Except for our thoughts, there is nothing more personal or fundamental to our individual identity than our physical beings. Looking after our minds and bodies is among the most basic human instincts. Each individual is driven to self-preservation, making pursuit of self-preservation and wellness a natural human drive. To abridge our right to make decisions concerning our own health is to call into question the very concept of self-ownership.

 

Pet owners take personal responsibility for the care of adopted animals. A pet owner feeds their animal, provides for its veterinary care, cleans up after them and governs their behavior (you can’t let your dog run loose, or bite someone, for example). These beloved animals become our responsibility because we have removed them from their natural state, rendering them largely incapable of providing for their own basic needs. Society punishes people who fail in their responsibilities to their pets if they abuse or neglect them because the pet-owner, by virtue of ownership, has committed to a responsibility for their care. No matter how much we love and care for our animals, or try to convince ourselves otherwise, they are our property. Just as a car owner must be responsible to change the oil, rotate the tires, replace the spark-plugs, we are responsible to care for our pets, only vastly more so, because they are living beings.

 

People are not the government’s pets. If government is to be considered responsible to provide for our health care (or food, or shelter), who then is responsible for your body, and who owns it? A wolf in the wild has no owner but itself. A dog, pampered with easy food, shelter and veterinary care may grow fat and content on the comforts provided by its owner, but it is not free.

 

We must take responsibility for our own care to preserve our liberty. To deny us that natural right is to assert a proprietary interest (ownership) in us.

 

 

 

Our fundamental rights as Americans and upon which our nation’s Founding Fathers built our institutions come from the principles of Natural Law. The Declaration of Independence labeled this concept as unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are considered natural and unalienable because they are an undeniable part of human nature. We naturally understand and assert these rights and would with or without any constitution, government or law.

 

We have the right to labor for our own survival and betterment. We have the right to defend ourselves against force and fraud. Rights can be exercised alone. This is an important concept concerning rights. We have the right to move, to speak, to choose our company, to interact with others, or to avoid them. A right can be exercised by an individual in the wilderness as easily as in the middle of a busy urban core. Rights are not dependent on our environment or other people – they cannot be, or they would not be rights. The exercise of one’s rights cannot infringe on the rights of another.

 

Human beings have the right to take care of themselves and to transact business with willing participants to obtain such care or medicines they may seek from others. No one has the right to care from another person, because coercing a person to treat you against their will would violate their rights.

 

The Declaration of Independence states that government is instituted to protect these rights, not appropriate them to government systems of care.

 

The concept of a “right” to health care is a non-sensical fabrication that fails to understand the nature of rights. The care of our own bodies is our individual right and responsibility.

 

 

More than 170 million Americans, on any given day, are covered by a private health insurance plan. The vast majority of them are happy with their current health plans. At any given time, about 15.3 percent of Americans are uninsured and half of them for spans lasting less than four months. In order to ostensibly help the small minority of uninsured (many of whom are also young, healthy adults who are just getting started in life and have simply elected to prioritize their limited budgets to more pressing concerns, like food, transportation and housing), President Obama and his congressional allies intend to change the way health care is provided to every single American, themselves excluded, of course. 

Talking points from supporters of the current health care reform proposals would have us believe they aren’t creating a single-payer system, such as in Canada or the government managed systems in the UK, France, and Germany. President Obama, as a State Senator, repeatedly stated that his goal is a single-payer system, but he doesn’t envision it happening all at once.

On the campaign trail, Obama suggested a 10 to 15 year timetable for a national single-payer plan. Polling shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to that idea. An August 2009 Rasmussen poll found just 32 percent favor single-payer health care, while 57 percent oppose it. Another Rasmussen poll found that only 35 percent of Americans support the current congressional health care bill. 52% said it would be better to do nothing at all about health care than to pass the congressional reforms. 

Government bureaucrats denying essential treatments, shortages of medical professionals and facilities, long wait-lists for critical care, a general degradation of the quality of medical services, and out-of-control debt as witnessed in the Canadian single-payer system are some of the reasons Americans generally oppose importing such a system. These factors are common among nearly all government-managed health systems. Yet despite their best efforts, all nations are fighting against the ever-increasing cost of health care. When the government pays for it, it results in bureaucratic rationing. It must, because they have limited resources (taxes) from which to fund health care.

 

Because of strong opposition to the single-payer health care model, President Obama and his allies in Congress are trying to convince us that their health care reform plan is not single-payer, but in reality their plan is designed to accomplish just that in an incremental fashion.

 

The government plan for health care reform is being pitched as simply a public alternative to private health care. President Obama said if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it, but that’s not entirely true. You might be able to keep it for a year or two, but the government plan is designed to force-out most private plans within a target of five years. Those private options which remain will be regulated to become exact mirrors of the government plan.

 

Proponents of federally administered health care often point to what they call the “success” of Medicare as an example of how the government can manage everyone’s health care. Unfortunately, Medicare is currently projected to be saddled with unfunded liabilities of over $89 trillion dollars. That figure is so staggeringly huge, it needs some perspective: The entire US economy (GDP) is valued at about $14 trillion.

 

Medicare is currently funded by a 2.9% payroll tax (on top of the 12.4% social security tax). According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, to close the funding gap by increases in payroll tax, the combined payroll tax burden (not including federal and state income taxes, mind you – just the social security and Medicare tax) would have to jump to 25-37%.

 

Medicare, like Social Security, is built upon the world’s largest ponzi scheme. If these systems were private plans, they would be deemed criminal enterprises on a scale that would embarrass investment fraudster Bernie Madoff. No contributions to Social Security and Medicare are actually invested or saved. Congress uses these funds to pay for their earmarks and other questionable priorities. Payroll taxes coming in today are paid out as benefits to retirees tomorrow. As the once growing supply of contributors slows and contracts, the money to pay back retirees for their contributions will dry up. By 2050, Medicare and Medicaid will consume the entire federal budget.

 

Medicare imposes other hidden costs on privately insured Americans. The reimbursements paid to doctors and hospitals for treating Medicare patients often do not even cover the cost of treatment. Health care providers treat Medicare patients at a loss. That loss is made up on the backs of people who pay for private health care. According to Millman, a Washington DC actuarial firm, this amounts to a hidden annual tax of approximately $88 billion or $1,788 per household enrolled in commercial health insurance. 

The dirty secret about Medicare’s low administration cost is, however, that Medicare does not pay a single claim. In order to keep their administration costs low, they contract with private corporations – insurance companies and third party administrators – to actually pay claims. It’s not so much that Medicare hides this fact, but that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others do not take time to explain it. And why would they? It undermines their entire argument that government can do it cheaper and better.

National Health Insurance Exchange 

Although the so-called “public option” has been considered a pivotal element of the congressional health reform bill, widespread and adamant opposition to federally administered health care has prompted talk of removing the public option from the bill.

 

The public plan would have been integrated into a national insurance exchange, a sort-of clearing house and regulatory body governing all health care plans bought and sold in the united states. The withdrawal of a publicly backed insurance program from the exchange would have little impact on its operation as a powerful regulatory body. The bureaucrats administering the exchange would set coverage mandates. 

Advanced as a means to improve competition, in reality the exchange would accomplish the opposite, with or without direct competition from a government insurance plan, because the exchange would tailor every policy sold through it. Options would be replaced with a one-size-fits-all plan designed by the federal government.

Health Care Co-Ops 

  

 

Where the big-government plans for national health care actually infringe or impede our rights, there are solutions to make health care more affordable and accessible that make the exercise of our right to care for ourselves easier.

 

Our current health care situation is often incorrectly referred to as a “free market” system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Costs have risen in proportion to government regulation and intervention. Most states require health insurance consumers (whether businesses offering health care benefits or individuals) to purchase plans tailored by their state legislators. In order to find a less expensive health plan with more options, a person may have to move to another state to purchase the plan they want. The difference in price from state to state can be as much as six-fold (in Iowa the average health insurance premium is just over $1,000 per year while New Jersey residents pay over $6,000) because of the different mandates established by the state legislatures (New Jersey also has guaranteed issue health care laws, and charges young, healthy people the same rates as older, unhealthy people).

 

Allowing people to shop for policies across state lines could dramatically reduce their health care premiums. Abolishing state-established monopolies would have an immediate benefit, lowering the cost of health care for most Americans.

 

 

Prior to World War II, the vast majority of Americans purchased their own health insurance just like their life, home and automobile insurance, or they directly paid their health care providers. Health care was so affordable then, that people would actually pay a doctor to make a “house call” to provide treatment at the patient’s home.

 

Because people paid directly for services, they knew the costs and could shop for the best price for the service they desired. Our current system of network providers and employer/insurance company third-party pay results in apathy to the actual costs. Thankfully, many employers are now offering high deductible health plans and Health Savings Accounts to their employees, so that each person has a financial stake in health care transactions. Otherwise, there is no incentive for the consumer to shop for a better price. They simply go to their network provider, oblivious of the actual costs, besides their typically nominal co-pay.

 

For market forces to work, as they naturally do in driving down costs through competition, the health care consumer must be aware of the price of service and be able to shop for the highest quality and lowest price, just like they would for any other product or service. Without this mechanism, there is no incentive for health care providers to become more cost-effective. Health reform writers Dave Racer and Greg Dattilo want patients to always ask, “How much does this cost?” before ageeing to move ahead with any procedure or medicine.

 

A high deductible (or “catastrophic”) health plan coupled with a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a brilliant way to put the consumer back in the driver’s seat and create a competitive market place. The consumer will pay out of their HSA  for most medical treatment. Money deposited in such an account is tax-free, much like an IRA, and remains tax-free if withdrawn to pay for medical products and services.

 

Since the consumer is directly spending their own health care dollars, they will be incented to shop for price and quality, driving market competition. High-cost or low quality providers will be forced to innovate and improve or they will become uncompetitive and lose business. Since the insurance policy is a high-deductible plan that will generally only be used to pay for major medical care usually requiring hospitalization, the monthly premium is significantly lower than traditional health insurance, but the policy is still there to act as a safety net in case serious medical emergencies arise.

 

 

 

The issue of portability never arises concerning auto or life insurance because these types of insurance are not connected to employment. They are private transactions between the insured and the underwriters. These insurance policies are naturally portable. The solution to the health insurance portability issue is right under our noses – we need only look to the example of every other type of insurance product bought and sold in the United States: Tie insurance policies to the consumer, not their employer.

 

 

Presently, employer-provided health plans are considered a payroll expense and are deductible by the company, but individuals who purchase their own health insurance don’t receive the same tax break (unless they are self-employed). This disparity is a violation of the principle of equal taxation. It can result in a disincentive to purchase private health insurance, because it ultimately costs more than enrolling in an employer plan. Employer-provided and privately purchased health insurance should carry the same tax benefits

 

 

 

One of the causes of expensive health care is our unchecked medical tort system. Indeed frivolous lawsuits cost society in almost all fields, but they are especially harmful to the health care industry and its consumers. In many cases the plaintiff doesn’t even see a tangible benefit if they win their case. Lawyers are the prime beneficiary of our current tort system.

 

According to the Pacific Research Institute, excessive tort costs are pushing $600 billion per year – the equivalent of $7,000 per household. It’s critical to remember that all costs are always ultimately borne by the consumers. When doctors have to pay exorbitant premiums for their liability/malpractice insurance, and legal fees, those costs are passed on to consumers.

 

Besides the direct costs associated with tort suits, doctors engage in “defensive medicine,” a practice of taking excessive precautions like ordering expensive extra medical tests. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, 79 percent of doctors report ordering more tests than they would based on their medical judgment alone, in order to better defend against potential litigation. 74 percent have referred patients to more expensive specialists more often than they thought was necessary for the same reason. And who can blame them, when they sense that a trial attorney is perched on their shoulder, watching for any excuse to sue?

 

 

 

Although most American’s report satisfaction with their current health care plans, most would also agree that there are problems with the way health care is delivered in this country. Costs are rising sharply. Many employers are struggling to keep up with rising group premiums and labor disputes arise when more of the cost is passed on to employees. Continuing down our present course – a course that was largely set by government regulations to begin with – will lead to worsening affordability and accessibility problems.

 

Here, we’ve presented some common sense solutions that would have an immediate positive effect, making health care more transparent, affordable and accessible without interfering with anyone’s current plans, creating new bureaucracies or creating more regulation. We’ve also presented the big-government version of reform, a plan that takes control of every aspect of the health care industry unto federal bureaucrats. The choice between options boils down to a question of how much government interference and control is desired. Will consumers remain in control of their health care options or will Uncle Sam dictate a one-size fits all policy for everyone and cast health insurance coverage into the turbulent waters of congressional whim?

 

Use the resources on this page to further research the American health care environment and see what kind of reforms make the most sense to you.