Here we go again

[aadler]

 
So, HillaryCare is back, bigger and badder than ever. Sure, central planning has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Sure, the ‘broken’ American health-care system is the envy of the world. Sure, Hillary crashed and burned the last time she tried to impose socialism onto a huge segment of the domestic economy. None of that matters: she knows what’s right, and she’s going to save us all. So, she is once again revealed as that most dangerous of ideological crusaders, as convinced of the rightness of her cause as she is oblivious to her own abysmal and frightening ignorance.

No surprise. First she was a pampered college student; then she was a lawyer; then she was a politician’s wife; then she became (openly) a politician. She’s gone her whole life without ever holding a job. How can she be expected to understand basic economic principles?

I completed a Master’s degree in Health Systems, a month before September 11th steered me into a new career track, and my observation is that the greatest threat to America’s health care infrastructure — greater even than malpractice lawyers — is government. Government dictates, government policies, government funding, all of it is harmful to a system that operated (and operates beautifully) on an economic basis. Governmentalize any segment of the economy, and that segment immediately becomes less effective.

The biggest problem, one that started with some employers offering health insurance as a benefit to get around artificially imposed wage limits during World War II, is that people now think of health insurance as a right … and that it should cover all their health care costs. In terms of economics, that is simply insane. Everybody is going to have health issues, and everyone will have to deal with them, just as we deal with groceries (no ‘hunger insurance’ that pays for all our food) and transportation (is gasoline paid for by ‘fuel insurance’?) and every other cost of living. Health insurance is supposed to cover unseen emergencies that go beyond a normal budget … and those who need it least will get it for the best price, because that’s just how supply and demand works.

Canadians cross into the U.S. to get better care than their bloated, inefficient government-controlled health system can provide. So, by all means, let’s remake ours to match the Canadian model.

That’s the Hillary plan. And I wish her exactly the same success she had the last time through.

Comments

[draconin.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem [..]is that people now think of health insurance as a right

You say that it is not a right as if you were the authority. There are no rights but those which societies choose to grant. People talk about a 'right to life' for example: there is no such thing. Does the ocean worry about whether a drowning person has some sort of rights? Most civilised societies choose to grant a 'right' to life (although some supposedly civilised societies also reserve the authority to take that right away for criminal acts) and generally grant other 'rights' too.

If a society chooses to then it may grant a 'right to healthcare' and there is no reason to think of this 'right' as any less valid than any other within that society. In Australia for example, we have a government run system called Medicare which grants a certain degree of medical cover as a 'right', although I would call it a 'benefit' since I don't believe in rights. Anyone can go to the doctor and have most of the fee refunded by Medicare. Doctors have the right to charge above this base fee - most do to some extent and it is up to the patient to choose one whose gap (fee minus benefit) they can afford. Similarly many common drugs are subsidised by the government (the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme) and basic hospital cover is also subsidised (no choice of hospital, room or doctor unless you pay the gap).

Our system works quite well, thank you. The cost is quite large but it is one that our society has chosen to factor into its tax system and regards as thoroughly worthwhile. I'm not denying that there are problems with it, as there are with any system. However, what I have seen (via Hollywood admittedly) of the US system is NOT attractive. A system which allows members of its society to die painfully or to suffer needlessly through lack of easily obtainable treatments is not one which is either moral or IMHO sustainable in the long run. Particularly when those members who suffer and die are those who are least able to defend their 'rights' or lack of them.

[draconin.livejournal.com]

I should add here that Medicare only guarantees the basics. Some things (dental, optical, physio...) are not covered or only minimally. These are covered by free enterprise companies (Medibank Private, Hospital Benefits Fund) for which you must pay more. Your choice of whether to join or not and of what level of additional cover to purchase.

[aadler]

I’ll acknowledge at the start that I have as little first-hand knowledge of the Australian health-care system (or the Canadian, which I cited) as you admit to having about the American. I rely on news-magazine reports of the state of things in England, Canada, the Scandinavian countries — I had no opinion of Australia until you weighed in — just as you developed your impressions through the less-than-objective testimony of Hollywood. Within the U.S., though, surveys find that most Americans are satisfied with their own health insurance coverage … they’re just convinced (because the news media keep telling them so) that there’s a huge problem out there for multitudes not as lucky as themselves.

I could probably live with, and be content within, the Australian system. I’m glad I don’t have to, though; I genuinely believe that if we could just limit government interference, the problems in the American system would work themselves out through economic incentives. HillaryCare is another attempt to impose socialism, and that’s a philosophy for which I will never lose my ingrained suspicion.