A Sickly Proposal for Healthcare

In launching her second attempt towards another government run monopoly (the first of course being that of K-12 education) Hillary Clinton came forth last week with her annual $110 billion universal healthcare proposal which would mandate health insurance coverage for the estimated 47 million without it. During the speech outlining her proposal, Mrs. Clinton remained adamant that her plan would not result in another government bureaucracy; a likely impossibility if not an outright lie which, contrary to the belief of her husband, if told often enough does not become a truth. She went on to repeatedly make inferences to healthcare as being a 'right'. This is, unfortunately, becoming an increasingly adopted opinion in society today. However, it is often stated (notably by the objectivist author Ayn Rand) in stark contrast to such a widely held socialist belief, that "Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” That is undeniably true. But, if even we were to dismiss Ms. Rand’s modernist assertions, certainly we could turn quite appropriately to the Declaration of Independence for clarity in defining the inalienable rights of man. And, of course it is worth mention that even before they came to pass as “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, Samuel Adams (before coming to beer making acclaim) and Benjamin Franklin declared in the Rights of the Colonists in November of 1772 that there was instead First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; and Thirdly, to property. As such, anyone with a shred of moral decency cannot in good conscience then foresee healthcare as a 'right' if it is in fact to enslave another in providing it. Yet, Mrs. Clinton’s, as well as Obama and Edward’s, healthcare initiatives would incur a heavy burden upon another individual in ceasing to exist without excessive taxation of a particular class of individuals. Whereas, the aforementioned list of inalienable rights bare no burden upon another individual, Hillary’s fictitious 'right' of healthcare in fact would.

But, while it is worth noting that at present, Americans are already enduring a sometimes heavy burden with respect to healthcare costs, there are only two real possibilities as to how, under the three front running Democrat’s proposals, these collective healthcare costs might be reigned in. While it is true we spend close to $2 trillion on healthcare in the United States, by Hillary’s assertion this is somehow to be viewed as an unfavorable cost to endure. I do not share in Hillary’s castigation. Rather, I think it an admirable and extraordinary expense to keep Americans healthy, promote their well being, and extend their life expectancy to its highest ever at 78 years while remaining the world’s leader in medicine, medical technology and innovation. I too find it rather ironic that somehow spending $2 trillion annually towards a far superior healthcare system in the United States is worthy of damnation, while the incessant liberal want for increased spending towards a hobbled K-12 system is not. But, while Hillary’s attention to the rising collective cost of healthcare and her ensuing solution to fix it might sound good with its buttery feel good undertones, mandating health insurance coverage is far from a fix. While we may have 47 million without health insurance, that is not to say that we have 47 million without healthcare. And, just as there exists a fundamental difference between illegal and legal immigration, so too does there exist a stark difference between being without health insurance and being without healthcare.

Confirmed by an infinite number of healthcare providers, no-one is denied coverage despite not carrying health insurance. Simply show up at urgent care and you can be absolved of that which ails you. The costs of providing treatment and services for these sorts of “all too common” scenarios is a cost already incurred and attributable to the $2 trillion in collective healthcare costs which Hillary seeks to reign in. Her admitted desire to reign in these costs then begs the million dollar question, “How exactly would mandating health insurance coverage remove this already existing cost?” It wouldn’t. That said, the first likely possibility would be to ration the provided care. Of course, many proponents of the government as single payer plan will argue my skepticism. I’m unwilling to waver. Because, Gerald Ford’s point is well worth noting, "A government big enough to give you everything that you want is big enough to take it all away."

The second available option which is largely utilized at present is for government to reign in costs by simply refusing to pay market value to healthcare providers for services rendered. With a government monopoly on healthcare, providers aren’t likely to continue rendering services while receiving compensation which is far below market value. Then would likely beget scarcity creating an unfavorable scenario for Americans seeking treatment. Fewer healthcare treatment centers would in turn lead to fewer patients receiving care; more rationing. This reality of a disproportionate number of care facilities per citizenry is blatantly obvious in Canada where, in the entire country, there are just 151 MRI machines. Compare that dismal number to the state of Michigan which has 155 or Ohio with 250 (26 in Lucas County alone). Whereas, Canada averages a single MRI machine per 213,000 residents, America averages one for every 30,000. Dismal indeed yet not even the tip of the Canadian healthcare iceberg which is weighted quite heavily by its economic unsustainability beneath the surface. Mind you such unsustainability comes despite Canada’s paltry $265 per capita on National Defense compared to a $589 average by NATO countries and $504 by the G7 nations.

There is a better cure for healthcare out there. It is being promoted by the likes of President Bush and former mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It’s a plan which puts the decisions of one’s healthcare in the hands of the individual, providing a full $15,000 tax deduction and the ability to cross state lines to purchase a specific plan that meets the individual’s needs, rather than leaving that decision to a federal government mired in bureaucracy and wound in red tape.