As I followed the speech, though, I spotted a few logical inconsistencies. I’m not sure if he has consulted with many economists on his plan, but it seems in direct contradiction to the “encouraging competition” goal that he claims is one of his guiding principles. Here’s a breakdown of what I mean:

(1) Obama said that he wants there to be no choice about whether or not an individual actually carries insurance. In short: he wants to see compulsory coverage. His reasoning was that it was the individuals without coverage that are costing everyone else more money.

This means, no matter what your income level or financial situation, you *must* have health insurance coverage. As this is not free, it means you have to shop for what you can afford. Without a public option, the financial outlook for individuals is frightening… with a public option, the economic outlook for healthcare is in danger (see #2 coming up).

Compulsory health insurance is a direct affront on liberty: forcing an individual to purchase something whether they want it or not. As such, anyone who reads my blog will know where I stand on that matter. The real solution to my not having to pay for someone who doesn’t have health insurance is not to require me to do so in the first place.

(2) Obama said that he wants a public health insurance option that will be self-sustaining and compete with other health insurance companies. What he isn’t telling you is that the federal government would be breaking its own rules: it would be competing across state lines while continuing to restrict private insurance from doing so.

This means, if you are in a state with unreasonably high rates, and the federal government offers something significantly less, they can gain thousands of customers where private companies are unable to come in. How Obama can call this competition is confusing: if the federal government offers a public option in the true spirit of competition, the only right thing to do would be to allow all private insurance companies nation-wide to compete on a level playing field.

(3) Obama said he wants employers to be required to provide health insurance benefits to employees. He did say there would be assistance for small and start-up businesses, but I’m not sure how he’s going to fund that without the aforementioned public option. I’d like to see more numbers on this. Again, though, any compulsory requirement like this is an affront to liberty. I don’t think there’s more I can say to that here… except that I hope this does not create further stagnation in the job market.

These are the three areas that are concerning me the most. Even a multipartisan bill will be a great source of personal frustration for me if it includes any of the items mentioned here.

For me, the true question is simple… and paints me as cold-hearted in some respects:

Is “health care” a right?

or further…

Is “good and affordable health care” a right?

How you answer those questions probably says a lot about where you stand in your own ideas of how healthcare and health insurance can be improved.

My answer? I have a right to pursue any health care as much as I have a right to refuse it… but I have no right to require or expect others to provide it to me.

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina (LPNC.org) had their annual state convention in Burlington this past weekend (April 17-19, 2009). Michael Cloud and Mary Ruwart were distinguished guests and speakers who offered wisdom from their LP experiences. The convention also included an informative panel on economic issues including Michael Beitler, Mike Munger, and Jim Capo. The business meeting included adopting a State Sovereignty resolution, updating LPNC Bylaws, and electing new Executive and Judicial committees. There were many in attendance who were newly active in the LPNC, and all seemed excited about the future of libertarianism as they celebrated the success of two long-fought hurdles: meeting NC ballot access requirements through petition signatures, and retaining ballot access through the success of gubernatorial candidate Mike Munger.

That’s all I have time for today… I am still working on my Dix 306/FDDP research, which has been very enlightening, and I hope to make a new post for that series later this week.

Leno explained that the single-payer health insurance system replaces many different health insurance providers with a single government insurance provider. This preserves the ability for individuals to choose their private care providers based on location, reputation, cost, or any other factors important in making that very personal decision. In short, single-payer health insurance is a compromise solution with the “universal” healthcare ideal at its heart.

Leno did not indicate how the government would determine how much coverage one would receive, or whether it would establish rewards or limitations for individuals that choose certain doctors or practices. Also, after the bankruptcy after only a few months for a “universal” children’s healthcare plan in Hawaii, I’d like to see how a single-payer system will keep itself from going bankrupt while keeping its promises of “universal” access to the citizens of California.

I was tempted to call in to the show when Leno insisted that the single-payer health insurance is “not socialized medicine.” I wanted to ask exactly how “socialized health insurance” was going to be any less likely than private insurers to deny claims and limit payouts? Perhaps it is because rather than deciding who gets insured and who gets paid for claims based on a business decision, it becomes a political decision instead.

Citizens of California would get coverage for what the California legislature thought should be covered. Keep Democrats in office for more family planning coverage? Keep Republicans in office to extend Veteran benefits? See where this is going?

Should political entities be allowed to make these decisions? Without competition in the health insurance market, how is the government to be trusted to stick to a budget, hire a competent staff, operate efficiently, and be willing to say “no” instead of trying to please everyone?

It sounds more to me that Leno and other political entities simply want a sideways solution to help perpetuate the claim that healthcare can be “universal.” I am sure there are perfectly valid reasons, backed by the heart-wrenching stories of kids sick or dying because they supposedly don’t have adequate health coverage. However, the bottom line here is that while we have a right to “life,” we do not have a right to receive health care or health insurance whether or not we can afford it. It is a hard, cruel truth to swallow when we watch individuals suffer from various illnesses… but there’s no such thing as “free” healthcare.

So what’s the “solution” to the supposed “healthcare problem” if not a government solution? Well, what the “universal healthcare” advocates aren’t telling you may hold the key:

1. The reason we need health insurance is because healthcare itself is expensive.

2. The reason healthcare is expensive is because the government is already too involved in the system (both providers and pharmaceutical entities) with its many laws, restrictions, regulations, license costs/requirements, taxes, fees, and malpractice lawsuit allowances.

If we have any public health issues for true contagious epidemics, on the scale of malaria in some African countries, then perhaps there is a role for government to step in to provide temporary aid. However, when it comes down to the health of the individual, and the degree to which that individual seeks and receives treatment is the responsibility of the individual and those investing in the health of that individual (family, employer, etc.).

There is no evidence that the problems created primarily by federal and state government interference can be solved by further interference. However, as a final word, I will say that if a state is going to experiment in the area of socialized medicine, I would prefer they look at the single-payer insurance route than creating an entire state healthcare system.

I would be interested in hearing your comments and intelligent debate about single-payer health insurance… please feel free to post a reply.

Socialists, liberals, and several others in the U.S. have the impression that the people of this nation, if given the choice of what to do with their own money, would give very little if anything to charitable causes. These individuals feel that it is the government’s responsibility to redistribute wealth in the country to make sure that this supposed uncharitable public is forced into the otherwise morally-driven act of giving to others.

Unfortunately, those who have been taught to assume people are inherently not charitable seem to be completely oblivious the many existing private organizations to which US citizens give generously and voluntarily every day. Even if they are aware of this, though, they present as a counter-argument that there are certain charities that need more balance and more resources. They would prefer the government step in to give more of the peoples’ money to causes in which they are not (yet) giving enough. In other words, these people would prefer to legislate who gets our charitable money instead of letting us choose for ourselves and let society work it out without government interference.

There are three glaring problems with the government becoming the charitable “middle-man” that these highly-vocal socialist thinkers do not seem to be considering:

(1) The more “middle men” you put into a money trail, the higher the cost for less benefit in the end.

For example, if the government wants to create a healthcare system funded by taxpayers, they have to first take money from the taxpayers in a much larger amount than the actual cost of healthcare so that they can pay for the bureaucracy required to get the money, establish a budget, regulate and manage a nation-wide system of thousands of government healthcare workers, continually determine who qualifies for free or discounted care on an individual basis, and recruiting people willing to make less money in a profession that cost them several years and many thousands of dollars to launch. At best, of the taxes used to run such a system, even if the government could operate with an overhead of the average 501(c) organization, only about 3% will actually go to providing lower-cost healthcare to those in need. Meanwhile, the problems of the actual cost of the healthcare and prescription drugs have still not been addressed. Do you think the U.S. is going to have a better overall cost for healthcare if the government introduces a new 97% overhead at a mandatory cost for everyone?

(2) The more the government takes from us, the less we have to give to others directly.

Frankly, if the government keeps taking more of my money for more and more charitable causes, I am going to have to stop giving all together because I will not have any money left to give. I’m sure many tax-paying U.S. citizens feel similarly every April 15th. (Note that tax deductions for charitable donations have limits that ensure the government still gets a share of what you earn.)

(3) A government-led charitable support system encourages the attitude of, “Well, I don’t have to do anything for anyone, the Government will do it for me.”

Because the government has already stepped into charitable roles so much since the federal and state governments imposed income taxes over the last century, this attitude perpetuates in a cycle: the government is asked to give more, the government takes more from its citizens so it has money to give, the government gives out a small portion of what it takes in and convinces people it is working, the citizens have less of their own resources for taking care of themselves and others, and then the government is asked to give more… and the cycle continues while the government gets bigger and bigger.

I would like to see the U.S. public being educated on *both sides* of every socialist-driven program before they are asked to support it, with all the cards on the table for how much it will cost. Would you donate a retail cost of 25% of your income if less than 1% actually went to people who needed it (including yourself), with the rest going to the people who are simply paid to be the “middle men” for your 25%? I know I wouldn’t voluntarily give to a charity who operates with the efficiency of our government, and yet there are people who want to take away my choice to give that same money directly to those in need.

In my opinion, it is time to break the cycle and start trusting U.S. citizens to do what they *truly* feel is right with the money that they earn.