But, What is Right for America?

While watching Book TV, I learned that there's a new book produced by leading conservative think tanks titled "Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America" (buy at Overstock). The book is co-authored by leading scholars from the Galen Institute, The Public Policy Center, The American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation.

The book talks in details about the many faults of ObamaCare and the corrupt process that created one of the worst monstrosity in legislative history.

The authors chimed in on Conservatives ways to force more people to buy insurance.

The book looks interesting and I ordered a copy (fortunately it in paperback & kindle).

I am upset at the direction of the Conservative movements. Yes, ObamaCare numbers among the worst pieces of law ever drafted by big government.

Rather than trying to figure out what is best for America, the Conservative think tanks are unified in criticizing one of the worst health care laws ever conceived to support extremely bad laws.

Rather than harping on the worst forms of health care to justify bad systems, I want to engage in a fundamental discussion about what is the best form of health care.

Such a discussion would not begin with the assumption that a group pool are the best way to fund individual consumption.

Such a debate would notice that using a group pool to fund individual consumption is inherently corrupt.

Such a discussion would discover that if we looked at each person as a whole being, we would find that a system with savings supplemented by grants and loans would do a more effective job at providing care.

All of the questions about pre-existing conditions, portability and regulation that cloud the current debate vanish.

Discussing the fundamentals of health care also shows why insurance leads directly to inequitible society with an untenable gap between rich and poor.

Yes, taking a half million dollars during the lifetime of every worker has the predictible effect of concentrating wealth in the hands of the few people who own banks and insurance companies.

The second people realize that insurance (group funding of individual consumption) is inherently flawed, the debate changes. It explains both the faults of the status quo, the faults of ObamaCare and the faults of socialized medicine.

Were conservatives to ever deviate from their formula of using the worse to justify the bad, we could start a real conversation about substantive free market health care reform.

Insurance is not free market reform. Insurance was created by progressives for the specific purpose of regulating health care costs. Insurance demands government intervention in every single health care transaction. We know this from the terminology. With insurance, a patient does not pay a doctor. A patient files a legal claim. This legal claim is regulated by the local courts.

Every single transaction for medical care is a lawsuit.

The reason for the unreasonable cost of health care in the status quo is that every single transaction is legal claim against a pool.

For the last three years I have been clamoring, to closed ears, to have a real meeting where people discussed real free market reform. I gave my plan the title "The Medical Savings and Loan."

The MS&L uses a whole life analysis of individuals to create a structured savings program. The MS&L supplements savings with loans and grants.

I am buying Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America, but leave open the challenge to conservative think tank to host a discussion about what is right for America. I contend that the system best in keeping with the classical liberal tradition of our nation's founders is a structured savings program like the Medical Savings and Loan.

Until Conservatives are willing to address real free market reform, the best they will be able to do is offer a bad system in place of a worse.

Tweet Button: Tweet