Health Care: What’s Wrong, How to Reform

 

This discussion must begin with a fundamental understanding that Health Care (HC) cannot be a “right”. Rights define and limit proper individual actions in society and serve to protect them from outside interference. They are inalienable: there cannot be conflicts of rights among individuals. Thus a right cannot impose obligations on some to satisfy the whims or needs of others. Thus no product or service can be deemed a “right” as that would require the initiation of force against some individuals and cause the inalienable principle to be violated. Therefore, ObamaCare is unconstitutional and immoral.

It behooves us to find a moral approach to reforming our HC system. We still have the best quality of HC in the world. But we are facing 2 problems: government control and cost.

We have not had a free market in HC for nearly a century; it is irrational to blame the “free market” for rising costs. Prior to government interference, virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, and those truly in need of support were able to rely on abundant private charity. Government significantly intervened with wage controls, tax incentives et al during WWII which led to employer-based health insurance. This caused reduced individual responsibility for one’s own care, higher demand for care, and loss of insurance with any change in employment status. That created the concern about pre-existing conditions that poses the greatest risk to insurance companies.

Insurance’s primary function is risk management. It is intended to cover unexpected and unpredictable risks, not the opposite nor to force the healthy to cover the costs incurred by the unhealthy. The answer to this problem is to allow the companies to initially charge higher rates for known expenses, but in an environment where individuals do not have to change policies.

In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid changed HC as an economic product for which each individual must assume responsibility to an unearned "right" and entitlement to be provided by force at taxpayers’ expense.

All such government interference has led to high costs and with the average patient being responsible for only 3% of hospital care costs and 14% of costs overall. Instead of recognizing this cause and effect, our government has enacted ObamaCare with its price/benefit controls and crushing regulations that will further damage our HC system.

It is worth noting here that ObamaCare is already beginning to unravel: the “mandate” to date has millions of exemptions via waivers (justified because requirements will cause individuals to “lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase” - Pelosi); Medicare cuts are impacting seniors; doctors are refusing Medicaid and Medicare patients; and employers are about to be forced to drop HC coverage for their employees.

This trend toward greater government controls and regulations must be reversed. A free market approach must be implemented:

1. Allow insurance companies to provide policies with rate flexibility and consideration for risk;
    encourage high deductible plans that serve as true risk management and lead to more
    responsible use of HC professionals.

2. Allow for the purchase of policies across State lines for greater competition.

3. Allow tax-deductible health savings account for all.

4. Enact tort reform to stop junk lawsuits.

5. Deregulate the industry and reform the FDA to open markets for medicines and enable
    faster technological breakthroughs.

6. Incent individual responsibility and good health.

7. Reform Medicare and Medicaid for efficiency and elimination of fraud.

This will lower costs, improve quality of care and preserve doctor/patient relationships - without care rationing, long waiting lines and immoral redistribution of wealth that is the natural result of socialized medicine. Private charity and emergency care would provide for those (estimated at about 10M) who are too poor to purchase insurance but do not qualify for existing government programs.

The Hypocrisy Of It All (Part 1: Foreign Policy)

Most politicians are too often hypocritical. But no one has been more prolific at it than President Obama. It reaches a serious level when his hypocritical actions make it difficult to determine where he stands on the important issues of the day.

I list here some examples to illustrate how easy it should be for his opposition to demonstrate the extent to which he is willing to sacrifice all principles and reason to talk his way to re-election in 2012. I begin with foreign policy issues since I believe that his actions there have the most potentially damaging affect on our freedom. Part 2 will cover domestic policy issues.

Obama sets a high priority on security; yet he has been cutting the defense budget which will eventually lead to decimated defense systems. We are in a war with totalitarian Islam that will not end soon; we must take the lead in weapon technology and be prepared for the worst.

He pushed hard for the START treaty on the premise that it was necessary for our future security. But the treaty ended up giving Russia far more flexibility for nuclear armament expansion than the U.S. and he betrayed important British military secrets to get even that. His call for general nuclear disarmament has already started a wave of new nuclear armament elsewhere.

He speaks out about human rights. Then he ignores them, either in the interest of trade (e.g. with China) or out of fear of reprisals (e.g. in the M.E.). He acts concerned about the oppressed people in totalitarian countries. But he has failed to support the Iranians and Syrians during revolution.

He claims to understand who are enemies are and how to deal with them. But when N. Korea fired artillery at S. Korea, he had his Defense Secretary pressure Kim Jong-il to “show restraint”; and as a result, Jong-il resigned in disgrace.

Obama is at his worst in dealing with Israel. He says he strongly opposes terrorism, but he appeases Muslim states that support it. Then he says “our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable" as he pressures Israel to concede to anti-Western Palestinian (and his) demands, to accept a Palestinian state that may be run by a terrorist organization (Hamas), and says “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” He is essentially asking for Israel’s demise! While presumably relying on his arrogant belief that his magical negotiation skills will cause Palestinians to play fair, he is actually seeking to de-legitimize Israel by naively making its concessions the key to achieving peace.

In his 6/09 speech in Egypt, he opposed terrorism; but he demonstrated that his goal was (in some sense) to join Muslim nations - the only terrorist nations - in their campaign against Israel. Who was he primarily speaking to? The Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group that he deems to be for freedom and reform.

He knows recent Muslim history; yet he talked about the importance of working with M.E. Arab governments "that reflect the will of the people" and desire democracy and "freedom to live as you choose." Then he cut support for programs in Egypt that promoted democracy.

He pushed for reform in Egypt, helping oust Mubarak; but that too was against his anti-terrorist stance since any successor regime will likely be Islamic totalitarian. The U.S.’s greatest Arab ally could very well become its and Israel’s greatest enemy.

He strongly supports financial aid to our allies. But he once threatened to cancel aid to Israel, our only ally in the M.E., and continues to fund terrorist nations there.

He campaigned for the Presidency as an anti-war candidate. Since, he has either followed President Bush’s lead in Iraq and Afganistan or become more aggressive. He now even wants to “promote reform across the (M.E.) region.”

He said he would close Guantanamo; he believes it to be immoral and represents torture which he refuses to accept. It still remains open.

He opposes interrogations used to gather information from terrorists, but he approved the assassination of OBL.

Information gathered through interrogations contributed to OBL and other terrorist captures; yet his Attorney General has been pursuing charges against the interrogators involved.

He started a “non-war” in Libya based on humanitarian concerns - not a just cause for American involvement - that was supposed to last only for weeks. But he has not helped ensure that its people will overthrow Gaddafi - the only cause of such inhumanity. And he totally bungled the initial effort: “relinquishing control” to the UN and NATO, failing to have a clear goal, supporting the rebels despite al-Qaida links, etc.

We now know that this is very much a war, it will last more than 6 months, being essentially in charge of NATO is not truly relinquishing control, and it will cause many deaths.

As he has involved himself with a non-threatening Libya, he has essentially ignored Syria and Iran, the true threats to the West in the Middle East. He foolishly sees Assad as a “reformer.”

So much for being serious about terrorism!

He pretends to appreciate our superior economic system that has enabled the highest prosperity; but then he apologizes to the world for our successes as if they have been at the expense of the more oppressed in the world.

He appears concerned about anti-American attitudes around the world. But instead of accepting it as a given and as expected envy, he finds it to be merely an issue of leadership; thus his naïve belief that he can negotiate for peace with our enemies. Worse is his blindness to the anti-American attitude among our own elite and his own past and present personal associations. He does not even realize that his own ideology is anti-American and that his foreign policy is wholly antithetical to U.S. interests.

All of Obama’s hypocrisy results to a great extent from being unable to recognize good from evil - our allies from our enemies. That, in turn, makes it too difficult for him to know the importance of size, strength and global reach of our military. And that makes it too difficult form him to know how to fight for America’s freedom and the protection of our rights. He has become a threat to our security.

NLRB: Nationalism Leaves the Republic Behind

Wilma Liebman was appointed chairman of the NLRB by President Obama soon after his inauguration. It is clear why: her entire career has been as attorney to unions and the NLRB. Until Obama, she was in the minority (as a Democrat) in fighting for union employee rights. So she was a perfect match for him. And he has since appointed other members to stack the board in his favor.

Given his ideology and pro-union bias, it should be no surprise that his NLRB would attempt to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in a right-to-work state; or that it now wants to greatly strengthen union power over employers and their investment/management decisions.

It should bother everyone that government can interfere with rational business practices. What can possibly justify preventing a business from relocating to reduce labor costs? Or to force it to provide economic justifications for relocation decisions in order to allow unions to bargain over it or even to lose the right to make such decisions?

The board believes that it has the right to force employers to make unions an “equal partner in the running of the business enterprise.” It wants unions to benefit over a business’ owners, shareholders and other employees. But it is creating “rights” that do not exist. Only individuals have rights and our constitution was designed to protect them from government. This is a power grab that represents an abomination of the concept of rights.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible. A business owner’s property in this country must be recognized as his to manage in any legal manner he desires. He should not have to answer to anyone with regard to business location, employees hired or wages paid. While our system has not been truly free for a long time and such rights are constantly abused, we must protect our constitutional Republic and stop the trend toward statism/fascism where government promotes nationalism (over the individual) and controls the use of private property. Start here by pushing back on the NLRB and unions to protect true individual rights.

Economics 101 vs. Government

Euro countries in financial trouble have all accepted a deal with the EU: a bailout in exchange for austerity measures that include serious budget cuts and privatization of government-owned businesses. And as a result, their bond demand has been strong, the cost of debt has decreased and stock markets have risen.

Europe is recognizing its past errors leading to financial crises and is slowly trending toward capitalism. It is realizing more and more that their statist policies have failed. So one has to ask: why in the U.S., where capitalism made us the greatest economic power in the world but where a trend toward statism has put us in a similar crisis, has our government chosen to initiate more statist policies as a solution?

We cannot hold interest rates artificially low, create too much debt, incent people to purchase homes they cannot afford, pressure banks to lend to them, support Fannie and Freddie holding bad loans, turn a blind eye to inflated credit ratings for mortgage-backed securities, bailout selected institutions under “too big to fail”, and not expect the financial crisis we had in 2008.

We cannot support environmentalist whims, spend wildly on irrational programs to promote inefficient energy sources, restrict supply of traditional energy sources; and not expect increased unemployment, high gas prices and greater dependence on foreigners for oil that we will need for many decades to come.

We cannot hire more government workers to support more irrational programs, over-regulate/tax/ dictate to businesses; and not expect reduced private-sector employment, outsourcing, reduced economic efficiency, increased business costs, serious inflation, and a devalued currency.

We cannot redistribute wealth to satisfy need and not expect class warfare, abuse of the rights of the wealthy and the most productive, ultimate harm to the poor and unproductive, and a serious negative impact on our economy.

We cannot support - philosophically or economically - a needs-based morality, harmful egalitarianism, an illogical expansion of the definition of “rights”, free health care or any other product or service deemed a “right”, and - along with the above - not expect a degrading culture and deficits/debt we cannot sustain.

This is Economics 101 and pure cause and effect. But politicians on both sides accept Keynesian theory and ignore both. Our administration has been implementing statist policies consistent with its ideology and without regard for the consequences. Americans must remember our roots, recognize that our trend is going in reverse of Europe and the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and support Presidential candidates who argue for rational and positive change.

Atlas Shrugged: What Rand Told Us

Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical/moral novel, not a political one. If you saw the movie but did not read the book, do the latter to more fully understand how Ayn Rand was able to be so prophetic about the negative changes in our culture.

She saw our demise as caused by the philosophic ideas and moral ideals most of us hold. The elite, educators and politicians among us simply carry the wrong message to the people.

She essentially began with a focus on reason: “You have sacrificed reason to faith.” E.g. Obama wants us to accept his rhetoric about hope and change on blind faith.

Then she emphasized that we need to reject the flawed moral ideals that cause our cultural and economic troubles. Only with reason and rationality - man’s most fundamental virtue which dictates relying solely on reason for one’s knowledge - can we be a society of moral individuals who respect freedom and the rights of others. But we are not taught the virtues that are compatible with rationality and are taught that we must sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others.

Justice is essential for judging the good from the bad, the worthy from the unworthy; but “you have sacrificed justice to mercy.” E.g. government support of homeowners who cannot afford homes.

Independence is essential for healthy mind development; but “you have sacrificed independence to unity.” E.g. yielding your mind to the collective to avoid making decisions.

Happiness should be one’s primary goal in life; but “you have sacrificed happiness to duty.” E.g. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” (Kennedy).

Self-esteem is an essential value for a successful and happy life; but “you have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial.” E.g. attacks on, and envy of, wealthy individuals for what they have earned and praise for when they give their wealth away.

Wealth drives an economy and raises the standard of living for all; but “you have sacrificed wealth to need.” E.g. the entire needs-based morality of Obama and many politicians that justifies redistribution of people’s wealth; free health care for those whom government determines are in “need.”

Atlas asks you to question your ideals: re-evaluate your philosophical convictions; and then to live for yourself within the rational bounds of objective morality. Question our leaders’ actions and ask that they too embrace individualism as a moral ideal.

Whom Do You Admire Most?

President Bush helped make Osama Bin Laden’s killing possible with his strategy in Aftganistan, holding terrorists at Guantanamo and conducting appropriate interrogations and wiretaps. He did so with extreme disapproval; e.g. 70% were opposed to his Afgan surge.

Obama approved the military operation that led to the killing. He did so with 86% approval of his Afgan surge. And he did so despite his condemnation of Guantanamo (despite his inability to close it since), condemnation of Bush’s interrogation techniques (implying that killing our enemy is more in line with American values than merely using such techniques to prevent further American deaths), and supposed ideological opposition to using an assassination group for such an operation.

In his speech last Sunday, he should have had Bush standing next to him and acknowledged his actions that contributed to the final result. He only reference Bush when he wanted to note that they (unfortunately) agreed that the war is not against Islam and to use Bush to better justify his own stance. It has always been clear that we at war with totalitarian Islam: all M.E. Muslim governments that support terrorism and all their people who accept the Western infidel hatred.

Obama also said that “OBL was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims.” That is absurd and further explains his narrow and naïve view of our enemy. And given that view, the formal funeral afforded OBL was immoral and disrespectful to Americans - especially to those who lost friends and family members at OBL’s hands.

Not releasing pictures of OBL - supposedly to avoid enraging Muslims (as if we are not already sufficiently hated by them) - is a sign of weakness. And how does that square with his approval of the release of the many pictures of alleged abuses by U.S. captives at Abu Ghraib? He shows more concern for the feelings and values of Muslims than for Americans.

So who has shown integrity here? Who has been hypocritical? Who has shown disregard for American values? Who is taking undo credit?  Who took the greater risk?

Whom do you admire most?

Comparing Major Recessions

Bad government policies, including actions of the Federal Reserve, have contributed to all of our major recessions. Looking at the last three, there is an interesting difference in 1 case.

“Hoover’s” recession/depression was significantly prolonged - throughout the 1930s - by FDR and his statist “New Deal.”

“Reagan’s” recession was caused by Carter’s liberal policies, but was short-lived. Why?

He reduced spending, deregulated industries, cut taxes and implemented other pro-free market policies.

Result: strong economic growth, reduced unemployment and reduced deficit.

“Bush’s” recession was caused most by the Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddie and other government regulations. While it is officially over, recession conditions are being significantly prolonged by Obama with massive spending, regulatory expansion, control of industries and other anti-free market policies - much like FDR.

Result: belabored growth, sustained high unemployment and increased deficit.

In fact, this is already our worst recovery in the past 70 years - since FDR!