Ron Paul on Health Care

Ron Paul's website is pretty straightforward. I thought the Health Care system was especially interesting, particularly given the new Democratic congress and president who will almost certainly push through some major health care overhauls.

The site reads, presumably in reference to democratic leadership:

To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed.

This is a pretty standard conservative talking point, and it happens to be true. In many socialist countries that center their health care systems on high tax principles, service is considerably lower and access to specialist treatment is not as good.

Sure, everyone has equal access. But why is that a good thing if the access isn't good. The cost efficiency of Medicare comes up every once in a while (my favorite presentation is in the seventh season debate episode of Aaron Sorkin's West Wing, where a Democratic Presidential candidate proposes fixing the health care problem by allowing everyone access to Medicare, with his argument based squarely on the cost efficiency of the system.

Medicare costs less because it's not as good. It may sound like an over simplification, but it's not.

As bad as the American health care system, it's not going to get better by bringing more people under it's coverage. You don't fix a system by forcing it to handle more work. You don't pile crap on a clogged pipe.

But that's not the big conservative bullet that they need to use. Whoever writes the site (presumably not Paul, as it's written all in the third person) saves that for a little later.

Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?

This is a great point, and generally it gets to the fact that those who support high taxes don't consider high taxation rates as repossession, as stealing (in the metaphor Paul uses).

They think that taxes should be given up willingly to better the society, that taxes are the price we pay for better roads and schools. In that respect, Paul's argument (and this larger, conservative one of the "redistribution of wealth") becomes a strawman that they like to light aflame.

Democrats don't want to steal your money, they just want to use the IRS to compel you to give it to them.

The problem is, many people don't trust the government, many people don't want to give their money to a government that doesn't support the programs that they, as individuals, would like to propagate. So it becomes a question of the purpose of the government.

Do we want government to take our money and deal it back out? Or do we want our government committed to the preservation of the freedoms afforded within the constitution, not expanding its power?

Paul's point, really, is that people should not be compelled by the government to deal with social health care issues. The point is that people who are compelled are welcome to deal with it, and those who aren't have the freedom to abstain.

Anyway, I suggest checking out the page, as it's very interesting.