Recently I had occasion to ride in a taxi cab in Fargo, ND. The ride was a relatively long one thanks to traffic, and during it the cab driver struck up a conversation with me as those in his profession are known to do. We began to talk about politics and topic soon moved to health care.

It was the opinion of this cab driver that the government “owes” him health care. He feels that because he pays a lot in taxes he should get something back for that. Health care is his chosen “gift,” I guess.

I tried to convince him that perhaps it would be better if the government let him keep more of his own money so that he could pay for his own health care. He would have none of that line of reasoning (he thinks health care is too expensive for him to ever be able to afford it on his own), so I then tried another tact: I told him that socialized medicine could lead to some severe limitations on his freedom.

His response was to turn around and ask me just what in the world I was talking about. Unfortunately at that time we had reached my destination (which was good as no one wants to be riding in a cab with the driver looking backwards) and I didn't have time to elaborate.

Thankfully I have this space where I can elaborate for all of you.

A little over a year ago an insurance claim company in Michigan called Weyco began refusing to hire employees who smoke. The owner of the company, one Mr. Howard Weyers, also told his current employees that they could either quit smoking or quit their jobs. Taking this policy a step further, Weyers also said, according to a Reuters article from January of 2005, that he planned to enforce a similar policy on overweight employees.
Now, to the casual observer these actions probably seem a bit draconian. After all, what do the personal habits of employees have to do with Weyers? Well, as it turns out those personal habits have a lot to do with Weyers. Mr. Weyers, like most employers around the nation, provides his employees with health care benefits. It is a form of compensation he has agreed to (though some states like Massachusetts and Maryland are beginning to force businesses to provide these benefits) in order to attract qualified and loyal employees to his business. From his point of view, it only makes sense to cut costs by firing and then refusing to hire employees with poor personal health habits like smoking and/or overeating. Employees with poor health cost him more. It may seem a bit unfair to those of us who indulge in a few less-than-healthy guilty pleasures, but one can hardly blame a businessman for trying to keep overhead down.

And we really shouldn't be at all surprised when people like Weyers take action like this. When we ask other people to be responsible, even in part, for our health care we also invite their judgment and even their rules. Health care is probably one of the most private aspects of any person's life, yet when we make others responsible for paying the maintenance charges on that aspect it becomes much less private.

This is the downfall of collectivist health coverage. By taking the responsibility and consequences for personal choices away from the individual and putting them on the collective (be it through employer-backed health insurance or a government-backed health care entitlement) we not only encourage people to be more reckless with their health (why wouldn't they be when they aren't being held directly responsible for it?) but we also give the collective (be it government, employers or insurance companies) impetus to begin laying down rules for how we should lead our individual lives.
And who can blame them? When we begin asking our neighbors to be responsible, even in part, for the way we lead our lives why should we be surprised when they want to begin dictating to us the manner in which we should lead our lives?

That is why a system of socialized medicine would pose a great risk to our personal freedoms. As soon as the government is responsible for providing us all for health care how long until certain busybody segments of the population are advocating to regulate the diets of Americans for the sake of saving tax dollars spent on health care? How long until politicians in Washington are dictating to you the amount of salt you may use at public restaurants in the name of reducing burden on government doctors and hospitals?

Observing the way the anti-smoking zealots have leveraged politics to force private businesses into bans they didn't want I don't think it would take long.

But this is America. Land of the free. If I want to live off of Mountain Dew, Big Macs and Marlboros, that should be my choice and have nothing at all to do with my neighbors or employer. If I need heart surgery at 45 to clear my clogged arteries, again that should be my problem.

We all talk about freedom and how much we love it, but what we all need to recognize is that with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility for ourselves, our actions and our choices. When we give up that responsibility we also give up part of our freedom.

That's not something I want to do, nor should it be anything any freedom-loving American would want to do.