What Healthcare Reform Was Really About

This article was featured in The Philadelphia Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/28/10. You can read the online version here, or check out the print column each week.

Healthcare reform was not about healthcare.

Hours after the House narrowly passed its historic reform bill, President Obama poignantly said, “This is what change looks like.” He was right—the composition of America, along with 17% of its economy, will never be the same. Though the bill came with some smart reforms, its foundation—the government guarantee of health insurance for all—draws our nation ever closer to European-style socialism. Sunday’s vote was about more than CBO cost calculations, controversial legislative procedure, and complex insurance mandates. Liberal thinkers placed an ideological stake in the ground: Government will be the Great Provider.

Past liberal administrations began the march toward socialization, expanding government control and provision, demonizing capitalism, and shifting responsibility away from individuals and onto government. ObamaCare will take its place in the liberal cavalcade of massive government growth initiatives alongside Welfare, Social Security, and a multitude of entitlement programs. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin said the massive taxes and vast expansion of government required to run the program would simply be, “The cost…of having the kind of America we want to have.” What kind of America was he referring to?

Certainly not that of our founders. Our founders envisioned a country defined by Liberty. Liberty meant extremely limited government intervention: Individuals would keep the fruit of their labor, earn prosperity, and have responsibility for the outcomes of their lives. Government would stay away unless absolutely necessary. Our founders realized government welfare, in any form, would be a zero sum game: What government spends on some it must take from others. Since government could not raise its own revenue, each special program, bailout, or safety net given to some would be provided only by confiscating the earned income of others. This, they saw, was a fundamental infringement on Liberty. The larger government grew, the more Freedom and Liberty shrank.

As the nation aged, liberal thinkers began to believe they could solve society’s ills through government. Personal industry no longer mattered, government would save you. The more extreme ideologues, similar to those in the Obama Administration, felt redistribution was necessary to ensure “fairness” for all. If you didn’t have what others had, it wasn’t your fault. You were a victim. Fairness, forced equality of outcomes, and broad socialization were now the end goals. No matter Liberty. Cradle-to-grave government care would be the norm.

Thus, Americans need not be responsible to save for retirement; government will take care of you through Social Security. Americans need not worry about unemployment; government will provide for you through welfare. Americans need not carefully save to buy a home; Fannie and Freddie will give you a loan. And now, Americans need not work to earn healthcare—even if you make $40,000 a year—government will pick up the tab.

But wait, you say, how can providing for the less fortunate be wrong? In a society like ours, shouldn’t we show compassion? The problem is that forced “compassion” for some means the loss of liberty and private property for others. President Obama’s health bill is funded by $569 billion in new taxes on income that citizens and businesses have rightfully earned.

But for the liberal movement, foundational principles are subservient to ephemeral notions of “compassion” and socialized “equality.” This ultimate march toward collectivism will be stopped for nothing.

It will not be stopped for the public will—polls throughout the past year consistently demonstrated strong national distaste for the bill, culminating in a CNN poll the night of its passage showing nearly 60% of Americans opposed. It will not be stopped for electoral results—one of the nation’s most liberal states, Massachusetts, elected its first Republican Senator since the 1970s (Scott Brown), after he campaigned primarily in opposition to the bill. Despite the landmark election, Democrats dodged normal legislative rules and readily resorted to a procedural tactic to push the bill through. It will not be stopped for vast government overspending—the legislation comes at a cost of $940 billion and will add thousands to government administration. The Congressional Budget Office noted the IRS will need roughly $10 billion and 17,000 employees just to enforce the bill’s personal insurance requirement. It will not stop for the Constitution—for the first time, Americans will be forced by the government to buy a private product (driver’s insurance notwithstanding; you can choose whether or not to drive).

Americans must be aware of the force and aim of the liberal movement. Liberal thinkers believe the Constitution is malleable, the Founding irrelevant, and Liberty a luxury. Passing legislation funded through redistributive taxation, structured on expansive government, and driven by socialist ideology is a means to an end.

A friend of mine wrote to me the day after the bill passed and anxiously asked, “What can we do now?!” We must not forget the significance of the moment. This is a defining time in our nation’s history, and conservatives must carefully articulate what is at stake. This is not about legislative rules or 2,000-page bills. It is about the fundamental character and identity of our nation. Will we be a country defined by Liberty, personal industry, individual responsibility, small government, capitalism, and Freedom? Or will we drift ever closer to a Great Provider Government?

The good news is that, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports, only 27% of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction. November can’t come soon enough.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net