Regarding The Nanny State And Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Over the weekend I got into a comment debate with a couple of rather vehement supporters of Obamacare. The short version of the debate was that since I had posted some negative things about about the plan (particularly, the provision that required in-home visitation to make sure parents were parenting correctly) and strongly opposed the whole thing, then I must clearly be either:

A.) protecting a child abuser
B.) guilty of child abuse myself

Interesting logic, I know, but they were quite sure of themselves. Either way, these people were quite certain that I had lost my heart and my mind (a suggestion that was mentioned numerous times). Eventually, I realized the conversation had become unproductive and these guys were so taken with hope-n-change that they were unable or unwilling to even consider any rational argument or proof I sent their way, so I cut off the conversation. To the others who were on my side of the debate: good luck to you; I suggest you don't waste too much time since you'll never get through to them. As for me, I'd rather spend my time trying to reach people who are reasonable but uninformed rather than irrational and insulting; my goal is not to argue and fight, but to win the issue.

However, it was an instructive conversation for me to some extent because it prompted me to take a step back and re-evaluate (yes, I am intellectually honest enough to do that). One of the things they vigorously denounced was my assertion that Obamacare would lead to a nanny state where the government decided who lived and died. One of my justifications was to look at other places where this sort of plan had already been implemented and see what happened there. One of them said the standard of care was better in socialized situations, and the government never made such determinations as life and death. So I thought about it again, and no sooner had I done a quick spin through my RSS reader than I found yet more evidence of my perspective via Mark Steyn from the U.K. Daily Express:

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.

How much do you want to bet that there will be even more in the next two years after that, and more in the two years after that, and so on...? While it's a great thing to help problem families work through their issues (including preventing child abuse), putting them under 24x7 surveillance and government control is not the way to do it!

Here's another thought. Who defines 'problem' families? What standard will be used to make such a determination? Will there have to be an actionable offense before a family can be labeled 'troubled', or will it just take an accusation from a neighbor? I once got a nasty-gram from the city because a neighbor accused us of composting; the truth is that I had piled up a few tree branches at the end of a long day of yard work and left them in the back corner of the yard for one night before disposing of them. In typical government efficiency, the letter came several days later. Anyway, we all know a neighbor like that, don't we? It's not a large leap to envision an over-the-fence antagonist from leveling an accusation simply to get back at you for playing your music too loudly or blowing grass clippings onto his immaculate rose bushes. If you thought your HOA was bad about parking on the street, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Ever hear of a teen complain about oppressive or mean parents? Are these the kind of things that will get a family labeled a 'problem' family? Do you see how this is just begging to be abused?

Yes, I'll say it again: it is the Nanny State, and it will be coming to your doorstep if Obamacare gets passed.

And how about my assertion that the government will dictate who lives and who dies, and who gets what treatment? Am I off base? He says there's no evidence of rationing in systems like the U.K. has. The U.K. Telegraph begs to differ:

The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million.

Seems pretty obvious to me...what do you think? It's the really easy, obvious stuff like this that make me genuinely scratch my head in wonder at how people can maintain the opposite position.
But, even more disturbingly, we don't have to look past our own borders to see this life-and-death-decision-making in action. I give you Oregon's state-run health care program in all its fatal glory:

I believe this report aired in 2008. Proponents of assisted suicide -- and boy, isn't that a great title for someone to claim -- will quickly (smugly?) point out that Ms. Wagner passed away after just a few months on that treatment, as if that somehow justifies this state-run system being willing to pay for her suicide but not for her potential treatment. This is the brand of 'hope' that nationalized medicine brings us.

The bottom line is that all of these universal health care plans are great...until you're deemed not worth fixing. Then you're expendable. If that's how you want to live, go ahead and support Obamacare. I choose not to.

For all of you who support Obamacare, I'd just caution you to be careful what you wish for. Once a freedom is given up, it cannot be regained without a revolution, and in this case you could be giving up your actual life or the lives of your loved ones.

There's my two cents.