Why I Disagree with National Health Care

With the 2008 Presidential election debate in full swing, and with still over a year remaining, the discussion of a nationalized health care system occurs almost daily at various campaign events. At while it sounds great that everyone can get health care from the government, I do not agree with the idea. Here's why:

1. Currently, the national debt is $8,915,552,079,121.39 (as of 7:49AM EDT today). For those that have a hard time with that many numeral places, that's 8 trillion, 915 billion, 552 million, 079 thousand, one hundred twenty one dollars, and thirty nine cents. Can we really expect a government with this high of national debt, and all of the inefficient government operations and projects to be able to effectively operate a health care system whose membership includes over 300 million members? I highly doubt it.



2. The free-market health care system encourages innovation, and encourages doctors to practice medicine. As Dr. Evan Osbourne points out; in 2003, 58% of Britain's --a country with a national health care system-- new doctors came from countries other than the UK. Osbourne notes that Britain still produces doctors; however, the best doctors come the US to practice. The reason for this is Britain's nationalized health care system controls medical prices so much that it simply isn't encouraging the best doctors to stay because the doctors don't get paid what they want, so they go elsewhere. Osbourne compares the UK doctor situation to the US immigration debate, "medicine in Britain is increasingly a job Britons are unwilling to do, like gardening in Los Angeles."
   
   Furthermore, when the government controls prices, manufactures are unwilling to produce new or better products, including medical supplies or medicine. The reason companies exist is to make a profit, and pharmaceutical companies are able to charge high prices because people are willing to pay the high price in order to alleviate their pain or disease. When the government begins telling companies how much they can charge for their products companies lose their motivation to continue producing or selling that product. Because of this, they also lose their motivation to improve on existing products.
   
   This CAN NOT happen, especially in the medical field. We need the best doctors and the best medical products, and I'm afraid that a national health care system will compromise this. People already complain that the best manufacturing jobs go to India or China, yet a national health care system could do this very same thing with the best medical jobs, including doctors or pharmaceutical manufacturing and development.
   



3. My cost. Under my current, private health care provided by my employer, I pay about $40 per month in insurance premiums, for two person coverage. My employer contributes over $700 per month, so currently I am getting a very good deal on my health insurance premiums. My employer maintains a system in which the higher earning employees pay more of their insurance premiums, which I consider a very good system. While I am currently in a lower salary bracket, I have no problem paying more for my insurance premiums as I earn more.
   
   However, I have a hard time believing that any additional tax I will pay into a national health care system (taxes are going to have to be higher in order to fund this) will be equal to, or less than, my current premium. The most likely higher tax, coupled with my second point above, will actually lead to a less effective health care system for me, as the cost to me will likely increase and eventually the level of service will decrease. Paying more to get less does not sound like something I want.
   



4. Finally, call it whatever adjective you want, but I don't want to be forced to pay for your health care, sorry.
   
   America is a free country, and I have no problem contributing to worthy causes; however, I don't want my health care tax dollars paying for the gang member who gets shot up during a busted drug deal, or to the child molester who gets the living snot beat out of him by an angry parent. Granted, these are extreme examples; however, under a national health care system I don't have a choice in how my well earned money is spent.

P.S.: by the time I finished writing this post, the national debt increased by over $140 million.

I Smell An Apple Anti-Trust Suit

Today, Universal Music Group announced that they will not renew a long-term contract with Apple, Inc. allowing their artists' music to be offered through Apple's iTunes music store. Instead, Universal will continue to offer their music on a month-by-month basis, to allow for more flexibility over pricing, and the availability of their artists' music.

One reason for this change is Universal's disapproval over the stronghold that Apple has on the music download business. However, neither company can really afford not being in a relationship. Universal is the largest record label, and Apple's iTunes accounted for 15% of Universal's 1Q revenue. Apple's iTunes service accounts for 76% of all music downloads on the Web.

A point of contention that Universal (and other labels) has is the lack of interoperability between iTunes and non-iPod music players. Music downloaded from iTunes can only be played on the iPod, and the iPod can only play downloaded music from iTunes. This is due to Apple's proprietary copy protection software, which Apple will not release to other music services or music player manufactures. Steve Jobs argues that releasing their software to others would increase the possibility of cracking the code and making the copy protection
useless.

However, by doing this, Apple is forcing their iPod customers into using only their music service to download music. If this isn't a clear manipulation of the market to create a monopoly, I don't know what is.

The record labels have long been unhappy with the price of their music offered the iTunes service. Apple doesn't want most of the prices to be over $1.00 per song; however, the labels argue that they are not getting enough revenue from this. However, as stated above, iTunes accounts for 76% of the total Internet music download sales; so, the record labels can't afford to not have their music on iTunes. Furthermore, because Apple has over 100 million iPods in the hands of consumers, the record labels can't pull their music from iTunes and put it on another service -they won't get the iPod customers because the iPod can't play non-iTunes downloads, and they're aren't that many non-iPod players in the hands of consumers.

Because of this, record labels are not able to use typical free-market practices by shopping around for a better service. In their eyes, and the eyes of the consumers, iTunes is the ONLY service.

Within the next couple years, you will begin to see the record industry pressuring the U.S. Justice Department to investigate Apple's practices. Within 5 years, if Apple does not change their tune, we can expect to see the beginnings of an anti-trust suit against Apple. It happened to Microsoft, surely it will happen to Apple.