More Thoughts on Universal Health Care This is a response I wrote more fully explaining my thoughts on the Universal Health Care issue. It was a direct reply, so take that into consideration as you read.... Interested in hearing others thoughts.
______________________________________________________
Regarding Universal Health care and the Current system:
I am by no means saying that the current system is great or that the paperwork is simple, I just argue that it would become much worse under full government direction. I believe that it is as bad as it is now directly because of government regulation and intervention. There was a time when people did not have to turn to the Government for help, they turned to their communities and neighbors. Before the LBJ administration it was common to find community groups like the Elks / Moose lodges, churches, and other independent groups that assisted those who need aid. That ended when the Government stepped in. I do not like the idea of the same people who run FEMA (and bungled New Orleans after Katrina along with most everything they do), I do not want that group to be the same people deciding what is and what is not important in my life.
Speaking of mismanaged agencies, let's use the Social Security Administration for an example. What should be a relatively straightforward job of operating a socialized retirement plan has been horribly mismanaged for decades. It is not a difficult task to forecast population growth and decline, track age groups and predict what funding is required for each generation to maintain the SSA solvent, but only a fool would believe that the SSA will exist when you and I reach retirement. The funds became an enormous and broken piggy bank for the rest of government to reach it's hands into for pet projects. There are little or no restrictions on how the SSA funds are actually used. The funds are not protected. Should I expect anything different in a federally managed health program that is far more complicated than the SSA?
I do have government (military) health care. I have no choice in my provider or the level of care I receive, but I do have care. Saying that, when I was in college I was too old to ride on my parents policies. I also refused to take anything from them so as a low/no income college kid I searched around and found a policy I could afford. In many ways, I had better coverage with that than I do now. Free market pressure makes that possible. I also know people that live in countries with socialized medicine, and it is not as advertised by people like Michael Moore. For example in the UK your priority of care is in large part based on your age and what the Govt. deems to be required, urgent care or something that can wait (until it becomes urgent). If you are 60 and need a heart transplant, well sorry you already lived for 60 years. You might have better luck of you were 30… Additionally, if you look at the tax rates of socialized countries, they typically pay a minimum of 40% and up to 55% in some places.
From a separate stand point, Health Care mandated or run by the federal government is illegal on Constitutional grounds. The Federal Government shall have no powers not expressly given to it, all other powers are reserved for the State. There is no provision in the Constitution for Health Care. The Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution is generally stretched beyond its bounds to justify whatever the Fed wants, but it is not the correct way to do business. I am sure that some justification can be devised under this clause, but it would be far beyond the original intent. If a Universal Health Care plan were enacted, there would also need to be a Constitutional Convention to ratify an amendment authorizing it to happen. Don't get me wrong, I am not against doing some things, I just believe it should be done correctly (although I am against this one). The Constitution was written to strictly limit the Federal Government and it provided a process for change. If we want the authority of the Federal Government to change, we should follow the process and not simply enact Federal laws that fall outside of Constitutional bounds.
America and the private sector is the source for the majority major medical innovation and pharmaceutical breakthroughs. The world turns to us as the provider for the future. Free market takes us there, the socialized systems do not provide incentive or proper direction to make the gains that we make everyday. Dig around, see where the major producers of new treatments and products are. I'll bet you find most of them are here. That would not be the case if we nationalize.
Lastly, we are a country based on individual freedom and free markets. Any socialized plan, be it health, retirement, welfare, and all the rest, fly in the face of what this country was meant to be. Do I believe a safety net should exist for those that, beyond all circumstance, simply can not provide for themselves. Yes, but that is an extremely narrow and limited group. I also believe that you get what you subsidize, and if you subsidize a poverty economy through social programs, you get more people that live in poverty conditions. Let's face it, Universal Health Care is a great euphemism for Socialized Medicine. Didn't the folks in DC claim that we spent 40 or so years fighting the cold war over Socialism / Communism? If we rename it, that will make it ok, so "Socialism" has become "Universal".
Do I think that American Health care requires reform. Absolutely, but I believe it requires less regulation and better direction, not a national take over. Refocus on the individual rather then group and employer sponsored plans. Reduce the regulatory burden and free resources for actual employment. Reduce the tax burden and allow people to keep the money they earn, so that they can afford coverage on their own.
