As usual, our government finds it wise to punish good behavior. If you are a small growing business, you better not hire anyone once payroll reaches $499,999. Once you cross over that line, you are in the cross hairs of government regulators who decide how you must treat your employees. If you don’t do what they say, you will pay more taxes.

The House bill mandates that employers with payrolls above $500,000 must contribute — for each full-time employee — 72.5% of the premium cost for single coverage and 65% of the premium cost for family coverage. The penalty for failing to do so is a 2%-to-6% tax on employers with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 and an 8% tax for employers with payrolls above $750,000.

via Small Business Crunches Numbers – WSJ.com.

So how does this promote job growth? Business aren’t in the business of charity. If they must spend more on health care or even worse send money to Washington, they are not going to have that money to grow and to create jobs. Those employees will get less pay, because businesses figure out the overall cost of employees. If they budget X for a certain position, the person will get X minus health care, minus taxes, minus social security, minus unemployment insurance, minus workers comp, minus other benefits, and minus any other business cost associated with that employee.

If an employee takes care of themselves and their employer didn’t pay for their health insurance, they would have more money in their pocket. The employer would be able to pay more for the position without the extra costs.  Shopping for themselves, the employee would get better rates and maybe buy a low premium, high deductible insurance plan. This would increase their income substantially. Because businesses are forced into buying health insurance for all regardless to health conditions of each individual, their plans are more expensive and eats more money out of the healthy worker’s pocket. This lowers the standard of living for all workers, and is more punishment for doing the right things.

By way of Mises.org, here is another great examples of the free market delivering a plethora of choices for consumers. Take note of the mention of the government forced recycling programs and why they started them.

Also, image what it would be like if the beverage industry was heavily regulated like health care. Think you’d have all these options. Inversely, if government would get out of health care, you’d see a plethora of options in that industry as well.

Thanks to Captain Capitalism, here is more reason why you don’t want government running  your health care. Matter of fact, I don’t think I want the government running the government at this point. We are constantly hearing politicians talk about energy independence. Tell me if this sounds like we could achieve it.

The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.

As shown in the charts below, the U.S. has 1,321 billion barrels of oil (or barrels of oil equivalent for other sources of energy) when combining its recoverable natural gas, oil and coal reserves.

While Russia is a close second with 1,248 billion barrels, other energy producing nations are far behind. No. 3 is Saudi Arabia (543 billion barrels), followed by China (494 billion barrels), Iran (426 billion barrels) and Canada (221 billion barrels.)

“Our overwhelming coal, natural gas, and oil resources represent tens of trillions of dollars in wealth and millions of American jobs,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Ok.), who, along with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R.-Alaska), released the report last week. “Whether through decree or purposeful inaction, government policies that unnecessarily restrict or prevent our ability to responsibly produce these domestic resources are threatening, and could eventually undermine, our nation’s economic and national security. We should pursue an all-of-the-above strategy that advances new energy technologies but also prioritizes developing the resources we have today.”

The report also noted that the United States has 28% of all the world’s coal reserves, with Russia again coming in second with 19%.

In addition, the report stated that the United States has tapped into only 13% or 21 billion barrels of its oil reserves, with the other 87% still untouched.

via U.S. Tops in Energy Resources – HUMAN EVENTS.

Would someone tell me why we keep electing these idiots? Just the other day Joe Biden was making fun of Sarah Palin saying her energy plan was “Drill baby Drill”. Acting like she was just a stupid little girl, he said “It’s more complicated than that, Sarah” as the crowd laughed. I’m sure it is more complicated by the billions that the likes of Al Gore stand to make by forcing us to not use our resources, but for average shmoes like me, “DRILL BABY DRILL” sounds like a plan. How about “MINE BABY MINE”?

Finally, I finished Robert P. Murphy’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism“.  It’s a small book, but I read too many books at once. The book was great for those average Joes, like me, who love the free market and want to defend it but don’t have the time to get a Ph.D in economics.

Robert explains why capitalism works best, why the government doesn’t, and why most government regulations have the opposite effect it claims to have.

The last section provides the reader with a 12 step program to help them break their government addiction. They are as follows:

1. Admit that government “solutions” are a problem.
2. Have faith that human beings can interact peacefully, and that economic blessings are available to all.
3. Surrender to the fact that certain social ills cannot be eradicated by force or political “will”.
4. Ask yourself, “Do I want to advocate self-sufficiency and voluntary means, or do I want to look to politicians every time I don’t like something?”
5. Survey the past record of governments when it comes to economic “planning” or other alleged improvements.
6. Learn to look for hidden costs of government intervention, rather than the superficial benefits.
7. Understand the role of market prices (read my root causes of health care crisis blog), and why tampering with them interferes with the job they have to perform.
8. Study history. Examine whether governments that violated private property rights stayed out of their citizens’ other affairs.
9. Before condemning a market outcome as unjust, first understand why it occur (read my blog on mortgage crisis).
10. Study other “spontaneous” social institutions, such as language and science, where no one is “in charge” and yet the outcome is quite orderly.
11. When politicians propose a new program, remember how much they said it would cost at the outset. Compare that number to the actual amount spent.
12. Go through the newspaper and discover how government meddling causes or exacerbates the conflict in virtually every story.

As you can see, if you follow Robert’s 12 step program, you will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that the free market handles our societal ills much better than government. These 12 steps are great, but you should read the book first. That way you’ll no why these 12 steps are right. It’s a quick read. Pick one up, and be prepared to defend free market capitalism.

Also, check out Robert’s blog Free Advice for more good info. This economist can even be funny sometimes.

**** Before the FTC cracks down on me. I just finished reading the book, and I paid for the book myself. Robert was nice enough to answer a couple questions I had. That doesn’t count as paid advertising does it? Guess it depends if Big O likes my blog.

An article on CNNMoney.com highlights that for the $3 billion we spend on Cash for Clunkers, we only got an additional 125,000 additional car sales over what we would have got without C4C. That comes out to tax payers paying $24,000 per car.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.

via Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car – Oct. 28, 2009.

While this shows how stupid our government officials are in and of itself, it doesn’t even talk about what opportunity costs we bared. Everything has an opportunity cost. For example, if I have $25 to take my wife out on a date (I know she’s a lucky lady) and we decide to go to the movies, there is an opportunity cost to that. Those costs related to what we gave up in order to go to the movies. We could have went to eat, seen a play (maybe at the local high school), or stayed home. If the benefit of going to the movies was less than the benefit of the passed up opportunities, we made a bad decision. While my example is subjective, because going to the movies that night might have been what brought us the most happiness, C4C is not as subjective.

The $3 billion dollars had to be pulled out of our private sector in order to pay for this program. By taking it out of the private sector, what opportunities were passed up? The free market allocates resources, in this case capital, to its most efficient use. Most efficient use means benefits are maximized for the resources used. For example, I might have the resources of a lawn mower, gas, and labor. The most efficient use of those resources would be to get my lawn cut. It would not be to have the laborer hand pick the grass, so he could use the gas for something else. The lost time the laborer would incur would not justify the savings of the gas. Government on the other hand diverts capital away from what would other wise be the most efficient use of that capital. By definition, the opportunities that were passed up would have had higher benefits.

As you can see, we did not get a good deal on the increased sales at $24,000 per car. Also, this was a one time program that now has come and gone like all government stimulus. No one is hiring now for a program that is over.

Also, how are we better off as a society? We destroyed cars that were in most cases perfectly functioning vehicles. We replaced one automobile for another. This does not add to the wealth of society. If it did, we should just trash our cars once a month.  If that $3 billion was left to the private sector to create new products, it would have improved the wealth of our society. For example, it may have produced the next medical treatment, a faster computer or the next innovation that advances society in general.

What politicians don’t understand is they cannot guess centrally what is best for the economy. Only the fine tweaking of millions or private transactions can do that.

Here is more proof of the idiocy of the Federal government. Because the congress has to show how much they care, they are going to drive these small toy makers out of business.

By LESLIE WAYNE | New York Times

October 30, 2009

For 35 years, William John Woods has made wooden toys for children. Each one of the 2,000 or so he makes each year passes through his hands at his shop in Ogunquit, Maine, and no child, he said, has ever been hurt by one of his small boats, cars, helicopters or rattles.

But now he and others like him — makers of small toys and owners of toy resale shops and boutique stores — say their livelihood is being threatened by federal legislation enacted in the last year to protect children from toxic toys through more extensive testing. Big toymakers, including those whose tainted imports from China led to the recall of 45 million toys and spurred Congress to take action, have more resources and are able to comply with the new law’s requirements.

“This is absurd,” said Mr. Woods, whose toys are made of maple, walnut and cherry and finished with walnut oil and beeswax from a local apiary. He estimates it would cost him $30,000 — a figure he calculated from having to pay $400 in required tests for each of the 80 or so different items he produces — to show that they are not toxic.

“I use beeswax,” Mr. Woods said. “The law was targeted at large toymakers using lead. There was no exclusion for benign products.”

via Federal Government Putting Small Toymakers Out of Business | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul.

This is just more proof that so called government protection is not only not necessary, but they are harmful to the little guy and all Americans. Without government intervention, 45 million toys were recalled for having traces of lead. Private businesses, in order to protect their reputation and customers, acted without coercion to remove these toys from the market. This is proof that you do not need all these government regulators and protection agencies in order to protect the public.

If there was no government agency to interfere in the free market, you would still have private watch dogs such as Consumer Reports. When they discovered lead in a toy, the media would be alerted, and the problem would be blasted out to the public, as it was when these toys were discovered to have led. Once the news breaks, in order to protect their future business, businesses will react to rectify the problem. All of this takes place without the need for government coercion. This all works efficiently with the least amount of cost to all parties involved.

But of course, the government decides they need to show they are looking out for “the people” (read my post about what the Federalist Papers say about this). In doing so, they drive up the cost on each toy produced. They drive the little guy out of business, despite the fact he uses nothing that could even contain lead. They drive up the price of toys for everyday Americans. In general they make it harder for the “little guy”.

If only we had a President who actually participated in private enterprise before being elected as President of the world’s largest economy.

By MAYA JACKSON RANDALL

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, in his weekly radio address, took time out to highlight the importance of small businesses, saying too many small companies are still finding it difficult to obtain the loans they need to keep their businesses running.

“While credit may be more available for large businesses, too many small-business owners are still struggling to get the credit they need,” the president said in his prepared remarks. “These are the very taxpayers who stood by America’s banks in a crisis–and now it’s time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses, and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations, and create new jobs.”

Mr. Obama said it is time that large banks, who have already received substantial aid from the government, take the necessary steps to enable the recovery to take hold.

“Our economy as a whole can’t move ahead if small businesses and the middle class continue to fall behind,” he said, noting that small businesses have been hit hard by the recession. Many entrepreneurs can’t get the financing they need to start up their own companies and small firms have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, he noted.

via Obama Seeks Support For Small Business – WSJ.com.

No amount of prodding by our socialist-in-chief is going to help small business as long as he continues his anti-free market policies. You cannot ask businesses to borrow money and banks to lend money when the environment for entrepreneurship is under attack. Costs will skyrocket on small businesses with Obama’s so called taxes on the rich, socialized medicine, cap and trade, card check, and…… We are only nine months in. If you are a small business or a bank, do you feel comfortable that you can accurately assess what the future economy will look like. Banks and companies make investment decisions based on risk and reward. If they cannot accurately assess risk, they will not invest.

Thursday, unelected bureaucrats will be making a major decision on behalf of the American people that can have far reaching implications to our freedoms. Here is an article from My Way News with my commentary.

Oct 18, 12:57 PM (ET)

By JOELLE TESSLER

WASHINGTON (AP) – With Democrats in charge in Washington, supporters of so-called “net neutrality” rules seem poised to finally push through requirements that high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all data flowing over their networks.

These rules – at the heart of a five-year policy debate – are intended to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any online service they want. Phone and cable companies, for instance, wouldn’t be able to block subscribers from using cheaper Internet calling services or accessing online video sites that compete with their core businesses.

The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on a proposal by the agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, to begin crafting regulations to prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet traffic.

Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into their networks, they should be able to operate those networks as they see fit. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on their investments.

Genachowski’s proposal has also encountered misgivings among Republicans on the FCC and in Congress, who fear network neutrality rules could discourage broadband providers from continuing to expand and upgrade their systems.

“The risk of regulation really inhibits investment,” said Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Noting the agency’s estimated price tag of up to $350 billion to bring broadband connections to all Americans, he added: “How do we pay for all that?”

via My Way News – Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data rules.

To start, what gives the government the right to tell private companies, who invest their own money in building these broadband networks, that they have to provide unfettered access to all internet users whether customers or not. This is rediculous enough, but let’s show how the free market would do this without the loss of liberty?

First, in most places there are multiple internet providers. For example, where I live in Pittsburgh, I can get internet from Comcast via cable, Verizon via DSL, Verizon via FiOS, and other providers of DSL and satellite services. If for example Comcast decides to limit monthly download to say 250GB, which they did, then customers will decide whether it is worth it for them to abide by their rules or switch to Verizon.

We make these decisions all the time. For instance, last year I switched from Comcast to Verizon for my internet. Why did I do this? Because Comcast thought they could hold me hostage to purchase all their services or rape me on the remaining ones. Surely enough the free market delivered. I dumped Comcast, went to Verizon for my internet, Dish Network for my TV, and Phone Power for my phone. I cut my costs and got more service. What government doesn’t seem to understand, probably because they only know force, is that the free market cannot coerce you into doing anything.

“Well, the internet is interconnected, and if Comcast decides to restrict access to a service that if offered by a competitor,  they can hurt the competitor even if the end user isn’t a Comcast customer. For example, if Verizon’s customer’s traffic has to travel over Comcast’s network to get to its destination, then that customer can be harmed even though they aren’t a Comcast customer.”

Hmmm, let’s think this through. If the internet is interconnect, which it is, would it make sense financially for Comcast to start a war with another carrier? Also, the internet is interconnected, but it is not one link. Most carriers have a plethora of routes to use to get to the destination they are seeking. They also have protocols that decide which route to take based on things such as available bandwidth. With this technology, they would bypass Comcast. (Warning: I’m using Comcast as an example. They aren’t the target of this legislation that supposedly is going to help consumers.)

Also, in a free market, companies are incentivized to innovate and offer new services because of profits. If profits are cut because of government force, then it is without a doubt going to cut into innovation, which ultimately hurts everyone.

Providers don’t only provide one solution. If they are providing phone services to businesses and end users, they must be able to meet that service obligation. If they are required to ignore those needs in order to provide “net neutral” access to their broadband, then those services become worthless. Those services cannot sustain, because they would be unreliable. This would decrease their profits (which we already explained hurts innovation), and hurt the consumers of those phone services. Now you have less competition in the phone service arena.

Government always seems to want to address problems that do not exist. Where has this been a long term problem? Where has the consumer, who has no right to these services, been harmed by the monstrous internet providers? I think one could argue that the most unregulated part of our lives these days, the internet, is without a doubt the most innovative and quickly advancing parts of our lives. This isn’t happenstance. This is because the government isn’t dampening the motive of companies to make a profit, not yet that is. It would appear that the government can’t stand to see a sector of our economy flourishing without it.

If you want the internet to continue it’s phenomenal advancement and betterment of our lives, I’d suggest you let your representatives know that “net neutrality” is disaster. Let them know your vote could be swayed by their stance on this legislation, and that internet service providers have delivered as promised in regard to our communications needs. We can decide what providers to use and punish ourselves. We do not need them taking our liberty in order to do it, which we already know they can’t.

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.”