“You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited.”
So, the president notes that more “government action” means “added constraints on our freedom.” Interesting. And, it seems, he believes that “too little” government was responsible for the fact that “markets can crash” (was all that explosion of government over the last 8 years and intervention into financial markets, interest rates, and housing markets a case of “too little” government?), and that when there is too little government, “monopolies can stifle competition” (no mention of all of the government monopolies out there.)
What serious person doesn’t at least strongly suspect that a “public option” will in fact be privileged over private firms, contrary to the president’s implausible assertion? It is an authentically frightening step toward putting the United States Post Office or the Veterans Administration in charge of health care.
For those who’re interested, I address some of those questions in a number of chapters of Realizing Freedom, notably 1, 4, and 7. (You can become a “Fan” of the book at www.facebook.com/RealizingFreedom.