Following is a letter I submitted to the editorial staff of the Quad City Times:
On November 4, Rep. Bruce Braley wrote regarding H.R. 3692 in an op-ed for the Des Moines Register, “I’m convinced this legislation is good for Iowa.” His many claims about the bill’s benefits are grand, sweeping, and totally unsubstantiated. They may be true, they may be obfuscated partial truths, or they may be outright falsehoods. Nobody actually knows. Even the CBO’s estimates eschew forecasting beyond 10 years because there are simply too many unknowns. I do know, however, that two realities do not recommend Rep. Braley’s certitude. First is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Every system devised by man will be abused, and Congress is foolish to pass legislation that discounts or ignores the effects of corruption. Second is the history of socialized medicine in other countries. Congress is willfully blind to the negative impact on overall health wrought by similar public-health systems. We adopt their failures to our own detriment. Who will subsidize our pharmaceuticals and develop cutting edge medical technology? Where will Americans go to seek quality care when the government tells us we have to wait months on end for treatment? Socialized medicine in other countries has managed to stay afloat for so long because our (mostly) free-market system has been here to take up the slack. Say farewell to innovation. Say farewell to quality care.
Then again, lessons of history seem to be lost on the current majority–to say nothing of those past. Do not forget that this same Congress acted urgently to pass a $1.2 trillion stimulus package that has failed even by the administration’s own calculations. President Obama warned that unemployment would approach 9% if we did nothing. Instead, Congress passed a deficit-spending boondoggle and unemployment today stands at just under 10%. Vice President Biden said that “everyone guessed wrong” when it came to correcting the economic contraction. We can learn two lessons from this. First, Congressional spending has done more harm to the economy than simply doing nothing at all. Second, the minority of house members who voted against it “guessed” right. I suspect they weren’t really guessing at all. They understood the economic truth that you can’t dig yourself out of a hole. We can’t spend our way out of unsustainable debt. Those members make valid points in the debate on health care reform, as well.
Rep. Braley’s op-ed does contain one statement that resonates: “The Affordable Health Care for America Act will … allow Americans to maintain their choice of health insurance.” In the first place, I understand the Constitution fairly well, and it clearly establishes power in the people. The government doesn’t “allow” us to do anything. Our foundational law of the land explicitly restricts what government may do. If anything, we the people allow the government to act on our behalf. It seems like a minor misstep in communication, but it betrays a personal bias toward government sovereignty over the people, a mindset that is wholly unfit for public service. In the second place, this statement is factually correct and completely misleading. According to a more experienced Iowa representative, the public option will be no option at all:
The bill allows for the establishment of a government-run public option. The bill sets up a Health Advisory Board that will be able to dictate what kinds of insurance private insurers must provide and what kinds of insurance Americans must buy. It’s not hard to see how the decisions of such a board could be used to tilt the scales in favor of the government-run option – making it harder for private insurers to compete. Any government-run public option will eventually drive its private competitors out of business, meaning that, in the end, Americans will be left with only one choice for insurance, the government.” Rep. Steve King
Now is the time to tighten our belts. We have already had to do this in our personal lives. Congress, however, wants to borrow another trillion dollars by mortgaging our children’s futures so members can play political football with one-sixth of our nation’s economy. Rationing is an economic imperative when resources are scarce. With all due respect to Rep. Braley (who is a lawyer and not an economist) I must reiterate the foundational principle of basic economics: all resources are scarce. It is precisely that scarcity that empowers the Laws of Supply and Demand. When free people economize their resources rationing is an individual decision based on enlightened self-interest. When government enforces a resource mandate rationing is a potent weapon for controlling individual behavior, thereby obliterating individual choice. This is why I oppose health care reform measures that erode personal freedom for any citizen, especially when they won’t accomplish their stated goals in the first place. His support of this legislation is why I will work in 2010 to replace Rep. Braley with a person who represents District 1 in its entirety, as opposed to the small subset of Iowans who live within circulation range of the Des Moines Register.
