Max Baucus of Montana is hard at work trying to force his healthcare bill through committee and onto the floor of the Senate. If he succeeds we could have a new healthcare system in this country before long. Of course the new system will take care of few if any of the old problems and simply create higher taxes and more government red tape.

As an astute politician Max understands that sometimes compromise is needed to pass legislation. Some changes made to his proposal should get serious attention from those of us who will foot the bill for this program. He has offered changes to the number of people being subsidized to pay for coverage and the penalty for not getting coverage has been lowered.

The Baucus plan will provide subsidies to families and individuals to help defray the cost of getting insurance. This subsidy is available to any family making under $88,200 or any individual making less than $43,230. Of course when we look simply at the dollars one can see why this would be offered. Neither figure is a huge income these days, because the cost of coverage can run to 5 digits for some families. The problem is when you consider what portion of the population will now be subsidized. According to 2005 census figures, this would cover 80% of American households. If Max’s plan goes through 80% of Americans will have their healthcare costs subsidized by the Federal Government. Is anyone silly enough to believe that this will not require higher taxes or cuts to other spending? This is simply an effort to buy support from the American people. By casting wide the net of those on the dole Max hopes to get more people supporting his proposal.

The next problem doesn’t seem like a problem at all. It can almost be spun as a fix to a problem I already addressed. Max’s plan to require all Americans to buy coverage or face a fine is obviously problematic. In recognition of this Max had lowered the fine for not having coverage from $3800 to $1900. This is recognition that many will defy the plan and admission that the purpose is not to defray the costs to the system of uncovered patients. If the system were enforceable and truly for the purpose of getting Americans covered a higher fine makes sense. By lowering it Max is admitting that his plan will quickly make many previously law-abiding Americans into criminals. What will their crime be? Choosing to spend their money elsewhere.

For most people a few months is not very long. A child thinks of this period as an eternity, but an adult facing a wait of several months is a different story. By the time we reach adulthood we learned to wait. We have also had things we wanted put off for months and observed how quickly that time passes. Even with the relative shortness of a few months a lot can happen in that time period.

In nine short months a fertilized egg becomes a fully formed human being. The transformation from single cell to sentient intelligent being is an amazing miracle to consider. Compound that complexity with the quickness of the process and awe is only natural. The mother feels her bond grow daily as her child develops; a father’s first experience of the child is at birth. Just as the bewildered father finds himself bewildered by miracle that has changed him from man to father and feels mixed emotions as he realizes the weight of his new responsibilities, a society can find itself overcome by the changes wrought in a few months by a misguided agenda.

The last few months of US history are a perfect example. We have seen changes in the land unforeseeable only a few years ago. I still remember the days when the media was bemoaning the destruction of the Democratic Party and declaring that the whole country had taken a sharp turn to the right. With the leadership of the American Triumvirate (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) we face a brave new world—not so brave, and if you listen to Solomon, not so new.

Over the last few months the following has come to pass under the leadership of the most left leaning president and Congress in history:
• American’s largest auto manufacturer is majority owned by the federal government.
• The President of the United States has removed the CEO of a major corporation.
• The financial industry is under the heavy hand of the fed.
• Major segments of society are being managed by Czars, not one of them elected.
• Veterans who served their country have been labeled potential terrorists.
• A government website has been established for reporting opposition.
• The government is poised to expand its control of our healthcare.
• War has been declared on the entire health insurance industry.
• Members of previous administrations are being criminalized for policy differences.
• Business is being attacked with higher mandatory wages and proposed new requirements.
• Our children’s wealth has been spent before the children have earned it.
• Government debt has risen to unprecedented levels.
• Art and education are being suborned to speak in support of the president and his policies.
• Our economy is being sacrificed to the new religion of Global Warming.

As if this isn’t enough, imagine what a few more months will bring. Already, in 2010 taxes will increase without any action by the Congress or President. This automatic tax increase will kick in when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. It will be spun by Obama and the boys as not being a tax cut, but if your taxes are one amount this year and nearly double next year what do you call it? It is a tax increase and it will be Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s baby.

Some used to be say, “One election doesn’t matter; how must damage could be done in four years?” If the last few months are an example every election counts because the damage done can be irrevocable. Mister Obama, “I’ll keep my current health coverage, my current income and my current freedoms; you can keep the change.”

Privacy between a doctor and patient is sacred in this country. It is illegal to share information with anyone the patient has not designated including the police—with a few exceptions. However, if Montana’s Max Baucus gets his way in the healthcare debate your doctor would become an agent of the police, at least in the enforcement of one federal law.

Like many of the current proposals on healthcare, the Baucus plan forces all Americans to purchase health coverage. Your employer might provide it, but if not, you would be required by federal law to purchase it yourself. This means that choosing to be uninsured will no longer be an option—find a job that provides it or find a way to pay for it.

On the surface it sounds good that all American’s will have coverage and it would solve some of the problems of the industry, but at what ultimate cost? Several problems would arise out of this requirement.

First, let’s look at the enforcement nightmares. Like all laws, this one is only as effective as the ability to enforce it. No matter how good a law sounds on paper, or in sound bites, if it is unenforceable there is effectively no law. Many who support this requirement compare it to mandated auto insurance, but there are some glaring differences. For one, there is the issue of opting out. If I want to avoid buying auto insurance I can choose to not drive. I can shop and work close to home or live in a community with mass transit. Either way I have a choice if I don’t want to fork out the money for auto insurance. Another difference is the issue of enforcement. In states where auto coverage is mandatory you show your insurance when getting your car inspected or registered. You also display proof of coverage when pulled over for an infraction or, in some states, at random check points.

With health coverage you will not have random check points to check insurance cards—we hope. The only option would be to report violators at the point of service. The doctor, hospital and clinic will be responsible for this. So instead of taking care of your needs, medical personal are converted into agents of the state. One may argue that checking for and reporting insurance noncompliance would be in the interest of the doctor because by this they can ensure a higher percentage of patients paying their bill. Part of the cost of health care is the number of people who opt out of coverage and choose to use the emergency room as their family physician because they can’t be refused care for an emergency. Requiring everyone to get coverage would handle this and supposedly reduce costs. What this will actually do is discourage those without coverage from seeking medical care even for true emergencies. In many communities hospitals and doctors are forbidden to report alien status. This is to protect those who are here illegally. It is assumed that if seeking medical care will get one’s illegal status discovered would keep those who need care from seeking it, endangering people’s lives and health. This is being overlooked in the case of mandatory coverage. So it is alright for the liberals to tie the doctor’s hands when it comes to reporting alien status, but then the doctor will be required to report anyone, including those here legally for not having coverage. People without coverage will be less likely to see a doctor for treatment until the danger is high enough to offset the cost of discovery.

Another problem is the negative impact to employer provided coverage plans. Most people with coverage provided through their employer pay a portion of the cost with the remainder paid by the employer. If everyone is required to have coverage the employer is empowered to transfer more costs to the employee because they have no option but to purchase coverage. They can choose to pay more though the employer or pay much more directly to the insurance company selling the policy.

Neither will this requirement reduce costs to the consumer. It is true that mandated coverage will reduce medical costs impacted by care for the uninsured. Providers will no longer set charges assuming a certain number will not pay. For example, suppose Doctor Jones knows that providing x level of coverage to n number of patients with appropriate profit requires c dollars. If Doctor Jones knows that 10% will not pay then he either finds a way to operate on less or increases by 10% his charges for those who d pay to offset the non-payers. By lowering this pool of non-payers through mandated coverage it is hoped that this transfer will no longer be needed. This will of course reduce the price of care, but only to those paying the bill—the insurance company. This decrease may lower premiums, but don’t forget that all Americans will be captive customers of the insurance companies. If they want to see the doctor without fear of being reported they must pay for insurance. Does mandating insurance lower or increase premiums? When anything is mandated those who provide it are able to demand higher prices for it, because opting out is no longer an option.
Finally, the greatest threat from this mandate is what it will do over the long haul. As people get tired of being forced to pay for insurance and accept more government interference in their health choices, the calls for a public option will grow. If you can’t convince the American voter to accept plan A just pile on more requirements until plan A becomes attractive. Those in the middle, squeezed because they don’t qualify for a subsidy, but can’t afford the cost of the coverage they are forced to buy, will begin to clamor for the system that has been planned by the left all along—a one-payer system with government control over the medical industry. Don’t be fooled. This effort to mandate health coverage in place of a public option is just one step to forcing government control of the health industry down the throats of the American people.

“This is America, the richest country in the world.” I hate that saying! I hear it often from those on the left, usually in defense of some half-baked plan to care for another down-and-out segment of society or to “give” some other entitlement to “all Americans.” There are two problems with this idea.

First, America is not rich. At least not America as the left usually defines it. You see the left sees the government as the great checkbook in Washington. They don’t understand that the government has no money and no source of producing it. I’m not talking about printing money because they can do that, but those greenbacks are only a symbol of someone’s tax burden. All wealth in this country is created by those who produce products—meaning anything of value: widgets, services, information, et al. The government pays for nothing and provides nothing. All they can do is redistribute wealth by taking it from those who earned it (and therefore deserve it) and give it to those who did not earn it (and therefore do not deserve it). The government does this through coercion. They come to your home or place of business and require that you report exactly how much money you have made and give them a proportional amount. This is acceptable when one considers what the government does appropriately. When the government spends seized money on the military it is protecting all of us from enemies. When they spend this money on police they are protecting us all from those who would steal and kill. Entitlements are a different story.

Government efforts to champion the poor by providing for the have-nots would be fine if they spent their own money, but all their money comes from us. They must first coerce it from the rightful owner before they can give it to another. Of course they take their cut off the top to finance the bureaucracy. This is actually theft because the person taxed loses money that he earned and gets nothing in return. Actually what the government does is far worse than simple theft. Robert Nozik (Nozick, 1974, p. 169) says, “Taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose.” This forced labor is, in effect, government sanctioned slavery. When you consider the money is given to those who did not work for it you can only conclude that the producer is made slave to the unproductive. Those who work hard to build wealth must work even harder to make up for what the government forces them to provide for those who choose not to work, or not to work as hard.

Second, with our progressive tax system no program benefits all Americans the same. Like I said taxation is appropriate for things that only the government can or should provide. We would not want private armies roaming the land or police working for the highest bidder so the government provides these and must tax to do so. However, when money is taken and nothing is given it is easy to see the wrong that is done. Lately, the problem is another type of entitlement. We are not faced with one that only benefits the poor but it is claimed that its implementation will benefit all Americans. The debate I am speaking of is healthcare. The plan, right now, is to create a government safety net for those without insurance, but the details put forth show a deeper desire to create a government program meant to spread and grow until its tentacles entwine all Americans. The final goal is a one-payer system in which all people will be on the government plan. Many see this as an acceptable use of tax power because those who pay the taxes will participate in the program—getting something in return. Actually, the problem with this view is that only those who work and can afford it will pay for the program that is meant to cover everyone. Those who currently pay for their own insurance and care will continue to do so, but they will send the check to the Federal government along with a hefty additional sum to cover their neighbor. This is not a program for all Americans but one more example of the productive subsidizing the unproductive.

This brings up a major problem to consider. With our progressive tax system, those who produce wealth pay for their own police and military protection and also for the protection of those who do not produce. This is still a subsidy of bad choices. The only fair tax is one that is totally flat and shared by all Americans, rich and poor, big and small alike. Any attempt at a graduated tax system gives higher value to some Americans by taking away from others.

America is not a rich country. Among the American people are rich and poor. Like all nations we only have the wealth produced by our people. Each American is entitled to the wealth he produces and none other.

Works Cited
Nozick, R. (1974). Aarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.

He overlooks the fact that it is not his townhall meeting and it is not his congressional office. The office is the property of his constituents and townhalls are where he stands before the consituents to account for his actions and to seek their continued support. Hopefully his voters will get the hint and send him home next election. Such arrogance needs to be responded to.

President Obama plans to tell your kids to study hard and stay in school. In a national address to school children scheduled for Tuesday September 8, he plans to tell them this and a bit more. While this is not unusual for presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did the same thing, the original plan tells us a great deal about the man who now sits in the Oval Office.

Though changes have been made due to outrage, the lesson plans accompanying the speech originally included having the children write letters describing how they could help the president. While other presidents saw the value of inspiring children to stay in school, President Obama seems to have no problem using this as a tool for an American Jungvolk. Now, I know he did not write the speech, nor did he create the lesson plans to go with it, but the sycophants he surrounds himself with have shown no reticence to presenting him as the Messiah and Deliverer and he shows no sign of reigning them in.

No other president in modern times has demonstrated such a propensity for forceful expansion of government influence. He has increased government power in the financial industry through bailing out companies that were faltering largely due to liberal congressional meddling. Before long the opportunity came to seize control of a huge portion of the American auto industry. Once powerful GMC was bailed out with a huge chunk of the stock in the hands of the government after years of being pillaged by excessive union demands—unions that backed Obama and his cronies.

I’m not an apocalyptic conspiracy theorist, so I do not believe in an orchestrated attempt to get the nation to this point so at the right moment Barak Hussein Obama could bring us into some near future dictatorship. Please don’t regale me with your theories of the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations. Neither do I want to hear misguided theories about how Obama is the Antichrist. Such discussions are useful for inspiring fear but have little use in meaningful and useful political discourse.

What I do see is a man who seems to have believed his own press. He seems willing to do whatever it takes to expand government influence (with him at the reigns) into all areas of our lives. Whether it is indoctrinating children to seek ways to support him—not the country, not the Constitution, but him personally— or taking control of industry, redistributing wealth from the productive to the unproductive, determining who gets paid what or bankrupting our children, grandchildren and beyond, his opinion of himself shows through.

Mr. Obama, my children and I do not need a Messiah. We already have one. You are the president which means you have been hired by the American people. Just as you can be hired, you can be fired. It is my greatest hope that in the next Congressional election the teeth of your presidency (control of both houses of Congress) will be lost. In the next presidential election hopefully the American people will tire of their venture into political idolatry and will send you back to Chicago.