Healthcare, the Constitution, and Laboratories of Democracy
Healthcare… There’s a lot of emotion around this topic; the disabled, elderly, and chronically ill are all individuals that would greatly benefit from healthcare. Even with the healthy Murphy’s law takes place all too often. Helping with one’s medical ailments is always a noble cause and emotionally satisfying. Yet there’s also the harsh reality of the economics and the feasibility of it. The numbers have to add up. A healthcare system, or insurance system for that matter, must be feasible and profitable as well as effective; otherwise it would collapse. Allow me to delve into a few subjects relating to healthcare.
Possibly the most important (at least to me) aspect of healthcare is its constitutionality. You’ve probably heard the statement “where’s healthcare in the Constitution?” more often than you care to count. In spite of its near cliche nature, there’s a good point behind that question. Where is it? Truth be told, nowhere. Alas, that is a significant point. If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution then the government simply doesn’t possess said power. This was actually used as an argument against the Bill of Rights. Many of the founders were afraid that if these amendments were repealed then the government would assume that it had the power to then regulate things such as speech and religion. However, ’tisn’t so. The power to regulate such isn’t explicitly granted to the federal government; thus, even if the first amendment were to be repealed, they still wouldn’t have the authority to regulate such. Another amendment granting such power would have to be passed to allow said regulation. Obamacare was actually argued as a tax, not a healthcare plan. The federal government to this day doesn’t have the authority to create healthcare. Yet now from the promise to “repeal” the unconstitutional Obamacare, the best we’re being promised is “replacement.” Only now our “leaders” aren’t even concerned with calling it a tax, they’re officially writing healthcare plans, without the legal standing for such. That’s why I say that the unconstitutionality of government healthcare is so important; I believe that the disregard of a nation’s laws is extremely harmful said nation.
There is another contrasting point to make, the States are left with tremendous power over what the Constitution omits. One reason why i support the Bill of Rights, not even the States can touch these rights. What about healthcare? Well there’s nothing stopping a US State from creating a government healthcare plan, given that said State’s constitution is allows such. This is why we have States, or laboratories of democracy. One State can go full single payer and government mandated, another can be completely free market with the government barred from interfering, and others can be various combinations of these extremes. That’s how this should be handled. The only thing the Trump administration should do with healthcare is point out the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, declare it null and void, and then the State can take over.
I’d imagine you’ve heard the statement “we’re the only (or one of the only) nation that doesn’t provide healthcare. To me that doesn’t make much sense; most of what America’s done was only done by America, that’s not a bad thing. Plus that clashes with the constitutionality points I made earlier. Yet States can provide healthcare, if you want “Californiacare” or “Tennesseecare” you can speak out and lead a movement for it. Even if their constitution prevents it, odds are that’s amendable.
Yet is that the best solution? Should healthcare be private or single payer? What of the chronically ill? For me, I’m most certainly going to support private healthcare. Redistribution only works if it’s voluntary (just ask all the failed communist systems), a private company that redistributes wealth would be much greater than a state that does so. Not only that but competition forces each company to be “fight” for the best system, or die trying. There are many, many methods of healthcare, each state can be different. One thing that would be good is if general regulations are permitted on healthcare in a State, they would most likely be much simpler and more effective.
Now, what of the chronically ill, and other extreme scenarios? This is where voluntary redistribution of wealth could help. I would deem that company that performs such would help these people the most. Though they’d also be high risk, and probably still have to pay more. Unfortunately that’s life, if you live in a hurricane prone area your house insurance will most certainly be more. If you’re prone to having car accidents, car insurance won’t be as cheap. Though there are clearly many ways to deal with this.
This extends to my great qualm with healthcare, emotion. Yes, the people with chronic, extreme medical conditions, and simply not enough money need help. They wont have it as easy. I don’t want to seem heartless, but life is tough. Though it’s easier now than it was before humanity had systems like healthcare. There’s the individual aspect to this as well. The government can’t provide for or fix every ailment and qualm you have with life (neither should we want it to), and there’s no perfect solution for that either. Though I wish there was. Many necessities in life aren’t free, healthcare is one of them (though by some definitions healthcare isn’t exactly a necessity). Our culture is commonly in want of a “Santa Clause,” free education, free medicine, and even free food. These statistic philosophies just don’t work well, partly because one way or another, you’re still paying for it. With modern society we can, and are making life much better for everyone. We shouldn’t let statistic philosophies such as socialism damage that with promises that they’ve always failed to deliver on.
And again, as shall gift upon thee another iota of my vernacular! I just ask that you don’t be a “blooter.”