Where I Stand on Health Care

 

Image by Javabeans122

I have debated with friends and coworkers about the pros and cons of universal health care in America. It's like a cat fight where some parties just won't change their mind. I'm telling you right now, reader, I am not like that. I am vigilant to keep an open mind. I just haven't heard a convincing argument or solution to provide universal health care.

My friends like to point out my current living conditions in Korea. Korea has a FORM of universal health care. They do not have an "all-you-can-eat" health care system that some people believe. The wife was telling me that everyday things like colds and broken arms are, for the most part, covered and all they have to pay is a small fee. I've seen it in action, hell, I go to the dentist here and sing their accolades, but that has more to do with their setup and service than their price. But when it comes to cancer or heart attacks, they need private insurance to cover the higher costs.

A sticking point for me is the perception by those that claim health care is a right. It's not. It's a necessity just like food and shelter -- we pay for them. Walter Williams, wrote an elegant article that sums up my point more eloquently than I could. He writes:

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American....

Read the rest at Creators.com via Campaign for Liberty

So if I can convince any of you that health care is NOT a right, you might ask, "Well what are we supposed to do...the current system is broken." I agree and the source of this problem is just like every other problem -- the federal government. Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with any state pursuing health care. In fact, Massachusetts is a sterling example of what happens when a government decides to implement this idea, courtesy of the Boston Globe:

MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system....

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

 You see this is when the libertarian arguments come and bite Dems and Republicans on the butt. They expand government in prosperous times and in lean times they can't afford to do as they promised so they want to tax us instead of making drastic cuts. The government is terrible when it comes to implementing anything other than national defense or tax collection. They're just not designed to do it. When a government spends money, it's not the government's money it's OUR money. So, just like the cost of a college education or health care, costs will go up when the government subsidizes it. I think that a lot of these problems stem from the our politicians trying to implement European-socialist style improvements on our American-capitalist system in typical half-ass measures. We should either scrap our current government and go with Euro-style or end the socio-capitalism.

You see a libertarian looks at the problem without government interference. What would health care look like if we didn't have medicare or medicaid. There never was health insurance until WWII so almost no one can remember what it was like, but let's not look to the past, let's look at today. Can any of you tell me of a health care industry that doesn't have insurance or government interference, aside from some safety standards?  Hmmm? How about plastic surgery? Lasik? I live in the "Hub of Plastic Surgery," and the competition has brought prices down and quality up because consumers become discerning.  Don't just take it from me:



So if we took off government restrictions on insurance companies to operate in certain states and free people and employers to choose health coverage and create health savings accounts, the unemployed (that were once previously employed) can have a way to provide for themselves, if and when they need it. After the high deductible then the private insurance can kick in. Look, there used to be a time when the government didn't have a hand in everything and we did really well, I just don't understand why people think we need the federal government to do for us what we can do for ourselves.