How do you get health care reform, which will harm doctors, patients, health related companies and all tax payers? Simple. You lie, cheat, steal, and if need be, you bang some heads. That is exactly what the Obama administration and congressional democrats are doing. Today’s Wall Street Journal highlights just one such scam being employed to get the support of the American Medical Association.

President Obama has made serial promises that he will not sign a health-care bill that “adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future, period.” This was never plausible, but now we can begin to understand what he meant: Democrats plan to make ObamaCare “deficit-neutral” by moving nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the books, in the fiscal deception of the century.

Later this week, or maybe next, Senate Democrats plan to vote on a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of “comprehensive” health reform. Rather than include the pricey $247 billion plan known on Capitol Hill as the “doc fix” as part of ObamaCare, they’ll instead make this a separate contribution to the deficit, without compensating tax increases or spending cuts. Majority Leader Harry Reid explained at a press conference last week that “All we’re doing is wiping the slate clean by adjusting the baseline to what is current policy. This is not new policy.”

Wiping the slate is right.

It’s true that Congress likes to pretend that the “sustainable growth rate,” or SGR, is real. Created in 1997, the SGR slashes Medicare reimbursements if costs rise too steeply, as they always do. In January, doctors fees are scheduled to fall by 21.5%, and 40% over the next five years. That would force many doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients, so Congress intervenes every year and temporarily overrides the cuts.

The American Medical Association’s asking price for supporting ObamaCare is scrapping the SGR. House Democrats did just that, but it pushed the total cost of their bill above $1 trillion, a political red line. The Senate Finance Committee chose the subterfuge of fixing the problem for only one year, which is how Chairman Max Baucus could claim he had done the miracle-work of designing an entitlement that reduces the deficit over 10 years. The AMA wasn’t pacified.

So now Democrats are simply going to “untether” this spending on doctors from ObamaCare, hiding even more of its true costs. At a meeting on the Hill last week, Mr. Reid and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made the quid pro quo explicit, telling the AMA and about a dozen specialty societies that in return for this dispensation they expect them to back ObamaCare, no questions asked.

via Democrats Plan to Strip Sustainable Growth Rate Formula from Health-Care Reform – WSJ.com.

Already the Democrats are gathering support from horrible Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and now they are twisting arms to get Big Docs. We all know how evil these groups are, while the government is so virtuous and compassionate. Why would these groups that are going to be harmed by health care reform decide to back it? Is it because it’s what’s best for America? We are told that Big Pharma and Insurance are so evil and too many doctors would cut off  your left leg just to make a buck, but then when they back Obama all the sudden we are supposed to say, “Oh, well if they are backing it, it must be a fabulous idea.” Either they are evil, or they are not, Obama.

So to see who is evil, let’s just see who is pulling the fast one. In the article above, the government currently has a policy of slashing medicare payments to doctors if medicare costs rise too quickly. As we’ve discussed in previous posts, costs always rise “too quickly”, because government money floods the market driving up demand and third party payer hides price signals from the consumer. Also, “too quickly” is an arbitrary measure based on medicare budgeting. It has nothing to do with a what is really happening economically.

Anyways, in the end doctors are going to have their reimbursements cut yearly as costs exceed bureaucratic expectations. If you are a doctor, how many times are you going to let the government put the screws to you before you stop treating medicare patients? Then what happens when doctors begin dropping medicare patients? Well, we’ve already discussed that cost or price is effected by supply and demand. Even if demand stayed the same, which it won’t because this is a new expansion of medicare, supply is going to be cut. Doctors will be dropping out, leaving less doctors and choices for patients on the government’s dole. Oh, and guess what. With the decrease in supply, guess what happens. You guessed it, costs increase. Hmm, what did the government say they would do if costs increase above expectations? Oh yeah, they would cut reimbursement rates, leading to a circular decline of medical care.

“Hold up buddy. The article above says they are scrapping that.” Oh, that’s right. In a bargain with the devil, the AMA is going to support this if congress drops the SGR. Does dropping it fix the budgetary problems? No it doesn’t, and as soon as the budget ceiling explodes, you will hear how evil the doctors are again. Congress, like the decievers they are, will undoubtedly renege on their agreement with the AMA and re-instate the SGR.

There is nothing good about the government involvement in health care. It’s making a deal with the devil expecting him to uphold his end of the bargain. The problem is once the devil has gained control of your life, it takes an act of God to get him out.

Our government has been pushing alternative energy like they stand to make profits personally from the success of the green businesses. Hmm, could it be? How much has Gore made? Last I heard he’s made over $100 million. But profits are fine when they come from liberal causes, right?

Anyways, the reason I am writing this post is we’ve been told for generations now that we are going to run out of oil. Oil is a fossil fuel, and there is only so much of it. We are told we must not drill basically anywhere. This issue came to mind when I was out driving around looking at houses with my family. Although we have no intentions on buying any of the houses, this is just something we enjoy. While driving around, the following example became apparent. It applies to all limited commodities, and it highlights the fallacy that government must act so we don’t use all the world’s oil.

Have you ever noticed how older houses seem to have the best yards? At least where I live in Pittsburgh, the older houses seem to have the nice, flat yards. All the new houses are built with a cliff for a back yard. This is a constant complaint, but it is very simple to explain. It will highlight the fashion by which the market conserves resources. In a free market, home builders look to build houses for the lowest possible price. The lower the price the more purchasers. The more purchasers, the easier it will be to sell and make a profit. Developing a home on a flat lot is much cheaper than developing on a hill. Developing on a hill requires tons of expensive excavation. This is why the flat land is developed first.  Over time, more and more of the flat areas are developed. As the flat areas are used up, they become more expensive.  Supply shrinks while demand doesn’t. As they become more expensive, developing the hilly area starts to become more reasonable. Eventually, the flat land, because of low supply, costs more to develop than the hill.

The developers begin developing the hills because they can offer them cheaper than the remaining flat lots that as we already said have risen in price. Developers will continue this process moving to more and more difficult and expensive developments as the price of the low hanging fruit increases because of decreasing supply. Ultimately, the remaining supply becomes so expensive that more expensive substitutes are used, in this case hilly land. This will leave flat land that is untouched. As the supply of easier to develop hill begin to dwindle, developers will move on to harder and harder to develop areas. The cost of developing the harder areas would more than likely lead to some recycling of the old flat lots that have houses on them already.

This is no different with oil. The technologies that are now too expensive to develop, mass produce, and distribute will get more and more economical as supply of oil shrinks and prices increase to reflect the shrinking supply. Similar to land development, as energy supplies get more expensive we will always move on to the previous uneconomical sources that have now become economical.  Because of the skyrocketing price, it would not make economical sense to use the remaining supply.

How do you run out of oil? You could run out of oil if the government decides to nationalize the oil supply for say “the public good”. Government also could impose price controls, which would prevent the price signals from having their effect on demand. These are the circumstances that spell disaster for conservation. As with most things, the government isn’t the solution, and as we know in many cases can be the biggest problem. The free market requires no compulsion, no taking of liberties, and would preserve our resources without force. No bureaucratic idiocy is needed for the free market to prevent us from using all the world’s oil. Well, unless someone in government is in the business of making unearned profits, maybe by forcing the world to buy carbon credits from a former Vice President who shall remain nameless.

Over the past week, I’ve been writing about how the free market is the best solution to health care reform. I also argued that the best way to fix health care is to get rid of third party payer, typically employers, from the health insurance purchase. The second fix was to get rid of third party payer for day to day medical expenses. For some reason, despite the fact that the market delivers food to you to survive, Americans think the market without the government involvement would not provide the insurance and medical solutions needed.

Now I’ve already argued that they would. Examples like walk-in health clinics, $4 prescriptions, and HSAs abound. The biggest fear for most people though is the pre-existing conditions and finding health insurance. I’ve exclaimed and still do that the market will address this need, because that is what the market does. It addresses needs.

The change that would help propel the creation of new insurance products is the consumer of the insurance actually purchasing the insurance. When we purchase goods and services for ourselves, we seek out the goods and services that address our needs effectively at the best possible price. This shopping will create a educated consumers and will generate competition among the providers of insurance and medical services.

Today while doing my bills, my mortgage company sent me this offer: “You can now get $100,000 of accident hospitalization insurance coverage for one full year for free.” Wow, free. Let’s take a look at the fine print. First, let’s make it clear this coverage is for accidental hospitalization. It is not for going to get your flu shot, which as we said before should be paid our of pocket. If our real concern is making sure we do not go bankrupt in the event of an unplanned disaster, surely a plan that covers accidents would be on the top of our list. So, this plan covers hospital stays and emergeny treatments. It even has an option to add your family and include doctors visits. Doctors visits are limited to one per month with a lifetime limit of 60 visits. Wow, I can probably count on one hand how many times I’ve been to the doctors in the past 20 years.

This plan is not total coverage, but it does address a need, accidental coverage. There are exclusions to this plan. The accident cannot be the result of drinking, drugs, committing a felony, flying a plane, war, accidents outside the US, etc. By limiting their exposure, they are able to offer a reasonable amount of coverage for a very low price. How much is this plan? After the free period, it goes up to $9.95/month. To add doctors visits, its $13.95/month, and for a family it’s $19.95/month.

So what does it say about pre-existing conditions? “All eligible customers who complete and return the Activation Form will be accepted. There are no medical questions or physical examinations required for enrollment.” Sounds pretty good for pre-existing conditions to me.

Now, I am not saying this plan here is the answer. It does not cover all scenarios. It’s for accidents. It does not cover cancer, heart attacks, or diseases. I think we could all agree, how could it at $9.95/month? What this highlights though is companies including your home mortgage company will offer solutions. When you are shopping for your own insurance, you will make good decisions to address your own personal needs. You will not be pigeon holed into a plan that doesn’t apply to you because a co-worker has different needs. You also will not go without options. The market is where options are created, and the government is where options are few and usually all bad.

Earlier this week, I posted a two part series on how to fix the health care crisis. The solution was to get rid of third party payer in respect to the purchase of health care and insurance. Immediately, I got and was glad to have received the red herring question of the pre-existing condition.

Let me start off by saying, that I have a child with special needs. My 9 year old son has cerebral palsy and has gone through years of physical therapy and occupational therapy to be able to walk on his own. He still wears braces on his legs. In additions, my niece has a severe case of autism, so bad that she is fed through a feeding tube. I say this because I know personally what parents have to deal with when it comes to pre-existing conditions.

With that said, free markets and freedom in general are principles on which this country was founded. Principles are meant to be applied in all circumstances, because they prevent us for choosing the wrong path. Our founders knew this. It is by veering off these principles that we are in the mess we are in now. Just because there is a hard issue to be addressed, doesn’t mean we throw away our principles. We don’t teach our children principles to guide them through life, just to have them toss them aside at the first circumstance that challenges their principles. Principles are meant for the hard issues. The are not meant for the easy issues.

“OK buddy. Enough preaching already.”

Agreed! We must start off this topic discussing the morality of government health insurance. Then we will move on to the economics of the issue.

In Thomas Paine’s great work “Common Sense”, he lays out how and why governments come into existence. He describes a civilization with two people, and how with two people you do not need government. Those two people can discuss their problems and come to a solution directly. As more and more people come into this society, they can no longer work out their disagreements directly. There are just too many of them, and they have other duties that require their attention and time. This is when government comes into existence. They decide to appoint select members of the society that they believe will represent their best interests. Those representatives will then setup laws and rules that protect all members of the society. What are they protecting each member of society from? They are protecting them from each other. They are making sure that one member doesn’t use coercion on another member. This coercion can be in the form of theft, fraud or even murder. This is how government is supposed to function in a free society. I think we would all agree that the government that functions in this manner is a just and moral government.

If we all agree to that, then we must acknowledge that coercing someone against their will directly or through the government is an immoral act. This is why the free market is always moral, and all other systems are immoral. The free market allows people, in pursuit of their own interest, to peacefully without coercion come to an agreement on trading a product or service between themselves. Both parties in the transaction walk away from the transaction better than before.

As soon as the government becomes involved, with the exception of preventing coercion (contract law, prosecuting fraud and extortion, etc), they then become the coercive power. Just because they may be acting on something that the majority agrees with doesn’t mean that coercion is now moral. I’m sure the best case of this was slavery. The majority approval for the government coercion did not make slavery moral. Immoral acts are always immoral.

What I am leading up to here is having the government force any individual to pay for another individual’s health insurance is immoral. Also, forcing an individual to buy his own insurance is immoral. In a free society, people are free to pursue their self interest. They are free to be miserly, charitable or neither. They are free to be successful, and they are free to fail. This is a just and moral society. As discussed earlier, this is a principled society. As soon as you veer away from this principle, no matter what your intentions, you then cannot say that another act of coercion, say Wall Street millionaires taking our tax dollars, is immoral.

I know this may sound like great theory, but the truth is life would be much better if we stuck to the principles of our founding fathers. I think we all know and agree to that, but then for some reason we immediately find that this special circumstance is different. It isn’t different. Our founding fathers had many reasons and opportunities to take the path we are now taking. They decided to take the principled stand. They decided to take it for us. George Washington could have easily been a king. He could have setup a monarchy that would have passed from generation to generation. Read history, and you will find how easily he could have done this. People were begging him to be king. Instead, he stood on the principles they professed during the revolution, and he stepped down after two terms.

Now, enough of my moral argument. Morals are great, and we’d all be better off if we lived by them, but how will the free market address the question that prompted this blog?

The free market operates in this manner. Individuals need many things for survival and pleasure. Because they cannot meet all their needs by their own action and invention, they offer what they are best and most efficient at creating and delivering for something they need that someone else is best and most efficient at creating and delivering. This is what is known as the division of labor. For society to benefit the most from everyone’s production, this must be voluntary and with out compulsion. When voluntary, people will seek to offer what they can create better and in more supply than everyone else. They do this based on their self interest. The more value they can create the more they will be able to get from others through trade. When government bureaucrats decide who should do what, you end up with people producing things that they are less efficient at producing. This results in a lower quality of life for us all.

This is apparent even in the most obscure products and services that are offered today. Do you think in government controlled economies, people with a fetish for purple, prince garbed, frog figurines could ever find the product they seek? In the free market, even products and services that seem so obscure that they wouldn’t be worth producing are produced. They are produced because there is a need, there is someone who can produce it, and there is a price at which both agree the product is worth producing and purchasing.

In the market of pre-existing medical conditions, this type of innovation would undoubtedly take place as well. There would be entrepreneurs that see a need that needs met. Typically, these entrepreneurs have experience themselves with being on the needing side of the tracks. They found that they couldn’t meet their own need through the market, so they say “Hey, I see an opportunty here. Why don’t I offer this to society. There has got to be many more people out there with the same need.” As we know, this happens every day, and this is why we as Americans progress so quickly. This is why the internet in a very short time went from bulletin boards to what we have today, where you can make video conference calls across the globe for FREE!

That is not to say you would not have some progress under a government controlled economy. The problem is you would only have progress in the areas that some bureaucrat, special interest or the majority believe should be pursued. If your child suffers from a less common ailment, you are out of luck.

With the free market, you will see innovation so much faster, and you will see prices of those innovations quickly drop. How much did a little 20″ LCD screen cost just 10 years ago? Politicians love to blast the rich, but guess who will fund that new medical treatment your child or you need? When it is first developed in the free market, it will be expensive. That is because of all the research and development costs that went into innovating the product or service. The rich will be the only ones who can afford it. There are only so many rich people, and eventually the manufacturer will have to figure out how to make it cheaper to gain access to a larger market. In this process, all the other companies that participate in the creation of the product will also be pursuing reductions in production costs. This will create a butterfly effect, which will result in rapidly declining prices. I know people think it isn’t fair for the rich to be the only ones who can afford it at first, but under the government controlled market or a market with out the rich, the innovation wouldn’t have taken place.

As I said previously, when you remove the third party payer from the insurance purchase, you will quickly see incentives to live healthier. According to the CDC, chronic illnesses that are caused by life style choices account for 75% of all health care expenditures. It would be a far stretch of the imagination to believe that this number would not be drastically effected if those life style choices were punished via higher premiums. A large decrease in chronic diseases would undoubtedly reduce insurance rates, and it would reduce the cost of health care in general.

Also removing the third party payer from the day to day health care purchases would drastically increase competition and lower prices for normal health issues. This would help those who have pre-existing conditions by allowing them to get the regular medical care at a fair price. Personally, this was my major issue when searching for insurance. My son’s pre-existing condition prevented him from getting even catastrophic care. The reason being is they assumed there would be a large amount of day to day care. I wasn’t concerned with day to day care. My concern was catastrophe. I needed coverage for the care that you can’t plan for. With the decrease in the cost of day to day care that would result from paying out of pocket and increased competition, you would see insurers more inclined to cover those who have pre-existing conditions. One can easily imagine an insurance company running a new marketing campaign stating that is is the “Only insurance company to offer coverage for children with autism”. That is a market that needs served, and they would be the first to tap into that market. Quickly competitors would step up to the plate, and prices would be driven down. Doctors who specialize in a particular affliction would compete for the dollars of potential clients by offering the newest and best treatments. These are the circumstances in which the market shines best.

The last wonder of the free market that would help those who really struggle financially is charity. Historically, charity has always been the way the poor was able to receive the services that they need but could not afford. Americans are the most generous people on the planet, and it would be almost a guarantee that with the government out of the market you would see increased prosperity. With that increased prosperity, you would see more charitable donations. Insurance companies and doctors would donate time and dollars to take care of the less fortunate. One must ask what would happen with charity under a government run health care plan. If the government turns you down, it would almost certainly be illegal or at minimum be detrimental to the doctors relationship with the government if he performed a procedure out of charity.

As I write this, I get super excited as a parent of a special needs child thinking of the innovation that would be unleashed in a completely free market. Unfortunately, we have already let the barbarians in the gates, and they are not going to leave of their own accord. The likely hood that we will drive them out and take back our economy and country is slim. It involves the unknown. It’s easier to accept the mediocrity of the known than it is to trust in what we know is truth but seems so far from where we currently are. I beg you not to fear. Can you imagine what fear our founding fathers, who never knew what life was like without the protection of the Royal Crown, must have felt? The amount of courage that it must have taken just amazes me, even as I write this. I’m sure we can all agree, thank God that they did. Let’s remember life isn’t only about the here and now. It isn’t just about take care of me, and the future be damned. Now is our turn to take the principled stand. It’s our turn to make the tough decisions for posterity. If we do the right thing, one day, our children and grandchildren will say, “Thank God that they did.”

After reading the following editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning, I had to send in a letter to the editor. While I doubt it will get published, it will here. That’s another lovely thing about the free market! Here’s the editorial followed by my response.

By VERNON L. SMITH

There is widespread agreement with the principle that our health-care system needs to be reformed. But our representatives and our neighbors have much trouble in reaching agreement on the particulars. There have been many legislative bills offered and hundreds of amendments with no clear path to a resolution.

Health-care systems everywhere encounter cost overruns and rationing devices, like queues, in their diverse attempts to deliver products for which demand has long grown faster than other economic sectors. Why is it so difficult to find the private and public means, the combination of markets and government assistance, that enables a preferred outcome to emerge?

This question has a simple answer that plagues health care everywhere.

The health-care provider, A, is in the position of recommending to the patient, B, what B should buy from A. A third party—the insurance company or the government—is paying A for it.

This structure defines an incentive nightmare. You do not have to be an economist to realize that, when phrased in this way, nobody knows how to solve this problem. Hence the many experiments, all of which have been deemed less than satisfactory.

I don’t know whether this problem has a solution. If it does, I think it requires us to find mechanisms whereby third-party payment is made to the patient, B, who in turn pays A, supplemented with any co-payment from B for services. Hence, from the moment B seeks services from A both know who is going to be paying A for what is delivered. A and B each has need for what the other brings to the table, and this structure carries the potential for nurturing the relationship between A and B. B is empowered to become better informed about the services recommended by various A’s that he might choose among, and the A’s might find it particularly important to build good reputations with B’s.

Mr. Smith, the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, is a professor at Chapman University.

via Vernon L. Smith: The ABC Dilemma of Health Reform – WSJ.com.

Subject:  In response to “The ABC Dilemma of Health Reform”

Leave it to the intellectual to turn the simple into the complex. Mr. Smith, a Nobel Laureate, says “I don’t know whether this problem has a solution.” Is he serious? Any economist knows the disaster that ensues when price signals are not available to the purchaser.

The entire system can be fixed by addressing third party payer in respects to the purchase of medical services and the purchases of the insurance. Instead of further incentivizing the distortion of the market via the tax code’s promotion of employer purchasing of insurance, we should incentivize the individual. When the individual purchases his own insurance, he’ll make better puchasing decisions, such as buying a catastrophic plan instead of a plan that covers everything down to teeth cleaning. The individual will also make better purchasing decisions when the doctor tries billing him $10 for a band-aid.

When the accumulative effect of millions of these first party payer transaction kick in, you will see prices come back in line with the rest of the market. You will see entrepreneurs battling it out for the consumers dollar.

Sincerely,

Jason Vanzin

I know I’m starting to post a lot of videos, but as I find great videos that advocate the free market I want to share them with my readers. The free market is so powerful. To demonstrate that power, Milton Friedman will use something so simple as the pencil.

Guys, here’s a great video on the free market. Pay particular attention to who the immoral actors were in the mortgage crisis.

Finally a politician that gets it! This is spot on. I believe someone else said this. Hmm, who was that?

By Rep. Bill Cassidy

Price is power. Given limited resources and infinite wants, price empowers us to determine the best use of limited resources.

With health care, the closest most patients come to price is the $15 or $20 co-pay. When we leave the doctor’s office, we don’t know if we received $5 worth of health care or $500.

On the surface, it’s a bargain. But the “bargain” hides and contributes to higher insurance premiums and massive medical inflation.

Our current system ignores the power of price. We can’t know or compare prices, much less be rewarded for acting on them. Because there is no incentive to control costs, we don’t. At $15, why not request any test? According to a McKinsey Quarterly report, the disconnect between price and cost is a leading driver of skyrocketing medical inflation, along with the burgeoning cost of treating chronic disease and the expense of administrative overhead.

via The power of price – Washington Times.

By Donald J. Boudreaux Friday, October 16, 2009

Political discourse has more than its share of question-begging words.

For example, ponder the word “fair.”

“Fair” is perhaps the most misused word in all of politics. By definition, everyone this side of masochism and sociopathy favors “fairness.” No one believes that society would be a better place if only it were less fair.

The difficult question, though, is “What is ‘fair’?”

We have little difficulty distinguishing fair from unfair in small settings. If Mom bakes a pie and Junior scarfs down three-quarters of it before any other family members sit down for dessert, that’s unfair of Junior.

If I agree to mow your lawn in exchange for you washing my car and then renege on my part of the bargain after you wash my car, that’s unfair of me.

But distinguishing “fair” from “unfair” in large, complex settings is vastly more difficult than politicians make it seem.

Consider the distribution of income. Is it unfair that some people earn multiple times more dollars — often hundreds of times more dollars — than other people earn?

Seems unfair to many folks. Why should Sal the surgeon take home a salary 50 times larger than the salary taken home by Tony the teacher?

If Sal and Tony were assigned to their jobs by some authority and if that authority pays Sal more than it pays Tony simply because Sal has a more beautiful sister than does Tony, that would be unfair.

But in market economies persons aren’t assigned to jobs. Each of us chooses our career. If Tony chose to become a teacher, that means he chose not to become a physician.

Also in market economies, salaries are determined by impersonal market forces rather than by some authority.

So how can it be unfair that Tony doesn’t earn a salary as high as Sam’s? In a very real sense, he chose not to do so.

Tony’s reasons for choosing a teaching career (and avoiding a career in medicine) might be admirable or understandable. Perhaps Tony loves working with children. Perhaps he relishes having long holiday breaks and summers off. Perhaps he cannot stomach the sight of blood. Perhaps he was put off by the prospect of spending all the extra time in school required to become a physician.

Whatever his reason, he clearly gained — or expected to gain — by making the choice that he made. In Tony’s mind, when all the expected costs and benefits — monetary and nonmonetary — of practicing medicine were weighed against those of teaching, he obviously concluded that teaching offered him the better standard of living.

Of course, it’s true that Tony would have preferred to have all the benefits he gets from teaching — for example, long holiday breaks — and the higher salary paid to a surgeon.

But that option was never on the table — not for Tony, not for Sal, not for anyone.

It’s also true that Tony might come to regret having chosen to become a teacher rather than a surgeon. But so, too, might Sal come to regret his choice to become a surgeon.

Our imperfect capacity for making decisions, or for seeing the future more clearly, is unfortunate, but it’s no source of unfairness.

The bottom line is that looking merely at one aspect of people’s lives — the amount of money they earn — provides far too little information for determining if their lots in life are “fair” or “unfair.” All things considered (and it would be unfair not to consider all things!), Tony’s lower salary as a teacher does not seem unfair when compared to Sal’s higher salary as a surgeon.

Another possibility is that Tony wanted to become a surgeon, but he doesn’t have the brains to get into medical school.

Under these circumstances, we might feel sorry for Tony. But, once again, there’s no unfairness in the picture. No one broke the rules of the game. No one singled Tony out, or singled out the ethnic group to which Tony belongs, to prevent him from becoming a surgeon.

I wanted to play quarterback in the NFL, but I utterly lack the physical requirements for that job. All the desire in the world would never have enabled me to earn my living on the gridiron.

Feel free, if you wish, to pity me. But neither you nor I can find anyone or anything to accuse of being “unfair” toward me.

When politicians thunder about “fairness,” they too often focus on only a handful of facts, selectively chosen to portray eminently fair situations as being unfair. And that’s unfair!

via Fair’s fair — right? – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Today, the Wall Street Journal has an article about the battle being waged between Wal-Mart and Amazon to be the dominate book discounter on the web.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. launched a brash price war against Amazon.com Inc. on Thursday, saying it would sell 10 hotly anticipated new books for just $10 apiece through its online site, Walmart.com.

That was just the beginning.

Hours later, Amazon matched the $10 price, squaring off in a battle for low-price and e-commerce leadership heading into the crucial holiday shopping season. Wal-Mart soon fired back with a promise to drop its prices to $9 by Friday morning — and made good on that vow by early evening Thursday.

via Wal-Mart, Taking on Amazon, Launches Price War on Books – WSJ.com.

This is how the free market works without government intrusion. Competitors work to gain market share by delivering either a better mouse trap or a cheaper mouse trap. The winners are the ones, who can deliver it cheaper and better, and the consumer who gets to benefit from the competition. There is no market in existence that must be taken out of this type of economic activity in order to better deliver it to the people. This includes health care. Are we to believe if health care was opened up to competition that you wouldn’t have the Wal-Marts of the world stepping in to deliver solutions? Just because it’s health care doesn’t mean it’s market is different.

The truth is the government is not in health care to better deliver a service. It is in the market for control. It wants to decide who gets what advantages, and who get what services. It wants to profit itself from the consumption of health care, and it wants to gain the power from that is derived from controlling access to health care. If you want to see health care flourish for all people and to deliver progressively better and cheaper mouse traps, get the government out of health care. We will all be better off for it.