Let's explore a little further

this idea of the government as cradle-to-grave care giver.

In spite of what you read in

this space, I don't form opinions with a simple jerk of the knee. Rarely

do I broach a subject that I haven't considered carefully from both sides.

I regularly seek out columnists and listen to commentators with whom I

disagree, and mentally ask them to please give me a good argument.

It's not because I'm trying

to be more open-minded than thou ... I just want to be right, and if I'm

wrong, I want to switch. I'd rather switch than fight (and if you remember

that reference, boy are you old).

So I've read carefully what

our latest letter writer, Dr. Gunther Ruckl, has had to say on the subject

of socialized health care. He's made some good points. If you haven't

seen his letter in the July 4 edition, you should go online and check

it out.

There were some responses in

last week's paper, and I believe Dr. Ruckl may have a rebuttal in today's

edition.

Our leaders are considering

some important decisions about the future of health care, and our lives

will be deeply affected by what they decide to do, so it's definitely

worth a lot of space in the paper.

But underlying that argument

are basic philosophies that govern what each person has to say on the

subject, and the central question we must answer before deciding about

socialized health care is whether we think that one of the government's

responsibilities is to care for our basic needs throughout our lives.

If we believe that the government's

job is essentially to defend us from enemies domestic and foreign and

to provide a framework of laws under which we can function as free individuals

free to succeed and free to fail then we will approach the health care

debate from a completely different perspective than those who believe

the government is the vehicle by which we should obey the biblical admonitions

to care for the poor and the sick.

Personally, I'm not completely

comfortable with either extreme. I do believe there's a place for the

government in providing a so-called safety net. I just don't think that

safety net should be made of imported silk. As stated last week, I think

we have to establish a reasonable level of taxation and a reasonable size

for our government, including providing some help for those who truly

need it.

Unfortunately, when a conservative

suggests any limit on the government's ability to plunder Peter in order

to pay Paul, he is accused of wanting to kill old people, destroy the

environment and make sure the poor get poorer, and there are demagogues

who insist on inflating these social programs way beyond reason each year

so that the bureaucracies grow in tandem, and the politicians' power along

with them.

That's how we wound up with

spiraling deficits over the last 50 years. There was simply no limit to

what our leaders were willing to spend or the degree to which they were

willing to tax us.

It may be that the only way

to get