An Economic Argument Against Government-Run Healthcare

While rare situations do occur where one is refused medical coverage because they do not have health insurance, it is certainly the exception. In our current system, we do not have a pandemic problem of refusing care to those who don’t have insurance.  It’s due to the same principle that if you see an injured person on the street, you feel an unwritten moral responsibility to help that person. If you don’t, while you may not be criminally charged, you could be sued under civil law under a negligence tort for example. I would argue that one reason that a hospital would refuse care would be due to the excess demand for care in emergency rooms. Doctors can’t treat everyone and some are bound to end up wanting. This problem will only worsen with a government run system.

 I have heard the argument many times that current policy holder’s end up paying for the uninsured in the form of increased insurance premiums. While it is correct that insurance companies pool risk, just remember, it is usually the most risky that are insured in the first place. It is simple “adverse selection.” Adverse selection means that the individual’s demand for insurance is positively correlated with the individual’s risk of loss or injury. So a risk tolerant person is more likely than a risk averse person to have a health insurance policy. I will also argue that moral hazard plays an important role in this. Once we insure the masses, their behavior will likely change and become more tolerant to risk, thereby causing an increase in demand for medical attention. How can we possibly treat so many new people with the no increase in the amount of doctors providing that care? In fact, who on earth would want to become a doctor when the costs incurred during med school alone will clearly outweigh the benefits of being a doctor. We all know that payments to doctors will be as little as possible if the government takes over the system (we see this already with Medicare) and it will be virtually impossible for a doctor to make a profit, much less a living. So the inevitable result will be that the supply of healthcare providers will decrease while the demand for healthcare will significantly increase. We will have to deal with a severe shortage of health treatment. This is when the government begins to explore the rationing of care.

Do you really think that costs will decrease if there is a government health system? You may have a comparable monthly premium, but if you account for the massive tax increases that must accompany this policy, you will see that your costs will increase significantly! Consider this argument too…premiums are so high because there are a multitude of regulations requiring insurers to cover a multitude of unnecessary illnesses and injuries. A 20 or 30 year old, for example, should not have to buy a health care policy that covers Alzheimer’s or elderly care, or a woman should not have to purchase maternity care if she cannot medically bear children. If the government would just rescind these ridiculous regulations, there would be a strong market for a wide range of insurance policies that would be offered at various rates depending on the coverage promised. What a simple solution that would be…and cheap!

 Our current system is certainly not perfect, but it is not broken. It is still one of the best in the world. I would argue if President Obama is so concerned that the uninsured person may have some sort of a catastrophic injury and not be able to foot the bill, why doesn’t he just set up a fund to give grants to those who really DO have such an event in their life. That way, government can help only those who really need it without forcing others who don’t need it and don’t want it to pay for a forced insurance policy. While that solution is not optimal either, it is certianly better than a complete overhaul and government takeover of the health system.

 Let’s consider auto insurance for a moment. It is important to note that we are only required to carry liability insurance. The reason is simple. It is because our vehicles can cause irreparable harm or death to another person who had no choice in the matter. You must also take note that we are NOT required to retain comprehensive and collision coverage (unless we have a lien on our car, for which that reason is obvious). We must only maintain liability coverage due to the incredibly high risk of our vehicle (which if it has a lien, is owned by someone else) damaging the property of, seriously injuring, or killing a third party. It’s all about the high probability of very dangerous negative externalities. With health coverage, we would not cause irreparable harm to another by injuring ourselves and going to the doctor. We are only directly harming ourselves. In fact, I’ve gone to the doctor without insurance and I guarantee, no one else paid for it, they sent me the bill…and quickly I might add.

 My final argument is that while the uninsured may make the premiums of the insured go up to some extent, another lower cost way to fix that problem would be for the government to just compensate doctors for treating those uninsured people? That would create an incentive for doctors to treat those who can’t pay and remove the problem all together.

It seems to me that the ones who are always so “willing” to pay more taxes to help the “poor” are usually the ones who are squawking about higher insurance rates and want a government take over of the system? Just take your higher insurance rates as your gift to the uninsured poor person. Wouldn’t you say?

Tea Parties Protest Both Bush and Obama Spending!

While you would never know it given the lack of coverage from the media, the Tea Party protests that sparked up all over the country on April 15th, were great successes. Average Americans are protesting the encroachment on individual freedoms, regulation of private business, tax increases, now and in the future, and fiscal irresponsibility. Up to 750 protests ensued across America on April 15^th and continue to this day. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered to express their opposition to our irresponsible government. It’s not only the bailing-out of failed companies; it is the superfluous expansion of liberal social policies as well. Under the guise of urgency, the Obama administration has blatantly incorporated a mass expansion of liberal social policies to the “economic stimulus,” which have nothing to do with economic recovery. 

A big complaint coming from the Left is that conservatives never protested the increase in government spending and expansion during the Bush years. In reality, conservatives were fuming that Bush supported the first bail-out bill in September, 2008, signaling the beginning of trouble. Even then, fiscal conservatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, contacted their representatives, imploring them to vote against the stimulus bill. As we all know, Congress did not listen to the American people. Protest was building!

 

During the Bush years, government was growing, but much more subtly. While Bush significantly expanded welfare, Medicare drug benefits, and the Departments of Education and Labor, the expansions were spread out across his eight years of presidency. People were upset, but by the time the next expansion was implemented, the previous one was mostly forgotten. The main difference between Bush and Obama is the rate of change. Not only does Obama’s spending plan dwarf Bush’s, he has introduced this behemoth during the first 100 days of his presidency, when everyone is watching! The American people have woken up and will no longer tolerate this unnecessary spending. I believe the American people are more attuned to politics than ever before! Had Obama implemented these expansions little by little, we may have never seen the eruption of protests across the country. Fortunately for the American people, Obama did force this upon us! The sleeping conservative giant has awakened! Let’s not go back to sleep!

Adam Smith; A Wise Philosopher From The Past

These quotes are from Adam Smith, a moral philosopher and author of The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith describes what arrogance politicians must possess to think that they have the wisdom to tell private citizens and businesses what they can or cannot do and force upon the people policies and laws they neither want nor agree with.

“The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Another quote from Adam Smith:

“The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit, and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests or the strong prejudices which may oppose it: he seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on earily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

Some general, and even systematical, idea of the perfection of policy and law, many no doubt be necessary for directing the views of the statesman. But to insist upon establishing, and upon establishing all at once, and in spite of all opposition, everything which that idea may seem to require, must often be the highest degree of arrogance. It is to erect his own judgment into the supreme standard of right and wrong. It is to fancy himself the only wise and worthy man in the commonwealth, and that his fellow-citizens should accommodate themselves to him, and not he to them. It is upon this account that of all political speculators sovereign princes are by far the most dangerous.” -Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter 2

While these quotes were written in the late 1700’s, they ring very true today.

Obama’s Economic Falacy

President Obama is taking advantage of the economic downturn in order to further his radical economic agendas. The reality of the situation does not seem to play a role in how he makes his decisions. How does universal healthcare and forcing “green” energy on the American population stimulate any area of the economy at all? Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post has written a great piece explaining Obama’s “Economic Mirage.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202261.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Hugo Chavez Praises A Socialist America

Each day that goes by gets even more frightening than I thought was possible. I knew Obama was an extreme leftist liberal, but I (for sanity’s sake) remained optimistic that he would govern more as a centrist than a leftist. Well, as we all know, Obama is fighting as hard as he possibly can to implement as many liberal, socialist agendas as possible before the American people realize that he is changing the very fabric of this country. Is this really the “hope” and “change” that Obama voters were searching for? I think not.

Fox News reports that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is even cheering Obama on. Chavez claims that Capitalism in America has failed and Socialism is the only answer to our economic problems. I am confident that even those that voted for Obama in the presidential election appreciate the freedoms they enjoy every day and don’t want those freedoms and liberties stripped away from them by a dictatorial government. I don’t believe the majority of Obama supporters realized what and who they were really voting for.

After only two months in office, many on the Democrat side, even some liberal media pundits are beginning to get nervous about the radical policies being forced through Congress. Obama is not the only advocate for socialism; Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and many other extreme leftist Democrats in Congress are happy to comply with Obama’s extreme policies. These people have pledged to uphold the constitution, but have done nothing but violate it. We Americans, both Democrats and Republicans alike, must fight against this if freedom is to win in the end.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/07/chavez-urges-obama-adopt-socialism/

Public Dissatisfaction Leads To Political Involvement

Dr. Michael Munger, the 2008 Libertarian gubernatorial candidate for the state of North Carolina and Chair of the Political Science Department at Duke University said in a recent meeting for North Carolina State University’s “Society for Politics, Economics, and Law” (SPEL) club that the general public shouldn’t have to feel the need to get involved in politics in order to get the government’s attention. If the government was really doing it’s job, political issues would not be at the forefront of people’s minds.

As we are all aware, politics is a huge issue in our society today. Almost everyone is declaring their opinions about what they want the government to do for them, for others, or to others. This is a tell-tale sign the public is dissatisfied. Dr. Munger stated (paraphrased into my own words of course) that during times of minimal government intrusion and people are satisfied with their representatives, political issues are not in their immediate thoughts. However, during times of increasing government restrictions and intrusions, people feel driven to get involved in order to have their voices heard because they feel underrepresented.

We are living in a time of increasing uncertainly and fear. Mostly due to the actions and statements of those who should have things under control.

Crisis Averted! Pelosi Has The Answer!

After centuries of critical thinking and testing, Western economists are still struggling to agree on the best way to minimize the effects of an economic contraction. Is it the supply-side approach? Or maybe it’s applying Keynesian principles? Fear not oh people of these great United States, for Nancy Pelosi has uncovered the secret that has been missed by the greatest minds known to man! The answer you ask? Birth control funding, of course.

Birth control funding? The answer to our recession? Yes, that is the very question going through the minds of rational thinkers everywhere. Dr. Roy Cordato, Vice President of Research at the John Locke Foundation writes in the JLF Locker Room that Nancy Pelosi wants to use federal revenues for birth control and “family planning” practices. She argues it would stimulate the economy by saving the states money they would otherwise spend on social services. I am seriously trying to wrap my head around this insane logic, but with little success. Is her message simply that babies are a potential burden to society and that we, as a society, would be better off if those babies were aborted?

The explanation to Pelosi’s thinking is best explained by Dr. Cordato himself. Here is his full post:

“Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that federal revenues spent on birth control and family planning will help save states money on social services and therefore should be considered economic stimulus. Of course what she is more than suggesting is that procreation among poor people is a burden to society and therefore needs to be stifled by the Feds. This is completely consistent with the views of those who were the pioneers of the progressive movement during the early part of the 20th Century. Most of Pelosi’s intellectual forefathers and mothers were ardent advocates of eugenics, a philosophy based on pseudo science, which suggested that population growth among the lower classes needed to be controlled because they were a social burden. For example, economist John Maynard Keynes, father of “stimulus package economics” was on the board of the British Eugenics Society and Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an outspoken believer and advocate of Eugenics who saw her organization as a tool of accomplishing her goals in this area.” http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=18703

Can you believe the nerve of these liberals? These extreme liberal democrats are using the nation’s economic troubles in order to push their extreme, vile agenda onto the public. The Speaker of the House of Representatives actually condones the use of federal tax dollars to fund “family planning” a.k.a abortion practices in the U.S. This is absolutely treacherous!

Ms. Pelosi does not concern herself with the fact that there are a huge percentage of Americans that are against abortion and believe it to be morally wrong? Forcing pro-life individuals to pay for abortions or other questionable birth control practices via their tax contributions would be a severe case of taxation without representation.

Do You Want To Silence Opposing Views Too?

As Bush walked onto the inaugural stage, the pro-Obama crowd felt it necessary to mock and ridicule him. I am ashamed and embarrassed for those imbeciles who insist on behaving like animals. Have people so little respect for the office of the President that they would treat their outgoing leader with such contempt? It appears to be so.

This is a perfect example of the liberal intolerance of opposing views. Liberals are determined to silence those who disagree with them while insisting that the silenced be conciliatory to liberal views. What a blatant violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Isn’t the promise of freedom of speech supposed to apply to everyone? According to liberals, apparently not.

One example of this intolerance is the libs are determined to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which will enable government bureaucrats to silence conservative talk-radio. I specify only conservative talk-radio because there are so few liberal talk-radio stations that get any attention at all. And therein lies the problem of “fairness.”

Congress refuses to admit that conservative talk-radio is as popular as it is because the people actually want to listen to it! It is simple, conservative talk-radio is driven by public demand! The only reason liberal views do not have “equal” airtime is because consumers do not demand it! It’s as simple as that.

This is also the reason why liberals do not like the free market. Free markets favor conservative views and the libs cannot allow the rational choice of consumers to ruin their big plans!

Wait. Aren’t our elected officials in Congress supposed to be representing  us, the people, their constituents? Their actions make it blatantly obvious that public service is not in their agenda.