Once again there is talk in Washington that the public option may be a component of President Obama’s health care plan. The President has repeatedly stated his desire for a single payer or “universal”, health care system in the United States and has spent much of the past week demonizing insurance companies.
Liberals and Conservatives are constantly debating the proposed health care plan with each side holding firmly to their beliefs. Liberals believe that only the government has the size or the power needed to provide equal health care for all and the greedy insurance companies need to be regulated out of existence. Conservatives believe the capitalist system with it’s free markets are the responsible and correct way to proceed.
Liberals will recite tales of the horror insurance companies have inflicted upon families or they will numb you with statistics detailing how many Americans have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of the lack of coverage some 30 million people face every day. Liberals will shock you with tales of people that are forced to wear their dead sister’s dentures because they cannot afford to buy their own and then try to convince you the government has all the answers to all problems.
Conservatives will warn of the control government will have over ordinary Americans. They will speak of the cost of the plan which they claim will be much higher than the cost forecast by the Presidents administration. Conservatives will swear that free market principles such as portability, tort reform and health savings accounts are the type of reform needed.
The truth is there is almost no difference between a single payer system and the system currently in place except the single payer makes individual participation mandatory while the current system depends upon voluntary participation. A single payer system would collect premiums in the form of taxes and then reimburse health care providers. Since 50% of Americans pay no taxes they will be subsidized by those working Americans that do pay taxes, making this a wholly socialistic plan. Insurance companies act as a single payer system in that they collect premiums from individuals and reimburse health care providers but they also keep a percentage as profit.
As long as there are third parties such as insurance companies or a government paying the health care tab in America there are no real free market forces at work. A true free market would be a market in which each individual would be responsible for his or her health care. Free market forces known as supply and demand would determine the cost of health care.
Humans rights come from a creator not a government and in America health care has always been considered a commodity, not a right. To make health care a right instead of a commodity would shift the responsibility for one persons decisions onto another person thereby infringing upon that persons right to not care about anyone else.
Just remember, any right the government provides can also be taken away.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX 77531
Carl is the author of the book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
www.carldgoodson.com
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The right to work?
While campaigning for the Presidency Senator Barak Obama promised organized labor he would make enacting the Employee Free Choice Act (card-check) legislation, which would eliminate the secret ballot to unionize a work place, one of his priorities if he was elected. After more than one year in office the President has not acted upon his promise. Leaders of organized labor are becoming concerned about the lack of progress and union members are beginning to voice their disapproval.
Many people feel the card-check legislation would undermine legislation passed in right-to-work states. Many Americans live in states that are known as forced union states where there are no right to work laws and therefore they are required to join a union if they land a job at a unionized work site. Most people feel forcing someone to join a union as a condition of employment is un-American. Currently there are only 22 states that have right-to-work laws and most of these states are in the south.
Organized labor opposes right-to-work laws because they say workers can be “free riders” by choosing not to join a union thereby denying the union the fees that members pay. The reality is that three out of every four employees covered by union contracts opt to join the union and pay dues (1). Union officials argue that wages and benefits are higher in unionized states and that fewer occupational injuries occur in unionized settings. The truth is that in almost every measurable category statistics show citizens that reside in states with a right-to-work law fare better economically than citizens in states that have no right-to-work legislation.
During what President Obama calls the worst economic crisis of our time, right-to-work states had job growth at .1% while forced union states lost .3% of their jobs (2). A telling statistic concerns construction job growth; in the last five years of available data construction jobs in right-to -work states have grown at a rate of 10.6% compared to 1.8% in forced union states (3).
Union officials claim that wages are 6.5% lower in right-to-work states than forced union states (4) but that difference disappears when local cost of living is accounted for (5). Workers in right-to-work states enjoy a faster growth rate in real disposable income, 15.8% versus 9.1%, than workers in forced union states and they have a higher disposable income at $34,878 versus $32,811 (6). There are only seven residents per 1,000 that receive welfare in right-to-work states as opposed to forced union states where the rate is more than doubled at 16 in every 1,000 (7).
While it is true the rate of fatal injuries is higher in right-to-work states as a group, three of the four states with the highest rate of fatal injuries are forced union states, with Wyoming being the exception (8).
The Employee Free Choice Act is being debated in both houses of Congress and enjoys broad support among Democrats but is opposed by conservative Republicans. Contrary to the statements made by union supporters, enacting “card-check” will undermine right-to-work laws. It is a fact enacting “card-check” will lower the standard of living for every one in all right to work states.
Carl Goodson is the author of “Letters to the editor; What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.mackinac.org/9180
(2) www.mackinac.org/10515
(3) Ibid.
(4) www.wslc.org/legis/ri-work.htm
(5)www.mackinac.org/9180
(6) www.nilrr.org/files/NILRR%20FACT%20SHEET%20RTW%20States%20Benefit%202009.pdf
(7) Ibid.
(8) www.mackinac.org/9180
Many people feel the card-check legislation would undermine legislation passed in right-to-work states. Many Americans live in states that are known as forced union states where there are no right to work laws and therefore they are required to join a union if they land a job at a unionized work site. Most people feel forcing someone to join a union as a condition of employment is un-American. Currently there are only 22 states that have right-to-work laws and most of these states are in the south.
Organized labor opposes right-to-work laws because they say workers can be “free riders” by choosing not to join a union thereby denying the union the fees that members pay. The reality is that three out of every four employees covered by union contracts opt to join the union and pay dues (1). Union officials argue that wages and benefits are higher in unionized states and that fewer occupational injuries occur in unionized settings. The truth is that in almost every measurable category statistics show citizens that reside in states with a right-to-work law fare better economically than citizens in states that have no right-to-work legislation.
During what President Obama calls the worst economic crisis of our time, right-to-work states had job growth at .1% while forced union states lost .3% of their jobs (2). A telling statistic concerns construction job growth; in the last five years of available data construction jobs in right-to -work states have grown at a rate of 10.6% compared to 1.8% in forced union states (3).
Union officials claim that wages are 6.5% lower in right-to-work states than forced union states (4) but that difference disappears when local cost of living is accounted for (5). Workers in right-to-work states enjoy a faster growth rate in real disposable income, 15.8% versus 9.1%, than workers in forced union states and they have a higher disposable income at $34,878 versus $32,811 (6). There are only seven residents per 1,000 that receive welfare in right-to-work states as opposed to forced union states where the rate is more than doubled at 16 in every 1,000 (7).
While it is true the rate of fatal injuries is higher in right-to-work states as a group, three of the four states with the highest rate of fatal injuries are forced union states, with Wyoming being the exception (8).
The Employee Free Choice Act is being debated in both houses of Congress and enjoys broad support among Democrats but is opposed by conservative Republicans. Contrary to the statements made by union supporters, enacting “card-check” will undermine right-to-work laws. It is a fact enacting “card-check” will lower the standard of living for every one in all right to work states.
Carl Goodson is the author of “Letters to the editor; What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.mackinac.org/9180
(2) www.mackinac.org/10515
(3) Ibid.
(4) www.wslc.org/legis/ri-work.htm
(5)www.mackinac.org/9180
(6) www.nilrr.org/files/NILRR%20FACT%20SHEET%20RTW%20States%20Benefit%202009.pdf
(7) Ibid.
(8) www.mackinac.org/9180
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
