First, you claim that our country could save on health care premiums by switching to a mandatory, government provided system. That claim in itself is logically inconsistent. Any increase in the number of people covered under a government program would require a similar increase in government expenditures. That creates an increase in overall cost, not a reduction.

Second, any cost savings that might exist in your theoretical model are not likely to exist in reality because of overhead costs. Every government bureaucracy requires administrative oversight. And, if there’s anything that we’ve learned from past experiments with government programs, its that the government can do nothing without a bloated bureaucracy. A (probably large) portion of every dollar spent on “health care” would in fact be spent to staff and operate just another government office. Thus, a government program would actually divert money from its intended purpose and dramatically increase overall costs.

Third, I think its important to realize that having the government pay in no way reduces the actual cost of health care. The price of the service is the same, the only difference is the person who signs the bill. And, though its easy to think of the government as some benevolent third party, ours is a government by the people. Every dollar the government takes on April 15th is a dollar taken out of our pockets and out of the American economy. We would all end up footing the bill anyway, plus an additional fee for the administrative oversight I already mentioned.

Fourth, the prevailing international trend is not toward socialized medicine as your post suggests, but away from it. Most countries that have experimented with a government monopoly of the health care industry have found it to be astronomically expensive, highly ineffecient, and fraught with administrative problems and corruption. Accordingly, international reforms have mostly been geared toward creating systems that work more like our own.

Fifth, I do not believe that cost should be our only concern. Even if a new government program did somehow magically reduce costs, we might just end up with a health care system worth what we paid for it. It is no accident that ours is the best health care system in the world in terms of quality. World leaders and international residents who can afford it often seek medical aid in the United States, avoiding the supposedly “free” care available in their home countries. Aside from its legitimate functions, the government does nothing so well as private industry. Experience has shown that this is as true in the medical arena as it is in any other.

Finally, you argue that providing socialized medicine is the “right thing to do.” I assume given your screen name (“christianliberal”) that you are implying that a government run health care system is appropriate given our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage. I think that mischaracterizes Christ’s example. Christ instructed His followers to feed the hungry and care for the poor. He did not tell them to abdicate their responsibilities as Christians by simply writing to Caesar and demanding that Rome implement another social welfare program. While I believe that your heart is in the right place, the effect of your suggested program deprives us as Christians of the opportunity to demonstrate our faith and share Christ’s love with the world.

Thanks for Sharing!!

As I eluded to in my post, I see several problems with that. First, union cards are often rashly signed by employees upset by a routine management decision. They sign the card as a negotiating tool, sometimes not having really considered the costs of actually joining a union. An up-or-down vote gives them a chance to think about all the pros and cons.

Second, and I think even more troublesome, union cards are not anonymous. Union bosses are able to monitor who has, and who hasn’t, showed their “support” for the union. My experience has been that folks who haven’t signed the card often get a bit more attention from union members. That “attention” isn’t always positive, and in some cases people are coerced into expressing their “support.”

An anonymous up-or-down vote is the only means of guaranteeing that employees as a whole really do want to form a union. I’m disappointed that Democrats are trying to eliminate a fair, up-or-down vote for these decisions – but I’m not entirely surprised. After all, unions are often one of their main sources for campaign cash and volunteers.

The way it works now, the employers hold all the cards. What they do is fire anyone they think is pro-union before the vote. I know several people who have been fired from jobs because their employer figured them to be ready to vote the union in.