In a comment on the Delaware Libertarian blog, delacrat asks, "Would you agree that every Delaware resident having single-payer health care is preferable to some Delaware residents not having any health care of any kind?"

The short answer is not just no, but "Hell NO!"

Since the long version requires a significant amount of analysis, I will place the burden of proving the case where it belongs--on the people who want to use the coercive power of government to force nearly all Delawareans (at gunpoint if necessary) to make a major change in their lifestyles for the benefit of a few.

Let's see the supporters of this ridiculous posturing by Reps Kowalko & Jaques make a convincing case in favor of HB 392 according to even one of these metrics:

1. Will the aggregate cost of healthcare in Delaware (considering all receipts & payments by the customers, businesses, providers and taxpayers) increase or decrease relative to the quality and quantity of services received?

2. Will this law be a Pareto improvement for all interested parties?

3. Will this law promote innovation and long term improvements in the quality of health care in Delaware? or will it stifle innovation and change?

4. How will this law solve the Free-Rider problem w/o denying access to legitimately eligible persons who because of poverty, homelessness, unemployment, disaster or other reasons are unable to prove their residency or employment status?

5. How will this law prevent degradation of health care in Delaware due to providers closing their practices or relocating to other states?

6. What will prevent this law from having a significant negative impact on the availability of non-covered treatments?