Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Adviser Admits That Obamacare’s Death Panels Are “Inevitable”
Restoring Liberty ^ | 10/02/2012 | Joe Miller

Posted on 10/03/2012 7:48:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”

Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.

Rattner was the so-called “car czar,” the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.

Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he proclaimed “We need death panels” and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama’s health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign’s for a second term.

Read more from this story HERE.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; healthcare; naf; obamacare; rattner; stevenrattner; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2012 7:48:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is no “i” in “team.” However, there is a “rat” in Rattner.” And in “democrat.”


2 posted on 10/03/2012 7:49:57 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (When the Obama poster fades, the portrait of Che Guevara beneath it shows through.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Those sitting on 0bama’s “Death Panels” had better pray that their names don’t get leaked - others may be convening their own “Death Panels”.


3 posted on 10/03/2012 7:52:32 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping, gay bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
As an over 60 person and I am willing to accept this, with one condition:

The Death Panels will be established concurrently with “Work Panels” and with the same level of authority.

The “Work Panels” will decide when a person has sucked down enough tax dollars and gone long enough without working. Work will be provided, which the person will accept (at gunpoint if necessary).

Hint: if there weren't so many able body people that just refuse to work, there probably wouldn't need to be a discussion of “death panels.”

Thought for the Day: where ARE all the unemployed illegal aliens?

4 posted on 10/03/2012 7:56:22 AM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How is this an IMPROVEMENT?

How could it be an IMPROVEMENT if
the US Congress and Islam are excluded.

But it taxes the rest.

It is slavery and death imposed by Congress
which is not under it.


5 posted on 10/03/2012 7:58:22 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

SIGH, Why would you want bureacrats sitting in Washington DC ( be they “Death” or “Work” Panels ) deciding your fate?

Wouldn’t it be better for YOU and YOUR DOCTOR to make the decision?


6 posted on 10/03/2012 7:59:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

As a former carbczar, I hope he doesn’t institute “cash for the elderly “? After all, clunkers are clunkers :)


7 posted on 10/03/2012 8:00:20 AM PDT by americanbychoice3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I've been arguing with liberal friends about these panels. They don't believe these panels will happen.

Good to know I'm not crazy, as my friends allege.

Once again, Obama lied.

8 posted on 10/03/2012 8:01:13 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanbychoice3

meant to say car czar, oops


9 posted on 10/03/2012 8:01:44 AM PDT by americanbychoice3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The delusional sheeperals will cover their ears, shut their eyes, and mumble “I’m not listening I’m not listening” when this is brought before them.

They will believe nothing other than 0bamacare/socialized healthcare means free healthcare on demand for all.


10 posted on 10/03/2012 8:02:06 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanbychoice3

meant to say car czar, oops


11 posted on 10/03/2012 8:02:47 AM PDT by americanbychoice3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: americanbychoice3

meant to say car czar, oops


12 posted on 10/03/2012 8:03:10 AM PDT by americanbychoice3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

They don’t understand the concept of inherent scarcity of resources, for one.

But the main driver is their need to think of themselves as “good people” for advocating that everyone get free healthcare. It’s what I call “advocacy-based righteousness”.

If you tell them that what they support is not going to work, you’re attacking their righteousness.


13 posted on 10/03/2012 8:04:01 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

In my opinion, this Kapo would have been an asset in Hitler’s high command.


14 posted on 10/03/2012 8:04:04 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Boy oh howdy that Sarah Palin was full of crap about “death panels” wasn’t she?

Sarah-casm


15 posted on 10/03/2012 8:05:40 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t want anyone in Washington deciding my fate.

My point is we are focused totally on one problem, while the cancer that will actually eat the country alive is totally ignored.

The entire Medicare problem is caused by the baby boomers. Everyday more and more of them turn 65, and the problem gets worse. But every day some of them die. And one day you will reach a turning point. On that day more will die than will turn 65. And from that point on, the problem becomes less and less till it disappears.

Work the same exercise with welfare. There is NO turning point. Every year it gets bigger and bigger. And when ALL of the dollars that are actually spent on welfare are counted, it is already bigger than Social Security or Medicare. And in just a few years it will be bigger than both of them combined.

And you haven’t heard a word about it during this election cycle.


16 posted on 10/03/2012 8:07:51 AM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t want anyone in Washington deciding my fate.

My point is we are focused totally on one problem, while the cancer that will actually eat the country alive is totally ignored.

The entire Medicare problem is caused by the baby boomers. Everyday more and more of them turn 65, and the problem gets worse. But every day some of them die. And one day you will reach a turning point. On that day more will die than will turn 65. And from that point on, the problem becomes less and less till it disappears.

Work the same exercise with welfare. There is NO turning point. Every year it gets bigger and bigger. And when ALL of the dollars that are actually spent on welfare are counted, it is already bigger than Social Security or Medicare. And in just a few years it will be bigger than both of them combined.

And you haven’t heard a word about it during this election cycle.


17 posted on 10/03/2012 8:08:07 AM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Of course they always planned to have death panels. I just thought that they would name them something like “Later Years Quality of Life Enhancement Planning.”


18 posted on 10/03/2012 8:09:57 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Liberalism comes from an incurable mental illness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I want to work the guillotine behind the nursing homes. Talk about job security.
19 posted on 10/03/2012 8:10:53 AM PDT by youngidiot (The name's Bond. James Bond. James Bond Jovi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thanks for posting.

If Romney’s not going to touch the IPABs and impending rationing, we’re going to need to spread the word ourselves again- and spread it loudly- and our candidates for Congress will need to hammer their opponents with this.

We can’t take this sitting down.


20 posted on 10/03/2012 8:13:41 AM PDT by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot

Isn’t Soros qualified for Death panel consideration?


21 posted on 10/03/2012 8:14:41 AM PDT by americanbychoice3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sarah Palin was the ONLY one who nailed this.
Not a peep from Bonehead, Cantor or McConnell.
It’s way past time for new GOP leadership.

If Romney loses, a total house cleaning of the GOP leadership
MUST OCCUR!


22 posted on 10/03/2012 8:17:45 AM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

Rationing, in the economic sense, of any scarce and therefore valuable resource is inevitable under any economic system.

We presently have health care rationing. Some is done by government agencies, which limit payments to providers and thereby restrict availability of services. Other rationing is done by insurance companies, who exclude certain treatments from reimbursement and impose other restrictions.

Some rationing is provided by the market, most notably by those without insurance being unable to pay.

The issue is not one of whether rationing will be performed. It is one of "who decides?"

Under almost any possible American system, those with money will be able to get whatever care they're able and willing to pay for. The question of "who gets what" is pretty much limited to the lower and middle classes.

The most likely outcome of increasing government control of healthcare is:

15% at the top continue to get whatever they want, as they always have.

Health care will improve for the 25% at the bottom.

Quality and availability will decline to some extent for the 60% in the middle.

(Percentages are approximate.)

23 posted on 10/03/2012 8:19:07 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

24 posted on 10/03/2012 8:20:49 AM PDT by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
“They don’t understand the concept of inherent scarcity of resources, for one.”

***

Odd thing is, these are college educated (or is it, college indoctrinated) people. I only did two years and I never was good at math. It just makes sense that with so many people sucking on the government test, and fewer and fewer people contributing to the pot, there won't be enough resources to take care of everyone. So there will have to be rationing. Those perceived to be a drain on those resources — the elderly, the chronically ill — will not receive health care in favor of others.

These friends are so bowled over by Obama’s pretty speech they don't apply the logic they should have learned in school. Everything they should have lea

25 posted on 10/03/2012 8:23:53 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

We should also consider that the cost of the “best available” medical care continues to escalate, as new tech becomes available.

We could probably provide 1970-era medical care to everybody without breaking the bank. What we can’t do is provide 2012-level, much less 2030-level medical care to everybody. Not without bankrupting the country.

So what we will do is pretend that everybody gets the same health care, while those with money or connections continue to get the best, and others take their chances.


26 posted on 10/03/2012 8:29:14 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I should also have pointed out that Canada, UK and lots of other European countries “ration” health care via time, or by waiting list. Some percentage of those needing the procedure die before their number comes up.


27 posted on 10/03/2012 8:31:02 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

I think the disconnect is that the left has successful pedalled the lie that government has unlimited resources.

And they can make this illusion stand up by doing what they’re doing today - printing money out of thin air.


28 posted on 10/03/2012 8:32:24 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I agree.
I can also envision the following exchange:
Governmentto children and Grandchildren: We will pay you x amount of money to do away with Grandma, since it will be cheaper than continuing to pay Social Security and Medicare.

Kids: Ok, but we need at least x amount of money.


29 posted on 10/03/2012 8:36:16 AM PDT by americanbychoice3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

Our name is Equality 7-2521


30 posted on 10/03/2012 8:38:08 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB
they can make this illusion stand up by ... printing money out of thin air

Temporarily.

31 posted on 10/03/2012 8:52:05 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“15% at the top continue to get whatever they want, as they always have.”

Wrong. If a free market does not exist, then what is the motivation for private companies in the health care industry to develop innovation? The wealthiest only have access to the products that are being offered. If a company can only freely service 15% of a market, their motivation dissappears.

“Health care will improve for the 25% at the bottom.”

Wrong again. The government must cap prices to claim cost reduction. When prices are capped, in any commodity, that commodity faces shortages. If health service providers are faced with caps on reimbursements, they are not motivated to work more (add resources) in order to meet the need of the expanded market. The result will be shortages which will be evident with long lines (wait time increases) for what should be basic services.

“Quality and availability will decline to some extent for the 60% in the middle.”

Wrong again, but really only by the degree of your reduction forecast and the size of the population affected. It will decline by huge margins for all. This has been proven every time any government moves to centralized planning. In the centralized planning governments, the only commodity that sees sharp increases in effectiveness and a broader market reach is brute force by those carrying government guns.

Don’t be fooled by those telling you differently.


32 posted on 10/03/2012 8:52:16 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This reminds me of buying groceries in the Soviet Union or consumer goods in the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four.
If you are inner party, nothing but the best; if you’re just a prole, wait in long lines for poor rations or nothing.
Orwell’s definition of `power’ is the ability to make others suffer. Magic 8-ball says: `This Will Not End Well.’


33 posted on 10/03/2012 8:55:19 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

That’s the whole point of QE3/QE4-ever - keep the balls in the air with free money, let the central banks acquire as much gold as they can before the crash,

then come out on the other side with a gold-backed currency which, coincidentally, they hold all the backing for.


34 posted on 10/03/2012 9:01:56 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The new system of penalizing hospitals that readmit patients will cause deaths too. Obama’s not a ‘nice guy’....
35 posted on 10/03/2012 9:05:46 AM PDT by GOPJ (You only establish a feel for the line by having crossed it. - - Freeper One Name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

State mandated Euthenasia and Infanticide(which is clearly murder) will never happen just like some claim the Holocaust never happened.
And Obama as a Jr Sen didn’t vote four different occasions against interveining if the baby is alive after a botched abortion.


36 posted on 10/03/2012 9:10:35 AM PDT by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

“The new system of penalizing hospitals that readmit patients will cause deaths too. Obama’s not a ‘nice guy’....”

***

But...but...but...Romney said he is!


37 posted on 10/03/2012 9:16:45 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CSM
If a company can only freely service 15% of a market, their motivation dissappears.

Nonsense. Every other provider of luxury goods and services in the world appears to be able to do quite well servicing <15% of the market. I haven't noticed Ferrari or Louis Vuitton losing all incentive to continue in business.

What will happen, of course, is that with a smaller pool of money available, fewer new technologies will be developed and implemented that would otherwise be the case.

A long line for service is an improvement over no service. I didn't say "the poor" would receive the best available health care, only that for many of them it will be better than what they presently have available to them.

The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.

I think my projection is pretty good, though I have no idea how the percentage will fall out. I agree that for "most" people the results will be somewhat worse than they are now.

38 posted on 10/03/2012 9:31:11 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

And the Democrat voting sheeple go quietly; happily ambling straight to the slaughter.

The problem is, they’ll take the rest of us with them if we do not get this administration and the democrat majority in the Senate out of office.


39 posted on 10/03/2012 9:41:47 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

ya know, i realize that i will have to work til the day i die.

the rat’s give me that choice. i will be 59 in a few days. my dad was always saying that he would never see a social security check. he has and does, he’s 90. God bless him.

he was just a generation off. when i become a non-producer that cannot support the liberals no longer, i will be exterminated.

as hitler said “useless eaters”. i see little difference between fascism, communism, socialism and the demorat party. all Godless, immoral, no honor, no compassion and no love for righteousness.

Blessings, bobo


40 posted on 10/03/2012 9:46:34 AM PDT by bobo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CSM
In the centralized planning governments, the only commodity that sees sharp increases in effectiveness and a broader market reach is brute force by those carrying government guns.

Excellent. Your posting clearly show a brilliant understanding of true free markets in operation.

Outside of it's proper Constitutional duties, government does indeed corrupt and inevitably destroys everything is touches.

Milton Friedman would be smiling and agreeing with everything you have written.

41 posted on 10/03/2012 9:55:49 AM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

At least the Rat is being honest, a rare commodity in either party. Death panels are the unspoken answer to the Soc Sec and Medicare financial crisis.

Slice 10 yrs off the life expectancy and bingo - both programs look pretty good.


42 posted on 10/03/2012 9:59:36 AM PDT by nascarnation (Defeat Baraq 2012. Deport Baraq 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.

Government run health care will indeed make the health care worse for EVERYONE but the very rich. That is obvious by looking around the world at other government systems. Nothing, absolutely nothing good will come from any government (ie sadistic bureaucratic control) system.

You need to ponder the unintended consequences of government intervention. We have no idea of the advances in medicine that would already be available in the market place if not for the of decades of abusive regulations and the corruption of the FDA.

If third party health care didn't exist (came about b/c of government controls), if the FDA didn't exist, if government licensing of medical schools didn't exist, then the health care would be much further advanced and most assuredly less expensive than we can imagine.

It is ONLY because of government intervention that our medical system is corrupted and expensive. Milton Friedman has written extensively on this matter.

It must somehow be made clear and foremost to people that the primary cause of the health care "crisis" is government. Look at how the quality of education is going down while prices rise. Why for the past 30 plus years has College cost exceeded inflation? Simply, because of the government student loan program.

If health care is ever to be considered not a crisis then somehow mechanisms must be in place to transition government (states/fed) completely out of health care.

43 posted on 10/03/2012 10:16:03 AM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sand88
That is obvious by looking around the world at other government systems.

While I largely agree with you, you overstate your case. Many of the health care systems around the world run pretty well. France and Singapore, for example, are generally reported to have quite effective systems, with of course flaws as all systems have.

The US excels in many areas, and is near the back of the pack in others. What is indisputable, I believe, is that we spend more than any other country, and yet many Americans don't have ready access to medical care when they need it.

The government will never be able to fully remove itself from the health care system.

The American people ARE NOT going to be willing to have people dying on the street in front of the hospital because they don't have insurance.

This means that either everybody must be forced to buy insurance, OR government will pick up the tab for emergency care of those who choose not to, OR providers will be forced to provide care, which they will compensate for by increasing the charges to those who can pay.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this situation, just reporting it. The whole purpose, economically speaking, of a "health care system" is to spread the cost of the total system out over the entire population. The vast majority, who don't get really sick in any given year, will pay in a lot more than they get out. They can pay in via insurance, or through taxes, or through some combination of the two, as in most countries.

What will not and cannot work is guaranteed availability to every citizen, without enforced contribution from all citizens.

44 posted on 10/03/2012 10:43:20 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

we must abort the death panels with extreme prejudice


45 posted on 10/03/2012 10:57:25 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobo1

“he was just a generation off. when i become a non-producer that cannot support the liberals no longer, i will be exterminated.”

No matter how many of the old folks they exterminate, even without ANY healthcare costs, the system will implode.

As the the size of the cancer (welfare collectors) approaches the size of the worker class (which ain’t far from happening) the only solution remaining will occur - the second American revolution.

I’ve always believed it was inevitable, but thought it would wait till I was long in the ground. I’m no longer sure it is that far away. For purely selfish reasons, I hope it happens far enough in the future to that I am gone, or soon enough in the present while I can still use a firearm well.


46 posted on 10/03/2012 12:51:22 PM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Nonsense. Every other provider of luxury goods and services in the world appears to be able to do quite well servicing <15% of the market. I haven’t noticed Ferrari or Louis Vuitton losing all incentive to continue in business.”

Sure. And the development cost for a ferrari is minimal when compared to a new drug or innovative invention in the medical field. It is pretty easy to spread a couple of billion dollar investment for a new car or yacht over the top 15% of the GLOBAL market. It is impossible to spread the TRILLION or so for new medical advances over the top 15% of the US market!

Then in your next statement you say, “What will happen, of course, is that with a smaller pool of money available, fewer new technologies will be developed and implemented that would otherwise be the case.”

Thus, you prove the point. How is it a “slight” negative impact when the government CREATES a barrier to unfettered innovation? It is an extremely negative impact that will cause the deaths of millions who would have otherwise been offered life saving drugs or procedures that became possible because of new equipment.

What market will exist after our free market is gone (like we had one) that will reward medical development? The answer is NONE!

“A long line for service is an improvement over no service.”

Except for those that WILL die while waiting in line. For them it is not any improvement at all. A long line is nothing more than an indicator that some in that line are going to experience the shortage. Many will die while waiting for the service, others will give up and live with pain, etc.

Think of the gas lines of the 70’s. Nixon capped prices, that created a “cheap” source of gasoline at the local gas station. So, people did not curtail their own behaviour and they burned gas freely. Then we got to experience waiting in lines every other day to buy the few gallons that became available. Many in those lines went home without being able to purchase any gas....Yep, price caps worked great for the elite rulers.

“I didn’t say “the poor” would receive the best available health care, only that for many of them it will be better than what they presently have available to them.”

Either way you try to word it, your assumption is not true. The free market may create “larger” gaps between the very rich and the poor, but it also enhances the lifestyle of the poor to become some of the richest in the world. When you centrally plan, you will degrade their life conveniences and that will not magically change because the subject is health care. When the motivation for innovation is destroyed, then you will see the ENTIRE industry degrade. Over time, and I suspect it will not take long to see the effect in this case, you will see a complete destruction of our system.

Add to that the fact that NOT ONE of our poor are denied health care in our market pre-obamacare. So, we have no one being denied care and we WILL see a degredation in care. Which is better? Let’s look at it this way, a poor person who had no insurance now has insurance, yet it is very expensive to keep them hospitalized for a long time to deal with a bad infection in a limb. We could spend a lot on drugs and a hospital bed with constant care for a few weeks or heck, let’s just chop that limb off and get it over with quickly!

Which would you say the government will chose? Which do you think the individual will chose? Which is a better quality of life long term?

“The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.”

Not true. The idea that central planning of health care WILL cause a degredation of the entire health care industry is a proven fact. EVERY example shows it to be true. Every example in EVERY industry proves it to be true. Off the top of my head I can not think of one industry that has advanced as a whole in any centrally planned government. I’d be interested to hear about any example that you can provide.

Sure, East Germany was an auto giant, well at least until the wall came down. Mao’s china was spectacular, well after they killed off a few million folks. North Korea is a bastion of utopia today, except for those that starve to death every year. Zimbabwe has been great for black farmers, but moved from the breadbasket of Africa a wasteland. On and on and on and on and on....

Make no mistake about it, Obamacare is not going to improve the health care industry. The masterminds know this and they have no intention of improving the industry. They are simply interested in control over you (and him and me and her.) If they are in control of you, your behaviour and your choices, then they can create their much desired utopia.

They just need more time.


47 posted on 10/03/2012 1:04:03 PM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sand88

Thank you for your kind words FRiend. I have always understood the “theories” naturally, but have only recently started remembering so many real examples of the failures. By “recently” I’d say the last 10 years or so. Sadly, they are easy to forget by so many...

I have to credit the wide ranging philosophical discussions by TGO! ;-)


48 posted on 10/03/2012 1:13:33 PM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Your entire post is thoughtful and insightful.

The government will never be able to fully remove itself from the health care system.

True. The political class realizes the power and control they can exert through controlling our healthcare. If anything government will push to control all of our healthcare.

The American people ARE NOT going to be willing to have people dying on the street in front of the hospital because they don't have insurance.

No argument there. The American people are quite compassionate. However, if we could imagine the government never being involved in health care, then we would over time, private charities would have evolved to easily take care the indigent. They did so before government pushed them out of the way.

With no government involvement there health care costs would be lower, so the burden less. With technological advances, charities would be themselves competing to help the poor in a truly more efficient manner. Feedback mechanisms would provide information to show which charities provide the most bang for the buck. People would be more willing to donate to such charities and thereby providing more efficient care to the truly indigent.

Charities would also not waste money on those who are scammers or needlessly abuse the system -- they would be better wards of donated dollars.

With government systems they are inherently bureaucratic. Much of our money is absorbed in the bureaucracies. They are people spending other people's money with no penalties for waste and fraud. In one consulting job I was involved with health care systems and the insane amount of reporting and paperwork and control by the government is mind-boggling.

This means that either everybody must be forced to buy insurance, OR government will pick up the tab for emergency care of those who choose not to, OR providers will be forced to provide care, which they will compensate for by increasing the charges to those who can pay.

Again, this crisis exist because of government involvement. If we could imagine the government never being involved then this situation would never have evolved. The market place would have evolved to efficient develop to deliver very affordable health care costs.

We could easily imagine people going to doctors and paying cash for most regular visits. Simple, efficient and easy. With government never being involved people would have a tradition and a strong incentive to be more responsible. People would naturally be inclined to purchase catastrophic insurance to handle low probability high-cost year-to-year events. I have catastrophic insurance. Those what are wise enough to get such insurance would rightfully be rewarded by having access to better hospitals and care.

There would still be a "need" and therefore market mechanisms in place that would serve those who do not choose wisely. They would have access to hospitals and services that cost much less but that would not have the best equipment or the best rated doctors. That would be proper because of their decision to not get catastrophic insurance. In a truly free society people would be aware of such realities and out of self-interest, they would have a strong incentive to purchase catastrophic insurance. They would adjust their budgets and likely spend less on some things and move it towards health care. This would occur without government or liberals intervening!

Milton Friedman and others have written at length about the beauty of markets solving the problems of health care. Prices would be driven down dramatically and quality would go up as hospitals and doctors compete. It's sad that it will likely never be a reality.

There are many more benefits of a truly free market-base system that cannot even be known because they are not allowed to come into existence. Go back twenty years, could anyone have seen the development and explosion of smart phones of the amazing growth of the Internet? No. But they are here and benefiting us greatly. They developed because of people being free to engage in commerce and be rewarded for success; profit from such activities (people voting with their dollars)

Imagine if twenty years ago the government took over the development and/or had companies meet government specs on cell phones. With a few big players they would use crony capitalism (i.e. using government) to squish newcomers. It's easy to imagine the government "forbidding" this and that from small startups with great ideas. Companies would be happy with a fixed market share with a known return. There is no doubt that the pace of advancement would be slowed greatly. We would likely be not much further along than brick phones. We would be here today not ever knowing the wonderful benefit of smart-phones and other technological advances.

Instead, we have a somewhat free market where people vote with dollars and compel companies to offer better and better products and the best price. If not they lose market share, profits and in the worse case, they go out of business.

Government bureaucracies cannot and will never face market pressures to improve. If they fail, their budgets increase. Their incentive is to grow and push out private players. They benefit from inefficiencies and a populace in crisis.

What will not and cannot work is guaranteed availability to every citizen, without enforced contribution from all citizens. ,

Agreed, but that is not how it should be. Government involvement will guarantee that costs will never go down and that quality will never go up. Government is the absolute sole reason that our health care system is in crisis.

In all matters, we should strive to allow market-place solutions; which is nothing but allowing people to vote with their dollars and chose who is best to serve them. With government there is only forced control. In other words, Freedom is always superior to the force of government.

49 posted on 10/03/2012 1:26:06 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“The American people ARE NOT going to be willing to have people dying on the street in front of the hospital because they don’t have insurance.”

Which of course has never been the situation in the US. Regardless of how many times this claim has been made, we can see from history that it did not happen before health insurance became the norm and it will not happen if we are ever able to remove government from the market.

“What is indisputable, I believe, is that we spend more than any other country, and yet many Americans don’t have ready access to medical care when they need it.”

Completely false. Either you are purposely lying or you are an unwitting dupe to the left’s argument for central planning. I challenge you to name ONE American citizen that was not able to acquire medical care when they needed it.

“The whole purpose, economically speaking, of a “health care system” is to spread the cost of the total system out over the entire population.”

The purpose of any industry is for product or service providors to be motivated to make a profit. Period. That purpose does not change with the title of the industry. The Insurance industry is certainly a voluntary transfer of risk between two parties, but it is not spreading a specified cost.

As soon as you start “spreading the cost of a total system over the entire population” you have nothing but collectivism. That breeds lowered accountability by individuals and it increases costs. Name one example where collectivism has improved the way of life for those involved. BTW, a hippie commune is to small to be a significant example.

“What will not and cannot work is guaranteed availability to every citizen, without enforced contribution from all citizens.”

Yes, you can FORCE contribution to a system, or to put it more plainly you can take money from everyone vie the barrel of a gun. However, you will never be able to gaurantee availabilty to anyone, let alone every citizen, unless you are willing to force producers (doctors, nurses, etc.) to actually do specific work tasks. Eventually you must then force “competent students in the department of education” to enter “the department of vocations” to become a nurse or doctor, etc. Our name is Equality 7-2521

Your examples of other countries “that are not that bad” are only able to survive because we have been their beacon on a hill. Without our HC industry, you will see collapsing dominos throughout the world.

I hate to ask a personal question, but I am compelled. How old are you? I am suspecting that you are to young to have much experience with collectivists and their ideas....


50 posted on 10/03/2012 1:44:20 PM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson