Personally, I wouldn’t mind taking on a little more pain today if I thought my children would be spared at least some discomfort in the future.

Our founders knew that a federal government invested with broad ranging powers would descend into tyranny, corruption and absolutism. In the United States, we are observing the strongest movement toward a dictatorship in the history of our republic. Now, I am not saying that President Obama will eventually claim to be the “supreme ruler” or president for life, but two financial stories indicate his willingness to use almost any tool in order to concentrate power in Washington D.C. and inevitably in his administration. You see, our founders designed a federal government that had to stay out of our day to day lives. They knew that a government that provided education, health care, charity, retirement, roads and more would be co-opted by the rich and powerful.

Such a government would restrict the freedom of the individual and use the power of government to take advantage of the people. We are observing that exact scenario today.

Unions get special treatment

There is a new tax being considered as a part of the health care legislation in Congress. This tax would affect anyone who has a so-called “cadillac” health care plan. When news of this tax came out, the union bosses became concerned that many in their membership would be affected by this added expense. The heads of the various unions quickly mobilized and traveled to Washington in order to lobby the president. Understand that the unions backed President Obama strongly in the last election. They were among his largest donors, have met with him frequently and are working to get the best deal for the men and women that they represent – and screw the rest of us.

As a result of their lobbying, the unions were exempted from the new tax! That means that you and I will pay more for our health insurance. President Obama is purchasing votes and political action on his behalf with money from the rest of us. Because government is seizing control of health care, large corporations (big labor) are slowly gaining control over government to take advantage of anyone who is not aligned with their interests. This is not freedom, this is not equality under the law, this is political quid pro quo and our freedom suffers as a result.

Banks get taxed

Last week, the Obama administration announced that it would seek higher taxes on 50 of the nations largest banks ostensibly to recoup some of the TARP bailout money that was given to banks last fall. Here is the kicker: the tax will apply to banks who have re-payed the money with interest and to banks who never took the money in the first place. However, the tax will not affect car companies who were bailed out by TARP or insurance company AIG . . . both entities have political allies to the Obama administration.

What are the options for the banks as they seek to make a profit? They can go out of business, pass fees along to the consumer or they can purchase more political influence and use the power of the government to get what they want.

I know that it might be difficult to feel sorry for the wealthy individuals who run banks, but what if another administration suddenly decided to tax unions at a greater level than small-business workers? What is the end result when government uses the power of the law to punish political opposition and to reward political supporters? One of the options for the people is widespread law-breaking, such as refusing to pay taxes or participate in the insurance mandate. When most of the people decide to break the law, tyranny reigns and violence becomes the only way for various political entities to assert their will. In other words, if government policies continue at this rate, a coup d’ etat cannot be too far behind.

The only real answer to our nation’s problems is a strict adherence to the Constitution that frees individuals, families and communities to pursue life, liberty and happiness as they define it. Do we have any politicians who will once again subject themselves to the idea limited government proposed by the founders of our country? I hope so . . .

Photo by rachaelvoorhees

The country that I call home leads the world financially, technologically, and militarily. We are the most successful experiment in self-government and freedom. We are one of the most compassionate people groups in history and when given a chance to flourish under truth, justice rises to the top. Obviously, our country is not perfect, no one would make that case, yet our founders left us with a great heritage. But what makes our country great? Ben Franklin famously said that America was “A republic, if you can keep it”. Freedom requires constant vigilance and an understanding of why we have been successful.

There are many principles that have made the United States great. One such principle is something I have heard called “individualism”. A better term for our topic today might be “self-interest”. The idea  of self-interest should not be confused with selfishness or greed. Self-interest is the idea that you are free to seek those things that you value. If you value money, you are free to pursue it ethically. If you value beauty, you can spend all of your time in art. Other things that individuals value are family, power, influence, popularity, some like to build, some like to organize, some just like to play around. Our Constitution is based on the idea that men are created equal and should be free to reap the rewards of their success and be responsible for their failures. This is called the freedom for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. In a free society, choices have consequences. When consequences are removed, man does not govern himself.

The liberal or collectivist does not like the individual. He despises him or thinks that he is a dullard. People are not smart enough to eat healthy or save for retirement on their own. The liberal or progressive does not believe in the freedom to pursue happiness, the liberal wants the government to guarantee that everyone has the same outcome. They would like to guarantee success to every individual. The result is that while no one fails, no one learns from failure and no one really succeeds either. Those who wish to guarantee success to every person must do so by restricting liberty and stifling creativity.

The government never provides solutions, it only restricts freedom and piles on layers of bureaucracy. The solutions to the problems of poverty, health care, education, and retirement lie in the direction of our families, churches and local communities, not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or even Jim Boehner or Newt Gingrich. Less government gives power to the individual. More government concentrates power in the hands of a few.

Photo by Tim Pierce

I oppose the nationalization of health care for a number of reasons:

• I am convinced that we have the best health care in the world. Not always the cheapest, but we have access to the latest treatments and services and they are always getting better. Lazer eye surgery, better medicine, advancements in cancer treatments have come about primarily due to competition in what remains of the health care free market. Roger Stark from the Washingt0n Policy Center has some thoughts about what is not wrong with health care in the U.S.
• There are problems with our health care system, but I believe many of the problems are government made – HMO’s, frivolous malpractice suits, other government policies have contributed to rising costs and discouraged good service. Remember that our health care system is already close to 50% nationalized, so at least some of the blame for our current problems has to lie at the feet of government bureaucrats.
• Some problems with our health care are overblown, primarily the myth about the “47 million uninsured Americans”. You can decide if this oft-quoted statistic is a myth on your own. Investors Business Daily or the Washington Times are good places to start.

Before going further, I highly recommend this essay written by Betsey McCaughey that appeared on Bloomberg’s Opinion page. Her story about the health care bureaucracy in the U.K.’s refusal to provide drugs to prevent macular degeneration in the elderly until they had gone blind in one eye is especially compelling. You could also find some more reasons through asking just about any Canadian about their experiences in government run clinics.

The above items are all good reasons to oppose government run health care. However, the primary reason that I oppose the nationalization of health care is simple: Freedom.

We have often heard the old adage that “freedom isn’t free”. Typically that thought is connected to the many sacrifices of American soldiers over the last hundred years – and rightly so. However, there are other implications of this idea that are not a commonly discussed. Freedom exacts a price from the non-fighting citizenry as well. Good health care is not free and it is not a right.

For almost all Americans, health care decisions are made by the individual with advice from his physician and his family.  Government health care, while supposedly less expensive, will take those decision and put them in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

When our first child was born, our physician suggested several prenatal tests that could determine if our child might be born with Downs Syndrome or have other physical or developmental challenges. We chose not to have the tests because nothing those tests revealed would have changed the way we cared for our child. Had she been born with major health challenges, we would have cared for her and loved her to the best of our ability. In many countries, government health care would have forced us to carry out the tests and possibly even compel us to terminate the pregnancy if certain defects were discovered.

Government health care will not allow you to make up your own mind about treatment options – even if you have the money to pay for certain procedures or treatments. Currently, we have options. These options are sometimes difficult, but in the end our freedom is preserved.

As Americans, under privatized health care, you have the following choices for providing health care for your family:

1. Work hard to get a job with good health care benefits. Many Americans do not have good health care because they don’t have a job with health insurance. Nothing is stopping them from acquiring the skills necessary to move up the ladder.
2. Purchase your own insurance – choose the plan that fits your lifestyle, age, risk tolerance and health history. Compare plans and shop around to get the best price – just like everything else in life.
3. Pay for treatment out of pocket. We will not always have this option under government insurance. My family was once without health insurance for a brief time and my wife needed her wisdom teeth pulled. They were causing major pain. The state health care plan that we were under would not pay for wisdom tooth extraction, so I told her to go to a surgeon and we would pay out of pocket. However, several surgeons told us that they could not accept a cash payment from someone on state health insurance. State insurance would not cover the procedure and the surgeons would not do the procedure for cash. We finally went to a different county, lied and said that we were not on government assistance and paid for the procedure out of pocket. We had no other choice.
4. Beg. Seriously, if my son needed a heart transplant and our insurance would not cover it, I would bang on the door of every heart surgeon in the state and if none of them could help me out, I would go to the next state.
5. Request aid from your church. Most congregations will help a member with a major health need. I have known churches where the entire congregation does not have health insurance. They all pitch in during times of need.
6. Ask for help from friends and family.
7. Go into debt. I would gladly charge up every credit card I had in order to get the medical care that my family needed.
8. Go bankrupt. If going bankrupt meant that my child or wife or parents were going to get good health care, I would do it in a second. Under centralized health care, you don’t have that option.

Like I said, not all of these method for meeting you medical needs are fun, but they all preserve the free market that produces new, faster and safer health care techniques every day. I hope you never have a health care emergency where your only option for help is the “munificence” of the federal government.

This post is another in the series called Freedom and Finance. You may also want to read:

Freedom and Finance: Introduction

Freedom and Finance: Religion

The first blow to restrict the freedom of religion took place in 1954. Senator Lyndon Johnson proposed an amendment that made it illegal for a church (or an non-profit organization) to engage in campaign activity. They threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of an organization who violated this decree. Naturally, most churches and charitable groups, not wanting to jeopardize their donor base, fell into line.

This law is unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers believed that political speech should always be protected by law regardless of one’s occupation or involvement with any particular group. What if Congress decided that unions could no longer participate in political campaigns? What about workers who are employed by the government, should their voice be restricted, since they are employed by taxpayers? Why can’t the president of the Salvation Army or any other charitable group endorse or oppose politicians whose policies might hinder or promote their work?

In this instance, Congress used our finances to restrict political activity and speech. Remember that one of the greatest threats to an over-reaching government is a well-informed population. This 1954 law has helped to silence many leaders who might seek to communicate political thoughts on behalf of their constituency. Why should the leader of a non-profit have to be silent? Pastors and church leaders pay taxes too.

It is true that our benevolent government does not have to allow us a tax deduction for gifts made to non-profit groups. We are grateful for the deduction, but by dangling this carrot in front of the tax-payer, the federal government has silenced a potential critic.

A tax deduction has allowed our government to manipulate us into giving up a little of our freedom of religion.