Diary

9/1/2009

Through all the bickering and claims and high hopes and back-and-forth of the “health care” debate, I can’t help but feel that most everyone is being duped by a carefully calculated diversionary tactic. It seems silly any time you find yourself pondering conspiracy theories, but there is actually credence to this one.

Valid and credible skepticism and disagreement of the intentions and objectives of America’s Affordable Health Care Choices of 2009 are essentially endless. We have readily available information soundly proving that the goals of this bill are riddled with unintended consequences and unrealistic assumptions. It is a provable certainty that the overall health care experience in this country will be severely depressed should this type of legislation be enacted.

But what if this is understood by the originators of this bill? What if our President and those advising him know that the health care industry will be irreversibly transformed in a way that results in slower, lower quality, rationed services for all citizens? Why would they want that?

There does exist an ideology that can justify this objective. Certain people hold the belief that it is unjustifiable that access and consumption of health care services may be defined by an individual’s ability and willingness to pay for it. They believe that it is inherently unfair that one person is able to receive a different health care experience than another person, whether by choice or financial constraint. In summary, disparity in health care outcomes is evil and must be eliminated.

How does the legislation in H.R. 3200 address this problem? It effectively provides a mechanism to slowly but surely remove individual choice from the equation. The government will act as the arbitrator to guarantee equitable outcomes amongst everyone. But does “equitable” in regards to everyone else mean that you will receive an equal or better experience than you currently do? Absolutely not!

Like any other good or service, health care is defined by a finite supply that we all demand. The intensity of what we demand is driven by all of our decisions as individuals. Practically all people experience conditions throughout life that require us to consume health care services. The crucial aspect of this is that we hold the responsibility and ultimate choice. This fact is so important because it is the most effective way to achieve the most optimal supply of health care to meet the demand.

This holds true because health care is a commodity just like anything else, no matter how much someone tries to elevate it to a sacred entitlement. Not anyone can become a doctor or health care professional. Statistically speaking, a very small percentage of the population is intellectually capable and/or academically driven enough to acquire the necessary skills. Because of this, maintaining a supply large enough to meet the demand is extremely difficult. Like it or not, health care is a scarce resource. There will never be enough to totally satisfy the demand.

The legislation being discussed is so dangerous because it drastically affects the supply/demand balance of health care. There is no doubt that the changes, if enacted, will reduce the supply of doctors. Fixing wages has never served to increase the supply of those entering or staying in a given occupation, especially one as highly specialized as medicine. Also, demand will increase by many magnitudes if millions of individuals are no longer constrained by cost. A basic economic fact is that when cost is removed, consumption increases.

What is the likely resulting scenario? Those who are currently classified as being neglected by the health care system will receive no better care, and more likely will receive degraded care. Those who are today receiving satisfactory or excellent health care will experience a significant decline. But the most relevant outcome to proponents is the resultant lessening of the gap between the privileged and under-privileged. It is of no importance that all people receive a lower absolute level of health care services, but rather that the disparity of outcomes is reduced to a more uniform and acceptable measurement.

This theme is not unique to health care, but rather is the central purpose of the liberal agenda. It is Marxist in its roots, and has undergone a modern-day transformation to regain appeal to the masses. We are now experiencing a full court press by an ideology that has regrouped after failures throughout the world, and now understands how to achieve its objectives in the civilization that has consistently and successfully rejected its false promises and avoided the guaranteed despotism and misery. It is imperative that we understand this reality, stop this slide into disaster, and return to a government guided by the Constitution.