Health Care - Macro View

There has been a lot of talk lately about health care. Obviously. Opponents of the current House Bill, HR 3200, cite various parts of it as atrocities on liberty and the economy, while proponents dismiss the claims as out of context or fabricated. But I'd like to look at the whole thing from a different angle through a macro-lens.

Suppose the many claims of those opposed to HR 3200 are indeed false and that this is indeed only another option for citizens and is, as President Obama states, a way “to keep insurance companies honest.” Let us hypothetically trace the ramifications of such a bill, were it to pass.

Suppose the government payer option is in place for all citizens; what do the demographics look like? As far as I can tell there will be, basically, two options: a government payer option of some sort and private insurance. Not much difference there. I can also see there being three groups of people: those already on some form of government based system (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA etc.), those using private insurance and those using neither option. Let's see if we can trace this further, seeing what would happen to each group of people.

The first group mentioned, those already on some form of government payer system, would likely change very little, as their circumstance would have changed very little – they would not have any motivation to switch to private insurance as this would be an unnecessary cost to their budget. They might switch from Medicare to the general government based system, but this would not change their finances significantly.

Now let's shift our focus to the group that was on neither government funded health care nor private insurance. They are the people who either could not or would not afford private insurance – they are not likely to suddenly afford that option. However, notice that a free form of health care has presented itself as an option to them. Given the choice between not paying for insurance and paying all of one's medical bills and not paying for insurance yet being able to be covered by a government plan, which will they choose? The latter.

The last group is those on some form of private insurance, either a family plan or in a group policy (e.g. through their business). Most likely they will continue as they are for a time, after all they were getting along fine before the government option presented itself, they would get along fine afterward as well.

However, those people will start to notice they can take a slightly more extravagant vacation or pay off their car a little more quickly if they divert their funds from their private insurance to other areas. Businesses will notice that if they cancel their group insurance policy, they can similarly divert their funds into developing better products or could cut costs in other areas to undersell their competitors. Suddenly, the private option is dwindling.

It is in this manner that our system would inevitably become entirely government run and the concept of private insurance would become obsolete.

Ultimately, one must realize that when an individual is presented with a free alternative to services or goods for which he is already paying, that individual will invariably choose the free alternative.

Gas Prices...Some More Stuff

Okay, so in New York, the State gas tax is 62.9 cents per gallon. Now gas just recently went to an average of 4.039 dollars per gallon. So if you work it out, that is an 18.4% tax rate! Imagine if you were to buy, say some pizza for 20 bucks; at that rate it would be 24 bucks once the tax got done with it.

The real reasons gas is high is government taxes, government regulation limiting our drilling and refining and increased demand by developing countries. It's largely supply and demand. The demand goes up and so does the price. We have huge China wanting gas, so the price goes up. The way to deal with this is to drill for more oil and refine more, but wait, we aren't allowed to because the idiots in the government won't let us.

Remember, Big Oil drills, refines, ships and pumps your gas for 8 cents per gallon profit. The government gets the numbers you see above for doing nothing, and will not let us drill.

Tell them to let up on the bureaucracy!

-=- Lysol

First a hilarious story.

Crud. The smoking ban passed. If you don't know about what I'm talking, see the post below this one. Well, what will the government decide to control next?

Let me see if I can explain this to you. There are two kinds of people, politically speaking. There is one group who believes the government should back off and let everyone do their own thing (with the exceptions of law enforcement etc.). Then there is the second group which believes that the more the government handles for us, the better off we are.

The second group, liberals, sounds alright. The government can take a percentage of our money and with that delegate our insurance, our medical system, our workfield etc. to make sure that everything is absolutely safe and everyone is treated equally. Here's the problem though:

How can a single organization (i.e. the government) possibly know what is best for each individual? They can't. And what ends up happening in this situation is the government tries to regulate everything so much to the point where we have lost so much of our liberty.

Here are some for instances.

Taxes: did it ever occur to you that after income tax, social security, medicare, purchase tax, land tax etc. the government gets close to half of your income? By this I mean, instead of making, say 40,000 per year, you would be making 80,000.

The Public School System: go up to any kid and ask them to talk seriously about what they're learning. You're likely to get a response such as, "Our school's a joke." When I started homeschooling, I realized the inefficiency of the public school system. Several hours each day are wasted going from one class to the next, eating lunch, class clowns and students not doing the work they're supposed to. Additionally, the students who are dumber than the others can't get the extra instruction they need, and the smarter kids are not properly challenged.
"But I can't afford to send my kid to a private school (or homeschool)."
Do you know that it costs over $8000 per year per student in the public school system? (Although alot of cost is now to ESL programs and such due to foreigners not learning English and expecting us to cater to them. But don't get me started on that.) On the other hand, a private school costs about $2500 per year per student. And they'll get an education - not propaganda. And we wouldn't be required to argue over what should and shouldn't be taught in schools; parents could send their kids to the school of their choice! Brilliant! Or even more brilliant, they could homeschool, to be sure that they are taught correct material.
"But if they homeschool, they'll become socially inept!"
Are you saying the government now must also teach us how to make friends? Look at me. I was homeschooled and I'm not socially inept at all. No comments from you, Randy. :)

Crises: Now there might be some debate and disagreement on this one, but see from where I'm coming first. The government gets wind of something bad. Then they decide to either ban it or regulate it. Like smoking. They say it causes cancer, but instead of trying to actually help people, they tax it and say where one can't smoke. If they really believed it were bad for you and if they really wanted to help you, they would declare it illegal altogether. Or like global warming. Political figures like Al Gore claim that the earth will burn, melt or flood, due to our pollutants. The they fly around in their private jets to tell everyone to drive a more energy efficient car.

Minorities: The government wants to make sure that everyone is treated equally, that minorities are discriminated. So they set up policies so that it's uncouth to say something about blacks or gays or whatnot. But it's still okay to say something bad about someone who doesn't fall into a special category. Isn't that discrimination? Is it not insulting to blacks that every college has a special scholarship program for you, if you're black? In other words, "You're black, so you're obviously not good enough to pay for college yourself. Let us help you out." That's what it means. If the government really wanted to treat everyone equally, they wouldn't require the US Post Offices to hire this many Mexicans and that many Asians. They would say, "Here's the job opening; whoever can do it best is hired." To say otherwise is to say one is inferior.

Hate Speech: I'll say it right now. Homosexuality is a perversion of God's beautiful gift of sex. guys and girls don't fill the requirements on their own.
Did I just mention the elephant in the room? I think so. Why does no one else say it? Because of fear of a lawsuit. And someday a ticket for a hate crime. This is an elimination of free speech. How ridiculous is that? The very name, "hate crime" makes it sound stupid. "You hate this person, therefore you have to pay a fine." So all the democrats should pay a fine for hating President Bush. For hating our military. For hating Liberty.

And that, my friend, is the tip of the iceberg. Our liberty is slipping away. For every piece of security the government gives, for every service the government does for you, you lose a bit of your liberty. And there's not much left.