The Tyranny of 'Universal' Health Care

No matter how chippy the Democratic presidential primary eventually becomes, at least the candidates will always be able to agree on the nation's pressing need for "universal" health coverage. Every major Democratic candidate has such a plan, the idea being that only this way will the country's "49 million" uninsured find reprieve. But government-run health insurance carries unintended consequences -- chief among them is a loss of civil liberty.

In today's D.C. Examiner, I have a piece exploring how national health coverage necessarily entails a loss of personal freedom. After comparisons to what Mayor Bloomberg has done here in New York City, the piece concludes:

Universal coverage invites Congress to legislate approved lifestyles. And this while a recent Gallup poll finds that Americans now “express less trust in the federal government than at any point in the past decade, and trust in many federal government institutions is now lower than it was during the Watergate era.” Don’t like the decisions politicians are making for you? Have fun lobbying both houses of Congress to relinquish their new power.

The last few years have demonstrated that rare is the place politicians are unwilling to tread in the name of public health. Delegating greater responsibility to the government is a bad bargain that will inevitably lead not to better care, but to increased coercion.

Here's the whole thing.

American Enemies

Both John Edwards and Mike Huckabee are calling for a national ban on smoking in public places.

Once upon a time, proposing such specific regulation of individual behavior at the federal level would be insane. No longer. Today, the conversation over what the government has the right to decide on behalf of its constituents is undergoing a titanic shift, all in the name of "public health."

This isn't working out so well for anyone who prizes civil liberty. For a country with an identity inseparable from its its open society, "public-health" legislation represents one of the greatest threats after terrorism. (And unlike wiretapping phone calls to terrorists, "health" bans actually impact people's lives.)

Yes, many people will happily sacrifice liberty for some perceived public good. But they'd be remiss to neglect considering that this country hasn't achieved its many successes owing to thoughtful government intervention into its citizens' lives.

Slogans for Me, Not for Thee

The father of the "Two Americas" slogan, John Edwards, says the War on Terror is "a slogan designed only for politics," Tom Bevan writes:

On this point [eradicating American poverty being a "great moral issue"] we can't question Edwards' sincerity, but it certainly does bring up questions about his judgment. Last month during the first Democratic debate, MSNBC's Brian Williams asked the group of presidential hopefuls for a show of hands from those who would answer yes to this question: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Four candidates raised their hands; John Edwards was not among them.

Is the plight of the poor (in the richest country in the world, no less) really a greater moral issue than dealing with a worldwide movement of religious fanatics who slaughter innocents around the globe -- including more than three thousand of our own citizens on September 11 -- and whose stated mission is the destruction of the United States?

Actually, this makes perfect sense -- if you're crazy.

John Edwards, Crazy

A not-to-be missed item from yesterday's Inside Politics column from The Washington Times:

Bob Shrum, the famed consultant to a string of failed Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, seems determined to embarrass his former client and current presidential hopeful John Edwards in the forthcoming book "No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner," the New Republic's Michael Crowley writes at www.tnr.com

Mr. Shrum's book "repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony," Mr. Crowley said.

For example, Mr. Shrum says Mr. Kerry had qualms about choosing Mr. Edwards to be his presidential running mate in 2004, but grew "even queasier" after Mr. Edwards said he was going to share a story with Mr. Kerry he had never told anyone else — that after his son, Wade, had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home and hugged his body and promised that he would do all he could to make life better for people.

"Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Mr. Shrum says that, in the end, Mr. Kerry "wished that he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut" and selected former Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.

You know how you can tell Edwards is deep into wacko-land? He makes John Kerry look normal by comparison.