What Obama Should Have Said to Congress

Free enterprise is the solution to our fiscal emergency

John Stossel | September 10, 2009

I wish President Obama would have said to Congress: Members of Congress, I ask you to address our fiscal emergency.

In 1964, President Johnson won a landslide victory—quite similar to mine. His election also brought liberals into Congress. The next year, they created the first government-run health care plan: Medicare.

They meant well, but unfortunately, this was the height of fiscal irresponsibility. I know Medicare is popular with the elderly. Of course it is. Everyone likes getting free things. But it is unsustainable.

Retirees believe that their Medicare bills are paid from a "trust fund" that was created with deductions from their paychecks. But this is a politician's lie.

In truth, our predecessors spent every penny of those contributions immediately. They spent them on wars and pork that helped them get re-elected. The money for current retirees' health care is taken from today's workers.

This Ponzi scheme worked for a while. But then more people had the nerve to live longer. The average life span increased from 71 to 78 years. When Medicare began, there were five workers for every Medicare recipient. Now there are only four. And by 2030, the Board of Medicare Trustees expects there to be just 2.4. Unless millions of new young workers suddenly arrive from some other planet, there is no way that there will be enough workers to pay the Medicare benefits that we politicians have promised. Medicare's unfunded liability is $37 trillion—yes, trillion. It's a scam. We politicians should be ashamed of what we promised our constituents.

We locked up Bernie Madoff for less.

Therefore, today I apologize for defending the absurd health care bills that have emerged from your committees—proposals that would add trillions of dollars of additional debt to an already unsustainable system.

Instead, I propose that we raise the Medicare eligibility age. I propose that wealthy seniors receive Medicare only until they recover as much money as they paid in. After that, you rich people should pay for your own damn health care.

These measures will delay but not prevent Medicare's bankruptcy. You Democrats and Republicans both better get your heads out of the sand. There will never be enough tax money to pay for everything that everyone wants. If we expect the state to pay for care, a bureaucracy must tell people, at some age, "No, you can't have that." You might call it a death panel.

There's a better way. I remind you of my speech to business leaders in March. I said, "America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. ... And I believe that our role as lawmakers is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle the market, but to strengthen its ability to unleash the creativity and innovation that still makes this nation the envy of the world."

Only the vitality of the private sector—a truly free one, unencumbered by the crippling stranglehold of burdensome government regulation—can lift America out of the unsustainable mess that we liberals created.

Therefore, I propose complete deregulation of medicine and health insurance. State mandates raise the cost of insurance by forcing people to have coverage many would never buy on their own. The federal government reinforces this crazy system by forbidding competition across state lines.

Meanwhile, professional licensing and controls on medical schools keep the supply of medical services limited and prices high.

That must end, along with restrictions on Health Savings Accounts.

Comments

|9.10.09 @ 3:01PM|#

I hear Stossel's moving from ABC to Fox?

Dan|9.10.09 @ 3:05PM|#

So, basically, Stossel wants the Democrats to commit a Jonestown-style mass suicide on national television.

Real serious, John. Way to advance the debate.

|9.10.09 @ 3:07PM|#

If Obama were Clinton, he'd see the writing on the wall and propose massive deregulation of the health insurance industry, followed by endorsing a new free trade deal.

That guy was a master of political dodge ball: "I'm a Democrat. [slap] I'm a Republican. [slap] A Democrat, a Republican. [slap] I'm a Democrat and a Republican."

Rich|9.10.09 @ 3:09PM|#

I propose we sell off the 507 million acres that the federal government owns and give the proceeds to the oldest and most needy.


Dibs on the Grand Canyon!

Tomcat1066|9.10.09 @ 3:13PM|#

See? THAT would have been hope and change I could believe in!

The Angry Optimist|9.10.09 @ 3:20PM|#

Gosh, Dan, sometimes you have to do the right thing.

I know that's a tough concept.

|9.10.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Real serious, John. Way to advance the debate.

Yeah, Dan doesn't need any of your stinking "truth." The only thing that matters is the politically possible.

|9.10.09 @ 3:26PM|#

But wait...this would leave DC with less power and money than they have now. Isn't that, like, against the law?

Xeones|9.10.09 @ 3:27PM|#

Dibs on the Grand Canyon!

Well, the 15% or so of it that isn't owned by Indian tribes.

|9.10.09 @ 3:39PM|#

He needs to go to Fox. He belongs there.

Joseph Dominguez|9.10.09 @ 3:42PM|#

Right on John,

|9.10.09 @ 3:56PM|#

I haven't watched FoxNews in a long while... do they actually advocate free market solutions now? Because all I remember is some philosophical hot air thrown at the idea, but when they got down to specifics, they sounded more like crony capitalists... "Who better to tell the government how to run healthcare than big corporations?", "Hire private firms to run goverment programs!, all the pork with twice the corruption!, sweet deal".

But FoxNews has gotten away from this?

Stretchy|9.10.09 @ 3:58PM|#

I propose we sell off the 507 million acres that the federal government owns and give the proceeds to the oldest and most needy.

Why do the oldest and most needy get the proceeds? They've already proven they can't handle basic finances and, will rob their grandchildren into bankruptcy to get more sweet sweet meds.

How about you give the proceeds to people who've proven they can be responsible with money?

I, Kahn O\'Clast|9.10.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Why not take the average expected expense of projected medicare costs per individual, divide by 2 and write that check to everyone over 50 and buy them out of the program (and use some tax advantage gimmick to keep them from spending it all at once).

Everyone else gets a big "sorry" but also a tax cut and you can give nice "longevity bonus" to people older than their expected expiration date -- or not.

Sean W. Malone|9.10.09 @ 4:04PM|#

No no no... This is all ridiculous.

What we need to do is just keep making promises and hope we can honor them later. Who cares about national bankruptcy?

Noir Fan|9.10.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Excellent allusion there, Pro Lib.

kilroy|9.10.09 @ 4:31PM|#

In truth, our predecessors spent every penny of those contributions immediately. They spent them on wars and pork that helped them get re-elected. The money for current retirees' health care is taken from today's workers.

There should be another few sentences there that go like:

But we've learned from our predecessors that as long as you can keep the scam alive it makes us politicians wealthy and powerful. We don't see the scam ending for several more terms so we're golden. When the check actually comes due you can bet we'll be well taken care of in somewhere far, far away. You poor suckers.

|9.10.09 @ 4:45PM|#

John Stossel is a racist who hates the poor, sick and elderly! How dare he use logic and pay attention to history! What a scumbag. I bet he is a terrorist who shoots the homeless (with guns that should be illegal) just for fun. The monster!

|9.10.09 @ 5:07PM|#

Retirees believe that their Medicare bills are paid from a "trust fund" that was created with deductions from their paychecks.

Actually, no, most of them probably think it's paid for with the $45 (or thereabouts) that's deducted from their Social Security check each month for Medicare. Unfortunately that doesn't come close to covering it so the rest is made up with a portion of the FICA the rest of us pay.


It's their Social Security benefits that they believe "are paid from a "trust fund" that was created with deductions from their paychecks."

But the politician's lie part was right.

|9.10.09 @ 5:10PM|#

Had he actually said that, I would have kissed his face on the television, and I would wear a t-shirt with his face on it. But he didn't. And won't. Pity.

Scarcity|9.10.09 @ 5:20PM|#

Issac - The President seems to want them to believe Medicare is paid from a trust fund:

"More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. (Applause.) And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. (Applause.) "

|9.10.09 @ 5:40PM|#

Nice farce.

Obama outlined the the best health care plan a Republican could ever ask for, and you're still bitching.

The Dems are speechless over Obama's sell out and you want to turn this country into Somalia.

|9.10.09 @ 5:42PM|#

Why should Obama care? Medicare and Social Security aren't projected to go bankrupt until after his second term.

|9.10.09 @ 5:44PM|#

Hey everybody, Edward/Lefiti/Morris is back.

He wasn't raped to death by Steve Smith like we all hoped. Darn

Beelzebud|9.10.09 @ 5:48PM|#

Sell off the national parks, and wildlife refuges... LOL

If you ever wonder why libertarians aren't taken seriously by 99% of the population, look no further than this column.

Dan|9.10.09 @ 6:03PM|#

It is so fitting that Stossel makes his move to Fox News the same day as this ridiculous column.

Ray is dead on with his Somalia jab. Libertarianism has become a joyless lampoon of itself, blithely advocating a Third-World social order for the planet's last remaining superpower; salivating for the country to slit its own throat the way the Soviet Union did -- the ultimate sacrifice for the great "Idea That Is Too Beautiful Not To Be True."

They are so enraged at the notion of the members of a society making a pact, ex ante, for the downside losers to get a modest cut from the upside winners, so that everybody can play in the game with a tolerable balance of risk. "Slavery!" they cry. "Tyranny!" they scream. "It's All Mine by Rights!" Get bent, you self-obsessed wanna-bees.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 6:50PM|#

What is the fascination that libertarians have with HSAs? First, they seem to be a straight-up admission that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs, and need government-subsidized accounts to handle what they should be able to handle themselves. Second, they suck. While technically portable from job to job, if you have one from a previous employer, it can be tricky to access.

I have one, with several thousand dollars locked away in there. I would MUCH rather have the cash to help with my upcoming house downpayment. Apparently, libertarians believe that I am too stupid to manage my cash.

Right?

|9.10.09 @ 6:52PM|#

Obama outlined the the best health care plan a Republican could ever ask for

Except for being 100% wishful thinking, yeah it was great.

-jcr

|9.10.09 @ 7:00PM|#

Apparently, libertarians believe that I am too stupid to manage my cash.

Of course you are, but that's beside the point.

I believe that you are far too stupid to manage a lemonade stand, but that doesn't mean I want the government to step in and do it for you.

You should have full control of any money you earn, even if you want to spend it all on Al Gore movies and "Obama nude on a unicorn" paintings. Just don't try to make me conform to YOUR choices, and we'll get along fine.

-jcr

|9.10.09 @ 7:02PM|#

I haven't watched FoxNews in a long while... do they actually advocate free market solutions now?

They're a mixed bag. There are a bunch of neocon idiots like Hannity and O'Reilly, but they also have Andrew Napolitano, who is one of the finest legal minds on the right side of the constitution I've ever heard.

-jcr

|9.10.09 @ 7:16PM|#

Ray is dead on with his Somalia jab. Libertarianism has become a joyless lampoon of itself, blithely advocating a Third-World social order for the planet's last remaining superpower; salivating for the country to slit its own throat the way the Soviet Union did -- the ultimate sacrifice for the great "Idea That Is Too Beautiful Not To Be True."

Yep, the Soviet Union's collapse had absolutely nothing to do with unsustainable spending whatsoever... Stupid libertarians. Free everything for everyone! Huzzah!

|9.10.09 @ 7:27PM|#

If we're going to sell off all that government land, we should do it like Andrew Jackson did and require payment in specie - either gold or silver.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 7:33PM|#

John C. Randolph | September 10, 2009, 7:00pm | #

You should have full control of any money you earn, even if you want to spend it all on Al Gore movies and "Obama nude on a unicorn" paintings. Just don't try to make me conform to YOUR choices, and we'll get along fine.

As long as your choices don't involve anyone else, you can be rest assured that I won't claim any say in them. You are free to have any unicorn fantasies that float your boat.

Back to my point: HSA's are anti-libertarian. Why do libertarians keep calling for them? Is it simply "HSA's might be against our principles, but less so than the status quo"? That's a rare compromise from you folks.

|9.10.09 @ 8:11PM|#

Obama thinks that all of us should suffer as much as the least among us and he is in a position to make that happen. Government officials exempted, of course.

|9.10.09 @ 8:15PM|#

Chad,

Ideally taxes would be so very low that the idea of special pre-tax accounts for retirement or health care would be silly. In that world of course there would be no HSAs.

In this world, however, there are significant tax breaks given to certain health care arrangements that aren't give to other health care arrangements. HSAs are a sorry case of trying to compete with far more expensive health care mechanisms by drawing a line around a pile of money and saying that the money is pre-tax and can therefore be used only for health expenditures.

If I had my druthers, health insurance provided by employers to employees would be taxed the same as any other income for the employees. If liberals had their druthers, health insurance would not be taxed as employee compensation. In the US in which I live, liberals' druthers win.

Given that reality, having the choice of an HSA is preferable to not having that choice. If you want to use after-tax money for health insurance or other health expenditures, you are perfectly free to do so.

|9.10.09 @ 8:22PM|#

"He needs to go to Fox. He belongs there."

Here's a question: why do you come here?

If the concept of free markets and other libertarian/conservative principles are so offensive to you that whenever you see them you immediately blurt out that moron's response of "foxnews!", why do you come to a libertarian/conservative website?

Just to be an a-hole?

How about you step back from the Kool-Ade pitcher and explain to us why you think free markets don't work?

Oh, because you can't. Because free markets do work, and socialism doesn't. It's only been proven every single time the two have been tried. That's why you're so bitter and ideologically blinded - you believe in something proven false, and are too stubborn and smug to learn from others who were once like you, but bettered ourselves through education.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 8:25PM|#

Dan | September 10, 2009, 6:03pm | #
It is so fitting that Stossel makes his move to Fox News the same day as this ridiculous column.

Ray is dead on with his Somalia jab. Libertarianism has become a joyless lampoon of itself, blithely advocating a Third-World social order for the planet's last remaining superpower; salivating for the country to slit its own throat the way the Soviet Union did -- the ultimate sacrifice for the great "Idea That Is Too Beautiful Not To Be True."

They are so enraged at the notion of the members of a society making a pact, ex ante, for the downside losers to get a modest cut from the upside winners, so that everybody can play in the game with a tolerable balance of risk. "Slavery!" they cry. "Tyranny!" they scream. "It's All Mine by Rights!" Get bent, you self-obsessed wanna-bees.

Nice post, Dan. It made me laugh.

I just wish libertarians would admit that dumb luck and who you know carry about as much weight in one's success as how smart you are and how hard you work. Of course, that would undermine the "It's MY money" argument, so you won't get them to admit it.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 8:29PM|#

AtheistConservative | September 10, 2009, 8:22pm | #

Oh, because you can't. Because free markets do work, and socialism doesn't. It's only been proven every single time the two have been tried.

Really? The only places with zero tax rates are in a state of anarchy. Of course, it has been "proven" that 90%+ tax rates don't work so well, either. Of course, no one is calling for them, so it is a moot point. What is really happening is people are arguing about whether the optimal tax rate is 25% or 60% or somewhere in between. Over this range, people have found success, it is not obvious which end of the spectrum is better.

|9.10.09 @ 8:34PM|#

"The only places with zero tax rates are in a state of anarchy."

Where did I mention zero tax rates? Nowhere. Where is 'zero tax rate' mentioned in this article? Nowhere.

Your strawman argument is also hilariously disingenuous and circular: the places with zero tax rates are in anarchy because they have no government, which is why they have zero tax rates.

Your type can never stick to the subject because you are wrong, and you know it. Everyone knows it. Which is what makes this whole 'debate' ridiculous.

|9.10.09 @ 8:37PM|#

"I just wish libertarians would admit that dumb luck and who you know carry about as much weight in one's success as how smart you are and how hard you work"

Isn't it funny how this is only an argument that failures make?

|9.10.09 @ 8:41PM|#

I have one, with several thousand dollars locked away in there. I would MUCH rather have the cash to help with my upcoming house downpayment. Apparently, libertarians believe that I am too stupid to manage my cash.

Incidentally, it goes without saying that if you were mandated to purchase health insurance with minimum coverage that rendered HSAs impossible, you would have long ago been forced to spend the money that's "locked away" in your HSA.

Apparently democrats believe that you are too stupid to manage your health care.

Sean W. Malone|9.10.09 @ 9:08PM|#

"Obama outlined the the best health care plan a Republican could ever ask for, and you're still bitching."

Psst Ray... We're not republicans, dumbfuck.

Jordan|9.10.09 @ 9:16PM|#

I just wish libertarians would admit that dumb luck and who you know carry about as much weight in one's success as how smart you are and how hard you work. Of course, that would undermine the "It's MY money" argument, so you won't get them to admit it.

How would that undermine the "It's MY money" argument? If somebody else willingly gave you that money, than it is in fact yours, regardless of whether you invented the cure for cancer or sat just on the couch in your Mom's basement and ate Cheetos all day. Unless you don't believe in property rights at all.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 9:25PM|#

AtheistConservative | September 10, 2009, 8:34pm | #
"The only places with zero tax rates are in a state of anarchy."

Where did I mention zero tax rates? Nowhere. Where is 'zero tax rate' mentioned in this article? Nowhere.

We already have low tax rates here in the US. You want lower, and claim to have "proof" that it works. I responded that your "proof" seems to be that very high tax rates (ie, communism) does not work. This says NOTHING about whether a 25% tax rate or a 60% tax rate is better. It only demonstrates that either of these, or anything in between, works better than 90+%. They work better than zero percent as well. It is not self-evident where the happy medium lies, and you have no "proof" either way.

We could fix most of our budget problems and provide health care for everyone by raising our net tax rate from the mid thirties to the low forties. You, being a greedy MINE MINE MINE libertarian, somehow think the world would end if you actually had to pay for what you consume. I call it being an adult. That is where we differ.

Rev. Mr. Kt|9.10.09 @ 9:28PM|#

A brilliant piece of commentary ... Too bad it'll be entirely ignored by anyone Left of Newt Gingrich.
I truly thank John for making the obvious even more obvious, but there are some teensy, leetle holes in his too flawless logic.

Hole #1:
"Sell 507 million acres that the Federal Gov't owns ..." Whoah! John, DUDE! You know better than to ever give these nimrods an idea like THAT! The Democrat House already see themselves as "She-Ra & Masters of the Universe!" Just imagine how deeply they could pad their own pockets, not to mention the pockets of their "true constituents."

Hole #2:
John, your honesty is showing ... and all that you'll get one of these Liberals to show you is the door. They'll continue trying to control each and every one of us, until they simply melt down into a tub of Tiger-Butter ... oh-oh ... might that sound racist to you?

Hole #3:
Almost uniformly, the Media has missed the real reason for Pres. Obama's speech ... To assure that, as though we all didn't already know, that he was back from vacation, and still being as vague and obfuscatory as ever.

His true purpose was to assure us that as long as He is Pres, we won't ever want for someone to pay our undivided attention to. We won't ever have to ahve a moment of our time when we feel that there isn't someone who's just slavering to tell us "What's in it for us."

Hole #4: We love ya, John, but you're just not selfish enough. When we look at your articles or see your videos, you're always lecturing about "Reality" or "Truth," as though these were important political subjects. You really should decide to cover the important issues, John ... Like, how can we all serve Pres. Obama?

-----

Keep up the good work, John!

Chad|9.10.09 @ 9:29PM|#

Jordan | September 10, 2009, 9:16pm | #
I just wish libertarians would admit that dumb luck and who you know carry about as much weight in one's success as how smart you are and how hard you work. Of course, that would undermine the "It's MY money" argument, so you won't get them to admit it.
How would that undermine the "It's MY money" argument? If somebody else willingly gave you that money, than it is in fact yours, regardless of whether you invented the cure for cancer or sat just on the couch in your Mom's basement and ate Cheetos all day. Unless you don't believe in property rights at all.

The only property I think you have an absolute right to is the property that you created entirely on your own. In other words, nothing you have ever made.

On the other hand, letting people keep most of what they manage to get their hands on legitimately is a useful tool towards increasing the total welfare, so property rights should be protected to that extent.

Jordan|9.10.09 @ 9:36PM|#

You, being a greedy MINE MINE MINE libertarian, somehow think the world would end if you actually had to pay for what you consume. I call it being an adult. That is where we differ.

Uh, actually we believe people should pay for what they consume and the government shouldn't be providing most of its existing services in the first place. It's you universal healthcare advocates who think people shouldn't have to pay for what they consume. You being a totalitarian asshole of course think that middle class people should pay for services they don't need, will never use, and are generally prevented from using, while poor people should not have to pay for the services they consume.

Jordan|9.10.09 @ 9:39PM|#

The only property I think you have an absolute right to is the property that you created entirely on your own. In other words, nothing you have ever made.

And yet I'm guessing you don't live in a mud hut and grow your own food.

|9.10.09 @ 9:48PM|#

"We already have low tax rates here in the US. You want lower, and claim to have 'proof' that it works"

Keep kicking that strawman. Heck, I'll even bite: the proof that lower taxes 'works' is the fact that lowering taxes creates jobs and 'spreads the wealth' in a manner consistent with our country's founding ideology. But that's still not the subject.

"We could fix most of our budget problems and provide health care for everyone by raising our net tax rate from the mid thirties to the low forties"

Only if you ignore all the arguments against the government-managed system this would fund, along with the fact that a free-market health care approach would provide better service at lower cost to more people.

Which you do because you realize you cannot win that argument.

"You, being a greedy MINE MINE MINE libertarian"

Actually, I'm more conservative than libertarian. But your position is still childish: you claim wanting to keep what you earn is greedy? Than what do you call trying to keep what you don't earn? Most of us call it stealing. It's certainly more greedy than keeping the product of your own labor.

It's also interesting that people who support the free market tend to be successes, and people who support socialism tend to be failures. Kind of points up the whole envious, bitter, 'get-even' mentality behind your posturing.

And it's even more interesting to note that those of us who support the free market give many times more of our filthy cash to charities and foundations than you deeply moral lefties.

"somehow think the world would end if you actually had to pay for what you consume"

But you just said that I'm a libertarian, and a successful greedy capitalist - you only need to add 'bourgeois' to make the commie trifecta. So obviously I do pay for what I consume. Your sticking point is that I don't want to pay for what YOU want to consume.

"On the other hand, letting people keep most of what they manage to get their hands on legitimately"

... said right after you claim to believe people have an absolute right to keep the wealth they create. The slope you're on is so slippery you can't even stay level across a few sentences.

There's an old saying that it's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove any doubt. You, sir, are a fool, and a particularly childish one. People who earn a living are 'greedy'? Society is unfair because someone else is doing better than you? Someone needs to grow up.

Rev. Mr. Kt|9.10.09 @ 9:52PM|#

Chad, babe ... Really?

"The only places with zero tax rates are in a state of anarchy. Of course, it has been "proven" that 90%+ tax rates don't work so well, either. Of course, no one is calling for them, so it is a moot point. What is really happening is people are arguing about whether the optimal tax rate is 25% or 60% or somewhere in between. Over this range, people have found success, it is not obvious which end of the spectrum is better."

The simple fact is, with the mildest exceptions in our Nations history, Politicians are like a wife & daughters ... They will ALWAYS spend more than we can make.

Go look ... You'll find the number of years that the Nation has had no deficit can be counted on two hands. You'll also find, much as it will cause you to pale, that deficits are far more a Democrat state of affairs than a Republican ... which are far more prevalent than Libertarian deficits.

So, what does that prove? The same that's proved by Mr. Obama's nattering on about the Medicare "Trust Fund" (sic)
He knows just as well as we know that there is no "Trust Fund." There is simply a pile of I-O-U's in the form of T-Bills that bear "The full faith & trust" logo of the Fed.

The simplest way to see what the President intends is to understand that, when the whole shebang collapses, He'll go to the U.N. and get a "Bailout."

Yeah, sure ... right.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 10:14PM|#

AtheistConservative | September 10, 2009, Heck, I'll even bite: the proof that lower taxes 'works' is the fact that lowering taxes creates jobs

Aren't libertarians the ones that usually complaining about the broken window fallacy? "Creating jobs" is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. I would be perfectly happy without my job, wouldn't you? Now, my paycheck on the other hand...

and 'spreads the wealth' in a manner consistent with our country's founding ideology.

Today's world is far removed from that one, and it is impossible to say how the founder's ideologies would have translated to what we have now.

Only if you ignore all the arguments against the government-managed system this would fund

Hmmm? And those are? The current HR3200 bill's aspirations is probably closer to Japan's health care system than any other. Do you have a beef with there system? It costs half what ours does, covers everyone from cradle to grave, anyone can go to any doctor anytime anywhere without permission from anyone (usually without an appointment, though getting one is polite), and have better access
to MRIs, CAT-scanners, etc than any citizens on earth. Note that their system costs half what ours does despite the fact that they have far more elderly and far fewer young people, visit the doctor several times more often than the average American each year, and take more drugs than we do.

But clearly, our system is better because...errr....I'm confused. Please help me out. Because insurance companies are non-profit in Japan but ours can rake in the cash? Because our specialists make absurd amounts of money relative to other professions (and primary care doctors, who are disappearing)? Because we can "choose" between maybe TWO crappy and essentially identical insurers...if our employer lets us?

along with the fact that a free-market health care approach would provide better service at lower cost to more people.

The free market only works under certain assumptions...which are massively violated when it comes to health care.

Actually, I'm more conservative than libertarian. But your position is still childish: you claim wanting to keep what you earn is greedy?

No. Thinking that everything that winds up in your bank account was "earned" by you is greedy.

It's also interesting that people who support the free market tend to be successes, and people who support socialism tend to be failures.

By what measure? If anything, the data shows that liberals have somewhat higher incomes and educations than conservatives...but the differences are very small.

Kind of points up the whole envious, bitter, 'get-even' mentality behind your posturing.

I suspect you have never actually looked at the data and are just assuming that it validates your point. It doesn't.

And it's even more interesting to note that those of us who support the free market give many times more of our filthy cash to charities and foundations than you deeply moral lefties.

Are you refering to Arthur Brooks (Who Really Cares?, etc). His core argument was that religious people are generous, regardless of whether they are on the left or right politically. The correlation between political persuasion and charity is almost entirely explained by religion.

... said right after you claim to believe people have an absolute right to keep the wealth they create.

Create on their own, as opposed to "create in cooperation with numerous people, systems, and governments". In other words, probably everything you have ever created.

|9.10.09 @ 10:54PM|#

"Aren't libertarians the ones that usually complaining about the broken window fallacy"

So you've decided to move from a strawman to purposefully misconstruing an argument. The creation of jobs through the natural forces of the free market is not in any way related to the broken window fallacy, which is actually a description of socialist policies/Keynesian practices.

"Today's world is far removed from that one"

Well, Christ, we certainly don't need that pesky first amendment then. The Constitution? Just a stupid old document.

"The current HR3200 bill's aspirations is probably closer to Japan's health care system than any other"

That would be this system, right?
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/health-care-costs-in-japan-hit-record-high-amid-aging-society

You seem to believe a lot of things that have been proven false. The US leads the world in many forms of health care including cancer detection, treatment, and preventive care. We lead the world in access to procedures such as MRIs. We lead the world in low wait times and availability of service.

And the 'cost' thing is a red herring. We do not spend 'twice what everyone else spends'. We spend, for example, 50% more than Canada _reports_, which is a fool's game because that number is reported by the government of Canada. No government truthfully reports its spending.

And for what we spend, we receive the highest quality care in the world. Our expenditure enables the innovation that drives all the socialized systems around the world.

"But clearly, our system is better because...errr....I'm confused."

Well, that's evident, but that's just because you don't think. You react, and you react with talking points memorized from HuffPo and the like.

Our system _is_ better. But of course it could be improved, and the way that would be done is by making it a true free market. The issues you complain about would be solved: costs would go down, there would be competition, you wouldn't require a full MD to do basic treatments, et cetera. All of this is outlined on many websites.

"The free market only works under certain assumptions...which are massively violated when it comes to health care."

Please provide evidence of this. In reality, the problems with our health care system are the direct result of government involvement.

"Thinking that everything that winds up in your bank account was "earned" by you is greedy."

No, that's just factual. Here's how the real world works: I go to work every day, and work a set number of hours. For this service I am given a salary. This is what 'winds up' in my bank account (after a hefty amount is deducted to pay for shiftless people like you laying about and dreaming of the perfect society).

This definition of what is 'earned' and what is 'mine' has been consistent since the industrial revolution, and is in line with all other definitions prior to that.

"If anything, the data shows that liberals have somewhat higher incomes and educations than conservatives"

I don't mean the fake socialists like Michael Moore. I mean the kids who haven't made it yet, or the low-income types - you know, the Democrat party core who exist in that abusive synergistic relationship where you empower the groups that keep you down.

And you seem to have no argument with my other point, that the real greed is you trying to take that to which you have less right than me.

"Are you refering to Arthur Brooks"

No, I'm referring to the documented statistics he cites. I'm certain you're able to spin them to your own satisfaction, but facts are facts.

"Create on their own"

I'd love to know where you got the idea that you have the right or authority to tell me what of my earnings I am allowed to keep.

|9.10.09 @ 11:21PM|#

Chad,
You remind me of why I stopped being a leftie.

Are you refering to Arthur Brooks (Who Really Cares?, etc). His core argument was that religious people are generous, regardless of whether they are on the left or right politically. The correlation between political persuasion and charity is almost entirely explained by religion.

Actually, we are talking about Nicholas Kristof, bleeding heart liberal and NYT columnist.

He published an article entitled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads" bemoaning the stinginess of liberals when it actually comes to putting the money where their mouth is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

And many people are also talking from their personal experiences.

Btw, when people like you believe that there is no such thing as an absolute right to private property, it becomes easy to be the thieves that you leftists are openly stealing from other people.

What is worse is the sanctimony that comes with the stealing - this is not really your money, so I am doing the right thing by stealing it from you and giving it to the beggars who vote for me !!!!!! and of course it is really the beggars money once it has passed to his hands.

Chad, PEOPLE like you are the reason that this Republic is ultimately going down.

Chad|9.10.09 @ 11:24PM|#

AtheistConservative | September 10, 2009, 10:54pm | #

That would be this system, right?
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/health-care-costs-in-japan-hit-record-high-amid-aging-society

The best you can do is point out that their health care costs are rising, too? Even though they are 2/3 of our when compared with GDP and not much more than half in real terms...and despite their demographic disadvantage?

You seem to believe a lot of things that have been proven false. The US leads the world in many forms of health care including cancer detection, treatment, and preventive care. We lead the world in access to procedures such as MRIs. We lead the world in low wait times and availability of service.

I am sorry, but Japan actually has more MRI's and other high-tech gadgetry per capita than the US. I tried to find some direct comparisions between wait times in the US and Japan, but I couldn't find anything other than praises of Japan's lack of them. Seriously. If you want to see a specialist, you just go, and call ahead if you can. You don't even need to see your family doctor first.

And the 'cost' thing is a red herring. We do not spend 'twice what everyone else spends'. We spend, for example, 50% more than Canada _reports

Ahh, so we are only 50% worse than Canada. THAT is surely an argument in favor of our system.

which is a fool's game because that number is reported by the government of Canada. No government truthfully reports its spending.

Now you are really desparate and throwing out data that you don't like.

And for what we spend, we receive the highest quality care in the world.

That's highly debatable. Our care is pretty comparable, better at some things and worse at others...for a much higher price and with much less security.

Well, that's evident, but that's just because you don't think. You react, and you react with talking points memorized from HuffPo and the like.

Actually, I spend little time with the choir. It's much more fun to play with you guys.

Please provide evidence of this. In reality, the problems with our health care system are the direct result of government involvement.

Please go read the wikipedia entry on market failures. You will learn about such market failures as monopolies, third-party payers, externalities, agencies, and asymmetric information. Health care is riddled with all of them. The free market cannot not and has never worked in this situation.

No, that's just factual. Here's how the real world works: I go to work every day, and work a set number of hours. For this service I am given a salary.

And without the "services" out countless other people and the systems and governments they have created, your "work" would consist of scratching for potatoes with sticks and your salary would amount to peanuts, if anything. These systems are what are creating the vast majority of the wealth, not you.

I'd love to know where you got the idea that you have the right or authority to tell me what of my earnings I am allowed to keep.

The same place you got the authority to decide what is yours in the first place.

|9.11.09 @ 12:10AM|#

Please go read the wikipedia entry on market failures. You will learn about such market failures as monopolies, third-party payers, externalities, agencies, and asymmetric information. Health care is riddled with all of them. The free market cannot not and has never worked in this situation.

LOL ! Please read wikipedia ! what's next ??
You would not know what a free market is if it hit you in the face, you clown.

With tons of regulations and mandates that the Govt enforces on health care, a "free market" is a horrible way to describe the private insurance system in this country.

For starters, no one even knows what their health care truly costs - their guardian angel employers will buy them "free" insurance and all they have to do is pay 20$ copay when they visit the doctor !

Free markets are those in which individuals are involved - and are aware of the price of goods and services that they purchase. It is after all a price discovery mechanism at its core.. But you are an imbecile who would not know that.

All you can rant about are it's various imperfections - not aware of the immense benefits it brings.

Would you take it casually, if you were not allowed to buy any goods/services from companies outside of your state ? But thats exactly what every one does when it comes to health insurance.

And this is a free market system ?
A.C.

|9.11.09 @ 12:12AM|#

A.C. I'd love to know where you got the idea that you have the right or authority to tell me what of my earnings I am allowed to keep.

Chad:The same place you got the authority to decide what is yours in the first place.

Quick, some body swipe Chad's computer from him.. oh, wait, it does not really belong to him... let me rephrase... some body, please "rightfully possess" the computer that Chad "has" but that which does not really belong to him.

It is telling that a statist like Chad wants the Government and just about any one else other than me to dictate what does or does not belong to me.

And this guy call himself an American.

Wow. just wow.

Jordan|9.11.09 @ 12:21AM|#

And without the "services" out countless other people and the systems and governments they have created, your "work" would consist of scratching for potatoes with sticks and your salary would amount to peanuts, if anything. These systems are what are creating the vast majority of the wealth, not you.

Huh? Wow, so why aren't we all just sitting around the house while the system does all the work? Oh wait, it's the individuals who comprise the system who are creating wealth.

It's really funny to watch you throw a hissy-fit when somebody brings up the specter of Communism, and then proceed to lecture us on how all of our property really belongs to the collective.

|9.11.09 @ 12:23AM|#

Chad | September 10, 2009, 11:24pm | #

...

[No, that's just factual. Here's how the real world works: I go to work every day, and work a set number of hours. For this service I am given a salary.]

And without the "services" out countless other people and the systems and governments they have created, your "work" would consist of scratching for potatoes with sticks and your salary would amount to peanuts, if anything. These systems are what are creating the vast majority of the wealth, not you.

[I'd love to know where you got the idea that you have the right or authority to tell me what of my earnings I am allowed to keep.]

The same place you got the authority to decide what is yours in the first place.

In the Canadian northlands, the wolves and moose are almost universally plagued by intestinal parasites.

These parasites argue they have a right to gnaw on the intestines of the wolves and moose, and even sicken or kill their hosts, because their hosts do not "really" have a right to the results of their hunting or foraging, given that the ecosystem is actually what sustains them. The parasites argue that because they are a part of that ecosystem, they are de facto entitled to a protected existence courtesy of their hosts.

You'll never find a wolf or bull moose who will not aggressively and murderously protect its territory, its food, or its progeny. They understand what "mine" means and that anything they don't protect will not be "mine" for long. Any other way of thinking soon leads to Darwinian death.

If those animals had a way to rid themselves of the gut vermin, it would happen with a snarl or a thunderous stamp and be over in a minute.

Chad, you are a parasite. Unless we figure how to rid ourselves of you and your kind, with your sophist arguments that "mine" is somehow "yours," and that your kind is somehow owed a protected existence, our culture will die a Darwinian death, too.

I will fight claw and canine to prevent the despoil of our vibrant ecosystem by an invasion of parasites such as yourself -- in the interests of the greatest good for all, as been amply proven by our ecosystem's status as the greatest engine of social advancement and well-being in the history of the world.

|9.11.09 @ 12:33AM|#

"The best you can do is point out that their health care costs are rising, too? Even though they are 2/3 of our when compared with GDP and not much more than half in real terms...and despite their demographic disadvantage?"

No, the best I can do is point out that theirs is an intrinsically flawed system which is rapidly failing, which is true of all socialized systems. And that socialized systems have no 'fix', whereas free-market systems do. And that half of Japan's hospitals are operating 'in the red', according to PBS. And that Japan's system of health care is not something you can excise and copy, as it is part of their general governmental/societal strategy, which we could not and would not want to emulate, as we far outstrip Japan in almost every economic category. And that we're still relying on Japan's reported numbers, which are suspect at best.

But most importantly you do not judge a government's probable future path by a foreign example: you judge it by domestic examples. And judging our government by its domestic examples, their taking over all our health care would be a boondoggle that would bankrupt and cripple this nation. Medicare alone is a frightful mess, which ate almost 4% of our GDP in 2008.

You seem to have accepted most of the statistics I list regarding the superior quality of our care, except for bickering without sourcing over MRI counts.

So this begs the question: if we get better care, and we are the world innovators in health care products and services, what does percentage of GDP matter?

And if you still argue that percentage of GDP matters, why would you want to hand control over to the government, which is the primary driver of high costs in health care? When has the government ever run a business at low cost and with a profit? Why would you not want to go the proven, effective route of opening up the market?

You have not offered a SINGLE argument against free-market reform.

"Ahh, so we are only 50% worse than Canada"

No, according to the records they release, we spend 50% more than Canada. Our quality of care is significantly higher.

"Now you are really desparate and throwing out data that you don't like."

No, I'm saying that there's no reason to believe these numbers. We see none of the internal accounting. What we do know is that the individual income tax rate in Canada is >40%, and most provinces pay >15% in sales tax. Their health care consumes more than half of their tax revenue. That doesn't work out to ~10% of GDP in my book.

"for a much higher price and with much less security."

Freedom's rough, chief. If you want a security blanket move to a socialist country. With all our supposedly unfair practices, high prices, and lack of security we somehow came out on top. It was only when we started socializing that we started sliding down with the rest of the rabble.

"It's much more fun to play with you guys."

Ah, a masochist then.

"Health care is riddled with all of them."

... but health care in the US is not a free market. So please provide me with proof that a free market will not work with health care.

You can't. And you know it. I, however, can prove to you that it will: it worked before we started socializing in the 60's, which was when the whole thing started falling apart. Deregulation of markets has consistently proven successful, from Ma Bell to utilities to the Internet to cell phones.

"These systems are what are creating the vast majority of the wealth, not you."

And all those people earn money for what they do as well. See how beautifully it works?

"The same place you got the authority to decide what is yours in the first place."

Yes, your selfish, greedy, and shiftless desire to profit off my hard work is exactly the same as hundreds of years of labor law and property rights.

Seriously, if this is the best your side has to offer, we really have nothing to fear.

|9.11.09 @ 12:46AM|#

"Seriously, if this is the best your side has to offer, we really have nothing to fear."

"Never estimate the destructive power of stupid people in large numbers."

|9.11.09 @ 12:46AM|#

Or Chad. Just Chad.

|9.11.09 @ 1:07AM|#

"Aren't libertarians the ones that usually complaining about the broken window fallacy? "Creating jobs" is not a good thing. It is a bad thing."

Congratulations, champ, you've got the lingo down for your little anti-libertarian screeds. Unfortunately you have no clue what the fuck it actually means. The libertarian view of the broken window fallacy is that wealth destruction is bad, not that jobs themselves are bad. On the other hand, socialist fuckwits, like yourself I have to presume, say that the window-breaking little rapscallion is a blessing upon society...

Tman|9.11.09 @ 1:36AM|#

"Seriously, if this is the best your side has to offer, we really have nothing to fear."


I'd feel more comfortable about that statement if it wasn't for the fact that people like Chad are the reason Obama got elected. There seem to be quite a lot of people in the US who are as ignorant as Chad when it comes to free markets and independent productivity.

As the recent Paul Zak video shows, free markets even have FUCKING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY on their side and it still isn't enough to convince people.

Jay Dubs|9.11.09 @ 2:07AM|#

No thanks, John. You make some good points you and I have, ultimately, differing views of what American society should be - I'm glad mine is more mainstream. Cheers

|9.11.09 @ 2:51AM|#

As long as your choices don't involve anyone else, you can be rest assured that I won't claim any say in them

My choices of what to buy or sell will necessarily involve someone else; the person with whom I'm transacting business. So, your assurance is worth about as much as an Obama campaign promise.

-jcr

IceTrey|9.11.09 @ 5:20AM|#

There are three things this country needs to do to save itself none of which will happen. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and get rid of the Fed, preferably by hanging.

Chad|9.11.09 @ 6:47AM|#

John C. Randolph | September 11, 2009, 2:51am | #

My choices of what to buy or sell will necessarily involve someone else; the person with whom I'm transacting business. So, your assurance is worth about as much as an Obama campaign promise.

John, please add "and any consenting adults" to my statement, so that it is more clear to you. Of course, in reality, your transactions have impacts beyond just you and your partner.

|9.11.09 @ 7:11AM|#

"Only the vitality of the private sector ...can lift America out of the unsustainable mess that we liberals created."

Stossel a liberal. Ha!

|9.11.09 @ 10:46AM|#

Peter Jensen

Stossel was writing what he wished Obama would have said. He was not claiming to be a liberal himself, he was saying Obama is a liberal.

As you progrees through school perhaps your reading skills will improve. In the meantime, I hope your parents are closely monitoring your internet use.

|9.11.09 @ 11:04AM|#

Can someone explain how Lasik has dropped in price to me?

Could it be-and this may be shocking to the Chads of the world-that market forces actually work?

If we could decouple the cost of ANYTHING from a third party, costs decrease.

Chad|9.11.09 @ 11:44AM|#

milton | September 11, 2009, 11:04am | #

Can someone explain how Lasik has dropped in price to me?

Do we spend more or less on Lasik than we did 15 years ago? MRIs, CAT scans, ultra-sounds keep dropping in price and improving in quality as well.

|9.11.09 @ 12:15PM|#

I was along until selling all the property. Why should all the old people get it?

Also, sorry but I like parks. We don't need to pave over EVERY sqaure inch of the damm country, lol

Also, to pay for all that's been promised, the tax burden of the federal government would need to double.

http://www.pgpf.org/

|9.11.09 @ 12:36PM|#

"Chad | September 10, 2009, 6:50pm | #

What is the fascination that libertarians have with HSAs? First, they seem to be a straight-up admission that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs, and need government-subsidized accounts to handle what they should be able to handle themselves. Second, they suck."

Because first of all, you are never getting rid of medicare, or medicaide, or welfare. Too many people want to help others not only voluntarily but think society should.

So HSAs are a compromise, the needy still get help from the government (the People) or from their employers. But the princples of the market are still utilized. The power of choice is given to the consumers. They won't be as careful as if it were their own money, but they will still spend more carefully than if they never even see the bill like now, and still choose better care.

|9.11.09 @ 12:40PM|#

"The only property I think you have an absolute right to is the property that you created entirely on your own. In other words, nothing you have ever made."

To this the best response was posted at cafe hayek, from the babylonian talmud:

"Ben Zoma [a Talmudic sage] once saw a crowd on one of the steps of the Temple Mount. He said, Blessed is He that discerneth secrets, and blessed is He who has created all these to serve me. [For] he used to say: What labours Adam had to carry out before he obtained bread to eat! He ploughed, he sowed, he reaped, he bound [the sheaves], he threshed and winnowed and selected the ears, he ground [them], and sifted [the flour], he kneaded and baked, and then at last he ate; whereas I get up, and find all these things done for me. And how many labours Adam had to carry out before he obtained a garment to wear! He had to shear, wash [the wool], comb it, spin it and weave it, and then at last he obtained a garment to wear; whereas I get up and find all these things done for me. All kinds of craftsmen5 come early to the door of my house, and I rise in the morning and find all these before me."

|9.11.09 @ 12:50PM|#

I could not agree more.

Online eye glasses cost 20.00 dollars. The free market can work. The free market system will bring the most good to the most people.

It seems to me the "progressives" don't care if progress in medicine stops. They don't care if we all have horrible medical care as long as that care is the same for everybody. Free markets can lift the whole system up. Egalitarianism will drive the whole system to the middle ages.

Cajoling the public with promises of a free lunch is the height of irresponsibility. Convincing the public it is ok to steal money from the next guy is a crime. Are there any grownups in the room? Evidently the baby boomers are truly a generation of spoiled babies willing to soak the next generation in the name of their laziness. I truly worry about our future.

Chad|9.11.09 @ 5:11PM|#

plutosdad | September 11, 2009, 12:36pm | #

Because first of all, you are never getting rid of medicare, or medicaide, or welfare. Too many people want to help others not only voluntarily but think society should.

I agree. I have said this around here many times even. We will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER have some libertarian dream free market system. Never ever. So quit arguing about whether it would work or not.

The fact of the matter is that we will always have a system that is in large part public. We may as well have one that works.

ABC|9.11.09 @ 5:12PM|#

"Sell off the national parks, and wildlife refuges... LOL

If you ever wonder why libertarians aren't taken seriously by 99% of the population, look no further than this column."

You do realize that revenues derived from admission to National Parks goes towards the general revenue of the federal government and that the US Parks Services makes money by selling lumber at a loss, encourages irresponsible tree-cutting practices, and engages in lease agreements that force people to use federally owned grasslands and fields to raise cattle instead of allowing private organizations such as the Sierra Club to buy it and turn it into a park. I have more faith in International Paper to run the parks system than the feds. Privatizing parks, wildlife refuges, the oceans, and even wildlife itself (through tagging perhaps) would be much better for the environment than leaving things as they are and subjecting nature to the tragedy of the commons and government mismanagement.

ABC|9.11.09 @ 5:23PM|#

"
Really? The only places with zero tax rates are in a state of anarchy. Of course, it has been "proven" that 90%+ tax rates don't work so well, either. Of course, no one is calling for them, so it is a moot point. What is really happening is people are arguing about whether the optimal tax rate is 25% or 60% or somewhere in between. Over this range, people have found success, it is not obvious which end of the spectrum is better."

When a hired goon of a warlord comes to your door and asks for protection money that's a form of taxation. Taxes are immoral, because theft is immoral, and arguing that we agree to pay taxes because of a social contract or pact is fallacious. The social contract is a bullshit; a contract is only valid if you personally assent to the terms of the agreement. And one cannot bind ones descendants to a contract. No one that I know has ever signed a social contract, and staying in a place is not implied consent because basically every place on Earth has a political system that adheres to the fraudulent concept of the social contract. Secondly, a pact that you must join because of force (i.e. don't pay taxes and you go to jail). You might successfully argue that individuals have a moral imperative to give to those less fortunate, but that is not the same as arguing that there is a moral imperative to use state coercion to make people give to the less fortunate.

CrescoLibertas|9.11.09 @ 5:59PM|#

Here's the answer to the "Health Care Crisis" that would give all the liberals who claim to care about those less fortunate a great deal of pride and satisfaction knowing that they personally contributed to the well-being of others. And this will cost significantly less than ANY government-run health care plan; eradicate the issue of anyone having to go without healthcare; foster competition; lower prices and, dare I say, expand freedom:

DONATE $10 A MONTH TO A HEALTHCARE CHARITY.

Now, I have to place one caveat -- I am going on the wild assumption that some of the liberal statistics I've read are accurate.

Follow the very simple math:

There are approximately 300 million residents in the U.S.

Approximately 60% of Americans want government managed health care (remember the one caveat). This equals 180 million Americans.

300,000,000 X 60% = 180,000,000.

There are 47 Million Americans without health insurance. Now subtract all those without health insurance from the 180,000,000 who want government-run health care.

180,000,000 - 47,000,000 = 133,000,000

So that is 133 million Americans who can afford healthcare AND care about the other 47 million who cannot afford healthcare.

And since those 133 million people care so much-based solely on what they themselves claim-we know they will have no problem with donating a measly $10 a month to help those less fortunate.

133,000,000 x $10 = 1,330,000,000 x 12 months = 15,960,000,000.

I'm thinking $15.96 billion a year should take care of the problem. Plus, no one needs to be forced to do this. Plus, it would allow for more competition, and thus lower costs. Plus, it will cost less than ANY government health care plan.

Oh wait... I forgot another caveat: liberals would actually have to "willingly" give some of THEIR OWN MONEY to help others.

This of course does not account for all those wealthy liberals who will likely give way more than $10 a month, because they are so compassionate and generous with their own money.

Slay the Dreamer!

Bruce|9.12.09 @ 7:35AM|#

March! Freedom Plaza 9 am 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Tonight: Rock Bottom Restaurant and Brewery, 4238 Wilson Blvd #1256, Arlington. Ph 703 516 7688. We will have the Back Room Bar. Everyone pays for their own food and drinks

|9.12.09 @ 8:33AM|#

What private insurance company would insure old people? If they did, how much would the premiums be? If I wanted to make money, I wouldn't insure old people. Are the insurance companies lobbying to insure old people?

|9.13.09 @ 10:43AM|#

In much of the world free single payer health care is the dominate norm and it is not as bad as many people in America make it out to be. Only one part in the article do I agree with and that's the restrictions on licensing. In truth doctors keep costs high because they restrict the number of doctors allowed to practice a certain area.

Outside of that point, this article is ridiculous and built on fantasy. Europe and Canada have better healthcare system than the US. They also have better healthcare outcomes. The free market does not work in healthcare. Time to have public health insurance for all.

|9.19.09 @ 1:24AM|#

Two things: Mr. Stossel, the health insurance HAS been operating under a free enterprise umbrella. Their profits skyrocket because of collusion. Get your facts straight. There is no limitation placed upon how much they charge or how much they make, or who they deny care to(be it directly or indirectly.) The flimsiness of your argument(and I might add the complete ignorance)prove that you will be a perfect fit for Fox. After all, it's not a news network as it's proven again and again. And if all the libertarians are willing to sign the statement below, I would gladly release them from taxation and just create a usage fee for them. For each item they would be without if there was no government.

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:

I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.

I will complain about the destruction of my 2nd Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.

I will foreswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.

I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

•Social Security


•Medicare/Medicaid


•State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)


•Police, Fire, and Emergency Services


•US Postal Service


•Roads and Highways


•Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)


•The US Railway System


•Public Subways and Metro Systems


•Public Bus and Lightrail Systems


•Rest Areas on Highways


•Sidewalks


•All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009 federal senate appropriations)


•Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)


•Public and State Universities and Colleges


•Public Primary and Secondary Schools


•Sesame Street


•Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children


•Public Museums


•Libraries


•Public Parks and Beaches


•State and National Parks


•Public Zoos


•Unemployment Insurance


•Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services


•Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)


•Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)


•Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)


•Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking


•Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies


•Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forego my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care

I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist locations, including but not limited to:

•Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History


•The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments


•The government-operated Statue of Liberty


•The Grand Canyon


•The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials


•The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery


•All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC
I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government salary and government-provided healthcare.

I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.

I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.

I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.

Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.

Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF __________ IN THE YEAR ___.

_____________ _________________________

Signed Printed Name/Town and State

I'm guessing few of these idiots think their "ideals" through to their logical results.

|9.20.09 @ 5:56PM|#

Mr. Stossel, the health insurance HAS been operating under a free enterprise umbrella. Their profits skyrocket because of collusion. Get your facts straight.

Kyle, you're a blithering idiot. The insurers operate in a regulatory environment that they bought and paid for. Government sets very high obstacles to anyone entering the market. Get YOUR facts straight.

-jcr

|9.20.09 @ 8:48PM|#

In 1976 I worked for the head of the Bureau of Census, who was taking her vacation here in LHC, AZ. I was typing up her directives on how to proceed with the 1978 Census.

We had many discussions, and I was privy to just where the politicans get their so called 'Pension' funds from. They don't put into them...

They come from our SS/MedicareIns and whatever other funds that WE the people donate to in hope that future value of Present money makes it worth living long enough!!!!!!

I actually have whitehouse and FBI documentation on the backgrounds for the reason why they think they can just dip into our funds while ignoring our requests.

I hate getting this information because it does NOT give us the people a place to write where we will know we'll be heard.

The people that voted for Obama had their hands out and we all know there's more of them than there are of us...hard working capitalists-that help people help themselves-not give hand outs!