Why Conservatives Fight Nationalized Healthcare

If just providing healthcare coverage were the emphasis of the Democrats, conservatives might not have that much of an objection to the matter. In fact, if the government just provided vouchers for uninsured people to go out and purchase a private insurance plan, the bill could probably sweep through Congress with bipartisan support (never mind the fact that Democrats control both houses and that Republicans can't stop anything at the moment).

However, the wizards of smart on Capitol Hill are not content to do just that. They want government to be the sole provider of healthcare, so that instead of multiple private companies deciding whom to cover based on business decisions, we will have one provider deciding whom to cover based on political decisions. Consider a little-mentioned addendum to the existing bill, which would punish individuals for lifestyle choices like smoking or obesity. Now admittedly people who smoke or overeat will most likely end up with more health issues down the road, which will cost more to care for...to that extent, the government is acting like business in that it is trying to reduce expenses. However, unlike government, a private insurer does not have the legal power to punish you for your lifestyle choices; they can only withhold coverage. The government position comes down to control: you must have healthcare insurance--it might be the law eventually, and you will meet the government's behavior/fitness guidedlines, or you will be punished.

Regardless of the high-sounding words surrounding government health insurance, it is not just about the insurance, it is about controlling the behavior of the recipients of said insurance. A government-run program, not forced to make a profit, can and will out-compete private insurers, thereby driving the private insurers out of business. A mandatory government program can and will punish those who do not participate in it or follow its regulations. A private citizen, faced with needing health insurance and having no choice besides the government plan, will be forced to obey all of the laws, rules, and regulations attached to that plan or face some sort of penalty. How, then, is this any different from forcing people to do what the government wants?

Freedom used to include the freedom to err or use one's freedom badly. However, regulations on smoking, fatty foods, alcohol, or whatever comes next allow government to take away your freedom "for your own good." (While it's mostly a big, dumb action movie, I highly recommend the Sylvester Stallone sci-fi film Demolition Man as an excellent example of what can happen to a society when it is regulated minutely.) Government-run health insurance is not just about making sure you've got a way to pay for doctor visits. It's about controlling your behavior, and it needs to be reined in before it's in place and nobody--not even our cigarette-smoking president--can stop it.

Potpourri XCVII

More going on in the blathersphere, so let's get started.

Mahmoud Ahmedenijad is now going to allow the IAEA inspect "key" nuclear sites in Iran. Bart's cynical translation: they're hiding the weapons, these sites are political theater to show whoever believes him that he can "play ball" with the West.

From Lin, an article about how the Healthcare Bill (H.R. 3200, Title II, Section 246) has "no federal payment for undocument aliens." Here's the actual language from the bill, which is an exceptionally small section:

SEC. 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

I guess I'm stupid here, but the way I read this is that the federal government will not pay for undocumented aliens. CNS is saying the opposite. This is why it pays for private citizens to read the bill rather than trust any news source. They continue:

"neither bill has a provision for verifying citizenship status, according to these experts."

Okay, that sounds plausible; perhaps because the bill assumes that said status verification is covered by the other laws it references. But, again, reading the bill is worthwhile. I still like the idea of vouchers for a minimum amount of money for the uninsured to spend on private insurance. That's got to be cheaper and less complicated than having government gobble up the healthcare industry.

Did you know NASA has a site for tracking the most recent passes of near-Earth objects (NEOs)? These are big rocks passing by very quickly--like kilometers a second. Yowie! There have been some close ones.

Dar the Science Cheerleader did a radio interview on WXRX in Toronto. Fun, and cute. Kinda like Dar.

And that, as they say, is that.

A Voucher System for Healthcare Insurance?

Okay, I feel like irritating some folks this evening. The nationalized healthcare service President Obama wants to impose would cost in the neighborhood of $2 trillion. That's because it assumes that the government would become an insurance company, complete with adjusters and on-staff doctors to evaluate claims. I've got an alternative solution, which might not please my fellow conservatives, but it sure as heck won't amuse my liberal friends, either: send uninsured citizens vouchers, akin to school tuition vouchers, so they could buy private insurance.

The basic problem, I am told over and over, is that we have somewhere between 40 to 50 million people without healthcare insurance. Something like 13 million of those people are illegal immigrants. So let's take that off the top number. So: 37 million people X $1,500 (approximate cost of a decent one-person plan, mine--based out of Massachusetts, by the way, not Alabama--plus a couple hundred bucks thrown on top for good measure) = $55.5 billion.

If you're a liberal, you're happy because the government is providing aid to the uninsured. If you're a conservative, you're happy because citizens get the choice of private-sector health plans less government is required to send checks than to control people's healthcare.

Vouchers would force both sides to put up or shut up. Liberals get to feel good about government, conservatives get to feel good about offering personal choice. The vouchers are only good for one thing, health insurance. And here's a thought: people could get a refund if the price of the insurance plan they select is less than what the government offers--assuming, of course, that prices remain more or less stable. Even at $55.5B per year, after 20 years, the total tab would still be only about $1.1 trillion, which would be less than the annual cost of this year's healthcare tab. Or am I dreaming here?