H-Rod places affordable health care as her top domestic responsibility, and urges that, her plan “is based on the principles of shared responsibility and choice.”
That certainly makes a nice sound-bite or talking point. All well and good, right? Wrong.
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers’ wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it,
Of course Clinton would be the ultimate arbiter of what an individual “can afford,” and also of what they need, and therefore of how to optimally allocate scarce resources towards the procurement of unlimited wants and needs.. Doesn’t sound like much of a “choice,” does it? That is a “choice” like paying federal income tax is a “choice.” One can elect not to pay it, certainly, but it’s not really a “choice” if there are punitive consequences for choosing differently. Pay for it, or else. “Choose” to pay for healthcare, or else we’ll simply take it from you. What did you really expect from the same econotard who brought us the baby bond idea?
The slave was free to not work, so long as he didn’t mind the consequences of the lash. Calling either an opportunity to make a “choice” doesn’t change the fundamental nature of reality, that no such choice exists where a gun or a sword or a whip or a prison term penalizes one of the so-called “choices.” It is an absolute mockery of freedom.
The song is always the same with central planners who know better what we need, what we can afford, and how we ought to divide our earnings or save for future emergencies, or invest in new technologies, or how to butter our bread. Government, by its very definition is the negation of freedom and choice, and any programs implemented with the assistance of the government can do nothing but diminish the amount of human choice, and human freedom in the world.