Posted by
Always To The Right on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:52:13 PM
The pragmatic reason for opposing a nationalized health service
arises naturally from the fact that they just don’t work well, as we
have seen in Canada and in the UK. Philosophically, opponents of
single-payer health care worry that once the government pays for our
medical care, it will have the authority to dictate lifestyle choices
to its citizens subjects day-care denizens. Paul Hsieh points out how this has already begun to happen in Japan for the Christian Science Monitor:
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 dangers of “universal healthcare.” Any
government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must 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.
Do you still think that diet and exercise choices are no one else’s
business? Not when other people pay your medical bills. If I have to
pay for my neighbor’s doctor bills, I’m going to demand that he stops
smoking, stops eating pizza five nights a week, and starts getting some
exercise. If necessary, I’ll find a way to make him stop.
Of course, I won’t have much power to enforce the Ed Morrissey Rules
on him, except to not pay his medical bills. Replace me with Uncle
Sam, and suddenly we have the massive power of the state behind those
rules. How has that worked in other government-run systems? Hsieh
gives us a few examples:
- Britain banned some egg advertisments from television because they promoted an “unhealthy lifestyle.”
- New Zealand refused entry to a British citizen and submarine cable
expert because of his obesity. After he lost some weight, New Zealand
finally relented — but his wife is still persona non grata because of her weight.
- The German government has campaigned to brand those who don’t eat
right and exercise as “antisocial” for burdening the nanny state with
their problems — which has certain uncomfortable historical echoes.
Don’t think it could happen here? Los Angeles and New York City
have already banned restaurants from cooking with trans fats. A few
California communities have banned smoking in private residences, which
should be a real joy to enforce, and some states have sugar taxes on
soft drinks. That’s without a nationalized health service.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. When we surrender our
responsibilities to ourselves in favor of a nanny state, don’t be
surprised to be treated like children … or worse.