The Last Thing We Should Do Right Now: Rush Into A Government-run Health Care System

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Lightfiend, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. Lightfiend
    Offline

    Lightfiend Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    I wrote this today regarding the current health care issues:


    Just last night I got a newsletter update from Campaign for Liberty, one of the forerunners of the current shift in American conscious back towards individual liberty, the free market principle, and constitutional government.

    As I gather from recent news, government bureaucrats are now trying to convince the people that socialized medicine is in the “best interests” of the public. As if modern day “progressive” thought hasn’t polluted our intellect enough already, we now steer further away from free markets with the belief that government can – again – save us from our selves. Progressive has become nothing more than a propaganda word for increasing the size of government, which is hardly a progressive idea at all.

    Just when exactly did we decide to give up on freedom for the security that our benevolent politicians will take care of us? Have we forgotten the peace and prosperity that freedom brings to society? Do we not believe that man is most noble, most creative, and most happy when under the rule of no mind but his own?

    It is no secret by now that I am no supporter of government-run health care, or really, any involvement government has in our healthcare system that undermines the intelligence of the individual to make his or her health decisions based on his or her own good judgment and discretion.

    Right now what President Obama is suggesting is a government-“sponsored” health care insurance plan, something akin to Canada’s single-payer health care system. By itself, this idea sounds reasonable. The U.S. government would have the power to provide at least some level of health care for everyone at the expense of tax payer dollars. Lower income families will of course pay less taxes and thus will be able to receive sufficient health care without having to worry about managing their financial situation in a way that undercuts their standard of living. This seems logical and is perhaps the biggest reason why so many Americans support a universal health care system.

    The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide universal health care for its citizens. For this reason, many citizens are up in arms claiming it is about time the United States “gets with the program.”

    But popular consensus is not a measure of truth, and despite the shortcomings of our current health care system we need to understand that this is not a product of the free market, but a product of the markets we have been dealing with for the last century – corporate, crony capitalism.

    The government already spends approximately 45% of all health care spending done in the U.S – so we cannot pretend that the government does not already have its dirty hands in our “free market”, “capitalistic” health care system (a better title would be corporate health care which is not, contrary to popular belief, a product of the free market). The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options, otherwise known as employer-based health insurance. Of course the immediate no-brainer issue is how do these people keep their health care once they lose a job with their company?

    We always hear how United States health care is too expensive, but we have never really questioned why. Instead, we chalk it up to profit-driven doctors, the greed of capitalism, and the ability for people to take advantage of the free market for their own selfish benefit. There is some legitimacy to these claims, but they are not the root of the problem. Historian Thomas Woods recently stated in his best-selling book Meltdown that “Blaming our economic problems on greed is like blaming gravity for an airplane crash.” The fact of the matter is greed is an inherit trait in all humans, we cannot expect the private citizen to operate with any less or more greed than a politician would (and just because a politician is democratically elected does not mean he cannot go against his contract and promises he made to the people who elected him – he is not accountable at all, unlike those who make contracts in a free market).

    We pay more than any other country for health care – just how did it get so darn expensive? Why is such a free and prosperous country having trouble keeping its people healthy? How can we fix this?

    While the cries from the media seem to call for a more nationalized health care system, those of us from the libertarian thought understand the power of free markets is almost always greater in meeting the needs of the people then our so-though “omnipotent” government.

    What if we took another approach for once and asked – no – told our government to get its hand out of our business? If we don’t learn to say no now who knows what we might be agreeing to next year and the year after that. Where do we draw the line? The government has already bailed out financial institutions like AIG and then felt justified to tell them how to run their business, what would then stop government, as one-payer insurer, to then go in and tell hospital and other health care facilities how they should run their company?

    What about those who already are happy with their insurance and health care plan? Obama says we can keep these – no one is going to be forced to change their health plan coverage. But we all know this is a clever trick governments do: they don’t “nationalize” an industry, they just have government-sponsored companies to “increase competition.” But can you imagine how difficult it is for a private company to compete with a state-run company (who has a virtually infinite amount of resources to draw from both from tax revenue and the Fed’s manipulation of our monetary supply). Do not fall for the government claim that it is only trying to increase competition for any industry – this is a flat out lie – they are only pulling the wool over your eyes and then take the industry over. This is an inevitable path towards socialized medicine, towards a socialized nation. The great economist and philosopher Ludwig von Mises warned us that there is no “middle-of-the-road system” between a capitalist and socialist state but merely “the realization of socialism by installments.” Can we please realize it now before it is too late?

    Please sign this Petition To Congress put together by the fine folks over at Campaign for Liberty!

    P.S. - If you want the actual link to the petition you're going to need to go to my website in my signature. I normally wouldn't send you there, but I am a new user and thus can't share links yet in my post.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Derek_Plumber
    Offline

    Derek_Plumber BANNED

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    371
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Ratings:
    +27
    [​IMG]

    The SOCIALIST - believes that industries should be owned by the people of the nation, not by individuals, and that services like education and health care should be free for everyone. Under socialism, all means of production should be publicly owned. Unlike communists, socialists believe that such things can be achieved through pressure and reform.
     
  3. Political Junky
    Offline

    Political Junky Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,568
    Thanks Received:
    2,948
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,542
    Not very American of you to object to competition.
     
  4. Lightfiend
    Offline

    Lightfiend Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    Government competition =/= free market competition. And yes, that statement is VERY American of me. :tongue:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    You really think the government would allow for competition. Before you answer think about this, competition is what keeps things affordable.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    The reference to socialism is inaccurate in this context. Universal healthcare and related public good provisions would in fact uphold capitalism if implemented in our current economic structure through the sustainment of the physical efficiency of the working class. It's typically the ignorant rightists who assert that "government = socialism" who claim otherwise.
     
  7. Lightfiend
    Offline

    Lightfiend Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    No, I don't think government would allow for competition, which is why it is not the same thing as free market competition. Government competition will just end up becoming nationalization somewhere down the line. And yes, free market competition does keep things affordable, in the sense that it is the best economic model that provides for the needs of the people.
     
  8. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    "Free market competition" is a nonexistent textbook fantasy. The nature of capitalism has always involved a mixed economy, in which the state functions as an integral stabilizing agent.
     
  9. Lightfiend
    Offline

    Lightfiend Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    The nature of capitalism? Or the nature in which the ideas of capitalism have been practiced? Free market competition is, yes, an abstract concept with varying schools of thought, but a "nonexistence textbook fantasy?" That's a bit of a brainless comment. Is a perfect circle too nothing more than a nonexistent textbook "fantasy" or do we not use that concept for a better understanding of how certain things in the real world work? Why are you so quick to dismiss the power of ideals?
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  10. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    A better understanding of "how things work" is gained by examination of actually existing models. Laissez-faire is neither an actually existing model nor anything other than utopian or incapable of feasible implementation. It's also a component of the corrupted economic spectrum that enables pointless gibberish regarding "pure capitalism."
     

Share This Page