Imagine if you will a made-for-television bank holdup.  As the scene opens, the camera shows a lone masked man standing near the tellers’ windows demanding money and wildly swinging a pistol.  Of course, the bank’s security guard is already in the corner holding his bleeding leg, and several bank patrons are lying on the floor in a panic and trying not to anger the thief any further.  The tellers busily fill a satchel with all the cash they can grab and assure the masked man that this is all of it.

            Suddenly, a half dozen police cars fill the street in front of the bank.  Officers position themselves, and a captain with a bullhorn announces that if the man surrenders now, he will not be hurt.  But by this time the satchel has been filled and closed, so the robber grabs the arms of two of the bank customers on the floor and yells out the door that he now has hostages.  Next the SWAT team arrives and, of course, one of the snipers stations himself on a rooftop across the street.

            So far, so typical.  As you would expect, a local TV news crew pulls up in a van and the reporter and camera operator position themselves to get the best shot of the scene.  Soon the thief comes out and stands by the front door, his hostages at gunpoint, and the tension of the standoff continues to build.  The captain puts down his bullhorn and slowly walks toward the perpetrator, attempting to persuade him to let the hostages go and give up peacefully.  During the negotiation, the gunman gestures and moves his gun away from the hostages, and suddenly a shot rings out from across the street.

            But now there’s a plot twist—not only does the thief fall to the ground, but so do the hostages and the police captain.  Another nearby policeman and a bystander both grab themselves in obvious pain, and three of the front windows of the bank building shatter, sending broken glass into the lobby which causes minor cuts to several of the persons still inside.  Even the TV reporter drops his microphone and grabs his stinging hand with an expression of surprise.  The camera pans up to the rooftop, but instead of seeing one gun barrel, two barrels on the same gun appear—both showing wisps of rising smoke.

Overkill

            The two top priorities of the current U. S. Presidential administration have been the nation’s economy and government-run health care.  As we look at the government’s response to these two problems we will notice a common factor between them which also resembles our TV show.

            The current recession was primarily set in motion by the sub-prime loan crisis as felt by many U. S. banks.  This time, the “trickle-down” effect was all negative, flowing mostly from this single cause and affecting not only the banks and mortgage companies, but homeowners, the construction industry, and then later, pretty much everyone.  As soon as it all became obvious (even to those inside the beltway), our government leaders sprang into action with their “stimulus plan.”  It was believed that if a flow of finances could be restored, all would eventually be well.

            Before we taxpayers knew what hit us, the U. S. Congress had come up with a plan which gave/loaned money to banks and lending institutions, but didn’t stop there.  It was decided that this bailout money would be given to automobile manufacturers, state governments’ infrastructure projects, and to numerous Senators’ favorite pork barrel projects.  Rather than having the patience to wait for the banks’ bailout to trickle down as did the original problem, we soon faced an additional federal deficit that was pushing a trillion dollars more.  Where this trillion dollars would come from is at this writing yet to be determined; however, there are only three possible sources—borrowing it, committing extortion of U. S. citizens through excessive taxation, or monetizing it by simply printing unbacked currency and allowing inflation to artificially reduce the worth of the debt.  I suspect some combination of the three will finally be utilized, since no government can simply produce money out of thin air if they intend to keep their economy viable.

            Note the debacle called the “cash for clunkers” program.  Our government lacked the foresight necessary to have the reimbursement money ready for the car dealers so that they could have it when they needed it at the end of the time period.  At this writing, there are still several auto dealerships that are in financial hot water due to the delay of the promised funds.  If many of them fail, not only will the program have been deemed unproductive, it might actually be counter-productive—and all because our politicians lack the basic intelligence to properly plan ahead.  This is one of a plethora of examples that I’m sure any of us could easily recall when our government, under either party’s administration, has grossly mismanaged an undertaking.

            Of course, common sense would dictate that if the breaking of one thing caused a multitude of problems, fixing that one thing should be the primary goal—and then we watch to see if the others work themselves out or if they need further attention.  But no, not Washington.  Those in the “la-la land” inside the Capitol Beltway cannot help but grandstand and then use the results in their next negative campaigns, blaming it on their opponents while promising a new and improved Utopia.

Preparing for more overkill

            The newest big controversy in Washington these days is all about national health care.  Those who cite the need for reform generally speak to four issues: help for those who for whatever reason have no health insurance at all, most insurance companies’ refusal to accept persons for coverage who have preexisting conditions, the undue control exerted by the insurers over the care doctors may provide, and the rising cost of the health care that is available.  True to form, the federal government is attempting to resolve those issues not by actually resolving those issues, but instead by creating an entirely new alternative system which supposedly will have none of those problems (wanna bet?).  Conservative estimates of the cost of this program add up to another trillion dollars, and so far there is no plan for the borrowing, monetizing, or taxing of us that will pay for this.

            If we address the issues as they stand now, we could easily come up with some straightforward alternative ways to fix the items that need fixing without overhauling the entire system.  For example, for those who do not have health insurance an addendum or extension of the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs could be added which would provide catastrophic and emergency coverage.  It would cost much less to do something this simple, and it would provide the necessary safety net that so many are looking for.   Many have also stressed the need for preventive care, which could be provided through free clinics and other outside sources that are already in place without the need for the further bureaucracy that a government mandate would demand.

            If Congress wants to make sure that insurance companies are not allowed to reject a person for coverage based on their preexisting conditions, then they can write a piece of legislation that states that insurance companies are not allowed to reject any person for coverage based on their preexisting conditions.  Yes, it really would be that simple—did I really have to tell you that?

            As for the issue of the control of insurance companies (or of government officials in the case of the public plan) over what will be allowed treatment and what will not, that issue is one that is dictated by the terms of the contract of each plan.  It behooves every insured person to read your contract and see what is, or is not, or may or may not be covered; and if you are not satisfied with the coverage, then get a different plan.  If your employer has provided the plan, then that is the coverage that he or she is willing to pay their share of, and if you feel you need more, supplemental plans are available.  You get what you pay for; this matter is really in the hands of the insured as for determining what sort of plans in which he or she may be willing to participate.

            The biggest and most complex issue in the health care debate is controlling costs.  One idea is tort reform which would cap the size of payments to injured parties in malpractice suits.  Keeping down malpractice insurance costs for doctors is a noble goal, but this really does not make up such a large percentage of a doctor’s expenses.  Drug companies are allowed now to advertise prescription drugs with the goal of having the patient advocate for a drug to be a part of his or her treatment regimen during the next office visit.  Curtailing this would save the drug companies money by doing away with the production costs and purchasing of print space and air time (personally, I’m sick and tired of seeing those outdoor bathtubs!).  Other options are available without having to resort to 1970’s style wage and price controls, such as stripping back the bureaucratic requirements of government which result in labor-intensive costs to medical offices or encouraging private sponsorship of research and development through grants from non-related businesses.

            It should come as no surprise to us that the current national health care bill that is being ramrodded through Congress has not been completely read by any member of either house thereof.  Nor did anyone completely read through the stimulus bill when it was enacted.  This is an incredible display of blind trust in the assistants to the members of Congress and their staff who actually put their fingers to the word processors and produced these measures.  Now it seems that we the people are also being asked to show the same blind trust in our Congress and their employees, that we can allow them to not only impose upon us laws of which we do not know the actual content, but that also they do not it know either.

A single-issue voter

            Friends who know me well know that I am a single-issue voter, and that that issue is the government’s size.  I consistently vote for any candidate who is the most likely to reduce the size of government, or else at least the one less likely to further its expansion; usually if this is a candidate’s stand, the other issues I also care about will fall into place.  Sometimes these days, I feel I might as well just stay home on Election Day.  I have made it clear in previous writings on this site that the purpose of government is simply to govern—that is, to create necessary regulation for the social interaction of persons which prevents or punishes crimes and misdemeanors (I explain more of this concept and show its relationship to the philosophy of the American Founders in the essay Size Does Matter, linked below).  Government does not exist to be our insurance company, our employee arbitrator, our doctor, our religion interpreter, our bank, our old-age annuity provider, our dictionary of correct speech, or our conscience police—it exists simply to govern.  In Washington, however, they try to fix what ain’t broke, or else they break what weren’t broke, or else they break worse what already was broke (poor grammar intentional).

            It’s like tearing down a house and rebuilding it to fix a leaky faucet.  It’s like having your car towed to the junkyard because it needs an oil change.  It’s like throwing your best shirt into the rag bag because it popped a button.  It’s like giving a shotgun to a police sniper …

Double barrels

            Now back to our crime story.  If the sniper had used a rifle, this scene would have been either a conclusion to the tale, or would perhaps have been made into an entire episode, and in any case would be a satisfactory ending.  But in the form written above, it would have to be an opening scene, followed by further police investigation as to why a shotgun was used, or why it was even made available to the shooter, why the sniper would not take more care to prevent possible injury to bystanders and to reduce the collateral damage, and if the captain of the SWAT team was crazy.