An open letter to the left

I have heard your incredulous cries as to how “anybody” could oppose “health care reform”.  I have heard your pleas about our “rights” to health care, social security, welfare, and the like as our obligations as a “modern, moral” society.  I’ve read the condescending pieces on how we rubes are getting in the way of something that will “help everyone” and that we must not know that which we do.  Let me be clear – I have a PhD from an Ivy League University, and in the process have been immersed in the leftist echo chamber for a long time.  I have seen your arguments, heard your utopian ideals, and I believe you are wrong.  This is not because I expect to profit from the current system, or want to keep anyone “in their place” – it is because I believe your ideas are hopelessly naive and will do more damage to the nation and health care than the greediest profit seeker.

You spin health care as a “right” that should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay, but even you realize that if nobody pays for health care then nobody will provide health care.  Health care is a scarce resource comprised of the intersection of modern technolgy, bio-chemistry, and highly trained doctors and nurses who have put long years of their life into the studies necessary to provide health care at the quality we demand.  Like any other commodity, once overall demand exceeds supplies we must come up with some mechanism for allocating health care to individuals.  In a market system, people looking for more health care pay more for it (or have a third party pay more on their behalf), just as with any other commodity.  If there is not enough supply, prices drift upwards until demand is reduced or supply is increased.  Alternately, we can say that this isn’t “fair” in the case of life and death and set up government “exchanges”, regulations, and price controls to ensure fair and equitable treatment.  Now instead of anyone having free access we are constrained in our choices by government fiat.  It becomes “unfair” to have a policy that doesn’t cover some politician’s pet cause, or that requires out of pocket expendetures for cost containment.  Instead of the chaos of the market we get the corruption of a beauracracy.

As to your “moral, modern” society – I may agree in principle that as a society we should provide health care and certain other limited services whenever possible.  Where I disagree is in providing it through government.  I may believe that we have an obligation to aid starving children in Africa, and I am perfectly able to donate to charities to achieve these goals.  Does that imply that I have a right to break into my neighbors houses and steal their money to donate simply because I feel it is a “moral imperative”, anmd that they are “wasting their money” on frivolities?  If I don’t have the right to do this myself, why is it any better if I act by proxy through the Federal Government?  The neutral “raising revenue” for your moral social programs is outright theft, money taken by threat of force from individuals with no choice but to surrender their money or surrender their liberty.

Even beyond the moral issues of funding, I believe that “government run” itself is a recipe for disaster.  Government claims that they will find “efficiencies” and will make health care more affordable by “taking the profit out”.  Perhaps you missed Econ 101 – the profit is what brings investment dollars into the field in the first place.  Government is and will always be a tool enslaved to the present – an entity seeking to placate the greatest number of current voters at the least current cost.  In the process we’ve racked up $50+ trillion in unfunded mandates “in the future”, and seem determined to double down in this administration.  In contrast, the profit motive drives automobiles, computer technology, and most of the economy in this country.  Yes, the odd GM may drive itself out of business, but were Americans seriously worried that there would be no cars available?  Profit ensures that cars will be made in the quantities Americans desired, and profit ensured that eco-friendly hybrids became available when they were feasible and the demand had built.

These “glorious” social programs are often spoken in terms of mandates – ideas with massive popular support who’s “time has come”.  If this is indeed true, then why is it necessary to pass a government program to make it work – simply open the “Universal Health Care” charity and let the massive number of supporters fund it with their own voluntary donations.  This requires no votes, no taxes, and cannot be obstructed by your political opponents.  The only downside is that you cannot compel donations in a false moral crusade – you must persuade people to voluntarily surrender their hard-earned money to your cause.  If your “mandate” is comprised primarily of net consumers instead of net payers, then your “mandate” reduces to people voting themselves someone else’s money.  That you see no issue with this fact makes me wonder how many of the massive intellects on the left are merely well-schooled idiots spouting pleasant but impossible fictions to a clueless audience.

As for what I want from governmnet, it’s very simple.  Get out of my life and out of my way.  Stop making laws banning activities or items that make you “uncomfortable” but have not been shown to have any positive effect on reducing criminal activities.  Stop inventing “rights” from “emenations and penumbras” that we all “must embrace” while running roughshod over our existing rights.  Stop assuming that you know better than I how to spend my own money, and stop assuming that as Americans we must all act the same way and should all be shielded from the “hard decisions” by the hand of government.  Finally, stop thinking that “winning” means that you can ignore the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution to all Americans regardless of who is currently in power.  Please ask yourself … are your modern Intolerable Acts worth the price they’ll ultimately extract from the country?