printCato’s Michael F. Cannon on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s latest bright idea: “President Obama and his congressional allies want to create yet another government-run health insurance program (call it Fannie Med) to cover yet another segment of the American public (the non-elderly non-poor).
The whole idea that Fannie Med would be an ‘option’ is a ruse.
Like the three ‘public options’ we’ve already got – Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – Fannie Med would drag down the quality of care for publicly and privately insured patients alike. Yet despite offering an inferior product, Fannie Med would still drive private insurers out of business because it would exploit implicit and explicit government subsidies. Pretty soon, Fannie Med will be the only game in town – just ask its architect, Jacob Hacker.
Now the question before us is, ‘Should we allow states to opt out of Fannie Med?’ It seems a good idea: if Fannie Med turns out to be a nightmare, states could avoid it.
But the state opt-out proposal is a ruse within a ruse.
Taxpayers in every state will have to subsidize Fannie Med, either implicitly or explicitly. What state official will say, ‘I don’t care if my constituents are subsidizing Fannie Med, I’m not going to let my constituents get their money back’? State officials are obsessed with maximizing their share of federal dollars. Voters will crucify officials who opt out. Fannie Med supporters know that. They’re counting on it.
A state opt-out provision does not make Fannie Med any more moderate. It is not a concession. It is merely the latest entreaty from the Spider to the Fly.” [End excerpt]
And this from Tom DiLorenzo:
“The only sensible approach to healthcare ‘reform’ would be massive privatization of America’s socialized hospitals, combined with deregulation of the medical professions to introduce more competition, and deregulation of the health-insurance industry. Free-market competition would produce medical ‘miracles’ the likes of which have never been seen, while dramatically lowering the cost of healthcare, just as it has done in every other industry where it is allowed to exist to any large degree.
This is not likely to happen in the United States, which at the moment seems hell-bent on descending into the abyss of socialism. Once some states begin seceding from the new American fascialistic state, however, there will be opportunities to restore healthcare freedom within them.”
Update (Oct. 28): To the erroneous comment below from “Moonbat”: The market NOW in its knee-capped state still delivering abundance and plenty. The consumer/citizen is obvious to what comes as a seemingly effortless result of the Invisible Hand. So good ideas do not win out; ditto liberty.
Milton Friedman spoke about mankind’s oblivion to the abundance of the market with great clarity.
“The aggregated wisdom of men acting freely in the market place accounts for the cornucopia Americans take for granted. This abundance does not preclude affordable health insurance. For six dollars a day, the baying Boobus can purchase pretty comprehensive coverage, no deductibles or screening for pre-existing conditions. The average immoral dolt, however, prefers to spend the meager sum on a six-pack and hope that others will be coerced into covering his care.”
“Free-market competition would produce medical ‘miracles’”
Another point: If there is no socialized healthcare system to subsidize, surely the taxburden on individuals and companies would be less – meaning more money available for production, which in turn would mean more people can be employed and pay for their own healthcare. Let the laws of nature take their course.
This circus (in SA we also face a new socialised healthcare system in the form of a new Health Care bill) reminds me of what Steven Covey said in a book called The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (think it was in the mid 90’s) – he said something to the effect of you cannot “break” the laws of nature, you can only “break” yourself against them.
“Free-market competition would produce medical ‘miracles’ the likes of which have never been seen, while dramatically lowering the cost of healthcare, just as it has done in every other industry where it is allowed to exist to any large degree.” Tom DiLorenzo via Ilana
A simple rule of thumb is:
1. Good ideas do not have to be forced on people; bad ideas should not be forced on people.
2. In the absence of liberty, how will good and bad ideas be revealed?
3. Tastes vary.
Unfortunately logic and reason are not a factor in the debate.
Much of the problem arises from confusing health CARE and catastrophic INSURANCE. The current and (worse) future system typically involves at least 7 parties in any health care decision – even a routine decision like a cavity or getting an antibiotic: (1) the patient, (2) the physician, (3) the insurance company, (4) the employer, (5) the malpractice insurance company, (6) malpractice lawyers, and (7) the state government. Add the Federals and it’s obvious that paperwork/overhead will overwhelm the costs. Everyone and nobody has control on the process.
Here is Fred Reed on health care:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Damocles.shtml
“Let me explain medicine briefly. It’s an unholy scam. Here in Mexico my wife occasionally gets ear infections. At any pharmacy, we pick up Amoxicillin, 250mg three times a day for ten days. Six bucks.
Recently we were staying in Maryland with friends, and she got an ear ache. Amoxicillin is by prescription only in the US, which means that doctors have a monopoly on ear aches. It was Friday evening. It was either agony until Monday or go to one of those mall-based walk-in clinics, which wanted $150 for the appointment and prescribed $78 in medicines.
It’s a scam, pure and simple. “
“It’s a scam, pure and simple.” Fred Reed (a favorite of mine) via Myron Pauli
Yes, but you can be sure the doctors justify it in their own minds.
Let’s see. (GB = government backed)
1. a very serious recession. cause: the GB money and banking cartel.
2. poorly educated students. cause: the GB education cartel.
3. expensive health care. cause: the GB medical cartel.
4. CO2 scare. cause: the GB science and research cartel
I leave useless wars for someone else’s analysis.
Liberty anyone or shall we continue to loot each other to death with only the government as the consistent winner?
[As usual, a lot of EASY reductionism here. Ill-educated individuals are also the fault of parents and the cesspool of a culture at large.]
“So good ideas do not win out; ditto liberty. “ Ilana
My point is that good ideas win out in the presence of liberty. Will we reasonably resort to liberty, perhaps incrementally (I suggest banking and money creation first) or shall we have to start over after a painful reset of some kind?
We probably will have a painful reset of some kind but it is still not too late for repentance, IMO.
PS.
I did not pick the name MoonBat, It was given me by someone who thought critics of fractional reserve banking were moonbats. I took it up not know this definition:
moonbat: An unthinking or insane leftist — in other words, most modern leftists. from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat
As anyone can clearly see, I am a radical libertarian verging on anarchist.
“The average immoral dolt, however, prefers to spend the meager sum on a six-pack and hope that others will be coerced into covering his care.” by Ilana mercer [not Milton F. click the link]
It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
It is not for kings to drink wine,
Or for rulers to desire strong drink,
For they will drink and forget what is decreed,
And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to him whose life is bitter.
Let him drink and forget his poverty
And remember his trouble no more.
Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. Proverbs 31:4-9