Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Universal Health Care?

  1. #1
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Universal Health Care?

    I'm curious as to what members here in other countries specifically in Canada, Austrailia, and all of Europe think of the current debate within the United States about universal healthcare or the position to move against it.

    Is there anybody outside of the United States that have followed our situation closely that have a opinion on our health care system as a observer?

    According to our capitalist brethren within our nation of the United States all of our healthcare should be expensive and ought to be controlled explicitly by medical corporate insurance companies.

    According to them also there is indeed a price on human life in general.

    [This should make for some interesting conversation.]
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  2. #2
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    The Tragedy Of United States Health Care

    Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by the private sector. Health insurance is primarily provided by the private sector, with the exception of programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration.

    The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million Americans—16.7% of the population—were uninsured in 2009.[1] More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world,[2][3] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[3] Despite the fact that not all people in America are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care and utilization today.[4][5] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[6] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[7]

    Active debate about health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, choice, value, and quality. Some have argued that the system does not deliver equivalent value for the money spent. The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][8] The United States life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9][10][11]

    Life expectancy in the USA is ranked 50th in the world after the European Union (40th).[12][13] The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[14][15] The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries,[16] and notes U.S. care costs the most.[17]According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance).[18][19] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."[18] while a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[20][21] More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.[22]

    The uninsured

    Main article: Uninsured in the United States
    Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment. This problem has become a source of considerable political controversy on a national level.

    According to the US Census Bureau, in 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. This number was down slightly from the previous year, with nearly 3 million more people receiving government coverage and a slightly lower percentage covered under private plans than the year previous.[53] Other studies have placed the number of uninsured in the years 2007–2008 as high as 86.7 million, about 29% of the US population.[81][82]

    Among the uninsured population, the Census Bureau says, nearly 37 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. About 38% of the uninsured live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more.[53] According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million of the uninsured are legal U.S citizens. Another 9.7 million are non-citizens, but the Census Bureau does not distinguish in its estimate between legal non-citizens and illegal immigrants.[53] Nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[83] Extending coverage to all who are eligible remains a fiscal challenge.[84]

    A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001.[85] The study noted that this amount per capita was half what the average insured person received. The study found that various levels of government finance most uncompensated care, spending about $30.6 billion on payments and programs to serve the uninsured and covering as much as 80–85% of uncompensated care costs through grants and other direct payments, tax appropriations, and Medicare and Medicaid payment add-ons. Most of this money comes from the federal government, followed by state and local tax appropriations for hospitals. Another study by the same authors in the same year estimated the additional annual cost of covering the uninsured (in 2001 dollars) at $34 billion (for public coverage) and $69 billion (for private coverage). These estimates represent an increase in total health care spending of 3–6% and would raise health care’s share of GDP by less than one percentage point, the study concluded.[86] Another study published in the same journal in 2004 estimated that the value of health forgone each year because of uninsurance was $65–$130 billion and concluded that this figure constituted "a lower-bound estimate of economic losses resulting from the present level of uninsurance nationally."[87]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    First, health care and health insurance are two different things. Health insurance is a monthly premium you pay into a pool that is a savings towards future health cost. Health care itself is the service of seeing a physician. Both are services provided by individuals. No one has the right to have someone else service them or provide any type of service.

    Secondly, the high cost are directly involved with government intervention and monopolies by various companies (government granted monopolies I must add). Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.

    Also, being without insurance doesn't mean anything. I don't have insurance and I could purchase it. A lot of people who are middle class don't have insurance. You do not need it. It doesn't mean I can't get health care if I needed it.

    There's so much red-tape and bureaucracy a doctor can't simply treat you, and then pay. Half their time is soaked up in paper work they must comply with.

    A Free-Market Guide to Healthcare - Dozens upon dozens of articles and other media on the healthcare issue.

    "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." - F. A. Hayek
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  4. #4
    Senior Member Loyalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 4th, 2018 @ 03:49 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    British Isles
    Subrace
    Keltic-Nordid/Atlantid
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Traditionalist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,165
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    You do not want universal health care in the United States. We have had that program rammed down out throats since the mid-20th century when Tommmy Douglas, a Scottish immigrant socialist politician, successfully lobbied for its implementation. Do not be fooled by the praise and nonsensical statistics which the leftist and progressive lobbies used to force the passage of Obamacare; the medical system in Canada, Europe, and wherever else socialized medicine is practiced is vastly inferior to the current system in the United States.

    In Canada, it is next to impossible to find a GP/family physician, and those that do are usually placed with an Indian or African immigrant with a medical degree from their nation of origin. The best medical school graduates leave for the US, as the salary cap in countries with universal health care creates a medical brain drain. Hospital wait times are obscene, and so are waits for surgery, cancer treatment, etc. In regard to the latter, cancer patients are 16% more likely to die in Canada than in the US. On a practical level, the system is extremely expensive, and necessitates vastly inflated tax levels. I would prefer to have those taxes eliminated, and in turn I could use the savings to purchase (cheaper) private insurance and receive better care.

    The interesting thing is that, despite widespread criticism of, and opponents to, universal health care in Canada, there is almost no debate on the matter. Critics of socialized medicine are derided as "un-Canadian" in the media, and no politician would dare suggest privatization, for it would surely be political suicide. That said, there is a very quiet trend towards accomodating a parallel private system to slowly develop, and I firmly believe that, if the stranglehold of the liberal media and academia could be broken, statistics would demonstrate the insanity of universal health care, and the aforementioned private sector would flourish in its place.

    I noticed that, during the passage of Obamacare, its proponents frequently cited suspicious numbers of uninsured individuals to support the bill. What was never mentioned was the fact that the uninsured were mostly comprised of illegal immigrants and those who opted not to purchase insurance, as is their Constitutional right (Congress can tax, but cannot compel the purchase of commodities; the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by specifying that Obamacare is not a tax).

  5. #5
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I was never explained the contradiction of having insurance if the government was to provide tax-payer funded low quality healthcare that would be "no cost" to the consumer.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 24th, 2011 @ 07:52 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian, Swedish, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Minnesota Minnesota
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Solar
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Once upon a time you could go see a doctor and pay the entirety of the bill out of pocket for a reasonable sum. Once someone else starts to pay your bill though, perverse incentives are created. No longer do you care about the necessity or the value of the care you are being provided when some other chump is footing the bill.

  7. #7
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm View Post
    First, health care and health insurance are two different things. Health insurance is a monthly premium you pay into a pool that is a savings towards future health cost. Health care itself is the service of seeing a physician. Both are services provided by individuals. No one has the right to have someone else service them or provide any type of service.

    Secondly, the high cost are directly involved with government intervention and monopolies by various companies (government granted monopolies I must add). Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.

    Also, being without insurance doesn't mean anything. I don't have insurance and I could purchase it. A lot of people who are middle class don't have insurance. You do not need it. It doesn't mean I can't get health care if I needed it.

    There's so much red-tape and bureaucracy a doctor can't simply treat you, and then pay. Half their time is soaked up in paper work they must comply with.

    A Free-Market Guide to Healthcare - Dozens upon dozens of articles and other media on the healthcare issue.

    "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." - F. A. Hayek
    Under capitalism health care is dominated by health insurance companies because what you have is the complete privatization of all of the health care system.

    No one has the right to have someone else service them or provide any type of service.
    So what your saying is that nobody has a right to health care.

    Secondly, the high cost are directly involved with government intervention and monopolies by various companies (government granted monopolies I must add). Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.
    Actually that's funny considering that is a consequence of private capitalist enterprise and not a form of public health care at all......


    Publicly funded health care is a form of health care financing designed to meet the cost of all or most health care needs from a publicly managed fund. Usually this is under some form of democratic accountability, the right of access to which are set down in rules applying to the whole population contributing to the fund or receiving benefits from it. The fund may be a not-for-profit trust which pays out for health care according to common rules established by the members or by some other democratic form. In some countries the fund is controlled directly by the government or by an agency of the government for the benefit of the entire population. This distinguishes it from other forms of private medical insurance, the rights of access to which are subject to contractual obligations between an insurer (or his sponsor) and an insurance company which seeks to make a profit by managing the flow of funds between funders and providers of health care services.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicl...ed_health_care

    Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.
    Why would they want to do that?

    Aren't corporations against public socialization of many things being the good private capitalists that they are?

    Besides by privatizing all fields of health care along with having wide influences within the government those same medical insurance corporations already enjoy their positions quite well under a capitalist private based system in regards to having complete control in how health care is monetarily provided.

    Also, being without insurance doesn't mean anything.
    Tell that to the many millions of people uninsured who find themselves in bankruptcy courts and thousands of dollars in debt because they can't afford to make medical payments.

    Even having medical insurance is no guarantee to help either because the medical insurance companies only pay so much where it is still expensive on the average citizen who still has to largely pay out of pocket even with having insurance with what insurance companies refuse to pay for.

    What's the reason why? The business of medical care is grossly expensive to which medical corporations along with insurance companies refuse to lower their prices when it concerns giving care to people.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  8. #8
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    573
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    522
    Thanked in
    229 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    According to our capitalist brethren within our nation of the United States all of our healthcare should be expensive and ought to be controlled explicitly by medical corporate insurance companies.
    Who wants expensive healthcare? The fact that healthcare is expensive is due to A; tort law & malpractice lawsuits, B; administrative costs & paperwork to guard against malpractice lawsuits, C; administrative costs to comply with federal regulations & various medical programs, D; Medicare & Medicaid, which consume a majority of healthcare in America, due to the elderly consuming the majority of healthcare services & virtually all of them being enrolled in Medicare. Medicare has driven up healthcare more then any other program. It is based on the Canadian system but is just for 65+. E; The poor & illegal immigrants who use medicare services & do not pay, causing hospitals to charge insured patients/customers higher prices for services. F; the lack of competition among health insurance providers, interstate competition is forbidden.

    According to them also there is indeed a price on human life in general.
    As there should be. Does it make sense to spend $100,000+ on bypass surgery for a 75> man or woman, just so they can live a few years longer, during which time they will consume more medical services. There is a fine line between saving someone's life & extending their death.

    Cuba is a workers paradise, free healthcare for all. Yet Mexicans & Haitians do not risk their lives to get to Cuba, though in the case of Haitians it would be safer & easier then getting to Florida. It would seem most poor thirdwolrders would rather get free healthcare at the emergency room of the local hospital in America. Of course the free healthcare in Cuba is low quality but it is absolutely free to all Cubans!

    The truth is that many, many people already have free healthcare in America, which is why those of us who have to pay for it pay such a high price for healthcare.
    Last edited by Æmeric; Saturday, December 25th, 2010 at 10:30 PM. Reason: Life not Live.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Under capitalism health care is dominated by health insurance companies because what you have is the complete privatization of all of the health care system.
    The state regulates and intervenes in about 85% of the health care industry. What's so private about any of that?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    So what your saying is that nobody has a right to health care.
    Yes, no one has the right to a product or service. No one has the right or privilege to receive service or work from another individual by coercion. No one has the "right" to see a doctor just as no one has the "right" to see a mechanic.

    In libertarian theory and according to the NAP you would have a right to something as in your movement towards pursuing said service or product should not be restricted by force. For example, we have a right to bear arms, and this is to keep the government from restricting people from obtaining a product, but we don't have a right to bear arms in the sense that everyone is entitled a gun by coercion by the State.

    I believe in negative rights compared to positive rights. That we have rights from things instead of to things.

    You may say "I have a right to health care", but that depends on the individual who all of the sudden becomes an indentured servant because of his skill or profession. Is he forced to see you? Does he not have a right to serve or not to serve, does he not have a right to decide?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Actually that's funny considering that is a consequence of private capitalist enterprise and not a form of public health care at all......
    Yeah, like the government isn't involved with health care already.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Why would they want to do that?

    Aren't corporations against public socialization of many things being the good private capitalists that they are?
    As I have explained many times, corporatist are not capitalist. They are using the State to reach a profit and exclude competition. As you've seen from the post of more capitalist minded people, they are for competition, not to restrict it. They are for freedom of choice. It's sad that you can't see the many people in Congress lobbying for laws in favor of the corporations they represent.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Besides by privatizing all fields of health care along with having wide influences within the government those same medical insurance corporations already enjoy their positions quite well under a capitalist private based system in regards to having complete control in how health care is monetarily provided.
    Actually, no, because a lot of competition would spring up. If there are no rules or regulations that keeps their power in place, and they happen to be gone, and there's no objection to free competition, and plus they wouldn't have to raise cost to comply with government fees and rules, competition would freely spring up (nothings holding them back) and those companies would have to lower prices and compete fairly on the market. You should look more into the health care industry and see how much of it is not free. Obamacare or Universal Healthcare is like putting gasoline on the fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Tell that to the many millions of people uninsured who find themselves in bankruptcy courts and thousands of dollars in debt because they can't afford to make medical payments.
    Go to a hospital or clinic (like Patient First) in your town and ask a doctor why costs are so high, and why waiting is so long. Ask why so much paperwork must be filled and and who's deciding what must be complied with. Better yet, ask Congressman Ron Paul who's a certified doctor. He'll tell you first hand what's wrong with what we have.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Even having medical insurance is no guarantee to help either because the medical insurance companies only pay so much where it is still expensive on the average citizen who still has to largely pay out of pocket even with having insurance with what insurance companies refuse to pay for.
    With everyone I know that has insurance that's not the case. There is a good price difference in having insurance and not depending on what you are getting. With my female friends who do and don't have health insurance there's easily a 30 dollar price difference in their birth control, that's a lot of money.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    What's the reason why? The business of medical care is grossly expensive to which medical corporations along with insurance companies refuse to lower their prices when it concerns giving care to people.
    They don't refuse to lower prices, they can't.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  10. #10
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Congressman Ron Paul on the subject:

    Before the US House of Representatives, September 23, 2009

    Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.

    Points to consider:

    1. No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

    2. If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.

    3. Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States have deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.

    4. More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.

    5. Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.

    6. First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.

    7. The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.

    8. Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.

    9. The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.

    10. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.

    11. Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.

    12. Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.

    13. The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.

    14. The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.

    Early on, medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.

    15. Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.

    16. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician's income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

    17. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

    True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.
    From More Government Won't Help.

    Also, Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom, Healthcare Reform Is Economic Malpractice, Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy, Healthcare Is a Good Not a Right, and Ron Paul Introduces Three New Bills Designed To Restore Free Speech To Health. I'm sure if you do a Google search or look on the Mises site you'll find dozens of articles by Ron Paul on this, as well as the link I posted in my first post on this thread that's already to dozens of articles you probably won't read.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Should The U.S. Have National Health Care?
    By Deary in forum The United States
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: Friday, October 16th, 2009, 02:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •