Why Free Market perhaps is the Right Way to be..for Health Care

There is currently the huge debate of health care embroiling America. And I've thought through of the battle of the ideal versus the practical. To put it briefly, the president's health care law aims at providing coverage for those without. But the main counter-argument to this is, but what if they cannot afford it? Now the government proposes, albeit obscurely, that innovative means would cover for that. All the while reasserting, that those with insurance currently will not see their premiums increasing. But popular, and pragmatic logic, says otherwise. Including the insurance providers who'll have to cover those newly added.

It is easy to be initially pained by the numbers. 15 percent of the country is uninsured. Many of them, children, the torch-bearers for the country's future. A government exists to look out for its citizens, and if some are unfortunate in wealth, then at least very basic needs of food, shelter, and health must be provided for by the government. If this implies, that part of this cost is borne by those more fortunate, then so be it. It'd be like applying a higher rate of tax for covering those uninsured.

But the counter-argument exists that such a cost cannot be afforded by the country. We have seen communism collapse in the past, as do we see socialist countries today in Europe. The law of free market is the law of nature: Survival of the fittest. If you try to kill the snake to protect the frog, the ecosystem would collapse. The only reason America is the most powerful and richest country of its time, is because it adheres to this law to the fullest. The system is there: public schools, infrastructure, lack of corruption, and a government that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. If a person does not make use of these opportunities and falters in life, why should the hard-worker bear this person's expenses, including health insurance. And popular vote will resist it; only government will and leadership willing to flow against the tide can make this happen. And in a democracy where popular vote elects its government, the opposition is bound to come to power and overturn such a direction. If the government wants to avoid this, it takes up the cost, adjusting it by some means, which in the long run will be eyewash, as much of government revenue is taxes in income (individual or business). The other easy-way-out for the government is to push this cost to the private sector. But a private business exists for profit, and will certainly push costs to the end consumer by means of increase in premium for existing members. Which is what we are looking at right now.

Cruel though it is, perhaps life was never meant to be this way. And you just have to look at nature to know that as I said before. A government's primary responsibility is to ensure the country's survival. And if social committments come in the way, then a sacrifice to that respect has to take place. Basic needs could be food and shelter; health to be individual responsibility. Universal health coverage is not possible;dependants (children and hopefully seniors) can. Coverage to ensure immunization and hygiene (to avoid larger societal catastrophes due to epidemics), can.

All in all, the same rules apply to a country as to a business, in order to survive. Unless you innovate, you cannot survive. You have to let go of your weakest. Survival for the fittest, is indeed the undeniable law of nature, and as long as we live in nature, it will continue to reflect in our financial systems and social order.