Government Expansion

     Some people may watch the evening news and believe that the number one debate in the nation today is about health care. On the one side, I’ll call it the left, you have people in power and control of the Congress who want to take over the nation’s health care industry and put it under the purview of the Federal government. On the other side, I’ll call it the right, you have people who still believe that the individual and the private sector are still the best way to handle such an important decision as life and death.

  The real question in this so-called health care debate isn’t just what is best for the consumer, it’s about whether the nation wishes to continue down this dangerous path of out of control government expansion.

  If we allow the Federal government to take over the decision-making of where and how and of what kind of health care insurance we are to buy, or even if we wish to buy it, then we will have conceded that we as individuals  are not capable of running our own lives. We will have admitted that we must have government agents  make all of our life’s most important choices. We will have become nothing more than a small piece in the government machine.

  We have over the years allowed government expansion in so many areas of our lives that we now take it for granted. Many times we hear that government expansion has been for the benefit of the nation and the people. Examples such as how much safer our roads are due to the fact that government inspectors give our cars a good two-minute inspection every two years.

  But as so often is the case, inspections by the government then turn into regulating. Once we gave the  authority to the government to inspect our car and to determine whether they were safe or not, the government then took it upon itself to make our cars safer and more efficient. The government started mandating such things as fuel mileage. The car companies were forced to make their cars out of lighter materials to achieve this , without giving up the performance that the consumers desired.

  Due to the lighter materials however the cars were not as safe , because they crumpled so easily. So the government came back and saved the day again by mandating all sorts of safety changes. Then the government took it upon itself to mandate environmental limits on the exhaust of the vehicles.

  Now some will say that all of this is for the good of the nation, the world and the people. This can be argued, but what it did was to raise the cost of the vehicles. Some may ask , so what ? Well just imagine what people would be able to buy with the extra two, three or even four thousand dollars, that all of that  government regulation has added to the price of a car. What this has done , it has narrowed the consumer’s choices of where they can spend the money they earn.

  Another favorite example that the left loves to use to justify government expansion is the FDA. They will tell you that millions of lives are save every year because of the FDA’s inspection of food and drugs. Again this can be argued to be a benefit, one that even I would not deny. But also again , once we handed over the authority to the government to make the determination of whether our food was safe and whether our drugs would do what the pharmaceutical companies said they would, we also opened the door for the government to expand its authority .

  We have reached a point in this nation where , not only does the government regulate the preparation of food and the testing of drugs, we now see governments such as New York City regulating such things as saturated fats and salt limits in the foods that restaurants sell, we see the government telling restaurants that they must post calorie content on their menus. Is this really what government should be doing?

 If this health care reform is passed in any form, by any party, we will see the largest expansion of government control and regulation in the history of this nation. We will witness the government take over of every aspect of our lives.

 Once we allow the government to have the power to decide our health care issues, it will expand and grow and regulate everything from the food we eat to the kind of car we drive, to the leisure activities we choose to participate in.

  If we allow the government this power, it will be the end of freedom in this nation. It will be the end of the great experiment.


8 Responses to “Government Expansion”

  1. Collins B Says:

    I suggest you do some more fact checking. You can make the body of a car out of paper and still be very safe in it. It is NOT the body of the car that protects you in an accident. Anybody who has any knowledge and experience with cars knows that. In fact, having cars that crumple easily can actually keep youu safer. It is the frame of the car that offers the greatest protection and crumple zones within the car offer a way to absorb the energy of a crash/accident without transmitting the energy of the collusion to the occupants of the vehicle. Try to stick to topics where you have any knowledge and experience or do the necessary studying so you don’t show your ignorance.

  2. frankknotts Says:

    Collins, take your finger out and follow along, first off the article is about government expansion not car manufacturing. But let me ask you, if you had your choice of which vehicle to be in, in a two car accident, would you rather be in the Geo or the Navigator ? As for your paper car, I wouldn’t want to be in it if the fuel cell ruptured. Not to mention, aren’t you worried about the number of trees that would be killed to produce one car?
    Help me out here Collins because I couldn’t tell from your response, how do you feel about government expansion?

  3. Collins B Says:

    First-I would (generally) rather be in the Navigator, but that is simply because the large truck has a standard body over frame, as opposed to the unibody of the Geo. If the fuel cell ruptured I would definitely rather be in the paper car, because it would be very easy to get out of the car.

    Concerning government expansion, I would prefer that it not be necessary. Unfortunately the insurance companies in America have made it necessary. The insurance companies are in the business of denying healthcare, because it is only through the denying of healthcare
    that they are able to make a profit. They have engineered a system to enable the denial of care while taking growing profits. Profit is fine-but not at the price of denying care that cost people their lives. I would prefer that everyone have access to health care, but that is not the world we live in today. 48 million people do not have access to the basic care available to those fortunate enough to have insurance. That should, quite simply, not be the situation in America.

  4. frankknotts Says:

    Collins, I’m not sure why you and others believe that the insurance companies owe you anything. They sell you a product, therefore it is their right to set the terms of you buying the product. If you do not like the terms then don’t buy the product. And if you have no relationship with the companies then they truly owe you nothing.
    It would seem that you may have bought into the class envy drivel that the left has been pushing for nearly seventy years. When you make statements such as, “because it is only through the denying of healthcare
    that they are able to make a profit”, it shows your lack of understanding of the capitalist system. You must remember that these evil insurance companies employ hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Would you really want to see them become government employees? Also don’t forget that these money grubbing insurance devils also invest the money they earn that creates many more jobs. Also they are a large piece of many retirement funds. But I guess if they get run out of business by Obamacare, well I guess you and those who feel the way you do are just fine with the government picking up that tab also, but wait the government doesn’t have any money does it? That’s right it will be the tax “PAYERS” who get stuck once again.

  5. Collins B Says:

    Frank, please explain the error of my statement regarding that only through denying care can insurance companies make a profit. I understand that insurance companies invest in stocks, bonds and other investment instruments to generate income from the premiums that they charge, but that in no way makes my statement erroneous or illogical.
    Insurance companies delay paying claims by denying coverage for a procedure simply as a means to discourage the claimant from pursuing a covered course of treatment. They will deny coverage, deny coverage and deny coverage-then they decide to cover the treatment. This systematic pattern of denial serves to delay payments (thus increasing their ability to profit from investments) and to make the process of getting approval so onerous that many people will simply give up trying. This system of denial of care serves to cause the early and unnecessary deaths of some individuals who are trying to acquire life-saving treatments.

    You said that if I so not have a relationship with the insurance company then they owe me nothing. If your friend, your sister, your brother, your mother or father die because an insurance company drags it’s feet or out-right denies coverage for a treatment that could/would have saved their life-do they still owe you nothing? At what point does the good the insurance companies could do and the harm they will (are) do(ing) cause there to be a relationship with those who do not purchase their product?

    I am reminded of this quote from John Donne, “All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated…As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness….No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

    The needless death of someone who was denied coverage for a treatment should not happen. And as long as insurance CEO’s are pre-occupied with the profitability of their companies and not the health needs of their clients-that will continue to happen. And to say that you can just switch companies is a lie. Very, very few people are in a situation to be able to change insurance companies. Over-whelmingly people obtain their insurance through their employer, so they can NOT change companies. To tell them, “Well just get your insurance somewhere else.” is a cruel taunt that belittles the difficulties they are facing.

  6. frankknotts Says:

    Collins, I keep running into this argument about health care and my moral responsibility to my fellow man. I do believe I have a moral resposibility to my fellow man. I do not however believe that the government can legislate morality, nor can it legislate good will toward all.
    The problem I have with this health care bill revolves around the mandate to buy insurance just so I can continue to be a free citizen. Collins, I am sure you understand the only reason the government wants to force healthy young adults to purchase insurance is to collect revenue for years and years while they are healthy, to pay for those who won’t ever pay a dime for insurance.
    And why should people like Bill Gates be required to buy insurance when he can clearly pay out of pocket for his health care?
    This is not about helping our fellow man, it is about government control of our most personal choices. There are plenty of private charities and organizations around to help people. There are already government programs to aid the needy.
    Are there changes that could be made to improve the system? Yes. But without the mandate. It is un-constitutional.
    By the way the question about profit,well isn’t that why most businesses are started?
    If you want to ask the question why some people die, well I happen to believe we are all in God’s hands.

  7. Collins B Says:

    The government cannot legislate morality-are you serious-almost all our laws are an attempt to legislate morality. Programs to help the poor-have you ever spent time with the truely poor people who need serious life saving treatments? I have been seen the “benefits” of some of these programs (medicaid & medicare excepted) to help people who do not have insurance. With few exceptions they are largely pallitive in their treatment protocols. How generous of us-make sure they don’t get to uncomfortable as they die-they might make too much noise.

    I tend to believe the analysis of the constitutional scholars & attorneys that I have heard say that the program is constitutional-somehow I think they have a bit more credibility then you on the legality of the program.

    Requiring healthy people to purchase health insurance (or be subject to a tax penalty) makes complete sense to me. There are many things that are mandated for the common good.

    You believe that we are all in God’s hands-I agree. Maybe you should read Matthew 25: 45.

  8. frankknotts Says:

    Ah! Collins, the game is afoot! You say, “The government cannot legislate morality-are you serious-almost all our laws are an attempt to legislate morality”, I notice even you, used the word “attempt”. My point is that government may attempt to legislate morality, but cannot actually create morality, fot that dwells in the hearts of man. Just because the government takes a person’s money and uses it for what may seem to be a moral good, this does not make the person whose money that was taken, a moral person, does it? For the person to be a moral person the money or deed must be given freely from the goodness of their heart.
    You also say.”I tend to believe the analysis of the constitutional scholars & attorneys that I have heard say that the program is constitutional-somehow I think they have a bit more credibility then you on the legality of the program.” Well Collins, is it okay with you if I tend to believe those that I have heard say that it is not Consitutional? Also my good friend the Framers intentionally wrote the Constitution in a manner that all citizens could clearly understand their rights without consulting a lawyer, even you and I. It is only those who do not trust their own judgement, that feel the need for others to confirm their beliefs, I have never suffered that particular condition. Please tell me which article or amendment gives the federal government this power.
    As for your suggestion of Matthew 25:45, thank you, I have read the Bible many times in context, but if we want to pull passages out to serve our purposes I would suggest you back-up in Matthew and read Matthew 23:23-28 I believe this speaks directly to my point of, even though many may appear to be moral, only they and God know the truth of their morality.
    Collins, the Framers understood that certain things were government’s business and that certain things were God’s, just as Jesus taught us when he told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s. It is man who has attempted to blur the lines to make themselves feel better about themselves. If you or I choose to give freely of ourselves we are putting up treasure for the next world. Those who take from others and then justify it by cloaking it in morality or only attempting to gather treasures for this world.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: