The Goal of Government Health Care

Here are the first two paragraphs of New Mexico Senator Tom Udall's response to an e-mail urging him to vote "No" on the health care bill presently before the Senate:

"This past weekend, the Senate took an important step toward providing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans by voting to begin debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This bill is a solid foundation for debate and I'm confident that it will save lives, save jobs, save money and save Medicare.

"This reform will provide the help that the one in four New Mexicans without health insurance so greatly need. And not only is it fully paid for, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of this bill shows it will actually reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the first ten years."

This is a typical instance of how politicians respond to constituent's communications---and what they reveal about their own goals.

The Senate did indeed take "an important step." What is the goal of that step?

Senator Udall claims that government health care provides "quality, affordable health coverage." But it has been well documented that under government health care, medical quality declines and research stagnates. Medical professionals become over-loaded with work. They are crushed with fatigue and mind-stultifying paper work. Performance suffers. Improvements in techniques, procedures and medicines slow, eventually to cease. Similarly, the long lines, the postponed treatment, the uncertainty of being able to obtain proper treatment, the anxiety attendant upon being forced to trust those one has not chosen, affects patients deleteriously. The "quality" of government health care will be poor.

Is poor health care the goal of the Senate's "important step?" Most people in poor health do not have much physical or mental stamina. It is difficult to focus one's mind on one's work and plans---let alone cultural problems---even when one has a bad cold. That difficulty increases drastically when one is in seriously poor health. But surely politicians do not really want to impose poor health upon Americans. Do they?

Let's see. The government produces nothing. It earns no money. Its notion of "affordable health coverage" means stealing from those who have earned their money and giving it to those who have not. But those stolen dollars do not go to the medical professional. It goes to bureaucrats and politicians who dole out medical services by pull and favor. Meanwhile, medical professionals will be forced to work for less than their skills deserve. Mr. Obama has said, he will decide what doctors are paid.

What does this do to a mind that must focus on complex procedures, weigh scores of variables, examine dozens of possible avenues to solve a medical problem? How long can a mind accept such injustice? Will it be rendered malleable under such duress? Does over-work kill one's capacity to protest such an invasion of one's life and work? Is this the goal of politicians' "important step?"

Udall claims that government health care "will save lives, save jobs, save money and save Medicare." How does one save Medicare by cutting it drastically and adding 30 million more patients to its rolls? Certainly, government health care will save politicians' lives since they will be exempt from it. It will save politicians' jobs, too, since Americans will be legally prohibited from refusing government health care. We can't hold them responsible if we break the law. The jobs of politicians will not be threatened. Ours will.

Government health care will surely result in more money for politicians. The more bills passed, the more politicians will rake in money from bribes, deals, extorted sums and lucrative favors. This could be construed as "saving" their money. Is that the goal? To control our pocketbooks?

Think again. The working of your mind is the motor that earns your income. Your income pays for your food; so, any regulation on what you earn is in effect a regulation on your mind. Regulations on your health choices and preferences are of the same kind. That is the goal toward which politician's "important steps" are taken. And that is what government health care is all about. It is about control of you and your choices, i.e. your mind.

Mind control? No. What is happening today is not a matter of some injection that overrides your mental functions. It is an attempt to control your actions, which are the result of your thinking---or lack of it---by making you think that government health care is "helping others." Senator Udall states that government health care will "help . . . one in four New Mexicans without health insurance [they] so greatly need."

You've been taught ad nauseum that helping others is vastly important; so, you might forget that Americans are the most generous people on earth. They have the most charities, philanthropic organizations, foundations and free clinics. You might also forget to ask about the other three New Mexicans who will be forced to pay for that one. Why must others fork over their paycheck to provide him with coverage he either doesn't want or need?

Senator Udall claims government health care "will actually reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the first ten years." This is a lie. The present Medicare program shows that government health care increases costs and spending. A $898 billion health care plan cannot reduce a deficit. One cannot reduce one's debt by increasing one's spending.

Come 2010, such politicians as Udall on every level must be swept out of office.

Water and Health Care: A Parallel

From the time I arrived on Albuquerque, New Mexico's West Side some 14 years ago, I was impressed with New Mexico Utilities, the private enterprise that supplied our water. They did a superior job of keeping our water clean, fresh tasting and odor-free. They sent out periodic questionnaires to discover our concerns and/or grievances. One of their employees went from house to house to check on customer satisfaction. Their personnel were courteous and helpful. Because of my water-conserving methods, my bill was lowered.

About a year ago, the Albuquerque Water Authority unilaterally decided to take over New Mexico Utilities. Westsiders were dismayed. We had not been consulted. The West Side Coalition held a town hall in order to find out what we thought. Both New Mexico Utilities and the city were invited to present its case. The meeting hall was quite full. At least 200 residents attended. We listened to arguments and looked at charts and graphs for about 2 hours.

Afterwards a vote was taken whether to keep New Mexico Utilities or to switch to government management of water. Ninety-eight percent of the citizens expressed their satisfaction with New Mexico Utilities and voted to keep them.

The Water Authority ignored us. They forced New Mexico Utilities out of business. The result was a lowering in the quality of our water and a raising of rates that increased every month. Now and then the water has an unpleasant odor. It's expected to get worse.

Although I had not changed the amount of water I used and continued to use the same water-conserving methods, the Water Authority increased my bill by $8. I called the Water Authority to ask why. They claimed I was using more water. They were not helpful. They were rude and snippy.

There is nothing I can do. They are in complete control of our water. They are a monopoly. They are competing with no one for customer satisfaction.

There’s a parallel here that most readers will grasp. When government forces out private enterprise, the quality of product and/or service goes down, the price goes up. You can bet that the same thing will happen should we allow government to take over the health care industry.

The Undisclosed Danger of Government Health Care

Government health care is not concerned with patients. Politicians' interest is primarily focused on the productive---in the U.S., about one-third the population. Government has no income other than what it confiscates from the productive. So, promises of "affordable health care" depend on the able while devouring life from them. In other words, parasitism.

Some people seem oblivious to this. A man wrote on Twitter, "I'm a socialist and proud of it." Whatever he may feel about being a socialist, pride is not a virtue possible to a looter and a parasite. Blood lust is.

State planning demands obedience. For example, Organizing for America held a meeting in Belen, New Mexico on government health care. OFA would not allow any expression of opposition. They told dissenters to "Sit down!"-meaning: "and shut up!" They became angry when questioned. They spoke to one of the dissenters using coarse language. They put obscene notes in other dissenters' vehicles and ignored those who complained about such conduct.

Such creatures abound in government health care. It is common knowledge, for instance, that those in state-run sanitariums, asylums, and senior care centers are sickeningly abused. Little is done about it. The government is in charge.

Interfering with impunity in other people's lives and property is characteristic of those who advocate government health care. Some time ago, Wal-Mart announced its support of socialized medicine. It wrote, "[T]he best way to lower costs is by managing the supply chain [meaning the medical professions] and encouraging efficiencies of scale [meaning medical rationing]."

"Managing" those who aren't employed by you is a euphemism for violating others' individual rights. Those who took over Sam Walton's extraordinary achievement are helping to destroy what made it possible. They are evading the importance of individual rights, which protects private property and promotes innovative thinking.

They're not the only ones evading facts. The AARP declares "need is a right," while seeking to deny rights to those they plan to force to fill those needs. But need is not a right. No one has a right to other peoples' work and effort wrested from them by force-legalized or not. Yet the AARP says force is a proper means of dealing with individuals. They say might makes right.

So does Mr. Obama. He declared that he will set doctors' fees based not on how many patients the doctor treats, not on his specialty, not on how many hours he works, but on the patient's improvement. Mr. Obama evidently does not grasp that medical problems characteristically are replete with numerous variables and that results of medical treatment are not as predictable as sunrises. Should we trust such stupefying ignorance?

Mr. Obama has no understanding of the free market. In a free-market, the patient judges a doctor's performance, not a politician. If the patient is dissatisfied with the doctor's performance, he can sue for malpractice. He can seek out another doctor. He can persuade others to boycott the doctor and drive him out of business. He can write to newspapers describing the doctor's performance. He can complain to whatever associations the doctor is a member of.

Government health care offers no alternatives. The state dictates. The doctor must obey. And so must the patient. Like the doctor, the patient under government health care is frozen into a system that is riddled with irrational requirements dreamed up by politicians and their lackeys. The dream revolves around control of the able.

Whether doctor, businessman, blue or white-collar worker, it is the able that make life worth living. It is the able that stand with the facts of reality against fallacies and falsehoods. It is the able that earn the money that pay politicians salaries. It is the able that politicians seek to control.

Government officials seek to force their edicts between doctor and patient, declaring that their force is superior to your choice. They seek to insert ignorance and suspicion between knowledge and trust, declaring that their say-so is superior to a physician's knowledge and judgment honed by medical experience, and to a patient's evaluation and decision.

But the mind cannot be ruled by force. Those that can, are incapable of creating anything. They can only destroy. Such minds are those of thugs and goons, the lowest ranks of society.

Thought does not function efficaciously under threats. Minds that are able, shut down under force or the threat of force. In medicine, force discourages interest in a medical career. The number of doctors declines; the quality of medicine follows suit. Research and development becomes sluggish, eventually ceasing altogether. This is the undisclosed danger of government health care.

Destroying another's rights does not guarantee health care. A right yoked to a bureaucrat's whim is not a right. "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights.") To destroy one man's rights is to destroy all men's rights. To destroy the rights of doctors and patients is to turn a nation into warring camps and those needing medical attention into numbers on a waiting list.

Either doctors are free to work unfettered by government edict or they are not. Either we are free to choose our doctor or we are not. Either each of us is free to earn our own way, keep what we earn and decide how to dispose of it, or we relinquish that freedom to government officials---which means, we relinquish our individual rights of life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Pelosi Terror: Guillotine The Rich

Nancy Pelosi wants government to take over health care. But there's a snag. At present the yearly income level at which Americans will be slapped with an onerous tax increase, is set at $250,000.

Pelosi's own salary is presently $223,500 per annum, which does not include perks such as free travel and postage and so forth. With a yearly cost of living increase of 2.5%, she will soon reach the $250,000 category. So, she's seeking to raise the income level to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families.

In a recent interview pleasantly discussing her desire to slaughter the very rich, Pelosi remarked that if individuals hear that those making one-half million or more will be heavily taxed to pay for the government's health care program, they will be relieved, exclaiming, "My God, that's not me."

Consider the import of such a statement. Pelosi knows that high taxation is destructive. She also knows that high taxes have an adverse affect on the desire to earn more. She knows that those who are below the kill-line will not be motivated to penetrate it.

A yearly salary of $223,500 is a lot of money. Who pays Ms. Pelosi's salary? You do. The taxpayer. Is your employee listening to you? She is not. After the rich have been guillotined to support socialized medicine for a year or two, your taxes will be raised to continue the government charade. Is she working in your interest? She is not. A rich American means more savings, more investments in new business, more jobs, a higher standard of living nationally. Sending them to the guillotine means sending you.

During the interview, Pelosi claimed, "Americans want government health care." Is she telling the truth?

A Gallup poll showed that in interviews with 3,026 adults, 18 years of age and older, conducted in 2009, from July 10 to July12, 56% favored and 33% opposed Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Gallup stated that most of the questions were asked of only 1,518 individual adults, with a sampling error of plus/minus 3 %. That means about 850 Americans favor and 501 Americans oppose health care reform. Out of a population of almost three hundred million, no matter whether using 1,518 or 3,026, the number does not constitute "all" Americans.

But wait. Suppose one looks at what these Americans favor or oppose. Saying that one favors government health care reform does not mean favoring government health care. With all the corruption and high prices government has caused, reform understandably would be on one's mind these days. So, it's no surprise that the same poll found that 52% to 42% of the 1,518 polled---that is, approximately 789---said that controlling costs is more crucial than expanding coverage. Does that mean that all of those 789 are enamored with government health care? It does not. It simply means they are concerned with costs. One cannot conclude from this that "all" Americans want government health care. What they want is less expensive care. Who does not?

But will government health care give it to them? Today, under partial control of government medicine, fraud amounts to $68 billion a year. Fraud drives up costs. With a government monopoly of health care, fraud will be considerably worse. The cost of health care under government will skyrocket. Establishing free-market medicine will bring costs down.

During the interview, Pelosi stated, "Every single person in America is an expert on his or her health care."

This is true, so why does she claim the government knows best how to take care of their medical problems? Such a question was not raised. Instead Pelosi referred to regional, generation, and ethnic differences, then stated that she and her cohorts want the government health care plan to work for the entire country, ending with the remark: "So, we have to listen to everybody," she said.

Such a statement would be laughable were it not so flagrantly dishonest. Pelosi like so many of her colleagues does not listen to her constituents. She is not listening to any American who opposes her and flatly refuses to recognize the existence of dissenting points of view. She is determined to have her way no matter how many Americans are rendered destitute, no matter how greatly the economy suffers, no matter how many jobs are lost through the impoverishment of the producers/earners.

"Death to Aristos!" shouted the sans-culottes during the French Terror. Pelosi is fully sympathetic to that point of view.

------------------------------###--------------------------------

Suggested Reading:
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson