The Case Against Universal Healthcare: Policy

12Nov09

So you've had time to think about it, and you're not sold on the fact that Universal Health Care will be the end of liberty as we know it in America.

Well in addition to that, the policies just will not work as advertised. Congress and the Obama administration are selling you a bill of goods.

Here's why:

#1 - The government doesn't run anything well.

There isn't a single government program or agency that is run as well as its private sector corollary. The federal budget is a tableau of waste, pork, and outright graft.

One need only think of the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal Service, and the effectiveness FEMA to realize that these aren't the people you want in charge of your life and death struggle.

#2 - Taxpayers cannot afford to pay for this.

Budget neutral my ass. The left's "Free" health care is anything but free. Taxpayers will foot the bill with higher rates, and when it becomes clear that revenues are up against the Laffer curve, cuts in other budget areas (think national defense).

The most conservative estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the Democrats health care reform proposals put the price tag around a trillion dollars over ten years. Medicare and Medicaid cost far more than the estimates at the time of their adoption, so it follows that the government option will overrun its budget as well.

Coincidentally, the Obama administration budget estimates a tripling of the national debt over
the same period. With the economy still on shaky ground, and the national debt spiraling out of control, we can't afford to take on a crippling debt just so someone will get re-elected.

#3 - Health care will become MORE expensive, not less.

Profit motives, competition and informed consumers have always controlled prices more effectively than legislation. Government option administrators will have little incentive to curb costs. While private insurers will be forced to compete with a government option, the government option will essentially have no competition. This only serves to further insulate consumers from the real cost of care and provide no reason for them to curb drug choices or numbers of doctor visits.

The legislation's ban on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions will prevent insurers from bundling members with like risk levels into separate plans. This will cause premiums to skyrocket, and force as many as 120 million Americans off their current plan and onto the government option.

Also, apparently the trial lawyers lobby is just too strong, as neither the House or Senate bill address substantive tort reform. Already out of control costs of malpractice lawsuits will only get worse, as the government option exposes the government to legal liability and their deep pockets invite ever increasing litigation.

#4 - The quality of care will be reduced.

We've all heard stories of Canada's socialized medicine, and the trials of Britain's
National Health Service. The quality of health care available in America will be reduced as a result of the government option as patients are limited to government mandated "best practices" of care.

Private insurers will be forced to reduce coverage in an attempt to cut costs. Those on the government option will have less flexibility of care and may face extremely long wait times for treatment as drugs and services are rationed by the government. The government will have full access to the records of the patient, compromising confidentiality, and making it possible for political or lifestyle differences to decide who does and does not receive care.

#5 - It's too much, with too little thought put into it.

The current health care reform proposals are sweeping. Like Social Security, government entitlement programs come to be regarded as a "right" and later are virtually impossible to reduce or remove. It's Pandora's box, and once you open it, you can't close that door again.

But the only thing that really matters?

Like the progressive tax code used to fund it, the government option is a form of wealth redistribution and is coercive in its intent. The unfulfilled need of another does not constitute an obligation on my part, and they have no claim upon me or my property. To say otherwise is to champion the viability of socialism, and as I said in the first part of this series, that dog won't hunt.