The Associated Press reported yesterday that Barack Obama is defending his "relentless" push for a bill that aims to cover the 46 million or so medically uninsured United States citizens. Apparently he lamented that "the default in Washington is inaction and inertia." If we could be so lucky. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill including some fiscally moderate-to-conservative Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" are daring to ask the President to hang on just a minute while they consider whether it's possible to insure all those 46 million people without it costing the country 13 figures and causing the 250 million or so already-insured Americans to lose their private (and therefore inferior, of course) medical plans. pretty much now But Obama wants it done pretty much now. Just like he wanted the so-called "stimulus" done pretty much now. Pretty much now is a big thing for him. But true to the long tradition of populist demagogues, he reflects his insistence on action over thoughtful deliberation to the entire country. "And the deadline isn't being set by me," Obama was quoted in the AP story. "It's being set by the American people." A Washington Post-ABC News poll has found that for the first time support for Obama's universal health plan has dipped below 50 percent. So I wonder to which "American people" the president is referring. At any rate, since Obama first took an oath to faithfully execute the Constitution and laws of the United States, Washington has been anything but inactive and inert. And not everyone considers that Good News. government and anthropology Obama and those of like mind seem to proceed from the axiom that if they don't do this-or-that for the people, then the people will never ever do this-or-that for themselves. So by implication, the human person is lazy, or stupid, or both. That is generally the premise behind sweeping government action, that Washington knows best. A man's jurisprudential philosophy says something about his anthropological philosophy. Translation: what he believes about government tells us what he believes about the human person. If a man thinks the government has to do everything, like provide universal medical care, it's probably because he thinks the people cannot do anything for themselves absent bureaucratic machinery. In other words, he does not believe the human person, at his core, can be independent. On the other hand, if he believes the government need not and should not provide for every person's every little need, then he probably believes that people can rely on each other, by way of families, churches, businesses, banks, charities, etc -- to which people have been known to freely give and with which they have been known to freely bargain -- to do what they have to do to live happy, healthy, fulfilling lives. In other words, he believes the human person is, at his core, meant to be independent, i.e., free. the Great Supplier There is a long history of elected bureaucrats who considered government to be the Great Supplier of the people's every need -- physical, emotional, even spiritual. From such a perspective, "inaction and inertia" in government is a deadly sin. But if one believes that the needs of a person are satisfied in other spheres of life besides government (like religion, family, and business), then such inactivity may be sometimes inappropriate, sure, but sometimes very appropriate, and sometimes crucial. On the flipside, a relentless insistence on the constant activity of government can have a deadening effect on activity and vibrance in other spheres of life, like religion, family, and business. The more the government tries to satisfy appetites that people naturally quench at church and in the home and marketplace, the more those and other spheres of life besides government will atrophy. In other words, the more activity and vibrance we see in government, the more "inaction and inertia" we will find in the homes, churches, and businesses of this country. Who out there thinks we are more spiritual, more familial, and more entrepreneurial now than we were 20, 30, 50 years ago? Where would we rather find "inaction and inertia" -- Washington or our own backyards? utterly inept And in the meantime the government will all too often prove, by its nature, utterly inept at providing for people's needs that are naturally satisfied in these other areas -- food, education, shelter, and yes, medical care. Stanford economics professor Thomas Sowell put it brilliantly in his opinion piece yesterday.

None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes "universal."

I have heard it said about social issues, like abortion, that reformers (like pro-lifers) should work to change the hearts and minds of the people writ large before cramming through sweeping changes in law (which they can't do anyway until the Supreme Court dynamics change, if ever). Perhaps Obama should consider working to change the hearts and minds of Americans who find his vision of medical care horrifying. The risk of course would be that the more people come to understand his plan, and how much it will cost them, and their children, the more horrified they will be.