"Cough twice if you mean it."
The desperate state of the United States health care system is a popular topic
in the press today. In Washington, D.C., Democrats and Republicans alike struggle
to stay in the good graces of the retired citizens of the United States. Not
unlike the popular game of "king of the mountain" the camera-happy
Congressmen are more interested in making it to the top of the heap rather than
considering whether the game should be played at all. No one asks whether state
run health care should be the plague of American taxpayers, we only hear the
debates that consider how to implement a dead-endgovernmental social program.
Where did the idea for state run health care originate? We owe the inspiration
for the system to the Germans. In 1883, sickness and maternity benefits were
provided for industrial workers in Germany. Workman's compensation appeared
in 1884, and by 1889, the German program was expanded to provide coverage for
invalidity, old-age and death benefits. It is believed that the institution
of a social insurance program in Germany and later all across Europe was to
stem the expansion of "socialism". This logic is like leaving your
front door unlocked so a thief won't break into your home. Why force my way
inside when the owner welcomes me in?
This government-sponsored program is a sham. If it were presented in any other
venue other than the floors of the House and Senate, we would dismiss it as
a typical pyramid scheme. No matter what the government may try to portray as
state run health care's good intentions, it is a scam and it reduces the wealth
of many citizens for the meager support it provides our sick and afflicted population.
If I were to go onto national television and propose that we tax every minority
and single mother, and then turn the funds over to a large population of elderly
white citizens, I would be branded a racist and a cheat. President William Clinton
spews this same rhetoric for two hours during a State of the Union speech and
is heralded as an expansive thinker, while the only thing expansive about his
ideas are that the government is not presently taking enough of my money.
State run health care is the biggest caper ever tried in the United States
of America. Forget the famous bank and train robberies, and dare I say forget
the Savings & Loan bailout of the 1980's. For over sixty-years, Leviathan
has been shoving his hand into our wallets and prying the pennies from our clenched
fists. We know who the thief is; we even praise his spending of our stolen dollars.
The sad part is, he still has not had enough. Leviathan's arrogance and greed
grow exponentially as our economy stretches to exploit even the poorest among
us. We do not fight the repeated thefts we suffer because Leviathan has convinced
us as a nation that we cannot survive without it.
Were the Germans successful in defending themselves against Socialism? The
memories of over one million murdered Jews shriek "no". Our nation
was born of natural laws, among them the right to own private property. Are
we myopically focusing on what is left after State run health care taxes are
withheld, or do we protect our right to every penny earned by voting for men
who distrust Leviathan? As the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved
with good intentions." Giving the government stewardship over an individual's
health is a terrible misallocation of resources. The inevitability of rent seeking
on the part of medical equipment suppliers will cost the taxpayers more than
the expenses that are currently born by payers of premiums and out of pocket
treatments. Julian Beltrame's article does a good job of showing us the future
of health care should the socialists have their way. Canada is a model of efficiency
if you consider long waiting lines and poor choice of services efficient. Mr
Beltrame states, "Canada's current system, begun by a Liberal government
in 1965, guarantees universal health care for every Canadian regardless of economic
circumstances. It has evolved into a national symbol of Canada's communal conscience."
Instead of "every man a king" as proclaimed by former Louisiana governor
Huey P. Long, we will see "every man a serf". As is true with any
commonly owned property or system, if everyone owns it, then no one owns it.
We can expect to see "over consumption" of health care when there
is no price charged for services. Rather than a downward sloping demand curve,
this system would be expressed by a horizontal demand curve.
Some who support a state run health care system regard Thomas Hobbes as a
great philosopher. A life without government is described by Hobbes as, "solitary,
nasty, brutish, and short." He is quoted as saying, "our only security
lies in concentrating all the powers of the sovereign state into the hands of
one man or assembly of men." Interestingly, the man who is regarded as
a major philosophical influence on our nation's Founding Fathers would be in
direct disagreement with Hobbes. John Locke wrote that "in the state of
nature, man is free, and in this condition all men are equal." He continues,
"we each have a right to life, and a right to liberty so long as our actions
do not infringe the natural rights of others, and we have both property in our
own body, and in the product of our own labour." It is evident that the
implementation of a state run health care system is in absolute violation of
those natural laws held sacred by Locke and the Founders. Regardless of the
purpose a government claims when stealing property, it is according to natural
law that the illegal transfer of ownership nullifies any legitimacy touted by
Leviathan. As a consumer, I can only purchase what the state deems as appropriate.
I am prevented from bidding on any service and I must get in line at the hospital
and simply wait for treatment. As quoted by Beltrame, "During the flu outbreak
this past winter, emergency rooms across the country became so crowded that
administrators placed patients in corridors, at times for days. In Toronto,
18-year-old Joshua Fleuelling, an asthma sufferer, died en route when his ambulance
was diverted from the nearest hospital because of overcrowding."
We see a clear example today of ownership of money and treasures stolen from
Jews during the reign of the Third Reich. It is of no significance that various
Europeans and Americans have purchased or acquired the property through lawful
transactions, because the right of ownership rests with the original owners
and not any subsequent possessors. Hobbes would say let the government decide,
whereas Locke would declare, let the government observe natural law. The loyal
comrades who unfailingly support this form of Socialism attack its detractors
as ideologues. I do not understand the criticism. Max J. Skidmore is such a
supporter, he writes, "Who are the enemies? They are the ideologues and
the selfish. The ideologues would eliminate government programs in the name
of ideological purity. The selfish lust after the fortunes to be made if even
a small portion of State run health care were 'privatized.' Neither group is
concerned with the consequences of their actions for others." The only
way to finance a state run health care system is to raise taxes on all Americans.
State run health care is at best is ideological, more accurately it is theft.
Who is selfish, a man who wants to keep his wages or a bloated cleptocracy that
is never satisfied? I do want to eliminate government programs in the name of
ideological purity; without it we would not have the privilege of citizenship
in the United States of America. The selfish that allegedly "lust"
after the fortunes privatization are the same citizens Skidmore claims State
run health care will protect! Skidmore's idea of responsibility is surrendering
your wealth to the government and accepting the portion seen fit for your age
and social status.
In response to the quote that "neither group is concerned with the consequences
of their actions for others", I am reminded of a quote by Adam Smith, "it
is not the benevolence of the butcher that we receive our meat, but from his
own self-interest." The economics are simple to understand. When the government
compels a citizen to participate in this program, the need to make a profit
from "investments" no longer exists. No matter what performance is
achieved, the revenues remain constant. It is similar to what history has taught
us of banking regulation since 1933. Once the FDIC was created, a hefty portion
of accountability for bad loans shifted from the individual banks to the taxpayers
at large. Basically, a bank could make a risky loan knowing that each depositor
was insured for individual accounts up to $100,000. Leviathan sold the idea
of government insured deposits to the American people under the assumption that
it would protect individual savers against what it deemed an unpredictable stock
market.
The reality is this legislation served as a strand of twine in the rope of
government-sponsored Socialism. Another clear economic faux pas is the creation
of shortages due to a mandatory social insurance premium. Disposable income
is reduced through the heavy hand of Leviathan on the collective shoulders of
American taxpayers. An average-income earning citizen may be able to save in
addition to the FICA taxes withdrawn from each paycheck. A low-income earning
citizen will find it difficult to save in addition to the compulsory taxes he
is paying. His opportunity for investment is limited by a mandatory tax, it
is worsened by the fact that he has no alternative investment offered by the
government. Hobbes would say this man is fortunate to have Leviathan securing
his future through the nationalized retirement fund, while Locke would see this
system for what it is, a twentieth century scam to control private property.
It may be ideology, but my opinion is when you control my future, you control
my present.
The future of State run health care is bleak. Leviathan has no incentive improve
State run health care because it is a significant source of votes for elected
officials. Until Americans believe that they can do more for their future than
the government, we will continue to hear heart-wrenching speeches and apocalyptic
"what if" scenarios surrounding the retirement issue. For those who
disapprove of State run health care, we have little to fear; we are preparing
for a future without the smoke and mirrors of government-sponsored Socialism.
Every fiscal or monetary issue before Congress can be delineated to a fundamental
disregard of the right to private property. This may seem to oversimplify the
problem, but it is from the seeds of ideology that the trees of success sprout.
Since no generation of contributors (and I use that word lightly) is willing to pay into a system for the duration of their lives only to forfeit the contributions to the commons, we can expect more of the same from pundits, talking heads, and politicians. I will close with a quote from Ludwig Von Mises, a man who knew of what he spoke, "...economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics."