A ban on denial of health care coverage or cap on insurance premiums based upon pre-existing conditions would, essentially, be an absolute abolition of the most crucial tool in maintaining insurance coverage plans; actuarial tables.

Actuarial tables are formula systems which properly set the costs of each insurance premium by weighing the risk. The higher the risk that the insured customer will file a claim, the higher his premium must be, in order to offset the likelihood of costs to be incurred by the insurance company. After all, when a claim is filed and care is received, someone has to pay for it.

That's why life insurance would be substantially more expensive for a base jumper than it would be for a restaurant manager. Obviously, the base jumper is much more likely to die, so his rates will be higher, or he may even struggle to find anyone to insure him at all.

When that concept is transferred over to health risk, many people very quickly see a distinct difference. Base jumpers choose their activity, but pre-existing medical conditions are really the 'un-luck' of the draw.

Quite true. But does that change the circumstance, except in the potential emotional aspects of heredity and chance's inherit and natural disparity? Not really. People who are at a substantially higher risk for diseases or maladies will, on average, cost insurance companies more in claims than their premiums recoup.

But it sounds horrible to say that people who will cost more, ought to pay more. No one asked to have a propensity for certain conditions, of course not. Still, no one seriously suggests that grocery stores sell food on an 'ability to pay' basis rather than on the real price system. Why should health insurance, a product experienced individually, be approached differently?

Consider a ban on denial of coverage based upon pre-existing conditions in this light; I will offer you $100 and in return you will give me $1000. I'll get politicians to say that it's a fair trade because I have pled a special grievance to them and, after all, you have more than I do. It would be greedy for you not to follow through with the transaction. I'll even get government to force you into the deal.

That is essentially the same idea that is being pushed in such a ban. Some people, through no fault of their own, are in a tough spot and the suggested remedy for that is to help them to engage in government backed theft. No mind is paid to the concept of charitable donation. Only hatred is levied toward businesses.

Like it or not, no insurance company that loses money every year will continue to exist. Then no one will have insurance, because the company was forced into fiscal suicide. We cannot abridge the liberty of voluntary association without jeopardizing all freedom and rights for all individuals.

A lot of Liberals are fond of claiming that there are many Americans who leave America and go to other countries to get health care that they can't get here and that this somehow proves that our system is messed up and needs fixing. And that there are Americans that need to stay in a hospital, that either can't get into one, or are discharged too early for their condition. That made me wonder for a long time. It contradicted all the ideas I had about America's health care. I have always thought that ours was the very best in the world. But I finally figured out that they are absolutely right on every count.  There are many instances where Americans travel to other countries for treatments not available here. Mexico is the most common destination, but there are other countries to which they travel as well. And why do they go there? They are seeking out treatments which are not approved by the FDA or other bureaucratic agencies. These are often experimental drugs or not thoroughly tested methods. Our government has very strict standards of what is and is not allowed, based upon medical evidence of the physical benefits for the patient. So some people, in a desperate attempt to cure a terminal cancer or other disease, will go to a clinic in another country, even if it is not up to our standards, to try one of these unapproved drugs or treatments.

Now, whether or not our standards should be lowered to allow these people to remain it the United States to receive their treatments is a topic for another discussion. However, for this discussion, what is relevant is what causes these people to seek treatment outside the U.S. The most obvious reason is the involvement of the United States government in deciding what treatments are to be made available to the citizens of our country. If our government were to allow these treatments here, doctors, or hospitals, or clinics, or faith-healers, or charlatans, or someone else would offer them. Whether or not the treatment works, or is wise, the patient will still have the opportunity to purchase those services he deems worthy of his money and body. And if we institute a government run health-care system, we will not make this travelling-abroad treatment less likely to occur, but actually more likely. If the problem is too much government control, based strictly on medical questions, how can more government control, including introducing cost considerations to the government’s decisions, bring about a solution to this situation? (Joe's note: Perhaps this is how Barack intends to 'reign in costs', by making people leave the nation and buy it with their own money which cannot be quantified.)

Consider also, who is it that is doing the travel to other countries? Is it the poor? The uninsured?  The homeless? No, obviously, it’s the wealthy, or at least the middle-class, people with some means. These are usually people with insurance and available treatments, but who are running from a government-controlled system that does not allow them the treatment of choice. Will this exporting of patients stop under any of the plans now before congress? Of course not! What, in fact, will be the result when the new system begins telling patients that it is not cost-efficient to treat their condition, and to offer a pain pill? (That was the solution offered by President Obama on June 25, 2009, in answer to a question by Jane Sturm.) There will be more people than ever flooding to Mexico or where ever they can find the treatment they feel they need.

And then there is the situation of hospital rooms not being available when needed, or the insurance company insisting on an early discharge or out-patient treatment. What is the most fundamental rule of economics? The one economic statement that people can quote that know nothing else about economics? “The Law of Supply and Demand.” This is not an occassional rule but a law that always works at all times, in all situations. The Soviet Union found it could not avoid it forever. They bent it, twisted it, but eventually it broke them. President Nixon’s Wage and Price controls proved that, like a rising tide, artificial restraints will be washed away in the clutches of this simple law. Just like gravity or the Borg, “Resistance is futile.”

The law shows how when the demand for a product goes up, the price goes up. As the price rises, competition enters the market as an opportunity for profit is recognized. Then supply rises and price goes down. As price goes down, there is less incentive to produce the product, so competitors pull out of the market, and supply goes down, beginning the cycle again. Only in a diverse (individual), free and open market, these shifts happen so subtly that it is usually unnoticed, until there is a sudden disruption to the market, or there is some type of limit introduced to the market.

And what has the law of supply and demand got to do with the cost of hospital rooms? Well years ago, hospitals were free to build a facility where ever they decided to build. Sometimes the motive was to make a profit . Sometimes the motive was more altruistic. However, it was up to whomever was in the hospital building business to make the choice for whatever reason seemed to be fit to them. But then in recent years, the government decided that this system of supply and demand wasn’t proper for hospitals, and they began to dictate where hospitals were to be located and how many beds were to be in them. There were targets set to limit the number of  beds in each area. The perception was an empty bed was unprofitable, so beds should be near capacity at all times.

Now the clouds begin to part, and we begin to see the connection between out-patient surgeries and basic economic law. When the number of beds went down, price went up. But the supply was artificially restricted by government mandate, and so the resulting effect was a continued rise in the price. And as the cost of a bed went up, the insurance companies had to try to control costs in the only way left to them: out-patient surgery and early discharges. So what is the cause of this symptom of a health-care system that is broken and in need of repair? Government agencies making decisions that affect the health and well-being of millions of Americans not on the basis of medical practices, but on the perceptions of a bureaucracy, on the basis of what they deem important, and arbitrarily so.  (Joe's note: the left likes to state that capitalism demeans humanity, that it reduces a person to their economic vitality. The opposite is true. It is demeaning to human life to collectivise it, to override the value of an indivdual, which is in large part economic value, to a mere return quotient society will see as a result of permitting that individual access to care, education, or their own labor. Nothing devastates the will, nature, and dignity of a man more than separating him from his natural right to have total control over his own faculties, this right of course being circumscribed by the identical rights of every other man.)

Now, I’m not saying that government regulation of the medical profession or health-care system is wrong. We need government regulation of many things in our lives. The Founding Fathers knew that. That’s why they instituted the Constitution and our system of government. They knew that a government unchecked by the control of the people was tyranny, but a people without a government was anarchy. Neither was acceptable. Thus, they instituted, not a democracy, but a republic, whereby the people would be the overseers, but the Legislative and Executive Branches would manage the limited powers given to the government. But many of the Founders warned of the dangers lurking in striking that delicate balance.(Joe's note: Enforcement of contract law between patient and doctor is an area of government's duty, as with contract law between any two parties. People who agree to a contract are bound by thier word to it.)

Now we find ourselves on a precipice from which we may never recover if we take that leap of faith, trusting that our government is the best agent to decide what is available to us medically as a people. As I have shown, government control of health-care is not new, and it has shown that even with the best of intentions, it can make a bad situation worse. We have all dealt with various nameless, faceless people in government offices, in stores, on the telephone, etc. who make it plain that they are not interested in me as a customer, and would rather I just leave them alone, instead of having to do their job of helping me.

Well, if I’m in Wal-Mart, Kroger, or my local bank, and I’m not satisfied, I can walk over to Target, Marsh, or another bank to do my business. But if  I have the government providing my health insurance, where will I go if I’m not satisfied? Of course, President Obama  has assured me that if I like my insurance, I can keep it. But according to the proposal now before Congress, H.R. 3200, Section 102, (a), 1, (A.), on page 16, I can only keep what I have; if I am unsatisfied with my company and would like to switch to a different company, I cannot. My only alternative is to join the “Collective.” No other company is legally permitted to write a policy for someone who is not already a policyholder.

And finally, you may be perfectly satisfied to have your medical decisions up for review by the appointees of  President Obama, and the fact that he may make decisions on whether or not you get treatment for some disease based on whether the budget deficit is too high or if there are other diseases that are a higher priority, or whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. But what if our next president turns out to be someone like VP Cheney or Richard Nixon? Do you want to put that power in his hands? Remember, when you create a monster, that monster can turn on you and eat you as easily as he can eat your enemy.