One word-Bogus! This is opinion only. And it's opinion by people whom would benefit from this free market baloney. I'll never live long enough to see the corporations volunteering to pay indigent health care, and neither will anyone else! How can an already cash starved family afford even the cheapest of health care insurance on minimum wages, the answer is they can't! The mess we are in is a direct result of the greed of the medical industry. If HMOs and Insurance companies did not pay their CEOs hundred million dollar salarys, maybe they could reduce the costs and people could afford insurance, but they do pay those exhorbitant salarys and reap huge profits for their stockholders as in "fuck the people"! To eliminate the med. ins. co.s and the HMOs would put billions back into the economy, billions with which to institute a real medical program where treatment for all would be "fair and Balanced". So dream on about the corporations, the same ones cutting jobs and paying million dollar salaries to top management, paying for health care for anyone, let alone the indigent! That is pure folly!!And even more ...
Health-Care Socialism
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Scott McPherson[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]June 2003[/FONT]
Some ideas die hard. Among the most resilient is the utopian belief that health care could be cheap, free, and available to all, if only wed let the government take care of it. It was in the spirit of reviving this tragically unwise socialist idea that former president Bill Clinton and Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) addressed separate audiences last February on the need for greater government control over medicine.
Hoping to add greater impetus to the health-care issue for the 2004 presidential election, Clinton told the 2003 National Grassroots Meeting of Families USA, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., that Americans should try to find a bipartisan solution to the nations health-care woes, preferably one involving greater government management. He also lamented his unsuccessful attempt to socialize Americas health-care industry, describing it as a noble act that was demonized by his opponents.
On the other side of town, Senator Breaux was making his call for the socialization of medicine in a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Outlining his own proposal for total medical socialism in this country an idea he says he wants to be discussed by all 2004 presidential candidates, reports the Washington Times he said he believed his plan will put America back on the right path towards an America where everyone has health insurance and quality health care.
Some ideas do indeed die hard. For the greater part of the last half century, a number of our more enlightened that is, more socialist-minded neighbors, such as Canada and the European nations, have nationalized their medical industries and ever since have been struggling to live up to their promise of health insurance and quality health care for all. Huge waiting lists for care and visitations with specialists, a lack of sophisticated medical equipment, rising costs (which must be met by rising taxes), and a general increase in dissatisfaction with government-run health care are typical in all countries where the government, literally, calls the shots.
The first error of those who promote national health care is their complete inability to accept that nothing in life is certain. Just because a law is passed guaranteeing quality medical care for all doesnt mean it will happen though this is certainly a heretical view in todays climate of government worship. No matter how much they may want it, leftists will have to accept that regardless of the system in place, someone, somewhere, will go without the care he needs. Conventional wisdom has maintained that at least under a government system more people will have care than otherwise. But after 50 years of experimentation, the jury is in: Socialized medicine simply cannot deliver the goods.
Free-market health care
So the only question is, what system has shown itself capable of best distributing the greatest amount of any good or service to the greatest number of people, at the highest quality and lowest price? The answer is the free market. Medical care is no different from any other commodity. In order to be most efficiently and widely distributed, it requires the unfettered signals of supply and demand, lest it fall victim to socialisms standard shortcomings: bureaucratization, rationing, rising costs, overproduction (in some areas), underproduction (in others), and eventual failure.
Perhaps that is whats at the root of leftists continued belief in the state they refuse to accept that regardless of how passionately they feel about everyones need to be covered against medical emergency, reality requires that the proper distribution of goods and services be through a peaceful, voluntary that is, free market. Like it or not, medical care is a market good. And we ignore the markets winds at our peril. The Soviet Union proved the long-run impossibility of socialism, yet it is just this kind of command-and-control mentality which the former president, Senator Breaux, and a whole host of other like-minded American socialists would like to bring to the health-care debate.
Sadly, there isnt much hope for a spirited, practical, principled counterargument to the highly popular notion of government intervention in the health-care market. Asked to comment on the issue, even Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) touted as a hardcore conservative by the media and leftists in general said he doesnt think that Congress is ready for any universal health-care proposal, nor do I believe the country is. [Emphasis added.]
That is politician-speak, meaning that after a few more years of rising costs, rationing, bureaucratization, and continual failure in the health-care industry brought on by continued government interference in the health-care market in the form of regulations, licensing, mandates, price controls, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription-drug coverage, and a whole host of other government-imposed solutions then the country, and Congress, will be ready for a universal health-care proposal.
America doesnt need a bipartisan approach to our health-care worries. The mess were in is a direct result of bipartisan compromises on the issue of medical freedom. It is the responsibility of each and every American to provide for his own medical needs, by contracting for such services on the free and open market. The only effective role Congress or the president can play in any debate about health care is to accept that socialized medicine, in every form, is a failure and to restore freedom to the health-care market.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
And even more ...
Health-Care Socialism
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Scott McPherson[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]June 2003[/FONT]
Some ideas die hard. Among the most resilient is the utopian belief that health care could be cheap, free, and available to all, if only wed let the government take care of it. It was in the spirit of reviving this tragically unwise socialist idea that former president Bill Clinton and Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) addressed separate audiences last February on the need for greater government control over medicine.
Hoping to add greater impetus to the health-care issue for the 2004 presidential election, Clinton told the 2003 National Grassroots Meeting of Families USA, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., that Americans should try to find a bipartisan solution to the nations health-care woes, preferably one involving greater government management. He also lamented his unsuccessful attempt to socialize Americas health-care industry, describing it as a noble act that was demonized by his opponents.
On the other side of town, Senator Breaux was making his call for the socialization of medicine in a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Outlining his own proposal for total medical socialism in this country an idea he says he wants to be discussed by all 2004 presidential candidates, reports the Washington Times he said he believed his plan will put America back on the right path towards an America where everyone has health insurance and quality health care.
Some ideas do indeed die hard. For the greater part of the last half century, a number of our more enlightened that is, more socialist-minded neighbors, such as Canada and the European nations, have nationalized their medical industries and ever since have been struggling to live up to their promise of health insurance and quality health care for all. Huge waiting lists for care and visitations with specialists, a lack of sophisticated medical equipment, rising costs (which must be met by rising taxes), and a general increase in dissatisfaction with government-run health care are typical in all countries where the government, literally, calls the shots.
The first error of those who promote national health care is their complete inability to accept that nothing in life is certain. Just because a law is passed guaranteeing quality medical care for all doesnt mean it will happen though this is certainly a heretical view in todays climate of government worship. No matter how much they may want it, leftists will have to accept that regardless of the system in place, someone, somewhere, will go without the care he needs. Conventional wisdom has maintained that at least under a government system more people will have care than otherwise. But after 50 years of experimentation, the jury is in: Socialized medicine simply cannot deliver the goods.
Free-market health care
So the only question is, what system has shown itself capable of best distributing the greatest amount of any good or service to the greatest number of people, at the highest quality and lowest price? The answer is the free market. Medical care is no different from any other commodity. In order to be most efficiently and widely distributed, it requires the unfettered signals of supply and demand, lest it fall victim to socialisms standard shortcomings: bureaucratization, rationing, rising costs, overproduction (in some areas), underproduction (in others), and eventual failure.
Perhaps that is whats at the root of leftists continued belief in the state they refuse to accept that regardless of how passionately they feel about everyones need to be covered against medical emergency, reality requires that the proper distribution of goods and services be through a peaceful, voluntary that is, free market. Like it or not, medical care is a market good. And we ignore the markets winds at our peril. The Soviet Union proved the long-run impossibility of socialism, yet it is just this kind of command-and-control mentality which the former president, Senator Breaux, and a whole host of other like-minded American socialists would like to bring to the health-care debate.
Sadly, there isnt much hope for a spirited, practical, principled counterargument to the highly popular notion of government intervention in the health-care market. Asked to comment on the issue, even Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) touted as a hardcore conservative by the media and leftists in general said he doesnt think that Congress is ready for any universal health-care proposal, nor do I believe the country is. [Emphasis added.]
That is politician-speak, meaning that after a few more years of rising costs, rationing, bureaucratization, and continual failure in the health-care industry brought on by continued government interference in the health-care market in the form of regulations, licensing, mandates, price controls, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription-drug coverage, and a whole host of other government-imposed solutions then the country, and Congress, will be ready for a universal health-care proposal.
America doesnt need a bipartisan approach to our health-care worries. The mess were in is a direct result of bipartisan compromises on the issue of medical freedom. It is the responsibility of each and every American to provide for his own medical needs, by contracting for such services on the free and open market. The only effective role Congress or the president can play in any debate about health care is to accept that socialized medicine, in every form, is a failure and to restore freedom to the health-care market.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.california leads the wayThe plan
The health care measure would:
-- Eliminate private health insurance plans and create the California Health Insurance System.
-- Provide health care insurance for all Californians.
-- Guarantee patients the ability to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
-- Pool funds now being spent on health insurance and save money by reducing overhead and using leveraged buying power for things like prescription drugs.
-- Require separate legislation to establish financing of the system.
E-mail Lynda Gledhill at [email protected]. Page A - 1
I wonder if it is better to be an educated fool or an uneducated fool. In both case you're a fool, however it is probable the uneducated has no clue is a fool too. Life is good!We shouldn't talk avout France anyway, they are so educated that they are as fools.
Excellent comment, Dank. I agree ... and the same holds true for our education elites.
Vi
Whether the people want it or not and at what cost. I guess that doesn't matter.A society should distinct itself by the good it can bring to its own and this is definitely a good thing.