One of the more perplexing yet insightful arguments made in support of Obamacare was made by none other than Nancy Pelosi. It is interesting, because it exposes such a fundamental shallowness in the Progressive-Left world view.
Here is what she said:
““A healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness, free of the constraints that lack of healthcare might provide to a family,” she said. “If you want to be photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you what to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness.” (h/t The Hill)
By this reasoning, Government grants liberties by taking adult responsibilities off the shoulders of its citizens. I’m talking about the responsibility of each citizen to create and contribute value to society at-least equivalent to the value of the goods and services that citizen wishes to take from society. Such entitlement rights as referenced by Ms. Pelosi are the so-called “positive” rights about which Progressive-Leftists like to carp.
Of course, this same argument could be taken further than just health care. Food, for example, or transportation, toothpaste, toilet paper. The more the government buys for you, the less you have to worry about actually earning a living to justify what you take from society.
In this Progressive-Left “no worries” universe, this works just swell, because goods and services are created out of thin air by government decree. However, in the real world, goods and services must necessarily come from somewhere and that somewhere is the product of human capital, sweat and labor. Someone must provide those medical products and services and the ability to provide for such services, barring slave labor, must come at some expense. Progressive-Leftists, however, seldom think this deep.
So, for the recipients of government largesse, there may not be any worries about getting “free” stuff, but for the creators and funders of those goods and services, it means that they will be compelled to work to provide government-mandated goods and service at prices and under conditions mandated by said government.
Except for the government-anointed elite recipients of such goods and services, this hardly provides a compelling vision of “freedom”, does it?!