I agree with Dr./Rep. Paul. Healthcare is not a right! We are no more entitled to healthcare than we are to a new car. (Oops, I guess that many think that a new car is a right as well. e.g.: "Cash for Clunkers".)
The government should be out of healthcare altogether (and retirement for that matter - social security). But let's not stop there. Funding healthcare (or retirement - 401k's) shouldn't be an employers' problem either. It is ridiculous to me how much we have messed-up something that is quite simple. Employees should be paid in wages for the work they perform. What is done with those wages is the responsibility of each individual. Individuals can purchase health insurance (and save for retirement), or they can choose to pay for services when the need arises.
If someone’s wages are too small to save for healthcare (and retirement), or they have been reckless and neglected to save for a "rainy day", then they ought to be left to the mercy of their church, private charities, and/or family for assistance. And yes, care could be rejected if there isn't the means to pay for these services. I realize that this may violate the Hippocratic Oath, but I cite 2 Thes. 3:10 in case one would accuse me of being un-Christian.
-
The only exceptions in this situation would be for individuals who are handicapped (physically and mentally) and to children who have been neglected or orphaned. Even in those cases I don't think that direct public funds would necessarily need to be used. Instead I would advocate that tax deductions would be extended to institutions for the services that they have provided.
-
I think that we would all be very surprised at the number of things (cable TV, cell phones, cigarettes, etc.) that some people would be willing to live without under this scenario. But those type of reasonable lifestyle choices won't seem like anything compared to the sacrifices that will need to be made when the overwhelming cost of government run healthcare takes its toll on us. Rationing will come either in the form of significantly reduced disposable income (due to increased taxation), or in the quality of healthcare that is provided. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch (especially if that lunch is prepared by an inefficient bureaucracy).
-
A better alternative would be if more tax incentives were offered that encouraged an increase in charitable giving. More funds would go to private, not-for-profit, organizations that have a personal and caring interest in helping to assist the needy with healthcare services (organizations that value the sanctity of life).
-
Also, in contrast to taxation, giving is discretionary. This results in individuals having the choice as to where, and in what amount, they give their hard earned dollars. Plus, these organizations are held accountable to provide the services that they promise in an efficient manner or their funding dries up.
-
The problem is that under President Obama's tax plan, itemized tax deductions for charitable giving will be capped for those earning more than $250,000 a year. These changes will be phased in over a few years. According to the Wall Street Journal, instead of receiving a 33% or 35% deduction for charitable donations, in 2010 top income earners will only receive a deduction somewhere around 28%. The government knows that they are competing for dollars with charitable organizations, and they intend to grab as much as possible. Make no bones about it, the end game is not about the public good, it's about money and control.
Additionally, market competition is always a major key to keeping costs down. The government’s role should be to encourage competition. Government ought to be an elected and accountable referee, if you will, that makes and enforces the rules that foster competition, fair play, and public safety in the marketplace. It should not be a participant in, or an alternative to, the marketplace. Of course this leads into issues regarding massive special interest contributions, which ought to be eliminated.
Many may feel that this view is far to laissez-faire, but I argue that it beats the alternative. A system based on personal and governmental accountability, is superior to one that pits economic classes against each other in order to empower and enrich a select political oligarchy that is more concerned with themselves than the people they represent.
I realize that this may be "pie in the sky" thinking. In reality I don't believe that this type of "fair & free" market system will ever be adopted again. However, it makes me all the more excited for when Christ will reign, and all of this is laid to rest. Until then, endure worldly socialism comrades.
No comments:
Post a Comment