The Goal of Government Health Care

by | Dec 8, 2009 | POLITICS

Here are the first two paragraphs of New Mexico Senator Tom Udall’s response to an e-mail urging him to vote “No” on the health care bill presently before the Senate: “This past weekend, the Senate took an important step toward providing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans by voting to begin debate on the […]

Here are the first two paragraphs of New Mexico Senator Tom Udall’s response to an e-mail urging him to vote “No” on the health care bill presently before the Senate:


“This past weekend, the Senate took an important step toward providing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans by voting to begin debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This bill is a solid foundation for debate and I’m confident that it will save lives, save jobs, save money and save Medicare.

“This reform will provide the help that the one in four New Mexicans without health insurance so greatly need. And not only is it fully paid for, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of this bill shows it will actually reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the first ten years.”

This is a typical instance of how politicians respond to constituent’s communications—and what they reveal about their own goals.

The Senate did indeed take “an important step.” What is the goal of that step?

Senator Udall claims that government health care provides “quality, affordable health coverage.” But it has been well documented that under government health care, medical quality declines and research stagnates. Medical professionals become over-loaded with work. They are crushed with fatigue and mind-stultifying paper work. Performance suffers. Improvements in techniques, procedures and medicines slow, eventually to cease. Similarly, the long lines, the postponed treatment, the uncertainty of being able to obtain proper treatment, the anxiety attendant upon being forced to trust those one has not chosen, affects patients deleteriously. The “quality” of government health care will be poor.

Is poor health care the goal of the Senate’s “important step?” Most people in poor health do not have much physical or mental stamina. It is difficult to focus one’s mind on one’s work and plans—let alone cultural problems—even when one has a bad cold. That difficulty increases drastically when one is in seriously poor health. But surely politicians do not really want to impose poor health upon Americans. Do they?

Let’s see. The government produces nothing. It earns no money. Its notion of “affordable health coverage” means stealing from those who have earned their money and giving it to those who have not. But those stolen dollars do not go to the medical professional. It goes to bureaucrats and politicians who dole out medical services by pull and favor. Meanwhile, medical professionals will be forced to work for less than their skills deserve. Mr. Obama has said, he will decide what doctors are paid.

What does this do to a mind that must focus on complex procedures, weigh scores of variables, examine dozens of possible avenues to solve a medical problem? How long can a mind accept such injustice? Will it be rendered malleable under such duress? Does over-work kill one’s capacity to protest such an invasion of one’s life and work? Is this the goal of politicians’ “important step?”

Udall claims that government health care “will save lives, save jobs, save money and save Medicare.” How does one save Medicare by cutting it drastically and adding 30 million more patients to its rolls? Certainly, government health care will save politicians’ lives since they will be exempt from it. It will save politicians’ jobs, too, since Americans will be legally prohibited from refusing government health care. We can’t hold them responsible if we break the law. The jobs of politicians will not be threatened. Ours will.

Government health care will surely result in more money for politicians. The more bills passed, the more politicians will rake in money from bribes, deals, extorted sums and lucrative favors. This could be construed as “saving” their money. Is that the goal? To control our pocketbooks?

Think again. The working of your mind is the motor that earns your income. Your income pays for your food; so, any regulation on what you earn is in effect a regulation on your mind. Regulations on your health choices and preferences are of the same kind. That is the goal toward which politician’s “important steps” are taken. And that is what government health care is all about. It is about control of you and your choices, i.e. your mind.

Mind control? No. What is happening today is not a matter of some injection that overrides your mental functions. It is an attempt to control your actions, which are the result of your thinking—or lack of it—by making you think that government health care is “helping others.” Senator Udall states that government health care will “help . . . one in four New Mexicans without health insurance [they] so greatly need.”

You’ve been taught ad nauseum that helping others is vastly important; so, you might forget that Americans are the most generous people on earth. They have the most charities, philanthropic organizations, foundations and free clinics. You might also forget to ask about the other three New Mexicans who will be forced to pay for that one. Why must others fork over their paycheck to provide him with coverage he either doesn’t want or need?

Senator Udall claims government health care “will actually reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the first ten years.” This is a lie. The present Medicare program shows that government health care increases costs and spending. A $898 billion health care plan cannot reduce a deficit. One cannot reduce one’s debt by increasing one’s spending.

Come 2010, such politicians as Udall on every level must be swept out of office.

Sylvia Bokor is an artist and writer. You can read more of her writings on her blog.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Related articles

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest