The Observer, February 15, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 17
On the Right: Universal health care not the solution
Wouldn't it be wonderful if no matter how much money you made or how old you were, you could get premium health care at affordable rates? Of course it would, who can argue with that? If you think that Congress is going to make this happen, then you're fooling yourself. Last time I checked, about 75 percent of Americans don't even like Congress. But maybe we should give them a chance. After all, look how well No Child Left Behind improved universal education.
Problems with the health care industry stem from a multitude of sources. First, there is our aging population and their increasing demand for newer and more expensive medications. Added to that is an illegal immigrant population that places a financial burden on our hospitals. The other major and completely separate problem is that of the uninsured populace. Once you subtract frictional unemployment, that population is halved. While the uninsured may increase costs, the primary motivation for the left to fight for their coverage is an almost religious belief that health insurance is a right.
It's heartwarming to describe health care as a right, but is it truly a right if it means you take something from someone else to get it? Your freedoms of speech and religion aren't at the expense of others. If the wealthy want to contribute to those without health care, that's fine, but to force them and future generations to pay for someone else's "right" is not.
Regardless, proponents of universal health care don't want to think in terms of multiple causations and instead are fixated on one enemy, the free market. Anyone who tells you that we have a free market health care system is wrong. With Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other programs, the government funds about half of Americans' medical costs. Doesn't it seem strange that the more the government pays for health care the more expensive it gets? It shouldn't. Congress writes a blank check to medical providers on behalf of our seniors, children, and poor. I'd love to meet the congressman who is willing to go to his district and tell them he won't cover their prescription drugs because the price is too high. You can't blame the companies either. Wouldn't you keep charging more if you knew you would keep getting paid? These rising costs are not likely to change with any of the proposed universal plans and even more taxpayer spending.
Usually the best approach to a multifaceted problem is a multifaceted solution. While I would look to the free market for the solution, those more fearful of liberty should look to the states. Instead of one bloated special interest-filled bill in Congress, we ought to put federalism to work to get 50 different solutions, tailored to the needs of the states. If California wants to pay for illegal aliens, that's fine, but federalism means Ohioans don't have to. Massachusetts is trying their new universal health care system and while it is costing them much more than they anticipated, the rest of us can learn from their mistakes without paying for them. Is it really a good idea to have 535 legislators create one plan for 300 million people? Or should we allow the thousands of state legislators and local officials craft solutions that are regionally tailored and more directly accountable?
Ultimately, whether at the national or state level I will disagree with any proposal that says lawyers know how to run the health care industry better than health care professionals. But that is a battle I will have to fight with my own principles.
