Declaring Imminent Doman over My Body

Via Q&O:

Again, the grand claim of such a system is it will be more efficient
and less costly. Nary a one of the systems in existence today that I've
read about has lived up to the "efficiency" claim, if access and
waiting times are a measure of efficiency. Every one of them seems to
suffer from lack of access.

Secondly, the "less costly" claim
seems to be accomplished by limiting access and limiting treatment. A
rigid structure with prescribed treatments which disallow deviation.
Imagine the sort of cancer treatment forced on the Japanese attempted
here. Now imagine it with any other chronic disease you can name.

What's the premise at work in a system like that?

Commenting
on the WSJ article, Craig Cantoni, a columnist in Scottsdale, Ariz.,
writes: "Like nationalized health care in other countries, the Japanese
system is based on the premise that the state owns your body."
Therefore, "the state can dictate what medical care can be withheld
from you, either by policy or by making you wait so long for care that
you die in the mean time."

We see all sorts of bloviation
by the left about attacks on our liberty. Yet, for the most part, they
are supportive of the most insidious attack on our liberty you can
imagine with their call for some form of universal health care system
here. And make no mistake, all of the leading Presidential candidates
are talking about an eventual government-run system despite their
obvious spin.

I've said something similar for years.  As one example, I have pointed out that the National Organization of Women's strong support for national health care just demonstrates their utter intellectual bankruptcy, as I wrote here:

What this article really shows is that by going with a single-payer
government system, each of us would be ceding the decisions about our
health care, our bodies, and even lifestyle to the government.  So
surely women's groups, who were at the forefront of fighting against
government intrusion into our decisions about our bodies, is out there
leading the fight against government health care.  WRONG!
Their privacy arguments stand out today as sham libertarian arguments
that applied only narrowly to abortion.  It's clear that as long as
they can get full access to abortion, women's groups are A-OK with
government intrusion into people's decisions about their bodies.

Don't miss their web site, which has sales offers for "Keep your laws of my body" T-shirts right next to appeals to "demand health care for all now."

  • http://goodmorningeconomics.wordpress.com jsalvati

    Even if NOW is just concerned about abortion, it should be worried, because it is constitutionally permissible for the government to choose discriminate when it is acting "as a patron." Meaning that if conservatives are in charge of a government run health care program (as they inevitably will be at some point, this is a conservative country), there will be restrictions on abortions, probably strong ones.

  • Elliot

    "Doman" should be "Domain" in the title.

  • Mesa Econoguy

    And “Imminent” should be “Eminent.”

    eminent domain
    n. the power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings.

    People who endorse universal healthcare have no clue what they’re talking about.

  • John David Galt

    Not to be pedantic, but you'd sound much more credible to the casual reader if you spelled "eminent domain" correctly.

  • Bob Smith

    Women's groups were never about freedom for anything. They were about taking from men to give to themselves. Why do I say "men" and not "taxpayers"? Ask yourself this: if women's groups believed that women would end up paying the majority of costs for subsdized abortions, mammograms, and the other "freebies" they demand women get, would they still demand them? It is no surprise that women's groups, most if not all of which subscribe to the general philosophy of "man bad, woman good", ask for taxpayer subsidies for women when they know that men pay a great majority of all tax dollars.