Health care bill; stop pretending there are no alternatives

The Senate is preparing to vote later today on whether or not to begin debate on the government’s massive health care reform plan. While this is just a procedural vote, it is critical, in that if it fails, the bill is essentially dead. If it passes, the bill may be unstoppable. Many “moderate” Democrats are seeking the cover of being able to say they only voted to start debate, but not for the final bill, so its passage really wont be their fault. Meanwhile pundits and proponents are putting forth the false argument that the alternative is to do nothing, and something must be done.

The fact is that a great many alternatives have been proposed, but since they are market based proposals, proponents of government control are completely tone deaf to them. The insurance market could be opened up to national competition, rather than state by state. Policies could belong to individuals, rather than tied to a workplace. Tax credits or vouchers could be provided to low income families. Health savings accounts could be promoted. Higher co-pays could inspire consumers to seek value. Tort reform could lower malpractice insurance costs and reduce the number of tests ordered just to cover the most ludicrous of potential liabilities.

Rationing is another concern that proponents dispense with by pointing out that insurance companies already engage in rationing. That’s true. The free market solution is to put rationing in the hands of consumers. By requiring some significant co-pay, individuals would make the call as to what they really want to part with their hard-earned dollars for. Two sectors of the health care industry that have experienced advancements in technology while lowering costs are cosmetic surgery and optometry. Why??Because most insurance plans don’t cover them. In a market based environment if you want to increase volume, you have to increase quality and reduce costs. In a government based, or third party pay system, you simply increase spending on lobbyists to get your particular product mandated.

In the end I fear John Stassel may have gotten it right. There will be no back lash against the movement toward government control because what people are focused on is the cost. As long as most people go along with the notion that it is right and proper for government to be directly responsible for our health, our jobs and our general well being, rather than to maintain an environment where people are free to associate and trade as they please, we’re on a one-way road to a nanny state. Freedom is directly proportional to one’s risk tolerance and one’s willingness to accept the potential consequences of exposing oneself to such risk. It may just be that today’s America just doesn’t have the stomach for real freedom.