One of the sillier things we do is to treat politics as a sporting event. We put our various candidates together, and we stage a debate. Then the news media rates them on style and presentation and tells us who won.
As a practical matter it matters very little who “won”. What matters is whether each candidate succeeded in telling us where they stand on the issues and with whom we agree.
In the last presidential debate (see here), the candidates gave us clear choices. One candidate clearly presented himself as a socialist. The other advocated the free market. Consider this dialogue on health care.
Brokaw: Quick discussion. Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
Sen. McCain?
McCain: I think it’s a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that — that I have, that will do that.
But government mandates I — I’m always a little nervous about. But it is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small-business people and others, and they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that.
But they certainly are a little nervous when Sen. Obama says, if you don’t get the health care policy that I think you should have, then you’re going to get fined. And, by the way, Sen. Obama has never mentioned how much that fine might be. Perhaps we might find that out tonight.
Obama: Well, why don’t — why don’t — let’s talk about this, Tom, because there was just a lot of stuff out there.
Brokaw: Privilege, right or responsibility. Let’s start with that.
Obama: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills — for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
So let me — let me just talk about this fundamental difference. And, Tom, I know that we’re under time constraints, but Sen. McCain through a lot of stuff out there.
Number one, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor. There’s no mandate involved.
Small businesses are not going to have a mandate. What we’re going to give you is a 50 percent tax credit to help provide health care for those that you need.
Now, it’s true that I say that you are going to have to make sure that your child has health care, because children are relatively cheap to insure and we don’t want them going to the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma.
And when Sen. McCain says that he wants to provide children health care, what he doesn’t mention is he voted against the expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program that is responsible for making sure that so many children who didn’t have previously health insurance have it now.
Now, the final point I’ll make on this whole issue of government intrusion and mandates — it is absolutely true that I think it is important for government to crack down on insurance companies that are cheating their customers, that don’t give you the fine print, so you end up thinking that you’re paying for something and, when you finally get sick and you need it, you’re not getting it.
And the reason that it’s a problem to go shopping state by state, you know what insurance companies will do? They will find a state — maybe Arizona, maybe another state — where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there.
That’s how in banking it works. Everybody goes to Delaware, because they’ve got very — pretty loose laws when it comes to things like credit cards.
And in that situation, what happens is, is that the protections you have, the consumer protections that you need, you’re not going to have available to you.
That is a fundamental difference that I have with Sen. McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That’s what we’ve been going through for the last eight years. It hasn’t worked, and we need fundamental change.
McCain said health care is a responsibility. Obama said health care is a right. Then Obama proceeded to tar McCain as someone who does not care about the children. That charge is absurd. What is Obama was talking about was a vote to expand an “existing” program to higher income households while increasing taxes (see here).
Obama spins a good sob story. Nonetheless, Obama does not know the difference between a right and a privilege. When we demand government GIVE us things, and health care is a thing, we are demanding that our government enslave our fellow citizens to pay for our goodies. Somebody has to pay for all these things, and Obama is certainly not going to do it all by himself. Only the real Messiah could do that.
Look at the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Each of these amendments protects your rights from the government. Your government does not give you your rights. Our Creator endowed us with our rights (see The Declaration of Independence), not the government and not Barack Obama. At best, our government protects our rights from some of our fellow human beings, the power hungry and greedy. Even so, government itself represents a grave threat to our rights. That is why when the Founders first amended the Constitution their first concern was to protect the rights of citizens from the government itself.
When Obama weaves his sob stories and lauds the virtues of socialism, he is trying to sell us on an economic theory based upon legalized theft. We are each entitled to the fruit of our labors. No matter how needy Paul may be, nothing justifies government stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Does our government exist simply redistribute wealth? What could be the moral basis for that? When we so desperately need government to protect the rights of the People, how can we trust the same institution to steal from us and then give what we have earned to another? If Paul needs Peter’s charity, what is wrong with leaving it up to Peter to see the need? Why is it better trust a politician trying to buy votes?
