It’s pretty simple: he and his architects are either unwillingly or unable to recognize that quality healthcare comes at a price.
Like any economic good or service quality healthcare must be produced; it can’t be created out of thin air.
So despite the rhetoric, the vast sums of money involved and promises of affordable healthcare for all don’t be fooled.
Government programs, subsidies, rules and taxes won’t produce better medicines, smarter doctors or new surgical methods.
As a matter of fact, the President and Congress seem intent on vilifying the very source of quality healthcare: doctors, drug companies and hospitals to name a few.
President Obama’s approach to healthcare only appeals to two kinds of people:
- Dishonest souls who believe it’s just fine for others to bear the cost of maintaining their lifestyles.
- The plain foolish who still believe in the magical power of state authority to produce something out of nothing.
Not part of either group you say?
Lucky you!
You’ve been chosen to “sacrifice” for the benefit of your friends in groups 1 & 2.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
1. Dishonest souls who believe it’s just fine for others to bear the cost of maintaining their lifestyles.It always comes down to universal care being socialist, but I think it’s a dumb argument. You don’t complain about having to pay for the police, although you may live in an area with low crime rates and are basically paying for others. In the long term, you’re helping the community as a whole and consequently yourself as well.
OK, if someone breaks their leg while parachuting – your point stands, we don’t want to pay for that and such problems could be covered by some kind of additional insurance. But on the other hand – there is a huge amount of things we cannot affect. You may live a decently healthy life and still get leukemia, be colorblind, break your leg on something slippery, have a bunch of strange genetic conditions, get cancer, etc.
That’s where being chosen to sacrifice for the benefit of others comes it. I’d do gladly if it means I will feel safe knowing everything is covered if something I cannot affect happens to me.
For someone claiming to be a thinker you’re awfully stupid, your post has no thinking or rationality in it, it’s devoid of any and all factual merit and does not even attempt to discredit healthcare reform or socialized medicine in the slightest.
You sir are a benchmark in human stupidity and arrogance.
abc: if you are correct why have you provided no arguments but only rhetoric? “Socialized” anything eventually, as there is no inherent logic to the theory, devolves into name calling without anything to back it up. You think you know better than me then fine. Go ahead and state your case. I’ll publish your comment. Who knows your arguments may even effect my thinking on the issue (though I highly doubt it).
Mato: true; I am not claiming government has no role in human life. to the contrary, in areas such as the common defense, the enforcement of laws, building roads etc the government is essential. But there is a limit to government’s effectiveness. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric: there is no government program (or private one for that matter) that will cover you for “everything.” The sense of safety is false. No one is even guaranteed their next meal much less medical treatment. Why such a push for universal healthcare when there are, as we speak, thousands of children starving in America? Why not universal food allotments?
Why not universal money handouts? When you start arguing using the ‘what if’ game or the ‘why not’ game you can make an argument against anything. I could say we don’t need a police force if we have a universal gun program, right? But then it would turn into the wild west…
AK your argument that healthcare is expensive is a valid one. There certainly is no magic wand to be waved by any government that instantly heals its entire population and I don’t think any supporter of the health care reform is saying that there is. At least not any of the good ones. Here’s some counter arguments for the very few you’ve proposed:
1. Government funded programs can’t produce innovation – Silly statement. Government funds some of the most innovative and amazing advancements of technology, by giving money to individuals and groups to conduct research and produce answers. Every place you go you can find things being worked on with the use of hefty federal grants. And if you question whether a government can deliver new and amazing things…look at our Military.
2. You argue that things can’t be made out of ‘thin air’ but then note the massive budget the government is throwing at this program. Contradiction. We all know the tab is extraordinary because health care is a complicated and expensive product to begin funding for the public. No one thinks this is being made out of nothing…its being made out of taxes.
3. The President and Congress are intent on villifying the health care system. True and False. This isn’t a targetted attack against individual components of the system but, rather, the system as a whole. It doesn’t work because it has spiralled out of control. Drug companies working to produce more returns for their stock holders, Doctors constantly on the ropes with insurance companies due to legal overhead, an insurance system that has everyone cornered as it continues to become more restricted and expensive in an economy that is retracting. Health care has become expensive because it has been cyclically building on itself and I, as many, believe that new competition would force massive insurance conglomerates to begin competing for the bar rather than setting the bar.
4. Your last argument has no factual basis and is more a matter of opinion. But…for the sake of continuity I will say this. Demeaning any group for an opinion is a fallacy when trying to convince an audience of your point of view. “All people who think A are morons” does not discredit the actual idea A but instead rallies animosity of anyone listening to your argument. For once, I wish people would just take the high ground and discuss the issues rather than attack those who oppose them.
As for your classifications, I think you’ve kept it a little too narrow. Here’s some classifications to help fill out your list a little better:
A. Single Parents or Widows unable to provide healthcare for themselves or their family due to restrictive pricing.
B. Individuals with preexisting conditions who are forced to pay outrageous fees for an insurance policy.
C. The unemployed.
D. Those making minimum wage without benefits.
E. America’s youthful generations now coming into a barren job market while still having to pay for massive student loans on their higher education.
And yes…there are lazy or dishonest people out there that would rather freeload than support themselves. But, in my humble opinion, I think that percentage is so miniscule compared to the ones listed above that it could be disregarded by most accounts.
There is a limit to the government’s effectiveness, I agree. But I think the ‘do nothing’ answer has gone on long enough. Its time health care start to become more of a service of the people, rather than a business in which companies are rewarded handsomely for their profiteering.
etb342: your comments are detailed and I cannot do justice to them all right now but briefly. First, yes I would agree that in some circumstances the government’s reallocation of resources can lead to innovation. All I was trying to point out is that someone has to produce something the government can tax so the government can then re-allocate the money. In my opinion government is not a source of wealth creation. An assumption you seem to hold based on some of your comments is that healthcare is somehow a “service” that everyone is entitled to (or should be; or certain types of people should be) and that people who want to make money from healthcare services are somehow immoral. That is where you are very wrong. It’s time healthcare became more of a service of the people rather than a business? The very fact that healthcare is a business is the source of all the wonderful benefits of healthcare services: if there was no reward for working hard in the healthcare field believe me, you would soon see a great reduction in medical advances. You are basically positing, without any basis, that because good healthcare is a good thing and many people don’t have it we need to “do things” to make sure they get it. It’s not a big deal if we have to re-allocate wealth to do it: all we will be doing is stopping “greedy business folks” from making all that money. What you really mean is we will only be taking away money from people you are making a lot of that they don’t deserve. People who hold your point of view seem to believe that somehow people who provide value (new medicines for example) and make a lot of money don’t really deserve all that money but that people who need medicine and can’t pay for it (the unemployed; the poor; etc) have a moral right to the value created by other people. That is socialism if not communism. In any case, I think it’s immoral. You quickly dismissed my point about universal food allotments. Why? If people somehow “deserve” healthcare because well, they need it and somebody has to give it them, then why don’t they deserve food as well? Good food as a matter of fact. Why not stop the greedy chefs from making all that money at fancy restaurants, confiscate their profits, and use the money to feed more people? Yes some reform is necessary in the healthcare arena: we can reduce waste, de-regulate the insurance market, reform laws so mal-practice insurance isn’t so expensive, and create incentives so doctors want to deliver better care at lower costs. But I don’t think socialized medicine is the solution: like someone said in the Wall Street Journal recently, guaranteeing health insurance to everyone at any time regardless of the circumstances is like selling someone fire insurance when their house is on fire. Most people aren’t going to buy the insurance until their house catches on fire. Those you do the right thing and buy fire insurance early on will pay higher premiums to cover the uncertainty created by those who will wait until their house is actually on fire to buy the insurance, pay a month’s premium, turn around and immediately make a claim, and then get rid of the insurance as soon as their house is re-built and wait until it catches fire again. Every society has to decide what they want their government to provide and not provide. In America we started with a tradition that valued limited government and placed the onus on individuals and the private sector (churches, charities, neighbors etc) to provide for many other needs. The downside to this system is that weaker people can fall through the cracks. The upside is that those who do well are rewarded for their achievements and not punished for them. The debate we are currently having is about way more than healthcare. I think it’s about how we as a people want to live our lives: do we want to keep a system of individualism where the cost of failure is indeed high but the reward for success is also great? Or do we want to change who we are and turn to a system of living where the collective is valued over the individual? Yes there is an advantage to this system as well: you will probably get some kind of healthcare just because you exist in America. But remember, nothing comes without a price. And the price for moving towards a way of living where the collective is valued over the individual is the loss of what I think America is all about: the promise of rewards, under the rule of law, to anyone who shows up and delivers value no matter who they are or where they are from. It is a great legacy and should not be dismissed lightly in favor of, in this case, basically rationing healthcare so that more people have access to the exact same amount of a particular economic good without having to do anything to earn it. I believe that government has a role to play in our lives. It is in fact be a good idea to have government involved in healthcare (the FDA for instance) to some degree. What I disagree with strongly is the assumption or belief that people deserve things because they need them. Government then becomes the means of violating the rights of individuals for ‘the greater good” rather than ensuring that each person’s inalienable rights are never violated without just cause.