The Battle over Health Care Reform

I'll admit that I'm not well-versed on all the issues in this debate, but I know some of you are, so I wanted to get your comments and insights. Here is insight #1 I picked up from a co-worker who is an Iraqi War Vet:

We were discussing the topic of health care over lunch one day. Another co-worker asked him why he hopes Pres. Obama's health care reforms don't pass. He simply replied, "go spend a day at the VA Hospital and I guarantee you wouldn't hope the reforms pass either." He then outlined a long laundry list of the problems he's experienced firsthand that result when the government bureaucracy comes between doctors and their patients. It was a real (scary) eye-opener for me.

Insight #2: On ABC's "Prescription For America" program, completely unbiased as the name indicates, a neurologist really put Obama on the spot. He suggested that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public while they themselves are secure in the knowledge that if they or their loved ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance. The neurologist then asked Obama if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick, noting that various independent studies show that Obama's proposed "public option" would actually limit tests and treatments. Visibly flustered by the question, Obama refused to make the promise and quickly changed the subject. Ouch - I'm sure this didn't help the marketing campaign for Obamacare, especially coming off the heels of Obama's personal physician for 22 years, Dr. David Scheiner, coming out and saying, "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care."

For my part, I'm naturally skeptical of a government takeover of anything (as you'll remember from reading my posts about GM), especially if it comes with a CBO-announced price tag of another 1.6 trillion over the next decade. I'm puzzled why so many believe that more money, higher taxes, and more government involvement in our lives will magically solve all of our problems. Throw more money and more government regulation at the problem, and it will go away. I'm not convinced that this is an effective approach. The patience of the public is growing thin. How many billions/trillions has the government spent trying to turn the economy around? Yet the unemployment rate continues to spike. While I realize there are problems with the health care status quo, things could be much worse . . .

Herding Cats

Last Thursday night I attended a meeting at Mt. Logan Middle School. About 150 people attended. It was sponsored by the "Independent Caucus" and included several speeches and presentations, generally designed to tap into dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country.

While I was sitting in between two friends, I penned the following observation:

"Getting large numbers of people who believe in independence to unite in a common cause is like herding cats."

That occurred to me because each speaker, in turn, was admonishing people in the audience to get out and protect the Constitution and their rights against intrusion and interference. But when asked what specifically a person can or should do, they seemed stumped. To their credit, they did not say "Follow me blindly and help me throw off the yoke of despotism." But this dilemma is an organic obstacle to well-organized resistance to socialism. Those who oppose governmental control of their lives are by the same nature disinclined to commit their loyalty to any political organization.

Government Motors and the Law of Unintended Consequences

If anyone still reads this blog, you probably know GM is bankrupt, and after [another] 30 billion dollars down the drain, Obama has made sure that the federal government will be the majority shareholder when all is said and done. So what will the future hold? Here's a sneak peak. . .

Now that the government has its sought-after mechanism to coerce us into smaller, more fuel efficient hybrid cars, despite their weak demand and high prices, expect to be called 'unpatriotic' if you have the nerve to get behind the wheel of a gas-guzzling truck or SUV. Forgive the pun, but is there a better vehicle to kick-start the government's "enlightened" green energy policies than to nationalize the country's largest auto company? How will the government protect "our" investment (aka bailouts)? Here comes the parade of inevitables . . .

Declining sales of Chevy's and Hemi's will prompt tax breaks for their buyers and higher taxes for those who buy other brands. Then tariffs on imports will go up, and foreign factories in the U.S. will be subject to Value Added Taxes to subsidize unsold government cars, leading to a trade war. And because the federal government has no clue how to operate anything for a profit, the taxpayers will continue to subsidize the losses of Government Motors: tens of billions more coming in bailouts. And because the money supply is finite, the only way for GM to succeed in the long run will be if the government substantially reduces competition from foreign brands and jacks up gas taxes. Higher gas prices will then push Ford into bankruptcy (its profitable truck and SUV sales are keeping it afloat). Michael Moore is already on the war path, pushing for an additional $2 per gallon gas tax, and I'm not even kidding - check his website.

So can the Obama administration assume that GM consumers will remain loyal after the government takeover? Don't hold your breath. When your favorite restaurant comes under new ownership, and that ownership is notorious for serving bad food elsewhere, do you keep eating there? Maybe if you want food poisoning. I predict that many consumers have bought their last GM product. Why?

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises put it this way: "The real bosses in the capitalist system are the consumers. By their buying and abstention of buying, they decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. They are no easy bosses. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. With them nothing counts more than their own satisfaction."

Which cars will better "satisfy" consumers - those produced by a government-owned and operated company, or those cars produced by a privately-owned company? As long as there are better alternatives to what the government puts out (bet on it!), GM will never be profitable. Therefore, Obama will have to monopolize most of the U.S. auto fleet to truly succeed with GM. Half-way measures won't do. Just ask USPS about their competitive disadvantages in operating against FedEx, UPS, etc. Either get out now, or go all in! I think you already know which option I prefer :)