Take away my liberty and give me ObamaCare!

It has been a long time since one of the great orators of American history, Patrick Henry, uttered the words "Give me liberty, or give me death," but those words still ring true today. Henry gave this speech to the Virginia delegates, imploring them to put the Virginia militia on standby to defend their land against the tyranny of the British, expressing his desire to face death instead of living in a world without freedom. But in contrast today, the current administration supports the opposite result; government control of individual lives while restricting personal liberties.

The Boston Sunday Globe proposed two steps to change health care: drive down costs while taking steps to cover the uninsured. The first step requires large employers to provide coverage, while the second step requires anyone who can afford insurance to buy it. First, what happened to our economic liberties? Just because many large corporations already provide insurance it doesn't mean the federal government should require all corporations to follow suit. Not every business conducts their business the same way: some make computers, some sell insurance, some drill for oil. Each business has a different model and a different strategy to achieve their goals. Some have decided to provide insurance as part of their employee compensation package, some have decide to compensate their employees through other methods. Since when does a capitalist society dictate how employers can structure employee compensation? It doesn't and it shouldn't because then it's not a capitalist society anymore, but a quasi-socialist society.

The Globe rebuts the premise that such a requirement would hamper the competitiveness of American companies by arguing that many overseas competitors come from countries where health care is covered by high taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the United States already has one the highest corporate tax rates in the western industrialized world and many of the countries the Globe bases their argument upon are in the process of or have already cut their corporate tax rates while still providing insurance. This administration wants their cake and to eat it too; they want to raise the corporate rates and require corporations to provide insurance as well. The Globe and this administration need to think before they act. This will undoubtedly hurt our businesses and our economy, leaving us in a worse place than we already are.

Second, the Globe argues people who can afford insurance should be forced to buy it. Are you kidding me? How does this proposal fit into a free society? They state:

This would make sure subsidized care goes to those who really need it, cleansing the system of any freeloaders.

They argue this would expand the pool of the insured by forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance to subsidize the old or sick and make it more affordable for them. So what they are really saying to the young and healthy is buy something you don't want or need so others can get a better deal, or in other words, "spread the wealth around." Sound familiar?

As a college student and early in my professional career I took a risk and decided not to buy insurance, mostly because I couldn't afford it. If I got sick or hurt I paid out of my own pocket to see a doctor. That was my choice and the risk I took. I did get hurt and I did get sick, but it was a calculated risk I decided to take. Once you take the freedom of choice away, you have taken away a fundamental liberty from our citizens. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, meaning that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. By forcing people to purchase insurance, the administration would infringe upon this liberty, something our President, a former constitutional attorney, should recognize. No matter how you spin it, no matter what words you place on the proposed government plan, it doesn't work. Socialized health care is socialized health care.