IPFS Howard Blitz

More About: Healthcare Industry

Why America Continues Down Socialist Path

A recent AP article entitled, "Governors Seek More Money for Children's Insurance," explains why the United States of America continues to follow the path of socialism as opposed to the principles of individual liberty upon which it was founded. According to the article governors of both major political parties, democrat and republican, appealed to both the Bush administration and congress to provide additional money for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a health-care program that insures millions of children, in tackling the challenge of uninsured working families.

Governor Sonny Perdue, Republican of Georgia stated, "We can come to the consensus that children should be the first priority." Democratic governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine said, "This is one area where I think people stand entirely together."

True enough, there is hardly any argument that helping children grow into responsible adults and seeing to it that they stay healthy along the way ought to be the primary focus of everyone. However, the real question of who ought to bear that responsibility never seems to get discussed. It is automatically assumed that it is government's responsibility to provide health care for kids. The Marxist philosophy, the collective has more right to an individual's income than the individual who earned it, is never debated. For government to provide anything to anyone, government must first take from the individual. With the leadership of this country begging the federal government to fund universal health care, i.e. socialized medicine, it is no wonder that the United States is a socialist country.

Yes, prescription drug manufacturers are privately owned, many hospitals are privately funded, and there are many private doctors and other medical providers, but all are controlled by the laws of government as to what type of drug is to be produced, what type of medicine is to be practiced, how the drugs are manufactured and medicine to be delivered, how much of the drug or health care service can be offered, and who is eligible to receive such products or services.

America was founded upon the idea that the individual through his freedom to choose with the money he earns makes those decisions. However, in today's America, those decisions are made by government officials epitomizing a socialist/Marxist system.

The reason for the governors begging the federal government for more money is the fact that the current State Children's Health Insurance Program is about to run out of money and needs an additional $745 million just to keep it afloat through October. In a few states those funds could run out next month. Of course, after that, more money will be needed.

The current program was approved in 1997 and covers uninsured children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, and more than a dozen states have expanded the program to insure adults as well. To the credit of the Bush administration, it wants the program to insure poor children only, not all kids and not adults and desires to fund health care through private health insurance companies by changing the tax code. However, even the Administration's program advocates the use of taxes forcibly taken from some to give to others.

Both republicans and democrats miss the boat on this whole issue. In a free society government is not responsible for anyone's health care. It is wrong for individuals to go around forcing others to give up their hard earned income and give it to others. It is wrong for government to forcibly tax someone and give that tax money to someone else. Theft is theft, no matter who commits the crime and no matter what the reason.

As long as the leadership of the United States continues to believe that it is the responsibility of state legislatures and the federal congress to provide not only health care, but everything else under the sun for individuals, the United States will continue to be a controlled socialist welfare state and not the free society it portends or was established to be.

Virginia governor Timothy Kaine, a democrat, and others are rightly concerned over the anxiety of parents going to bed at night worrying about whether their kids have adequate health insurance. However, a greater and more overwhelming anxiety exists when individuals worry about not being able to afford the taxes to pay for all government services, including health care, and provide for the rest of their children's needs.

Eliminating taxes and government expenditures not only in health care, but all other areas where government is not to involve itself allows greater choice for the individual to choose the type and quantity of health care and other products and services they need for their kids and lessens the anxiety about which most individuals are concerned.

The debate over whether it is government's responsibility or the individual's to provide health care to individuals is not a republican versus democrat one. Rather it is a debate between all of the democrats and republicans that do not believe in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and those that do.

Mr. Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate and author of the book, "Good to be King," will be the keynote speaker at The Freedom Library annual awards ceremony to be held Tuesday, April 10 at 7 PM at the Booth Machinery conference hall located at Araby Road and 30th Street.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by 1776liberty
Entered on:


Comment by Philly Dave
Entered on:
Double Amen ... says the choir :-)

A big problem as I see it is the continued practice of politicians leading people to believe they can have these government provided or subsidized services for free.

Between money printing, borrowing and slight of hand accounting coupled with coercive tax collection methods (witholding) the proposals for spending are rarely presented to the taxpayer as an invoice. The service is decoupled from the cost.

Emotional do-goodism is often replaced by fiscal prudence when folks are asked to pay when services are rendered.

If I hear one more politician say "the question is not can we afford to fund (insert program name here) ... the question is can we afford NOT to" ... I am going to puke ... again. ;-)