Government-run health care is the most cold-hearted, iron-fisted and authoritarian form of health service in existence, and the depth of deception intended to hide that fact is on display throughout the health care debate. Take, for instance, the false assertion that 47 million people are without health insurance. In truth, 7 million of them are not US citizens, 9 million are persons on Medicaid, 3.5 million are already eligible for government health programs, and 20 million live in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level. Despite insistence from politicians, our current healthcare system leaves less than 10 million people without legitimate access to coverage.
Yet if there are still poor and disadvantaged people without health care, why are they not covered under Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP? Medicare alone has over $30 trillion in growing unfunded liabilities, yet despite overspending, it has apparently not accomplished its purpose. If the objective of the left is to use the tools of government to rescue the remaining 10 million uninsured, why not reform the already existing government programs? The reason is simple. The purpose of national health care is not to insure the uninsured, but rather to acquire power and divest[[divert]] liberty from the individual.
The introduction of a government health care plan is designed to destroy private markets, as it will be heavily subsidized through taxpayer funding. Yet once the government dominates the market, it will be faced with the realities of supply and demand. Without the ability to raise prices on patients, the national provider will be forced to enact wage controls on doctors and enforce rationing of the most basic services. With lower potential for profit, fewer doctors will enter the market, leading to unimaginable and often deadly waiting lists. The poor, sick and elderly will be the first victims of denied services in the state’s desperate attempt to balance its books.
To see the effects of single-payer health care, we need only look within our own borders. Consider the case of Barbara Wagner, a resident of Oregon and participant in her state’s government health care. Barbara suffered from recurrent lung cancer, but the state did not cover an expensive drug that could have potentially prolonged her life. After learning of her desperate case, the pharmaceutical company that invented the drug gave it to her for free. Fortunately for Barbara, a far more advanced and compassionate private market still existed.
Once the government controls your health, there is no escaping its clutches. A politburo will determine what drugs should be administered or denied, how long one must wait for services and ultimately, who lives and dies. Thus the debate between government run health care and free market solutions is, at its core, a choice between preserving your liberty or giving your life to the government. Single-payer health care is the ultimate form of modern day servitude, and it is our duty as Americans to reject it.
