"Is Health Care Free, Yet?"

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Affordable Health Care Act came down the pike, uninformed voters asked, "Does that mean my health care is free, now?"

The response was an emotional one, often - which is exactly the kind of response the liberal left hoped for.

The "Is Health Care Free, Yet?" people believe that Obama is just handing out government freebies, which will allow them to just walk into any medical office, get the care they desire, and not have to worry about a penny. It'll be like going to the grocery store with their food stamps. Those things are free too, they assume.

As the adage goes, nothing in life is free.

I get it, health insurance is expensive, and the cost of health services is through the roof, too. But socialized medicine does not fix the problem, it actually worsens it. The concept takes the burden of cost, which is claimed to be handled poorly by the "greedy" insurance companies, and gives that burden to the greedy and power hungry federal government - as if that is someone who can administer health insurance any better.

In other words, Obamacare, if things go in the single-payer direction the democrats desire, changes nothing except who pays, and then adds a government bureaucracy into the mix. This means more taxes, more regulations, and more control over you.

The root of the problem is not the private industry, as the Marxist in the White House wants you to believe, but that the market is not free enough.

Most of you now expect me to go into some diatribe about how insurance companies should be able to deal across state lines, and you are right on the idea that allowing the insurance companies to compete in such a manner would decrease costs, and create greater competition in a free market kind of way. But has anyone considered that the root of the problem is the existence of insurance companies in the first place?

Obama wants to take a failed concept, a middle-man payer between the physician and the patient, and simply change who that payer is from the insurance companies to the federal government. But if that is a failed concept with the insurance companies, how can anyone possibly think the government can do any better?

What is even worse, despite the requirement for equal protection under the law by the Fourteenth Amendment, Obama is able to play his mercantilist game of favoritism and grant waivers. Now, if Obamacare is a tax as Justice Roberts is claiming, then that means waivers to paying a tax are being handed out. And among those favorites of the Obama administration earning an exemption? Labor unions, of course - along with a number of big corporate players that dole out a lot of money to the democrat party.

The secret is the health care law it has little to do with your health, and everything to do with being a power grab. In reality, despite all of the sobs and the tears of grateful constituents, Obama and his cronies could care less about your health. They want government to become the payer so that government can dictate to you how to run your lives.

The root of the problem is not whether or not government should get involved, but the very model of a middle-man payer in the first place. Government, insurance companies, or anybody else coming between you and your doctor is the roof of the problem.  So, since that model is the problem, why not pass legislation at the State level (because constitutionally this is none of the federal government's business, anyway) making it easier for physicians to deal with patients directly without insurance companies in the mix?

Before insurance was all the rage, and required by law, and before employers had to offer the "benefit," doctors dealt directly with their patients. In an attempt to win the business of potential patients the doctors made house calls, set up payment plans, and worked closely with the community. Costs were kept down so that the patients could afford the care, and costs remained low because of the intense competition for those patient dollars. Now, with insurance, you don't care which doctor you go to, as long as insurance pays it. The competition is gone.

Combine that with the fear of malpractice lawsuits, and the understanding that the insurance companies have deep pockets, and the cost of medical procedures has gone through the roof.

Physicians no longer have to compete for your business, so as a result the elimination of that component of competition drove the prices sky high. Then, on top of that, frivolous lawsuits have taught physicians to have a paper trail showing that they did everything possible, including running unnecessary tests, so that a lawyer can't come back on them and say they didn't check for such and such problem.

Moving away from the physician-patient relationship is what screwed up health care in the first place, and the high cost is why a number of people are crying for "free health care." The problem is, nothing in life is free. And with government health care the cost is even higher than we realize, because we won't only pay higher taxes for a system that is doomed to be a dismal failure, but we will also be paying with our freedoms.

Once the government maneuvers health care into a single-payer system, they will be able to, in the name of protecting tax dollars, dictate to you your eating habits, your exercise habits, your recreational activities, your parenting, and whether or not you deserve a particular medical procedure based on your usefulness to society (because of age, abilities, etc.).

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sobbing Woman Thanks Obama for Health Care Law - Politico

Lawyers have already drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New Obama Tax Care Law - Gateway Pundit

Mark Steyn: A Lie Makes Obamacare Legal - Orange County Register

Labor Unions Primary Recipients of Obamacare Waivers - Daily Caller