Not to go all communist on everyone, but this debate on health care "reform" has really got me fuming over the so-called private sector of the U.S. managed-care system.  While combating Obamacare, it has come to my attention that more and more proponents of the bill are labeling us as agents of the established health insurance industry.  Supporters of government expansion come to this silly conclusion because we are opposing the "public option" for insurance, which in their minds means that we are protecting the insurance giants from competition.

How are we, the defenders of free commerce and trade, supposed to respond to such a baseless claim?  I think one useful tactic may be to come after the established insurance agencies' long-time, cozy relationship with the very government that is offering "reform."  As Timothy Carney points out in the Washington Examiner, the established health insurance corporations are generally not our friends:

Insurance companies lobby for big-government regulations, subsidies, mandates, and tax-code distortions that funnel them money, keep out competition, and stultify innovation. These policies preserve the employer-based health-care system that mocks the idea of free-market competition. Then they cry "unfair competition" when government threatens to encroach on their government-protected monopolies.

I encourage you to read the rest, as the article is full of many examples of how the federal and state governments have aided and abetted the rip-off of the American people by the major insurance giants.

So make no mistake, Obamacare is not about legitimate reform of the current system. Obamacare is about the acceleration of the status-quo: government expansion at the behest of itself and its allied corporations, all at the expense of our liberties. An example of legitimate reform, which was very recently cosponsored by Ron Paul, is HR 3217, the Health Care Choice Act of 2009:

Also, Rep. John Shadegg, a conservative Republican from Arizona, has proposed a bill to allow interstate purchase of health insurance. Blue Cross has fiercely opposed this idea that could introduce more competition. Currently, Blue Cross companies typically have only a handful of competitors in each state.

In other words, the establishment's greatest fear is the free market.  Real competition in insurance would be brought about by state deregulation, the repealing of ERISA laws, an accurate interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the end of tax-code manipulations which subsidize the industry.  It is just plain preposterous to think that we need a monopoly (that's government) to compete with a government-coddled oligopoly (that's the so-called private sector) in order to solve our health care problems.

There are quite a few people these days that have trouble making the distinction between legitimate market entrepreneur-driven businesses and the prominent state-promoting corporatists. It is up to us to point out to others the flaws in the current system, help them recognize the propaganda used to perpetuate corporatism and socialism, and to explain the benefits of health freedom.

Again from Carney:

A freer market might yield a more retail-oriented health-care market in which insurance is used more as insurance--guarding against large, unexpected expenses--and less as a way of pre-paying for health care. Such insurers would have to actually compete on price and on quality of service. Current law disadvantages such plans.

Real reform entails more liberty and less government coercion.  Let's oppose Obamacare and the health insurance status quo.