When it comes to Nanny State politicians, no one holds a candle to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In a new post at The College Conservative, writer Brian Miller takes a deeper look at the effectiveness of the mayor’s policies.
Bloomberg’s Ever Expanding Nanny State
The only redeeming quality of the nanny state is that it purports itself to care for the poor. But what if it did not have that mind? What if, in some hellish utilitarian scheme, it required the poor to suffer for the greater good?
To New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, such a scheme seems to be the solution. In an effort to limit prescription drug addiction, Mayor Bloomberg has limited the number of painkillers that local hospitals can prescribe. Under the new law, patients can only obtain three days worth of painkillers, and some of the more powerful painkillers will be banned altogether.
Several doctors have already criticized the law and claim it prevents them from using their judgment for specific situations. Indeed, the law is a horrid example of top-down central planning. An anarchist teaching a course on the evils of government and organization in general could hardly make up a better example.
Critics have gone on to further argue that the law will affect the poor the most. The people of the city who do not have personal physicians, and who use emergency rooms as their primary care providers, will be hit hardest by the measure.
Responding to such criticism, Bloomberg said, “So you didn’t get enough painkillers and you [The Poor] did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect.
And thus the heartlessness of the nanny state is revealed.