Health care

I've been asked to write a post explaining my thoughts on health care. Well, that'd probably be a book to be honest, but I will try to sum up some of my thinking.

First, as a classical liberal, I believe that the role of government is to protect and guarantee our unalienable rights as defined in the constitution, not to "take care of us". I also believe that the free market economy is superior to a government controlled economy, or I put a lot more stock in the ideas of Adam Smith than in the Keynesian theory. So, do I believe we could install a government option in order to provide universal health care? Yes, we could. A people and their government can form a social contract of any sort. Yes, I said contract, universal health care is NOT a right to be protected and guaranteed by the government and anyone who claims it is either doesn't understand history or doesn't understand the meaning of the words in the constitution or they are just lying. How do I know it isn't a right? Well, the argument that health care is a right comes right out of the constitution. In fact, it is based on the statement that the government must "provide for the general welfare" which has been horribly misconstrued by modern liberals otherwise known as progressives to mean the government must provide a right to health care or basic needs. Well, you decide whether this quote from the author of that clause in the constitution justifies that interpretation: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."--James Madison.

Clearly, the founders did NOT intend the general welfare clause to include social security or welfare payments or certainly not universal health care. Why? Because it would "subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America" or, in other words, government power and actions should be as limited as possibly because the alternative gives government ultimate power, unchecked by the states or the people. Madison also said this: "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." which means that we the people must always maintain our vigilance or else government can grow to the point where it is no longer responsive to us but gorws and becomes abusive to the point of tyranny. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Is the U.S. government fearful of anyone? Even it's own people? It should be because if it isn't, then Jefferson has already declared that it will become tyrannical, eventually. Another aspect to the current health care reform is that it must be now, that it is happening when so many other things are going on at the same time, that nobody seems to want to read the bill, that the bills are being passed too quickly, that the discussion has been determined to be over even though people are coming out of the woodwork to oppose it. This is all the actions of a "must do it now" government, which is a tyrannical government according to Jefferson. Don't believe me? Here's the Jefferson quote: "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." So, the very essence of the health care debate fits the Jefferson quote perfectly. So, I am opposed the government health care on principle and constitutional grounds, and so I do not need to have a "plan" of action to "fix" the problem. It isn't the government's responsibility to take over the role of health insurer. The government's sole role is to make sure that our rights are protected, so if laws need to be changed and regulations need to be made and these things need to be enforced, so be it. But a government option is not and never will be the answer. It is anathema to our founders, it is not a right, and it is not based in free market principles. By all three of those things, it should be opposed by Americans who love freedom because it will lead to loss of freedom. People belittle the idea that the government would somehow determine who lives and dies, but consider that the National Health Exchange issued a report that clearly stated that Medicare (the government) was the worst offender when it came to denying claims, beating out ALL the major insurance companies COMBINED! So, who is it that is denying claims eh? That's right, everyone, including the government.

Now, in good faith, I will present a few options that I think could be explored (that are not in any current bills because the current bills are about power, not helping people). First, we can attempt health care cooperatives. I'm talking a lot broader than what you've heard before. For one thing, the cooperatives should be able to compete with the employer system. In order to do that, they'd have to be portable. So, as a Baylor University alumnus, I could join the Baylor health care coop which I could take anywhere no matter where I was employed. No current employer plan can offer that. This kind of competition could lower premiums and increase plan options. Another option would be to allow companies to compete over state lines. Why is it that I can get good Florida plans from my employer, but can't get coverage from a company in Georgia. This is true nationwide. If you want to lower costs in a free market system, you have to increase competition. Not through a government option but by allowing all the companies to compete on the same playing field nationwide, this currently is NOT the case. Third, something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits. Why is this legislation so hard to pass? Right, because most of our "representatives" are lawyers and doing so would hurt the bottom line for their friends. Malpractice insurance for doctors is one of the greatest causes for health care cost increases and has even driven doctors out of the business entirely in some states. This is unacceptable. To have to pay such high premiums in malpractice insurance just to stay in business is outrageous. So, I say, if they made a negligent mistake, throw the book at them, but the definition for what constitutes negligence and mistakes needs drastic changes. Finally, the government itself is responsible for higher costs. How? Easy, Medicare sets the rate at which the government will reimburse doctors and hospitals for procedures and care. These rates are typically below market value. Since Medicare covers 99 percent of seniors and seniors are responsible for 60 percent of health care costs, you do the math. What it means is that the government's own actions in controlling costs for Medicare actually drive costs up because the doctors and hospitals have to recover the difference between what Medicare will pay and what something actually costs, so they raise premiums and costs on the 40 percent of people in order to do so. It is a simple market principle that people in the government seem to be completely oblivious to. So, the government needs to stop forcing all seniors onto Medicare. Yes, you don't have a choice about this. You reach a certain age and Medicare automatically becomes your primary insurance, no option, while any other insurance you have becomes secondary insurance. If someone has insurance, can afford it and is willing to continue it, they should NOT be covered by Medicare. That would cut significant costs and would allow Medicare to do less price fixing which would create a greater balance in the market pricing and thus lower costs. This whole thing is NOT rocket science.

Basically, we can choose to set up this contract between the people and the government, but polls clearly show that the majority of Americans don't want government run health care plans. In addition, even if we did set up this contract, it would be at the expense of the freedoms we hold dear. I believe that and our founders predict that and the evidence of the history of medicare supports that. So, this process should actually try to help people through common sense legislation rather than establishing a government option health care plan that says it would charge 20 percent less than the insurance companies. Assuming that is true, who would stay with their current company when they could save 20 percent by using the government plan that their tax dollars are already paying for anyway? That's right, nobody. So, the government option is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Put the insurance companies out of business and put everyone onto the government system. Yep, power and control, not helping people.

Nobel prizes for everyone!

According to the website for the nobel prize, there have been four Presidents win the award and three sitting Presidents. Theodore Roosevelt won for brokering the peace between Russia and Japan, Woodrow Wilson won for founding the League of Nations (even though the U.S. didn't join it) and Carter won (not while in office) for his years of diplomatic efforts, sort of a lifetime achievement in effect. The newest U.S. President to win is Barack Obama and he won “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” So, in other words, he got an A for effort? After all, we aren't any safer than we were when he took office in January and there have been no peace deals since January. Obama has traveled around apologizing for all our past mistakes and even a few some would argue weren't mistakes, he's said he'll sit down with Ahmadinejad (a man who'd just assume shoot us all as talk with us) and he's shaken the hand of Chavez (a man who has suppressed freedom of speech, press and assembly), not to mention shunning our greatest allies and newest friends (Britain and the Czech Republic) while agreeing to the demands of countries like Russia that would rather see Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons than actually vote for sanctions on those countries at the UN. Sorry, it seems to me they've given this award for what our President MIGHT do, not for anything he's actually done. At least all three previous examples of Presidents who did win this award had done something great to deserve it. I know, I must be unpatriotic or racist for feeling like the President hasn't done anything to deserve this award right? Nope, neither, that's just what people will say to shut up anyone that thinks maybe, just maybe, the Nobel committee got it wrong. I don't know who the President was up against because they keep all the nominees secret for 50 years (I guess they don't like controversy, after all, once the 50 years went by it turned out people like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all have been nominated in the past). I just think this must have been a slow year peace wise. Do you think I deserve the nobel prize for literature because I have 4 unfinished books that MIGHT be the next great piece of world literature? If you answer that question no, then you'd be right. It would also mean you should agree with my statement above. While the President MIGHT achieve great diplomatic feats, he hasn't done anything yet and therefore this award has as much weight as if they were to give one to me for my unfinished books.