The latest evolution of the health care monstrosity slinking through the Capital is just as dangerous as earlier versions. The House is considering a version that would supposedly allow doctors to negotiate prices with the government instead of the earlier plans that included set prices that amounted to price controls.

Price controls are a problem because they are historically unrealistic and, over the long run, produce shortages. When a company is forced to sell an item at a price below the cost of production, distribution, and profit they stop producing—resulting in a shortage. Price controls also cause shortages through overconsumption. Thomas Sowell in Basic Economics (pg 29) tells of wealthy people who did not even live in the city holding on to apartments covered under New York’s rent control laws. This reduced the number of apartments available for the poor who were supposed to benefit from the laws.

When one of the agents is the government, negotiated prices are price controls with a less offensive name. Control is negative and implies a use of force. Negotiation sounds warm and fuzzy, sitting down over coffee and biscotti, and seeking what is best for both parties. In order for a negotiation to be effective, and balanced, each must have something to offer and negotiate from an equal footing. When one agent is far more powerful than the other, negotiation quickly gives way to demand. How is anyone, other than a separate sovereign nation, to negotiate with the US government? This is not possible because the government will set the terms of the negotiation. This will quickly degenerate to hidden price controls along with the resulting shortages.

What our healthcare system needs is a healthy dose of free market economics. Our system has been under the boot of big government for too long; Mr. Obama and his cronies in the Congress want us to believe the solution is adding the other boot.

“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.

In the debate on healthcare one of the chief arguments being given by the Obama administration is that the government option will be voluntary and those who currently have coverage will be able to keep it. It is also claimed that this is not an effort to do away with private coverage, but to care for those who cannot currently afford coverage. A few days ago I downloaded a copy of the bill (all 1000+ pages). I did this because whenever someone tells me that the bill says this or that, in this section or that, I like to go directly to the source and find out what it says or does not say.

In perusing the bill I found section 102: Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage. This section must not be missed by anyone who considers this issue. In this bill those who have current coverage will be allowed to keep it. However, 102(a)(1)(A) forbids those offering coverage from enrolling any new clients on or after the first day the law goes into effect. This means that you can keep your coverage, but anyone who does not have coverage will be put into the government system with no option for private insurance.

When this happens the insurance companies will find that they have all the customers they will ever have. They cannot expand their businesses and according to 102(a)(3) they can never raise rates on those who are covered or according to 102(a)(2) can never change what they do or do not cover. This last one also prevents them from entering into any new cost-sharing arrangements to reduce costs. The companies can never expand, or raise rates to offset inflation or higher expenses. The only time a new policy could be written is when someone with private insurance, before hand, changes policies.

Understand what this means, if this bill passes those who are not covered by private insurance will have no choice but the government system—none other can be sold. Those who have coverage can keep it until the company goes out of business or they lose or drop the coverage another way—job change or economic downturn. Once this happens they too will be on the government system, for life, and the government that has proved its inefficiency and incompetence in so many areas will be able to let us down where it matters most. Higher prices, rationing, lower quality and early death for millions will be the legacy of this president. How’s that for Change!

While Congress is away from Washington for the Fourth of July, President Obama replied to charges that his plans for healthcare reform were rushed and too costly. Of course, his reply was quintessential political boilerplate. He says “doing nothing would cost far more than changing the system.” He made no appeal to the need for change and no details of the changes or what we will get for our money–just an unprovable claim that doing nothing would be worse.

Take notice whenever a politician says that the expensive program he is touting is less costly than doing nothing. This is not an attempt to convince but to obfuscate. It is easy to point to statistics and stories of failings of our current system, because his own system has not been implemented and therefore is difficult to examine. Liberal programs are never measured by what they do or do not accomplish but by what they meant to accomplish. Welfare is a good thing because it meant to cure poverty. Never mind the destruction of minority families and the harm done by these programs.

The healthcare status-quo could never be more expensive than surrendering control of one-fifth of our economy to the government and control of our healthcare decisions to bureacrats. The cheapest healthcare system is one that allows market forces to determine costs, and that rewards creativity and innovation. Government healthcare will choke off innovation, will cost everyone in higher taxes and will drive market forces from the equation. Costs, procedures, and standards will be set by government fiat. Anyone who has experienced healthcare systems run by the US government (welfare systems, BIA Indian Health Services, Veterans Administration, etc.) wouldn’t wish that care on the rest of the country.

Barack Obama has found a source to fund his plans for healthcare reform and at least to hear it from him it will not involve a tax increase. He plans to “close loopholes” in the tax code and from the resulting funds, pay for nationalizing our healthcare. The lengths to which this administration will go even force the English language to bow to him is unbelievable. You see, raising taxes is unpopular, but tax loopholes for corporations and rich fat-cats are evil. There is a popular myth that corporations and the rich do not pay enough. Mr. Obama hopes to use the ignorance of the average American to get them to cheer his version of tax “Twister.” (more…)

Anyone involved in politics ends up on hundreds of mailing lists, both email and snail-mail. Recently I received an email from John McCain asking me to take part in a poll. This proves that he did not read my response to his last email for support. Had he read it, he would have deleted my name for sure. As for the poll, I usually just delete these because they are worded in such a way to swing the results toward a previously intended direction. The questions will have multiple choice questions that do not even come close to my position, so they are always useless. This one was a perfect example. Here is one of the questions:

Do you believe in limited measures to control climate change or sweeping legislation with the process supporting other priorities of the Administration? (more…)

Shortly after the attacks on 911, President Bush announced the new Office of Homeland Security. A good friend of mine was frightened by the potential for this new agency, seeing in it a potential for abuse of freedoms. I didn’t agree because I believed the reports that it was just a reorganization to increase communication among various organizations. We were early in the Bush administration and I, like many Americans, still thought he was a conservative. Besides, we had recently learned of glaring security problems through the attack. As a good American son, I have always been watchful of efforts to overstep by the government so I was put off guard by my trust for an individual. I forgot that the man sitting in the Oval Office is not the measure of our government, because that man will change every four to eight years. (more…)

In the beginning there was the Three. The three were all powerful and all truth was filtered through the Three. The Three were known as ABC, CBS and NBC. Over time, alternatives to the Three come forward. Conservative talk radio, cable news outlets and the Internet allowed the truths once hidden by the Three to be shouted from the roof tops. Over time, the Three and their cronies in print saw their influence and power wane. It was no longer possible for them to twist the news to meet their political agenda without being called to task for it. Such a change is never welcome to despots. After years of wandering in the wilderness the Three have found their deliverer. The Obama administration along with the Hip-pocket Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are working hard to end free speech in America with the “Fairness Doctrine.” This bold-faced effort to silence those who would stand against their leftist agenda to recreate America in the European image is everything the founders of our country fought against. (more…)

Israel has a new leader. One that is determined to protect her interests and not let western appeasement to rogue nations cause their own downfall. The once and now returned Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu has warned the world that the US must prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons or Israel will do so. Is this a simple matter of bluff and puff? Let Israel’s history answer that. They have proven that they will not place their safety in the hands of any others; they will protect their own people at their own cost, no matter how great. (more…)

The latest actions of our new president, funding embryonic stem cell research, has brought new attention to the fight over abortion. In the discussion, the amount of smoke blown by those supporting the unrestricted killing of children is amazing. Some will charge that how I framed that last is meant to inflame, but it is the sort of attack used regularly against the pro-life movement. (more…)