By John Fielding
My new friend, "Practical Conservative," "prefers" a free market solution to the health care situation, but, failing that, opts for socialized medicine. How is socialized medicine a practical solution. Waiting lines, diagnoses postponed far beyond the point of cure, rationing of health care. My new friend evidently proposes this as "practical." Well, then, as Lincoln would say, as his faith is let it be to him. The solution to the "practicality" of the Canadian and English system is Detroit and New York, respectively. Where are we to go when this "practical" solution is adopted here?
Even though my belief is that the free market should take care of this area, including the licensing of physicians and the like, I realize years of dependency on government has turned the American people into pigs that must return to the mud of a government solution.
Therefore, I offer the following modest proposal, gleaned from the John Mackey opinion piece, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," found in the August 11, 2009 on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal.
First, "remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems."
Second, "equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair."
Third, "repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable."
Fourth, "repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying."
Fifth, "make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?"
Sixth, "enact Medicare (and social security reform). We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare and Social Security are heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility."
Seventh, "revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
"Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any."
"This "right" has never existed in America."
"Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments."
"Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million."
According to Nat Hentoff, in an on-line article ("I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration") at the RealClearPolitics web site, ObamaCare wishes a federal board to discover whether you merit federal funds in order to continue your less-than-optimum life. The board is slready in the stimulus package and, even though taken out of the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill, but can, of course, be added back in during later negotiations.
And why shouldn't we expect this? Obama himself told us to evaluate him by those surrounding him. Very well. The brother of Rahm Emmanuel, bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel supports the rationing of health care for those who have lived longer. As Hentoff states "he calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - 'the complete lives system.' You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks."
Those of us involved in the pro-life movement for a few years can recognize the "interest-balancing" test found in Roe v. Wade. As an unborn baby grows in gestational life, it gains more of an interest in its continued existence as over against the mother, whose interest in an abortion decreases. In this case, as a person gets older, he or she moves more in the direction of a "completed life" in Dr. Emmanuel's metric and thus his or her ability to advocate for continued existence decreases vis a vis the argument that may be advanced by younger people.
After all, Hentoff reports that Obama himself, in an interview in the New York Times of April 28 (quoted in an editorial in a Washington times July 9 editorial) stated that "'the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care' costs."
Well, if the chronically ill and the at the end of life account for that much of the expenditures, where does one cut? Well, one "encourages" these folks to leave us. As Richard Lamm famously stated, "the elderly have the duty to die and get out of the way."
People like making sport of Sarah Palin for using the rather purple phrase "death panel" to describe this federal board, but what else shall we call it?
Hentoff reports "A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of 'advance care planning consultation' every five years - or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.
My new friend, "Practical Conservative," "prefers" a free market solution to the health care situation, but, failing that, opts for socialized medicine. How is socialized medicine a practical solution. Waiting lines, diagnoses postponed far beyond the point of cure, rationing of health care. My new friend evidently proposes this as "practical." Well, then, as Lincoln would say, as his faith is let it be to him. The solution to the "practicality" of the Canadian and English system is Detroit and New York, respectively. Where are we to go when this "practical" solution is adopted here?
Even though my belief is that the free market should take care of this area, including the licensing of physicians and the like, I realize years of dependency on government has turned the American people into pigs that must return to the mud of a government solution.
Therefore, I offer the following modest proposal, gleaned from the John Mackey opinion piece, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," found in the August 11, 2009 on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal.
First, "remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems."
Second, "equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair."
Third, "repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable."
Fourth, "repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying."
Fifth, "make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?"
Sixth, "enact Medicare (and social security reform). We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare and Social Security are heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility."
Seventh, "revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
"Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any."
"This "right" has never existed in America."
"Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments."
"Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million."
According to Nat Hentoff, in an on-line article ("I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration") at the RealClearPolitics web site, ObamaCare wishes a federal board to discover whether you merit federal funds in order to continue your less-than-optimum life. The board is slready in the stimulus package and, even though taken out of the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill, but can, of course, be added back in during later negotiations.
And why shouldn't we expect this? Obama himself told us to evaluate him by those surrounding him. Very well. The brother of Rahm Emmanuel, bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel supports the rationing of health care for those who have lived longer. As Hentoff states "he calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - 'the complete lives system.' You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks."
Those of us involved in the pro-life movement for a few years can recognize the "interest-balancing" test found in Roe v. Wade. As an unborn baby grows in gestational life, it gains more of an interest in its continued existence as over against the mother, whose interest in an abortion decreases. In this case, as a person gets older, he or she moves more in the direction of a "completed life" in Dr. Emmanuel's metric and thus his or her ability to advocate for continued existence decreases vis a vis the argument that may be advanced by younger people.
After all, Hentoff reports that Obama himself, in an interview in the New York Times of April 28 (quoted in an editorial in a Washington times July 9 editorial) stated that "'the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care' costs."
Well, if the chronically ill and the at the end of life account for that much of the expenditures, where does one cut? Well, one "encourages" these folks to leave us. As Richard Lamm famously stated, "the elderly have the duty to die and get out of the way."
People like making sport of Sarah Palin for using the rather purple phrase "death panel" to describe this federal board, but what else shall we call it?
Hentoff reports "A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of 'advance care planning consultation' every five years - or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.
As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains ("Undue influence," Aug. 8): 'the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.'
Significantly, Lane adds that, 'The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).'
"But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are 'purely voluntary.' In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:
"But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are 'purely voluntary.' In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:
'"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"'
But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. 'Patients,' notes Lane, 'may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority.'
And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?"
Just so. I guess I am just not "practical" enough to see socialized medicine a la Obama as an acceptable solution.
2 comments:
Hi John,
In my last post, I was simply pointing out that this attempt by the left to have government play an increased role in health care is caused by the current climate. No matter if it is 50 million, 47 million, or even as low as 26 million, there are a hell of a lot of Americans who do not, through no fault of their own, have access to quality and affordable health care. Even if the right defeats Obama's current attempt to nationalize the system like they did when Clinton tried to do so, this issue is not going to go away. Eventially, after enough people have been shafted by the current system, the left will be successful. The best way for the right to prevent this is to stop saying 'no' and actually devise a system along free market lines that does address it. Over the years I have read proposals in a variety of conservative, libertarian, and even a few liberal magazines that would do this but none of them seem to even make it off the pages of these magazines.
I think the Republicans and conservatives have offered several free market solutions, but the MSM simply have not publicized them simply because there is a belief that unless one has proposed a government solution, one has not proposed a solution. While I do not like Ron Paul's foreign policy stance, I admire his economic stance very much. I also like Congressman Ryan from Wisconsin, and the solution proposed by Mr. Mackey.
Fact is that government causes contortions in the system, creates a crisis as it inevitably will, and then progressives and other pro-government types among us propose more government as the solution.
Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you," and he is right, almost by definition. Since I beleive the problem to be ultimately intractable (at least in the sense of some always suffering), I tend to steer clear of utopian solutions since those "solutions" have hsitorically caused the most suffering experience by the greatest number. Ultimately, if government would get out of the way, I think charity would then be freed to step up to the plate (if it hasn't already become so atrophied by haveing government usurp its role all these years.)
Post a Comment