Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 09/21/09 10:06 AM Last updated 09/21/09 10:23 AM [Newer: Government is really bad at protecting the little guy] [Older: Health care is unequivocally not a right]

Over the last couple of weeks, I've participated in a letter-to-the-editor exchange with a local high school social studies teacher on the subject of government-provided health care. (My previous blog post, Health care is unequivocally not a right, which was featured on the Campaign for Liberty front page on September 11, includes both letters.)

Scott Urban's reply to me was published on September 17, where he argued that the Golden Rule should apply to health care:

Either health care is an unalienable right or it is unequivocally not a right. We have a choice.

This is the fundamental argument underlying the health care reform debate today. How we, as a people, respond shall determine the well-being of countless future generations of yet unborn citizens.

Which vision for America's future do you embrace?

I presented my liberal vision (published Sept. 4) and Jon Kovaciny delivered his conservative rebuttal, published Friday.

I was saddened to read on the eighth anniversary of the greatest act of terror in American history, that some had forgotten how our neighbors and our government rallied to aid those who lost everything. The better angels of our national character inspired Americans to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This powerful concept eloquently describes a universal ethic of reciprocity. The Golden Rule motivated our nation after 9/11 to care for each other and today it inspires the crusading spirit of health care reform. Those who share this ideal, recognize the unalienable right to medical care and a shared social responsibility to ensure equal human rights for all.

As a liberal, I believe that our neighbors should be treated with equal consideration, equal respect, equal compassion and equal medical care.

We, the people, are the government. We are our neighbor's keepers in times of war and peace. We made that irrevocable commitment with the radification [sic] of the Constitution.

Today, my liberal conscience demands all Americans have healthcare at all times and in all ways, regardless of their wealth. What do you think?

What is your conscience telling you?

I couldn't leave it at that, of course, so I sent in my reply right away, which is published in today's issue. Unlike last time, the editors didn't make any changes to my submission.

In his Your View reply published Friday, Scott Urban implied that my disapproval of government-provided health care indicates a selfish and uncaring attitude toward those in need. He also neglected to answer a single point I raised.

Urban chains together these words: consideration, respect, compassion, medical care. The first three are worthy attitudes we should all hold; the fourth is an action. It is our individual responsibility to act on these attitudes in the form of charitable giving and volunteerism.

Delegating this responsibility to the government is neither charitable nor truly compassionate: If I take $100 from my neighbor and give it away, that is not my compassion at work, but my desire to seize his money for a cause I support. Interposing a layer or two of government doesn't magically make it ethical, regardless of how noble the cause or how "selfish" my neighbor appears. Perhaps my neighbor would rather donate that $100 elsewhere, or employ someone for a day, or even purchase something, which employs others.

It is not the government's role to decide what our actions should be and impose them. Nor is it the beneficiary's right to receive any generosity, it is their blessing. We should exchange needed support through family, friends, and charitable institutions. The government's so-called "safety net" has eroded these important community connections and depersonalized the acts of giving and receiving. This depersonalization makes it easy to ask for help when one doesn't sincerely need it, which leads to overuse and dependency.

I suggest that Urban, along with all voters, read Col. Davy Crockett's 1884 speech to Congress, "Not Yours to Give", and view "The Philosophy of Liberty" on jonathangullible.com.

Credit where it's due: a couple of passages in my letter were originally written by a friend who gave his permission to reuse them.

The speech and video I to which I referred: Not Yours to Give and The Philosophy of Liberty.

Posted 09/21/09 11:27 AM steve5044 New York, NY

spoken like an upper middle class white guy who has never had to worry about losing his health insurance or had a medical emergency. you clearly lack basic economic knowledge outside the few books by Austrians you may have read, much less a clear grasp for health economics. did it ever occur to you the current system how the current system is robbing the average person of liberty?

Posted 09/21/09 11:39 AM Alan Smith Austin, TX

Love it!

Posted 09/21/09 11:44 AM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

steve5044, the current system is terrible. The proposed system is worse. Also, I am far from an "upper middle class white guy who has never had to worry about losing his health insurance or had a medical emergency". Our health care system is already littered with government intervention. This is the cause of the problem, not the solution to it.

Posted 09/21/09 12:03 PM RiverRock Concord, NC

I completely agree with your arguments. I just don't understand the part where you say health care is unequivocally not a right. I think health care is a right that should not be obstructed or distorted by government (like it is currently). It is a part of the right to life? Just like someone said before, we have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean the government is allowed to take money from someone else and buy me guns. It just means the government can't do anything to stop citizens from "bearing arms".

Posted 09/21/09 12:15 PM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

We have a right to health, and we have a right to purchase or produce health care, but we do not have a right to health care itself.

Posted 09/21/09 12:32 PM steve5044 New York, NY

If you believe government intervention is the cause of our healthcare issues and the free market is the solution, you badly misunderstand healthcare economics. First, go to the CMS site and study cost trends under Medicare. How is it Medicare can cover the oldest and by definition the sickest slice of the population, yet keep medical costs lower by 100 bps over the last 25 years relative to the insurance companies? http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf Heal th insurers follow a very simple model: revenues (our premiums) minus costs (medical costs) = profits. You are a cost to the insurer, and under a free market, it is the insurers duty to lower costs by denying coverage when you get sick, deny pre-existing conditions (and yes, pregnancy is a pre-existing condition…how does that make you feel ladies?). What happens when an insurance companies may miss their EPS target? They certainly won't lower their administration costs or salaries. They find (make up) ways to deny coverage, all in the name of the free market. This is an absolute 100% fact. You ok with this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html So why in the middle of a nasty recession are insurance premiums going up on average 10% this year? Because insurers know middle class workers will continue to sacrifice wage increases for coverage like they have for the last 10 years. And emoployers have tax incentives to provide insurance instead of wage increases. And this will continue. You call this liberty? I call this robbery. I believe in small government, but I also believe in my government standing up for what's right and defending my liberty when it's being stolen by greedy insurers in the name of capitalism. Most of the current proposals making their way through congress are terrible. But they are the step in the right direction, and better than the status quo. I am a free marketer and know the free market works for the vast majority of goods and services. It never has, and never will work for health care and insurance. One size fits all ideology's are just bad policy, whether you are a libertarian, Austrian, liberal, conservative, saltwater, etc…. Healthcare is absolutely a right. It sickens me people spend more time, money, and energy defending the 'right' to buy a semi automatic had gun than the 'right' to be able to see a doctor on a regular basis.

Posted 09/21/09 12:55 PM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

Health care cannot be a right because it must be provided by someone. You don't have a right to something that someone else must labor to produce. There is an amazing amount of government in our health care system already, including health insurance mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health Service, myriad regulations of all drugs, medical equipment, and services, personnel licensing requirements, etc., etc. Complying with these regulations is terrifically expensive and makes health care unaffordable; it also makes costs rise much faster than the general rate of inflation. Government wage controls during WWII led employers to add health benefits to attract employees, which coupled insurance to employment, which causes all sorts of problems and makes insurance unaffordable for the self-employed and those with part time jobs. (And it forces people to stay in jobs they hate so they don't lose benefits.) Insurance companies, when they operate free from the government intervention that changes them from what they should be--insurers against catastrophic loss--into byzantine third-party payment systems (what we have in health insurance today), are the ultimate safety net. Adding more government complexity to the mix will not improve what would otherwise be a simple and affordable system if the government would just get out of the way. If car insurance were run the same way as health insurance, we'd be crying for national car insurance reform right now, too. You'd need a full time job to get car insurance, and the govt would require all insurance plans to cover gasoline, oil changes, and repairs. All mechanics would have to be certified by a state board. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because someone else would be paying for it. Etc. We don't need a health care 'system' any more than we need a grocery system. If left alone, the market is easily able to provide for nearly everyone's needs, and the charity market is able to pick up the rest (since the costs have not been driven sky-high by govt interference).

Posted 09/21/09 1:09 PM RiverRock Concord, NC

Jonathan, would saying, we don't have a right to government forced/provided, welfare, health care be more accurate? Steve5044, health care is like it is because employer provided health insurance (caused by government policies since WWII), government regulations, and government huge subsidization from medicare and medicaid that completely distorts supply and demand. Under a free market (which just means all of us as a whole making decisions about what we want and what it is worth) insurance companies couldn't do what they are doing nor would the costs of health care be so outrageous. A free market is the fairest and most efficient way we have to distribute limited resources at this time in human development. A large central government over such a large country, by its very nature is the opposite of fair, and efficient.

Posted 09/21/09 1:21 PM nkleffman Austin, TX

RiverRock, You have a right to your own property, and you have a right to enter into contracts. Everything else is a privilege that is extended to you and can be withdrawn at any time for any reason. So you are correct, I have a right (to contract) for healthcare the same way I have a right to keep and bear arms, since the object of both rights is the property of my body that I have a responsibility to protect and to keep healthy. But like you say, that doesn't mean that government can steal money from my neighbor to supply me with a gun, just like they can't steal to supply me with health care. I would suggest watching Michael Badnarik's constitution class, or at least the first hour. It makes the rights / property issue as clear as night and day. http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html

Posted 09/21/09 1:23 PM huntingtonsteam Huntington Beach, CA

If the unconstitutional Fed did not have the monopoly over our money, if Congress again asserted its constitutional prerogative and had direct control over the value of money, if silver and gold coins once again were money and ceased to be commodities on the stock market, and some other basic ifs I left out then there would be no healthcare debate. The country would have industry ,the unit of exchange would no longer be primarily for speculative purposes only ( which is exactly what the 1913 Fed Reserve Act did, turn our dollar into a speculative instrument) but would be what it originally was , a unit for productive exchange, the citizens of our country would no longer be debt slaves to a debt money system. If this all were true NOW, there would be no debate and all the people who used to be fighting for an AUDIT OF THE FED NOW! but are being distracted by arguing about healthcare would be fighting for that Audit NOW!

Posted 09/21/09 1:27 PM steve5044 New York, NY

About the only part of your post I can agree with is yes the system is overly complicated and needs to be simplified. However, you are 100% wrong to believe "these regulations is terrifically expensive and makes health care unaffordable". Have you studied the financials of the health insurance industry? I have. A small percent of overall revenues goes to cover regulatory expense. Start here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156039/000119312509033022/0001193125 -09-033022-index.htm And you failed to explain how a free market insurance industry will cover someone diagnosed with childhood diabetes or some other chronic condition? So I guess they must find a high paying job that will cover these expenses? That doesn't sound like liberty to me. By definition, the free market excludes anyone w/ pre-existing conditions. If you don't see this, you have a naive (and wrong) assessment of the free market. Did you even read the NYT's article I posted? And we don't need a healthcare system? You're joking, right? Do you want to start saving 25% of your paycheck to cover a medical emergency like the Asians do? The US social safety net (Medicare, unemployment insurance, etc.) has prevented recession from being depressions many times over and provides entrepreneurs, workers etc. the confidence to take risks and benefit from these risks if they succeed, but not destroy their lives if they don't. This is why our growth has accelerated over the last 50 years relative to the rest of world. Failing to recognize this is simply wrong. This site, in general, has diminished in value lately. Most the recent posts on this site lack in depth analysis, statistics, facts, and knowledge.

Posted 09/21/09 1:36 PM steve5044 New York, NY

@RiverRock - I have read some thoughtful posts from you in the past. But on this, I respectfully disagree. Until you can explain to me why an insurance company would not drop me or raise my premiums exponentially the day I get cancer under a 100% free market system, then I'm onboard. Any other market for goods and services you are 100% correct. But not healthcare (nor banking..but that's a different topic).

Posted 09/21/09 1:49 PM DA521 Fair Lawn, NJ

Steve5044, Anybody who believes that there is such a thing as "healthcare" economics as opposed to shoes economics or food economics cannot be taken for somebody who actually has an intelligent criticism of anything related to this comment. Say what you want but to try to prop up your credibility by attacking Austrian economics and mentioning "healthcare" economics is going to work only with your other ignorant friends who are already on board with you. You are not even worth an intelligent response.

Posted 09/21/09 1:55 PM RiverRock Concord, NC

"And you failed to explain how a free market insurance industry will cover someone diagnosed with childhood diabetes or some other chronic condition?" That is a very good point, but it would not be in the scope of health insurance. I would say that most American's are very kind and generous when it comes to that and without the government forcefully taking half or more of what we make, generosity would more than cover the gap. For example, my mother had a brain tumor about 4 years ago. The stack of bills even with insurance was 8 inches thick and ridiculous. Without several different generous charities, and gifts from friends and family there is no way should could have gotten treatment. There were even several pilots that volunteered at no cost to fly her back and forth between Charlotte and Philadelphia to get treatment. I mean they went completely out of their way in kindness and even paid for hotel rooms and dinner for her at times. DA521 it is not good to debate things by attacking a person instead of countering their points. Discussing things like this is great and is the best way when in search of truth because we all bring different perspectives and variables that we otherwise might not think of. Kind of like how the constitution was so heatedly debated.

Posted 09/21/09 2:19 PM steve5044 New York, NY

Kudo to your friends and family RiverRock! That's awesome. I would hope if ever in the same position I would have friends and family to step up, unfortunantly, I doubt that will be the case. I don't claim to have any grand answer to this topic. I just look at the facts, and have studied the industry for a lot of years and recognize the limitations of free markets. In a perfect world, our government would have the teeth to regulate the industry. Unfortunantly, this is not the case. I was a healthcare analyst/investor for a long time, and I know the managements of these company's. They will bend rules and stretch the moral and legal limits in the name of free market capitalism to meet their EPS targets in a heart beat. As my years as an analyst, the kind of behavior in this article was common..even encouraged. As investors, we ate it up. I hope you'll take a few minutes to read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html

Posted 09/21/09 2:42 PM DA521 Fair Lawn, NJ

RiverRock, steve5044 is a waste of time! There is nothing to counter! It is crystal clear that he is advocating violence to a problem he does not want to understand. Steve5044 just wants to speak out what he believes in and propagate his ideological belief. He is not here to seriously debate or seek answers other then what he already “knows”. He criticizes Austrian economics and free markets when it is clear that he is not knowledgeable in either. He just knows it opposes his views. There is nothing you will say that will actually make this guy change his mind. He is NOT asking you for answers, he is telling them to you!

Posted 09/21/09 3:10 PM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

steve5044, your sec.gov link didn't work for me. And I didn't find anything of value in the NYT op-ed; it was just the feelings of one former health industry worker. In any case, since we have an extremely mixed market in health care (part free, part govt) it's going to be very difficult to get good information on our current system regardless of the source. > "And you failed to explain how a free market insurance industry will cover someone diagnosed with childhood diabetes or some other chronic condition?" This is not the function of insurance. Insurance is something to pool risk, not to pool known costs. > "Until you can explain to me why an insurance company would not drop me or raise my premiums exponentially the day I get cancer under a 100% free market system, then I'm onboard." Either your insurance company is violating your contract and you can take them to court, or you purchased a very cheap insurance policy. There should be language in the contract about when and how your premiums can be raised or you can be dropped. You can either pay more for a policy that cannot be dropped/raised, or you can pay less and take the risk. There's no reason (other that govt intervention) why an insurance company wouldn't run a new applicant through a battery of medical tests to derive a "health score" (similar to a credit score) and then provide a policy quote based on the person's perceived risk and desired coverage level.

Posted 09/21/09 3:22 PM steve5044 New York, NY

Jon - you kind of just proved my point. Insurance contracts are renewed annually, on average. No insurance company in their right mind would offer a contract for more than a few years. Premiums increases are pushed through on an annual basis. When I get cancer or if I change jobs and get sick in the interim, the insurance company will "run a new applicant through a battery of medical tests to derive a "health score" (similar to a credit score) and then provide a policy quote based on the person's perceived risk and desired coverage level." By definition I will be a riskier customer, so by definition the free market will 1)deny coverage 2)raise my rates. You think that's fair? Is there any way around this? You think people should be left untreated because they got sick by no fault of their and can't afford treatment? Sorry, that's not the country I want to live in, and unexcusable for the richest country in the world. Also, are you implying that someone born with or someone who contracted a chronic condition as a child is not deserving of care unless they are rich? The SEC link was for WellPoint's annual report. Take a look when you have some time you'll be amazed by how much of your premium $$ actually goes to benefits, and how much goes to the back pocket of executives, administration, etc. Regulatory expense is minimum. In fact, they spend more on lobbying and researching ways to deny coverage than on regulatory expense. And regarding the NYT article, did you miss the part where insurance companies paid out bonuses to employees who could find ways to deny coverage? This goes on constantly. Are you OK with that? Because that's what happens in a 100% free market.

Posted 09/21/09 3:27 PM AeroNumen Atlanta, GA

I've been reading the comments from the side, but I think it's really critical to pay attention to what Jonathan Kovaciny just brought up. But first: steve5044 has some valid concerns such as how can a free market ensure you won't get screwed over, etc. I wish that the link you posted about regulatory costs would show, maybe you can repost? I would wager that while some amount of money is spent on 'regulatory' costs (these are the costs associated with administration and filling out paperwork), there are also the costs that come from following regulations. These may not be perceived in the books of the insurance companies but are a result of being forced to cover things like breast implants (as an example) that go above and beyond what the purpose of insurance is. In that way, regulations pool actual risk with sustained costs that the insurance companies have to pay. That will drive up your costs because maybe you need a transplant, but your company has been regulated into providing viagra to lots of old people. The current system is no longer a risk pool as other insurance's are. This is one of the reasons why there is so much distortion in the market. I think this leads to steve's confusion about the system. He may be assuming that in a free market insurance companies would have to cover that kind of stuff. It doesn't make business sense to do so. To believe what he says, you also have to forget that government regulations keeps insurance companies within states so that moving requires getting new insurance and artificially subjecting more people to the 'pre existing condition" problem than would otherwise occur. How can you have a pre-existing condition if you are able to keep the same insurance company for long periods of time? In the same vein, if companies could compete across state lines, they may waive certain concerns to garner your business. This isn't possible in the current system. Back to Jonathan's comments. He hits the nail on the head when he says that you have a contract with the company, and it is up to the company to honor the contract. In cases where they do not, then you have every right to sue. That's the real job of the federal government, to protect your rights and property from others (not to take it and give it to others). And let's be real here, the free market is full of innovation. I'm sure that some enterprising individuals will find a way to create 'insurance' for chronic conditions like diabetes where people can pool their money and get discounted bulk rates with some distribution system. Maybe it won't work, I dunno, but the free market can allow people to try!

Posted 09/21/09 3:33 PM AeroNumen Atlanta, GA

steve said: " And regarding the NYT article, did you miss the part where insurance companies paid out bonuses to employees who could find ways to deny coverage? This goes on constantly. Are you OK with that? Because that's what happens in a 100% free market." Can you say with certainty that is what will happen? You're also predicating that comment on assuming we have a free market now, which I think everyone has done a great job showing is NOT the case. See what I said above and notice how regulations force companies to pay out for simple, consistent, and non life threatening issues. That drives costs up significantly by lumping occasional risk with consistent payouts. This means that to maintain profit insurance companies have to deny the high payout situations and maintain the profit margins on the consistent payout situations that they can predict and expect. I would posit that the issue you say will happen in a 100% free market is a result of intervention that skews the profit mechanism of true insurance. It's a tough point to argue, though, considering that I don't think you will agree that less government intervention will reduce costs. However, looking to plastic surgery and laser eye surgery (things that are 'usually' not covered by insurance) and how they have only come down in price is a good indication that less intervention lowers costs. Consider also that insurance companies do want profit, and that they lobby for strict, regulated control that allows them to earn huge profits. A truly free market would bankrupt companies that have to compete for people's affections because an insurance company that consistently denies coverage would not receive customers. In today's sytem the regulations kind of force the customer's hand (especially if the customer is getting insurance from an employer, that leaves so little choice in the matter)

Posted 09/21/09 3:36 PM slickrickjamesbrown Mountain View, CA

It seems to me that Mr. Urban has a pretty poor understanding of the Golden Rule.

Posted 09/21/09 3:52 PM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

Yes, steve, if you purchased a policy that allowed the company to raise your rates at will. In a free market, you could easily choose another policy with another company. You might even pay an agency for their recommendations on insurance companies, just like many people pay money to Consumer Reports for information on the quality of cars and appliances. I regularly see life insurance advertisements that say things like "your rates will never go up" and "no medical checks" etc. These policies cost more in the beginning because the insurance company has more risk to absorb.

Posted 09/21/09 3:52 PM Kyle Plymouth, MI

The crux of steve's argument is the following: "Also, are you implying that someone born with or someone who contracted a chronic condition as a child is not deserving of care unless they are rich?" This is NOT the purpose of health INSURANCE. Insurance is to mitigate RISK, i.e. a negative outcome with a relative statistical probability of not occurring. The preceding case is quite common; it is the moral responsibility of society to address it. It is not the fault of the child for being born the way it was. The question is whether this moral responsibility comes from the individual, or from the State to assert mandate this responsibility on all individuals. That is, to take the choice away. While there are moral implications for the individual to assist the under-fortunate, one cannot argue that it is justifiable to steal from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots." You concede that morality is arbitrary, rather than absolute, only the principle on which your original argument for providing assistance was founded. There can be no virtue without freedom. As a side note, I wanted to comment on steve's assertion that the US is the "richest country in the world." I find this amusing. If you assume in the aggregate, you must subtract debt from wealth to get an accurate picture of net worth of the country. Since the US is the largest debtor, with $12 trillion (loan to US by other countries!) it stands to reason that the US is not that wealthy after all. If it were so wealthy, why is the debt so large? Sure if I could borrow a trillion dollars per year, I could look pretty wealthy! If you want to look at per-capita, US is #6, #4 and #8 depending on who you ask. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Posted 09/21/09 3:54 PM Kyle Plymouth, MI

Correction: * You concede that morality is arbitrary, rather than absolute, only to concede the principle on which your original argument for providing assistance was founded.

Posted 09/21/09 4:07 PM DA521 Fair Lawn, NJ

Kyle, Actually, the US debt does not add anything to our statistical figures of wealth/capita when compared to other nations. This is because other countries are all compared according to a common currency such as the $. The non-productive aspect of the GDP resulting from government spending (including debt) would make other foreign currencies stronger. Yet in terms of GDP/capita in dollars, the US is still one of the wealthiest.

Posted 09/21/09 4:15 PM Kyle Plymouth, MI

DA521: One of the wealthiest, or the wealthiest? Can you prove this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita In the above, the US doesn't even fall in the top 10. I'm not sure if this is the metric you are referring to, so please follow up. The perceived wealth of the US (based on GDP, a fictional, inflated statistic in its own right) doesn't matter. My point is how can we even talk about a wealth of a nation that is in perpetual debt? If we could afford the services we already had, we wouldn't be in debt to begin with.

Posted 09/21/09 4:17 PM steve5044 New York, NY

@AeroNuman - thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post! I actually think we are on the same page in a lot of ways. The heart of my argument is not for more government intervention (in fact, I think we need less). My basic premise was the free market just breaks down for large portions of the population when it comes to healthcare. You just can't look at healthcare like shoes, TV's etc. Just doesn't work. I don't claim to have a grand answer, but I don't think more government intervention is the solution. However, nor do I think a purely free market is the solution. You were 100% right w/ the Viagra and implant example. I also agree 100% that it's completely asinine to not allow inter-state competition. This is silly. More competition would certainly bring innovation, and may even force contracts to be slightly longer than the 1 year average they are now (I still contend no company in any market would issue a policy for more than a few years..it's just bad economics.). However, one of the major problems of trying to instill more competition is the extremely high barriers to entry for an insurer. This would be difficult to overcome. With that said, if we could trust the government to be a stronger regulator to 1)prevent discrimination, 2)force coverage despite current health 3)and fix premium increases so they are treated equally across the board (i.e. just because I get cancer and you don't, my rates should not increase more than yours.) then I think we would see major improvements. Unfortunately, in a system where the current legislation is being written by two of the biggest whores to the industry (Baucus and Grassley) I'm not sure this is possible. In regards to insurance companies paying bonuses to employees for finding ways to deny coverage. Yes, I think this will always be a problem until a regulator with enough teeth is in place. I agree consumers eventually would start shifting share to the companies that don't do this, but 1)I would hate to be part of the transition 2)I'm not sure there is enough competition to prevent this from happening…it's a sort of unspoken collusion in the industry. @Kyle - thanks for referring to me as a 'have not'. What you call theft, I had to call healthcare for most of my life since I was on a public option. It did wonders for me, and provided phenomenal care (better than my Cadillac UNH care). The government paid for 100% of all my education as well…does that make me a criminal in your eyes? Oh, and because I busted my ass and took advantage of the 'theft', I pay more in taxes than 95% of people in this country. Pretty good investment by our government, if you ask me. And I stand corrected by my comment on richest country in the world. I was referring to aggregate GDP, which we are, but as you pointed out, on a per capita basis, we are not.

Posted 09/21/09 4:41 PM DA521 Fair Lawn, NJ

Kyle, I am not in perpetual debt. The government is because it has literally looted its own citizens and now it has done the same to foreign citizens. The debt will never be paid back and as far as I’m concerned, the government can go bankrupt tomorrow and end this ponzi-scheme. The sooner the better! It takes a wealthy nation for the government to have so much leverage that it can fool so many people into buying its debt. And as for steve5044, as I said before, he's a waste of time. He is here to advocate his statist violence and nothing more.

Posted 09/21/09 4:41 PM JasonSchultz Grovetown, GA

Stev5044 and everyone else, If health care were truly about healthcare, then it might be a discussion worth having. But it is about CONTROL. Also this administration (along with the last) has lied again and again (bringing home soldiers, no more torture, no more indefinite detentions, no more wire tapping, no more money to for the banker, etc), why would I trust them now! For example, if Obama is so sincere that "His" plan would not cover abortions, then how come such amendments to the bill has been shot down several times in the Senate? After his speech to Congress, he could have proposed such an amendment for his fellow Dems to implement the very next day, same with the illegal immigrants concern. Secondly look at the track record of the institutions that the Federal government has created to solve problems - Dept of Energy - Failing, Dept. of Educ. - Failing , Social Security - Bankrupt, etc. Steve, can you give me a list of even several departments or major government programs that run efficiently and effectively for the good of the people? Their track record is so poor, why would you trust your health (or anyone else that you love) to them? There are better solutions than this that don't require we give up our freedom to the government.

Posted 09/21/09 4:47 PM Kyle Plymouth, MI

@steve5044 I made no such implication that you are either a "have" or "have-not." I do not know who you are, so it would be a gross assumption of me to make that assertion. I did not surround these terms with quotes just to for fun. Nonetheless, for any tangible good there are always those that possess it and those that do not but want to. For example: I want my own house. Yet, I do not have one, despite how "affordable" the Government has thus far made them for me. Therefore, in the category of houses, I am most certainly a "have-not." Maybe if you didn't pay so much in taxes, you could afford your own care. The State is stealing your wealth just as it is stealing mine. Why is insurance tied to employment? Why can't I shop for plans outside of my state? Why do I pay for pregnancy coverage? In your specific cause, perhaps the care is directed in a honest, resource-worthy manner. That's the best that we can hope. And, I hope, as you claim, you have been a productive member of society as a result. To act upon morally arbitrary principles is not criminal, but it is questionably unethical. I do not claim to be guilty-free of this practice either. Rather as an active participant, I acknowledge the fallacies and efficiencies of continued intervention by the State. It is my belief that a free society is the most prosperous. Certainly, far from "perfect," but the most virtuous without a doubt.

Posted 09/22/09 8:34 PM chuckp123 Waseca, MN

Great retort, Jonathan! Keep up the good work.

Posted 09/29/09 08:01 AM daveman Maplewood, MN

Well said Jonathan. You keep it clear, concise, and straight forward. The biggest myth is that we have free market healthcare already. We are so burdened by "good intention" regulations and mandates which consolidate insurance company power to the elites. Anyways, well said and I am very glad you are in Minnesota, Our state needs major help for people to see the light of liberty. Thank you