So, why is socialized healthcare such a bad idea, anyway?

(reposted from r2’s myspace, originally posted Oct. 18)
As a conservative, and a Libertarian, I despise the idea of socialized healthcare.  I know the Liberals putting out this idea don’t like the word “socialized,” but then, they also prefer to be called “Progressives”, even though their idea of “progress” is clearly a regression to tried and failed economic and governmental policies.  But, semantics aside, what’s so wrong with government money being used to assure healthcare for citizens. 

I mean, aside from the increased taxes that will be necessary to pay for the healthcare or the fact that, in essence, taxpayers will be forced to pay for both their own healthcare and that of non-taxpayers?  Oops!  I see that another quick digression may be necessary.  Didn’t Hillary say the government would provide tax refunds to offset any insurance premiums?  Well, sure.  But in order for there to be money there to do that, you see, there will have to be more taxation.  Money doesn’t just come from nowhere.  So, to make it simple, let’s say the government takes $20 in taxes, but pays $10 for your insurance.  You have been given back 10 bucks of your own money, but only to purchase something the government said you had to buy — and they still took another 10 bucks to offset the government’s expenditures for the non-taxpayer.  So, you see, the government is not giving most taxpayers anything.  They’re simply going to raise taxes, reappropriating some of that money to your health insurance, and more to cover others. 

Okay.  That’s out of the way.  So, apart from that, what, really, is wrong with socialized healthcare?  It seems perfectly reasonable that, as the wealthiest society in the world, there ought to be nobody who lacks healthcare.  And if somebody doesn’t want it, well — that’s their choice, isn’t it? 

Wait a minute… what about people who don’t want to invest money in health care?  What if they like their own way of doing things, and have chosen instead to just keep an emergency bank account, which accrues interest, to help them with unforseen medical expenses?  Don’t they get to make that decision?  Well… no.  And what really gets me here is that nobody is asking why, exactly, that is.  So I will.  I’ve asked before, and I can’t find a liberal with a coherent answer.  Why do I have to have health care if I don’t want it?  Or, let’s take me out of the equation, entirely.  Why shouldn’t a 28-year-old, single man with no dependents be allowed to make his own decision regarding whether or not to carry health insurance?  Why?

I will answer this for the liberals, since for the most part they don’t read my blog, and if they did, probably don’t know the answer to this.  I suppose you could ask Hillary to read this blog and answer the question… but she may want to get innocculated first.  The answer for this goes back to the point about taxation and coverage.  They need everybody to have insurance coverage so that there can be no complaints about not seeing any benefit for your taxes.  They are going to take the money.  No question.  But they want to give some of it back to you so they can prove to you the value of the tax they took.  Get it?

Okay, so aside from that pesky little annoyance about taxation without representation, and the fairly obvious bit of trickery to force you to recognize some sort of value in order to avoid said “taxation without representation” issue — what, really, is the problem with socialized healthcare?

Well, how about the obvious?  The New Democrats are responsible, in various states, for seatbelt laws, helmet laws, no smoking laws, attempts at legislating what and how we eat … do I really need to explain where this is going?  For those who are hypnotized by Hillary’s amazing escapes from difficult questions, I will spell it out:  If we put government in charge of our healthcare, we open the door for government to take charge of our health.  Ridiculous?  Perhaps I should explain health insurance.  Health insurance companies work by assuming the risk for your health issues.  The lower the health risk, the lower your premiums… the higher the risk, the higher the premiums.   They do this because to do otherwise would be to risk bankruptcy.  For example, many insurance companies won’t cover heart disease or cancer for smokers.  Why?  Simply put, it’s an unacceptable risk.  We know this.  We know this is how the health industry operates.  You might even say we’re primed for it. 

So, when government takes over health coverage, why wouldn’t they do risk assessment?  Of course they will.  Not to do so would be even more irresponsible than the plan already is.  What does this mean?  Who knows?  I can guarantee that, though they will be taxed exactly the same as nonsmokers, people who smoke will be monetarily penalized.  Not only by the increased cigarrette tax, which is a near-certainty, should a democrat take POTUS, but most likely, there would be a risk penalty enforced by the government.  In layman’s terms, smokers will pay more for insurance than nonsmokers.  Heavy people (obese, fat….. whatever), before long, would likely face the same types of penalties.  How long, then, until you are penalized by government because of genetics?

At this point, the astute Liberal (a contradiction?  Perhaps — maybe they wouldn’t ask this question if I failed to bring it up) is asking, “but Randy… don’t insurance companies already do those things?”  Yup.  They do.  But, not all companies assess risk penalties, and of those that do, they do so to varying degrees.  Not only that, but, at this juncture, should somebody find that any risk penalties from every company is simply unacceptable, he can always choose not to carry insurance.  In other words, the market offers solutions, without mandating a lifestyle. 

Now that same person is asking, “But how do you know the government would even assess risk penalties?”  The answer?  Economics.  At some point, the government will figure out that they are losing money on people with health problems (go figure!). 

So, in the long run, yes… federally mandated health care will necessarily become federal mandates on your lifestyle.

But, other than that, I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with socialized healthcare.  Except the intrusion on the Free Market, the illustrated negative effects on healthcare service in countries like Canada, Britain, etc, the negative impact on small business ………………………………


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: