This week, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected a claim by “John Doe” that being forced to pay fees for a medical marijuana card or being on a government list by virtue of having one is unconstitutional. The argument was that such a burden violates a “fundamental right” to access health care for a specific type of patient.

I confess to some passing sympathy for the lawsuit, only because I wish we would treat marijuana the same as any other controlled substance with both potential medical benefits and negative societal impact. But legally speaking, the lawsuit was garbage. It’s really no different than so-called “constitutionalists” who show up to traffic court from time to time claiming that their fundamental right to travel (there really is such a thing) is violated by having to get license plates or a driver’s license (that is not a thing). One would have to question the ethics and/or judgment of an attorney who would take such a case in the first place.

But I thought the lawsuit, silly as it was, was particularly interesting in the context of this week’s health care debate in Washington, D.C. In rejecting his claim, the Nevada Supreme Court reminded us of a very basic principle – the more the government is involved in something, the more it will exercise control over it.

~~~

Senate Republicans introduced a bill which would, in theory, implement a single-payer, government run health care system in this country. In characteristically brave fashion, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto refused to vote either for or against it, excusing her non-stance by whining that it was a mere stunt to put Democrats on the defensive. (Political stunts in politics?  Well, clutch my pearls and grab the smelling salts!)

Of course it was a stunt, but that doesn’t mean the vote didn’t have value. After all, I’d sincerely like to know – does our junior senator think the government should have a monopoly on all health care services in this country? If she had a magic wand, what would health care in America look like? And no matter how she feels about it, why not assert an actual position? Does she not see how herculean efforts to avoid taking any sort of solid position is obliterating the credibility of her state’s senior senator with voters of all political stripes?

~~~

Single-payer, like communism or eating an entire bag of chips in one sitting, is one of those things that sounds great on paper as long as you don’t think too hard about it. A virtuous government doles out ibuprofen and MRI appointments to each according to his need, and pays for it with taxes from each according to his ability. Without a profit motive, everything is provided without a markup to the consumer. Rich and poor stand in the same months-long line to get their updated contact lenses or chemotherapy treatment. I understand why people of good conscience embrace the concept in theory, even if the real world results are quite a bit less encouraging.

But the idealistic vision assumes far too much virtue on the part of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats are people, too, after all, and even in the best of circumstances, don’t care nearly as much about you as you do. And in the age of Trump, I would have thought more people – especially those who count themselves (eye roll) soldiers in (extra super-duper eye roll) “The Resistance” would recognize the downside to vesting the federal government with such power. I’m so old, I can remember when the left was chanting “keep your laws off my body” – my how times have changed (or how masks have slipped).

The question for Cortez Masto really should be this:  Ma’am, why are you not standing firm against those in your own party who would place Donald Trump in sole control of our health care decisions?  

~~~

My friends on the left, like John Doe, like to insist that health care is a right. I don’t have any particular quarrel with this, except that I see it in the same way that I have a right to go to the grocery store and choose what I want to eat for the week, or which house I want to buy. The need for food and shelter to live is undeniable, and “life” and “property” are specifically protected rights in the Constitution. But while I’m all for state-funded safety nets for the truly indigent, I don’t want government cheese or subsidized housing projects to be the standard by which we all must live our lives.

As soon as you confuse the right to have something with the right to have it provided to you, your entire relationship with the government changes. Government becomes your parent, not your servant. Power you give to governments you like will be wielded later by those you don’t. Republicans should start referring to whatever program they’re debating as “government-controlled” health care, because that’s what it truly is.   

We’ll never have a health care system completely free of regulation or control, and I wouldn’t want that even if I had a magic wand of my own. But let’s be honest about what government controlled health care actually means, and how much control we should be willing to accept in exchange for our subsidies. As John Doe learned, the more the government is involved with anything, the more it will control, charge, regulate, restrict, limit choice, and increase the burdens and obstacles you face in getting the medical treatment your doctor says you need.

Orrin Johnson has been writing and commenting on Nevada and national politics since 2007. He started with an independent blog, First Principles, and was a regular columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal from 2015-2016. By day, he is a deputy district attorney for Carson City. His opinions here are his own. Follow him on Twitter @orrinjohnson, or contact him at [email protected].