the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

On health care, unions and freedom

Posted by Scott Dilley - June 04, 2008

This week the Seattle PI ran a column by guest Paula Hall, who told the rest of the world the heart-wrenching story of her life without health-care insurance coverage. It’s hard not to feel sorry for Hall and her family, but Hall implies our only solution to the health-care coverage problem is to choose between more government intrusion or the status quo.

This is a false choice. Just look at Florida, which recently rolled back government-imposed regulations on health insurance companies. With fewer mandates for coverage, companies can now offer leaner plans -– both in terms of costs and benefits -– to people who want them. When I buy groceries, I have my choice of stores and various products and brands within each store. Why must there be one choice for health care? Shouldn’t I have some say-so in what I buy and how much I’m willing to pay for it?

Furthermore, Hall discusses her union’s plan to spend $10 million to hold politicians accountable. There’s irony -– unions, which fight against being accountable to their members, now want to hold others accountable for their actions. Don’t be hypocritical.

Hall continues: “You wouldn’t invest in the stock market and then ignore the returns. It’s the same concept with politicians.” At least someone is finally admitting that unions view politicians as investments. I guess that explains the $2-3 million SEIU has already spent on political ads this year, with more to come.

Hall concludes: “If we do not continue our phone calls, lobby-day visits and our collective actions, we can’t expect to see our government rebuild the middle class, secure affordable health care for all, and ensure all workers have the freedom to unite for a voice on the job.”

The “freedom to unite” is code language for high priorities for organized labor. On the federal level, unions want to pass “card-check” legislation to take away a worker’s private union vote, making unionization easier and more prone to union manipulation.
 
On the state level, SEIU earlier this year was the primary driver behind legislation to unionize private daycare workers as public employees. SEIU wanted the legislature to take money away from low-income children and redirect it to the union, so that the union could hire more people to ask the legislature could increase the amount of money going to daycare for low-income children. Basically, SEIU wanted the chance to become the rich middleman at the expense of everyone else.
So here’s Hall’s argument: By taking away individual freedom, we gain collective “freedom.” This “freedom” is used to force government to further regulate and distribute health care to everyone, because we really can’t or shouldn’t be free enough to choose for ourselves what we want and need. This rationale treats people like dogs, “free” as long as we are chained up in the back yard.

Bottom line: This talk about “freedom” really amounts to more control by unions and favored politicians. Government-induced problems, such as our health-care crisis, are best solved by getting government out of the equation and by allowing individual choice and responsibility to bring about real freedom.

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

There are no comments for this entry yet.