Health Care Bill - What Would I Do?

This blog post is a reprint of a Facebook post I recently did in response to a question to me regarding the health care bill passage: "I do genuinely wonder what solution you would have preferred." It is sort of raw and may need some polishing, but I decided it was worth posting here as well:

First, I would have started with a Constitutional solution and one that wasn't 2000+ pages long (I cannot put all my solution in a facebook post -- but I will try!).
Dealing with health care is a power reserved to the State or the people and has not been delegated to the federal govt. The federal govt needs to turn medicare/medicaid completely over to the Sovereign States and let them deal with them. A one-size-fits-all solution for 300 million people will not work.

... See More

The current bill will NOT reduce costs, and will further drive up premiums and taxes. It is a BOON for insurance companies (they love it!) because they are going to get 30million+ more enslaved customers conscripted by the federal government with tax payers to back up any losses to bail them out when they can no longer cover the people who overload the system (sound familiar - fanny/freddy/banking crisis anyone?)

I am the first to admit that the health care market is very complex and that there is no way it can be centerally planned (or fixed) -- let alone by a group of 535+ government politicians. Our current health care system has been undermined so much by government intervention that free market forces have been curtailed and corrupted leading to extreme price increases.

In general: Government REWARDS FAILURE and PUNISHES SUCCESS. The free market PUNISHES FAILURE and REWARDS SUCCESS. The free market is the only system by which LIBERTY and INDIVIDUAL rights, and protection of private property can be maintained while at the same time raising the PROSPERITY level of everybody to a maximum possible level. In the United States, the Federal govt has a constitutional role to play, but it is LIMITED. America is like no other country in the world because we have had a DIVERSITY of government that is DISTRIBUTED and has protected the right of the regional MINORITY to govern themselves. The freedom and liberty of individuals all over the country shape their own destiny, establish their own laws and govt that suites their needs in their locality.

There are things to be done at a federal level regarding health care/ins reform, but most involve dismantling and restoring the proper limitations placed on the federal govt by the constitution.

But, my solution for MY SOVERIGN STATE of Colorado would involve removing 3rd party payers and regulation (govt and ins companies) from the equation as much as possible:

1. Completely FORBID federal government intervention in the health care system within Colorado.
2. Promote direct payment from patient to doctor for services (FREELY exchanged) to allow price transparency and allow the free market to work (e.g. high deductibles where insurance kicks in for catestrophic coverage - you don't use auto insurance to get your brakes fixed on your car do you?). The free market (and competition along with price transparency) will inherently apply downward pressure on prices and reduced prices would allow more people access to care (what people are screaming for!).
3. Remove regulatory burden and mandates from insurance policies so individuals can FREELY pick the type of coverage (a-la-carte) they need at the price level they are FREELY willing to pay. LIBERTY!
4. Implement tort reforms to prevent excessive lawyer abuse and unnecessary tests from being performed. Doctors can FREELY choose what tests need to be performed without worrying about excessive lawsuits. Direct payment by individuals will also help reduce unnecessary testing because they can FREELY choose what tests get performed.
5. Provide the same tax benefits to employees as is currently provided to companies so individuals can FREELY buy their own health ins and not tie health ins to the job (e.g. I don't have to buy new auto ins each time I switch jobs!). LIBERTY!
6. Medicaid payments should be vouchered (like food stamps) to the individual so they can FREELY choose where it is spent and dovetail into the free market system without disrupting it. They can also use these vouchers to FREELY purchase private health ins.
7. Medicare should be replaced as much as possible with people FREELY funding their own HSA accounts and taking individual RESPONSIBILTY for their own savings. (additionally, see medicaid above). (and yes, current medicare contractual agreements to citizens would have to be paid)
8. Charity would be encouraged by the state matching payment by those who purchased and donated medicare/medicaid vouchers and giving directly to those in need (or something like this). Fundamentally ENCOURAGE and REWARD individuals for HELPING OTHER PEOPLE DIRECTLY! Currently govt gives people an EXCUSE to NOT HELP other people by stepping in as the middleman via taxation and wealth redistribution schemes. Currently, by stepping in, government ROBS from its citizens one of the most rewarding pleasures a human can feel -- the satisfaction of DIRECTLY helping another person.
9. Entitlements would NOT accrue over time and would be budgeted into the YEARLY State budget based on tax rate and available funds. NO PONZI SCHEMES like medicare/medicaid/social security!!!
10. most importantly my solution WILL NOT involve 17,000 IRS agents!

--- Read more ---

We are all Nationalists now

At the end of this article written in 1993 by (apparently) the DOJ on the constitutionality of health care reform:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/1stlady.htm

It concludes:

The Nation's debate over how best to deal with the great national need for health care reform should proceed untrammelled by worries over the national government's lawful powers that were laid to rest over half a century ago.

You should read the article. We are currently screwed because they have buried the constitution in lawyer speak and precedent as exemplified by this article.

The progressives basically conclude based on "constitutional tradition" that:

1. Well being of society trumps individual rights always and at the discretion of Congress
   
• they argue that there is a history of this being done by Congress, so it is OK to keep doing it
  
2. We now have a national government as decided during FDR's reign of power
• the concept of a national government rest on constitutional law settled at the time of FDR
• has seldom been challenged since
• and ultimately stem from the work of the Founders of the Republic
  
3. The national government can proceed untrammeled (unrestrained) deciding what is best for the nation

Next step: Oligopoly followed by One World Government.

I am continually amazed at how bad a year 1913 really was!!!


--- Read more ---

Republic vs Democracy

Listen carefully to the words of politicians. If they say things like:

• The people want this ...
  
• We live in a Democracy ...
  
• Government must step in and ...

then be very afraid of the consequences. Watch the video below and read this link to understand how government in our country was originally setup and the disaster that will result if we lose our Constitutional Republic ...






--- Read more ---

Inconvenient Global Warming Policies

Even if anthropogenic global warming were a proven fact (which, of course, it is not), the policies being bantered about by our “well-meaning” politicians to protect us from global warming will:

1. not really do anything to change/improve the world climate

2. dramatically increase taxes and opportunities for corruption
   
3. will raise the price of energy worldwide
4. accelerate poverty and deaths worldwide

As shown in the following videos, the best approach is to combat the supposed effects of global warming directly:

1. directly combat the problems resulting from current climate conditions (e.g. hurricanes, etc.)

2. reduce poverty worldwide – most effectively done by reducing the cost of energy and improving economic conditions worldwide

These approaches are much cheaper than the indirect approaches like trying to limit CO2 emissions with much less risk of unintended consequences.

Watch the following videos for more details:

Policy Peril: The Truth About Global Warming

The Great Global Warming Swindle

--- Read more ---

Return To Free Market Will Regulate Health Care Costs

Be very critical of both Democrat and Republican proposals for health care reform (see article.) The ultimate goal MUST be to completely remove federal government intervention from health care and return to a true free market private health care industry (see article.) Competition amongst health care providers and price transparency to health care consumers is the only just and fair method for providing the highest quality coverage to the most people. If the government wants to increase health care coverage, then they should stop taxing it completely and give tax rebates directly to individuals (up to, but not over, the amount of taxes the individual has paid!) for ALL their health care costs (see article.) Individuals should be directly responsible for their own health care insurance policies (just like auto insurance) and not masked by big company employer insurance programs subsidized by government tax incentives.

These actions alone would reduce health care costs such that most people can afford health care expenses out of pocket along with the purchase of a catastrophic health insurance policy. Ultimately the market would probably settle on out of pocket coverage for most things like doctors visits and other non-catastrophic needs (e.g. just like you pay out of pocket to get your brakes fixed on your car). Insurance policies would cover catastrophic health needs with costs driven by actuarial sciences similar to the way car insurance policies are done. Any plans to cover the small percentage of people who cannot pay for health coverage should be handled BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES (see article) and do something like handing out vouchers (e.g. that effectively translate to money) to individuals so they can make their own choices about their coverage and their provider. Again, the key is to get the federal government completely out of intervening in the private health care industry/market and to return the control of health care to the free market and to individuals.
--- Read more ---

Who Benefits from Democracy?

I have started to question if my vote for a "representative" means anything. The pervasive opinion of the day is that "majority rules." I have become frustrated that so many issues are being handled by our "representatives" that take away rights and liberties of individuals. The "representatives" use the fact that they were elected by "the majority" and "it's what the people want" to justify their actions and completely ignore the Constitution and the protection of individual liberties. We have lost the checks and balances of our original Consitutional Republic and our individual rights and liberties are no longer protected from the ravages of "the majority." It appears the mindset of "We the People" has become to increasingly sacrifice our individual liberties for the sake of "false" altruism and "false" security. We sacrifice liberty under the false notion that

• government involvement and intervention in the health care market will improve the health of the people
• government can save us from ourselves and knows better how to solve problems than free markets
  
• wealth redistribution is the fair thing to do
  
• government can protect us better by intruding in our lives by using unconstitutional "pre-emptive detainment" techniques.
• the government must intervene to "save the economy" with stimulus and illegally taking over private companies.
  

The government powers expanded during one administration with one "majority group" cheering the expansion on, can also be used by the next with a different "majority group" cheering.

The "majority" is fickle and one day wants one thing while another day they want another. But it seems that the government is always too willing to grow its powers to satisfy the majority.

In the end, we must ponder "who benefits from democracy?"





--- Read more ---

Effects of Government Intervention in Insurance

Government subsidized flood insurance encourages people to live in flood zones and ends up spreading the cost of these people's poor decisions (e.g. to live where there is higher risk of flooding) to other people not living in flood zones. If government didn't intervene, only the people who live in flood zones would share the cost. Additionally (and ironically) it also encourages people to live in ecologically sensitive areas that environmentalists don't want people to live!

In general, government subsidized insurance of any kind is an injustice to the people because it skews the free market in undesirable ways, unfairly redistributes wealth, and has unintended consequences.

See: Save a Tree Hug a Capitalist


--- Read more ---