I'll have 40 Snickers Bars Please

Yesterday, more of the veil was pulled back and surpisingly, the American public was told the truth.  The only problem is that the veil was pulled back too late.  I am referring to the Democrats constant drum beat regarding health care reform. Yesterday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that the health-care law that Obama signed last March is a “platform” for building a single-payer health care system in the U.S. During a program at the National Press Club on Monday, Conyers said that after discussing the issue with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio) he voted for the health-care law because he saw it as a necessary “platform” for building toward a single-payer health-care system in the United States.

Speaking after the event at the National Press Club, Conyers said, “What we’re trying to do is insure everybody, right? We’re trying to insure more people, not less and so it’s my feeling that the rising costs that are going on will not be solved by getting rid of people’s health insurance–that throws them into emergency rooms and charity and other things. That’s why HR 676 is our ultimate solution–is that everybody’s insured from birth on and that’s what we’re still fighting for.”

First of all, for those of you who don't know, the term single-payer describes funding referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Also, understand that the single payer referred to in regards to U.S. healthcare and what Conyers and Kucinich is referring to is the government.

I am a simple guy so I will try to explain the problem with single-payer.  Let's substitute healthcare with something that everyone can relate to and is easier to understand, like food.  So, lets say that your employer takes $10,000 per year out of your paycheck and signs you up for a "food plan".  Your options are limited: you get to purchase food at a few assorted restaurants and one large grocery store.  Any time that you go to those places, you only pay $10 no matter what you purchase.  A few things would most likely happen:

•  You would be robbed of your choice.  What if you heard that the restaurant down the street served great Mexican food?  Sorry,  you are not covered there.  You can't eat at that restaurant.  Or maybe you are on a health kick and want gluten-free, organic food only.  Sorry again.  The few assigned restaurants that you are allowed to go to have only certain food choices and gluten-free and organic are not on the menu.
• You would buy more food than you need.  Remember, the co-pays are tiny.  So, you are walking through the aisles at the grocery store and can't decide what you want.  Try both types of spaghetti sauce and throw the one out that you don't want. It doesn't matter.  Remember, you don't have to pay.
• No prices would be displayed at the restaurants that you can eat in or the grocery store that is assigned to you.  There is no reason.  It is free.  And before you know it, Snickers bars cost $25, There is no way to figure out what a fair market value is because there is no competitive pricing.

Hopefully, you can see that a price-fixed, non-competitive food plan would result in lack of choice, higher prices, and overconsumption.  That is exactly what would happen in a single-payer-health-care plan.

Just because I don't believe that the federal government should be involved in the health-care business doesn't mean that I dont believe we should work to make high quality health care available to everyone.  The difference between me and Conyers and Kucinich is simply in the approach.  While "progressives" think that the best way to cover everyone is through regulations, mandates, and price controls, I believe the exact opposite policies will get us much closer to where we all want to be.