategy’ on NHS waiting time
• Output figures show NHS decline
• Heart patients die on waiting lists
• £25bn overspend feared for NHS computer network
• Gaps in care cost £7bn, says charity
• NHS excluding poor people, UK
• Smokers ‘should not get NHS care’
• Waiting list row blights Brighton
• Patients are denied the last rites under data protection law
• Shortage of dentists to double by 2011
• Britain’s stiff upper lip gives way to a snarl
• Hospital Overcrowding A Cause of Superbug Infections
• Hospital Crisis: Fallen Angels
• Study finds British hospitals are still austere, cold, smelly and poorly maintained
• Hospital bathrooms and showers: a continuing saga of inadequacy
• Majority back public smoking ban
• Discrimination Rampant In British Health Care
• PERIPATETICS—To the Medical Socialists of All Parties
• Creeping Privatization?
• The World’s Worst HMO
• Socialized Medicine in Great Britain: Lessons for the Oregon Health Plan
• The Sickbed Which is Socialized British Medicine
• The British Way of Withholding Care

Given enough time, universal health care will bring us a shortage of doctors and hospitals, life-threatening waits for medical care, denied coverage, massive government debts, and so on. While we may not be satisfied with our private insurance companies today for a number of reasons, the lesson provided from Great Britain and other nations around the world is that it could be far worse. After all, what could be worse than giving the power to determine life and death of so many people to the government?

As for President Obama’s continual promise to allow each person to keep their insurance if they are satisfied, how long do you suppose that will last? I fully expect Obama to continue making his promises, but with the option of “free” health care on the table to companies and individuals, how many do you think will choose the more expensive option? Unfortunately, it hardly matters which is best. That’s without mentioning the almost inevitable push by government to socialize the entire health care industry by, through taxation and regulations, running all private companies out of business. I do believe nationalized health care is the greatest threat to liberty we have ever known here in the United States of America and I will stand against it.