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

There has recently been increased interest in Term Limits for elected offices. It has become blatantly obvious to even the rank and file citizenry that career politicians are a large (if not the largest) part of the problem in all levels of government. However, there are several problems with getting from here to ANY semblence of term limits, and in addition there is of course considerable disagreement as to what such limits should be.

At the Federal level, the first problem - how to get there - is a very high hurdle. To begin with, it is virtually inconceivable that any Legislative body is going to cut its own head off by passing term limit legislation. No one is likely to vote themselves out of a job, especially one as lucrative and cushy as political office. Since such a vote would have the same effect as firing them, threatening to throw them out has no real clout. Furthermore, at the Federal level, there is no such thing as a referendum that would allow the citizenry to pass term limit legislation, and even if there were, the next bunch of crooks in office would just repeal it. Worse yet, at the Federal level, passing a Constitutional Amendment (which is what is ultimately needed) requires either two thirds of Congress (not gonna happen) or two thirds of the Legislatures of the States (also very unlikely) to propose such an Amendment. And then three forths of the States must ratify it. Prospects are dim.

Even though hope of such a Constitutional Amendment is vanishingly small, let's take a minute to look at what such Term Limits might be. Most suggestions are for two or three terms, somewhat akin to the two term limit that was passed for the Presidency. (Note that this Amendment probably was successful only because most of Congress and the State Legislatures had little hope of winning the Presidency.) Some suggestions at the Federal level have been for a fixed time limit, with 12 years (6 terms of the House or 2 terms of the Senate) being the favorite.

Unfortunately, the problem with the career politician is that he (or she) is always running for the next election. The minute that the current election is won, the campaign for the next election is the primary focus for not only most of his time, but for what his vote is going to be on any bills that come up. To me, this is the root of the problem. With this in mind, it seems obvious that the proper term limit is ONE.

Even passing a Term Limit Amendment limiting all terms of elected office to one term still leaves a gaping hole. This was blatantly illustrated in the last Presidential election. ALL of the contenders were currently holding office at the time, and most spent the better part of two years campaigning rather than addressing the task they had been elected for. Ironically, since the winner had only just been elected to the Senate in the previous election cycle, he basically reneged on his obligations to his constituents to campaign for a better job. As a blurb that circulated on email suggested, try that on YOUR job.

My proposal for a Constitutional Amendment, albeit probably unattainable, is the following. Since the problem is not only that the career politician sucks off the public teat all his life, but in addition the fact that he is also constantly campaigning for the next election, there is only one way to end the farce. To wit:

Marcus Everett

marcus.everett@citlink.net