Health Care Delusions, Left and Right

How both sides are misleading the American people

If you've been following the health care debate over the last couple of years, you may have heard the grim tale of Nataline Sarkisyan. Just 17 years old, afflicted with leukemia, she needed a liver transplant, but the insurance company Cigna refused to cover the surgery. After being picketed by nurses and the family, the insurer relented, but too late: She died that same day.

When he ran for president, John Edwards used the girl's experience as proof of the need for reform. Her parents went to Cigna headquarters to charge the company with killing their daughter to make money. Lately, a liberal group called Americans United for Change has used her in a TV spot to dramatize its claim that "if insurance companies win, we lose."

Her case is an excellent illustration of what is wrong with our approach to health care—but not how Cigna's critics mean. The insurer declined to pay for the transplant because, it said, "the treatment would be unproven and ineffective—and therefore experimental and not covered."

Nataline's surgeons disagreed, estimating she had a 65 percent chance of surviving six months with a new liver. But Dr. Goran Klintmalm, head of the Baylor Regional Transplant Institute in Dallas, told The Los Angeles Times the surgery was "very high-risk" and "on the margins." Even on the best prognosis, she stood a one-in-three chance of dying—after undergoing a very expensive operation and taking a liver that might otherwise have gone to someone with a better chance of survival.

Maybe Cigna was mistaken. Maybe not. The problem is that the critics seem to imagine that once we crack down on insurance companies or go to a single-payer government health insurance plan, future patients like Nataline will get anything their doctors recommend.

They won't. No matter how we "reform" health insurance, there will still be close calls, where it's not clear that a costly procedure will actually do any good. There will have to be someone, either in government or in the private sector, to decide which operations and treatments should be covered and which should not. And there will be patients who will die after being refused.

Health care "reform" won't eliminate such incidents and may produce more of them. Despite all those greedy private health insurers—or maybe because of them—Americans get far more liver transplants per capita than the residents of Canada, France, or Britain.

But liberals are not the only people who fantasize that our health care resources are unlimited. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of plotting to set up "death panels" to ration care for seniors. Former Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey of New York called the House Democratic health care bill "a vicious assault on elderly people" that will "cut your life short."

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has taken the same tack. After the administration proposed modest reductions in the growth of spending on Medicare, he did an impersonation of John Edwards.

"We want to make sure that we are not cutting the Medicare program," Steele said. "Anytime you get a body of individuals that go beyond me and my doctor who are going to make decisions about what kind of health care I get, that's rationing of health care." But as long as someone else has to pay for those decisions, someone other than doctors and patients is going to make decisions about what treatments are worth the cost.

As it happens, Washington is not about to get stingy with seniors. The cost constraints in the health care bills moving through Congress would trim total projected Medicare outlays by only 3 to 5 percent over the next decade. A cut of 5 percent in 2019 spending, however, would leave it 80 percent higher than this year.

Ten years from now, even with such "cuts," seniors will have more and better medical options than today. Yet Republicans act as though everyone over 65 will be herded onto an iceberg and pushed out to sea.

What left and right have in common is the delusion that when it comes to medicine, nothing succeeds like excess. But no health care measure can alter the fact that our resources are not unlimited. We may not want to hear it, but no matter what kind of insurance system you have, sometimes someone has to say "no."

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • charlottepogue||

    You can get instant quality full coverage medical insurance for entire family at the best price from http://bit.ly/39pFJx

  • jtuf||

    Will a government option fund cryogenics for all, or will those heartless folks in DC just let people die?

  • ||

    Cryogenics for women and minorities. That's everyone, right?

  • Hugh Akston||

    What about people with preexisting cryogenic conditions?

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Frigid wives?

  • ||

    Hugh, so long as they are either a woman, a minority, or both. Sorry Ted Williams.

  • Some Guy||

    "We want to make sure that we are not cutting the Medicare program," Steele said. "Anytime you get a body of individuals that go beyond me and my doctor who are going to make decisions about what kind of health care I get, that's rationing of health care."

    Nobody gets between me and my doctor and my entitlement program!

  • ||

    You wallet is mine, byotch!

  • The Phoenix||

    Especially not Insurance Actuaries!

    oops, that's what happened to Nataline Sarkisyan.

  • MJ||

    Chapman has a point, if there are to be cost savings under any scheme of health care there is going to be rationing. The question is: who decides to limit access. The left wants the government to control more health care decisions than it already does, and their wet dream is for the government to control all health care.

    The question is, who do we want to decide? Private enitities who have an interest at some level at keeping their customers satisfied? Or the massive federal bureaucracy, which has no incentive to treat most citizens as anything but faceless cattle (unless you are friends with a cabinet member)? Chapman treats that question as if the answers were no different.

  • JohnK||

    Some people use the first person when talking about government, because they believe the statement "We are government" to be true.
    So of course those people want the government in charge, because they think it puts them in charge.

    What will it take for them to understand just how wrong they are?

  • Anonymous||

    What will it take for them to understand just how wrong they are?

    It's not possible. The political philosophy you've observed is the basest human desire to rule, to create a tyrrany such that only people like oneself are allowed to live. It's compulsory collectism, a conformism of totalitarian depths.

    'The government is what I say it is, because I am correct and the people around me accept my vote to destroy them. And if it isn't, then it's something evil and external to me trying to destroy me.'

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    I've had many a liberal whine that I was 'forcing' my free market views on them by denying them a govt program that forces me to be included.

  • Andrea||

    I've heard people say that the government would have more "heart" and would not be driven by profit; therefore, it would not make "heartless" decisions about denying coverage.

    The foolishness of believing a denial from an "expert" panel based on evidenced-based medicine would be any more acceptable is hard to miss but missed it is.

    That they are demonizing insurance companies,the only players in the entire health care industry actually interested in maintaining costs, is another point lost on them.

    Insurance company profits have become the big bad wolf. Could they actually believe that those profits, if redeemed by the government, would somehow make coverage for everyone affordable?

  • ||

    The foolishness of believing a denial from an "expert" panel based on evidenced-based medicine would be any more acceptable is hard to miss but missed it is.

    The foolishness of beliefing that you could actually form an expert panel, capable of making these decisions untainted by political consideration, based on abstract principles devised by a bioethicist, is also lost on them.

    Any health care rationing done by the government is guarentees to be rife with rent seeking vand political manipulation.

    Not a key demographic in a swing state? You're fucked!

    Need an experimental medicine produced by a company that employs 10,000 people in the district of the House Speaker? You're in luck!

  • ||

    My typo skills are awesome today.

  • Homer||

    Privite enitities have have about as much drive and a massive Federal bureaucracy. It wont matter how much the fed's love us if we have been garenteed Health Care. I do see your point that we are making these "private enitities" money so there for they will treat us at a greater value. Mcdonalds will serve me the same sandwich it will serve millons more. It puts no extra love in my sandwich. But am I not fueling theyre growth? Money is the gole of "private enitites" Not consumer worship.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Speaking of saying 'no':

    Priceless. Protest Breaks Out at Massive Wisconsin Flu Shot Line
    The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel posted this photo essay showing the HUGE lines of people being forced to wait outside in the rain for flu shots.

    Photo six is posted below- Mike O’Keefe brought a plywood sign, “Welcome to Government health care.”...

  • zoltan||

    I have one small problem with this otherwise totally awesome picture and caption--those people waiting in line are not being "forced" they are acting on their own stupid choice to take that vaccine. Excellent illustration of government mishandling of pretty much anything though.

  • Hugh Akston||

    MJ, Roger Ebert (yes, that one) had a blog post recently that really stated the misconception upon which some peoples' understanding of healthcare is based.

    He said that we should convert to single-payer or some public option because private insurers only care about profit. The connection between realizing profit and providing good products and service to customers never seems to occur to people who operate under the profit=bad meme.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I have yet to see any of these celebrity types who decry profit in healthcare as a bade thing living their own life on a non-profit basis.

    If they hate profit so much, they should be donating everything they make above the amount needed to live on a subsitance level to charity.

  • ||

    The major point that both sides seem to be missing is that it is wrong to force everyone to pay for something that only benefits the few. Once again, the government is claiming a right to your property to spend it on those that don't deserve it.

  • ||

    But the rhetoric of health care reform is that the few will be taxed to pay for everyone's health care.

    Go ahead. Ask someone who believes in government paid-for universal health insurance. They will believe everyone should have health insurance. They will further believe that their own health insurance will cost them less under such a system because someone richer will pay for it.

  • ||

    To be fair there is a large segment of the population who suffers from the delusion that if profit is wrung out of the system then health insurance will suddenly become affordable.

  • ||

    But it isn't everyones insurance. A lot of people have health insurance that is better than the planned one, and were told that they could keep it. If those people are being taxed to pay for someone else's insurance, then that is wrong.

  • Chad||

    The insurance companies, by their own propaganda, are claiming that they will jack rates 79% in the next decade under the status quo.

    It is quite irrelevant if you "like" your current insurance...because you ain't gonna have it for long if the insurance industry follows through on its promises.

    Well, unless you want to pay $20k+ each year for a private plan.

  • ||

    The socialists would argue that everyone will benefit from the health program.Therefore the correct statement is "....it is wrong to force everyone to pay for something..."

  • ||

    Chapman has a point, if there are to be cost savings under any scheme of health care there is going to be rationing.

    I disagree. Under a completely private system, there wouldn't be any rationing (properly understood). You get the care and/or insurance you can afford, and if you need more than that you look for charity.

    If you can't find charity, then you don't get the care. But that's because private individuals have made individual decisions not to provide it to you for free or pay for it altruistically. That ain't rationing.

    And a truly private system would be cheaper than what we have now, because it would fix the broken link between who pays for health care and who demands it.

  • ||

    You are correct about the definition of rationing, but using the word allows people to see the situation as a straight comparison: Do you do the rationing yourself, or does someone else do it? So people focus on the issue of who decides, rather than on the precise definition of the word.

  • Chad||

    Hazel, you do almost nothing for yourself in modern society. It is not a matter of who decides, but what - luck, skill, genetics, connections, hard work, etc. You do not control all of these.

  • ||

    Because we were asleep at the wheel while you statists took so much. I was a good NPRBot until a few years ago.

    In your ideal world where property rights are gone, only connections have value.

    "The Aristocracy of Pull"

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I disagree. Under a completely private system, there wouldn't be any rationing (properly understood). You get the care and/or insurance you can afford, and if you need more than that you look for charity. "

    Very true.

    Good luck, however, getting that concept across to a lot of people who have been brainwashed by the leftist's constant attempt to redefine rationing to refer to any instance where anyone can't get everything they want because they cannot pay for it themselves.

  • Anonymous||

    To be fair there is a large segment of the population who suffers from the delusion that if profit is wrung out of the system then health insurance will suddenly become affordable.

    That's just because they're ideologically Marxist, NTTAWWT!

  • Andrea||

    Well, in their definition of "fairness", profits would be removed entirely from the health care system. Thus, cuts in payments to doctors and hospitals would be a good thing.

    I fear we'll have to wait until these folks are actually denied care by a government-run program, in which their former doctors refuse to participate, and their need for said care is considered life-saving before they realize they haven't improved the system one bit.

  • ||

    I don't think they've put even that much thought into it.

    I think they have vague, half-consious, fuzzy sensaions of the unfairness of mortality, and unconsciously believe that the Great White Government will make it fair, if they make the appropriate tithings.

    Or, well, I exgaerrate, but I don't think they actually grasp the fact that health care will never be "fair", until we devise a cure for mortality.

  • JoshInHB||

    We need to get free healthcare ASAP.
    But the truth is that its only a start.

    It's outrageous the way food is rationed in this country. I haven't had a good prime ribe dinner in weeks! Those GD greedy restaurants only care about profit!

    And don't even get me started about housing. The profiteering landlords and bankers are all to happy to throw people onto the streets, if we fail to "pay" their outrageous prices.

    In a rich country such as ours, no one should go without the best food or housing just because they can't afford it.

  • ||

    I'm sorry your'e being sarcastic right? If you actually think that, then get stuffed.

  • ||

    I'm sorry your'e being sarcastic right? If you actually think that, then get stuffed.

  • JoshInHB||

    Its a sad comment on our society that anyone culd take my post above seriously.

  • ||

    OH thank you so much for not being serious

  • Hanyou||

    Oh, I've seen plenty of liberal websites where comments like yours would have been serious.

  • JoshInHB||

    I think sarcasm and ridicule is the only way to cut through the liberal bs. Even the craziest socialist sees the absurdity of "everyone has a right to eat at a 5 star restaurant" while they think that "everyone has a right to the best healthcare available" makes sense.

  • ||

    Rewatch the "60 Minutes" program that ran on 10/25/09. Fraud. Some are making millions each year messing with the system. The government can't control it now; it won't do any better if we expand it's reach. Thank you, NO! Past performance is the best judge of future competence.

  • Mike M.||

    No doubt that the fraud is a huge problem; everyone seems to agree it's at least sixty billion a year and rising.

    But the real reason health care is so damn expensive in America is because of simple supply and demand issues, and demand is out of control. The explosion in cost began as soon as the Medicare system was put in place. When something is "free" (or more accurately, when people perceive it to be free), they always take as much of it as possible and abuse the system. All you have to do is go to any emergency room in any metropolitan area hospital in the country to verify how the system is being abused at everyone's expense.

  • Kroneborge||

    Although, in the case first sighted, they did have insurance which they paid for right? So in this particular case, it was a bureaurat at the insurance agengy (instead of the government) deciding what treatment is appropriate instead of the doctor.

    Legal maybe, seems a bit shady though. People buy insurance, but to often when it comes time to pay out, they didn't get what they were expecting.

    I don't think a government takeover is probably the answer, but our current insurance system is broken for sure.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Nataline's surgeons disagreed, estimating she had a 65 percent chance of surviving six months with a new liver" sounds awful close to "there is a 100% chance of death in about a year".

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "but to often when it comes time to pay out, they didn't get what they were expecting."[citation needed]

  • Kroneborge||

    umm, well the story at the top is one example, and I could give plenty of other from personal expereince, and I'm sure many other people on here could as well.

    If you are one of the lucky people that have NEVER had a problem with insurance paying for something, bully for you.

  • ||

    People buy insurance, but to often when it comes time to pay out, they didn't get what they were expecting.

    What matters? What they were expecting, or what the policy they actually paid for actually said it would cover?

  • ||

    "Health care "reform" won't eliminate such incidents and may produce more of them. Despite all those greedy private health insurers—or maybe because of them—Americans get far more liver transplants per capita than the residents of Canada, France, or Britain."

    The fact is, most medical care is ineffective. Sure, doctors can set a broken bone, but most cancers, most end stage heart disease, etcetera - medicine can't do much for you. However, it can suck every dime out of you (or your surrogate - the taxpayer) cause not too many people will say, "Sure, I'll die to save people a few bucks off their insurance premiums."

    For that to make an impact on the cost of medicine, a very high percentage of people would have to say that - and funny thing, people want to live and will spend every dime available to them.

  • ||

    JoshInHB:
    I agree 10000000%
    Just the other day, I was trying to get a BJ, and the hooker wanted 50$!!!
    WTF!!! I said do you have a mouth made of gold?
    In a country as rich as ours, sex for old, fat, ugly grumpy men should be a right, and not a privilege. Why should only the rich or the young and attractive enjoy hot babes?

  • JoshInHB||

    Exactly!!!
    And WTF, why can't i have mercedes. I've got to drive if they want me to work.

  • Andrea||

    The NPR segments brought out some interesting points about health care costs. Pretty simple stuff.

    - Providers will provide care that is not proven to be better but can be billed at a higher rate.

    - The more providers in an area, the more procedures done. (Supply drives demand) They don't like to be sitting around without patients.

    - Drug companies will provide incentives (coupons) to get consumers to purchase certain drugs, for which drug cos. get a higher reimbursement from insurance cos.

    - Insurance companies drop customers not because they are evil but because they are not able to operate profitably in certain markets. Hospital consolidations have made it harder for them to negotiate good rates. When costs are shifted onto them, they cannot be profitable and must get out of that market. Customers are dropped.

    - The former insurance exec. said having more insurance cos. competing for provider services will actually raise prices for insurance cos., not lower them, as more buyers will be competing for the sellers (ex., hospitals and doctors) services.

    - Consumers demand tests and guarantees. They threaten lawsuits if they don't get what they want.

    Every player has a role in rising health care costs.

    See: Chicago NPR segments (This American Life, 10/9 and 10/16, Nos. 391 and 392)

  • ||

    Pretty simple stuff.

    Simplistic and entirely misleading. They dance all around every possible symptom they can find without addressing the cause

    And yes I listen to NPR, though I am no longer an NPRBot. Once you really understand issues it's profoundly spooky to listen to NPR and see how deep the spin is on their stories.

  • ||

    - Providers will provide care that is not proven to be better but can be billed at a higher rate.

    - Drug companies will provide incentives (coupons) to get consumers to purchase certain drugs, for which drug cos. get a higher reimbursement from insurance cos.

    You get more of what you reward. Note how the second one, at least, is a creation of third party coverage.

    - The more providers in an area, the more procedures done. (Supply drives demand) They don't like to be sitting around without patients.

    Or, it could just be that there is a lot of unsatisfied demand out there, and doctors will take as many patients as necessary to fill their time, but not more. I'm not sure how a doctor or hospital can drive demand.

  • ||

    It's an NPR story so of course it's framed so you won't notice the truth.

    As perceived price to the consumer drops of course demand will increase. HC is highly subsidized and mainly paid for by insurance. Ever seen fat people at an all you can eat buffet?

    And when prices are 'zero', as in single payer, universal, or socialized medicine, demand will be effectively and permanently infinite.

    Massive government intervention has almost completely broken the price mechanism. And they are trying to finish the job.

  • ||

    We Americans have in the succeeding years since the establishment of Great Society programs acquiesced to the cult of manufactured rights. We take it for granted our basic responsibilities are really God given rights to be guaranteed by the U.S. government at the expense of obscenely rich people whom we all work for and hate. We have willingly participated in the class warfare generated to create artificial differences so that artificial leaders can step into this invented void. We understand full well how expensive healthcare is and yet we justify our passing the cost to other Americans as being fair. In as long we can attach the shield of fair, the manufactured right is unassailable. We are being educated the hard way the cost of imposing our responsibilities on others. Healthcare is just the latest in a long line of contrived rights to be foisted on the taxpaying public along with jobs, wealth, education, housing, food and energy. Pick a “right” which the well intentioned social engineers have sought to guarantee with the reins of government and you have an intractable mess of both incalculable financial and social cost. These messes usually take the form of incestuous relationships between government agencies and external organizations eager to obtain taxpayer money without earning it.
    We have already attempted a trial version of what is being proposed with great failure. Medicare and Medicaid have been for the past sixteen years anyway been predicted to be on track for failure in the next two decades. These systems are already fraught with waste, fraud and abuse and yet we are expected to believe a larger version of these will not be worse? Indeed, both presidents proposing such a system (Clinton and 0bama) have assured us the new system could be financed on the wasted money recovered from the existing system. Yet, neither has done, currently or in the former administration, anything to eliminate those admitted failures in the system. What, if anything, in these failed actions can give us the confidence a new expanded system would be any better?
    We need to all realize as reasonable individuals we are best equipped to address our needs and wants within the constraints of our own limits and abilities. We need to understand that in order to pay for the appendectomy; we may have to forego a pool, trip to Disney World or the more expensive entertainment center. The only way we are going to regain control of our lives to is stop rewarding the ineptitude of our elected representatives with another two, four or six years of employment only because they bring home the bacon, whatever the hell that means. WE need to dispense with the delusion that somehow giving just one more dollar of our neighbor’s money to a bureaucrat in order to get another quarter’s worth of service is going to be of some help our general well being.

  • ||

    Wow--did everyone miss the money quote? "But as long as someone else has to pay for those decisions, someone other than doctors and patients is going to make decisions about what treatments are worth the cost."

    Is no one, left, right or Reason, willing to suggest that a patient-pays approach (with catastropic insurance and tax-advantaged health savings accounts to prepare for those expenses) might bring the decision making back to the patient (and family and doctors)?

  • Mike M.||

    If you suggested that, you might get called a big meanie who thinks that poor people should simply be allowed to die in the gutters, and next thing you know you're not getting invited to the cocktail parties where the hot slutty liberal chicks are.

  • MJ||

    I would think that pointing that is obliquely suggesting patient-pays, it just was not the point of the article.

  • ||

    Almost everyone is suggesting that that isn't feeding at the trough of government.

  • ||

    The liver example that you gave needs to be put in context. The girl would have a high operative mortality. She would still have a substantial chance of death after 6 months and likely would have died within one year with such an aggressive disease. The cost that you are talking about is very high in dollars. Likely you are looking at a medical bill of about $500,000 in order to buy the girl a couple of months. That does not seem reasonable in use of resources. In fact, the transplant authorities would likely have not put her on the transplant list with an uncontroled cancer of this nature. So several agencies would have prevented the operation other than Cigna. And I can't stand Cigna.

    Something needs to be done to the insurance agencies. The option is not to get the government in the picture. In fact, they are the reason for our current problems.

  • HeadTater||

    Imagine that: Politicians and lobbyists lying and distorting the truth! I never would have imagined that.

  • monkeys||

    How about this?

    Eliminate health insurance altogether, tell people to save up their money in case they get sick.

    Crazy idea, huh?

  • Andrea||

    Crazy idea since people don't want to know what it costs and, more importantly, they don't want to pay for it.

    People are only screaming about what it costs them (ex., what they are paying out of their pockets). Once they stop paying premiums, I'm not sure they'll care about high health care costs ever again.

    That's why Dems can get away with simply cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, shifting costs onto others, and saying they are "cutting costs".

    Too bad a public option didn't have a "premium" that people had to pay. Having to pay premiums seems to stop people from wanting things. (Think of all those uninsureds who were used as the rationale for the public option who don't want insurance now that they're being forced to pay for it.)

  • The Phoenix||

    apparently HR3200 is geared towards being premium based.

    But don't let that cloud your reasoning.

    ps. your ingnorance is showing. tuck it back.

  • Andrea||

    Yes, but are "premium credits" really the same?

  • ||

    Re: We may not want to hear it, but no matter what kind of insurance system you have, sometimes someone has to say "no."

    I disagree. Any health care insurance run by government will not be politically able to say "no" to constituents in order to incessantly buy votes; while a private health insurer can say "no" (if regulators allow them). Both sides in the health care debate may be deluded but only a "private option" has the chance to contain costs.

  • ||

    Re: We may not want to hear it, but no matter what kind of insurance system you have, sometimes someone has to say "no."

    I disagree. Any health care insurance run by government will not be politically able to say "no" to constituents in order to incessantly buy votes; while a private health insurer can say "no" (if regulators allow them). Both sides in the health care debate may be deluded but only a "private option" has the chance to contain costs.

  • Anonimoose||

    I completely disagree, if there are not enough organs or available surgery times, someone has to say no or at least give you the implicit no of the waiting queue.

  • Anonimoose||

    I completely disagree, if there are not enough organs or available surgery times, someone has to say no or at least give you the implicit no of the waiting queue.

  • Freddie||

    Very frustrated by most conservative pols and pundits in the health care debate. They fall into the trap of defending a status quo that is not theirs to defend. As any loyal "Reason" reader knows, we do not have a free market in health care and it is the lack of a free market that is at the root of most of the problems. Instead of just saying "no" to Obamacare, conservatives (if they really do believe in free markets) should be proactive in pushing market-oriented health care reforms.

  • The Phoenix||

    Both sides are teh bad!

    so vote republican

  • zoltan||

    Excellent reading skills.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I agree. The debate is all about healh care as it is now and how to make it better where it should be about whether or not it should be centralized. Should the government have an interest in how I affect my own health? Or how does it affect the common good if I eat a Snickers bar? I live in L.A. where people go to jail for endangering the public good and burdening the health care budget by peddling bacon wrapped hot dogs. It's already real fuckers. The agenda is pro-collectivism and centralization of power. Our message to our "representatives" should be-"We simply won't give you that power". The more the government controls health care, the more they make fat people laws, smoker laws, anything that can make a graph look interesting. Who knows they may have to control the inter-net for bad health advice. "We didn't want to control the internet...

  • Anonimoose||

    I think both sides are delusional because they do not see that the answers to our problems is not more regulation but less. We need to discuss ways to have for profit organ donation that avoid compulsion of donors. We need to reform immigration so that more healthcare professionals can came to work in the United States. Consider that the costs of health care in Norway are half the amount of the US but they also have six times as many nurses or that Germany health care costs about 1/6 less but they have twice as many doctors as the US. No doubt resources are scarce, but government regulations have made them even more scarce. If we want real health reform in America, Mr. Obama tear down this regulatory wall.

  • ||

    Prediction: if Obamacare wins the majority of Americans will end up with crummy government dominated medical care. The better off will go to private clinics in Mexico or India or wherever to get medical treatment.

  • ||

    Using the example of the girl and the liver transplant, does this mean that Cigna has one of them death panels Sarah Palin warned us about?

  • abercrombie milano||

    fdsgfdhfh

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement