Battle4Liberty

What’s wrong with mixing a little socialism with capitalism? Isn’t it a good idea to pool our resources and share risks sometimes? If we do this when we buy insurance, then what’s wrong with government doing it? Aren’t the real solutions to our problems “somewhere in the middle?” These questions have been popping up in my conversations lately, especially when we’re talking healthcare. They’re interesting questions, but they point to a lack of understanding. I have some good answers.

Let’s face one fact at the outset. Some infiltration of socialism can never be avoided for practical reasons, such as government-funded projects to provide fresh drinking water to a community, pave a highway, or provide a police force. The Constitution allows governments to collect taxes for specific reasons. In many instances these decisions are left to the states to sort out, although the feds don’t seem to respect state authority much these days. Libertarians and conservatives don’t debate legitimate government activity, but argue for LIMITED (Constitutional) government at the federal and state levels, not a complete absence. In other words, the debate is not about whether we will have a government, but instead about how intrusive our government should be.

Socialism denies individual freedom of choice by confiscating resources from everyone for projects that may not be equally desired or used by everyone. For this reason, government action should be limited to what is Constitutional and essential. The former seems pretty clear to me, but the latter can be debatable at times. A good example is Social Security. Some conservatives argue that because our society simply will not allow its senior citizens to die in the streets, it is not fair for those who refuse to save for retirement to become a burden on society when they can no longer work. I happen to agree with this view, but I think benefits could be lower and start at a much higher age in exchange for a lower tax rate. In other words, social security is not about a retirement plan, but instead about providing the absolute minimum, thereby keeping society from having to support those who don’t save along the way.

If some basic type of social security system makes sense as a practical measure, could the same argument be made for healthcare? In other words, if society is going to pay for emergency treatment anyway (which is federal law), why not require everyone to have insurance to cover such treatment in the event of a catastrophe? This is a reasonable argument, but the key here is to provide just enough of a plan to keep people without insurance or who can’t get insurance for medical reasons from becoming a burden on society. It would follow that everyone without private insurance would have to contribute as much as they can afford for such coverage and that it should require HIGH DEDUCTIBLES and only cover the major expenses that would likely go unpaid. I already proposed such a plan on the blog, so I won’t repeat it here.

Some conservatives and libertarians have a problem with any mandated health insurance or social security whatsoever because both restrict our freedom to manage our own affairs. I would argue that requiring everyone without private coverage to contribute to a MINIMAL plan managed by private insurance companies might be the most liberty-oriented option on the table. This is an example of how some of us on the right hold different views, but our disagreement is not about principle (limited government involvement), but about the extent to which some sort of program is the most practical option given the alternatives.

The problem with healthcare proposals on the table, however, is that they are not about practical solutions for Americans who genuinely cannot access or afford basic medical care. They are about remaking the entire system so that HEALTHCARE BECOMES AN ENTITLEMENT. Yes, rationing would occur and a public system would be inefficient, but single payer plans and the so-called public option Obama has proposed are wrong for one simple reason: They force people into a collective beyond that which is both Constitutional and reasonable, and they require non-beneficiaries to pay the tab.

This gets us back to the third question I posed at the outset. Yes, insurance is a form of collectivism. The difference, however, is that it is VOLUNTARY AND MARKET-DRIVEN, so participation does not violate our freedom of choice. We are free to negotiate terms and purchase any policy we like. Of course, insurance might be required for practical reasons. Banks require that mortgage holders have property insurance to protect their collateral for the loan. States require that we carry auto insurance so we don’t violate the property rights of others if we are at fault in an accident and can’t pay their bills. In both instances, the insurance requirement kicks in because we choose to engage in an activity that puts someone else at risk. The same principle should apply to health insurance. It should be required only to the extent that not having it would place someone else (or society in general) at significant risk. Those who claim that such a minimum is not enough are free to enter the marketplace and purchase their own.

Voluntary, market-driven collectives are not only superior to government intrusion because they respect individual freedom, but also because they are VOLUNTARY AND MARKET-DRIVEN. Both the insurance provider and the customer can walk away from the arrangement when the coverage term is complete, which ensures that insurance providers will be responsive to the needs of their paying customers. In government collectives, there is no such incentive because individuals don’t have an option to go elsewhere. There is no competition to force greater efficiency because pressure on the bureaucracy is not limited to those who pay for the system. Individuals who receive benefits but pay little or nothing for them can band together and vote in representatives who will direct the bureaucracy to take more from the contributors and expand benefits from the non-contributors. The only voters in the private market are those paying for the service.

This type of confusion is commonplace these days. What we are really experiencing today is the creeping socialism from decades past. The federal government has usurped so much individual liberty that many Americans accept the notion that most of our problems can be found somewhere “in the middle.” The framers of our Constitution didn’t look to the middle for solutions, and neither should we.