Fear Insurance
By Gary Aldrich (06/28/03)
Decades of working for the federal government have made me cynical. You don’t have to work inside to lose heart, however. Too many instances of waste and gross incompetence have resulted in a corrosion of public optimism that could only be restored by leaders such as Ronald Reagan, or visionary scholars like Bill Bennett or Newt Gingrich.
But leaders who see the goodness in the average man don’t come along every day. Those who see the greater angels of our nature usually inspire others to try harder and seek solutions outside a strong central government.
Lately their voices seem to have been stilled – faded to a distant memory. Where can we find a single political leader who thinks outside the box of massive government programs run by careless, clueless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?
Democrats claim the high ground on dreams, yet when it comes to human nature, they expect the worst and are surprised and suspicious of the good when it comes along. Conservatives used to scoff at such pessimism. Sadly, they seem to be joining hands with those who believe humans can’t do much of anything important for ourselves.
When pessimists drive by a hospital, they may envision medical malpractice and greedy doctors inventing unnecessary expensive tests, missing stitches or losing sponges.
Others see the more positive side of our nation’s superior healthcare system. They marvel at the countless acts of individual excellence, courage, and selflessness, as patients and their families are cared for and often affectionately hugged by the nursing staff when comforting is needed.
Sadly, when we are offered a vision of greatness, we instead choose the dismal vision of a Hillary Clinton who believes only the government can manage decent healthcare. How have we become so gullible? When did we begin to believe the worst about ourselves?
I can imagine Ronald Reagan walking by a group of older citizens and wondering about their lives and the many adventures and accomplishments they have enjoyed. Their careers, their children, and their children’s children might be subjects for animated conversation, as exploits, victories, tragedy and births are recalled.
But some people don’t think like Reagan. Some people only view seniors as selfish, ticking time-bombs of huge medical expense. Some believe them to be so unreasonable as to expect their children and grandchildren to pony up money (and lots of it) to restore lost youth, fend off disease, and impossibly counter the inevitable effects of aging.
Having spent a lifetime preparing their children for independence and success, we are asked to believe that the older generation has a parasitic interest in their children’s labor.
We are also led to believe that seniors demand insurance from fear of illness or death, and protection from the perceived costs of out-of-control medical fees, driven by mindless lawsuits. Well, I imagine some do, but I believe most don’t.
Worked into frenzy by endless media hype, we point to the hospital and the seniors and finally agree that something must be done, if only to lower the anxiety level. But we ignore the real cause – we ignore tort reform in favor of an easier, more cynical course of action – we create a new entitlement which will cost trillions of tax dollars in exchange for a short-term political gain.
We think it is so important to pass a prescription drugs benefit bill to calm the fears of the Baby Boomers, but we ignore the fact that many Boomers are not afraid of ill health, or anything else for that matter. We overlook the independent Boomers who set money aside for their old age. Then we cheat them out of the victory that comes from planning and good sense – not to mention good health habits – by insulting them with a law that forces them to become dependents of the state, thereby depriving them of their liberty.
We foolishly equate dependence with happiness, believing that the forever anxious will now be calm and content. There are many examples of people who simply trade one fear for another. We know in our hearts that some people can never be happy, will never be calm. We know that regardless of the size of the federal government, some will never feel safe enough. We cater to them anyway; we cater to this dark, pessimistic tendency.
But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that Conservatives opposing unlimited federal government growth are wrong, and that this new entitlement is necessary so that our country can survive and people can continue to enjoy the pursuit of happiness.
Doesn’t it seem appropriate, then, to inquire of the great minds who lead our country to come up with a single federal government program that should be cut back, or eliminated altogether? Surely there is one. Surely we created an agency long ago that was supposed to cure some perceived human condition as well as assuage population jitters. There must be one program that has proven to be a colossal waste of taxpayer’s money.
It is morally wrong to confiscate the fruits of my labor to support somebody for whom I am not an advocate. But if it must be done, are we to believe that this massive federal government cannot exchange a single useless program for one they insist is absolutely necessary?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Aldrich
