Consider Canadian medicine. The Canadian Medical Association reports that in one year, 71 patients died while awaiting heart surgery and over one hundred others became “medically unfit for surgery.” “Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare,” wrote Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in a decision that decriminalized non-government insurance.

Why expect single-payer to work? As a government insurance monopoly, it has little incentive to please captive customers. As Barack Obama has stated, “capitalism is great for consumers” when they have “many alternatives,” when customers, “not government bureaucrats … are the judges of what best serves their needs.” Single payer is the opposite of “many alternatives,” and it substitutes a bureaucrat’s judgment for your own.

Single-payer exacerbates problems with current insurance. Politicians coddle insurance companies by enforcing a tax code that favors employer-sponsored insurance. Insurers know that for you to buy a competitor’s product you must either change jobs or pay the full premium plus a tax penalty. Single-payer is worse. If you don’t like it, changing jobs won’t help. You must leave the state.

Even if the single-payer bill does not pass, proposing it could make an equally bad policy seem more “reasonable”: mandatory insurance. It’s law in Massachusetts, and it has gained traction in Colorado through the 208 Commission and Senate Bill 08-217.

Mandatory insurance is just single-payer in disguise. As with single-payer, politicians get to define what insurance is. Insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

Mandatory insurance has been a disaster. Massachusetts authorities will “probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals” and “reduce choices for patients,” reports the Boston Globe. The wait to see primary care doctors “has grown to as long as 100 days.” As for insurance, government mandates “drive up costs, making coverage unaffordable.” Residents content with policies that authorities declare illegal “could face a hefty tax penalty.”

Government-controlled healthcare rests on the belief that health care is a right. It is not. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce.

Instead of more government controls, Colorado should adopt free-market reforms. For example, Colorado House Bill 1256 would lift a ban that prohibits individuals from buying more affordable insurance sold in other states. Because of state-level mandates, a non-group family plan costs $5400 in Colorado, but only $3,000 in Wisconsin, reports America’s Health Insurance Plans.

Government controls drive up premium costs, subjecting many to Medicaid. Medicaid offers lousy care, fosters government dependency, increases insurance premiums, and devours the state budget. Would taxpayers voluntarily fund such an awful program? If politicians must force taxpayers to fund other people’s insurance, they should replace the Medicaid bureaucracy with a simple voucher – like food stamps, but for health insurance.

Such a voucher would be an improvement, but it would still unfairly compete with charities – as Medicaid does. Every tax dollar for Medicaid is one less dollar taxpayers could donate to charities such as Denver’s Inner City Health Center, Operation Walk Denver, or Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics. Donors should receive a tax credit taken directly from the state Medicaid fund. This would encourage Medicaid administrators to prove that their program is truly effective — just as charities must to earn donations.

Don’t believe politicians’ claims of “guaranteed” or “universal” healthcare. Politicians don’t “guarantee” your ability to buy milk at the grocery store, but you should worry about finding the milk if politicians interfere with free markets. Likewise, politically “guaranteed” health care would threaten our ability to get good care. The Legislature should remove crippling political controls of medicine, not expand them.

What good is having medical insurance if you cannot get medical care? Peddlers of “universal health care” — from Hillary, Obama, to Colorado congressional candidate Jared Polis — don’t get this.

“Universal health care” is false advertising for politically-controlled medicine, with government as the “single-payer” monopolistic insurer. But having coverage does not guarantee getting medical care.

Since patients prepay through taxes, medical care appears “free.” Hence, they have strong incentive to over-consume and providers need not compete on price. To contain costs, governments restrict your access to life-saving treatment. In countries with such “universal coverage,” patients die waiting for treatment.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became “medically unfit for surgery.” The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that “109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died.”

This week the Globe and Mail reported that

Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.

She sought treatment in the United States, as do Canadians in need of intensive care and emergency cardiac care.

“Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions” which “causes them to retire early…or simply leave,” a former Canadian Medical Association president told the New York Times. He “attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment.”

“Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare,” wrote Canadian Chief Justice McLachlin when striking down legislation banning private insurance in 2005. Last year a New York Times headline read: “As Canada’s Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging.”

And England? The BBC reports that “up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery.” The Times reports that a British woman “will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug.” A Daily Telegraph headline reads: “Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists.” “Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives,” reports another article.

Consider politically-controlled health care in America: Medicaid and Medicare. Doctors are five times more likely to refuse seeing new Medicaid patients than privately-insured patients. Increasing reimbursement rates won’t help much; more than two-thirds of doctors reported being overwhelmed by Medicaid’s billing requirements, paperwork, and delays in payment.

ABC News reports that “Medicare rules bar cancer drugs for patients,” including the privately-insured. As the population ages and Medicare costs continue to increase, Medicare may further restrict patients and doctors.

“Single payer” advocates cite international comparisons of life expectancy to support their cause. But life expectancy depends on factors unrelated to healthcare, such as unintentional injury and homicide. Health economist Robert Ohsfeldt found that when accounting for these two factors, life expectancy in America is comparable to that of Canada and England.

What really matters is your chance of surviving a serious illness. The American Cancer Society reported that “U.S. patients have better survival rates than European patients for most types of cancer.”

So if politically-controlled medicine isn’t the solution, what is?

Not a Massachusetts-style “individual mandate,” which forces everyone to buy insurance. This is essentially single-payer in disguise. Insurance regulations severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

The Boston Globe reports that to contain costs, Massachusetts authorities will “probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals” and “reduce choices for patients.” Sound familiar?

Instead, we must recognize how government policies have crippled free markets.

Because the tax code deeply discounts employer-provided insurance, you’re essentially stuck with your employer’s non-portable plans. Hence, insurance companies can afford to be stingy and deny you care; they know that losing you as a customer requires that you change jobs. With government as “single-payer” it’s even worse: to change insurance providers you must move to a different state or country.

Our current system also encourages thoughtless over-consumption and skyrocketing costs. The tax code punishes paying for medical care out-of-pocket and rewards buying insurance. So “insurance” has become prepaid medicine, and patients over-consume like business travelers dining on their company’s expense account.

Further, legislation mandating minimum benefits makes insurance unaffordable for many. Consider: Colorado law compels widowed wives to pay higher premiums for prostate screening, maternity, and marital therapy. Sponsors of Colorado House Bill 08-1327 recognize this injustice. Just as businesses incorporated in other states can operate in Colorado, Coloradans should be able to buy affordable policies from insurance companies that meet less damaging regulations of another state.

So remember, the uninsured aren’t the problem, but a symptom of political meddling in our most important personal choices.