Gluttony: It's Bad for Your Health

A month of lackadaisical Christmas-breakery has left me renewed and revived for what I’m sure will be a strenuous presidential race. I have gotten the go-ahead from my Vice Presidential candidate, Catherine Herrell (D-Colorado) to run on whatever principles I see fit with little regard for the bipartisanship of our ticket, so long as my arguments are sound, which, by my objective judgment, they always are. So without much further ado, I embark upon my journey toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the strength and fortitude of my valiant predecessors, but with hope for 30-year stamina to carry me the distance.

I judge myself thus far a failure for having not yet touched upon the lengthy and heated process that has been the health care debate. While I have participated in a formal Republicans vs. Democrats forum on the issue, written a detailed email about my stance per request to a curious friend on the East coast, and had many an irate conversation on the subject with my equally impassioned mother, I have had difficulty formulating a clarifying essay covering not only my reasons for opposition to the pending Obama plan, but also my solutions for an admittedly flawed existing system. I feared it too ambitious, being that it’s such a large, complex idea. But now that I’m running for President, I have to aim for the balls-out assertiveness voters expect of such an office. Fear is no longer a viable cop-out. So here goes:

If we move forward as intended by Barack Obama in terms of health insurance reform, the United States economy will cease to exist as we know it, and all potential to regain and maximize the powerhouse status of the US marketplace will be lost. Call this an over-dramatization, but seeing as the health care industry represents a full one sixth of our financial livelihood in this country, its downfall would undoubtedly be really stinking dramatic.

But why is Obama’s plan so bad? Good question, Electing Public. There are truly infinite flaws in the bill’s now 2100 pages, but I break the core problems into four primary points:

First, it is a downright lie that the government will be able to maintain the proposed system without a ridiculous hike in our taxes. This cannot possible be “budget-neutral.” Other nations with public care have at minimum a 30% income tax, and most teeter on 50%. Further, no other nation in the world has ever attempted to support socialized health care AND a welfare state as vast as ours. Its expense would be astronomical. If we think health care is expensive for consumers now, imagine losing an entire half of your income for it. Does that sound like a more affordable option to you? Washington is able to fool us into thinking their programs aren’t costing us anything because we never see the money leaving our pockets. In truth, we’re paying through the nose for irresponsible legislation without our hard-earned dollars even passing through our hands first. This is no longer just taxation, but wage garnishment. What’s frightening is that the crippling financial effect on Americans due to this plan would likely lead to such pathetic dependence on the government that socializing health care would lead to socializing everything. When America turns wholly to socialism, the world market will fail.

Secondly, and interlaced with the problems raised by my first point, this plan runs counteractive to the core functionality of capitalism. If we offer up the health care industry to government hands, we lose our right to consumer choice over something as personal as our own bodies. As a population based in individuality, multiculturalism, and freedom, the government cannot and should not be expected to establish an overlay for health care that will satisfactorily cover each one of us. It is the price vs. quality competition between health care corporations that would, if left free of political interference, lower costs and provide policy options as diverse as the consumer base. It is through capitalism that American citizens will truly be best cared for.

Thirdly, universal health care clogs the medical system, drags down quality, and delays care. When we compare wait times for vital operations between, for example, the United States and socialized Canada, the average difference is 6 months. Canadians, whose health care policy Obama is trying to most closely emulate, are fleeing south of their border to benefit from our superior system. When an illness is life-threatening, waiting around at length for subpar care is not usually a great option, unless, of course, you’re some sort of near-death adrenaline junkie. In that case, by all means, move to Canada. I hear it’s wild. I, for one, would prefer to keep the US system freed up and functioning well so I can, you know, live better.

Fourth, last, and without question the most important point I have to make is this: this legislation is downright unconstitutional. Not only does the Constitution fail to grant the federal government any right to attempt to develop such an overarching system within the outline of enumerated powers, many of the bill’s mandates are in plain, bold violation of excessive powers the Constitution explicitly forbids. The portion of the bill threatening to charge the uninsured with civil or criminal offenses is light-years outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction, and has a look and feel of coercion that makes me a little uncomfortable. It’s like when your great-uncle has had too much to drink at the family reunion and starts to get a little handsy. Really, someone should have cut him off several drinks ago, but no one ever speaks up until he gets completely out of control. The difference, however, between awkward family gatherings and the US government is the Constitution, which seems, at this point, to be Uncle Sam’s only glint of sobriety. Democrats will try to stretch and abuse wide interpretations of the Constitution to better suit their questionable agendas, in this case calling to their aid the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause, but neither of these provides sufficient justification for the federal intrusiveness implicated by such a massive bill. It’s just too much.

Now, with the Democratic supermajority victoriously snatched from Pelosi’s witchlike claws by Massachusetts stud Scott Brown, the Obama administration and its incredible, shrinking flock of Finding-Nemo-like seagulls are shrieking about the potential loss of health care reform forever. But maybe Barack should’ve titled his book, “The Audacity of Thinking No One Else Has Any Ideas that Could Possibly Be Better than Mine.” We Republicans are not averse to change. We understand and acknowledge the dire need for reform of our health care system and want to fix things, but in a much different way.

My approach is less tangible than the liberal reform and therefore may read as ineffectual. Instead of injecting the disgustingly addictive substance that is government assistance into the veins of perfectly capable Americans, I would like to wean. We need to gradually eliminate the existing stranglehold of government regulation on medicine that is, in truth, the reasons costs skyrocketed in the first place. Health care was not unaffordable until 1965 when Medicaid was first introduced; prices have not dipped since. To fix a problem, we must first identify its cause, and in this case and many others, that’s big government.

If elected in 2040, assuming a similar political landscape faces me, my plans for health care would be quite simple:
1) Immediately lift all regulations and limits, both in minimum and maximum costs, that the government currently imposes on health insurance companies and allow the free market to work its magic.
2) Make significant tort reforms. Limit the number of frivolous, unfounded malpractice lawsuits doctors face whose costs are directly reflected in the prices we consumers pay.
3) Create a medical environment in which holding a health insurance policy is highly optional. When a physician’s administrative fees and malpractice insurance costs are lowered, the bottom line costs for procedures goes down as well, and consumers would realistically be able to afford basic care out of pocket. This principle is already at work in the plastic surgery industry, where insurance isn’t typically a factor. People grab rhinoplasty and silicon for the same price as a strep test because of the extreme differences in bureaucratic nonsense involved. Let’s pay for just the care we need and the care we get, plain and simple.
4) Offer tax incentives to companies that take on the expensive liabilities pre-existing conditions and less-than-profitable clients.
5) Allow states, as many have already done quite successfully, to set up their own programs for low-income citizens and those with pre-existing conditions, but still keep the dirty Feds out. This is a state issue.

And that’s essentially it. I know governmental minimalism might seem like an ancient notion, seeing as it’s been a precious rarity in our recent history, but I’ve always been a firm believer in a classic, less-is-more mentality. Instead of Hope and Change, I think my 2040 platform would read something like, “Cole for President. She’ll stay the hell out of your business.”


I’m Kelly Cole, and I approve this message.