Friday, July 31, 2009

Healthcare: To Nationalize or Not to Nationalize

The next step big government plans to take is into the controversial but lucrative realm of heathcare. There are many groups who oppose this, saying that in our present financial crisis and with government unfunded entitlement liabilities topping $53,000,000,000,000 (trillion) , such a step would be more than imprudent. Proponents say that socialization of healthcare is justified because all people ought to be entitled to lead a life without ailment or deprivation of some providable aid/prevention.

Recent developments have marked government agency intervention though -- the most recent example is the 'Cash for Clunkers' program, which was authorized with the well intentioned aim of removing gas guzzlers from the road. Consumers and dealers though are now seeing the inter-workings turning out much different than what they thought though. Part of the legislation includes provisions which require the motor to be 'disabled' by the dealer in order for the rebate to be processed. Consumers are left with a motor that has liquid glass in the cylinders and a long waiting period for their check.

The past is replete with other prime examples of the utter failure of agency efficiency when federal control is involved, such as the FEMA catastrophe during Katrina which devastated New Orleans. Constant delays and bungles have shown that intervention slows the natural recovery process; Many employees say because cronies in the FEMA bureacracy have dragged out seemingly simple tasks in the interest of pensions and personal job security.

One of my favorite exmples, though is the automotive industry intervention. Appointed to run the nationaliuzation of American auto industry, the Automotive Task Force was the division of government charged with managing the requirements and direction of GM. Among these decisions made were first the review and tactical reallocation of resources to follow those business models which were most successful. This determination was based on Toyota, which sold more than any other company but had less dealerships. So, under federal command countless dealership closed, jobs were cut and advertising budgets were severely trimmed. Unsurprisingly the result of this was a further detriment and the eventual bankruptcy of GM and the American economy.

Further dissention stems from the critisizim that legislative boondoggles too often tack-on wasteful and inefficient provisions and requirements to passing bills. The most recent example of this is the Cap-And-Trade Bill which will cost each American about $3,000 per year in new taxation (this exludes the expected price inflation of food and other household costs resulting from the hikes).

Moreover, if we take the time to exaimine the result of nationalized healthcare systems in other countries which have implemented it we are able to see the true nature of it. In a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "France Fights Universal Cares High Cost" the failure of the system is detailed. The basic truth of the matter though is that when government seizes control over any industry or sector, it creates a monopoly through regulation, legal plunder and top-down restricive command-organization.

Concluding from this it is clear that Milton Friedman was right when he said, "if you eliminate the government from the market and left that money in the hands of the people themselves, the situation would be far better than it is" [paraphrased]. Watch the video below to capture the entirety of this brilliantly simple philosophy that the less federal involvement that exists, the more prosperous and free the people will be.




The remaining criticism held by socialized healthcare proponents is that that the system of today and all preceding systems have placed insuficient priority to the goal of increasing patient access for the unfortunate or non-payer patients. That is, despite the preceding points, the system does not take care of a bleeding patient until the papers are all filled out and this is a noble criticism. To this I see it necessary only to point out the nature of man - that we are willing to help others once we feel secure for ourselves. That the true answer to making any service or product more available is to increase it's supply. In today's system of artificial boom-and-bust cycles, thanks to fed intervention, the practice of manipulating the economy, the furtherance and creation of bubbles, inflation and meddling with the market's natural course it's mostly impossible for the people to feel secure in their prosperity. So then how could we ask them to give up, or even think to have the right to govern them by force, to give services as if they were the public property. They are personal property and the right of nobody except the owner. If anything government should create its own network of healthcare facilities and fund all necessary education and placement of government contracted physicians. However, to oppress the entire industry of medicine by placing arbitrary mandates over it would me a violation of providers rights as well as a violation of the constitutional by any impositions required to fund the program.

Orange County Libertarian Party Updates

whats legal-eez?

Try looking up a term you thought you knew the meaning of, like "confiscate" www.thinkfree.ca