Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Monday, February 04, 2008

Clinton Health Care Plan May Garnish Wages

When you live in a free society, there are certain risks you take in exchange for that freedom.

You run the risk of not being wealthy, because whether you achieve wealth is up to you, your own creativity and drive.

You run the risk of not providing very well for your own family, whether that's because you made a vocational choice that didn't pan out very well...or you just don't have a good work ethic that ensures a stable income.

In a free society, you risk financial setbacks, either within our outside your control, that may cause you to need the assistance of others. And in a free society based on Christian values, there will usually be someone there to help you get back on your feet, providing you humble yourself enough to ask.

On the other end of the political and economic spectrum, you can have a society that enjoys less and less freedom in exchange for a "safety net." There's simply no way to get around this exchange.

You can't expect to have a safety net that you don't provide for yourself without getting it from someone else. And when government takes upon itself to ensure the existence of that safety net, it isn't going to leave to chance that some Christians, who might require things the government disagrees with or preach messages the government disagrees with, are going to do it the way the government wants. So this means government is going to have to take from someone to give to someone else.

Even if you're not wealthy, chances are that "other person" is in some part going to include you (unless you're one of the receivers).

It means a loss of freedom in other ways, since the state needs you as a good wage earner to do your part in providing for other citizens of the state. So you end up mandated to do a lot of things that other, more free people aren't mandated to do.

So it really should be no surprise to us when we hear from CNS News that Hillary Clinton's socialist health care plan may involve garnishing your wages to get you to play along:

Will Sen. Hillary Clinton garnish the wages of people who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy into her universal health care plan? Maybe.

The Democratic presidential hopeful tried to duck the question Sunday, when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked her about wage-garnishing three times. But she didn't rule it out.

Clinton on Sunday described universal health care as "a core Democratic value and a moral principle, and I'm absolutely going to do everything I can to achieve that."

Pressed a third time on the wage-garnishing question, Clinton said, "we will have an enforcement mechanism -- whether it's that (wage garnishing) or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments."

Clinton said the "key point" is to implement universal health care. She said the mechanism by which it is achieved -- "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment...whatever the mechanism is, is not as important as...the fundamental commitment to universal health care..."

Isn't it interesting how moral issues (obeying the law, acting responsibly, sexual responsibility, etc.) aren't considered "moral" by liberals, but what does get on their "moral" radar is taking money from one person by force and giving it to another. What kind of twisted definition of "morality" do liberals have?

Some people live very healthy lives, yet statists like Clinton would have them pay the price along with every one else. Some people want to take care of their own health care responsibilities, yet statists like Clinton demand that everyone be a part of the collective.

Even if you want to take care of your health care expenses through another source, such as one of the Christian health care organizations like Christian Brotherhood, where people take care of their own minor expenses and help one another pay for the major ones, you're just out of luck in a statist environment.

A people willing to sacrifice their freedom on the altar of statist benevolence will sooner or later have no freedom left.

Remember that this election year.


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"You run the risk of not being wealthy, because whether you achieve wealth is up to you, your own creativity and drive."

Oh, is that how Paris Hilton got her wealth?

pland said...

I just love listening to healthy people deny the less fortuneate healthcare, or any other means of compasion. You are either a bitter, selfish person or just ignorant, having never experienced the healthcare system firsthand or with a loved one suffering who could not afford good care. I'm sure you wouldn't have the guts to face any of these indiviuals suffering and tell them they don't deserve healthcare, or if you did approach them and see their situation first hand you would sing a different tune. Staff, HealthcareReviews.com

Anonymous said...

Would you also prefer if your Christian Brotherhood patroled the streets and put out fires? Or are those social institutions somehow different in their egalitarian ability to help people from every social strata? You call Hillary Clinton (and I would guess anyone else who is for a universal healthcare system) a satanist, I would say that your comments are classist and provide for an opressive situation that stifles freedom for those who are stuck at the bottom. But I'm sure if they would just pray more they could find a way to become educated and get a good job all while taking care of their little miracles that you wouldn't let them choose to prevent.

Bob Ellis said...

Erin: Some people will get their wealth through inheritance. Is that wrong? If so, why? Are you jealous?

Does the fact that some people inherit wealth invalidate my statement that in a free society you can achieve wealth through your own creativity and drive?

Bob Ellis said...

pfezziwig, do you dispute anything I said?

You assume a lot with your statements. I've had huge health care costs, and I've paid them. I've had relatives with huge medical bills, and I've helped them.

People in need can approach relatives, friends or charitable institutions. Charity is the responsibility of the private sector, not government. There is no provision within our Constitution to dispense charity. If you believe there is, please point it out.

We are a nation of laws, and a nation of free people. When we do things for which there is no legal, constitutional foundation, we open the door to allow government officials to rule by whim, not what has been approved by the people in a republican form of government.

And as I pointed out, freedom suffers.

Bob Ellis said...

Justanothersatanist: Christian Brotherhood helps members pay their large medical expenses by working together. Their purpose is not to act as a fire department? Do you know what Christian Brotherhood is? Did you read the post?

I also did not call Hillary Clinton a satanist. Go back and read it again. I called her a statist, one who promotes the state, the power of the state.

Do you have no idea that our country was founded to be a free country, a country where people are free to pursue their own success with minimal government interferance? Do you have knowledge at all of this country's heritage?

Anonymous said...

Jealous of Paris Hilton? *waiting for laughter to subside* Um, no. I'm adult enough and grounded enough in my identity as a child of God to recognize that having wealth is not the same thing as having a rich, meaningful, fulfilling life, which I do believe I have (also, I'm grounded enough not to play the comparison game--it makes for a sad life). I find it interesting, though, that you are often quick to accuse people of jealousy. Please, give me some credit.

"Does the fact that some people inherit wealth invalidate my statement that in a free society you can achieve wealth through your own creativity and drive?"

Looks like you're shifting your language a bit here. Your initial statement was, "You run the risk of not being wealthy, because whether you achieve wealth is up to you, your own creativity and drive." Inheriting wealth proves that is a false statement. Paris Hilton is simply an example that it's possible to have immense wealth without having done one single thing to earn it. Her wealth came through someone else's creativity and drive, but it certainly did not come from her. Of course, much wealth is achieved through creativity and drive (to wit: Bill Gates), but that's not the only way one becomes wealthy. The rain falls on the good and the bad, after all.

Bob Ellis said...

Erin: Either statement I made is completely valid. Most people don't become wealthy through inheritance; they go out and earn it. So I tend to speak of the rule, rather than the exceptions. But either way is perfectly moral.

Your comment carried the implication that you felt there was something wrong or invalid about achieving wealth this way, or that inheritance was somehow a justification to take one person's wealth away from them and give it to another.

I'll assume from your second comment that you didn't mean that.

Carrie K. Hutchens said...

I agree that we must be careful as to what door we open! I also don't want Hillary Clinton dictating her vision as a mandate, because she "thinks", within her little socialist realm of belief, she knows better than anyone else what is best for them.

One of the major things that would help is to force the prices down for insurance, medicine and treatment -- not force people to be a part of a broken system that has gotten out of hand. Not force people into a health care situation were they have even less say about the service and treatment they receive.

Dakota Voice
 
Clicky Web Analytics