Saturday, July 1, 2017

Single Decider Healthcare

As we saw recently in the case with the baby in Britain--where the National Health Service more or less declared sole sovereignty over the life of an infant with severe health issues, by declaring that EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD PAY FOR IT, the parents could not bring the child to America--when the government is in charge, the government is in charge.  This should not be a challenging or controversial statement.  Those who want more government merely nourish pipe dreams of universal morality and compassion among career bureaucrats.  This level of delusion is quite astonishing, and only possible for the historically ignorant.

For the rest of us, that is slavery.  The government declared the baby belonged to it, not the parents.  That is the government interfering in a very personal matter in a way which helps no one but the government.  They wanted to make sure nobody got the bright idea of trying to get healthcare in any way which they did not directly control.

Single payer equals single decider.  It might get sold as "you get to keep your doctor", or "you will get choices of doctors", but once the government has sole control, that is up to them.  They might give you choices this week, then next week decide, for really any reason, good or bad, that you have to see one doctor or another, or that you can get treatment for something, or not get treatment.  They might tie the decision up in committee so long you die of a treatable illness.  There is nothing to prevent this, inherently.

In any realm of life, when you depend on the government, they have you by the balls, and they know it.  That is why the traditional principles of the Democrats fell away easily and thoroughly a hundred years ago or more in the big cities, when they realized that the bigger and more powerful they made the government, the more favors they could grant, the more graft they could commit, and more loyal the voters who benefited from the system would be.  They create a gravy train, get as many on it as possible, then work year on year to make it bigger and better, for them and theirs.

There is no economic or moral argument for Single Payer.  Quite the contrary: it is bad economics and bad morality.  Clearly, people who get something truly for nothing are net beneficiaries, but all those paying for it lose, on balance.

There is room for discussion on the scope of Medicaid, which is simple charity.  But there is no room for discussion in how those who can afford to do so should self insure: all of it should be left up to them, and the government should act only to protect competition.

It is time to repeal Obamacare, particularly the requirement that insurers accept people who are already sick, and that they issue policies with minimum coverages.  Rand Paul's proposal is excellent.

No comments: