Well, it’s coming down to the wire; the Obama Administration is perhaps just weeks away from enacting legislation that will put our loved ones’ health in the hands of a colossal government bureaucracy comprised of nameless/faceless administrators, drive up job-killing taxes through massive spending, create huge waiting lists for life-saving procedures, cause a shortage of doctors, significantly harm the middle class and poor, elicit health-care rationing as we’ve never before experienced, and, in the end, bring us an inferior level of healthcare.
All of these are certain to be true…and presenting our case like this is exactly the WRONG way to win the hearts and minds of those we are trying to persuade.
Instead, we must communicate the issue at the very heart of this matter and which – as far as I can tell – no one; including any of the usual “Pro-Economic Liberty” pundits, are explaining.
In fact, the Pro-Universal Crowd has done a brilliant job of framing a false argument:
“Do we stick with a Free-Market Healthcare system which is not working?”
or…
“Do we at least do something to try and help; for example, go to a system of Universal Healthcare?”
And (anti-Constitutionality aside), that question would make sense, except…
WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE A FREE-MARKET BASED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. (Sorry for shouting but has nobody noticed that??!!)
Actually, we haven’t had a market-based healthcare system in over 50 years. When we did, it worked magnificently well for everyone, including the financially disadvantaged. Only after government first inched its way in and then eventually controlled nearly every aspect of it did we find ourselves in the predicament we are currently in, with the masses now asking the government to solve the very problem they created (I can’t think of anything more nonsensical).
While I explain all this in my five-part series, Check Your Healthcare Premises, it hardly matters if we don’t effectively communicate this faulty premise to those who advocate Socialized (i.e. Socialistic) Healthcare.
We must “control the frame” and re-direct the argument from a choice between a current “free-market” system (which it is not) that doesn’t work (and it doesn’t) and a socialized system of healthcare that will be absolutely disastrous…and offer a third choice; indeed, the only choice that can work, and – even better – has proven to work; a healthcare system based on the free market.
The next time someone presents the argument as the false choice of two, simply tell them (with no defensiveness): “We don’t have a free market healthcare system.”
They will say, “Of course we do; how can you say that we don’t?”
You respond: “There are 133,000 pages of health care regulation in the U.S. Federal Register. Please tell me why you would consider that to be free market.”
You have just reframed the debate. Now, he/she must explain why today’s system IS market-based instead of you explaining that our current government-controlled system works just fine (which it doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t and it doesn’t do anyone any good when anyone tries to say differently).
They might, in desperation, say, “but something has to change.”
You respond: “Absolutely healthcare needs to change. Wouldn’t you agree that the right change is to the system that worked before; the free market? After all, you are genuinely concerned that people who truly need medical care get it, aren’t you?”
Again, you’ve reframed this to highlight the benevolence of the free market rather than an “I don’t care about others” attitude that they wrongly believe.
Important: Once the person recognizes (or, your reader or listener understands) that the free market is not to blame for our current healthcare woes, you can offer a third alternative; that we get government OUT of our healthcare system and go back to the excellent system we once had (either read my five-part series or utilize information you already know that provides the benefits of a free-market healthcare system).
The key is that – once you set the correct premise and offer the third alternative, you must remain totally disciplined to not get “sucked into” arguing their false dilemma and continue to bring it back to the correct premise.
If we can do this consistently, and teach our fellow lovers of liberty how to do the same, then not only will we not be saddled with a socialized system of healthcare that we’ll never be able to reverse, but we’ll provide everyone; including the children, the elderly and the financially disadvantaged with the benefits of the one healthcare system that truly works…the free market.
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
Wow Bob!
What a well written and very timely blog article. I literally was pulled in to a personal attack the other day by ” friends ” who took offense to a comment I made about the health care system. It was completely taken out of context and by the time they all had at it, I was not only left to feel as though I didn’t care about the woes of my fellow man, but a racist because I must have some other reasons behind not supporting our current administration. I was dumbfounded to say the least. When trying to explain my position, I simply stated that doctors should be allowed to doctor and the government should stick to affairs of the government. It has been a long time since I worked in the medical field, but I can well remember what it was like when HMO’s came on the scene and the frustration they caused not only for those seeking treatment, but well meaning health care practioners who were wanting to provide those necessary treatments but couldn’t because now their hands were tied. I wished I would have used some of the points above to explain my position. I instead dropped the subject not wishing to participate additionally in an ” arguement” that was going no where FAST!
Once again, you have worded perfectly a well presented, balanced and educated response to our current dilemma. Thank you!
Hi Bob,
I still don’t get how we can fix our current BROKEN health care system. I thought single payer was the answer… alot like the French system. Or perhaps the German system. I do know that the results are dismal… we in the us pay twice as much and are #37 in the world regarding quality.
Can you give an specific examples of how a true free market health system would work today in the US?
Would your free market system still be employee based? Seems like the only employees who win here are those that are part of very large corporations. … Small biz and self employed are disadvantaged….
You might have covered it before but the links to previous health installments get sidetracked into welfare and other areas. THis results in me not being able to see JUST the health care articles. I’d like to see links like these four: Part1 Part2 Part3 Part4
Thanks! Bob O
Keep both guns blazing Bob! Someone told me the other day that Maggie Thatcher once said, “The trouble with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. I would put that in my pantheon of quotes alongside Winston Churchill’s “IF you’re 20 and not socialistic then you don’t have a heart, BUT if you’re 40 and still socialistic, you don’t have a brain”.
Politicos who are great at using our tax money to fund all and sundry who are living off the system rather than being productive contributors to the economy of the country, need to be stopped before they have us all on gov’t doled out dollars…
Thank you Gina, Bob and Paul for your comments.
Bob, I’m a bit confused as to how you can say that you *still* don’t get how we can fix our current BROKEN health care system when, within your comments, you admitted to not having read the series.
Indeed the answer to your question in the second paragraph can be found within my articles and I’d rather not take the space here to reprint the entire series :-). Partway down today’s article is a link to part one of my five-part series. Just start there. After you read the series you’ll know the answers to your above questions. In order to understand this very important issue, you can’t rely on television soundbites but must understand the situation in context. Thank you for your interest, and I hope you will choose to read the articles.
Paul, I have great admiration for Churchill but never understood why he thought that a 20-something who is not socialisic is heartless. Doesn’t that pre-suppose that the 20-something thinks that socialism is a benevolent ecomic system? Instead, let’s hope our 20-somethings understand that free-enterprise (which includes charity and loving-kindness) is actually the system that has the most heart and the most benefit to all. And, if one is going to be poor, they are MUCH better off being poor in a Capitalistic society than in a socialist one.
the current system may not be free market as you say, but the insurance companies certainly have free will to NOT pay for medical treatments that doctors recommend to save the lives of patients. as an employee of a major corporation or a federal agency, i am covered by insurance and i pay premiums (as does my company) weekly or bi weekly. say i have a catastrophic accident or i come down w/ a terminal illness. the insurance company can dick around with my life and say “no, we think that treatment is experimental” or “you forgot to tell us on your original application that you were treated for allergies once upon a time in your life, so we are dropping you.” these are the dirty tricks they play and have testified to in congressional hearings. yes, it has to change and because the system now is all about PROFIT & not about making sure people live when it all comes down to it, i will take what you call the “socialized” system any day over what we are currently offered.
anyone who has traveled to other countries and has observed how their systems work knows that the whole “social medicine” argument is BS.
Dear M Boyd,
Thank you for writing and expressing your opinion. I get the feeling from your letter that you didn’t read the articles, but that’s okay. Allow me to briefly respond to some of your points because it’s important that we keep seeing the importance of checking premises and placing situations within their proper context.
You wrote: the current system may not be free market as you say, but the insurance companies certainly have free will to NOT pay for medical treatments that doctors recommend to save the lives of patients.
Bob responds: That only proves my point. You see, that can ONLY happen in a system that has lost its free-market aspect. In a truly free-market system, no insurance company would *dare* to do that. Why; because they are nice? No, because it would run totally contrary to their own self-interest. They’d *lose their customers.* That’s the beauty of a free market; it rewards good and it punishes bad. Is there something about that you would not like? Because the current way certainly doesn’t seem to be working for you.
You wrote: “…these are the dirty tricks they play and have testified to in congressional hearings.”
Bob responds: See my above answer. This is what I’m trying to tell you. Unfortunately, you’re seeing the current situation as something that happened on its own. It did not. It happened – gradually at first – from the moment government began taking control of our once terrific health care system.
You wrote: “…and because the system now is all about PROFIT & not about making sure people live when it all comes down to it…”
Bob: Actually, as far as the insurance companies were concerned, it was *always* about profit. However, with a market-based system, if they didn’t pay what they owed, they lost lots and lots of business. I’m hoping that you are beginning to see that the premise upon which you are basing your conclusions are not accurate. It’s understandable, of course; what I’m talking about usually isn’t brought up. You are most likely learning your health care economics from a media and society that has a false understanding of what Capitalism really is (and what it isn’t) and will typically blame Capitalism without looking at the context of why a situation has taken a present form.
You wrote (continued): “…i will take what you call the “socialized” system any day over what we are currently offered.”
Bob responds: Well, now I’m thinking you might not have even read *this* article because, as I clearly wrote, our current system is nothing to be happy with. No there is a third alternative; *go back to* a free-market based system. Does that make sense? Or, have you simply made up your mind that “free market is bad and socialism is good?” If that’s the case then I’m afraid nothing I can say will help.
You wrote: “anyone who has traveled to other countries and has observed how their systems work knows that the whole “social medicine” argument is BS.”
Bob responds: Note the first word you wrote, “anyone.” You’re saying that anyone (meaning everyone) *knows* this? I would strongly disagree. Actually, I have found a very tiny percentage that agree with you on this. Of course, I’m not saying “no one.” But I hear more horror stories in this regard. I also hear stories that someone was treated nicely and received good treatment. Of course, it’s supposed to be that way. But, really, look at what you said; “anyone.” To me – and with all respect – when I see or hear someone use that word, it causes me to question their entire argument.
I hope that my responses provided you with something to consider. Thank you again for joining our discussion.
Best regards,
Bob
Hi Bob,
You have a great premise about changing the arguement. And you’re absolutely right about the health care system not being a free market system. However you also really need to define what a free market means to you.
People mean different things when they say free market. You seem to imply by your discussion of the number of pages of regulations around the health care industry that any goverment involvement is bad. But you have to look at why those regulations exist in the first place — it was probably that people got sick or died as a result of something happening.
The first point that comes to mind is how is “the market” going to ensure the safety of patients? You could regulate safety standards or you could just let hospital adminstrators do as they wish and let the market decide how many people it’s acceptable to get infected and die after they’ve had surgery. Of course, in a free market there is no way to know how many patients got sick and died in any hospital as a result of, say the decision to cut sterilization to save costs, because there is no one individual who has the the incentive or resources to collect that information (assuming they could get the information). Of course, with out a reguation, there is no reason to disclose deaths or even investigate why the death occured.
You can see the affects of a lack of goverment regulation in a number of areas. The first is at the root cause of housing bubble– which were driven by the Wild West of complex financial instruments that simple were not regulated in many cases, and where there were regulations they were ignored.
The simple point here is that it would be useful to define what you really want and mean by free market. I think that not only yourself, but most people, do not want or believe a truly free market is desirable. It’s easy to blame goverment for messing things up. It’s also easy to blame the goverment when something goes wrong and then say “Why didn’t they stop that?”.
I look forward to hearing what more you have to say on the topic.
Hi Larry,
Thank you for your letter. Let me first answer your first point. You wrote, “However you also really need to define what a free market means to you.”
I absolutely did define Capitalism in my article, “Capitalism vs. Socialism – Understanding Premises, Part 2 http://bit.ly/eH9QS (and continues into the next article). I realize you probably don’t have time to read the entire series but it might be helpful for you to do so if you’re going to write in, just so I’m not asked to explain what I’ve already explained in detail.
Please feel free to look back over my entire series as I believe you’ll find I answer your other concerns.You’ll also see that I clearly say that government does have the legitimate Constitutional (and practical) function to protect its citizens against force and fraud. Any rules and regulations over a few simple pages are merely repeating those basic functions. And, if a hospital (administrator, doctor, etc.) acts in such a way as to seriously harm or kill someone (or just rip them off financially), they are held liable under the law and will face possible jail time. Threat of jail or loss of substantial monies has always proven to be a bigger deterrant than a bunch of bureucratic rules and regulations. Please read the article and let me know if that now makes sense to you.
Before I go on to your next concern, in your third paragraph you talk about the market not being able to ensure or regulate. Actually, that is not true. In a free market economy there are many 3rd party media that – because there is financial incentive to them – would take on that responsibility. In fact, in other fields that is already the case. While explaining this is beyond the scope of this answer (but will one day be a full blog post), think of 3rd party certifiers such as the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval”, “Standard & Poor’s”, etc. who provide peace of mind to the consumer. And, if willing to take responsibility for research, make sure you study “Consumer Reports” magazine before buying or leasing your next car. Again, this is beyond scope of this response but absolutely the market can ensure the safety of patients.
But, the point I have to really call you on, Larry, with all respect, is the following. You wrote: You can see the affects of a lack of goverment regulation in a number of areas. The first is at the root cause of housing bubble– which were driven by the Wild West of complex financial instruments that simple were not regulated in many cases, and where there were regulations they were ignored.”
Larry, the housing bubble was absolutely *not* caused by “lack of government regulation.” Just the opposite. Please check out the following article http://bit.ly/U310d which was at the conclusion of my very first article. This is a guest article that should clarify the actual situation. You’ll see that it did not involve the free market. Again, just the opposite.
You are very well-meaning, Larry. It’s obvious to see that. But you have a bias against Capitalism/Free-Market that causes you to assume that problems “must” be caused by the market instead of by the government. Please continue to ask question, but please check all your premises. Don’t assume that because the television “reporter” tells you that the cause is Capitalism, that that is the cause. Ask why it is; ask how it might have happened. Ask what the context was when it happened. Nothing takes place in a vacuum.
And, if you’ll go back through and read my series, you’ll see that I’m very careful to explain this.
Thank you again,
Bob
You do understand, that currently, we allow CEO’s and Board Members of Corporations to govern the people of America when it comes to Heath care? They tell you, when you can get help, how they can get help, exactly who they can get help by, when they can get this help, and how much of the health care will be paid.
The Health care system IS a free market system that was forced to be regulated… The quality of health care has greatly improved because of the regulations put in by the Gov. Regulations that “HAD” to be put in place, did you read the 13,000 documents?
It covers Americans … Safety, that the Corporations ignored. Testing drugs on people without telling them, lie to them on what was in pills, oh the list is 13k pages long.
Now sure how you can say this isn’t a free market when the major players bought up all the small guys. Isn’t that the exact free market working how it should? Isn’t it the free market that allows them to charge $300 for $6 pills?
The inclusion of regulation does not mean the end of a free market. That’s like saying, Laws make it so the people aren’t free.
Gov regulations has saved the entire fabric of America from being torn apart by Corporations.
The U.S. Gov is already a Social Gov. We are surrounded by Fed and State level social programs, that if we didn’t have our Country would be worthless. Fed employees already have a great medical system, already force the prices, and it’s not handled by bureaucrats.
As an American who’s Wife costs me $3000 a month for Insurance, random times the Insurance company doesn’t agree with the doctor on the pills needed (same pills as always), so $500 out of my pocket or my wife dies….
I will take Gov Social healthcare, even VA level (I’m a Marine) – any day of the week.
I also lived and worked in Canada for two years. I paid taxes in Canada and used the Canadian health care system twice. I have never had better, faster, or cheaper ($0 total) service in my life.
The increase in taxes, is cheaper than the “Average” American pays for Medical Insurance now.
My business partner is Canadian too. His eye glasses, dentist work, laser surgery on the eyes as an adult, and even ice packs, 100% covered from birth to death.
Stop being Anti Obama/Left/Dem and start supporting America as an American who cares about his fellow citizens rather than your own selfish reasons. (ie money and greed)
~Doc
Opps, forgot a number, not 13000 pages… it’s 133,000 pages.
Dear Chris and Dr. Shorty,
I’ve read each of Bob’s articles concerning this matter. From everything I gather, he is not (a) arguing that the current system is fine, or (b) advocating some “experiment” in deregulation.
He has simply done his homework and discovered that Americans have already had a system that did work … for doctors, patients and even the government. (This really isn’t debatable since all objective measurements of cost and quality of care support Bob’s premise in this regard).
From what I’m reading of his comments, he is simply advocating a return to a system that worked – prior to the influence peddling that bought and paid for legislators to enact laws and regulations that were designed to create monopolies, elevate prices and limit competition and individual choice.
Many don’t realize that legislation favoring corporations is quite often not free market capitalism at all and that big corporations love big government because they can lobby for loopholes or regulations that make the barrier to competition insurmountable. (Much like the government procurement process that allows vendors to lobby for job specifications that only they can meet – whether or not they are really needed – in order to make it an uncontested bid. That’s how we get $750 coffee makers, and ham at twice the market value etc…)
Bob is simply suggesting that we go with a tried and true system versus socialization (mandatory) which is both unConstitutional and inefficient. (NOTE: Just because you paid nothing out of pocket AT THE TIME OF THE SERVICE or that your partner has his eyeglasses and everything else PREPAID THROUGH TAXES OR FINANCED BY FUTURE GENERATIONS THROUGH GOVERNMENT DEBT – does not mean that it’s free or provided by the government. It is provided (at gunpoint) by yourself and fellow citizens. And, it is NOT efficient when compared to the system of true free market healthcare that we once had).
All the Best,
Thom
Eh, this is ignorance.
You claim it isn’t really a free market. Well in actuality, the thing the matters most, cost, has always been something the industry has had control over, regardless of the regulation.
Do you honestly think health care will get cheaper when you make it a free market? Exactly what will cause health care to be more affordable? All you’ve done is claimed it worked better back when it really was a “free market.”
But that doesn’t explain why current socialized medicines worked. Of why health care got better under Clinton.
Socialized medicine is better than our current situation. Dropping all the rules isn’t a guarantee to make things better, especially if you haven’t proven that the rules are the reason it’s so bad now, which you haven’t.
Hi Chris And DrShorty,
Thank you both for writing. I’m always happy to answer questions and respond to concerns. What’s getting a bit frustrating is answering the same questions (or basic questions) that you could find the answers to if you’d read my previous articles. It’s not that I expect you to read all of them but I do believe it would be helpful for you to actually know my correct thoughts instead of accusing me of things that are simply untrue…IF you want your comments to be the most productive to our discussion.
Instead of copying and pasting responses to all of what you both wrote (again, because much of it is repeating the same foundational answers as I have previously and which are already in my articles) I’ll make some general responses, if that’s okay (please go back to your letter to match up the responses):
1. Yes, I do realize that major corporations run healthcare. And, if you’d read my past articles (not just the ones on healthcare but others throughout my series on Capitalism vs. Socialism) you’d realize that that is NOT Capitalism. While I try and be patient in my responses, I must admit that it’s those kinds of things – where you’re dogmatically telling my why I’m wrong – when we’re not even in disagreement that causes me to not feel these exchanges are as productive as they could be. If you equate big corporations buying influence from congress with “capitalism” then I’m afraid you really need to go back and check your premises. That is *not* Capitalism.
2, Your second paragraph is a contradiction in itself so I really can’t answer it accurately. And, I don’t have to read all 133,000 pages to know that it’s not a free market system (Heck, you couldn’t read 15 of my pages). I’ve read more than enough of the rules and regs to be persuaded. By the way, many of the rules on those pages, Chris, were bought and paid for by those corporations you don’t like and who you are compalining about (and, which I would agree with you on). Any thoughts on that? Agree? Disagree? Again, going back to my articles you haven’t read (and I can safely assume that because if you had you wouldn’t be making the comments you are), you would see that I believe government absolutely has legitimate functions to protect and defend its citizens from force and fraud. And, that should certainly take up some pages in the Federal Register. But, 130,000, Chris?
3. 3rd paragraph. Of course, again, legitimate function of government; to protect from force and fraud.
4. Regarding big companies buying up the small companies. Check your premises. The huge degree this has happened is because the “big guys” have purchased special favors from Congress that keeps down the competition. Think lobbyists, re-election campaign coffers, etc. (Again, that is *not* free enteprise.) I almost don’t blame you for not knowing this because it runs past the surface of the issue. Then again, if you’re writing letters telling me in no uncertain terms why I am wrong, you probably should at least familiarize yourself with these things. By the way, do a study of monopolies in the U.S. throughout our history and you’ll see they could ONLY happen when those companies either bought protection from government or it was a government-sponsored monopoly in the first place.
Oh, and regarding the huge, overcharges for the pills? Again, Chris, get government to take the competition out of play for you and you can do that. Again, that is *not* free enterprise.
5. Okay, you wrote: “The inclusion of regulation does not mean the end of a free market. That’s like saying, Laws make it so the people aren’t free.”
My goodness, Chris. With all respect, now you’re just throwing things out there that are totally nonsensical. First, if you read my past articles, you’d *know* that’s not what I’m saying. The Rule of Law is the basis of any free society. By the very “definition of the thing” that means there must be rules and laws. And, those rules and laws are there to protect the rights of the individual. So, when you say something like you just did that really is counter-productive to your credibility. No disrespect meant; I appreciate the passion you have for your belief. But, we really need to not go the route of making anaologies or similies such as those. It’s just plain incorrect.
And, Chris, when you next say, “Gov regulations has saved the entire fabric of America from being torn apart by Corporations.”
Chris, who do you think benefits from these regulations?? It’s the big corporations. This is how they control the game and “un-level” the playing field. Please do some research. Read some books on this topic other than those you are used to reading.
Your next paragarph (again, no disrespect intended) simply goes all over the place and I don’t really know what point you’re even trying to make.
That you say you would take socialized medicine even at Veterans Administration level is surprising to me based on the horrific care so many of our great veterans have received, but that is certainly your opinion to have (and we appreciate your service). As are your other opinions.
However, your final sentence I cannot let go without commenting on. You wrote: Stop being Anti Obama/Left/Dem and start supporting America as an American who cares about his fellow citizens rather than your own selfish reasons. (ie money and greed)
Bob: First, I’m not anti-anybody, so long as they don’t try and force me to live in a way that is contrary to my values and principles. Force is the key word. If you had read my any of my previous articles, you’ll have seen that I have never once (never once!) disapraged a political party over the other (in fact, I claim in my articles that neither has done their job in fulfilling their legitimate functions) and had never once mentioned President Obama until that last article, and that was only to say, “The Obama Administration.” So, only after going through my articles and seeing differently should you make that claim. Otherwise, I believe an apology is owed.
Secondl (and much more importantly to me), shame on you, sir, for saying I don’t care about my fellow Americans and implying by your very words that I’m only interested in money and greed. Shame on you for making that kind of statement where you will see clearly in my articles (that I’m now more sure than ever that you haven’t read before spewing your opinions) that I am clearly an advocate of charity and charitable organizations, and I explain in detail how big government programs hurt the poor much more than help them. My articles state a problem and provide solutions. Indeed, they are free-market solutons, as I believe I’ve proven work best.
You are welcome to disagree and I’ll be glad to print your letters. But leave the name-calling out, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about (which you would had your read/paid attention to before writing). Remember something, my good man; in all my writings I have never insulted the “intent” of a big-government advocate such as you. I understand that you base your opinions on what you feel will help those who cannot help themselves and I respect that. At the same time, good intent plus bad results, does not equal good results. And that’s why I write these articles. I don’t profit from them financially and certainly don’t expect to. If anything, these writings cause me to lose current and potential readers and clients. But, when you base what you do on principle, and respect the rights of others to have their opinions, you can always sleep comfortably at night.
DrShorty, regarding your letter, I answered most of it already above in my commnts to Chris. Regarding your question: “Do you honestly think health care will get cheaper when you make it a free market? Exactly what will cause health care to be more affordable? All you’ve done is claimed it worked better back when it really was a ‘free market.”
No sir, that’s not *all* I’ve done. And, yes, sir. I answered it in my series on Healthcare. Will you PLEASE read the articles before you coomment. It’s so much more helpful to everyone involved.
Again, I do thank you both for participating.
Bob
Actually I would prefer government bureaucrats being in charge rather than private industry bureaucrats who are trying to make a buck off of me by giving me the least and worst healthcare they can get away with.
As far as us not having free market healthcare, that is because the insurance companies and drug companies do not want it. They have used their tremendous financial resources to corrupt the system to enrich themselves, and they like it that way, and they would fight to make it that way again if free market healthcare were ever to appear.
The fact is that we have the most expensive and not the most efficient healthcare system in the world, and if you look at the studies, the countries that do significantly better in performance and cost effectiveness are the ones who have chosen some variation on single payer healthcare.
If the free market system is so much better why has it never succeeded? It is obvious that it has not or it’s supposed advantages would have made it wipe out the competition.
First, Bravo, Thom Scott for explaining my position much better than I did, and in much less time. 🙂
Michaelc, please read Thom’s explanation for answers to both your second and third paragraphs.
In answer to your first paragraph, my suggestion is to make a study of countries that are in close proximity to one another, have same ethnicities, natural resources, language, etc. but that their only difference is that one country is mostly free (Capitalist) and one is mostly unfree (Socialist). Then, simply compare lifestyles, length of life and quality of life of their citizens and see if you still come up with the same conclusion.
In answer to your fourth paragraph, your question is (and I really don’t know how to say it any other way so please forgive this appearance of disrespect) so absurd that I can hardly form an answer. The free market has worked every single time and in every single place where it’s been instituted. How can you even suggest otherwise? Regarding your last statement, its only competition is government. And government will *always* be in competition with free enterprise. And it will always grow and grow as long as the citizenry does not remain watchful. And, unfortunately, over the past 75-80 years we have done exactly that.
Some great insights Bob. Unfortunately as you can see in the comment stream, many people aren’t able to separate their emotions or look at the subject rationally, due to their entitlement and socialistic mentality. And some of their premises, as you so correctly point out are simply absurd.
Thank you, Randy. I appreciate your kind words. It’ll be interesting to see if some of the people whose questions and concerns I believe I answered (especially in terms of what would be considered false premises) will write back to acknowledge such. It’s not that I expect them to change their minds regarding the bigger picture (their opinions weren’t formed overnight and most likely won’t be changed that way, either) and I welcome all contrary opinions, but I do hope they will acknowledge that there were things they incorrectly claimed that I said or even believed. I guess we’ll see. 🙂
Bob,
Um . . . . I don’t even know where to start, except to say that I now see where today’s “word of the day” came from.
Thanks Randy! 😀
I’ll get back with a real comment when I recover from the shock of the absurdity!
-D
Bob, thanks for the excellent series and all of the responses you have patiently and professionally provided. Once readers have read your series, it’s obvious the masses are making emotional decisions carefully influenced by politicians from both major parties. While people want change, it needs to be educated, well thought out change. That starts by evaluating the premise… which you do precisely. To me, here is the ultimate acid test… why is it that President Obama will not comment on whether or not he will give up his current private health care plan in favor of universal health care? Americans in general, have accepted “do as I say, not as I do” for way too long from our federal government. When was the last time a family could spend more than it makes and not go bankrupt? As you stated, nothing is free… especially when the goverment is involved. Sooner or later… every single person in our country will be adversely affected by the out of control spending by the government. That has to stop. But first we definitely need to stop universal healthcare. Then we need to get big private money out of politics! Ultimately that’s the cause of the big problem here. Once we can elect citizens based on principles and values, instead of high priced campaign marketing, then we can effect the real change everyone so desperately seeks.
Tony, thank you for your kinds words about my series and responses, and for your well-thought out comments and suggestion that we need to approach this topic from a logical basis as opposed to an emotional one. Regarding removing the big private money out of politics, I believe that can happen *only after* our politicians are held to legislating within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. After all, if they no longer have the power to abuse (which they currently have), then the abuse of power will not be an option, and all the lobbying/special interest/campaign money they receive in return for rules that benefit those who contribute will all be for nothing. And, when it’s for *nothing*…it will dry up faster than anyone can imagine. 🙂 Thank you again.
David, thank you, as well.
Hi Bob,
Since I’ve been working in the healthcare field for a long time…long enough to have witnessed the effect of government regulations (before and after) on healthcare, I know that so many times it seems that CEOs and Case Managers have “the say” in what happens to a patient in a hospital, BUT it’s the government’s regulations that has caused CEOs and Case Managers in Hospitals to regulate too much.
If the CEOs do NOT follow the government’s rules, then the hospital is denied payment. A patient may never see that happen, because it happens after the fact. After the bill has been paid, the OIG (Office of Inspector General) and other government ran agencies comes in and takes money away…because the patient was kept in the hospital too long, too many tests were ran, the patient wasn’t sick enough, etc.
What we have been working with is just the tip of the iceburg and it is because of government regulations that are in place right now.
The government already tells doctors and CEOs that they can’t run certain tests on patients or prescribe medications for the medicare (government paid) population. The “tight” reins on healthcare will affect everyone with the “new plan”.
The insurance companies follow what the government does…(snow ball effect).
When the government could be protecting us from insurance craziness, it causes more craziness.
I’m not sure craziness is the right description, but from what I’ve seen on the other side of the doors in healthcare, it’s the best word I can come up with…
I’m writing an article for a medical magazine titled “The Games We Play” which touches on this subject just a little. I will share it with you later…
Keep writing…
Thank you for understanding…
Pamela
Bob,
Thank you for putting this together so succinctly. I would add that your point applies equally well to the bailout/takeover of the financial markets. Both our current and previous president erroneously stated that the free market system was not working–when we didn’t even have one. They then used that as justification for increasing regulation and oversight of the same industries which should have (in my opinion) been permitted to fail for lack of good business sense.
My hope is that enough people are beginning to realize the fallacy of that conclusion and will determine that they do not wish to be taken in again. Your work and words to this end are appreciated.
Hi Michael, thank you. Yes, it holds true for the bailouts/takeovers and every other area in which people unfortunately default to blaming the free-market when, indeed, there was not a free-market. I believe that this basic false premise is the one concept that *must* be corrected before we can ever have an intelligent discussion in this country regarding Capitalism vs. Socialism, small government vs. big government, etc. And, perhaps the most frustrating thing to me personally is receiving comments from people that equate corporate ownership of government as being free-market when, of course, it is not; it is just the opposite.
Pamela, thank you. I’ve read some of your other commentaries in this regard and I’m more and more amazed at how much government intervention in our healtcare situation we actually have. And, that adds to the frustration when receiving a comment or hearing a pundit on television comparing Socialized Medicine with our “current” free-market system. Again, the key is getting the point across that we do *not* currently have a free-market health care system. And, you’re excellent points demonstrate just how far from that we actually are. Thank you for your very illuminting comments. It would be interesting to receive comments on that from some of those who’ve posted comments with opposing views.
Hi Bob,
I would welcome any comments with opposing views as long as the comments are polite :-). At least, if there’s comments than I know someone is paying attention. Yet, paying attention doesn’t really do much unless there’s some genuine and honest “education” behind the paying attention (self-taught or otherwise).
Think about this: when other countries that have complete (meaning, not just the elderly and disabled, but everybody) “socialized” healthcare, warn the U.S. to NOT go to “socialized medicine”, I believe that speaks louder than anything I can say…maybe…
Thank you for your part in always giving me a positive place to “say” something about what I’ve been witnessing…
Pamela
My concerns for the USA on this proposed program are based on my personal experiences as a RN from a country that has a socialized health care system. Although there is access it is some what limited by age and other medical factors and availability. At the moment I know of my sisters friend 45 years old diagnosed with breats cancer 6 months ago and she is waiting for a crumbling system to fit her in for treatment. As her two young children watch their Mom get sicker. My own grandmother with a broken hip not given rehab so is now unable to move the joint as it has fuzed and will spend the rest of her years in a wheelchair and nursing home which she pay’s an extra $1500 a month for because apparently in her years as a laborer on a chicken farm she earned too much, saved her money in the bank lived frugally and now gives all of her money at age 101 years to the government each month for her free health care. People wait for treatment- and on top of the huge amount of taxes you pay in a country like Canada if you are working you pay a monthly premium because you can. So reality it’s not free. I would never deny anyone the opportunity to access healthcare. I am totally compassionate about the need for acess however, this plan will put more people out of work-who can afford this sytem right now and lets be honest do we want the givernment telling us how to care for our health- they don’t seem to have much luck with the few programs they have attempted to run. I have 2 family members who are MD’s and specialists in Canada their salaries are capped so after working 7 days a week shortly into the year they cap out. However, they continue to work and not get paid. I persaonlly feel this is not a free market and I think anyone could figure out this is a true socialist belief. The shortage of healthcare providers in Canada and the USA is at an all time critical high. This system does not make it feasible for anyone to desire entering into the profession which I have felt so rewarded in-except financially. Doctors sacrifice money time and rewards for their profession why would we continue to rob them of being treated and paid fairly for the most needed work? This proposed reform needs time to be thoughly reviewed not shoved through becuse of a Promised deadline. WE need a system to fit all Americans and perhaps we should review Hillary Clinton’s plan from her years of effort it was more feasible then this one.
Hi Kathy – thank you for writing. My heart breaks for those you talk about in your letter. I’m so sorry. And, yes, for ALL the reasons you share above, we should not have Socialized medicine. My only queston to you is why – after all you just said – would you think that Hillary Clinton’s plan would be significantly less harmful. First, while there might be some differences, it would still be governmenn-run which, as you strongly acknowledge, doesn’t work. Plus, Mrs. Clinton’s plan was -like all government programs – just a starting point. Despite what they promise, it always grows and grows as time goes on and the special interests and politicians get their hands on it.
My question is How can you compare the healthcare system of 50 years ago to the current industry today? Are we to assume that what worked 50 years ago will work today?
Hi Rebecca, thank you for your excellent questions. In answer to your first question, we *must* compare the two in order to know where we stand and what went wrong with it. Remember, we once had a tremendous healthcare system that was the envy of the world and certainly served our citizenry, including the poor and disadvantaged. The conclusion we can easily come to – if you simply trace it back – is that from the time government intruded, and continued to intrude more and more into our healthcare system, that’s when it began to go downhill and has continued to do so. The next question should then be, “so will having more government (i.e. the complete government takeover being proposed – and, make no mistake, that’s what it is) be helpful or even more harmful? It seems the answer is obvious but apparently it is not.
Regarding your second question, the answer is yes. Economic principles don’t change. Take for example, your local grocery store. It’s basically market-driven. Over the last fifty years, by remaining market-driven you now have more choices of different foods and other items than you ever had before. And, at reasonable prices since the store owner knows you always have the option of visiting his/her competitor. That’s one small example. They are endless.
Thank you again for writing, Rebecca.
If anyone wants an up close and personal review on the kind of healthcare Obama wants, contact me. Much of my family live in Canada and experience both poor/inadequate care AND delayed care. My mother suffers from Parkinsons Disease and wasn’t even being treat by a neurologist! Her said he couldn’t do a referral to one, so she was stuck with him. When I brought her to the states to live with me, her doctor immediately referred her to a specialist who was aghast at the medication that she was receiving. It was completely wrong for her. Her family doc was quite upset also at the meds she was prescribed for other things, such as diabetes. Since she’s been here, she looks 10 years younger and has more energy than she’s had for years.
Shari, thank you for sharing. Heaven forbid someone should ever have to go through something like that. The fear and frustration must have been intolerable. I can’t imagine anyone reading your story and some of the other similar stories and still feeling determined that socialized medicine is the way to go. Meanwhile, I’m very glad your Mom is feeling and looking better. Good for her!!
Hmmm Bob – sad to see you politicizing. I thought you were about giving business advice and ideas not political ideology. You have of course, alienated half of your blog audience with your right wing rhetoric.
Hi Jean, Thank you for writing. Actually, if you’ve been reading my ezine for any part of the past 10 years you know that I have from time-to-time written about politicial issues. I’ve never shied away from that; I’ve merely expressed my views in a way that did not insult others as much as tried to express the reason for my views.
Key point: I’m not right wing at all and, if you’ve read any of my other politically-based articles, you’d certainly know that. Right wing is typically associated with government being involved in a person’s morals and left wing with government being involved in a person’s finances. I don’t want government involved in either.
My Libertarian-based philosophy is simply that: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.
Do you disagree with that philosophy? If so, then it simply means we disagree. But to categorize me as right wing, left wing or…even “lord of the wings” 🙂 I don’t believe is very productive.
Regarding your saying that I’ve alienated half of my blog audience; the numbers disagree with that statement, Jean. Again, because anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I’m not right or left wing. I simply believe that Liberty is the best answer. They also know that I don’t insult anyone else for their views while I express mine.
Thank you again for writing.
Ok – I’ll concede the point about classifying your statements as right wing. How about anti-government instead, which, as you said, is essentially a Libertarian position.
I disagree with your narrow definition of right wing and left wing. While both factions have some of the elements you mention I believe that right wing is more about supporting the traditional status quo which includes “moral’ values. I believe left wing supports socicial change which allows people to indeed have equal access to “living their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.” We do indeed have our government (and yes, our taxes) to thank for many things such as police and fire protection, transportation systems (roads), education, and hopefully, someday equal access to health care. Government rules, regulations, and taxes are necessary sometimes to keep us safe and allow us to enjoy the quality of life and freedoms we value.
We obviously disagree.
Yes, I do know that from time to time you venture into political philosophy in your blog. This particular blog was definitely in that category. After all, you entitled it “REALLY Want To Defeat Socialized Medicine? Then You’d Better “Change The Argument” – anyone who reads that title would know that a political position, not a lesson on persuasive speech will follow. I generally find that distasteful, but it is your blog and you certainly have the right to say anything you wish just as I have the right to either disagree or not read it. I’ve followed your blog, and purchased and read/listened to your programs because I believe you have sound ideas about business and relationships. I do believe it alienates members of your audience when you venture away from that.
Hi Jean, thank you for your letter back. Please scroll down for individual replies to your responses, as this (especially our first paragraph) is very important:
Jean wrote: Ok – I’ll concede the point about classifying your statements as right wing. How about anti-government instead, which, as you said, is essentially a Libertarian position.
Bob responds: You just said above, attributing the words to me, “anti-goverment instead, which *as you said*, is essentially a Libertarian posiition.” Jean, when did I ever, ever in any one of my writings, ever say that the Libertarian position is anti-government? Do you realize you just quoted me as saying something that I never said? Not once. Please go back into any of my writings on this blog or anywhere and see where I have even once defined Libertarianism as being anti-government. You will never find it because I’ve never said it. {While, indeed there may be “fringe-type” Libertarians who’ve said or written that, I never have, nor have any of the mainstream Libertarians I’m in contact with.} I hope you will write back and acknowledge this as a fact.
And, just so you know, I’m not at all anti-government. I believe a Federal Government is necessary. It is necessary to protect our individual rights. It has two main legitimate functions, and that is to protect us (its citizens) from foreign invasion and from internal violence, which includes fraud. This is why there is a court system. And, of course, a case can be made for infrastructure and some other limited areas. As a Libertarian, I defined my philosophy in my previous response: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.” Nowhere in there is there a mention of hating government. The desire to limit government to carrying out its legitimate Constitutional functions should not be confused with hate, and I don’t see where you got that or why you would put such words into my mouth.
Jean wrote: I disagree with your narrow definition of right wing and left wing. While both factions have some of the elements you mention I believe that right wing is more about supporting the traditional status quo which includes “moral’ values.
Bob: And it sounds as though both of us don’t want government involved in our moral values. Actually, I don’t mind their supporting it; I just don’t want them forcing it on anyone else.
Jean wrote: I believe left wing supports socicial change which allows people to indeed have equal access to “living their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”
Bob: I believe we agree with that, as well. If you can name me one area, Jean, in which my position differs from the above, please inform me. Keep in mind though the point about not infringing upon anyone else’s rights. I’m all for supporting social change but I certainly don’t want anyone forcing that change on anyone else. If you believe in force then, yes, we disagree.
Jean wrote: We do indeed have our government (and yes, our taxes)…
Bob: I’m not against taxes in order for government to carry out their legitimate Constitutional functions.
Jean wrote: … to thank for many things such as police and fire protection,
Bob: Actually, those are not supposed to be federal issues, but state and local. But, that’s fine. I certainly agree with you.
Jean wrote:…transportation systems (roads), education,
Bob: Education. Is that something you are thankful to our federal government for? Do you feel they’ve done a good job with that? Are you glad that the education of your children and the children of this nation (including the poor) are in the hands of the federal government?
Jean wrote: …and hopefully, someday equal access to health care.
Bob: Jean, have you not read my articles on this topic? People (especially the poor) will *not* have equal access to health care. They will have equal access to a waiting list. That is different. How many people not getting needed care for months and months while they are dying will it take for one to understand that access to a waiting list is not the same as access to high quality medical care? (And please don’t attribute me as saying it will be everyone. That’s not what I’m saying. But it will be enough people, as it is now. Please read some of the letters I’ve received. They are heartbreaking. No one should have to go through this). This is an area in which I truly wish I could understand the feelings of those who endorse socialized medicine/universal health care. I mean, I know you must have a good, caring heart. Most advocates of socialized medicine do. So why would you choose a system that will be so harmful? Remember, it’s not a choice between socialized medicine and our current system. Our current system stinks because of all the government regulation and collusion with the major health care companies and big pharma. The key is to get it out of their hands and back into the hands of the market, where it used to work so well? Health care is too important to put into the hands of government and the special interests for which they stand.
Jean wrote: Government rules, regulations, and taxes are necessary sometimes to keep us safe and allow us to enjoy the quality of life and freedoms we value.
Bob: Of course. Absolutlely! But when government rules and regulations are bought and paid for by the corporations that want special advantages, then it is wrong. And such is the relationship to a very high degree. Do you really think the governement is the friend of the poor? You might as well say, “hey fox; there’s the hen-house, please guard it.”
Jean wrote: We obviously disagree.
Bob: After reading what I’ve written about, do you still feel we disagree to the same level? Is anything I’m saying making sense or causing you to re-explore Socialized Medicine or the function of government? Or, do we simply disagree?
Jean wrote: Yes, I do know that from time to time you venture into political philosophy in your blog. This particular blog was definitely in that category. After all, you entitled it “REALLY Want To Defeat Socialized Medicine? Then You’d Better “Change The Argument” – anyone who reads that title would know that a political position, not a lesson on persuasive speech will follow.
Bob: I think it was both. It was surely a political viewpoint. I also felt it was a good lesson in how to re-frame an argument. In the persuasion process, it is vital; it is key to set the frame, or premise correctly. I’ve discussed that in many previous articles. Do you not feel this article did the same? I mean, I thought I made that point but perhaps I was wrong.
Jean wrote: I generally find that distasteful, but it is your blog and you certainly have the right to say anything you wish just as I have the right to either disagree or not read it. I’ve followed your blog, and purchased and read/listened to your programs because I believe you have sound ideas about business and relationships. I do believe it alienates members of your audience when you venture away from that.
Bob: I appreciate your opinion and your taking the time to present your opinion. Thank you.
Bob, Interpretation of language is subjective and much is inferred from context. You said “Right wing is typically associated with government being involved in a person’s morals and left wing with government being involved in a person’s finances. I don’t want government involved in either. My Libertarian-based philosophy is simply that: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”
Sounds Libertarian to me – Libertarian philosophy is generally considered to be “get the government out of my life philosophy – hence anti government to a large extent.” Here is the Wiki definition “Libertarianism is a term used to describe a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist”
I also believe that the scare tactics of long lines and poor service, used by those opposing single payer or government option health care are just that, “scare tactics” not necessarily based on abundance of fact. It is, of course, easy to find people who will tell their stories to support your position, just as it is easy to find those who will tell their stories to support a different position. The facts tell a different story, however. Infant mortality rates are higher in the US 6.26/1000 deaths per live births; Germany is 3.99; Norway is 3.58; and Sweden is 2.75. Life expectancy is also significantly lower in the US than in those countries. Those are facts that tell a story about the quality of health – countries that fare better than the US have “socialized” medicine.
By the way, the only people talking about “socialized” medicine are those opposed to government supported health care options in the US. Under every plan I’ve seen, no one would be FORCED to take the option, everyone would still have a choice for private insurance under whatever “market” is in effect.
Bob, we could continue this attack and parry of each others’ position for a long time. It is your blog, you may have the last word, I’m done. Besides, I’m way to busy advocating for government suppored health care options.
Jean
Hi Jean, again, please scroll down for individual responses…
Jean wrote: Bob, Interpretation of language is subjective and much is inferred from context.
Bob responds: But saying *I* said something when I did not is different from an inference.
Jean continues:…You said “Right wing is typically associated with government being involved in a person’s morals and left wing with government being involved in a person’s finances. I don’t want government involved in either. My Libertarian-based philosophy is simply that: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.” Sounds Libertarian to me
Bob responds: It is indeed Libertarian, which I have already stated.
Jean continues: – Libertarian philosophy is generally considered to be “get the government out of my life philosophy – hence anti government to a large extent.”
Bob responds. That is your interpretation, I guess, but it’s an incorrect one. I don’t see that as anti-government whatsoever. I believe government is very necessary… to do the things they are supposed to do. I see that as, where government is not Constitutionally authorized to be, yes, they shouldn’t be bothering any private citizen. That is not anti-government. That is simply a desire to have government serve only in the role in which it is supposed to serve.
Jean: Here is the Wiki definition “Libertarianism is a term used to describe a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist”
Bob responds: Jean, remember, anyone can post these comments and their own definitions. Mainstream Libertarians would define ourselves most closely with definition 1. There are the “fringe” people who go for definition 2. Regarding 3 and 4, never would a Liberarian be anti-property. And, again, the openly anarchist are more the fringe. Regardless, Jean, in using your common sense, and assuming you’ve read my writings, you know where I stand. I believe that government is basically hired by the people to protect our rights; not encroach upon them, be our nannies, etc.
Jean: I also believe that the scare tactics of long lines and poor service, used by those opposing single payer or government option health care are just that, “scare tactics” not necessarily based on abundance of fact.
Bob responds:How can you say that? These are real people who’ve had this happen to them and their families. Do you think they are all lying? I just read an article – actually written by Tom Campbell, former deputy minister of health and deputy minister of treasurey and economics for Onario – where he, while supposedly defending socialized healthcare is actually admitting these very things. These aren’t scare tactics. I must say that it sounds that if something does not support your position, you denounce it as not being the truth. Why is that?
Jean wrote: It is, of course, easy to find people who will tell their stories to support your position, just as it is easy to find those who will tell their stories to support a different position.
Bob responds: Jean, I didn’t ask people to write in with these things. And I certainly don’t know most of the people who I read about. Do you think there’s some mass conspiracy going on here to keep socialized medicine from happening? I’m almost speechless at this point (and that doesn’t happen often) in thinking that you can be thinking this is made up stuff.
Jean: The facts tell a different story, however. Infant mortality rates are higher in the US 6.26/1000 deaths per live births; Germany is 3.99; Norway is 3.58; and Sweden is 2.75.
Bob: Jean, in this case, the reason is that infant mortality is defined and reported differently in different countries so this is a case of apples being compared to oranges. In the U.S. as soon as a baby comes into the world he/she is considered a live baby. Not so in other countries depending upon certain criterion. For example. in the U.S., low birth-weight babies are still considered babies. In Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child and is not counted in such statistics. They’re considered as never having been alive. Norway, as you mentioned, boasts one of the lwest infant mortality rates in the word, until you factor in weight at birth and then its rate is no better than in the U.S. In other countries babies that survive less than 24 hyours are also excluded and are classified as “stillborn.” In the U.S. any infant that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considred a live birth. A child born in Hong Kong or Japan that lives less than a day is reported as a “miscarriage” and not counted. In Switzerland and other parts of Eurpoe, a bably is not counted as a baby if it is less than 30 centimeters in length. By the way, since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 survivi8ng babies weighing less than 400 g (0.9 pounds) were born in the U.S. {Source: Investors Business Daily – IBDeditorials.com)
Any response to that? I don’t ask this in a way other than to see if you’re open to the fact that perhaps what you’re hearing isn’t totally correct. Meanwhile, I’m still not defending our current system. As I mentioned, it has been taken over by government so that in many ways we are already much of the way to being socialized. Why wouldn’t you want to go back to the only system that’s been proven to work for the most people, including the poor?
Jean writes:Life expectancy is also significantly lower in the US than in those countries. Those are facts that tell a story about the quality of health – countries that fare better than the US have “socialized” medicine.
Bob: I actually don’t have an answer to the last one regarding life expectancy. And that is the only one I can’t answer. Which doesn’t mean that the answer isn’t there; I just don’t know it. I’ll check and see what’s what. Regarding the quality of our health care, Jean, the quality of our health care has never been an issue. The quality is fine. It’s the pricing that is insanely high, and that is because of government’s thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations (as mentioned in my article, 133,000 pages of regulatory prescription in the Federal Registry) and its collusion with the huge insurance companies and big pharma that creates an uneven playing field and higher prices (I was surprised you didn’t make a point of agreeing with me on that one).
Jean: By the way, the only people talking about “socialized” medicine are those opposed to government supported health care options in the US. Under every plan I’ve seen, no one would be FORCED to take the option, everyone would still have a choice for private insurance under whatever “market” is in effect.
Bob: And here is what happens with that kind of choice (government plan against a free market plan) – while a company has to make a profit to stay in business, the government doesn’t have to. They compete unfairly with an unlimited supply of taxpaper money. Within a few years they drive out all private companies. They then have the market all to themselves. And then there is no choice, Jean. We saw that in Florida with Governor Crists Citizens Insurance. It basically drove out the private companies such as State Farm. So now we just have one – the state one. And, they are underfunded. If we get a huge hurricane our state is bankrupt. Then again, Mr. Crist will then call upon President Obama and ask for a bailout and, he’ll probably get it. Do you not get this?
Jean: Bob, we could continue this attack…
Boib: I don’t believe I have attacked in any way. And I don’t feel attacked.
Jean contnues:… and parry of each others’ position for a long time. It is your blog, you may have the last word, I’m done. Besides, I’m way to busy advocating for government suppored health care options.
Bob: Ahh, okay. Well, that answers some of my questions. I must add, there are no “government-supported” health care options. It’s taxpayer supported. You may think that’s a good thing. I think it’s good though to at least use words that correctly reflect the situation. Government cannot “support” anything as it does not produce anything. It can only fund with the money it extracts from the taxpayers. Be sure and see Johnnie for your parting gifts on the way out. 🙂 Seriously, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I did just a tiny bit of research regarding Jean’s suggestion that “Life expectancy is also significantly lower in the US than in those countries. Those are facts that tell a story about the quality of health – countries that fare better than the US have “socialized” medicine.”
Doing just a quick Google search, I found the following on the website, “Accuracy in Media.” It was written by Evan Sumortin and he quotes from Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell. http://www.aim.org/briefing/myths-about-socialized-medicine/ Nice page; it had some other excellent information as well you might like to check out. Here is what he says regarding Jean’s comment (by the way, the key conclusion will be second paragraph from the bottom, but good to read the entire answer):
Myth #4: The high mortality rates in the United States, relative to other countries with government-run medical care, suggests that the quality of medical care in the United States is not as good.
The implicit assumption that mortality statistics reflect care is inherently misleading. According to Dr. Thomas} Sowell, “Much has been made of mortality statistics which suggest that Americans’ health system is not as good as in some countries with government-run medical systems, as if medical care determines the state of people’s health.
But medical care has little effect on homicide rate, on obesity or on deaths from drug overdoses that occur before any doctor sees the patient. Yet the identification of health care, as indicated by morality rates, with medical care has become so automatic that a study which showed higher infant mortality rates among black Americans than among white Americans was instantly taken as showing less prenatal care among pregnant black women as the reason.
But American women of Filipino ancestry, Mexican ancestry, and of Central American and South American ancestries all had less prenatal care than white women-and lower infant mortality rates than white women. Indeed, Mexican Americans had less prenatal care than blacks and lower infant morality rates than either blacks or whites.”
A much more relevant comparison, argues Sowell, would be mortality rates between different countries on health problems in which medical care substantially effects. “This would still not be a perfect comparison, since even here other differences between the populations in the countries being compared are factors as well,” he asserts.
When the American College of Physicians calculated the death rate for “mortality amenable to healthcare” the United States was in the top three countries with low death rates…out of 19 countries studied.
The reality of socialized medicine is much grimmer than proponents of it would have you believe. Admittedly, our current system is far from perfect, but more government control is a step in the wrong direction.
I really don’t have a comment. I have lisent to all sides. But mine main concern is what will happen if we don’t do nothing ?
The system that we have in place now will suck America dri.
I haven’t seen so much hate and selfcenter people in all my life.
God help us.
Clement
Hi Clement,
I share your concern regarding what will happen if we don’t do something. And, yes, if we do nothing, the system we now have in place will indeed suck us dry.
If you have read my articles, you know that my suggestion is not that we do nothing. It’s that we once again make our healthcare system a market-based system, which, as of now, it is not. It is a system in which government, big insurance, and big pharma (aided by those in Congress whose influence they buy) pretty much run everything and have the health care consumer over a barrel.
A free-enterprise based system would keep the quality of healthcare very high, but would dramatically drive down prices. I explained this within the series.
Regarding what you wrote about hate and self-centeredness, I agree with the hate part. Unfortunately, because this is a very emotional issue and one in which the basic premise is not understood by many people, the hate, vitriol and accusations have really been strong. That is unfortunate. I hope you have not felt that way regarding my articles, or in the responses I have given to those who have written me; even the ones who have written in anger and misquoted me.
In terms of self-centeredness, perhaps to a point because, as human beings, we are concerned with our own welfare as well as the welfare of those we love. On the other hand, I also think that both sides care about the less fortunate. Those who want socialized healthcare are concerned that without that type of system too many people would have to go without. Those who don’t want socialized healthcare are concerned that if we were to have socialized medicine, then too many of the less fortunate (as well as pretty much the entire middle class) would be subject to long waiting lines for lifesaving care.
Thank you for your comment.
Best regards,
Bob
Amen my brother. Amen!
It appears that you’ve put a good amount of effort into your article and I want a lot more of these on the World Wide Web these days. I sincerely got a kick out of your post. I do not have a bunch to to say in response, I only wanted to register to say remarkable work.