Saturday, October 5, 2013

ObamaCare's Useful Idiots

ObamaCare's useful idiots are at it in letters to the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

One letter writer (Susan, Giving up insurance), attacked a straw man:

Since tea party followers don’t see the need for insurance coverage for millions of uninsured people in this country, and since they are working hard to convince those uninsured people that health coverage is a bad idea, perhaps they should take that message to heart and apply it to themselves by divesting themselves of health insurance coverage.It appears the uninsured aren’t listening, based on the opening-day response to the Affordable Care Act. It looks like a case of do as I say, not as I do.

My comments:

What Tea Partyer said anything of the kind? Name one instance where a Tea Partyer said there is no need for health insurance? 

Tea Partyers are against government forcing some people to subsidize others' health insurance, and government dictating health insurance policies. However, we're not against people contracting voluntarily to mutual advantage with insurers for the policy that best fits their needs and personal circumstances (which people can't do today because of government mandates). And we're not against people voluntarily helping another pay for his health insurance.

By the way, Susan, how many uninsured have you written out a subsidy check for? Or is it a case of do as I say, not as I do?

Another letter writer (Jane, Blame for a shutdown) trumpeted the alleged benefits of ObamaCare. We'll be hearing more and more of this, as proponents ignore causes and consequences and rely on the age-old evil that the ends justify the means.

Do you really want the government to shut down to prevent the evils of:
• Adult children in their 20s staying on their parents’ medical plan;
• Making insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions;
• Rewarding hospitals for lowering costs while improving health care;
• Permitting people to buy insurance coverage in a competitive environment;
• Bringing efficiency and accountability to a notoriously unaccountable system; and
• Saving the country money?

All of these alleged "benefits" of ObamaCare are achieved with blood money—i.e., at the point of a governmental gun. Government force interfering in people's lives is what's evil. The moral solution is to repeal ObamaCare and all of the other government intrusions into healthcare. That would solve all of the "problems" that ObamaCare is alleged to fix.

Point 1 is a matter of voluntary contract between insurers, parents, and their adult children to negotiate. Government has no business forcing its edicts on private citizens,, whether insurers or consumers. Of course, if ObamaCare and other government mandates didn't drive up the cost of health insurance, insurance would be cheap for young people.

Point 2 is primarily a problem caused by the government-instigated third-party-payer system, and can be fixed by ending the policies that created it (e.g., tax favoritism for employers), so that people owned their own health insurance policies. Without government interference, people would be free to contract voluntarily to mutual advantage with insurers for the policy that best fits their needs and personal circumstances. Then, if people don't want to be stuck with un-insurable pre-existing conditions, they will be sure to have insurance. If they don't, and get sick, they must pay for their own medical bills out of pocket. No one has a right to expect insurers to pay for coverage which the patient has not previously paid for. This is only fair, unless you believe that theft and plunder isn't evil.

Points 3-5 are inherent features of a free market. If you want them, get government out of the healthcare business.

Point 6 is easy. The government can save the country money by drastically reigning in its spending and seizing less of the taxpayers' dollars. As to healthcare, the natural incentives of the free market—providers looking to profitably expand sales and consumers looking for the best deal—have been demonstrated in practice and theory to not only lead to lower costs but higher quality as well. 

A free market is the moral alternative to ObamaCare (and the previous status quo) because it removes force from economic transactions, unless you believe that it is moral for people to deal with each other by means of guns rather than voluntary persuasion and mutual agreement. 

Jane, the premise that the ends justify the means is the real evil. It has reigned havoc throughout the ages. Whatever gains some people might get from ObamaCare is not morally justified by the evil means employed by ObamaCare—forced redistribution of wealth and government control of healthcare and health insurance.

Related Reading:

No comments: