The "Right" to Healthcare

Possibly the most common argument from those in favor of increased government intervention is that healthcare is a right for everyone. They see healthcare as a need just as necessary as food and water, reasoning, "If a person does not have healthcare, they will either die or have their quality of life severely diminished. Therefore it is necessary and must be provided." However, this view does not differentiate between rights and needs, two categories that may overlap but may also hold completely contradictory points.

Healthcare is a need. Everyone who has ever lived has needed medical care at some point in their life or will in the future. It is no different from air, shelter, or either of the other aforementioned needs, food and water. When healthcare is treated as a need and only a need, a person cannot be forced to give healthcare to someone who cannot or will not get it for themselves.

When healthcare is treated as more than a need, however, and is given the status of a right, matters change. If a person is not willing or able to exercise their right to healthcare independently, then, of course, someone must provide it for them, by force if necessary. This idea violates the rights of a person to be secure in their life, liberty, and property; if a person refuses to give their property against their will, they must give their liberty by going to jail, and if they refuse to give their liberty, their life is taken from them.

Thus the "right" to healthcare inherently conflicts with the idea of natural law-the right to life, liberty, and property. Life, liberty, and property are indeed needs, but they also go beyond that: they are rights. They are concepts so valuable that they are taken away, justice is inevitably violated. Defining healthcare as a right leads to a conflict of interest that can only result in theft, slavery, and murder: the violation of justice.

The Public "Option"

The idea of a "public option" is on the lips of millions of Americans. The thought of a government-run entity forcing competition out of business still scares the average man on the street, so we're no going to give the government an outright monopoly--just a piece of the pie.

Yeah, right.

President Obama states he is in favor of creating "a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that [we can] force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest."

When hell freezes over.

Don't get me wrong; insurance companies could definitely use a shot of competition, not to mention some to kick out the lobbyists in Washington. The problem is, there is nothing "optional" about taxation, the preferred method of payment for politicians everywhere: there is no choice to not pay taxes. An individual may choose whether or not to participate in the meager benefits of a public system, but no one -no one-can choose to not pay for it.

The government may not take a monopoly in the provision of a service, but that service will always take a monopoly in taxation.

Rationing and Universal Healthcare

If you read the title above and instantly thought to yourself, "There's no rationing in the healthcare bill right now. All you have to do is read it! Ha!", here is a rather important fact to keep in mind: rationing can and likely will take place regardless of whether or not it's mentioned in a bill. A government-run industry cannot function without either incurring rationing or extreme prices.

Confused? Flash back to Econ 101: supply and demand dictate price. When demand outweighs supply, prices rise. When supply outweighs demand, prices fall. Assuming a fixed demand, supply is inversely proportional to price (s=d/p). Now, assuming the number of sick people remains constant, apply these principles to healthcare. When there are too few doctors to provide care or too few pharmaceutical companies to provide medicine, prices rise. Because profits now rise, existing doctors and pharmas are able to provide better care and people may see these profits and enter the medical industry. If this creates the opposite problem of too many doctors and pharmas, increased competition results, prices are driven down, and quality is driven up.

Now flash forward to a government-run health system. Because prices are no longer a reliable indicator of supply and demand (they never are when funds are taken from and services are supplied to a collective; see the article "Healthcare: Understanding the Status Quo" for more), the correct supply to meet the demand is unknown. If supply is too high, exorbitant costs result and there is no price mechanism to show any way of lowering costs. Cuts will be taken across the board, and that means that some people will be unable to receive care. If supply is too low, well--you're already there.

"But we'll be able to calculate costs without prices. We'll just find that happy spot where supply is perfect to meet demand!" You mean just like the Post Office? Just like the public education system? Just like the government-run healthcare systems we already have, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA? All of these entities give substandard service and are drowning in red ink. A national health care system will be no different.

Unemployment and Insurance

When healthcare debates began heating up in early June, President Obama said he was in favor of "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost."

If this sounds good to you, ask yourself this: when you go to the candy store with ten dollars and the price of the candy you want has been raised from one dollar to two dollars, what do you do?

The principles of supply, demand, and pricing are no different in labor as they are in shopping. When something costs more but you have a fixed amount of money, you either buy less of it, buy something else, or save your money. Likewise, when an employer is required to pay his workers more, he will either hire fewer workers, hire part-time employees, or not hire anyone at all and decide the market isn't right. The Obama administration's plan to require employers to pay for their employee's health insurance is essentially raising the cost of labor and forcing the employer to hire fewer full-time workers as a result. Entrepeneurs who wish to start a business may now see that the cost of labor is too high for a specific industry and decide to save their money.

When unemployment rates are skyrocketing, the idea of letting employers and employees come to an independent agreement on wages and benefits should be everywhere.

Shouldn't it?

Healthcare: Understanding the Status Quo

The upcoming decision on healthcare reform is possibly the most important decision America has seen for decades. If "reform" as it is currently seen is continued, dramatic effects could be seen for all Americans. But is it the right reform? No one denies that the status quo in medical care is subpar; however, many believe the direction the Federal Government is taking in this issue will only make matters worse. In order to understand this direction of increased government control over healthcare, one must first understand the reasons why the industry is in its current state.

Two primary subjects are the focus of the modern healthcare debare: drugs and insurance. Both will be covered in short order.

The often enormous expenses of prescription and over-the-counter drugs means they are often out of reach for lower and middle-class individuals. There are three main reasons for these costs: first, the large investment necessary to research and manufacter those drugs; second, the overbearing regulations of the FDA; and thirdly, the groups of lobbyists pressuring public officials in Washington.

The first reason is simply a fact of the industry; no amount of reform, whether government-based or market-based, will be able to overcome it. Pharmaceutical companies invest millions or even billions, to research vaccines and medicines, then invest even more to manufacture them on a larger scale. When these companies are successful and make enormous profits, cries and complaint go out, claiming that the companies have extorted consumers. But why? Why shouldn't a company that has taken great risks to provide such a necessary product as medicine receive a hefty reward for its investment? The United States leads the world in pharmaceutical research; reducing the likelihood of high returns for investors and entrepeneurs would severely decrease research in the United States.

The second reason for high drug prices, on the other hand, is changeable and is not simply a reality that must be accepted. The Food and Drug Administration (hereafter the FDA) is the government agency responsible for the regulation and approval of drugs. To understand how this body restricts the availability of drugs, consider two examples. In the first example, imagine there is a drug fully tested by the pharmaceutical company that created it. However, the drug must undergo even more testing from the FDA, despite the fact that the company has already tested it under pressure from the fact that future sales will decrease sharply if the drug is ineffective or dangerous. This added testing means several more months or even years before the drug is available to the public. In the second example, imagine there is a new cancer treatment that is cheaper to use than chemotherapy or radiation and doesn't come with the common side effects of either. However, this treatment has a 1% chance that its use will result in fatal heart problems later on, and FDA bans it. Even if the drug had a mere 3% success rate it would have ultimately saved far more people than it killed. The FDA regulation saved one person, but killed three. In both cases government regulation kept effective drugs off the market for longer than necessary, if it even let them on the market at all, wasting time and effort and therefore increasing the cost of the drug.

The third reason for high drug prices is the presence of large groups of lobbyists from major pharmaceutical companies in Washington, D.C.. While the root of this problem may appear to be the enormous power and money possessed by corporations that allow them to influence policy decision, it is actually that there is too much power concentrated in Congress. The more power to regulate, tax, and subsidize vested in Congress, the more special interest groups are drawn to it so they can take advantage of it. As power is concentrated, so is corruption. If the power the government wields were severely diminished, the corruption that accompanies it would also subside.

So, in summary, three major reasons for the expense of drugs are large investments, overprotective regulations, and corrupted power.

The cost of insurance is the other main concern in the debate. While many lament lower coverage of health benefits, it seems as though the solution to higher costs and lower availability of insurance may actually be decreasing coverage.

John Stossel had an excellent analogy to the current American healthcare situation that may explain this apparent paradox. What if there was a company that offered grocery insurance? This grocery insurance program starts by simply providing coverage for rare, severe cases such as when there's a local famine of some sort (if shipping non-local food is not available) or the consumer loses their job. This works out fine because everyone is under almost-equal risk of having a famine or job loss (illness), and the system works by having those who are more fortunate pay for those who are less fortunate; everyone involved has decided to pay the moderate cost of insurance rather than risk paying a larger cost at some point or another.

But what if this grocery insurance policy expands so that all groceries are covered? The incentive to economize is lost. In the first situation, with limited coverage, people made do when they could, but let insurance take care of everything when they couldn't. In the second situation, with full coverage, people say, "Why should I buy chicken? I can buy filet mignon for dinner because my insurance takes care of it." The result of this is increased consumption on all fronts, and increased consumption must be accompanied by increased costs.

While one may say, "This is ludicrous! Why would anyone participate in this system?", this is the reality of modern health insurance. Because supply and demand are skewed, the value of any one treatment becomes unknown. When the collective is paying for a product or service, anyone can take advantage of that collective and those who do not abuse the system are left with the bill.

Now the reasons for the current healthcare situation in the U.S. should be clear. In the next few articles, the issues specifically accompanying universal government-run healthcare will hopefully be clarified as well.

Marijuana: Just the Facts

Here are the facts about marijuana, its use, and its criminalization. Make the decision for yourself.

***********************

General Information on Marijuana

The illegal drug marijuana (also known as grass, weed, dope, pot, Mary Jane, bud, indo, and hydro) is made of the Cannabis savita plant. The leaves and stems of the Cannabis plant are ingested by smoking them in a joint or a bong. The primary active ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), which works by binding to protein receptors in the brain. This binding sets off a series of chemical reactions resulting in a high that consists of distorted perception, slowed reaction times, lack of critical thinking skills and coordination, and an overall relaxed state of being with some anxiety and paranoia. (1)

Health Effects of Marijuana Use

Despite these negative short-term effects, no serious negative long-term health effects have been found to be associated with marijuana use. (2) Kaiser Permanente, a large Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), studied 65,177 men and women between the ages of 15 and 49. Over the course of ten years, there was no difference between the mortality rates of those who smoked marijuana and those who did not smoke marijuana. Similarly, a second study researched 45,450 soldiers in the Swedish Army who were 18-20 years old when they were asked about their marijuana use. Fifteen years later, the mortality rates of marijuana smokers and non-marijuana smokers were the same.

Marijuana is also alleged to have health benefits. Kaiser Permanente found that there is "reasonable evidence for the efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and marijuana as anti-emetic (nausea) and anti-glaucoma (seeing disorder) agents and the suggested evidence for their efficacy in the treatment of other medical conditions, including AIDS." (3)

External Effects of Marijuana Use (Crime)

Six different studies (4), published in respectable government and scientific journals, have found no connection between marijuana use and crime.

• Fagan, J., et al. "Delinquency and Substance Use Among Inner-City Students." Journal of Drug Issues 20 (1990): 351-402.
• Johnson, L.D., et al. "Drugs and Delinquency: A Search for Casual Connections." Ed. D.B. Kandel. Longitudinal Research on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. 137-156.
• Goode, E. "Marijuana and Crime." Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding: Appendix I. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 447-453.
• Abram, K.M. and L.A. Teplin. “Drug Disorder, Mental Illness, and Violence.” Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences. Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1990. 222-238.
• Cherek, D.R., et al. “Acute Effects of Marijuana Smoking on Aggressive, Escape and Point-Maintained Responding of Male Drug Users.” Psychopharmacology 111 (1993): 163-168.
• Tinklenberg, J.R., et al. “Drugs and criminal assaults by adolescents: A Replication Study.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 13 (1981): 277-287.

Effects of Marijuana Criminalization

The criminalization of marijuana and the associated War on Drugs costs taxpayers. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) uses $2.2 billion annually in taxpayer money, while the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) uses $532 million annually in taxpayer money (5), adding up to $2.732 billion used to fight the use and distribution of marijuana and other illegal drugs.

The criminalization of marijuana has also resulted in an increase in crime nationwide. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports (6) show dramatic increases in the murder rate across the U.S. (shown as homicides per 100,000 people) since the start of the drug war. There were approximately 7.5 homicides per 100,000 people in 1969 when the war on drugs was started. This rate rose dramatically, peaking at approximately 10 homicides per 100,000 people around 1980. Similarly, there were approximately 7 homicides per 100,000 people in 1919, when the Prohibition started. As the Prohibition continued, the homicide rate increased until peaking in 1930 at approximately 10 homicides per 100,000 people. This rate dropped dramatically after the repeal of the Prohibition later in 1933.

The criminalization of marijuana has crowded prisons. The federal government now incarcerates 1.7 million people, only 3 percent of which are violent criminals. 60 percent of these inmates are drug offenders. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that there were 704, 812 arrests for marijuana in the year 1999, 88 percent of which were for possession and use rather than sale or distribution. (7)

The criminalization of marijuana has increased violent paramilitary police tactics. The number of SWAT team deployments in 1981 was 3,000; this number increased to more than 40,000 per year in 2001. Due to this rate of increase, the number is probably even higher today. (8) These deployments raid homes and other alleged dealers' posts, often without knocking and without immediately identifying themselves as members of law enforcement. (8) These paramilitary deployments are often the results of bad intelligence from ignorant informants and target the wrong person. (9) Marijuana busts have been attempted at sites where the alleged marijuana was actually hibiscus, ragweed, tomato, sunflower, or elderberry. (9) Researcher Radley Balko documented over 300 cases in the span of one year in which a no-knock paramilitary raid resulted in one or more of the following: a raid on an innocent suspect, a raid on a doctor or a sick person, the death of an innocent, the death of a nonviolent offender, the death or injury of a police officer, or some other example of excessive force by law enforcement. (10)

Banks' Fault or Government's Fault?

From the start of the recession the world currently faces, people have been clamoring for justice to come to the investment banks that supposedly started the downturn. The banks and their lobbyists supposedly have had Congress in their back pocket, pushing for things like deregulation and tax cuts. Now, with the bailouts now working in full force, even I'm beginning to believe this. But what is the most common solution to this problem? Give the government more power, so they can reign in those nasty bankers!

But wait a second--the power given to Congress even before the economic crisis was what the bankers used in the first place! Giving Congress more power to regulate, give tax cuts, and hand out subsidies will still end up with the wealthy and powerful in control. The problem isn't that the government had too little control over the investment and banking sector--it was that it had too much control, and that control was corrupted and abused. Only once Congress's power to dictate the path of the economy is gone will corruption cease. As some guy once said a while back, "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."