Balance between Freedom, Government Services, and Low Taxes

Here are some comments from me that the Wisconsin State Journal printed yesterday:

In a Thursday letter to the editor, a supporter of motorcycle helmet laws argues they are justified because they save taxpayer dollars by reducing Medicaid costs.

There are three competing goals that cannot all be achieved: freedom, subsidized health care for the poor and low taxes. Most people agree that those are all worthy goals.

By arguing for helmet laws on the basis that they help control Medicaid costs, the writer is saying that Medicaid and low taxes are more important than freedom. If we accept that position, government should attempt to control people's diets and exercise patterns and any risky behavior people wish to participate in.

Although I believe in helping the poor and keeping taxes as low as possible, the goal of personal freedom has to be of paramount importance.

I started thinking about this issue when a politician at a rally told the audience, in the context of discussing a national health plan, that people needed live healthy lifestyles to keep costs down. I am skeptical of a national health plan, but I think there is some merit to the idea of increasing the size of the risk pool and asking the people on the winning side of the genetic lottery for good health to subsidize care for the sick. Hearing a national politician enjoining us to live healthful lives made me think of a side-effect of spreading the risk of illness: The costs of risky behavior are now borne by all of society. It becomes society's business how I live my life. This is precisely contrary to the spirit of the US Constitution.