ObamaCare: The “Final Solution” for the Enslavement of Medicine

A DrHurd.com reader writes: Sometime in 2012, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to strike down the corrupt and unconstitutional ObamaCare law. Will they? There’s no way of knowing. In theory, the 5-4 conservative majority should strike it down. However, conservatives wobble, while liberals and socialists never do. The four members of the court who are arch socialists will most definitely uphold the law. The other five? It’s anybody’s guess.

However, it’s not enough to strike down the law. The law must be struck down for the right reasons. It’s hard to imagine that even the conservatives will see fit to do this. Time will tell.

As an example of the kind of idiocy that inhabits our society, consider this letter somebody wrote in about an article I wrote in opposition to ObamaCare: ‘If not for this [ObamaCare]  bill what types of social structure could be put in place to make healthcare more affordable? This has to be the question. Everybody knows that it’s not fair that a person could slip on ice and end up paying for years for surgery and such, but what can be done? What can be done for people that work hard everyday and pay taxes yet cannot afford healthcare? I’m talking about people that work their 40 hours a week and are still unable to buy insurance for them and/or their families. We need ideas so that we don’t have to trust the untrustworthy government to distribute our wealth in this way that has already been shown to be a burden to hospitals and financial systems everywhere.

We also need to see the unfairness of the other side of the issue that working people are going to be paying more into a system where they are getting the same or less out of it than others that may not have put a dime into it. There we are faced with the harsh reality of this controversy. It is unfair that people working hard cannot afford insurance and yet by making it affordable in this way also tilts the scale the other way by allowing people to take without giving creating an unbalance.’

Dr. Hurd’s reply: This letter clearly illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism, and yet shows why it still so often prevails. The premise of this entire comment is

collectivism. Collectivism refers to group responsibility. Imagine a teacher in a classroom saying to students, ‘All of you who got As and Bs on the test are responsible for staying after school and coming in on weekends—whatever it takes—until the students who are failing get up to C level.’ If the A and B students protested, the response would be, ‘Well, you come up with a better solution then.’ The implication is clear: Other people’s lack of ability and intelligence is your problem—not theirs. More of the same.

Although if liberalism continues its march throughout our society this may change, no such thing has yet happened in schools. But it is the case with health care. As wrong and fallacious as this argument is, it still carries the day. The onus is on Tea Party Republicans to come up with a better collectivist solution than the one Obama did.

No room is permitted to question the idea of collectivism itself. In other words, no room is permitted to say, ‘Health insurance and medical care are the responsibility of the individual. Private charity is always allowed, but never required. Always voluntary, never coerced. The only job of the government is to deregulate, decontrol and stop subsidizing the medical field altogether.’

Now that would be change. No such change is apparent in today’s Washington DC, not even after the 2010 Tea Party takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives. How can health care be made more affordable? In reply I ask this question: Affordable to whom? To somebody who doesn’t want to pay a penny for it? That’s what Medicaid does. That’s what ObamaCare now seeks to do. What about the rights of people able and willing to pay for it? What about the rights of doctors and nurses, who now are given no freedom to choose whether or not they want to compete in a private market?

Price controls are not the function of government. Back in the 1970s, the federal government (under Nixon and later Carter) forced price controls on the country, especially on gasoline. This led to shortages and waiting lists. The gas lines stopped only when the price controls were lifted (by Reagan). Not only did the gas lines go away, but prices stabilized for some time to come. In recent times prices have gone up again, although for a different reason—because the federal government refuses to allow for drilling in American territory, and likewise refuses to defend American interests in the Middle East.

Under all forms of national health insurance, including Obama’Care’ and  Medicare/Medicaid, government seeks to control prices. Under Medicare to date, government hasn’t done much to control them. As a result, the program remains reasonably popular. But the government deficit is exploding in large part because of Medicare, not to mention other entitlement programs as well. Nothing Congress does can stop the spiraling national debt and other economic consequences yet to come, including hyperinflation and record devaluation of the dollar. The dead end of all this health care inflation is a 100 percent tax on everybody to finance health care bills that probably still won’t even be paid for with such a tax. Such a tax would destroy all economic activity in society. So what then?

Government’s responsibility is not to lower prices or manipulate the economy in any way. This is the job of service providers and consumers, left alone in the marketplace. Government has been improperly involved in the marketplace of medicine for many decades, and this has led to a whole host of problems. Government has refused to get out of the way. When government got out of the way of other industries such as gasoline, airlines and technology, innovation flourished and prices ultimately came down. In medicine it has been just the opposite, because government never went away.

ObamaCare is the Final Solution in the direction of complete socialism. If you didn’t like the partial socialism of Medicare and Medicaid, you’re not going to like the full and complete socialism of ObamaCare that’s going to take effect insidiously in another three years or so.

The liberal writer of this question objects to government redistributing wealth to hospitals and doctors in ways that are ‘unfair.’ Isn’t this what Medicare and government programs are all about? Government-run medicine means that elected officials (and unelected bureaucrats) decide who gets what. Imagine government bureaucrats deciding who got smart phones and computers—which brands, and how many. How fair and efficient would this sort of program be?

It’s no different when government subsidizes and redistributes with medical care. He who subsidizes—redistributes. Clueless people have voted into office a democratic socialist regime that wants socialized medicine. Most of these clueless don’t, in fact, want socialized medicine, but the little dictator they elected does. So we’re all going to get it.

And don’t count on the Supreme Court, with its usual 5-4 vote (if we’re lucky) voting down ObamaCare to repair the damage already done by the Department of Health and Human Services by the time they actually decide the case. As we speak, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is arbitrarily dictating the cost of health insurance and Congress is preparing to slash reimbursement to doctors under Medicare and Medicaid (come January 1).

These people in office don’t care about you. They care about their careers, about their power, and making it look like they’re “doing something.” These administration officials are nothing more than hapless Communists, checked in theory by legislators who are either unable or unwilling to stop the insanity, in practice.

The Supreme Court should strike down ObamaCare, but for the right reasons. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck with Obama’s Final Solution one way or another.