Issue Position: Health Care Reform

Issue Position

Regarding the Health Care Bill Congress is trying to pass (excuse me, just passed); basically my position is NO THANK YOU!! We need tort reform and free market solutions and freedom to choose from everyone out there providing an insurance option. We need to be able to pick from a selection of health insurance options that suit us specifically (or none at all if we choose!). Some health care options include services that many people are not interested in like accupuncture. Of course you pay additional for these extras even if you don't want them. If you can design the insurance you think you can live with and get rid of the excess you can bring the price down. We are currently not offered these choices because of government regulation of the industry. We can bring prices down tremendously if Big Government gets out of the way! We do NOT need government taking over the health care industry. It will be trememdously expensive and ineffective. There will be rationing; there has to be. The government will not be able to afford everyone who will want their help. I wonder who will be denied? Are you willing to bet it won't be you? Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Isn't that worse than what we have now? Anyone who thinks that the government wouldn't let us suffer and will make sure this doesn't happen doesn't understand government and doesn't know much about history. Say goodbye to your privacy also (it's in the bill!)

The reason I'm adamant about not even letting this get put into place is because government NEVER restrains itself; it never eliminates a program, no matter how bad it is. This is stupid and I think it's very clear why it happens. Once the infrastructure is in place and people and committees and departments start seeing the money and power that is about to flow their way, they will never allow the system to be undone. I really believe this bill could lead to the undoing of the country. Doesn't anyone care that this bill is completely unconstitutional?! Ultimately, they want a single payer Universal Health Care system; they've said as much.

A friend who was studying Economics was asked to write a paragraph including the terms "limited resources", "unlimited wants" and "choice". For fun I took a few minutes and wrote the paragraph below. My intent was not to write about health care but that's where it lead. (Fortunately, at this time health care resources are generally not limited. That will not be maintained with this bill.) Take a look:

"How does a society or government manage its limited resources in a population with unlimited wants? Should that even be the responsibility of a government? Can the free market ensure fairness in this dilemma? How can the free market prevent someone of unlimited income from monopolizing a resource and essentially making it unaffordable for the majority of the population? The last question isn't really an essential concern unless the resource is required for survival, and then the question becomes rather serious. Possibly the only responsibility the government has is to make sure that monopolies are not created so this situation does not occur. It has been proven that having a choice of providers for resources is very good for the consumer; it creates competition among providers which improves products and services and drives prices lower. This has been proven over and over again. So why would the government ever want to create a monopoly? Why would the government want to create a public healthcare monopoly?"

If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. --Ludwig von Mises
Obamacare Progresses, Corporate State Cheers

By Anthony Gregory on Dec 22, 2009 in Healthcare, Insurance, The State, corporatism, mercantilism

Left-liberal Glenn Greenwald points out that the health industry's stocks are exploding as Obamacare comes close to passing. This bill is a huge gift to big business, as much as its supporters and some of its opponents claim otherwise. In another post, he notes that the tea party movement and the progressive left, the latter of which opposes a health insurance mandate so long as it doesn't have a public option, are actually more in agreement than people realize as it concerns their opposition to corporatism:

It's certainly true that health care opponents on the left want more a expansive plan while opponents on the right want the opposite. But the objections over the mandate are largely identical -- it's a coerced gift to the private health insurance industry that underwrites the Democratic Party. The same was true over opposition to the bailout, objections to lobbying influence over Washington, and most of all, the growing anger that Washington serves the interests of financial elites at the expense of the working class.

Whether you call it "a government takeover of the private sector" or a "private sector takeover of government," it's the same thing: a merger of government power and corporate interests which benefits both of the merged entities (the party in power and the corporations) at everyone else's expense. Growing anger over that is rooted far more in an insider/outsider dichotomy over who controls Washington than it is in the standard conservative/liberal ideological splits from the 1990s.

Source