Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell on Health Care

I haven’t written on politics in quite a while, months maybe.  And that has been intentional.  My heart is too heavy and my frustration too overwhelming at what I am seeing happen to this great country that I love so dearly, that I can’t find the words, or the effort, to write about it as often as I did.  But today I would be remiss if I did not speak my outrage once or twice on what happened last night; the historic vote that House Minority Leader John Boehner called “armageddon” because it would “ruin our country” (source).  And  then I received this email from The Heritage Foundation’s president, concerned about the vote as well; a vote that some (including myself) would say is the biggest step towards socialism we may have ever seen in this country, and thereby the biggest step away from freedom.  I’ve included much of it here, but please follow the link to read the rest.

Fellow Americans,

Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington’s intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.

This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change. . .

Those who supported this bill are our fellow Americans, and we do not question their good will or patriotism. In public policy, however, good intentions alone do not suffice. And let there be no mistake, our philosophical differences with supporters of this bill are profound. The reason government-run health care has been the holy grail of the left for decades is that liberals realize as much as we do that it is a giant step toward the creation of a European-style welfare state. This is an evolution Americans have always resisted because it is alien to our national character.

If there is one good thing about the past year-one in which we have witnessed unprecedented horse-trading, press stunts, midnight votes and political manipulation in both houses of the U.S. Congress-it is that the American people have come away educated as never before about the differences between these two visions for America. Americans are strongly opposed to this bill not because they have been hoodwinked but because they understand this bill both in its particulars and at an instinctive, gut level.

They understand this health care bill forces individuals and employers to buy insurance policies designed by government bureaucrats. This intrusion is intended to follow us from cradle to grave.

Instead of empowering families and individuals to make their own choices, Obamacare empowers the bureaucracy to make those decisions for them. It is this unelected bureaucracy, unanswerable to the electorate, that will determine the content of health benefits packages, including medical treatment and procedures, and how much will be paid for those services. Yesterday’s legislation brings us one step closer to fully government-run medicine, with expanded government power over the financing and delivery of medical services that is sure to ration care in the name of cost control.

You will hear the left say this new entitlement will be popular with the American people. Do not believe them for a second. Yes, 32 million people will gain the theoretical right to health insurance. But over half of that coverage comes from placing at least 16 million more Americans into Medicaid, an unpopular and overextended welfare program that already rations care.

Americans will not stand for it. The American love for liberty prevailed in our founding, and will prevail once again. . .

Our health care system requires reform, and we have long advocated measures to improve our system. We can and should strengthen the ability of American families to choose the coverage they want, rather than giving that power to Congress and its agency bureaucrats. We can also spur competition and choice to bring efficiency and lower costs to the health system, in place of the bill’s deadening regulation and damaging price controls. And, above all, we should foster state innovation rather than Washington-based central planning.

Read the rest of this email from Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., President, The Heritage Foundation here.

The Case for Limited Government

I just received a membership to The Heritage Foundation for my birthday.  The Heritage Foundation, “founded in 1973, is a research and educational institute–a think tank–whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

As I was browsing through their website, digesting what seems like volumes of research and information on a wide variety of topics, I came across this article, of which I am only giving a few blurbs but you are more than welcome to read it in its entirety here.  It is about what role government should play in the life of American citizens.  It is brilliantly written and it clearly articulates some things that we, as a country, are in grave danger of losing sight of forever.  I encourage you to read it.  And now, with this new membership, there is a small chance I will be tempted to simply regurgitate information from The Heritage Foundation on a daily basis (because it is THAT good), and although there are much worse things that I could do, I will resist that urge. . .for now.

This is taken from the article called “Government for the Good of the People:  Ten Questions about Freedom, Virtue, and the Role of Government”

4. Does big government pose moral problems?  When government oversteps its bounds and begins to assume more authority, it weakens other important social institutions, including those, like the family and religious congregations, that are particularly capable of encouraging moral virtue among citizens. Big-government programs and policies also tend to confuse the lines between citizen responsibility and government responsibility. As a result, they erode our understanding of the ethical obligations we have to one another—especially in regard to issues such as poverty and economic justice—and encourage us to assume and to expect that government will provide for our neighbors’ needs.

7. How does big government weaken smaller, virtue-producing communities?  As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.

This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.

The power of government carries significant moral implications. The amount of responsibility yielded to or claimed by government can shape attitudes, motivations, expectations, and even the terms of public debate.

The article concludes with these words:  “Government can also influence the cultivation of character and the strength of social bonds by protecting institutions that help to encourage virtue in society, such as the family or religious congregations, against unjust interference from other institutions, including the state. In other words, there is a strong moral case to be made for limited government authority.”

So I ask, in which direction are we headed today–toward a limited government or a rapidly expanding one?