Republicans and conservatives and even some libertarians pushing the "death panel" stuff do us a disservice, because they misinterpret the real issue. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Monday, August 17, 2009
The issue is rationing, not "death panels," which are merely one small possible example of rationing. This thing about "death panels" shows exactly how messed up Republicans, conservatives, and some libertarians are about the issue of freedom (more accurately, its absence) in today's markets. They demonstrate by their actions that, despite their supposed allegiance to free markets, they cannot see the forest for the trees.
It doesn't really matter whether the Obama health care bill implies, or even declares, the creation of "death panels" to decide who shall get medical care in the last months of their lives, because that possibility is only one out of millions more possible ways that government must eventually choose who shall get medical care, and more importantly who shall not. Age need not be the only basis for such decisions. The basis could be anything. What is unavoidable is that government will have to start rationing all medical care, because the Obama bill will inevitably drive already outrageously high health care costs even higher, and higher, and higher. Such rationing already goes on, although most people don't notice it, but soon everyone will notice it.
I realize that President Obama himself says otherwise, but frankly he lies when he says it. I do not know if he lies knowingly or out of ignorance, but either way it's unacceptable. The simple fact is that whenever government spends money, regulates, induces people to spend money, or redirects how people spend money, the cost of the thing they're spending, regulating, inducing, or redirecting goes up, as I wrote in a recent article, every time, period, without exception.
The cost of health care has already risen to such a great height that very few people can afford it out-of-pocket anymore. Even those well-off need insurance to cover extraordinarily serious care, if needed. Most of us have forgotten (if indeed we ever knew) that there was a time in this country when health insurance was not prevalent mainly because a large segment of the population could afford to pay for medical expenses without it. Certainly, a serious illness or other medical condition could leave people deep in debt, but it wasn't like today because today the average person couldn't possibly pay off such debt. Then, it was quite possible. This is a terrific long-term way to gauge just how ridiculously high the cost of health care has risen over the generations.
Let me be clear: health care costs rise because of government. Sure, technology plays a role, and patents certainly play a role, but even patents are a government-related phenomenon. Technology can be initially expensive, but except when government mandates spending on that technology, the cost soon comes down. Unfortunately, government nearly always mandates that spending, so the cost doesn't come down quickly. In fact, in most cases, the government's involvement is so great that the price doesn't come down at all.
Liberals and other health care spending advocates claim that the problem is that we need all this regulation, spending, etc. because without it people with preexisting conditions, pregnant women, etc. could not afford treatment. When they make these points, they miss the point. The only reason, and I must emphasize that it's the only reason, that such people cannot afford such treatment is because of government regulations, taxes, requirements, inducements, etc. Go back 75 years and stop all those regulations, taxes, requirements, inducements etc. from getting started, and at the same time put America onto free market currencies based on valuable commodities while banning legalized fraud. If we did that, today every one of those troubled groups of people could afford medical care out of pocket. That's right, I said out of pocket.
The forms of legalized fraud I refer to are: (1) banks lending money that does not belong to them; (2) banks lending long-term using short-term funds; and (3) banks and government issuing currency based on nothing but debt. Debt-based money (also known as "elastic" money, meaning that the Fed can easily expand and contract its supply) feeds the roots of nearly all of our current problems, including the financial crisis.
Because we, as a people, refuse to make legalized fraud illegal (mostly because most of us do not even make the connection about legalized fraud in our minds) and because we instead ask government to involve itself in every aspect of health care (as well as in virtually every other issue known to man), the health care problem grows progressively worse, progressively more expensive, progressively less and less affordable for anyone.
Eventually, such a state of affairs reaches the point where government, which has taken upon itself the role of being the ultimate arbiter of how money should be spent on health care, eventually, and inevitably, becomes the arbiter of who shall get care, and who shall not. In other words, the government becomes the rationer. The reason? Health care costs, when driven sufficiently high, eventually become so expensive that even government cannot afford to pay them. And once again, this happens because of government's decision to involve itself so heavily in the health care industry as it already has and as it proposes to do under the Obama proposal.
Instead of emphasizing this real nature of the problem, Republicans, conservatives, and some libertarians attempt to distract us by demonizing the President and liberals, as if they were the problem. While they certainly promote the causes of the problem, they are not the only promoters. Republicans and conservatives have long supported such involvements. For instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Republican or a conservative these days who doesn't support some forms of government intervention such as Medicare, or Medicaid, or the FDA. I'm not saying such persons do not exist. I'm saying that those who do exist are completely in the minority, a teeny, tiny minority, within their own party, and even the great Ron Paul himself finds that in order to get reelected, he has to be cautious about his opposition.
This is the real reason why focusing on "death panels" instead of rationing and government involvement in general is such a bad idea. Such focus really serves as a way for Republicans and conservatives, and even some libertarians, to avoid focusing on their own role in promoting the grisly government machine which continues to drive this problem along. The issue isn't death panels. The issue is government rationing and intervention, and its supporters are everyone who support even some one aspect of government involvement in health care. Even if what they support is only a small part, it's still support on the wrong side of the issue.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
President Obama has urged Congress to confront health care. The issue is very complex with many special interests wanting their piece of the pie to grow larger.
Irresponsible reporting puts buzz phrases into the public mouth. If the worst possible case were put into law, a tiny, a very tiny fraction of comatose patients might come into that buzz phrased "death panels" situation.
Meanwhile, thousands of people who might receive better health care and millions of dollars which could be more effectively spent are cemented into standby. The media, in an attempt to sell more media, rouse fear and reaction by hammering a buzz phrase at the public. This hides real issues from public view, while creating reaction that prevents progess.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-17 11:08:52
Hi Walt,
Great article! Those choosing the high-leverage emotional phrases, on the left and the right as well as those "libertarians" who are no so equi-distant from most positions as you think are who Rothbard called "emotivists". They are the same people regardless of party affiliation. They are chanting sign wavers, they are meeting disrupters who can't say their piece without doing more harm than good to their stated goals.
Rothbard called them emotivists, I call them "Poison Fans". It doesn't matter what the issue or campaign, they are everywhere. Constructive participation such as that promoted by Campaign for Liberty and the Fire Eaters is the best way to have successes dispite the affects of the poison fans. Meeting them head-on or trying to interact with these emotivists, IN ANY WAY is absolute futility and more often counterproductive regardless of their party affiliation and which alternative media, or economic or philosophical heros they worship.
They will not change and they will not go away so any successful strategy must include how to nullify their damage without drawing more attention to them.
You are so right on in your observations both about the state of the industry and the nature of those in the "poison fan" club.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
