Skip to comments.The Original Universal Health Care Scheme
Posted on 10/02/2013 2:39:05 AM PDT by varmintman
The original universal healthcare system...
".....Because resources are limited, the concept of universal healthcare requires the Government to make decisions on the distribution of healthcare that will determine the survivability of different groups in society. That is, the welfare of the collective and government priorities are placed above that of the rights of any individual.
Once you have given the Government that much power, there is no natural barrier between you and the Holocaust of the Nazis. It is only a matter of degree, of how far they want to take this concept that social welfare trumps individual rights.
This is the inherent evil of universal healthcare. It gives Government the right to decide life and death for entire classes of society, as opposed to individuals contracting for their own healthcare. This is why Hitler liked universal healthcare so much that he imposed it on conquered countries, not exactly because he was so concerned for the well being of the subjected peoples, but because it gave him the right over entire classes of people to decide who lives and who dies. It gave him the power to engineer the composition of society to his own malicious requirements. Entire classes of people can be eliminated with no judicial process being necessary.
This is also the reason that Obama and others in the Government want universal healthcare so desperately, in order to achieve their own vision of fundamental transformation of America. The socialist elite needs to be able to ignore the rights of the individual to engineer their new utopian society. For that purpose, the same kind of centrally-controlled universal healthcare system that Hitler used is required......"
(Excerpt) Read more at stop-obama-now.net ...
The author doesn't appear to recognize that this is the key point.
Resources ARE limited in health care, as indeed they are in all areas.
Consumption of resources WILL be rationed by some means or other. Those means can include government control, price, availability, waiting times, political "pull," lottery, etc.
But in the health care debate in America all sides insist that it is possible to provide maximum quality health care to everybody.
It isn't possible, it never has been, and as the technology improves, the gap between our ability to provide the ultimate in health care to everyone and the potential demand increases.
Absolutely nobody in the public arena addresses this, since the People don't want to hear it. We prefer to blame the "other side" for any deficiencies or problems.
A truly free market system of health insurance would allow people to sign up for different levels of quality. You could, for instance, sign up for 1970, 1990 or modern technology health care. Less advanced programs would be much less expensive, but would still be a LOT better than nothing and than what anybody had had only a few decades ago. Yet we continue to insist that once somebody comes down sick, everybody must receive the same level of treatment.
It will not happen. The rich, powerful or connected have always received and will always receive better quality treatment than the poor and powerless. This can be recognized and regulated, or it can be ignored while we pretend otherwise, but it WILL happen.
“Because resources are limited...”
Recourses are only limited when their price is controlled. Drop the price controls and the market takes over. Two forms of healthcare have consistently dropped in price since their development. Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. Why? They’re not covered by health plans and therefore their price is market price. The greater the utilization at market price the more purveyors the lower the price.
If you want health care prices to plummet and become more available, drop all price (insurance) regulation.
Excellent point. It is also worth noting that there seems to be no shortage of folks that cannot wait to pay for plastic surgery. Are boob jobs covered under ObammyCare? (most likely only for the incarcerated gender-confused set) Can’t be waging a war on women.
Sorry, but it doesn’t apply in this case. This classic free market theory applies to prices. In a completely free market society, the pricing mechanism arrives at a balance point between supply and demand. The price people are willing to pay for a given good, taking into account competing want.
The market does NOT provide anything anybody might want at no price, which is essentially what is desired for health care.
Does over-regulation drive up health care costs. You bet!
Would ultimate quality health care become available to any who need or desire it if all regulations were dropped? Nope.
The problem is that the demand in this case is for practical purposes unlimited. No pricing mechanism (or any other mechanism) can satisfy an unlimited demand.
“The problem is that the demand in this case is for practical purposes unlimited. No pricing mechanism (or any other mechanism) can satisfy an unlimited demand.”
Demand is only unlimited when the price is controlled. Insured people and “no-pay” people use medical services at a higher rate than people who have to pay for their own. Yet people who pay for their own have the same life expectancy. That means they only buy those services they actually need. Not every sniffle is worth a doctor’s visit. In my childhood I saw a doctor probably a dozen times. My mother took care of all else. But ask any emergency room doctor what percentage of the no-pays actually needed a doctor and he’d probably give you a very low figure. They use the doctor because they can and it’s free.
We’re talking past each other.
My original comment was that resources WILL be rationed. One of the methods of rationing I mentioned was by price and ability or willingness to pay.
Which is exactly what you are saying.
In a free market, supply expands to meet what people are able or willing to pay for, the demand. It does NOT expand to meet what people desire. Which was my point.
I should have said “desire” instead of “demand,” which has a technical meaning.
“I should have said desire instead of demand, which has a technical meaning.”
Ahhh. Understood. In WW2 my mother took courses designed to help civilians avoid using medical services as a doctor shortage was expected. She could recognize when something was serious enough to require medical help. She could bandage and treat all manner of things people go to the doctor for. Since then, instead of teaching self-reliance we’ve taught several generations to rely on professional help. Part of this has to do with liability. Nobody dares teach people how not to go to the doctor because somebody will get it wrong and sue. Call a doctor with the simplest complaint and they’re required by their insurance to refer you to 911. That’s $5,000 car ride and God knows what expense for Band-Aids and Mercurochrome.
Obama is jealous. This was done by one of his idols.
Absolutely. We demand/desire high-end service even when it isn’t needed. We could easily train an intermediate level of medical care, people who can handle minor things and know when to refer to a doc. But we demand a doc.
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.