Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Just Because It's a Good Idea . . .

DOESN'T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED.

A comment I made on OneMom's defense of certain portions of the health reform bill brought me to this post.

Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that I want the government being in charge of it or mandating it or regulating it. Here are some examples.

End of life document counseling- I think this should be left to individuals and their attorney/religious adviser.

Pre-marital counseling- Better in the hands of those who have been married 20+ years/ religious adviser.

Healthy eating- You can keep your fat tax and let me make my own decisions. And I will regulate my kids eating habits too thank you very much.

Educating our kids- It wouldn't bother me one bit if the government got out of education.

Energy efficient homes- I feel it is good stewardship to look for ways to be more energy efficient, but I will make those decisions about how much of my resources need to to to upgrades on my insulation, etc.

I am sure that this list could go on and on, but I think you get the point. I want the freedom to be stupid. I want the freedom to make choices that you see as less than ideal.

2 comments:

OneMom said...

I get exactly what you are saying and of course we want as little government as possible. However, let me throw a monkey wrench in here:

Where do we draw a line about people's right to be stupid? Example is, people smoke and in this country over the age of 18 they have a right to that stupidity. However, when they get lung cancer or COPD, we as a society ending up paying either directly for their health care (medicaid/medicare), or indirectly through our own increased insurance rates to pay for their uncompensated care.

Then of course, Mr(s). Free to Smoke can't work anymore, so then they receive disability and their family goes on welfare, etc etc etc.

The same can be said for obesity and the right to be stupid and consume tens of thousands of calories a day, which then leads to diabetes/heart disease/ loss of mobility/inability to work .... and we end up paying.

So, if people have the right to be stupid, then shouldn't the government/we as a society have the right to not pay the financial costs of their stupidity?

A caution to anyone reading this, I am not expressing any particular opinion, I am just trying to address how difficult this is and how much it costs us when people have freedom to be stupid.

Applied Christianity said...

Hey Kerry,
I agree with you which is why I don't think the government should be involved in health care at all. Then my tax dollars would not be paying for craziness. I think that the care of the aged/sick should be in the hands of the family/church/community. Disability insurance is the responsibility of the person to purchase not the government to provide.