At the White House Summit on Health Reform this past March, President Obama told attendees that in order to bring about change, we need "a process that is as transparent and inclusive as possible." He stated with conviction that "every voice has to be heard. Every idea must be considered. Every option must be on the table."¹

Nearly seven months later, we have half a dozen bills in progress. Not a single bill shows any evidence that comprehensive free market solutions have been seriously studied or considered.

Of course, this is not surprising. But consider how even the administration's goals for health reform frame the debate in a way that leads the country away from market-based solutions. Each goal is, in effect, a separate little Trojan horse designed to increase government involvement in healthcare. Some goals are simply vague (e.g. lowering costs). Others are completely invalid (e.g. ending insurance "discrimination" over pre-existing conditions, something that would obliterate the entire concept of risk-based insurance).

Here is a sample of six goals and how they translate:

Stated Goal	Best Possible Free-Market Interpretation	Actual Big-Government Meaning
1) "Bring down skyrocketing costs"	Deregulate insurance companies and providers to compete on price and customized coverage packages Make healthcare spending more consumer-directed, so patients have an interest in finding the best value Deregulate medical licensing and education to increase the supply of privately-vetted practitioners	Cut reimbursements to physicians, and put downward pressure on wages for nurses and other caregivers Institute review panels to determine "necessary procedures" and encourage the use of palliative care Drop the most costly procedures from Medicare and Medicaid, regardless of effectiveness
2) "Cover all Americans"	Open up interstate competition in the health insurance market to lower prices Repeal distortionary tax incentives for employer-based coverage that make insurance in the individual market prohibitively expensive	Mandate that every individual must obtain a state-approved health insurance policy Subsidize individuals whose annual income does not exceed some arbitrary pre-determined amount
3) "Modernize our system"	Remove barriers to the development and use of new technologies and medical devices Allow facilities to make equipment purchases and embark on new construction projects as they see fit; abolish Certificate of Need (CON) laws	Subsidize the purchase of health IT Institute penalties for the non-use of approved systems Hand out grants to government-approved researchers Establish "public health" surveillance programs to gather data
4) "Ensure that people aren't overcharged for prescription drugs"	Send in mystery shoppers to pharmacies to ensure advertised prices are consistent with prices charged at the register(?) Audit receipts from pharmacies to catch instances of short-changing(!)	Institute price controls Shorten the durations of patents to allow earlier switching to generics; revisit the "social utility" of intellectual property laws
5) "Ensure that people aren't discriminated against for pre-existing conditions"	N/A (There is no rational interpretation for this goal. This goal corrupts the entire concept of risk-based insurance.)	Mandate the sale of coverage at a financial loss, forcing companies to pass on costs to other consumers Require that premiums be based on need, not risk profile
6) "Eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs"	Eliminate the government programs, thereby eliminating all of the fraud, waste, and abuse that is associated with them	Establish a new oversight agency or authorize more Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) to harass doctors and hospitals into spending more time practicing "defensive administration"

No, the political left does not really want to listen to all views and all opinions on health reform, and it especially does not want to address objections from those who defend individual rights and free markets. Who did President Obama invite to his healthcare summit to represent the marketplace? Not actual capitalists, but instead malleable industry heads like Karen Ignagni (AHIP), Billy Tauzin (PhRMA), and Rich Umbdenstock (AHA) who will agree to nearly anything so long as it preserves their "seat at the table."

As for the Republicans, is it any secret anymore that they are perhaps the worst defenders of free markets around? In a recent op-ed in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Ari Armstrong got it right: "Republicans seem deathly afraid to say what millions of Americans long to hear: that people have the right to live their own lives and pursue their values by their own judgment. That government’s proper role is to protect individual rights. That people should interact through voluntary exchange, not force."²

President Obama keeps telling Americans that the status quo is not working and that it must be fixed.³ That much is true; the current system in which government controls half of all health spending is seriously broken and the clock is ticking. But when the political football is sitting on the 50-yard line between two end zones labeled CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM, there is only one rational way to advance the ball. And it isn't in the direction of more government.

____

¹ Obama, B. "Remarks by the President at the Opening of the White House Forum on Health Reform", Washington D.C., March 5 2009

² Armstrong discusses the near-indistinguishable nature of the Republican and Democrat positions on health reform in "Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare" Colorado Springs Gazette, September 18 2009

³ On the CBS television show "Face the Nation," Obama said "What I'm trying to do is explain the facts, which are if we don't do anything, a lot of Americans are going to be much worse off." This was also reported by the New York Times in Zeleny and Pear, "Obama Insists That Insurance Will Be Affordable" September 20 2009

©2005-2010 The Lucidicus Project, all content unless otherwise noted.