Entrenchment and resistance to the status quo

In his September 9, 2009 speech to Congress, President Barack Obama bluntly declared, "our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem."

This statement reflects Obama's celebration of the active government mentality of many of his supporters and his attempt to entrench that viewpoint in the public. When faced with what he considers an unsustainable situation for the taxpayers, rather than reduce what taxpayers pay he feels that it can't be that the government has asked too much and given too much to taxpayers but that the whole system is wrong.

At least in its ideal form, the pricing feature of capitalism results from the differing desires of makers, sellers and consumers interacting, each with an interest to themselves, so that the final price, based on what people are willing to hold on to or give up of their interests compared with those of others. That the participants voluntarily participate and believe that they benefit from the interaction are big parts of what make the price legitimate.

However, Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic Representative from California, don't believe in the legitimacy of capitalistic pricing. Rather, they want the national government to help some at the expense of others. As Pelosi said July 31, she wants legislation to switch the leverage to the consumer, having caps on payment but not on service.

Obama also declared that the "irresponsible behavior" of individuals and businesses who choose not to buy health insurance "costs all the rest of us money" and that without everyone doing their part, many sought reforms "just can't be achieved."

In order to save society money it feels it has to give but would rather not, he'll require individuals make purchases. Saving money, especially the people's tax money, is a good thing but when it requires restricting rights and making demands, the results suggest that the initial premise that the money has to be spent, the specific result has to be achieved are faulty. Making sure a political idea works is a worse reason to restrict freedom.

Obama quoted a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who claimed the matter was "above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

While some Democrats, including Obama, think that public health care can be achieved without raising taxes, others think tax raises to pay for current and added spending are appropriate but that taxes should only be raised for the very rich; Obama has said he won't increase taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, conspicuously not talking about what could be done to the top 5%.

The idea that liberal politicians demand sacrifice by some for a program that will help others, that they and their supporters support forcing some to act charitably but aren't willing to voluntarily contribute as much on their own, does indeed reveal a troubling immorality of the public.

Unfortunately, Republicans, sticking to bad traditions, are unwilling to challenge Medicare or Medicaid. Without this challenge, Democrats have an advantage in the public debate, easily able to argue that the government already subsidizes the elderly and poor and that paying for all, particularly when that involves manipulating price, could lower the prices overall. The lack of directness of Republicans about what should be cut is a big reason for their lack of credibility and the acceptance of big, active government.

Democrats arguing for cheaper products is a hard approach to defeat, particularly if Republicans aren't willing to challenge the idea that the product should be cheap and socially provided (indeed, most of them want to lower prices by lowering the prices of doctors' malpractice insurance, throwing away respect for the legitimacy of how capitalism determines prices).

But while the current struggle for the preservation of economic rights is bleak, bits of hope emerge. Michele Bachmann, Republican Representative from Minnesota said August 18 that citizens need to let liberal Congresspeople know that "under no circumstance will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

Some websites noted that the statement reflects a pro-choice perspective, an odd and opportunistic tactic for a conservative Republican to use (and indeed Bachmann supports legislating her views of when life starts), I think it reflects a deep truth: while government control can seem very appealing when it's used against people you don't like for a cause you do, it's unjust in itself and incredibly dangerous as it can be applied to you. Moral and personal autonomy resides in the individual person. Governmental controls should be as limited as possible in order to continue.

If people commit to this ideal, we may develop a more sincere appreciation of freedom but this will be very difficult when we accept governmental controls over more and more aspects of the economy.