In "Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care"" by Zinser and Hsieh, the idea argued by politicians from across the political spectrum, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, numerous businessmen, union leaders, and insurance executives - that the government should guarantee "universal coverage" to all Americans, making health care a "right," is not only challenged, but is surgically dissected and exposed for the potential disaster that it, in fact, is.

As Zinzer and Hsieh argue, contrary to claims that government-imposed "universal health care" would solve America's health care problems, it would in fact destroy American medicine and countless lives along with it.

The goal of "universal health care" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical; it violates the rights of businessmen, doctors, and patients to act on their own judgment--which, in turn, throttles their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services in question.

To help make their point, the authors examine the nature and history of government involvement in health insurance and medicine. They then consider attempts in other countries and various U.S. states to solve these problems through further government programs and show that the only viable long-term solution to the problems in question is to convert to a fully free market in health care and health insurance.In a more recent piece addressing the pitfalls of socialized medicine (that's what it is regardless of the name given by politicians to disguise the true meaning), Leonard Peikoff suggests that any mandatory and comprehensive plan will finish off quality medicine in this country--because it will finish off the medical profession:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea--which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical--it does not work--but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan--not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it--to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

So, what should we do about those who are unable to afford any particular medical services? How about A Genuine Solution proposed by Zinzer and Hsieh:

The solution to America's health care problems is not more government intervention. Government violations of individual rights through government interference in the marketplace are the source of the problems. Government meddling in health insurance has all but eliminated choice, competition, and innovation, and has driven up the cost of health insurance. Government interference in medicine has caused incalculable harm to both patients and doctors, and driven up the cost of health care. Government controls have bred more controls, as politicians and bureaucrats have tried to "solve" the problems created by one set of regulations by imposing another set, and so forth, in a vicious spiral of increased costs, rationing, suffering, and death. Just as a doctor would not attempt to treat a burn victim by exposing him to more heat, so we should not attempt to solve our health care problems through more government intervention.

The only moral and practical solution to this now-behemoth problem is to acknowledge that government intervention in health care and in health insurance is wrong, and to start in earnest to eliminate all such interference. This is the moral approach to solving the problem because it recognizes that the producers of health care goods and services have an inalienable right to dispose of the fruits of their thought and labor as they see fit, seeking their best interests through free trade in the marketplace. And it is the practical approach to solving the problem because it will lead to high-quality medical care at the prices that make such care possible--the prices on which providers and patients voluntarily agree.

A first step in the right direction would be to repeal EMTALA, allowing doctors and hospitals to decide whom they will treat and on what terms, and whether they will treat a given patient at all. As a matter of moral fact, doctors have the same rights as plumbers, accountants, grocers, and lawyers--rights that include the right to decide which patients they will treat and to refuse patients who cannot afford them.

As to the question of how those who cannot afford medical care will receive it, we must bear in mind that government is not taking care of them now and is logically incapable of ever doing so, for the simple reason that government does not and cannot produce goods or services. Insofar as people who cannot afford medical care are receiving it, the care is being provided by productive American citizens, doctors, and hospitals. And we must bear in mind that, in the words of Philosopher Leonard Peikoff, Americans who cannot afford medical care "are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program."63

Those unable to afford any particular medical services would have to rely on voluntary charity, not on the empty promises of government. Individually, Americans are the most generous people in the world, and they have always been so.

As Ronald Bailey suggested back in May 2003, perhaps the time has come in which some brave policy makers can step forward and advocate true free market health care. As it is now, patients are not paying for medical services directly, they have no incentive to curb their use of the services provided. This dysfunctional incentive structure leaves that burden on both government and corporate third-party payers who have to raise taxes and prices to cover their uncontrolled medical expenses. And health insurers have to meet myriad state and federal mandates that expand paperwork and prevent them from offering lower-cost alternatives.

The system is so complicated and screwed up that policy makers, the public, physicians, insurers, and corporations may well entertain a radically simple solution to the problem just because the status quo is so absurdly annoying. That's why the Democratic presidential candidates are hoping that the voters will swallow their tired universal health care nostrums

Already, patients and physicians are seceding from today's barely disguised system for rationing health care, and moving to free market models. Consider the case of SimpleCare, which is spreading across the United States. In SimpleCare, patients agree to pay physicians in full on the spot. This cuts out the morass of administrative paperwork, allowing doctors to slash their fees by between 30 percent and 50 percent. Uninsured people can access SimpleCare physicians by paying an annual $20 fee. Since patients are paying up front for routine maintenance, they can afford to buy high-deductible catastrophic insurance policies to cover emergencies like cancer and heart attacks.

Another promising phenomenon is the rise of "boutique" medicine, in which patients agree to pay primary-care physicians an annual fee, in return for the physicians' agreeing to limit their number of patients and make themselves available on a 24/7 basis. The fees can also cover expenses like antibiotics, exams, and in-house diagnostic testing, in addition to the easy access.

If such models can flourish in the midst of the current health care mess, think how much more could be accomplished if all the money and time now being wasted were put in the hands of individual patients, who could then make their own health care choices?

Clearly, socialized medicine hasn't, and doesn't, work - it actually creates more problems than it solves. We need only to look at Canada and England to see the results of such a disastrous approach to healthcare. Let's not let ourselves be tricked by politicians into falling for political fixes that have no chance of solving our healthcare problems and that are certain to make them worse. Yes, adjustments need to be made - especially for those that are unable to help themselves and require charity - which Americans have proven time and time again to be more than willing to provide; but free market health care is the only practical solution.

Tell Hillarycare and Obamacare, or even McCain care, to take a hike!

I'm one of the co-authors of the article "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'", and I'd like to thank you for publicizing it.

As you correctly point out, all of the proposed forms of "universal health care" are just variations on the theme of socialized medicine, either in a direct or indirect form. During our recent year-long debate about health care "reform" in Colorado, we noticed that the leftists *hated* when we used the term "socialized medicine" to describe their various plans, probably because they knew it would turn the public against them. Hence, they tried everything possible to use some other benign-sounding warm-and-fuzzy phrase, like "universal coverage".

In contrast, our group (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine or www.WeStandFIRM.org) tried to use the term "socialized medicine" as often as possible, when appropriate for the context. And we did it for the very reason that the leftists *didn't* want that term used.

In particular when we explained that we used the term because the essential feature of all the leftist plans were the same -- namely that government bureaucrats would decide how and for what people could spend their own health care dollars, rather than the individual making that decision according to his own best judgment for his own benefit -- then it resonated with the public.

This is clearly going to be a "hot button" issue for the 2008 election. Hence, the more people who learn about this issue and decide that socialized medicine is wrong, the better off we'll be.

Thank you again,
Paul Hsieh, MD
Sedalia, CO
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine: www.WeStandFIRM.org