It is becoming sadly accepted that if something isn’t broken, give it to Congress and they will break it; and if something is broken, Congress will return it unfixable.  It doesn’t seem to matter which of the two parties is in power, which is why we are witnessing the rise of populist movements like tea parties.  Anger reminiscent of original Tea Party that provoked the colonies against the monarchy erupts when citizens feel, a) their interests are not being represented, b) they have lost faith in the political process.  Thus, voters today implicitly equate a tyrannical King George with an unapproachable and unrepresentative present day legislature.

The process by which the health care reform is being proposed has become the central object of disdain.  While both sides of the issue have valid objectives and ideas for reform, both have allowed objectivity and the benefit of the country to be obscured by ideological obstinacy that borders on idolatry.

Democrats start by outlawing denial of health insurance on the basis of preexisting conditions—a desirable outcome—but unless market forces are set free to dilute the added risk that insurance companies would bear, the concomitant costs will be passed to lower risk customers, thus raising premiums for all.

Each side wishes to make health insurance accessible to more Americans, although Democrats seek to mandate its purchase, even under the threat of penalty.  The power to oblige a citizen to buy a product as a condition of citizenship is nowhere permitted the Congress in the Constitution.  The English King did not have to worry about violating a Constitution, and neither, it seems, does Congress concern itself with such annoyances.

As an economic solution, a free market in health insurance would allow better management of risk by private companies and make insurance more accessible to individuals.  In such a market, individuals, not their employers, would be free to purchase a policy of their choice from any insurance company anywhere in the country; i.e., a free market driven by consumer demand.  For reasons that might befuddle an introductory high school economics class, Democrats will have none of such a plan, and for reasons that would confound those students’ civics class, Republicans prefer to highlight the political foibles of Harry Reid rather than extolling the virtues of this diametrically clear alternative to constricting our freedoms with mandates.

Changing the ownership of health insurance from employer to employee would require a parallel change in the tax deduction from corporation to individual.  Such an innovation would end as well the tax code’s discrimination against independent workers and small businesses.  By opposing such a shift, Democrats confirm for themselves the accusation they hurl at their opponents, that they are beholden to insurance companies and corporations, and in their unique case—unions, and act not as elected officials but as paid lobbyist.  In the resulting detritus of how-a-bill-becomes-a-law, individuals will have lost an opportunity for personal management of their health.  Yet, no other single action will expand coverage and put downward price pressure on premiums than liberating the market.

There are many things right with the American health care system.  The World Health Organization (WHO) recently ranked the U.S. first among 191 countries for “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient.” ¹  However, there is a “dearth of doctors” in certain specialties.²  Taxing medical devices and otherwise raising taxes on small businesses—which includes most medical practices—would decrease supply further and raise prices.  Prospective medical students are discouraged by the high cost of the education and of operating their businesses, which costs are largely driven by defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits that could, in the extreme, destroy their practice.  Why not then—dare we use the word?—stimulate the supply side of that industry by allowing a complete amortization of a doctor’s education over, say, a ten year period, and by limiting tort actions for all but the most egregious cases.  Most doctors don’t leave scalpels in their patient’s body or induce drug overdose in rock stars.

The unethical Senate deals exemplified by the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, and Florida Flim-Flam, the necessity of which reinforce the public’s perception that the less meritorious a bill the higher the minimum bid in the vote auction, leave one with the depressing observation that insurance companies, corporations, drug companies, and trial lawyers are favored over individuals—the patient and his doctor.

When the foundational principles of personal freedom and of economic liberty are compromised in a bill, even worse when they are prostituted, there is only one salutary fate: defeat.

Also appears on the Examiner

______________

[1]  “Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One.” The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2010 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644230678102274.html

[2] “For Severely Ill Children, a Dearth of Doctors.” The Wall Street Journal, 12 January 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652311818328216.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENextto