I’ve known Group Captain Hood a frighteningly long time. For this reason his column the other day on this nation’s impending health care Dunkirk seemed somewhat out of character — exasperated, defiant, and more than a little pissed off. That’s my petulant gig, not John’s — his is the voice of calm, measured reason. The long view. The big picture.
Yet it is clear that his faculties of reason and proper perspective lead him to the conclusion that our country’s government intends to do him — and millions of other law-abiding citizens — great harm by taking away any control over how they provide health care to themselves, their families, and their employees. As I read the column I could only agree:
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not planning to recognize such a result as legally binding. I’m not going to pretend to obey any dictates from federal health-care bureaucrats that have never been authorized by a constitutional vote of both houses of Congress.
But at the same time, I thought this was too little, too late. Turns out that was my hair-trigger judgment going off again. The “I will not comply” formulation has clearly struck a nerve across America, presenting a choice between arbitrary, naked government dictates and individual choice and responsibility.
And the responsibility part is the key here. Those of us who elect to pay less in insurance premiums in exchange for greater control over our health care dollars are not shirking our responsibilities to anyone — least of all civil society. We have simply made the informed choice to be more pro-active on the front-end of health care decisions in order to “buy” more say-so on the back-end. Nothing particularly difficult about this notion — nor obviously correct. Those who prefer to buy maximum coverage upfront are perfectly free to do so as far as I am concerned.
But not so government flunkies. Choice and freedom screws up their command-and-control models for health care “delivery” — note, not the health care market. For the health care Oberaufseherin “prices” have nothing to do with market value — prices are simply fiscal constructs used to apply subsidy where needed in their top-down, unstable system. And that is “prices” as determined by government flunkies. There is nothing moral, right, proper, or ultimately legal about such an approach. Which gets us back to compliance. Or lack thereof.
Our federal government simply has no authority to do what it is trying to do — mandate a massive cross-subsidy of health care costs while outlawing my choice for meeting those very same needs. We can either go along with this policy or pledge our lives, honor, and fortunes in opposition.
You got at least one wingman, John. And from the looks of it — a couple thousand more.
