Just saw a commercial from the AMA (American Medical Association) touting their proposal to require everyone to have health insurance. They have a website www.voicefortheuninsured.org.

I wondered if the site would have anything about the personal responsibility of healthy living and making responsible choices about the use of health care, or only be a way to generate more demand and money for the services of AMA members and pharmaceuticals.

The site is full of stories about individuals "struggling to survive" without insurance, from the 46 million people in the U.S. who they claim don't have health insurance. Those who choose to go without insurance are represented as lacking in "personal responsibility".

Not surprisingly, not a word about the personal responsibility to live in a healthy way. Nothing about discouraging the over use of emergency rooms. Didn't find anything about requiring citizenship. Only stuff on their website about personal responsibility to buy health insurance, and tax penalties for those who choose not to purchase health insurance, and new government programs to tax "rich people" to provide insurance for "poor" people.

Here is a story you won't read on the AMA website:

• I know of a family that had an income of less than $4K a month in a county where the average family income is $10K or more per month. It is one of the most expensive counties in the U.S.. The family decided to do without an expensive $700 a month Kaiser health insurance policy when they realized how few times a year they really needed to go to the doctor. When friends with government benefits like Medical would run to emergency rooms for all their needs (they had no incentive not to), this family made sure to schedule their needs with a doctor whose services they could pay directly for. They realized just one month of Kaiser premiums would pay for quite a few doctor visits, even in their county. They worked hard to exercise, eat more healthy foods, avoid meat, don't smoke, don't drink, and pursue natural remedies to improve their health. They saved tens of thousands of dollars in health care costs over several years. They used some of those savings to visit foreign countries where more comprehensive medical and dental care is available for a fee much less than in the U.S.

The AMA would like to use the force of government to take away that choice. They need the money of those who avoid health care costs through healthy living choices. The AMA proposal is to require anyone with an income of 500% or more of the federal poverty line to be required to buy insurance without any subsidy. For an individual that is $52,000 a year, and for a family of three, that amount is $88,000. Given the cost of a Kaiser family plan as an example, at about $8,000 a year, this amounts to an extra TAX of 10% on the family! Those below that income level would also be required to buy insurance, but don't worry, the government will be there to "help" them.

The website complains that it is a problem when low risk people opt out of paying for insurance because they know they are not likely to need it. The AMA claims it drives up the cost of insurance for the more needy people by at least $900 a year.

Their proposal includes various credits for lower income people to pay for insurance, which they claim would be funded by penalties on those who go without insurance. They have no data to say if they expect to make enough money from this penalty to pay for the credits to lower income individuals, but its probable additional taxes would need to be levied to support the low income health insurance subsidies. So the actual cost burden for a "rich" family making $88K or more would be several percentage points higher than just the cost of their own insurance premiums. Of course Senator Biden says it is our patriotic duty to pay more taxes.

Lost in the debate, except for blog articles like mine, are the people who choose to self-insure themselves, or their families, or their groups. For example, the Amish refuse to buy health insurance, they consider it to be a form of gambling. Instead the community bands together to pay for the health care that they need from doctors outside their community. I know entrepreneurs who barter with their dentist or eye doctor in exchange for their dental and eye care. The last time Hillary had a chance to bring about universal healthcare, she wanted to make it a crime to choose to pay for your own healthcare.

The AMA site speaks in warm terms about the new mandates in Massachusettes requiring everyone to buy health insurance.

Are you willing to see your ability to choose to live healthy at a reduced cost taken away in favor of a 15% tax to give more money to AMA members and drug companies?

followup... I was just looking up information on the various ballot propositions in California, and found at the joinarnold website that one of the issues Arnold Swarzeneger wants us to join him in promoting is forcing everyone in California to buy health insurance. Not surprising, he's long been seen as a democrat in the veneer of a republican. sigh.

When fiscal conservatives complain about the ever increasing cost of government programs to "take care" of people, they are frequently accused by liberals of wanting to let people "live under a bridge" without the safety nets that liberals have dreamed up. Many in our society are very willing to chase whichever politican offers more "goodies", not caring when the politician says he will take the money from "big corporations" or "rich people". In the past, American's were willing to bet on pursuing with hard work their own dreams to ensure their future prosperity, but today, too many people have given up and want to demand no strings support from those whose success they envy.

While care of seniors, and the cost of providing medical care for them, needs our attention, (modern society has substituted expensive government safety nets for the intergenerational family support structures of the past), one of the biggest areas of concern in our society should be for the next generation who are seeking to make their way, and will some day be depended on to pay for the expensive government programs that liberals are dreaming up.

Many of these kids are likely to be among those who don't have health insurance. They may be more drammatically affected by the rising costs of rent, or even worse, eviction from a residence whose landlord is being foreclosed upon. They are vulnerable to being fired for baseless sexual harrassment claims by customers, or to being fired when they vent their frustration about baseless complaints to an investigating supervisor. When some of these individuals feel "trapped" in their current situation, that they have no where else to turn, is that all we should consider, or should a deeper look be done?

In California juvenile court waiting rooms, there is a magazine with a title along the lines of "Your Child and The Law". It tells parents about their responsibilies to take care of their children until age 18, except in very limited circumstances when the child petitions for emancipation.

A parent sitting in that waiting room, who has been trying to do everything possible to help their child, but is helpless and yet still responsible in the situation of a 17 year old refusing to obey court orders can be very frustrated by those requirements. Even more frustrating can be the section that gives the name of "pushout" to the phenomenon of parents who have to have the child move out at 18. Many parents may have spent years trying to prepare their child with warnings about the reality that living in the home past 18 depends on the child either

• going to school,
• or working to pay rent,
• and in either case, being a non-disruptive member of the household.

To see that liberals have given a term like "pushout" to this, with the implicit shift in blaim to the parents, can be very frustrating for the caring parent. How about instead using a term like "turn away" to represent the child who has turned away from a refusal to honor their parents and give a proper response to the support that the family has offered?

The real difference is that conservatives favor personal responsibility and giving people a rope to help themselves. Many conservatives will readily admit to the ropes they were offered by others. And they used those ropes, they didn't depend on a safety net. But today, there are many resting in safety nets who could be providing services and climbing ropes out of their current situation. In some of these cases, these people are young adults who have passed up countless ropes given to help them on their way: Parents arranging for housing rentals where the child doesn't keep their rent paid Parents watching as the child has opportunities to work for their landlord in exchange for unpaid rent, but then doesn't show up for the work Employers offering training that the child chooses not to take advantage of Children taking advantage of a boss being on vacation to think they can get away with shorting the boss on hours Children pursuing illicit substances, then wondering why they lose jobs Parents willing to provide working opportunities for their children, but the children refuse to take advantage of the opportunity In these kinds of cases, often the "need" of a safety net can be traced to repeated refusal to use the ropes offered. How much responsibility should society bear for those who refuse to do what is necessary to lift themselves out of their present circumstances?

Not to pick on single moms, but the principle illustrates my point... Mothers on welfare have an implicit contract with the state that provides them between $8,000 and $15,000 in benefits: Don't work Don't marry an employed male Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism

Can we blaim the conservative who acknowledges the ropes he was given and used, and frustration at being forced to pay for safety nets for those who are too busy practicing "entitlement" and "blaim" to have time to use a rope to better themselves. Why shouldn't we all be frustrated with those who would rather use the safety nets like a hammock than to work hard and climb the ropes like their forefathers did? Why do we blaim the conservative who says "No one gave me a hammock, why should I have to pay for a safety net to be used like a hammock by others?"

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Capitalism (Politically Incorrect Guides)
Robert P. Murphy

$19.95(USD)

---

Participating in the economy is a part of everyday life, yet much of what is commonly accepted as economic fact is wrong. Keynesian schoolteachers and the liberal media have filled the world with politically correct errors that myth-busting professor Robert Murphy sets straight. Murphy explains hot topics like outsourcing (why it's good for Americans) and zoning restrictions (why they're not). Just like the other books in the P.I.G. series, The Politically Incorrect GuideT to Capitalism pulls no punches.

---