Hole foods?

Mark, I have no right to force you to pay for my ill health, especially under threat of law.  That nice country estate you have, if you don't pay your new federal health care levy, could be seized and sold to pay for my hip replacement.  Sound fair to you?  This is why health care systems in other countries are going bankrupt.  Socialized medicine cannot be made to work in practice, because it is immoral.I have researched the matter, stitched together my own observations with cogent examples from others, and here are eight thoughts on this subject to try and make my point.(1) When people say they want the government to supply them with some personal benefit, they're really just saying that they want someone other than themselves - one or more of their fellow citizens - to pay for it, so they don't have to. The government gets the vast majority of its money by taxing its citizens, so a "paid by the government" program is really a "paid under duress by other people" program. To look at your neighbor and say "I don't want to pay for my medical care - I want YOU to pay for it for me" is selfish, and immoral.  The concept can only lose its innate immorality if I (by virture of the fact I'm paying for your health care) get to control your poor health choices.  You smoke?  Not on my dime, you don't.  Put that salt shaker away!  And no more elevator rides for you, either, chubby - the stairs get you there, too.(2) Insurance is a great idea. It's a way for people to voluntarily pool their resources so that large, unusual expenses that would be financially ruinous to an individual can be covered by the group. But the key is that this is voluntary, and that it should be used ONLY for catastrophic situations.  Why did Blue Cross have to pay for some of the bill for my annual check-up last Monday?  To force me into a dependency like this that I don't want to be in is coercive, and therefore immoral.  Or -- like they do in Massachusetts, and in most places for automobiles ... EVERYbody has to pay in, at least something.  Then they have skin in the game.  Either everybody pays or it ain't fair.  Can't have it both ways.(3) Wherever it's been tried, socialized medicine has resulted in lower-quality care than in today's American system. There's little reason to think socializing medicine wouldn't have the same effect here. Sick people from socialized-medicine countries regularly travel to the U.S., because they can't get the quality medical care they need in their own countries, or at least they can't get it in a timely fashion. Do a similar number of people travel from the U.S. to those countries because they can't find the care they need here? Of course not. Statistics are often cited that life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter (slightly) than in some particular socialized-medicine country, but that is misleading ... in a conversation about medical care, since the cited statistics include all causes of death, many of which are unrelated to medical care. For those with conditions that need medical care - the only ones of interest in a medical care debate - life expectancy is generally longer in the U.S. than elsewhere. Replacing the best medical care on Earth with a system that has already repeatedly been shown to be worse elsewhere would be immoral.(4) Very few government programs have a reputation for quality or efficiency. Government schools cost way more per student than many private schools (or home schooling) do, and generally provide far worse outcomes. The IRS, or a typical state's DMV - or Congress itself, for that matter - are no one's ideas of benevolent organizations, so, why would some 'health care agency' be expected to be any different? Is the DoD, with all its rigor and discipline, efficient?  Historically, privatizing government services has saved money and increased quality of service, whereas forcing those services to be government-controlled has had the opposite effect. Historical precedent indicates that putting medical care under government control would raise the cost and decrease the quality of service, which is at least foolish, and, arguably, immoral.(5) Why is there no little green gecko selling discounted health insurance like he does with car insurance?  The biggest problem with insurance currently is that it's already TOO socialized; there's not enough competition. I'm happy with my home, auto, and life insurance - for each of these, I looked at plans from a number of companies, and picked the balance of costs and benefits that I felt was right for me, from companies I was happy with. But I had no such choice with my medical insurance. Why? Because the perennially misguided socialist element of our society - unions and Democrats - pushed years ago to make health insurance a "job benefit." They took a free market concept and ruined it under the guise of being a tax haven.  That means my health policy is chosen by my employer, instead of by me. That means I can't choose the costs and benefits that work best for me. That means that if I don't like the insurance company's policy or service, I'm still stuck with it. That means that the insurance company has little incentive to make me happy, because it's impractical for me to take my business elsewhere. That means that the self employed and unemployed often find insurance ridiculously expensive because they're not part of one of the employee "groups" that the insurance companies have been encouraged to cater to. That means that if I change jobs, I lose my insurance - a situation so ridiculous that now the Democrats are trying to enact a gigantic, costly, coercive, and byzantine set of regulations in a naive attempt to fix the problem they themselves created with their last set of costly, coercive, and byzantine regulations. Of course, I'm still paying just as much for the insurance as I would otherwise - my company simply extracts the cost of the insurance from the amount they're willing to pay for my services, and calls the remainder (after all the other government-mandated taxes and such) my salary. Insurance as a "job benefit" is no benefit to me at all. The right way to fix this problem is with more freedom and less regulation - keep the government away from my insurance and let me buy what I want. The wrong way to solve it is with less freedom and more regulation - yet that's what the socialists always push for. Is it not immoral to force people into a government plan they don't like, rather than allowing them to select a plan they do like from a free market?  We all need to get a new gecko!(6) The "uninsured" in America largely fall into two groups: people who voluntarily choose not to spend the money for insurance, and the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but haven't yet signed up for it (since they need not do so until a medical need arises). There are also those who are not poor enough for Medicaid, but find medical insurance difficult to afford; narrowly-tailored adjustments to our current system to address their needs would be welcome. But tossing the whole system and replacing it with socialism under the pretense that it's somehow necessary to help those relatively few people - well, that's just dishonest, and immoral. Besides, in practical terms, people in the U.S aren't denied medical care, whether they can pay for it or not - walk into almost any hospital emergency room, and they'll treat you, regardless of your insurance or financial condition. I've gone to three very reputable local hospitals and seen prominently-posted literature explaining that, if you don't have insurance, you can talk to them and they'll willingly lower their prices substantially. That's probably not the best way to handle things, and the system could certainly use reform; but pretending that large numbers of people aren't able to get the medical care they need is dishonest ... and immoral.(7) I will spare you what I think of Barack Obama and the House/Senate leadership.  You can guess my opinion, though, and I guarantee you it's worse than whatever you think up.  [For the record:  this Libertarian didn't like or vote for the previous tenants of 1600 Pennsylvavia Ave., either.]  It appalls me to think that Obama - or any unelected hack appointed by him, given the tax cheats, and various other shady characters that he has chosen to surround himself with - would have any influence over decisions affecting my personal health care, or that of my family.  I would suggest that Democrats imagine my hope, and their nightmare: that in four years a Republican they despise is elected president (surely such a thing has happened before, and may happen again), and he/she appoints his/her (to their way of thinking) nefarious band of cronies to the Health Care Board. Health Care Board ... you know, that 'death panel' that Sarah Palin made up?  The Health Care Board that decides the budget can not afford your Gleevec.  Yes, that Health Care Board ... the Government's final-say equivalent to the people that do the same thing now at Blue Cross.  Will the Left really be glad then that they have signed over control of their health care to the new administration? Or will they decide then that it's suddenly time to campaign for health care re-privatization? I know you don't trust the greedy corporation blahblah profiteering blahblah overpaid executives blahblah insurance companies; fine.  Make them cover pre-existing conditions in return for being able to compete across state lines.  Fair?  Forcing people to accept control over their health care from people they don't trust is immoral, regardless of who it is that you yourself don't trust.(8) Many fostering the idea of socialized medicine have come to cite  charity as being a moral imperative and therefore something the government (usually, the Federal government) should adopt as policy.  But this is disingenuous double-speak at best.  When person “A” gives money or other assistance to person “B”, who is in need, that’s charity. But when person “C” takes money from “A” by force, and then gives it to “B”, that’s just simple theft. There’s no charity involved: not on the part of “A”, because the money was taken by force, and certainly not on the part of “C”, since it wasn’t their money. In socialized medicine, the government is “C” – not a moral position to be in. Why do Democrats want to be “C”, using other people’s money, rather than “A”, using their own?  Oh, and before you jump to the the "hey, lookie, here's another 'taxation is theft' wingnut" position and dismiss me out of hand ... think about this:  What's the difference between "promoting the general welfare" and "promoting your personal welfare" ?  I'll tell you, the difference is, I am a lazy so-and-so and would dealrly love to be able to quit working and have you pay for my personal welfare which I will conveniently convince you is in your best interest, so I don't steal your car.  What happens when the number of people that think that exceeds the number of payees?  Are we there yet?  Did Atlas Shrug?  Extortion doesn't just happen on The Sopranos.Mark, I've tried to make useful suggestions interspersed with my critique.  I am in strong support for reforms that actually solve the looming financial crisis that underpins these discussions. Everybody has to give some ... for example ... the Left will need to trade tort reform away (ooh, no more John Edwardses), in exchange for the AMA agreeing to lift the de-facto caps on the number of medical students.  Wow, more doctors!  Supply and demand! See how that works?  Discussions like these are important, and useful, and should be conducted in a rational way, with due deference to existing constructs ... including that pesky 10th Amendment to the Constitution.   The truth is that many people now depend on the Federal Government to pay for their health care expenses; that same Government has made promises to people that it cannot keep, so, the rest of us have to pony up the coin to make good.  OK, that horse has left the barn.   But it's immoral for us to lie collectively as we have done so far, and extend this proven inability to pay for those now on the dole ... to everybody else as well.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  It's immoral.

You know, about a 2 years ago, we had a 2nd level ultrasound during our 2nd pregnancy at UNC Hospitals.  The technician saw us for about 15 minutes, and the doctor came and consulted with us for THREE minutes.  Later, we rec'd the bill, that was paid by our insurance, that detailed the cost of the service as $475.  For those that struggle to do math, that equates to roughly $1584 / hour.  Need any more ideas why insurance costs are high?  (Oh, and, of course, we sat in the waiting room for almost an hour past our "appointment" time -- certainly, no one is considered about the lost productivity for myself and my wife.)As I've said before, healthcare reform is necessary.  However, everyone who thinks that it is solely the fault of the big bad evil insurance companies needs to pull their head out of the sand.  But that's not my issue.  My issue is the government considering getting into a business that a) they have no business getting into (i.e. no expertise) and b) when unassailable evidence exists that the federal government has been unable to effectively manage the fiscal health of any of their "business lines".