How The Health Care Bill Will Violate Our Rights

As an advocate of limited government and individual rights, I vehemently opposed the Democratic health care bill. I oppose any bill that does not call for the deregulation of the health care industry at the federal and state levels.

The purpose of this post is to provide a partial enumeration of ways in which the new health care bill will violate our individual rights and reduce our freedom. Supporters of the bill often seem to wonder why there was so much opposition to it, in the manner of "what's the big deal?", stating that this bill simply brings us in line with other so-called "civilized nations".

Personally, I wonder what is "civilized" about coercion, since most of the bill consists of forcing policy on people against their independent judgment. It is doubly unjust because it is the existing government meddling that has brought us here in the first place.

Note that this is merely a partial selection of points from a summary of the legislation provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The page numbers refer to the page within the PDF.

• We lose freedom when government requires that everyone have insurance, and penalizes us if we do not (p. 1).
• The American Health Benefit Exchanges will infringe upon our right to trade freely with whoever we wish, not simply government-approved vendors (p. 1).
• Forcing employers to provide health care vouchers to employees infringes upon the freedom of the employer (p. 1).
• Forcing employers to automatically opt-in employees violates the freedom of the employer (p. 1).
• Imposing new annual fees on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector infringes upon their freedom (p. 4).
• Imposing an annual fee on the health insurance sector infringes upon their freedom (p. 4).
• A new excise tax on taxable medical devices violates our rights (p. 4).
• A new tax on tanning services violates our rights (p. 4).
• Creating co-ops violates our rights to the extent our tax dollars fund them (p. 4).
• Allowing states to prohibit insurance payments for abortion violates the rights of companies providing those plans (p. 5).
• Establishing and subsidizing a high-risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions violates the rights of those funding it (p. 6).
• Mandating dependent coverage violates the rights of insurers (p. 6).
• Prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions violates the rights of insurers (p. 6).
• Prohibiting lifetime limits on policy disbursements violates the rights of insurers (p. 6).
• Any reporting requirements required by law by individuals, employers, insurers, or practitioners is a loss of freedom (p. 6).
• Limiting deductibles violates the rights of insurers (p. 7).
• Mandating that plans comply with certain benefit categories violates the rights of insurers (p. 7).
• Establishing an office of health insurance consumer assistance would violate the rights of those being forced to pay for it via taxation (p. 7).
• Imposing health plan administration practices and penalizing insurers that do not adopt them would violate the rights of insurers (p. 8).
• Letting the government decide what an allowable readmission is would violate the right of patient, insurer and service provider to decide on the terms of readmission (p. 8).
• Establishing comparative effectiveness research would violate the rights of those funding it, and will be used to impose further coercive restrictions based on its findings (p. 9).
• Funding tort reform research grants would violate the rights of those funding it via taxation (p. 9).
• Establishing plans to pay hospitals based on performance on quality measures (as defined by government) violates the right of patients to decide whether the services are worthy (p. 9).
• Grants for small-business wellness programs would violate the rights of those who pay for it via taxation (p. 11).
• Requiring chain restaurants and vending machine packages to have nutritional information would violate the rights of those providing the food (p. 11).
• Establishing a Workforce Advisory Committee would violate the rights of those funding it, and will be used to impose further coercive restrictions based on its findings (p. 12).
• Providing scholarships and loans for health care professionals would violate the rights of those funding it through taxation (p. 12).
• Increasing funding for community health centers would violate the rights of those funding it through taxation (p. 12).
• Funding research on trauma care would violate the rights of those funding it through taxation (p. 12).

Again, this is only a partial list and is not taken from the bill itself. As you can see, the bill violates our rights with almost every provision*. It does not aid the proper function of government, which is to protect our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but rather violates those rights by forcibly overriding our choices and individual judgment. That is why I opposed it.

If you are interested in further reading on health care from a pro-individual rights perspective, I recommend The Ayn Rand Center and FIRM.

*Only its tax breaks can possibly be viewed as positive, because they allows people to keep more of the income that is rightfully theirs. However, even tax breaks have their down side (especially if they are temporary), as they skew markets toward certain products and services, rather than what people would really want on an open market. When any temporary credits are removed, demand will drop, causing market disruption.