Government Health Care Means the End of Choice
January 14th, 2009WSJ
January 13, 2009
Dr. Fred W. Frick (”Health-Care Rationing Is Inevitable, So Get Over It,” Letters, Jan. 6) asks why it’s OK for a health-insurance executive to deny coverage, but not for a Washington committee. The consumer has choices and options in dealing with the private sector, but not with government. She can switch to the competition at renewal time. She can obtain legal recourse and make the insurance company honor its contract. Fear of the latter, by itself, should be a motivating factor for the private sector to do it right. Meanwhile, the government board member is only accountable to his political and bureaucratic bosses, not to the consumer.
Those who complain about the lack of access to health care have ignored the government mandates to cover more and more. They also ignore government tax incentives for employee-paid insurance, which have deprived health care of the consumer-driven market discipline that has worked remarkably well in other areas, such as auto insurance. These are the main reasons for the horrendous price increases. Small wonder that health care is out of reach for millions.
By the way, how can one place health care as a higher need than others, such as food and shelter, and make it an entitlement? We know what happens when a society labels all these needs as entitlements. When the private sector is crowded out by the enormous power and resources of the government, people have fewer choices. They become dependent on the government program. They become vote banks. They vote for politicians who resist any meaningful change until it’s too late.
Those of us who ran away from such central planning know this movie plot too well. We are all running out of places to run to. One by one, the shining cities on the hill are disappearing.
Rayasam V. Prasad, M.D.
Stockbridge, Ga.