There are two posts I would really like to get done. Since my workload at my day job has started to pick up, my blogging time has shrunken considerably. And that is actually a good thing overall as it is much better than having all the time in the world with no job; but it can be frustrating to a certain degree when I would much rather be writing. But I digress.

TravisV commented on my last post that I used as sort of warning that blurring the lines between the Sumner Critique and the foundation of MM could land him in the middle of a political storm that he probably doesn’t want to be in. At least I would prefer to have MM as the basis of monetary policy first, then have whatever political fights he wants to have. But apparently my spin was misunderstood as TravisV brought up healthcare.

First of all, I do not have some sort of personal problem with people who believe centralized government actions are the answer to everything. I have a difference of opinion with them. The specific examples I have discussed here on my blog, I think, have been fair criticisms, pointing out the inconsistencies in the political debates versus the results – and I have been especially harsh on arguments presented by those in my former political party regarding bubble and inflation fear-mongering, economic statism, social statism, etc…  

I believe I have well established moderate liberal bonafides, in the classical sense. I also wish to point out that nationalism is not liberalism. There is nothing liberating about big government; and I have simply little patience for dishonest framing of debates with the premise that government is infallible, more trustworthy, caring and dependable than anyone or anything else. If the economic difficulties of the last five years have not proven that premised to be utterly false, I am completely unsure what would.

But somehow, the example of the bureaucrat-induced monetary disaster doesn’t apply to the most personal issue of healthcare. If anyone were to ask me if government should be making choices about my healthcare – which I would naturally translate to panels of bureaucrats and/or politicians deciding which treatments I or anyone else will receive, as we saw the very beginning of not quite two years ago when women were screaming that Republicans were going to take away their birth control, power that ObamaCare gave them, I would say that the person asking me that question is completely daft and in need of a psychological evaluation.

And what I hear when listening to the debate about healthcare is that because not everyone can get what they “think” they need, everyone – and I mean everyone – has to be subjected to the lowest common denominator of bureaucratized and politicized healthcare where wrong doesn’t mean just financial hardship, but death. I think I would rather go without – I might have better chances. This isn’t about giving anything to anyone, but about taking, the kinds of taking that still will not satisfy those who need to take. There will always be a villain. There will always be someone who has more than the next guy. No government ever – no matter how statist has been able to flatten everyone out. In fact, I see the opposite – the more statist the government, the more economically lopsided things become.

There is absolutely no one who can convince me otherwise. Healthcare is not where government belongs.

Advertisements