Sunday, March 21, 2010

Health Care Debacle

I haven't posted much on the health care debacle that's currently being played out in congress. Others have done so more extensively, more passionately, and mo' better than I could. My little $.02 worth is that IMO a very basic and fundamental principal has been obscured by all the sturm und drang over specific provisions of the bill and the corrupt legislative processes being used to advance it. What is it, you ask...

Simply this. We supposedly live in a free country. Now, if this abominable bill passes, we will be forced under penalty of law to buy health insurance. No freedom of choice, no other options - either buy health insurance or go to jail. That is so, so wrong. The government is forcing me to spend my money on something I may or may not want. But either way, it should be my choice, not some faceless, soulless government entity.

What's next? Is the government going to force us to buy life insurance? Or a car? Or a house? Or something to support whatever cause the liberals next 'deem' worthwhile? The idea of being forced to buy something by the feds is so abhorrent that my stomach literally churns whenever I contemplate it.

And please don't trot out that tired old analogy about liability insurance for cars. That is so flawed. First, you only need liability insurance if you register a car to drive on public roads. If you don't have a car, like many city-dwellers (for example, according to the 2000 census over 1/2 the households in New York city do not own a vehicle ) you aren't required to purchase liability insurance. Similarly, in my neck of the woods, many people have ranch or hunting vehicles that aren't driven on public roads. No insurance necessary for them. Second, liability insurance is priced according to risk factors. Drive carelessly, as evidenced by citations or accidents, and you pay more. Will health care premiums be higher for people who are overweight, sedentary, abuse drugs or alcohol, or indulge in other self-destructive behavior? Of course not. That would require holding individuals accountable for their actions, something liberals find repellent.

The moral argument advanced in favor of universal health care insurance is equally flimsy. I'm all in favor of helping those in need. But any moral justification for doing so vanishes once it becomes mandatory. Would it be moral to require me to contribute to charity? Or tithe to a church? Or help little old ladies across the street? Of course not. So how is it moral to require people to buy health insurance?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of establishing a social safety net. But the devil's in the details. Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to provide health care for those unable (or unwilling) to provide it for themselves (we'll save a discussion of Social Security for another day). Why not fix what's wrong with those programs, rather than cramming a new, monstrously unpopular, and fatally flawed federal program down the throat of an unwilling public? Why not? Because that would require congresscritters with intelligence and fortitude, something that's sadly lacking in the vast majority of the assholes currently populating congress.

Another argument against obamacare is the status of existing government health care programs. The VA does a terrible job of providing health care for those who deserve it the most - our veterans. Medicare and Medicaid costs consistently exceed expectations and place bureaucratic obstacles in the way of service delivery. It's reached the point where doctors and pharmacies are refusing Medicare and Medicaid patients. If the governement has proven incapable of managing health care in the past, whatever on God's green earth makes anyone think it can do so in the future?

Finally, consider the basic economics of supply and demand. obamacare would add somewhere around 32 million new patients to the nation's health care system. Where will the doctors and nurses come from to meet that staggering increase in demand? How difficult will it be to get an appointment in the future? The imbalance between supply and demand will result in de facto rationing, no matter what those lying assholes in D.C. say.

We can only hope and pray that this detestable bill goes down in flames. Failing that, let's hope the repubs come up with enough delaying tactics to stall things until the Nov. elections, when hopefully the balance of power in congress will change and the evil axis of obama-pelosi-reed will be stymied.

No comments: