One of the major arguments against the proposed healthcare reform bill (now health insurance reform??) is the concern over the possibility of 'rationing'. It is obvious that, especially since the advertised objective of the government's intrusion into healthcare is to make it available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay, there will have to be decisions by someone as to who gets care and how much.

This is certainly a valid concern. The idea that someone else is making decisions which are critical to your life and health is not satisfactory to most people. And the thought that the 'someone' will be an unknown bureaucrat in D.C. is both galling and scary. It does not appear at all compatible with the Rights to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' declared in the Declaration of Independence.

What does not seem properly understood, however, is that healthcare, like all other goods and services, MUST be rationed in some manner. There is a finite amount of everything, so the eternal question is who gets what. Therefore, the question before 'We The People', represented we hope by our government, is whether the rationing will be done by bureaucrats, OR whether it will be done by FREE MARKETS.

Historically the American Way has been to look to free markets to determine not only the rationing of goods and services, but also the supply of goods and services. Unfortunately, over the last century healthcare has drifted little by little from free markets to a government controlled and regulated supply of both services and drugs. It is this writer's belief that the current runaway costs of healthcare are primarily the result of such government interference. Thus, after creating a 'crisis' (Rahm Emanuel's desired condition) in healthcare costs, the government proposes to cure its crisis by assuming the role of rationing the overpriced and inadequate supply.

In addition to returning the 'rationing' decisions to those that are directly affected, the free market approach has other benefits. The government solution requires a huge (always) bureaucratic empire to implement the rules (made by bureaucrats) for rationing. This empire adds considerable cost to the total for healthcare, which ultimately means less care for the available funds. The empire will determine what goods and services are provided, with the certain result that innovation will dry up. The empire will try to dictate prices which will also reduce supply. Oh, what a tangled web we weave!

To summarize then, the choice being presented to the American people is not whether everyone will have unlimited healthcare, but whether we look to the government or to free markets to provide and ration the necessarily limited supply of healthcare goods and services. To me the choice is a no-brainer - America's globally envied healthcare to date has been made possible by what free markets have been allowed to exist, and all attempts in other countries to implement the government solution inevitably fail or are failing.

What is needed is not ObamaCare. What is needed is to remove the current government interference in the healthcare market.

Marcus Everett

marcus.everett@citlink.net

August 12, 2009