Freedom, Bureaucracy, and Healthcare
October 16, 2009 13 Comments
This post is written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee has an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his seventh posting for the site.
During the recent debate over whether and how to reform America’s health care system, Americans have been asked to consider why the President’s proposed overhaul is warranted. We are told that the health care system needs to be reformed to cover the uninsured, while at the same time we are told reform is necessary in order to control spiraling costs. We are left to contemplate how we can expand the health care system through the federal government, while at the same time controlling costs.
We’ve been told to shun experience and common sense, since either will tell us that any plan to reform health care through government control will neither improve coverage or control costs. We will continue to be admonished by the media to allow Congress and the Obama Administration to govern by emotion, as we hear endless stories of the health care system gone awry. This, of course is not to be hard-hearted, as errors do happen and people do suffer as a result. We just shouldn’t expect Congress, the Obama Administration, or the media to tell us similar stories of those suffering as they wait for treatment on government waiting lists, hoping their number is called when a bureaucrat says “Next!”
But the health care debate is part of a larger discourse regarding the relationship between the government and the citizens of the United States. What is the proper role of government in the United States? This country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect and sustain those rights. The key notion is that each individual is personally endowed with rights that other persons, and especially the government, are duty bound to respect and protect.
This means that America was founded on the principal that each man or woman, individually, was free to make of his or her life what he or she chose. That also meant we relied on voluntary associations to assist with community building. People helped each other, invested in each other, supported each other and cared for each other. America became prosperous through the effort of free individuals able to keep the fruit of their labor, with the support of friends, family, voluntary organizations, churches, and other institutions created and sustained by individuals choosing to do so. The government was there to ensure that courts were open, criminal laws were enforced, contracts were honored, and the borders kept secure.
Fast forward to the 1910’s. Since the inception of the Progressive Movement and its successors in modern liberalism, political elites have tried to overhaul this system. We are told that the system of free government and free enterprise is alternatively heartless and cruel, or individualistic and isolating. We are told further that the only way to have just and good society is to have everyone pull on the same rope, forming a true community, backed by the power of the federal government. Our self-appointed elites will guide us into making a better world.
The key observation, however, is that in this world view the rights of the individual are not central. Instead, what is central and essential is the guiding hand of the elite. Individual rights, in order for society to be remade, must subordinate to the needs of the community as determined by those in power. And to enforce their dream of remaking society according to their own designs, they take away individual freedom through coercion and taxation – all for “our own good.”
Fast forward again to today’s health care debate. We hear very little from proponents of the Obama Plan about the rights of individuals. In a free society, patients, nurses, physicians, and hospitals are free to contract with each other for treatment under whatever terms are mutually agreeable. However, over the past 70 years, both the state and federal government have colluded with insurance companies to increase their power over health care decisions. As each effort by the government to make things better has come to pass (by increasing its own power, of course), the state of health care has worsened, and government claims the need for increased intervention.
Finally, we come to the ultimate effort, putting the whole system under the control of the federal government. The results are predictable if Congress and the Obama Administration succeed—those in power will have more power to direct and control society. And as they play the part of Leviathan, ordinary, once free people will be reduced to the hope that their name is called next on the bureaucrats’ list.
-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net
how would the whole system be under control? it’s a public option that would cover less than 5% of the population? Where does that come from?
Do you honestly believe that the health care industry is not corrupt, and that americans should spend more than 15% of their income on health care? The price gauging is embarrassing bc there is no regulation. How do you fix it, if you don’t like Obama’s plan that is supported by the AMA?
The freedom for individuals to chose health care at an affordable price that will not discriminate against pre-existing conditions should be the goal.
Should we not force individuals to buy car insurance too? How is a health insurance mandate any different?
I respect what you are trying to say, but I think as society has progressed, and the more interconnected we get, we need to realize that our decisions effect the rest of society, and we need to be accountable.
Jonas,
Understanding the answer to your question requires a rudimentary grasp of economics not offered at most ‘higher’ education outlets such as yours.
You are assuming that a lack of support for a bad solution that would make things worse is somehow tantamount to a denial of the need for a solution at all. Don’t do that, it’s silly. What does guaging prices have to do with anything? You have been presented with alternatives many times but choose not to give them credence for some reason.
No one is forced to buy car insurance as no one is forced to buy a car so a health insurance mandate is different in the same way that it is different from cell phone insurance. Bad analogy.
The decisions that effect the rest of society the most are the foolhardy one’s dressed up in good intentions that somehow make it into law and take us down a path that, while blissful if ignorant, is lined with similar ‘unintended consequence’ ridden blunders, and ultimately leads to tyranny.
Since you writer with such a condescending arrogance, I’ll respond in a similar way.
1) Last I checked, you have to have car insurance if you operate a car in just about every state. So good analogy.
2) You answered everything I said in huge generalities. Tell me the legitimate alternatives that that conservatives have presented that will drive down prices. What does price gauging have to do with anything? um….everything? Why should an industry who gangs up on citizens and judging people on pre-existing conditions be allowed to drain our pockets. Having a check on their power would seem pretty democratic and smart to me.
3) If you’re going to call me silly, and ignorant, at least present me with some legitimate alternatives. Tyranny? How is trying to lower prices tyranny? You’re just part of the problem, part of a group of people that expect, and want the worst possible outcome of all of Obama’s policies. As an American, you may not support his policy, but don’t you want it to suceed? Wouldn’t something great come about if what the administration says can happen will? Can you honestly object with the goals, and root against an outcome that would benefit millions of Americans? Republican or democrat, you form your own opinion, but once the legislation passes, you hope for the best, not for failure to proof your point.
Jonas,
Any feeling of condescention you are experiencing is not a function of my words but a result of the position you choose to hear them from.
You understand that a car is not a natural born right, right? Or should it be? Everyone is not born with a car as they are born with a body to try to keep healthy. Isn’t it your side that would prefer everyone ride bikes anyway? Maybe that’s the solution to both issues…
I made the mistake of applying the meaning of the word you used to what you wrote instead of what I now think you meant. You are speaking of gouging. I was confused about what gauging had to do with anything. Issue clear.
It is unbelievably naive to think that ‘judging people on pre-existing conditions’ is a bad thing. But then again, we probably shouldn’t require credit or income of mortgage applicants according to the left… speaking of a good analogy.
I have previously referenced (as have countless others) John Mackey’s (the Whole Foods guy) article that clearly lays out alternatives to the enthusiastic sprint towards destruction that the dems are pushing in congress. What say you? Have you read it? Or do you discount it because it was published in the Wall Street Journal? Do the ideas have to come from the left, or can we use ones that work also? To paraphrase Bill Whittle, the beautiful thing is, we have this account of what works and doesn’t work to draw on, it’s called history.
I do want what Obama says to be true. I think it would be great if math was more like magic. When the president says we will cover everyone and make it cheaper he insults the intelligence of any thinking adult still accustomed to the practice. It can’t be done. No matter the goals or lofty, compassionate intentions 280 million plus 30 million does not equal less than 280 million. Sad, but true. I only root for the best outcome. However, rooting for the best outcome does not coincide with choosing the worst option. We have a chance to make a choice that would eliminate the need to hope agains all odds.
You often like to end your posts with attempts at unity. This seems disingenuous as you are completely prejudiced against all things republican or conservative. Let’s not call partisan politics open debate. Understand, by pointing out flaws in a terrible idea I am not being partisan, negative, or even racist as you have asserted elsewhere I am simply pointing out flaws. The debate would be better served if you an your ilk focused your outrage at bettering your ideas rather than lashing out at those that have the nerve to question them.
Let me wrap up by reminding you that we don’t have to have an alternative to recognize something is bad. If a moment calls for action and you suggest lopping off an appendage it is perfectly reasonable for me to object with my only alternative being, let’s keep all our limbs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003073.html
I’ll ignore your tone, it is what it is, whatever…
What I fear is that we will continue to apply the survival of the fittest approach to health care. It doesn’t make sense to me that if something gets sick, that they must fork over close to half their salary for treatment. The science is there, we can keep people healthy and provide great preventative and responsive care. There is no reason that money, or genetics should play a role in that. Clearly we disagree, and you think health care is a privilege, and not a right. You’re entitled to that of course, but I think the opposite. Health and matters of life and death should not really be compared to having bad credit. Maybe it was my fault for comparing insurance to insurance, but your analogy kind of dehumanizing things, which the health insurance does on a daily basis to ignore the fact that they are legitimately killing people by denying coverage.
I have read Mackey’s article, and I read a ton of conservative arguments to try and educate myself on both sides of the issue. I have some issues with what he is saying however. I think he ignores the burden high prices give to small business, and ignores people that will be way of their deductible. His whole foods plan is great, as long as they stay relatively healthy. His thoughts on cost transparency, and lawsuits are great. And he calls for an open market where companies can compete. Well, we do not have that right now, and I think the public option would create more competition and make it a true free market system. He is right though, insurance reform is just a part of it, a part that we can effect though. The fact that Americans treat themselves poorly, leading to higher costs, is a fault of our own. The regulation of that is a whole other story that can get dangerous.
Let’s see what Obama signs, and see if it adds to the deficit before we call him an insulting magician. He said he wouldn’t sign a bill that adds to it, so let’s hold him to that and not pass judgment too son.
I’m not interested in partisan politics. I’m interested in getting things done, and if the country gives a mandate to a group, they have the right to pass their legislation in any way they can. I respect all dissenting opinions, as long as they are legitimate and respectful. When people treat those who they are debating with as ignorant children like you yourself do, it makes the whole process a joke and puts us in the two party mess we are in today.
You say that like survival of the fittest is a bad thing. Now please understand that what we are talking about is survival of the fittest pertaining to businesses such as health insurance providers and hospitals. I believe that only the best run most competitive companies should survive. If you intervene with government plans and programs ‘fitness’ becomes obsolete. Nothing the government does is efficient. By bureaucratic decree their involvement will increase costs and slow responsiveness. What will motivate scientific progress and continual research? Good will? Government mandate? If people are not rewarded in direct relation with their production motivation to produce dies. That is why money needs to be part of the transaction. If a doctor is compensated the same as other doctors and private health insurance companies have to lower their prices to compete with a government option that has no compunction about continually operating in the red what will motivate excellence? A duty to their fellow man, who may or may not work even half as hard as they do? Money is a great motivator. It is a wonderful representation of the worth you have offered to your area of business. And it doesn’t see class, only effort. If you would like to compare insurance to insurance, how about this: If insurance companies should not be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions shouldn’t life insurance companies not be able to discriminate based on the applicant’s being alive or dead? In relation to the policy wouldn’t their death be considered a pre-existing condition? Similarly, should people on death’s door be entitled to the same life insurance policies available to a healthy man in his twenties? If this sounds ridiculous to you, we are beginning to agree.
I’m glad you’ve read it. After doing so though, how can you still feel that a full blown overhaul is the best solution and an immediate need? Take any two of his suggestions and try them for six months. They will be drastically more cost effective and since the democrats’ plan wouldn’t even kick in for 3 or 4 years we can just put that off while we try something that might work. Any of these ideas are available to us right now. We don’t even need to wait a few years. If this is such a pressing need should speed be an appealing thing? For that matter Obama should take it upon himself to backburner this issue while he implements the efficiencies he has promised to in Medicare and Medicaid to produce that 570 Billion dollars he said he’ll find. Once he does that, who could oppose his plan? As I’ve stated government involvement never boosts competition it eliminates it. A better solution would be to allow insurance sales across state lines immediately broadening competition. Don’t you think that would immediately effect the market in Alabama?
The point you are missing when you say ‘Let’s see what Obama signs’ is that we should know all about it before he signs it. That way we can actually hold him accountable. Otherwise we will be stuck with whatever they decide to sneak through and only able to pick up the pieces as best we can after the fact.
You are very interested in partisan politics and only interested in getting things done if they appear on the liberal agenda. One need only visit your website to confirm this…so I’ll give you a few free plugs… http://outsidetheboxblog.com/2009/10/13/jackie-robinson-hitler-and-the-gop/ http://outsidetheboxblog.com/2009/10/08/recent-things-on-my-mind/ http://outsidetheboxblog.com/2009/09/30/texas-a-failed-conservative-experiment/ http://outsidetheboxblog.com/2009/09/23/political-pondering-last-thoughts-on-gop-racism/
If what works is foremost on your agenda than taking time to make a good decision would be as well. The feverish urgency with which the left is pushing their disastrous experiment forward is quite telling.
I’m not going to take too much time here, because we will keep going back and forth and it’ll be an endless cycle.
1) i don’t think that health insurance is a successful capitalistic business. Survival of the fittest need not apply to live and death. This isn’t about the insurance companies making money and their bottom line, it should be about protecting people from tragedy. They need to realize they are a special type of business that cannot operate the same way. The public option hopefully address that, and they will adjust their prices accordingly. You say the most competitive business should survive, but there is no competition in the health insurance industry. They are a tight nit group that sticks to “industry standards.” They are in it together, and they are screwing the American people because of it.
2) I just don’t see the logic behind the argument that “invention and scientific progress will be halted.” People are treating the public option like it is a huge socialist nightmare. Less than 5% of the people in this country will be part of it. Why would doctors stop practicing? Why does the AMA support the public option? I try to think they know more than us about how the bill would effect their livelihoods. I’ll put my trust in their analysis.
3) money doesn’t see class? money is class. I wish effort led to money, but from my experience, it just isn’t that easy, and is far too rare.
4) I’d like to pose this question. Do you really think a human being should be allowed to die because they don’t have enough money to pay for a procedure that could save their life? That is the system we are currently in. This is a moral imperative in my mind and in about 60% of the public mind that supports the public option to increase competition and lower prices.
5) Nothing will change unless the health insurance industry stops acting like a boys club and starts adhering to the laws of ethics. The system is broken, and they operate on a bottom line. You say it’s a business and they are entitled. I say it is a special institution that has a responsibility to provide for the best possible care at the lowest possible price for all americans. An overhaul is not only necessary, it is long overdue.
6) I misspoke. I meant to say I am not interested in bipartisan politics, which matches up with what I said. The party in power should have the opportunity to rule and try out their policies. The more watered down bills get due to “bipartisanship” the less effective they will be, and they will continue to place bandaids over our nations problems.
7) Please stop referring to all liberals as some type of monsters who want to destroy our nations history, institutions, and independence. There are many different wings of the democratic party and a liberal mindset. Please stop lumping all of us into some reactionary revolutionary crowd. When i voice my displeasure with the GOP, I refer tot he right wing minority, and try to avoid speaking in generalizations that hurt the debate. You write with such reckless abandon that it comes off as hateful. While I am very extreme in some of my beliefs, I try to at least inject some humor into my passionate opinions. The internet creates some problems because people can speak however they want and not need to face the writer in person. I try to write what I would speak, and I wonder if you would do the same? Your passion and energy that you bring into the political debate is needed, and I think myself and matt really respect it. Talk about what you believe in, ask questions to the opposition, but don’t treat their beliefs like they are filthy and vile. If you’re trying to entice some debate by over-dramatizing your thoughts (like I have done a few times) as a journalistic tool, that’s fine, as long as the readers know it. I’m sorry if I sound like I’m lecturing, I’m just trying to point out a problem with our system as a whole. I thought about not even writing a response, because no matter what I saw, you will try and break it, spit on it, and bury it. Respect me, respect the opposition, and we will respect you.
Goodby power chair! Seriously how can you cut 500 billion dollars from medicare and not ration services. The healthcare bills being proposed simply defy common sense. Remember you can’t be turned down because of prexisting conditions so why not pay the fine and buy healthcare when you get sick? How many young people are going to spend thousands on healthcare that they don’t feel they need? Just pay the fine. What’s to stop doctors from taking Cash only patients ?
Jonas,
1) Your ignorance of reality in preference to wild-eyed conspiracy theory fantasies is disturbing.
2) You don’t understand the logic because you don’t understand that capitalism respects and coincides with the moral and natural laws of humanity and the earth. I try to believe likewise but fail utterly. I guess I just don’t have as much faith as you.
3) It is more comfortable and emotionally reassuring to imagine a world where people don’t need to measure up and merit is not considered. I prefer reality. Utopia is not possible because of all these pesky humans. 50% of our population will always be below average. I’m sorry.
4)Do you really believe that people should be allowed to die in the act of saving someone else? Or skydiving? Or driving a truck for their job? We can not save everyone. But that doesn’t mean that everyone needs to suffer because of the guilt of people who imgaine that we can save everyone. Your compassion is good, the blend of arrogance and ignorance with which you attempt to address the issue is downright dangerous. There is nothing in the public option that would either create competition or lower prices. It will do the exact opposite. Any thoughts to the contrary defy the strictures imposed by math.
5) Where does it end? Isn’t housing as critical to health as healthcare? Isn’t food? Why aren’t these industries forced to abide by your amoral-profits-are-evil-screw-the-competent-in-service-of-the-lame rules?
6) Bipartisan is not the opposite of partisan. Bipartisan is actually just republicans adopting democrat ideas. The opposite of partisan politics is debating the issues with logic and based on merit. That is what you seem to run from.
7) I don’t believe that liberals want to destroy our country and I don’t believe that they’re monsters. I think they are ignorant of the effects of their actions almost to a man. There are some that see the endgame as the dissolution of the Union into a Europe-like mess where the citizenry is more easy to control. I think that by and large liberals have good intentions and embarrassing grasps on reality. This is not hate. I think that there is a divide in that liberals are more prone to relativism and thus put off by anything smacking of the absolute. I believe in absolutes which is often seen as intolerant as they give no preference to skin color, sexual orientation, or lack of will or effort. This is not hate it is a love for what works and awareness of the rules we have to play by, no matter how unyielding. I can not bring myself to respect a lack of respect for reason. That does not mean I don’t respect you, but I will not hold as sacrosanct a choice on your part to hold the party line against all logic and opposition. I will speak against it, not to hurt your feelings, but to expose your thinking. It is your ideas I assault, not your person.
Pingback: It’s been a while… « The Daily Switch
I appreciate Matt’s belief in the efficacy of NGO’s to get jobs done in this country, important jobs, even, like health care for those who can’t currently afford it. It seems peculiarly American, to me, the idea of folks helping other folks, and certainly there are hundreds (thousands?) of NGO’s that do provide much-needed services to the needy. Have these organizations solved the thorny health care problem? No. Do they, any of them, or all of them in concert, have the wherewithal to do so? No.
So it remains for us, the American people, to contemplate the problem and seek solutions. It seems clear to me that right now we have two choices, leave the guaranteeing of health services to private insurance companies — the status quo — or ask our representatives to step in and try to straighten out the mess. I don’t fully understand all of the complexities of the issue; I only know that a system that allows thousands of American citizens (most of them WORKING citizens) to die because they cannot afford health service is not only inefficient; it is morally bankrupt.
Saylor Smith,
You say “I don’t fully understand all of the complexities of the issue; I only know that a system that allows thousands of American citizens (most of them WORKING citizens) to die because they cannot afford health service is not only inefficient; it is morally bankrupt.”
While conceding that the health care system in the United States, as currently constructed, is ineffient, too costly and in need of reform. But the notion that the solution to the cost and efficiency problem is to put let the government control the whole system is simply obtuse. What will your solution be to the inevitable problem of many, many people dying because a federal government bureaucrat has decided that treatment is not cost-effective? Will there be compassion for people who are denied care because their number hasn’t been called? What recourse will the people of this country have? It will be a sad day when the citizens of the “land of the free” are relegated to the depending on the tender mercies of the federal government for medical care?