Commentary

Operating on Health Care; Voter ID Cards; Gun Ownership Mandatory

Operating on Health Care
How to get the program off of life support.

In November, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls to elect a new governor. One of the most prominent issues in voters’ minds is universal healthcare, which current-Governor Romney allowed to continue through his office.

There is very little question that the healthcare system in Massachusetts is in a severe state of disrepair. Treatment costs, an aging baby boomer generation, frivolous lawsuits, and inactive government bureaucrats are putting tremendous strain on citizens’ health. With many students’ parents rapidly approaching retirement age, the crisis will only heighten as the single largest generation in American history enters their twilight years.

There are several steps the next Massachusetts governor must take to save its citizens from the current healthcare crisis observed across the country. The first and most important step is the deregulation of the medical industry. Deregulation would benefit patients in several ways. Allowing non-doctors, such as nurses and paramedics, to perform appropriate tasks would allow doctors to handle fewer cases. This would cause both training costs and doctor salaries to fall, along with the overall cost to the patient, due to the less expensive billing rates. Increased competition would not only result in the decline of health costs, but also force both doctors and drug companies to produce higher quality patient care and medicine.

The state of Massachusetts must also enact reforms that protect doctors against frivolous lawsuits. Last year nearly 70 percent of all malpractice suits in the United States were either dismissed or resulted in no payment to the plaintiff. Still, these cases cost taxpayers an average of nearly $30,000 per case to get them out of the system. Since there are so many frivolous lawsuits in Massachusetts alone, there is potential for millions of dollars of savings for doctors, healthcare providers, and taxpayers. State legislators must pass laws requiring the plaintiffs and their lawyers to assume monetary responsibility for their frivolous lawsuits. This would reduce the incentive for lawyers to take cases they know to be frivolous.

Today, even in what many would consider to be conservative circles, there seems to be a powerful advance of public opinion in establishing a statewide and mandatory health insurance program. Under the current plan, proposed by Republican Governor Romney, the taxpayers would provide universal healthcare to all citizens of the state. While this utopian ideal sounds promising, the best way to fix the broken healthcare system is not through additional layers of government bureaucracy.

Universal healthcare fails to solve the problem the state faces on almost every level. In a government-monopolized health plan, physicians’ incentive to provide quality care is greatly reduced. Furthermore, in an industry already controlled by only a handful of very large pharmaceutical companies, forcing people into plans controlled solely by these corporations will eliminate competition, thereby driving out the already struggling smaller providers. This year, large pharmaceutical companies are expected to give over $29 million to political campaigns. Elected officials, the same people designing the universal healthcare system, have no incentive to listen to smaller companies that, instead of donating to political campaigns, use their limited resources to develop new life-saving drugs. Not only would competition among healthcare providers greatly decrease, but also politicians would punish smaller companies for conducting research instead of making campaign contributions. Make no mistake: the only real winners of socialized medicine in the long run are the big pharmaceuticals that will have a monopoly over patient care.

Gubernatorial candidates Kerry Healey and Deval Patrick recently released their campaign platforms. While Healey differs from Patrick on issues such as supporting a cap on lawyer fees extracted from malpractice verdicts, both candidates support expanding the government to finance health insurance and subsidize prescription drug prices. It is disturbing that within the issue of health care, soundbite rhetoric has left voters with hardly any choice at all.

While there are certainly many more steps to be taken, both by the state of Massachusetts and by the federal government, deregulation and malpractice reform are two of the most pressing and realistic options for our state representatives. Avoiding the pitfalls of socialized medicine is key to securing a healthy future, both for our state’s people and the system that cares for them. Regardless of whether universal healthcare comes from a Republican or Democrat, it will ultimately prove to be a failure, as it has in so many other places. To solve this crisis, we must put our faith not in bloated taxpayer-funded bureaucracy and a few massive HMOs, but in a free and open marketplace. Only then will the citizens of Massachusetts receive both affordable and high-quality healthcare.

Voter ID Cards
The bill requiring voters to present photo IDs facing Congress is a good idea and should be passed quickly.

According to current law in most places no photo IDs are required for a person to vote. Very often all that is required is that he or she be registered (which means filling out a form) and have a bank statement or some other easy-to-fake document that has a name and address matching the one filled out on the voter registration form. Such a system makes voter fraud easy, and it is not surprising that the parties accuse each other of benefitting from it every year, and every election there are stories alleging voter fraud from sea to shining sea. A plan to require photo IDs will not violate a person’s rights and will also mean a sharp decrease in voter fraud.

The proposition that showing photo ID will invade a person’s rights is preposterous. Today in the US people already must carry and present photo ID to do things as basic as using a credit card, driving a car, riding on an airplane, or buying alcohol and tobacco products. Requiring an ID for voting doesn’t violate one’s rights any more than requiring an ID for the activities listed above does. In addition most states either already offer or plan to offer government photo IDs to all those that don’t have them or can’t afford them for some reason. So all people eligible to vote will be able to easily and cheaply get the required identification needed.

This bill will allow the nation to quell voter fraud. Anyone who shows up at a polling station will be required to present an ID before he or she is allowed to vote. This will ensure that people really are who they say they are, and standard anti-fraud devices on these IDs will make it far harder to assume a false identity. There are harsh crimes and technological barriers that make faking such a document extremely difficult, especially when scrutinized. In addition, illegal immigrants will have a much harder time voting if they are required to have a valid photo ID with them, attesting to the fact that they are legal and eligible to vote. This is a great and simple way to stop voter fraud at its core.

This bill should therefore be passed to ensure that the elections which so many Americans rely on to be free and fair stay just that. THE PRIMARY SOURCE hopes that this reasonable and responsible step will happen, and that our great democracy will be rid of the ugly and all too rampant problem of voter fraud.

Gun Ownership Mandatory
Not exactly what the Second Amendment meant.

The town of Greenleaf, Idaho, is considering passing the Civil Emergencies Ordinance (CEO), originally proposed by city council member Steve Jett. The CEO would require, among many other things, that every head of household who can legally own a gun do so. It would also encourage ammunition ownership and firearms safety training.

The SOURCE has always been a steadfast Second Amendment advocate and gun rights proponent. The right of law-abiding individuals to bear arms is an essential liberty in a free society, and has proven to be beneficial to individuals and communities alike. But Americans do not have a duty to exercise their right.

Generally, the largest hole in the anti-gun crowd’s argument is that it does not take the concept of choice into account. Gun-control advocates will offer as an example a situation in which the use of a firearm, even in self-defense, is likely to make the situation worse. The anti-gun crowd laments the notion that crime can be reduced through “arming everyone to the teeth.” The SOURCE has never advocated requiring people to own or use a firearm, though. The pro-gun rights crowd has been a proponent of letting people own firearms, not forcing them to—and even then, the fact that somebody owns a firearm does not mean that he will necessarily use it in every conceivable situation. The average gun owner has never shot at a real person, and would only do so when firing the weapon in defense.

The CEO was proposed in response to great population increases in the towns and counties surrounding Greenleaf. While crime is not a large problem so far, the Idaho town is considering enacting the ordinance as a means of preempting any crime issues that may arise as the surrounding population—and its own population—steadily increases. “There’s not a lot of crime here, but I think it’s coming, it’s getting worse everyday,” said Art Bailey, owner of the Greenleaf Store.

Mandatory gun ownership is not a new idea. In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a similar law. Notably, crime rates plummeted soon thereafter, proving that civilian gun ownership does indeed reduce crime.

The SOURCE agrees that civilian gun ownership goes a long way toward warding off crime, both real and potential. It supports transforming America back into a nation of riflemen, as it was intended to stay. But the SOURCE cannot give its blessing to mandatory gun ownership. Those who wish not to exercise their freedom to own a firearm, not dissimilar from those who choose not to exercise their freedom to vote, are best left alone; they are not ready for the awesome responsibility of either.