the salt makers

"[ A democracy] can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." -Alexander Tytler

"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid." -Art Spander

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual" –Ayn Rand

The growing ranks of socialists in the world, and in this country in particular, is of great concern to myself and those who share my philosophy of free market, free mind individualism. As we approach the presidential elections of 2008, the candidates have already begun planning their "“shock and awe" media blitzes to lay the groundwork for their bids to the oval office. While my own opinion is that Mrs. Hillary Clinton will not be able to wrestle her party'’s nomination, her core platform will likely find a large audience all around the fruited plain. One of the main issues that she is hoping will propel her into political history, something she and her husband tried to bring to the floor while the latter was President, is something she cleverly calls a "“single payer healthcare system."” Something cleverly disguised in this euphamism is that the "“single payer"” is you and me, and that this system is better known as socialized healthcare.

Socialized medicine is a profoundly bad idea for everyone involved. For patients, it means longer and longer waiting periods to receive routine medical examinations, the very thing that the medical community agrees can save lives through early detection. It also imposes "“trusts," similar to school districts, which assign you to a specific doctor or medical center as determined by where you live, not who you think is best to meet your medical needs. For doctors, this system imposes industry standards for services, meaning that the best doctors cannot charge any more for their services than any other doctors, making the time and expense of becoming a physician look far less worthwhile for young people, and makes other, non-government controlled industries, like research and development, look very appealing for current doctors.

What has inevitably occurred in virtually every country that has adopted such a program is debt beyond any expectations: its’s a simple enough rule, once you make something free, the demand will increase exponentially. The equally inevitable result? Poor quality healthcare because doctors are forced to see more patients in a day in order to maintain a reasonable income.

In Canada, seeking the help of a physician outside the National Health Service is illegal. This means that if you're not happy with the system as it'’s currently laid out, and you approach a doctor to treat you or your family in a private transaction, you can be fined by the government. The only reason the Canadian healthcare system has been able to sustain itself thus far is because of the ability of the average Canadian, invariably older with chronic health problems, can always walk across the border to obtain timely and competent healthcare for the right price.

All this being said, the inherent flaws are more complex then even we critics could have expected.

A recent article from the London Telegraph:

Too successful: the hospitals forced to introduce minimum waiting times

Hospitals across the country are imposing minimum waiting times - delaying the treatment of thousands of patients.

After years of Government targets pushing them to cut waiting lists, staff are now being warned against "over-performing" by treating patients too quickly. The Sunday Telegraph has learned that at least six trusts have imposed the minimum times.

In March, Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health, offered her apparent blessing for the minimum waiting times by announcing they would be "appropriate" in some cases. Amid fears about £1.27 billion [2.42 billion US] of NHS [National Health Service] debts, she expressed concern that some hospitals were so productive "they actually got ahead of what the NHS could afford".

The minimum waiting times, however, dismayed Katherine Murphy, of the Patients' Association, who said last night: "This all stems from bad financial planning and management. No wonder there is a crisis. If staff are available for an operation, they should be utilized."

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, added that the minimum waiting times shed new light on the Government's target that patients should wait no longer than six months.[!] "It is outrageous that the purpose of the Government's targets is not so much to drive down waiting times, as to impose a six-month wait."

The measures also seem certain to add to the anger that erupted last week after Ipswich Hospital in Suffolk admitted it had forfeited £2.4 million because it treated patients too quickly, having already agreed a 122-day minimum waiting time with East Suffolk Primary Care Trust (PCT), its funding body. The hospital finished the last financial year £16.7 million in the red.

Douglas Seaton, 60, a consultant physician who worked with the restraints of the minimum waiting times before retiring from Ipswich Hospital in June, said: "In the last year, we have seen disastrous strains. The senior managers are following political instructions. The Government is holding the reins and it is not working."

A spokesman for the hospital and the PCT insisted that no one was denied urgent treatment, adding: "This is a local issue. It doesn't have national significance."

The Sunday Telegraph has learned of five further minimum-waiting-time directives. In May, Staffordshire Moorlands PCT, which funds services at two hospitals and is more than £5 million in the red, introduced a 19-week minimum wait for in-patients and 10 weeks for out-patients. A spokesman said: "These were the least worst cuts we could make." In March, Eastbourne Downs PCT, expected to overspend by £7 million this year, ordered a six-month minimum wait for non-urgent operations. Also in March, it was revealed that Medway PCT, with a deficit of £12.4 million, brought in a nine-week wait for out-patient appointments and 20 weeks for non-urgent operations.

Doctors are also resigning. One gyncologist said that he spent more time doing sudoku puzzles than treating patients because of the measures. Since January, West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, with a deficit of £41 million, has used a 10-week minimum wait for routine GP referrals to hospital. Watford and Three Rivers PCT, £13.2 million in the red, has introduced "demand management": no in-patient or day case is admitted before five months.

There is no evidence that in any of these cases, emergency treatment or cancer care was delayed.

Elsewhere, serious financial tensions are emerging between hospitals and the PCTs paying them.

In June, the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust claimed it might have to send patients back to their GPs because of insufficient funding from Bournemouth Teaching PCT. The dispute was resolved, but not before the PCT told the Health Service Journal that it was "disappointed that the Foundation Trust refused to slow the pace of its work. Much of this overperformance could have been avoided."

Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, which represents all 32 existing foundation trusts and 10 trusts preparing for foundation status, warned of nine similar disputes over funding worth a total of £28 million.

Michael Dixon, the chairman of the NHS Alliance, representing PCTs, blamed the inflexibility of the Government's Payment by Results system. "PCTs are operating with one arm tied behind their back. Whereas hospitals are able to do more operations, PCTs are unable to negotiate the rate they'll pay for the extra work because it's fixed."

The concept of socialized medicine is based on the singularly flawed idea that medical care, as a product, is different than any other service that is exchanged in the normal practice of economy. This idea states that the care of one'’s health is so important, that it must be removed from the corrupting and trivial arena of normal business transacted between two persons.

The irony, of course, is that the cost of this type of healthcare system, when compared to the product received, is vastly more expensive than any free market could ever bear.

Since the end of the Second World War, when the fist sparks of modern technology began to twinkle in the visible distance, the quality of life in The United States of America has increased, while the costs of living have decreased. As the global economy expanded, and the technology of transportation and communication improved, more and more people entered this global marketplace, drawn by the brilliantly simple and effective concept of supply and demand.

It is no coincidence that two of the major issues that will set the tone for the upcoming Presidential election, two issues that have routinely made their way onto the agenda for the last twenty years, the rising costs of both healthcare and higher education, are the two areas of the marketplace in which the government, at both state and Federal levels are most directly involved and most heavily invested. The simple truth is that the more the government works to solve a problem, to which the solution is invariably "“spend more money,"” the worse that problem gets.

The solution to the "“healthcare crisis"” in America is not more, it'’s less. Less instruction, fewer regulations, and minimal involvement of people empowered to make life-altering decisions for people they'’ve never even met.