One of the ideas I've seen bandied about by Democrats seeking relief from their recent debacle is a call for the Democratic Party to bring back universal health care as a campaign issue. Doing so, the argument goes, would give the Democrats something to point to as a positive program they could offer America, therefore helping to both delineate the differences between the parties and to allow the Democrats to shape the national debate.

From a political standpoint, I think the Democrats are on solid ground here. Speaking as someone who's been without health care for going on eight months, I can sympathize with those who would like to see a national health care system. Bringing that issue to the fore would certainly force Republicans to either cave on their principles (likely, though not a sure thing) or force them to explain why they don't want a national health care system (though the Democrats will surely explain it as simple callousness). If the Democrats could make health care a major campaign issue, it seems reasonable it would help them pick up some votes.

That having been, said, I hope they fail for an entirely different reason. The idea of the U.S. government taking over our national health care system fills me with dread. The simple prescription drug plan that President Bush is almost certain to ram through Congress will lead to a downturn in research funds for new drugs, meaning a decline in future health care even as it may help some people right now. Were the government to fully nationalize health care, the consequences would be far worse.

Already, many doctors are refusing to treat Medicare patients because the government-mandated compensation levels are too low to properly reimburse the doctors for their time. Were the government able to set those levels uniformly across the country, doctors might have no choice but to care for patients or go out of business, but would it be likely that many people would choose to go into medicine in the future? Becoming a doctor is a very difficult and time-consuming process. It takes roughly a decade to produce a doctor, and that decade is packed full of long hours and incredibly difficult and stressful work. But many people go into medicine because they want to help people and because the financial rewards for being a successful doctor are commensurate with the effort required to become one. A government health care system would remove the financial rewards from the equation, leaving us with fewer doctors over time.

As the number of doctors declined, the number of patients would increase. As any student of economics knows, the cheaper a product is, the more likely people are to buy it. If I sell cars for $15-$40,000 a pop, demand will stay steady at around 60-100 cars a month (for our store, not nationally). Were I to cut the prices on cars to $1500-$4000 a copy, demand would surge incredibly. I couldn't keep the cars on the lot, in fact, at those prices. By that same token, were medical care made to appear free, by nationalizing health care, far more people would take advantage of all medical options available to them. Whereas now people might simply take some asprin or slap a band-aid on a cut, if their perceived costs were close to zero, they would be far more inclined to see a doctor for even minor injuries, just in case. This is not theoretical, as residents of Canada and England can attest. Getting an appointment to see a doctor in those countries, with their national health care plans, requires months of advance planning. Emulating those systems seems an unwise decision to me.

But, proponents will argue, we could do it differently. We could ensure that there wouldn't be long waits like that. OK, I'll bite. How?

We could ration health care, of course. You only get so many visits per year, so you'd better save them for when you need them most. Sounds terrific, except some people need to go to the doctor far more often than others. I could probably get by with a yearly checkup, as I'm reasonably fit and healthy. Someone with a serious disease, conversely, might have to see a doctor weekly, or even more often.

No problem, I can hear the health care advocates cry. We'll just ration it according to need. If you're sick, you'll get the visits you need. Problem solved, right?

Not yet. Who determines which sicknesses require how many visits? It should be doctors, right? After all, Joe Bureaucrat is hardly qualified to determine if breast cancer calls for weekly visits or monthly visits. So what do we do when demand outstrips supply? Doctors would probably prefer to use the precautionary principle in visit frequency, since it's better to have a patient come in to learn there's nothing wrong than for the patient to stay home and not be properly diagnosed. Sooner or later, and almost certainly sooner, there will be more patients visits required than doctors' time available. Then what?

Simple. We have to ration the health care. Some people won't get as much as they need, some people will get more than they need. I don't see this as being an improvement on our current system.

Hold on now, Andy, you say. Under our current system, costs for health care are skyrocketing. At least a national health plan could keep costs under control.

How? By mandating what doctors receive for certain procedures? If that cost is less than their cost for performing the procedure, they'll simply stop performing that procedure. No help there. Mandating cost caps on prescription drugs may make current drugs cheaper, but it will also ensure there are few, if any, new drugs that come to market in the future by eliminating the incentive to research. The same goes for medical equipment. Machines like MRIs are extremely expensive, to pay for the research required to develop them and the actual costs of constructing them. If government decides to set caps on their costs, they will once again eliminate the motive for developing new and better procedures.

And none of this takes into account how poorly the government's track record is on creating bureaucracies like this. Name a single government bureaucracy that does it's job to standard and under budget consistently. Go ahead, I'll wait.

A national health care plan might well make health care cheaper in the short run. But it would do nothing to make it better. In the long run, government health care would only stagnate progress in the field of medicine, leading to greater health problems in the future. I don't know what the solution to health care is, but I'm confident that nationalizing it would not be the right answer.

posted at 09:57 AM | permalink | (0) comment | TrackBack (0)

“No sweat, sir. You can count on me. We’ll stop them.”

Last words of SP4 James K. Stoddard as he lay bleeding out. And
he knew it.
26 Feb 1968-Hill 614

“Red Hat Six, this is Ghostrider Two-Seven. I’m sorry I won’t be able to help you any more today. I’m gut shot. I’ll have to leave you now. Hang on and good luck.”

Radio transmission from helicopter pilot to
Army captain and his unit facing the 174th
and 66th NVA regiments
27 Feb 1968-Hill 614

“It don’t mean nothin’.”

Words of SP4 Henry Lawrence when told
his unit was surrounded by 66th and 174th
NVA regiments
26 Feb 1968-Hill 614

“Look out, they’re coming.”
Last words of Captain Don J. York, after
33rd Vietnamese Airborne Rifle Company
was caught in vehicle ambush near Ben Suc
14 Jul 1962

“Many of the wounded will not live until morning.”
Last words of Cpt. (Dr.) Nguyen Se Twan
18 Mar 1968-near Lang Ve Special Forces Camp

“This is Red Hat Eight-One, we need a MEDEVAC bad, three soldiers are hurt bad by a mine and my legs are blown off. Tell them to hurry!”

Last words of 1st Lt. “Chuck” Hemingway
“The Street without Joy”-9 Jun 1967

“I know, I’ll be careful, but they need this machine gun up front.”

Last words of 1st Lt. Bob Arvin
As a cadet was First Captain at West Point
5 Sep 1967-north of Hue, near PK 17

“I can see you, you are coming up on the left. Be careful, they have a 57 recoilless in the brown building.”

Last words of Cpt. Terry Sage, killed by 57
Recoilless fire in JGS compound
Saigon-2 Feb 1968

posted at 11:22 AM | permalink | (0) comment | TrackBack (0)

Once again demonstrating why he's the king of the essay, Lileks offers a spot-on explanation for what's wrong with so many in politics today. Although Lileks takes on the Left, the problem is prevalent on both sides of the aisle, and it's Lileks summary of the problem that hit me with one of those eureka moments.

I don't mind arguing with those who disagree with me. My own brother and father disagree with me on any number of political issues, and we sometimes go tooth and nail on them. But we respect each other's differences. If someone I'm arguing with believes that universal health care is the cure for what ails us, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...as long as he's willing to do the same for me.

The biggest problem with political discourse in this country today, for my money, is that neither side is willing to consider the possibility the other believes their position is the right thing to do. The Left views the Right as racist plutocrats, while the Right sees the Left as anti-American communists. So there's no need to consider the other side's argument, see, because he's actually Satan in disguise. Or, to use Lileks's words:

Respect works both ways, and if it’s not returned, then something changes. There’s a difference between thinking someone’s strategies are wrong, and thinking them a knave who acts from ignorance at best, and more likely acts from malice. If that’s what you think, I am not interested in changing your mind. I am not interested in working together. I am not interested in suffering your insults or your condescension or any other form your preconceptions take. I am interested in defeating you, and getting down to work with the people who come in your place, and grant me the respect I’ll give them.

posted at 09:03 AM | permalink | (4) comment | TrackBack (0)

As Iraq prepares to convene its parliament to discuss the question of compliance with the Security Council resolution, (now I realize why Saddam provides these pretexts of democracy: they gain him time; he can't make a decision until after his parliament has met, after all), the next stage of delaying tactics begins. There is little doubt Hussein will play this game as he has done in the past, offering conditional acceptances and outright refusal until it appears an invasion might be immanent, then backing down to gain more time. It is equally in little doubt the anti-war forces will do everything in their power to support him in this. And for every delay, the question remains, is that the delay that will give Hussein enough time to develop a nuclear weapon?

We've already delayed this war for at least three months, although I certainly don't begrudge the time spent gaining a formal authorization from Congress. But each day that now goes by offers the possibility that we will have given Hussein one day too many. I can sympathize with those who don't want to attack unless Hussein demonstrates he won't cooperate with the arms inspectors, but given Hussein's history, this seems redundant. Hussein never cooperated with the inspection regime. It seems unlikely he would change his tune now.

We're not ready to go right now, at least not with a full-fledged attack. But we could have enough assets to get the ball rolling inside two weeks. It's time we started moving the right forces into place, so that we can launch an attack as soon as we find in necessary. Even if, through some miracle, Hussein suddenly does decide to comply with the inspectors, having an invasion force on hand will likely do wonders to encourage such behavior.

We have national and international sanction to enforce Iraqi disarmament. It's time we got the ball rolling.

posted at 10:45 PM | permalink | (2) comment | TrackBack (0)

As Representatives Pelosi and Ford jockey for the position of House Democratic Leader, I wonder which would be a better representative for the country.

The assumption of most commentators has been that the selection of Pelosi would be a political godsend for the Republicans. Far more liberal than Dick Gephardt, the San Francisco Democrat certainly could be an easy caricature, just as the Democrats used Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s.

Ford, conversely, is a centrist Democrat in the mold of the DLC. He would be far more difficult to caricature, and could be expected to present a far more palatable face for the Democrats.

In one sense, it seems Pelosi would be a better pick for the Democrats. She would present a clearer difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, likely pulling the Democrats to a far more leftish stance. Her leadership would certainly give Americans the opportunity to choose between two truly different parties. On the other hand, she might also drag the party off a cliff, as opposing the war on terror would likely eliminate the Democrats as a serious party until we win the war.

Therefore, it seems the country would be best served by a Ford victory. Ford supports the war effort, and his support could help him and Democrats develop the credibility to challenge the Republicans on the direction the war takes. Such a development would make the Democrats stronger, but by forcing them to provide real alternatives to the Republican vision. We would all benefit from such a change.

posted at 10:30 PM | permalink | (5) comment | TrackBack (0)

So, now that the U.N. Security Council has unanimously passed a resolution threatening serious consequences to Iraq should they not comply with U.N. weapons inspections, have we jumped through all the hoops required of us by the anti-war community?

Please. Congressional approval and U.N. approval were just dodges. The anti-war movement will find another reason why the U.S. is wrong to disarm Iraq, because they don't want Iraq disarmed and they would be just as happy to see the U.S. further damaged by the war on terror.

Over a year ago, President Bush told the world they were either with us or against us. The anti-war forces are, in large part, taking him at his word and standing against us. I don't think the majority of them truly want to see another attack like September 11th, but the sad truth is, their attempts to disable our ability to defend ourselves objectively helps our enemies. Now it remains to be seen what new argument they'll dream up for why, despite U.N. approval, the U.S. should still not act against Iraq.

If nothing else, they deserve great credit for creativity. I would be interested to hear one of them say if there are any terms under which they would approve an American attack on Iraq, or if they could be honest enough to say that it doesn't matter what we do, they'll still oppose the war.

posted at 09:31 PM | permalink | (7) comment | TrackBack (0)

As I discuss my rationale for going to war, those who disagree with me have consistently avoided my arguments, instead raising tangental or wholly irrelevant objections to going to war that never address my real point. So here I present three reasons I have for war with Iraq, each one individually sufficient, in my opinion, to go to war. I hope that the opposition will take the time to address them.

1: Saddam Hussein is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Twice in the past, Hussein has attacked his neighbors in an attempt to expand his domain. Were Hussein to gain nuclear weapons, it would become far more difficult and costly in both blood and treasure for us to prevent him from attacking his neighbors again. Sanctions are never perfect, and the widespread violations of the sanctions against Iraq mean it is impossible for us to ensure Iraq will not eventually acquire sufficient fissionable material to build one or more nuclear weapons. If we do not act now, we are gambling millions of lives that Hussein will never acquire nuclear weapons. A war now will be far less costly than a war after Iraq has nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is in our best interests to remove Hussein from power now.

2: Iraq is in violation of both the Gulf War cease fire agreement and multiple UN Security Council resolutions. If the United Nations and international law are to have any relevance in the world, there must exist some enforcement mechanism for them. Sanctions have clearly been insufficient to enforce those rulings. Therefore, if we are to preserve the relevance of international law and the UN, the world powers should act together to force Iraq to obey those resolutions and agreements.

3: Iraq may, although they are probably not, still be holding an American POW from the Gulf War, LCDR Scott Speicher. Although I personally do not believe they are still holding him, there is no question they are withholding information about the fate of LCDR Speicher. As an American soldier, I believe that alone is sufficient reason for us to resume our war with Iraq until such time as they release all the information they have.

There they are. Any one of those reasons are, to me, sufficient for the United States to make war on Iraq.

posted at 09:45 PM | permalink | (7) comment | TrackBack (0)