Democracy in Health Care

Apparently some people think that the Federal power grab of health care will somehow make our health care system more "democratic."

The opposite is actually true. This federalization of health care regulation places health under the yoke of an overtaxed Congress which is distant from the people. US Senators represent, on average, about 3 million people. Members of the House represent abouy three quarters of a million people.

This small number of elected officials is not only distant from the people. They have a massive workload which includes national defense, interstate commerce, overseeing international treatises as well as writing the laws of the land, etc..

The bills presented in the 2009 Healthcare debate all created regulatory bodies that individuals are unable to affect through elected officials.

If Health Care 09 passes, then people will have to hire politically connected lobbyists and lawyers to have any influence in how their health care is administered.

The Health Care 09 proposals are inherently undemocratic.

If our goal was to create a democratically based government structure for care, then we should do something like create an elected position of Health Care Commissioner in each state. One might even split states into districts and have elected health care administrators for the districts.

Of course, people would have an even more "democratic" structure if they had their insurance through locally owned mutual funds ... people have the absolute most control over their care when they self-finance the bulk of their care and only use insurance for extraordinary circumstances ... as in the Medical Savings and Loan.

Regardless, the distance between representatives in the Federal Government and the people means that the Health Care reform reduces the influence that an individual has on his own health, and is remarkably undemocratic.