Increasing state intervention limits personal freedom and responsibility. State programmes such as social security, pension and insurance schemes take responsibility from persons, families, churches, unions and other community-based groups for taking care of the needs of society. They require us to be registered and tabulated, then taxed on our jobs with deductions for this and that.
These types of big-government programmes, like the forthcoming National Health Insurance programme, foster a culture of dependency. This sense of dependency ultimately causes them to morph into a third rail of the body politic, where elected officials will risk their careers by the mere suggestion of any change. As a result, these programmes typically continue to expand, taking national debts right along with them.
I know what you think: “We’ve got it coming. We pay taxes. This ain’t charity; it’s justice.” Unfortunately, we have all grown increasingly dependent on the state, looking to it to run everything. However, it is not in our interest for the state to be functioning in this way. It is said that the state should be a “community of communities.” It should never do what smaller bodies such as community groups, unions, credit unions and cooperatives could and should do, because these social groups are the basis of man’s mutual aid. They foster in their members a spirit of charity, self-reliance and solidarity as opposed to a sense of entitlement and dependency fostered by big government programmes.
Alternative
What the government should do instead is to assist community groups in addressing the problems of the territory. If there are problems of environmental degradation, lack of housing, poverty, hunger, sickness, juvenile delinquency, or uninsured residents, then government should help foster, encourage and assist non-governmental, non-profit community-based groups in addressing these problems. Take for instance the government-run Taxi and Livery Commission, which was established in 2011 to regulate the taxi and livery segment of our economy, and which has been a near failure to date. The government should have used its know-how to help the taxi associations to establish the TLC with the intention of having it be an independent, industry-run body. This approach would have empowered the taxi associations to regulate themselves, while at the same time freeing the government of this cost and responsibility.
Similarly, the government should assist non-profit community groups in addressing the scandal of so many uninsured residents in the territory. In my opinion, the people of the Virgin Islands would be better served with a “non-profit, customer-owned health insurance plan” that is operated on the basis of voluntarism. The plan would be similar (accept for the voluntarism) to the American Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OPs). With such a plan, the policy and shareholders are one in the same, and a “customer-owned insurer” would be able to look beyond profits and focus on helping our people get the care they need.
‘Spirit of service’
A basis of voluntarism would foster a spirit of service and solidarity, control administrative costs, keep down premiums, and do away with the problem of cronyism. This cooperative approach would insure that all funds are used to cover the health needs of the policyholders. Like the co-ops of Obamacare, the government would provide a financial grant to get the plan up and running. Further, because of the national importance of such a plan, the government could also provide matching contributions and catastrophic coverage, as well as removing any regulatory barriers to better ensure its success. A “customer-owned health insurance plan” would truly transform how care is financed and delivered in the territory.
In closing, people are now accustomed to being taken care of by the state. Under that system, you don’t have to worry about next year, because the state would take care of it for you. However, human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected person. In this respect, we will all be better served by taking a more communal approach to solving our shared problems. In the absence of this union of interests or solidarity, we often fine ourselves captive to state interventions that limit our personal freedoms and responsibilities.
{fcomment}