What Changed With Health Care
Yaron Brook writes at ARI:
Prior to the government's entrance into the medical field, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market--no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans' rising productivity would have allowed them to buy better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn't for food or clothing.
But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product--for which each individual must assume responsibility--had given way to a view of health care as a "right," an unearned "entitlement," to be provided at others' expense.
This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).
Today, what we have is not a system grounded in American individualism, but a collectivist system that aims to relieve the individual of the "burden" of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%.
Maxime Meis comments at ARI:
In 1993, Washington state passed a law guaranteeing all residents access to private health-care insurance, regardless of their health, and requiring them to purchase coverage. The state legislature, however, repealed that last provision two years later. With the guaranteed-access provisions still standing, the state saw premiums rise and enrollment drop, as residents purchased coverage only when they needed it. Health insurers fled the state and, by 1999, it was impossible to buy an individual plan in Washington -- no company was selling.So when it fails, what is Obama going to blame first, free-market or greedy company who wanted to make a profit?
"abundant private charity?" I'm sorry, on which planet does this take care of the health needs of the poor?
And how does requiring everyone to have health insurance differ from requiring every driver to have car insurance?
We've had socialized medicine since Reagan signed it onto law. Obamacare is just a first step toward making it more sensibly enacted (as preventitive care is cheaper than emergency care).
So some poor people are going to get free medical care, while some rich folks may pay an extra fraction of a percent in taxes. Boo hoo.
frankoThat hasn't been a disaster for at June 30, 2012 12:25 AM
"And how does requiring everyone to have health insurance differ from requiring every driver to have car insurance?"
Different people are willing to accept different types and different amounts of risk. Free people have a right to expose themselves to whatever risks they are willing to accept. They don't have a right to expose other people to risk without their agreement.
When you drive, your mistakes could cause harm to other people or property that's far beyond your ability to compensate them for. Your driving creates risk for other people. Since you don't have the right to do that you can justly be required to carry liability insurance to mitigate that risk. You're not required to buy insurance for risks your driving creates for yourself, such as damage to your own body or car.
Forcing you to buy insurance to pay for medical treatment for yourself that you may or may not ever need or want takes away your right to decide for yourself what risks you're willing to accept.
But Obamacare is not forcing everyone to buy medical insurance; it's forcing everyone to participate in a fascist, collectivist scheme in which healthy people who don't need or want much medical care will be forced to pay the expenses of people who need or want medical care.
A more pertinent question would be: How does the current practice of forcing everyone to pay for old age income and medical care schemes - i.e. Social Security and Medicare - differ from forcing everyone to pay for Obamacare? If Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, why wouldn't Obamacare be?
Also, I'm just wondering: I know that Republicans have tried a few times since the 1970's to impose some kind of medical insurance mandate. But in what way did President Reagan sign socialized medicine into law?
Ken R at June 30, 2012 3:56 AM
No one forces you to buy a car.... YET. So it's a choice. My auto policy also doesn't require that I pay for your tires and oil changes if you over extend yourself on your car payments and can't take car of them....
Also, each state determines the requirement for auto liability limits and property damage not the fucking federalies. To fix a car or property damage to a vehicle will be a lot more in California than in tennesse. Before the Feds got involved in healthcare you saw the same thing.
Only a leftist dirt bag would invoke Reagan to proove a point when these fuckers Know this is the most immoral piece of shit legislation to come out of that ill festering corrupt joke of crap-house called our Capitol.
Franko, get this. It is amoral to force or compelle me to buy anything. You like broccoli? Great! Buy all the fucking broccoli you want to your hearts desire and choke on it! I reject the notion that I should be forced to buy broccoli and be forced to eat it, or pay for someone elses tires or oil changes because they can't be bothered to live within their means and prioritize their lives accordingly and continue to elect walking piece of shit zombies that restrict their own access to affordable policies by regulations, taxes, restrictions and union partnerships!!!
Because where do you actually see bodies piling up outside of hospitals of all the patients we refuse to help? Huh? You fascist motherfucker!
Oh, I'm pissed. This is just flat out wrong and an abuse of power on so many levels thanks to brownshirts like franko with their meddling tendencies, hubris and bs propaganda!
Feebie at June 30, 2012 6:10 AM
Jim P. at June 30, 2012 6:42 AM
When the country runs out of people to pay for things, what next?
Cousin Dave at June 30, 2012 6:49 AM
"And how does requiring everyone to have health insurance differ from requiring every driver to have car insurance?"
In Virginia (I can't speak for other states), vehicle owners are required to purchase liability insurance to cover injuries or death to other people, and to cover damage to other people's property. They are not required to purchase insurance to cover repairs to their own vehicles, though it's no doubt a good idea. Owners who don't purchase insurance for the vehicle are required to pay a $500 uninsured vehicle fee to the Virginia DMV. But that's not insurance -- owners who do that proceed on their own risk.
So, the only parallel I see with the auto insurance analogy is to require people to purchase insurance covering injury to other persons. When my wife was running a home daycare business, she had insurance for that.
Old RPM Daddy at June 30, 2012 7:15 AM
If Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, why wouldn't Obamacare be?
Each member of Congress has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. It's the official job description. But the American people long ago stopped caring about that. For decades now, they have refused to elect representatives who adhere to the job description. Instead, they elect representatives who promise Free Shit.
Yes, we are going to end up like Greece. We'd be in that boat already if it wasn't for our reserve currency status. I give it about another year.
Pirate Jo at June 30, 2012 7:53 AM
@franko-
Studies have shown that increased spending on "preventative medicine" cause no decrease in critical care expenditures later in life.
All ObamaCare does is guarantee that medical services will become mediocre in the dwindling number of places they will be available.
Which is the point - to completely destroy the private market in health care services and provisioning so that the government can take full control of 1/7th of the economy, and have the power to dictate terms of how every individual will live their life.
It's the ultimate fascist wet-dream.
brian at June 30, 2012 8:19 AM
When the country runs out of people to pay for things, what next?
Just print more currency.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 30, 2012 9:11 AM
If Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, why wouldn't Obamacare be?
The former two are taxes. The later wasn't passed as a tax, but got redefined as such by the SCOTUS. Your benefits under the first two are not guaranteed, and can be changed by Congress.
Now that Obamacare is a tax, you might find out that your benefits are not guaranteed, and can be changed. Or denied as being "too expensive".
If you're lucky, you might get some pain pills...
I R A Darth Aggie at June 30, 2012 9:36 AM
"The former two are taxes. The later wasn't passed as a tax but got redefined as such by the SCOTUS."
Ahhhh, I see! So it's all just a question of semantics! Whether or not the Affordable Care Act mandate is constitutional depends not on its substance, but on how you redefine it!
If it's not a tax, it's unconstitutional; because according to the Supreme Court decision, "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance."
But if the exact same mandate is simply redefined as a tax, that makes it entirely constitutional; because, according to the Court, "The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."
And apparently the Supreme Court has the power to do the redefining.
(Oh simple, unsophisticated me! Why can't I see the logic?)
Well that just makes all kinds of sense! So it's not the nature and substance of the law that determines whether it's constitutional, it's simply how you redefine it!
I can totally see how that same "logic" applies to the constitutionality of other bullshit laws, like the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), which doesn't really require us to make "contributions" to buy "insurance" at all, because the Supreme Court continues to declare such a requirement unconstitutional. It actually requires us to pay a "tax" for Social Security. All the same despicable difference, as far as substance and effect, but all the difference in the world as far as the Constitution. Right?
---- Yeah, bullshit! -----
Neither obamacare, nor Social Security nor Medicare is moral, ethical or constitutional in any way. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to engage in any such activity, nor force the people to engage in any such activity. And even if the Constitution did authorize it, it would still be immoral.
Ken R at June 30, 2012 8:02 PM
Leave a comment