Truth Asunder

Amazing how the Associated Press is the end-all, be-all for facts and palpable reality. Without the AP, I probably would never have learned algebra or how to open a beer. Calvin Woodward, an AP writer, magnate and merchant in certitude and verifiable truths, claims that many of the fears that Americans have over a public option or outright single-payer system in healthcare are "harsh, but not based on facts." Calvin explains that "Washington is not working on "death panels" or nationalization of health care," and that most respondents in a particular survey fret over taxpayer-funded abortions and the government having the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people, among other fears.

Without exploding the story line-by-line, I'm sure Calvin has it all wrong from the get go. His premise is severely flawed. He merely substitutes Washington's intent for actual circumstance. That is, if it ain't outlined in the bill, it ain't gonna happen, and all fears to the contrary are superfluous and moronic. I know this because of the nature of what a "public option" is, whether it is an outright takeover of the industry or just a single "competitor." What we have now is a price system that rations service according to how consumers value their dollars relative to health service. There are competing ends for dollars, like luxury and food, and thus consumers allocate their dollars accordingly. This is how the rationing goes, as any price system in any good operates.

Now, some consumers have more dollars than others, but this inequality is inherent in the very nature of man and is ineluctable. Trying to escape reality with a "public option" only shifts the burden, but does not eliminate it. Instead of a price system that rations the limited supply of medical services, allocation will be left to whoever is in charge of making the rules at the time. When there is no monetary constraint on medical demand, and with the supply of medical services relatively fixed, the only possible way to give service is to pick people, and this choosing will likely be based on age, lifestyle, productivity in society, etc. If Calvin can name some other way to hand out the doc's time, then that's fine, too. It won't change the fact that it is another way of rationing service, whichever way you look at it.

With that said, fears about "death panels" and pulling the plug on Grandma are not unwarranted. If I as the bureaucrat in charge only have (X) number of prescriptions available and I have (X +1) number of people demanding such prescriptions, I have no choice but to choose who doesn't get a prescription. I as the head bureaucrat can make my choice based on political favor, patient productivity (young people vs. old people), moral judgments, etc., etc. This is exactly what Sarah Palin meant by "death panels," specifically, a board of bureaucrats will have to decide which group of peoples or particular individuals do not get a share of the limited supply of medical services. The truth is harsh, but reality usually is. This is not a lie, but instead a logical deduction based on the fact that in reality, needs are unlimited, but means are not. If I sat upon a panel, it would only make sense for me to exclude the least productive members of society from healthcare if it meant that otherwise children and healthy taxpayers were to be sacrificed.

As for the government being simply a "competitor" in the healthcare field, Thomas Sowell said it best: "When there is a partnership between an ant and an elephant, who do you suppose makes the decisions?" Because competing firms must cooperate even in the dog-eat-dog world of business, this statement completely applies. Saying that the government option is a form of competition is like giving steroids and flippers to Michael Phelps and calling it "fair" as far as French, German, and English swimmers are concerned.