Comments about ‘Government-sponsored health care can be used to restrain liberty’

Government-sponsored health care can be used to restrain liberty
_________________________________

True, however ...

Lack of health care, or bad health can deprive a person of a good body, which can also restrain the liberty of those people too poor to afford adequate health care.

Few things impinge on liberty more than bad health. There are many things that require good health to do, not just physical things, but also liberty in thinking, or clear thoughts require good mental health.

Thus if we are truely dedicated to the cause of liberty, we need to consider the possiblity getting good health care to all, especially children.

Government has a role in our lives that has been well-defined with certain limitations. We presently see the exploitation of a unusual, "crisis" situation to expand this role. The very people who want to fix things were key players in creating the problems. They are asking that we invest n them a tremendous amount of "blind" trust, without actually knowing without asking to many questions.The stimulus was pushed through without discussion. I hope we are given more details and are able to hear details and opposing ideas about this health care prposal.

thank you Mr. Williams

Define liberty as good health and then justify taking liberty in one theater to preserve it in another. This is a way that our "leaders" can take all libertie from us. This is a dangerous path my friend. The way to a better health care system does not go through the "too much" liberty door that some want to take us.

To "True But... @ 12:36 am" so are you telling me that a person's health is the responsibility of the government? Are you telling me that the government can effectively provide the people of the US with fail, balanced and comprehensive health care a a cost that will not bankrupt the US (which we are already) and not effect the advances that we enjoy now?

Yeah, right!

So, instead of a reasoned and rational discussion we have a diatribe filled with loaded catchwords: "socialist tyranny," "pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists," "secular Big Government progressives," "has either the right or competency," "Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex," "Tyranny is always whimsical," ad infinitum.

This guy is a college professor? -- he needs Rhetoric 101. And while anyone can throw out loaded catch-words there's a few facts he chooses to ignore: the Canadians and Europeans seem be doing just fine with their health systems, thank you, and few would want to switch to a hopelessly expensive American system; that family size has little to do with private or national health care but more to social factors; and there's no greater tyranny than a shiny and expensive health system that is unaffordable -- and therefore beyond reach -- to a significant number of community members though often no fault of their own. Certainly the maintenance of personal health is recommended, but despite all, sometimes things happen -- and when they happen having an affordable health system is liberating, not tyrannical.

Live free or die early, uninsured.

In other words "bind them down with the chains of the Constitution". Experience shows that when we fail to do that they will enslave / have enslaved "We the People".

Holy Cow! Williams has really gotten absurd with this one. Why can't the Des News print more rational columns? Why keep printing this guy? How about some real balance? Are you THAT into the tank? Have you seen his bio and positions he has advanced in his 73 years? He is, frankly, on the looney side. He believes in the right of U.S. states to secede from the union. Makes Clarence Thomas look liberal. Frankly, his continuing presence in this paper reflects badly on the Des News.

There is, perhaps, no greater example of the failure of benevolent capitalism than the current health care system in America. More and more the people in the health care industry have become more interested in profits than in helping people survive. It seems to be the case that people survive in spite of the health care system rather than because of it.

It is all together natural and expected that capitalists are expected to look to their profits for their joy. It is a shame and evil world where health care people are so interested in their profits that they work to keep people sick instead of curing them.

The problem for the Health Care Capitalists is that government health care will trim much of the fat that has provided the huge profits for Doctors, Dentist, and various specialist charlatans in addition to the waste of the middlemen of the insurance companies.

If we get government health care in any form, there will probably be a war from the private medical sector similar to the current war on public education. It looks like the equal justice for all may take a very long time if we ever achieve it.

Williams didn't mention that in Japan they check your BMI and if you are overweight, they fine you until you get down to your ideal weight.

Those who promote nationalized health care love to point out the poor, uninsured children as their main reason for their actions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nationalized health care is about control and power. All such a system might do is to shift who some of the "victims" are while extracting a large amount of money from the overall health care system.

This argument is just like the pro-abortion crowd who love to say how their main motivating factor is that they want to make abortion an option when the life of the mother is at risk. If the reason for an abortion was the life of the mother in something like 80% of the cases, I could accept their argument. However, I would be willing to bet that it is the reason in less than 2% of all abortions.

A Red Herring!

Williams has a valid point--universal health care could well be used as a means of control and even tyranny. But there is no reason it would have to be.

I guess I don't see the argument as one against universal health care per se, but rather against allowing a universal health care system to be used as a means of control.

How about just inserting the following language into the legislation: "Benefits shall not be denied or reduced due to a person's personal health and lifestyle choices, such as tobacco use, drug or alcohol use, diet, weight management, or exercise habits."

There, problem solved.

Give me liberty or give me death.

I don't trust the doctors, I don't trust the AMA but, most of all, I don't trust the government.

I have a bizarre suggestion: ban all types of medical insurance. You read that correctly, no gov't or federal programs, no health plans provided by any employers, nada, zip, nothing... Everyone has to pay as they go for every procedure, every office visit, etc.

To "Anonymous | 7:31 a.m. " can you refute any of the facts that Williams pointed out? In England (A system Obama wants to emulate) do they, or do they not deny some treatments because of lifestyle choices?

Why do you insist on attacking the messenger, but not the message? Could it be that Williams has shown that you are wrong when it comes to healthcare, and you don't have any proof to offer otherwise?

Here is one thing to think about. In June 2008, the NY Times ran an article titled "Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions" where they described how Japan, in order to cut costs, now mandates the maximum waist size for people 40 to 70 years old. If a person is too large, they will be fined.

To "Ultra Bob | 7:32 a.m." how will having government healthcare "trim the fat". From what I can find, the average overhead cost at a health insurance company is between 10% and 15%. Now, you may say, but the VA or Medicare only runs 5% overhead. What you are missing is the overhead cost for the government to collect that money. The US government typically runs between 20% and 25%. So, that government run health care system runs, at a minimum of 25% overhead.

So, unless the "fat" you were describing as needing to be trimmed was around people's waist lines, government health insurance will just add to the "fat" in healthcare.

Trust Williams to come out against seat belts and helmets.

Well fine, but Obama is not proposing that government run health care. He just wants a public insuracne option. Is that to much to ask?

For me, no, but for the profit laden health care industry is sure is. Anything which might dent their huge profits is not to be tolerated. And they just might get their way - they've got the best congress money can buy.

It's interesting that health care brings the realities of our market system to a critical point. What is profit? Well, profit is something for nothing. Who wants to give up that? Marx asked - in a system which largely sees the exchange of equivalents, from whence come profits? This is a question which we are effectively prevented from answering accurately or honestly. So we will continue to live the lies. Certainly their are some justifications for profits, like with real innovation (the inventer claims some of the social savings), but often as not profit is simply a matter of having strategic power.

I can hear the howelling of the right wing bloggers already.

People like Ultra Bob and Lew don't understand that profit is not a dirty word. It's a beautiful thing. People in pursuit of profit is the difference between life here today and communist era Russia. If we take profit out of health care we will slow or stop innovation. What doctor or scientist would slave away in a lab long after most people go home and devote his life to finding new cures if there was no chance of profit? How many of our brightest would choose to pursue medicine with 7+ years of postgraduate training, working 80 hour weeks if they weren't allowed to make a profit?

Those who think profit is evil are actually opposing prosperity. Lew says profit is something for nothing. Really Lew? That's possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever seen you post!