By partially socializing medicine (Medicare, Medicaid) government has already created an impossible budget situation. In taking another step towards the complete socialization of medicine, we are guaranteed to bankrupt ourselves. Unfortunately, I believe it is inevitable that we will do so.
The current relationship between government and “health care” is untenable, a mess. Nothing will be done to solve that. If the health care bill now in Congress is not passed, Obama will enact portions by executive fiat anyway. Congress will finish the job with a series of steps less comprehensive than the current bill.
If I thought it were possible to enact legislation that provided health care to everyone, I would be in favor of it. I know it is not possible. It seems to me that those who believe it possible -- in the face of all the evidence that government is incapable of providing anything except overwhelming force (not known to be of much use against microbes and genetic tendencies) -- are unrealistically idealistic.
The arguments in favor of a larger government presence in the doctor’s office posted on this forum have tended towards cheerleading rather than reason. Several times I’ve asked for comments on what, exactly, constitutes “health care.” Will psychiatric care be included? Who decides what treatment is likely to be fruitful and when further treatment is likely to be unfruitful?
Those who have answered have said, essentially, “Good questions. We need government to supply health care.”
Imagine a generation from now when the crop of recent graduates from medical school subscribe in large measure to the premise that good medicine comes from Congress, not science. We’ll then be in much the same situation in that realm as we are with law enforcement now, where the line troops are largely brutish thugs who do not question the policies (enacted by legislatures) they enforce that are clearly counterproductive, and the courts allow the cops tremendous latitude in their pursuit of goals that seem to be only aimed at maintaining a balance of terror.
_______________________
Not so fast, Bob. How about these countries (see map)?
The blue countries are single pay Universal Health, the Green, other Universal health, and the gray, no Universal health. Also see my comment and the link inside this post.
18 comments:
Bob says"If I thought it were possible to enact legislation that provided health care to everyone, I would be in favor of it. I know it is not possible."
And yet there are lots of free world countries whose Governments provide health care, Bob. I've added a map to your post for your convenience.
Here's the link it came from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Yes, those countries may provide something they call universal healthcare. They also ration it. I would be surprised to learn any one of them does not cap it arbitrarily when some bureaucrat decides that further treatment on an individual would not be fruitful.
George H. W. Bush called what he promoted "kinder, gentler conservatism."
I guess I don't understand what point you're arguing, Bob. Are you saying that if the government can't provide everything, it shouldn't provide anything? If people don't think the government's plan is enough, they can always buy private supplemental insurance. That's what a lot of people on Medicare do. (Can you spell AFLAC?)
I'm arguing that the government will extract money in amounts heretofore undreamt to "provide" what bureaucrats decide should be provided. In the end, only the rich will be able to afford supplemental insurance, if supplemental insurance is even allowed.
In the process a whole new class of criminals will be created--those who take action to gain the best medical care possible.
I also agree with the points Thad brought up in the other topic string.
And don't think I don't understand that you know exactly what I'm saying. Your desire to believe that government is a solution clouds your reason.
Well, Bob, you could be right I suppose. But I'm thinking your rhetoric here is a maybe a little over the top.
You might find Nate Silver's take a little less apocalyptic.
Silver doesn't address the expenditures of the money the government steals by means of taxes to cover healthcare costs.
so what's your proposal, keep the dysfunctional system we have now, where you have to go beg on the streets if your kid needs a transplant or suffers a catastrophic health event, and the rest of us keep spending more than twice what any other industrial country does (well over $7,000 per capita) while getting worse results.
Or is everything just hunky-dory in your world??
HunkyDory Anonymous: My suggestion is to get Congress out of my doctor's office.
Obviously things are f******d up badly now. That's largely because Congress has reimbursed the payola given its members by the BigPharma companies by giving each BigPharma company a direct siphon tube from the treasury.
The current proposal would change that from a siphon tube to a funnel (with a large opening).
So Bob, should I consider the car and health insurance premiums I pay (and hardly ever collect on) "taxes." Or are you talking about the taxes on the wealthiest 1% of our countrymen? If the latter, please note that they pay a far lower %age of their income per capita than the average citizen already, due to the loopholes in existing tax law. There are some stats on this that I could scare up, if you haven't already seen them.
How has congress got itself into your doctor's office, Bob?
"How has congress got itself into your doctor's office, Bob?"
For starters...
Government currently interferes in doctor/patient relationships in a number of counterproductive ways. It distrains good doctors from treating chronic pain efficaciously. It maintains a ludicrous and tremendously destructive stance on the use of safe and proven medicines while endorsing the use of very dangerous compounds.
Oh, I see. We'll talk about that more, later, Bob. For now, know that I agree with you on that point. Any OTHER ways?
Why would you need anything else? Congress has clearly demonstrated that it is colectively and individually ignorant, stupid and crazy. I don't want such folks placing themselves in an advisory position to my doctor. That is what their proposal would do.
Come on, Bob. Do you want to have a reasonable discussion, or do you just want to rant? If the latter, you don't need my participation. Later.
I would say to that: My observations about the craziness of Congress are indisputably accurate.
So far, I'd say they reflect more coherently and relevantly on the discussion at hand than your telling me that Russia, China and Mexico have socialized medicine.
And Australia, and New Zealand, and Spain, and Portugal, and Canada, and Norway, and Sweden, and Germany, and Japan, and the United Kingdom.
Bill: And Australia, and New Zealand, and Spain, and Portugal, and Canada, and Norway, and Sweden, and Germany, and Japan, and the United Kingdom...
and Nebraska is exempt from all of them, too.
What does Nebraska have to do with it, Mike?
The listing of nations, for your review, is to address Bob's claim as follows: "If I thought it were possible to enact legislation that provided health care to everyone, I would be in favor of it. I know it is not possible."
I'm simply demonstrating that it is possible, and is, in fact happening in numerous countries including many in the free world. Bob's cherry picking of the Communist ones was a moronic cheap shot, more worthy of Glen Beck or Randy Rasmussen than the Bob Newland I know. The Newland I know has a brain. I'm thinking maybe he also has some attitude on today.
Post a Comment