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

Lightfiend

Member
Jun 17, 2009
96
14
6
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.
 
beaver.jpg

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.
 
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.
Not very American of you to object to competition.
 
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.

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.
 
Not very American of you to object to competition.

Government competition =/= free market competition. And yes, that statement is VERY American of me. :tongue:

You really think the government would allow for competition. Before you answer think about this, competition is what keeps things affordable.

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.
 
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.

"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.
 
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.

"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.

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:
The nature of capitalism? Or the nature in which the ideas of capitalism have always 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 things work?

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."
 
We should continue to make money off of sick people.

The sicker they are, the more they should have to pay.....until they go bankrupt and die.

It's the American Way.
 
We should continue to make money off of sick people.

The sicker they are, the more they should have to pay.....until they go bankrupt and die.

It's the American Way.

Ridiculously overpriced corporate health care is not that same thing as free market health care. I am not denying there are problems with the current system, I am just refuting that Obama's direction is the correct way to go.
 
The nature of capitalism? Or the nature in which the ideas of capitalism have always 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 things work?

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."

Who said Laissez-faire is a model of anything? It is an economic philosophy. And yes, there are economic models in various schools of free market thought (incuding the Austrian school which I am a proponent of). The only difference is their models are built on logic (because they believe economics is a logical science and not an empirical one, contrary to Keynesian belief).
 
Last edited:
Who said Laissez-faire is a model of anything? It is an economic philosophy. And yes, there are economic models in various schools of free market thought (incuding the Austrian school which I am a proponent of). The only difference is their models are built on logic (because they believe economics is a logical science and not an empirical one, contrary to Keynesian belief).

I've found tremendously little variation between "different" laissez-faire models. Your Austrian school hasn't been relevant since orthodox economics was able to illustrate the inconsistency of Austrian predictions with firm behavior. The only useful individual from the Austrian school is Hayek, since market socialists were able to use his insights into knowledge to fine-tune the post-Hayekian elements of democratic market socialism. David Prychitko is slightly useful, but he did train under Jaroslav Vanek for a time, after all.
 
I've found tremendously little variation between "different" laissez-faire models. Your Austrian school hasn't been relevant since orthodox economics was able to illustrate the inconsistency of Austrian predictions with firm behavior. The only useful individual from the Austrian school is Hayek, since market socialists were able to use his insights into knowledge to fine-tune the post-Hayekian elements of democratic market socialism. David Prychitko is slightly useful, but he did train under Jaroslav Vanek for a time, after all.

Inconsistency with Austrian predictions and firm behavior? Can you please elaborate?

Austrian school hasn't been relevant? What about the fact the Austrian students were just about the only ones to see the upcoming economic collapse?
 
Last edited:
We've got 46,000,000 people in the United States without health coverage.
The FIRST thing we need to do is rush into a program of Government-run health care for everyone.

THEN, cut out the fat-cat corporate types,
starting with the American Medical Association,
which is nothing but a political lobby to keep life cushy for doctors!

operating-room.jpg
 
Last edited:
We've got 46,000,000 people in the United States without health coverage.
The FIRST thing we need to do is rush into a program of Government-run health care for everyone.

THEN, cut out the fat-cat corporate types,
starting with the American Medical Association,
which is nothing but a political lobby to keep life cushy for doctors!

operating-room.jpg

Doctors even want single payer.

We need Al Franken's 60th vote. Ed Schultz was saying most Americans don't understand what a 60 vote majority means. 60 means the Dems can get whatever they want done. NO excuses.

That's why the Minnesota Supreme Court is dragging their feet on a decision. It's been 3 weeks. No doubt they are stalling until the next Senate recess. They can possibly push this off to where its too late. Next year is too late because its an election year.

And the 60 votes even means accountability for Democrats. No more excuses if they have 60 votes. But they're going to cry that they have 15 blue dog democrats, waaaa, waaaa!!!

Harry Reed needs to take those blue dogs behind the woodshed and whip their asses into shape. And tell them, "if you don't vote with us on the important stuff, we are going to help you lose the next time you are up for election.

Can you imagine if Tom Delay had 60 votes? OMG what they would have done to this country. Its scary.

So the Dems need to grow a pair. And Harry Reed is corrupt, IMO. He has Max Baucus in charge of healthcare and Max is clearly in the insurance companies pockets.

If/when nothing gets done, Harry & Pelosi need to go. If they can't get er done, we need them to step away from their leadership positions. They can still be senators and congresspeople, just not leaders.
 
We've got 46,000,000 people in the United States without health coverage.
The FIRST thing we need to do is rush into a program of Government-run health care for everyone.

THEN, cut out the fat-cat corporate types,
starting with the American Medical Association,
which is nothing but a political lobby to keep life cushy for doctors!

operating-room.jpg

Doctors even want single payer.

We need Al Franken's 60th vote. Ed Schultz was saying most Americans don't understand what a 60 vote majority means. 60 means the Dems can get whatever they want done. NO excuses.

That's why the Minnesota Supreme Court is dragging their feet on a decision. It's been 3 weeks. No doubt they are stalling until the next Senate recess. They can possibly push this off to where its too late. Next year is too late because its an election year.

And the 60 votes even means accountability for Democrats. No more excuses if they have 60 votes. But they're going to cry that they have 15 blue dog democrats, waaaa, waaaa!!!

Harry Reed needs to take those blue dogs behind the woodshed and whip their asses into shape. And tell them, "if you don't vote with us on the important stuff, we are going to help you lose the next time you are up for election.

Can you imagine if Tom Delay had 60 votes? OMG what they would have done to this country. Its scary.

So the Dems need to grow a pair. And Harry Reed is corrupt, IMO. He has Max Baucus in charge of healthcare and Max is clearly in the insurance companies pockets.

If/when nothing gets done, Harry & Pelosi need to go. If they can't get er done, we need them to step away from their leadership positions. They can still be senators and congresspeople, just not leaders.

Oh hell, you took the steam out of my big anti-health care shot for the day! But, thank you for the rational discussion. Name calling only goes so far, then we have to turn to thought. I guess I deserved that reminder.:lol:
 
Prices for medical care wouldn't be so high if the insurance companies refused to pay the high prices. The doctors and hospitals push the insurance companies to the limit, but back off if they ask for too much for each and every procedure and the insurance companies refuse to pay that bracket. The government has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of medical care. That cost bracket is between what the insurance companies are willing to pay and what the medical staff is willing to charge. Our government, and that includes Obama, needs to stay the fuck out of the healthcare business and let the American public decide what road to take.
 
I had the pleasure of reading this entire thread, and can tell you anyone who thinks a Federal Govt. Insurance Option promote competetion has no idea what they are talking about. Take Medicare for example, In fact in places like Austin,Tx. only 17% of Doctors will even take New Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates are so low they are refusing to accept that form of insurance. So promoting competetion? In other cases, you have the same regulatory agency in this case the Federal Govt. entering into direct competetion with the very insurers that it regulate. Couple that with the recent study done by the Lewin Group on what would happen under such a plan, and you end up seeing a budget sucking monster, that not only moves everyone eventually to a public plan but is so cost prohibitive that it will take years to pay for.

If as the President proposed, eligibility is limited to only small employers, individuals and the
self-employed, public plan enrollment would reach 42.9 million people. The number of people
with private coverage would fall by 32.0 million people. If private payer reimbursement levels
are used by the public plan, enrollment would be lower, with only 10.4 million people
switching to the public plan from private insurance.
If the public plan is opened to all employers as proposed by Senators Clinton and Edwards, at
Medicare payment levels we estimate that about 131.2 million people would enroll in the public
plan. The number of people with private health insurance would decline by 119.1 million
people. This would be a two-thirds reduction in the number of people with private coverage
(currently 170 million people). Here again, if the higher private payer levels are used,
enrollment in private insurance would decline by only 12.5 million people.
Medicare premiums would be lower than private premiums because of the exceptional leverage
Medicare has with providers. Medicare pays hospitals about 30 percent less than private
insurers pay for the same service. Physician payments are about 20 percent less than under
private coverage. Also, because Medicare has no allowance for insurer profits or broker/agent
commissions, administrative costs for this population are about one-third of administrative
costs in private health plans.
http://www.lewin.com/content/public...ctsofPublicPlan-Alternative DesignOptions.pdf

Now, in addition to that you have the recent CBO estimates of the costs of just one part of this plan that runs well over a Trillion dollars. Which does not inlcude ANY provisions for addressing illegal Immigration medical care costs, that run well over 80 Billion a year and and you end up having a plan that accomplishes nothing but fulfilling a campaiging promise,higher taxes, more Govt. intervention, less people convered, and a system that is still costly and even less efficient. The facts are, there are several proposals out there that address the high costs of healthcare and many of them are supported on both sides of the isle and DO NOT include Federal Govt. intervention. It amazes me the sheer number of people that are willing to just hand over Freedoms so hard won to the Federal Govt. all in the name of comfort. Freedoms given away so easily are not so easily given back, as can be seen by the people in Iran wishing to have just their votes counted.
 

Forum List

Back
Top