Any candid observation of the current health care debate reveals two facts. First, in terms of quantity, quality and access, medical care in the United States is far above average. Second, reform is necessary, but many options under consideration are truly worse than the problem. This is an important time for America not because we desperately need health care, but because this is where we, as a country, decide the role government will play in the lives of Americans until Jesus comes back, or at least until the Chinese take over.
Non-Profit Cooperative. While Democrats agree that a full-on government-run system is preferable, political pressure forced the Senate leaders to ratchet the proposal down to non-profit co-ops (NPC). Creating an NPC is like Public Option Lite, same liberty stealing power grab with a light, refreshing taste. The NPC is the foot of government being craftily inserted into the health insurance market and a foot in the door is all future policy makers need to advance the government take over.
Freedom. The Senate Finance Committee version of the health bill includes a mandate for all citizens to purchase health insurance plans. American families that do not purchase a health plan could be subject to fines in excess of $1,900. Liberals have likened this idea to car insurance mandates for citizens who choose to operate motor vehicles, but the comparison is far from accurate. Whereas car insurance mandates help regulate an activity that is freely engaged in, health insurance mandates will be imposed on all citizens without their consent, tacit or otherwise. Some Americans, for various reasons, choose not to pay for health insurance and that is their right. These mandates are an affront to individual liberty. This coercion represents an unprecedented extension of government influence into the daily aspect of our lives.
The Big Bad GOP. Our own esteemed history professor and head of the liberal indoctrination squad, Patrick Rael, has asked the question; "How have the corporate lobbyists and insurance political action committees (PACs) so effectively manipulated the conservative and libertarian base?" I guess the kindly professor was busy heeding "larger issues" and missed the herd of lobbyists and PACs currently standing in line to fund pro-Obamacare ads and buy off Democratic politicians. For starters; the citizens who have demonstrated their frustration with our government are genuine and sincere. To assert that the outrage seen in millions of Americans across the country over the health care debate is the product of manipulation by some right wing straw-man is absurd.
I have got a better question: Why is community organizing lauded when it is in favor of Obama and the Democrats, but derided when in opposition? Secondly, the insurance companies absolutely support a health care overhaul that implements mandates. The individual mandate present in every version of the bill increases and cements the insurance company's customer base indefinitely, thus increasing and guaranteeing enormous profits. If you were worried about the Military-Industrial complex under the Bush administration, you should be at least equally concerned with the Insurance-Health Care complex that has begun to rear its ugly head under Obama.
Rationing. Liberals vehemently deny that their health care reform efforts will lead to rationed care, but their arguments are not sound. Our current system covers X amount of people with Y amount of medical resources; doctors, nurses, equipment, etc. Suppose we increase X by 30 million individuals (45 million if it covers illegal aliens). Y will then be divided out over a greater number of people, hence rationing. Could our health care resources increase? Absolutely, but it takes a long time to build medical equipment and an even longer time to train doctors and nurses. And as government intervention in the health market grows, wages in the medical field will drop. Who wants to struggle through eight years of medical school just to land a job making $40,000 a year?
Perverse Incentives. In its many forms, the abomination that is Obamacare is riddled with perverse incentives that will lead to a plethora of unintended consequences. For instance; the Baucus version will cut off subsidization of health care for a single person when their wages equal 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
While phasing out subsidization may sound like a good plan, the unintended consequence will be to restrict worker's employment choices. Imagine yourself a single worker whose yearly wages place him or her just inside the limit for subsidization; what incentive will there be to work harder or advance your career? If you make more money you will be slammed with huge premiums, as much as 13% of your total income. The subsidization scheme used by the Senate Finance version of the bill is horribly misguided and will limit employee freedom. The long term consequence will be class stratification, as more and more workers resign themselves to life in the lower to middle class.
Doctor misdiagnosis? Jackpot baby! You could be awarded a multi-million dollar lawsuit with the help of a smooth-talking lawyer. Our current legal system can deal neither reasonably nor efficiently with malpractice suits. Doctors are forced to pay out big money to patients according to the whim of lay jurors who award incredulous sums of money on a very subjective basis. To protect themselves, doctors engage in defensive medicine. This means they order bundles of unnecessary tests, just to cover their own behinds.
The Pacific Research Group estimates that defensive medicine costs an average of $200 billion a year. The solution? Separate malpractice suits from other cases and allow a tribunal of medical professionals to adjudicate the trials. Pay out malpractice compensation from a public fund that doctors pay into. Why will it never happen? Trial lawyers, such as John Edwards, make a living taking medical professionals through the ringers and they love to donate money to the party of hope and change.
Death Panels. Sarah Palin stirred up a lot of controversy when she accused congressional Democrats of attempting to implement death panels. Packaged as such, the conclusion reached by the former Alaskan governor after reviewing the health care bill was inflammatory and unintelligent. But this we know for sure; in a government run system of health care some one will have to make tough decisions about who gets what. Someone will have to decide who gets life-saving procedures and who does not. Someone is always in need of empty beds. Someone is a death panel.
If any of the proposed health care bills become law, the relationship between American citizens and the federal government will be fundamentally and irrevocably altered. When Alexander Hamilton wrote so long ago of the trade off between liberty and security he was concerned with national defense, but the lesson is equally applicable to struggles within the state. Government run health care will provide only an illusion of security, but the sacrifice of liberty will be very, very real.