Freedom in Health Care

Someone recently asked: can you provide an argument why government should not provide free or subsidized health care? Yes: I can think of 3 such arguments.

1.  One does not have a right to HC. Rights are not entitlements to goods or services produced by others; nor can they be based on an irrational moral standard of “need.” They are prerogatives to freedom of action.

2.  Government does not have the right to force taxpayers to pay for it.

Government can only morally initiate force when protecting individual rights. Shame on Justice Kagan and others for saying that having the federal government fund free HC with an individual mandate to buy insurance is neither coercive nor immoral. Or for lying when saying that the mandate will lower HC costs. Or for arguing that it is moral to force insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions (and thus risk) in rating policies - a clear path to fully socialized medicine.

Our government should maintain a “separation of charity and state.” It has no moral or constitutional basis for forcing individuals to sacrifice their values for the sake of those who (in this case) either don’t want HC insurance or expect it unearned. We need to solve our HC problems as below and let the private market find the charitable answer for those who truly cannot afford insurance.

3.  There is a rational alternative means to solving our HC problems.

Obama presented a false alternative argument: we either implement ObamaCare (and contend with rationing and some decreased quality of care), or we cause national bankruptcy with escalating HC costs and let “granny die without insurance.” (The latter result is clearly a lie.)

We must first accept the fact that it is government that has caused (and will further cause with ObamaCare) the significant shortcomings in our HC system: high costs, reduced quality and accessibility. Then we must understand and accept the rational 3^rd choice: leave individuals in charge of their own health care; let free markets solve these concerns.

Thus, allow open competition for insurance coverage with flexibility of policy choices, deductibles and rates; purchase across State lines; and tax-deductible health savings accounts. Eliminate government and employer-dependent insurance, minimizing abusive use of HC services and concern for pre-existing conditions. Reform HC entitlements for efficiency and elimination of fraud; eliminate them long-term. Enact tort reform to stop junk lawsuits. Open markets for medicines and enable faster technological breakthroughs.

The obvious results would be lower costs, improved HC quality and accessibility, and - most importantly - greater freedom for individuals to handle their own HC issues and for HC professionals to more efficiently serve their patients.

The only reason for political opposition to such an option is that it a capitalistic, not a statist approach. It is not compatible with Obama’s immoral and unconstitutional economic equality and “fairness” agenda. It is compatible with freedom. Support rational reform and reject such statist controls of our economy.