The Slippery Slope of Government Programs

Mark Perry, of the "Carpe Diem" blog, highlights a disturbing aspect of this article:

Universal Healthcare And The Waistline Police

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

Is this some nightmarish dystopia? No, this is contemporary Japan. The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.

~Dr. Paul Hsieh in the Christian Science Monitor

Thanks to Ben Cunningham.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. Aside from all of the other reasons that government health care is inefficient and wrong-headed, these examples are easily identifiable and scary. Why don't the people who have problems with wire-tapping and video surveillance camera have a problem with this kind of taking of a person's basic rights? Just as something so commonplace and ridiculous as the seat belt law, people should have the right to make their own stupid choices. It should not be up to government as to what they eat, how they dress, etc. Where is it in the Constitution that government's job is to protect us from ourselves? Should they protect us from foolish investments? Where does it say that government should provide us with anything other than protection from force and fraud? Why is the government able to take such liberties today? And where has it gotten us? Deep into a deficit. Especially in California. This particular nanny state, once a golden land of entrepreneurial opportunity, is now driving business people away in droves, depriving us of jobs and cash flow, that we desperately need. And in the meantime, our Governor tries to invent new ways to tax us for his programs that have done nothing anyway. Oh excuse me, we don't call them "taxes" anymore, we call them "fees."

Below is another excerpt from the Paul Hsieh article about the nanny state trend:

Although American healthcare is only under partial government control in the form of programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, American nanny state regulations have exploded in recent years.

Many American cities ban restaurants from selling foods with trans fats. Los Angeles has imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. Other California cities ban smoking in some private residences. California has outlawed after-school bake sales as part of a "zero tolerance" ban on selling sugar products on campus. New York Gov. David Paterson has proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks, and state officials have not ruled out additional taxes on cheeseburgers and other foods deemed unhealthy.

These ominous trends will only accelerate if the US adopts universal healthcare.

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare.

It is a serious problem for California, when the best and the brightest are heading for the hills.
"In 2000, according to the state's Department of Finance, about 150,000 people moved into California. But in the years that followed the in-migration slowed, and in 2005 it reversed, when a net 52,000 people moved out. In 2008, the outflow topped 135,000 people." This is bad. Very bad.

My question is, where is all this increased spending going? Is your life better because of it? I can't see it, I can't feel it. Instead of improvements, I see failed programs, a failing school system, government agencies that everyone dreads (the DMV for example). Show me something that all this government money has improved. In fact, I'm pretty sure things are worse, even though we are throwing money around like madmen.

While it has the sixth highest tax burden in the nation, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, California is facing a breathtaking $40 billion budget deficit this year. This comes on the heels of a decade-long spending spree. Last year the state budget was $131 billion, up from $56 billion in 1998.

What I see is more and more excuses every day for spending and taxing because everyone's terrified to just do nothing.

Just do nothing.

Let people and companies fail. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's become leaner and meaner and more efficient. These bailouts of big, bulky and inefficient industries teaches us all to function like the big, bulky and inefficient government, while removing consequences. When did we become a country of handouts?

It's not always a bad thing to fail.