Since the institution of Medicare and Medicaid, medical costs have risen at four times the general rate of inflation.
A total government takeover (read that “socialization”) of medical care would result in supporting medical costs for everyone else becoming the principal influence in our lives.
Those who believe that “medical care” is a basic “right” can not define what “medical care” is. Does it mean that every person has the “right” to a regular medical visit to a doctor? Does it mean that every person has a “right” to a CAT scan or MRI when (s)he has a headache? Does it mean that every person has a “right” to being held on life-support while medical science catches up to whatever is killing (or has, technically, killed) him or her? Is psychiatric care part of the deal?
The partial socialization of medicine has already led to bureaucratic rationing of care. Total socialization of medicine will lead to total rationing. It will lead to medcops investigating our lives to see if we have engaged in risky behavior, like smoking, not brushing our teeth, eating too much steak or not enough steak. Have you eaten something from each of the levels of the food pyramid every day?
We socialized roads and bridges, national defense, and the justice system a long time ago. Now, the expense attributable to each of those elements of our infrastructure has grown to unmanageable levels. Socializing “medical care” will administer the coup de grace to any vestige of liberty left in our lives.
16 comments:
As stunning as it was for me, I actually agree with most everything you said here. (Are you pulling my leg).
My only disagreement is with your last paragraph, and the disagreement is relatively minor.
We didn't "socialize" roads and bridges and national defense. Socialism involves the taking of property from one individual and giving it to other specific individuals; our road system and national defense benefits everyone. Further and more importantly, they are constitutionally-authorized functions of government, whereas government charity and a government health care system are not.
Also, while the road system and national defense are rather large, they are relatively insignificant when compared to the 50% or more of our budget that goes to pay for unconstitutional social programs.
But other than that, great piece!
Hold on, Bob Newland. You mention—negatively, it appears—the idea that health care is a right. But then you appear to bemoan that socialized medicine would resort to rationing. It sounds like you're saying we have a right to health care, and that it would be wrong to impose rationing to take away any of it. Can you clarify?
Since I have a consistent political philosophy, it is natural that I would intersect philosophically with even a stopped philosophical clock twice a day.
Cory, I'm asking if we have a "right" to medical care. If so, define "medical care."
Ellis, that's not what socialism is.
...darned consistency...
Mr. Newland, I struggle with defining that right as well. But whatever that right might be, if it exists, it seems to lie latent in your comment about rationing. I take it you don't like the prospect of rationing. Am I correct? If so, I take it that if we socialize medicine (yes, please!), and you go to the hospital to get Treatment X, and the hospital says, "Sorry, we're rationing Treatment X; you can't have it today," you'll say, "That's not fair!" If I'm correct about your position, on what basis would you declare that rationing unfair?
I submit that the fundamental "right" to health care is the same right as prisoners in Federal penitentiaries have. Those standards are probably spelled out somewhere, and probably don't include liposuction, facelifts or MRI's for hangnails. That's just Newland being crabby.
Okay, so Fleming's on record as supporting -- for everyone -- the same "right" to "medical care" as enjoyed by prisoners. That sounds great.
If you want to go to a doctor, you put in a request. Then you're taken in handcuffs to a prison-approved doctor, who gives you the absolute minimum of the absolutely worst level of medical attention possible.
...see what I mean? Crabby.
Ok, so how 'bout we upgrade it to VA quality? (...although the prison scenario is light years better than some people have now.)
By the way, no one's saying you have to CHOOSE this option, or that you can't by your own supplimental policy. That's probably what Bob would do... you know... to protect the free market and all... and to cover his liposuction.
Cory, treatment X is rationed today. It is either available to only those who can afford it, or to those who reap the luck of the draw (organ transplant availability, for example) and can afford it.
Under socialized medicine (single payer, whatever), treatment x will be rationed by bureaucrats, under some formula combined with whim. The bureaucrats will be the ones we will have to bribe to get treatment.
Much in life is unfair; most, in fact. Some of us are blessed with unreasonably good health despite a dissipant lifestyle; others with poor health despite what should have been a healthy lifestyle.
To what extent should the public as a whole expend finite resources on an endless problem that will expand faster than it is funded?
VA quality? You mean where they give you buckets of tranquilizers and pain-killers and stonewall you on treatment hoping you'll die before they have to actually do something meaningful for you?
And that's for folks who have served in an armed force with the possibility of being blown up for Exxon.
As long as you're being "absolutist" about it, Bob,
I'd rather spend my tax dollars helping people stay well inside our borders than to send them off to die in foreign countries, killing others while they're at it.
Let's see if we can get more reasonable, shall we?
Bob seems blind to his philosophy advocating for the tyranny of the dollar bill. He seems happy to let big corporate steal money right out of his pocket. Just as long as they don't get all "communist" about it and try to give it to someone else.
And you seem blind to the fact that I don't advocate ANY kind of socialism -- fascist or communist (the differences are mere semantics anyway).
I hate the corporate pigs as much as you do. They are, in fact the principle enemy. The politicians, cops and soldiers are merely their thugs.
Medical care as administered today in a never-never land of government/physician sludge is a failure. The programs proposed by the politicians will not only be a failure; they'll be a disastrously expensive failure.
Suggesting that tax dollars will be diverted from foreign imperialistic adventures to treating AIDS patients is disingenuous, because you know that will not happen.
Post a Comment