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.

And the big picture is always about control and power; it is also at the heart of the current discussion of Healthcare reform. Another example of the purposeful inexactness of language. Why do we not talk about reforming medical care?

Health is the relative condition of the human body and is determined by a variety of factors one of which is medical care. Other factors that influence our health are diet, amount of exercise, heredity; there is even a growing body of evidence demonstrating that prayer, meditation and regular attendance at worship services extends life expectancy, improves the immune system and adds to the overall health of the individual.

It is not hysterical to begin to wonder if the tentacles of a government run “healthcare” system will not find their way into the food services industry, leisure activities and even our spiritual endeavors.

Consider that just last week the Los Angeles Times reported on a new study by the Urban Institute entitled: “Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies from the Tobacco Wars.” In order to fight the obesity “epidemic” in America the study recommends an excise tax on fattening foods. As sure as night follows day this is the first step down the road to “good food” and “bad food” as defined by bureaucrats in Washington D.C. It is a step the administrative state requires.

The allure of universal healthcare to most Americans is that it sounds an awful lot like “free” healthcare. Protest if you like, but that is really what most Americans want. We want to be able to go to any doctor we choose, for whatever ailment we have, receive the most current and cutting edge treatment available and not have to come out of pocket. Nice work if you can get it.

The crisis in American “healthcare” is and will continue to be who pays for medical services and how much they pay. Because it is at bottom a financial issue, the question of policy will be driven by similar concerns. In order to control costs those in charge will make financial decisions-not medical decisions-and policy makers will be encouraged to use their ever expanding power over our lives to address the crisis.

See if this sounds familiar: one way in which we can control the rising cost of healthcare is to try and make sure people are healthier and so need less medical care. Obese Americans account for more than $40 billion in annual “healthcare” spending. We need to prevent Americans from eating too much sugar, fat, red meat etc. etc. etc.

Have no fear, Government will ride to the rescue with a myriad of laws, taxes and expanded regulatory powers all designed to protect us; make us happier and healthier. The fine print will have been ignored because the details simply don’t matter — at least not when you are engaged in the noble work of saving humanity from itself.

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.

I must remember to share this article with my friend Bryan. Bryan is a cancer survivor. I have had friends that have lost their battles with cancer so his continued presence on this earth is a great joy to me and a fact of which I am sure he is also no doubt ecstatic. Bryan is particularly interested in the current state of health care costs because his insurance paid for what he terms a “measly portion” of his treatment- he is currently burdened with the cost of what his insurance did not cover. He simply can’t afford the astronomical cost. His complaint is echoed by many clamoring for nationalized healthcare. What remains unclear is under what moral principle one man can demand that others pay for his healthcare and whether any policy not firmly grounded in a moral truth can be just.

Bryan’s story perfectly illustrates the truth that the rising cost of healthcare has coincided with the rising quality of healthcare. It is true that not too long ago he would have paid considerably less for his cancer treatment. The bad news is that he would not have been around long enough to spend his savings. New drugs and new technologies lengthened his life as it they have for hundreds of thousands of others. Progress comes with a price tag.

Bryan was not denied care. In fact no one in America is denied healthcare. He had insurance and he has an income with which to pay what the insurance didn’t cover. The fact is– he would much rather spend his money on something else other than hospital bills reaching into the thousands of dollars. What better solution than a system where cancer treatment is paid for by someone else? He may be interested to learn that the U.S. ranks first in the world in cancer survivor rates and that breast cancer survivors in Canada have filed a class action suit against several hospitals that forced them to wait 12 weeks for radiation therapy. Obviously neither Bryan nor other national healthcare advocates want to wait in lines or have others decide if they are to live or die. What they want is someone else to foot the bill even if children receiving a public education must suffer.

This brings me to a conversation I had about healthcare a few years ago on the corner of 8th avenue and 47th street in Manhattan. I was standing on the corner debating politics with my friend Nancy, or I should say my ex-friend Nancy. This conversation was one of the last I had with her and remains positive proof that good friends ought to avoid discussing politics. But I digress.

At one point Nancy decried the fact that poor people did not have access to the same care as those of better means. I responded rather incredulously that the wealthy would always have access to better care because they would always be able to pay for it. Nancy’s eyes grew narrow and she asked me, “Do you think that is fair?”

It was at that moment that I truly understood that for all the handwringing about rising costs and access for the 47 million uninsured what is really at issue is equality. Will America be a place where some have more and others have less? Because we can’t all be equal in our benefits will we struggle to “level the playing field” in order to ensure that we are all equal in our misery?

But even in Canada some folks are more equal than others. What we learn in the Times account is that the use of influence in order to jump waiting times is common and that those preaching the virtue of a nationalized system are frequently at pains to explain why they and their loved ones attend private clinics.

The Times article ends with the conservative Member of Parliament giving an emotional speech wherein he promises to expand federal drug benefits. Of course he neglects to explain where he will get the money to “pay for a program that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year.”

Politics in any language.

You see, just like college students, liberals have the luxury of espousing points of view from the lap of luxury that is the USA. When you’ve had to live through it and have actually had a “dog in the fight,” it becomes a whole new ball game. Is this really what we want for America?