Who gets to make your health care choices?

Fiscal conservative and small government proponent governor Mitch Daniels apparently wants to redistribute money from a demonized minority to a sympathized minority. I'm referring to the plan to raise cigarette taxes to fund health care for the uninsured poor. This might sound like a decent plan on its surface; helping out the uninsured poor is a noble thing to do. However, this is not a matter of human charity but rather of money being redistributed by government force. We can clothe government programs in noble-sounding language and portray it as charity, but the reality is that the money comes from taxes, which come from the people at the threat of force. This clearly does not qualify as “charity.”

If the average American wasn't forking over about half of his annual income (in taxes at all levels), then there would certainly be a lot more money for people to invest in their health care directly, as well as invest in (actual) charity for those who cannot afford it. On top of that, government intrusion notoriously costs more and is less efficient since every decision becomes political. We end up in the situation where, as Harry Browne said, “[government] breaks your legs, hands you a crutch, and says 'See, if it wasn't for government you wouldn't be able to walk.'”

Why don't we let people keep their money and get government out of health care? Then we can make our own choices instead of those with the most political influence.

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad (archived).