When the Government Becomes Our Provider
Gearing up for the weekend, I figure it’s a good time to get everyone thinking. Some of us are more set in our ways than others, but just for a minute, let’s ask ourselves this very important question:
Should the government provide for the people?
Now, in order to fairly ask yourself this question, try not to think about what you’re used to, or what’s comfortable to you, or even what you expect. What I’m asking, is for you to consider what’s best for a society.
Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of each. I’m sure there are more than I will mention here, but please feel free to comment and let me know your thoughts on this issue.
When the Government Becomes Our Provider – Pros & Cons
Looking at an online poll, the reasons for the government providing total health care and ongoing welfare included the following points:
“It is humane and sane for the government to care for its citizens.” This was one of the first responses that I read on the poll and it may be the first thought of many. It seems like the right thing to do. But is it the government’s place to take care of us and become our provider? In a country with so many opportunities and freedoms, is it really helpful to provide full health care and aid? When we consider this question, I think our first answer is generally yes because we envision the most impoverished sector of society. We think of the elderly, the mentally ill, and the handicapped. When these are our first considerations, of course we immediately say, yes. But what about the rest of us? How far is the government responsible to us and at what price?
Do we stop to consider that if the government fully provides for us, we will also naturally lose some of our rights, options and choices?
“A government that is big enough to provide everything to the people is big enough to take away everything from the people”- Thomas Jefferson
The second the government becomes responsible to provide our necessities, we are then at the mercy of their decisions. Full reliance on the government makes its citizens weak and unwilling to support themselves. If the government becomes our parents, then we become nothing more than a nation of children.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson
Taking Our Own Freedoms
As I read some of the comments on various websites and consider the thought processes that surround debates on whether or not the government should or should not take care of us, many of the arguments seem to come from a “no one has a hidden agenda” mindset. Now, whether the commentors actually believe this way or not, I can’t say. But in an effort to introduce some thoughts that you may not have considered, I’d like to post Ronald Reagan’s 1961 speech about socialized medicine. It’s available online as a video, but I had it transcribed for you below. Whether you agree with it or not, it certainly is thought provoking.
Ronald Reagan’s 1961 Speech Against Socialized Medicine – Full Transcript
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.
Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the progam after that.”
Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.
They say: “Once the Ferrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicince. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.
Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citicizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.
What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-c0ngressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security. And they say here is a great insurance program now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end Social Security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.
I know how I’d feel, if you my fellow citizens decided that to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband, all of us can see what happens – once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell them where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers - for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.
This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”
This debate reminds me so much of the way mainstream America takes the bait when it comes to investment strategies as well. Advertisements touting past performance and promising a safe financial future are taken without much question from the average investor.
Before we make decisions, let’s take a look at all perspectives. Sometimes, we even need to wake up. Are we willing to compromise our freedoms to “be taken care of?” Why would we want to? Especially when the United States is still the land of opportunity. If you want an education, it’s available. If you want to start a business, it’s allowed. If you don’t like the laws, you can work towards reform. There’s not much you can’t do in America, if you put your mind to it. Let’s not let the determined, hard working mindset that this great nation was founded on go by the wayside.
What are your thoughts? Are we falling asleep at the wheel?