The current philosophy of governance – and this includes governance of the democrat and republican variety-is that there is tremendous capacity in government to better the lives of average folks; it is the power of administrative policy that can end poverty, cure disease, and ultimately save the planet. It is, alas, also the promise of happiness written in capital letters that entices “we the people” to grant government ever greater powers with which to work their magic. Can’t find any authority in the constitution for the actions of our government? “Why man, they are engaged in the serious business of saving humanity!”

Woe to those that forget that the church is in the business of virtue; government is in the business of power. To mistake one for the other is to, in the one case risk the loss of your soul, in the other the loss of your liberty.

It all sounds a bit hysterical, I know, but I believe in math and two and two still makes four.

Consider the words of John Conyers (D-Mich). During a speech at a luncheon for the national press club Conyers questioned the point of lawmakers reading the Healthcare bill. There is no point in reading a bill that is 1000 pages long, said Conyers if you don’t “have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Conyers is correct. And I am just cynical enough to believe that the length and legalese is purposeful. The door to interpretation and regulatory enforcement by bureaucrats must be left ajar. What we learn from Conyers is that the big picture is what is important. (more…)

In May of 2004 the New York Times published an article entitled “Health Care Leads Other Issues in Canadian Vote.” The substance of the article was that in the elections that were upcoming, the future of the Canadian health care system was the predominate issue. On the one side were liberals seeking to reverse the trend of privatizing diagnostic services and increase federal aid to provincial governments. On the other conservatives were trying to increase private sector involvement as a way to lower costs and increase service. In spite of the Canadians patriotic zeal for their system, the article makes it clear that there was a growing recognition among citizens and politicians that the system was in the words of the Times, “ailing.” The waiting times for care were growing longer not shorter, the availability of doctors and nurses was becoming sparse especially in rural areas, opinion polls during the previous decade indicated a rising dissatisfaction with medical services and most significantly the cost of delivering medical care had grown so expensive that many provinces were being forced to “trim their budgets for education and other vital services.” Mind you this information came not from the Heritage Foundation but the New Liberal paper of record: The New York Times. (more…)

If you’re like most asinine leftists, you’ve probably been a long time advocate of “Universal Healthcare” without ever having had the opportunity to experience the crappy, decrepit system first-hand… Well here’s your chance… And you better hold on tight, Buttercup, because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

(more…)