We lost (the health care vote) today
but it’s not, as I have seen elsewhere, the end of America or the death of the Republic. It’s a rallying point for the November elections. If we can make enough gains there we can repeal this thing, and if we can’t do it in 2010 we do it in 2012. It’s a blow yes but we can still win, and if we can’t the keep these words in mind –
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained . . . security against severe physical privation the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance . . . should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. . . . There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 120, 121)
I am opposed to the welfare state and the welfare state mentality but even Hayek admitted the possibility of such programs being compatible with our society.
McQ at QandO provides a counterpoint against the views above using Hayek’s work, The Constitution of Liberty. Haven’t read that book but from the excerpts that were provided in the post I think it could be just as easily regarded as warnings of potential problems as a flat state run Universal Health Care is a moral wrong.