If it's free it must be good?

What do all the democratic presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, and Arnold Schwarzenegger have in common? Their belief in universal health insurence. Well if its free it must be good right?. Not exactly lets analyze this question using the method Bill Cliton would use.

What is the meaning of free? Well If free means we all see a dramatic increase in our taxes and huge layoffs in the health care industry than yes its free.

To look to see if its good or not look at the stats"Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that 'access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.'" (the cato institute) This is not the best way to help low income uninsured people. Another way would be to increase health savings accounts deregulate the insurence market and allowing for health insurence deductions

Another popular topic

well with the overwhelming popularity of the views expressed in my last blog cough* cough* here's another. Gun control, the idea behind it is that if we control gun distribution it will curb gun crime. That seems to make sense but look at it this way. If someone wants to rob a bank or murder someone and cant get a gun at a store what will they do? they'll get one illegally. Another thing is that if most people are alowed to own guns the likelihood of their houses being broken into goes significantly down. So why should we make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns when the ones who want guns to commit crimes with will get them anyway?

The pursuit of happiness

The government of the united states has one main purpose, to create an atmosphere where people can best pursue their own happiness. However through programs like welfare and social security they take your money and give it to others. How can we best provide for our own happiness when it is also expected that we provide for everyone else as well. This is not to say that Charity to the poor and destitute is wrong but is the government the right actor? If I want to give money to the poor I would rather give it to a private organization that I trust to do its job. In other words should the government force people to help people or should it be a matter of choice?