As Goes Health Care

I begin this blog on a sad day for freedom in this country. Having just returned from our nation's capital, a place where I found a modest assembly of people at least moderately versed in the U.S. Constitution rallying against the attempted takeover of health care by our elected representation, I've come home to hear of the "momentous" beginning of socialized medicine in the land where liberty is thought to be an unalienable right.

While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.

Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.

Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.

Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.

Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.

These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:

Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.

Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.

Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.

Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.

These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.