More On Health Care
I have seen some ads by Hilary Clinton and she seems genuinely interested in universal health care. I really can’t state how much this scares me. I think I can honestly say that if given a choice between letting one of our cities be nuked by terrorists or implementing universal health care I would prefer the incineration of one of our cities. Even if I was in that city.
Universal health care is arguably the worst political idea out there. It’s worse then arguments for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution. Its worse then hamstringing the economy to prevent global warming. Its worse than restricting federal funding on stem cell research. Its worse than creating out of thin air the constitutional right to slice and dice a fetus. And its just a tad worse than a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, but only by the slightest of margins.
It would be the worst legislation passed in my lifetime.
It so simple and basic. Innovation comes from competition. Government must have a monopoly on coercion which eliminates competition. Thus, there will be no innovation in health care if the government supplies it.
I don’t understand how so many intelligent and wise democrats, including Hillary, can be so foolish to not realize that state controlled health care will lead to much more suffering especially for poor people. How many more times does humanity have to learn the follies of government control before it gains the wisdom that giving people economic freedom leads to more wealth and happiness for all, especially the poor?
When will the immutable law that capitalism’s competition generates massive amounts of wealth be understood as common sense in the same capacity that force equals mass multiplied by acceleration or that man evolved from apes? Among the so called educated there is no politicking about basic physical or biological axioms so why should there be debate about basic economic axioms?
Here is an economic axiom whose time for embracement as common sense has come:
Capitalism generates the competition needed for invention and innovation which in turn generates wealth for the poor.
Man evolved from apes. Force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration. And capitalism creates wealth for the poor.
Educated democrats should recognize that keeping health care in the hands of capitalism will provide the poor with more wealth in health care than any state program could dream of. Those that would suggest otherwise should be treated with the same mockery and derision that evolution denying Christians receive.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
You continue to maintain that the only type of government health care that could ever be implemented is the stupid kind. I agree taht we should not implement a sstupid system of government health care. However, the government is also in control of the military, and judging by the technological advances in our military ordnance, I don’t think the government has any trouble fostering private-sector competition to supply public-sector goods.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
It would be great if the healthcare market worked in such a way to allow the less than wealthy access to affordable healthcare, but it does not.
Insurance companies make more money by denying care to some of those who need it most.
Individually bought insurance is prohibitively expensive, preventing competition from bringing prices down since so few people can afford it at all.
Healthcare costs are rising every year.
Our government has decided not to negotiate with drug companies to get a better bargain on medicines through our current social medicine system.
So yes, free markets when they function properly are great at increasing efficiency. However, sometimes the market fails, like when economic incentives are such that it becomes profitable to screw the consumer, like in the case of health insurance.
I would propose a federal health insurance program, while leaving the rest of the healthcare system alone. Allow doctors and patients to work out the best treatments, which will in turn drive competition among pharmaceutical companies. We would then have one large not for profit insurance company vs. hundreds of smaller, for profit companies that make money by denying coverage.
I don’t see much innovation going on in the insurance business, other than new ways to deny coverage, so I don’t think the government stepping in will do much to stifle innovation.
And with more people accessing health care drug companies should be able to make even more money and research more new treatments.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Stating something, even if you are vehement about it, doesn’t make it true. To me, it seems that if you start a thread without the presentation of any evidence, analysis, or examples, you are apparently attempting to ‘win’ via argumentum ad nauseam.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Evidence equals your living in the undeniable success of capitalism. Dumbass.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Ooh! Namecalling as an accessory to argumentum ad nauseam! Impressive!
January 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Darwin,
Given the states success in running a military are you suggesting that state sponsored should ran in similar fashion to the military. To be perfectly honest I’m not sure how you run a social program like the military.
Additionally, you seem to forget the military actually provides a service for the funding it receives. Universal health care would not provide a service in any normal interpretation of the word.
One final note. The military has to compete with the military of other states make efficiency and innovation much more like. Locking up health care under the state eliminates competition.