An Act of Hubris

The trouble with ObamaCare

While nobody knows what effects the health care reform bill passed by Congress will have on health care in America, the battle around this legislation is very likely to have disastrous effects on the nation's cultural health. Vitriol, hate, hysteria, and dishonesty and stark political polarization have reached new lows even for our time, with each side in the debate bandying about accusations of murder.

Part of the reason this particular debate has reached such a pitch of intensity is that health care affects people on a deeply personal level; it is a matter not only of privacy on the most intimate of levels but also, frequently, of life and death. The idea of being unable to afford medical care for oneself or loved ones is terrifying; so is the idea of the government poking its nose in one's health care, and perhaps deciding who has access and who does not.

While the debate is often framed as one between European-style big government and American-style free markets, it is to a large extent a false dichotomy. Government is already more entangled in medicine in America than in almost any other part of the private sector, and there are strong arguments that many of the current problems—including out-of-control costs—are at least partly related to government-imposed market distortions.

At the same time, the life-and-death nature of medicine throws a major wrench into the libertarian paradigm.

Freedom of choice is an empty concept if one of the options is death or disability; what's more, this is one area where better and costlier goods and services may be a matter of necessity rather than luxury. Indeed, as with atheists and foxholes, there are (almost) no libertarians in emergency rooms. Some of the strongest critics of "ObamaCare," such as Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly, readily endorse the view that there is a basic right to health care, insofar as no one should be denied treatment for lack of funds. Most alternative health care proposals, even ones from strongly free-market think tanks such as the Cato Institute, assume a fairly extensive role for government and public subsidies through vouchers, for instance in ensuring access for the poor.

Another irony is that as far as access goes, health care is a victim of its own success. Recent decades have seen tremendous strides in medical research and practice but those strides have often brought with them costly drugs, devices, and procedures. Today, someone who would have been doomed to disability or premature death a generation or two ago can often lead a long and full life—and to deny them that opportunity because they (or, in the case of children, their parents) cannot afford it should be troubling even to the most pro-free-market among us.

Thats where the hard questions come in. What degree of income-based inequality in life-and-death matters can we accept and regard ourselves as a moral society? If we lack the resources to give everyone the best medical care on demand, do we find other ways to allocate and limit access whether by having longer waiting times for certain procedures or by having experts, government officials, or insurance companies decide who gets certain treatments and who doesn't, based on such factors as age and quality-of-life potential? If we know that the spiraling costs of medicine are partly related to unnecessary treatments, who gets to decide what unnecessary is?

No wonder, then, that the rhetoric on this issue has been more out of control than medical costs. Sarah Palin and some others on the right have whipped up hysteria about "death panels" that will deny lifesaving medical care to the less fit—claims that Cato Institute expert Michael Tanner, a strong critic of the reform legislation, has dismissed as unfounded. Not to be outdone, pro-health-care-reform blogger Ezra Klein charged last December that Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was then threatening to filibuster the bill if it included a Medicare expansion provision, "seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people to settle a political score."

The misleading claims, too, have been rampant on both sides. Last year, when a government expert panel recommended scaling down mammogram screening programs for women 40 to 50, many on the right saw this as an ObamaCare-related ploy to cut costs at women's expense—even though the debate on the benefits of routine breast cancer screening in that age group has been going on for more than a decade.

Meanwhile, as the vote on the health care bill neared earlier this month, Amnesty International weighed in with a report on the slight rise in the rates of deaths in childbirth for American women in recent years, portraying this trend as an indictment of our current health care system and its injustices toward the poor. Leaving aside the question of how far the human rights group has strayed from its original agenda of championing political prisoners, the report grossly oversimplifies the problem: most of the increase in maternal mortality is due not to lack of medical care but to rising obesity, higher maternal age, and more Caesarean sections—that is, overtreatment.

The current reform legislation won't lead us into communism. Some other sky-is-falling predictions seem very unlikely to come true such as a health-care police state in which the governments new role in insurance regulation is used to silence critics through the threat of access denial. (This has not happened even in Western democracies that have gone much further down the road to socialized medicine than this bill would do.) But could this bill have less drastic negative effects, from driving up deficits to increasing health care expenditures for many middle-class Americans to discouraging innovation to tying up small businesses in more red tape? All of that is entirely plausible.

Clearly, the existing system has many inadequacies that needed to be addressed—failings that have driven people into bankruptcy due to an illness in the family, or forced them to forego medical care until their health has deteriorated and they need major emergency intervention. But there were ways of correcting these problems through targeted and limited measures to make insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions, to streamline the process of the poor and the disabled getting Medicaid, to close other loopholes.

Instead, President Obama has pushed for a health care revolution. What we got was a package that not only takes the drastic step of making health insurance mandatory, but contains so many provisions and clauses, most of them to be phased in over several years, that it is virtually impossible for citizens—or members of Congress, for that matter—to make sense of it. At a time when America's economy is still in bad shape and when we face numerous problems abroad, Obama has put the country through a shattering political battle—and, with legal challenges and promises of repeal, the fight may be just beginning.

This seems, at the moment, less a monument to idealism than to hubris.

Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

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.

  • ||

    "At the same time, the life-and-death nature of medicine throws a major wrench into the libertarian paradigm.

    Indeed, as with atheists and foxholes, there are (almost) no libertarians in emergency rooms. "

    How many foxholes has Cathy Young been in? neo-con chickenhawk alert

    There is not a single thing about foxholes or ER that makes me want to increase governemnt intervention into the lives of individuals as Cathy Young seems to say.

    "and to deny them that opportunity because they (or, in the case of children, their parents) cannot afford it should be troubling even to the most pro-free-market among us."

    Is it troubling, but not troubling enough for you to give some of YOUR money to help people? just troubling enough to force others to pay more? how fucking compassionate ms Young...you Kissinger and Obama should be able to compare your Nobel Peace prizes one day.

    Is this line stolen from Karl Rove and the school of "compassionate conservatism"...are you really ignorant of arguments for voluntary charity and the idea that poor people benefit in the long run as innovators are paid handsomely to design new tech that improves lives. The problem is that neo-cons and corporate/state partnership types then jump in and prevent the "dog-eat-dog" competition that drives prices lower instead of higher.

  • k-y||

    You are so right. Only marines should be allowed to trot out the well worn aphorism about atheism and foxholes. Speech enforcer alert!

  • Mister Sexy||

    I've been in countless "fox holes".

  • Mister and mister is still sex||

    They were reynards. In fairness, those foxholes are dark;-)

  • Sterling Archer||

    Try lewrockwell.com. I think you'd fit in better over there.

  • Joshua Lyle||

    No atheists in foxholes? The saying is, of course, entirely as believable in contradiction, if not more so: there are no theists in foxholes; after all, common sense would indicate that only by doublethink or extraordinary masochism could anyone continue believing in an entity with god-making qualities when faced with the evidence that such a being would have forced them into a foxhole.

  • ||

    God wants American soldiers to kill as many people as he can if it will help protect Halliburton profits. No atheist communists are gonna convince me that people are being decieved out of their children and their tax money.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    I've never liked that saying, as it's based on faulty reasoning. Expecting to die, an atheist might hedge his bets and start praying, just in case he's wrong and God is amused enough to take pity on him. This doesn't change his belief.

    A similar fault exists in expanding to libertarians and emergency rooms. If a service is made available to me I may take advantage of it. This won't change my view on whether it should have been made available to begin with. I don't believe it's right for the government to spend tax money on a lottery, but if they show up at my door with a check I'll still take it.

  • wingnutx||

    If I was falling to my death, I might try flapping my arms. This does not mean I really think that it will work.

  • Leap or fall||

    "common sense would indicate that only by doublethink or extraordinary masochism could anyone continue believing in an entity" Or your common sense premise is faulty.

  • ||

    Sure! But then the original form would be just as faulty, nyet?

  • Leap or fall||

    неправильный, whether Clear or Casey used the original aphorism, it was unquestionably mouthed by someone with that intimate experience. The fact that a hurler on the ditch can dismiss the contemplation, is at best childlike.

  • ||

    Actually, it's easily questioned, as by Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who resent the insulting implication, and, Bee-Tee-Dubs, have just as much intimate experience as the originator of the locution.

    The fact that a hurler on the ditch can dismiss that contemplation is not so much a matter of childishness as it is an elementary awareness of human diversity.

  • Leap or fall||

    Here is an example of faith: Mr. Lyle had to google: hurler on the ditch. I cannot prove it with my five senses but you and I know it is true. Now tell me, if I made an insulting implication?

  • ||

    Sick burn! Your questioning of my knowledge of Gaelic sports idioms cuts me to the bone like a sharpened, ill-wielded hurley!

  • Leap or fall||

    Hmm, since my man is Irish, I completely understand your despondence. However, an Irishman without faith, is still a mystery.

  • ||

    Not an Irishman, here. Half Scotch and half soda is the best I can account for. And, of course, no true Scotsman would convert in a foxhole.

  • Leap or fall||

    funny:-)

  • ||

    Excellent!

  • Federal Dog||

    "Not to be outdone, pro-health-care-reform blogger"

    The political contest was lost when those who oppose the nationalization of the medical industry acquiesced to calling the legislation "health care reform."

    It's not. It's yet another government takeover of private sector activity. Far from reforming health care, it puts corrupt and incompetent government functionaries at the center of a vast bureaucracy, which is sure to drive up costs exponentially and consolidate absolute government control over the most private and important decisions of its citizens.

    Ask anyone in Massachusetts: If this stands, everyone in the country will suffer a 70% (and increasing) escalation of premiums too, and an equally dramatic reduction in the ability to get in to see a physician when it is needed.

    Words matter. We lost the fight when the issue of absolute government control of private citizens was framed as "reform" of "health care."

  • ||

    Costs will rise?

    Cathy Young says nobody could know this

    "While nobody knows what effects the health care reform bill passed by Congress will have on health care in America,"

  • Federal Dog||

    How could they not? Once the government forces everyone to buy a specific product from government-approved providers alone, they are guaranteed to jack up their prices, assured of a market that, but for government coercion, would never exist.

  • ||

    agreed dog...Cathy asserts that nobody can know this.

    She also insists on pretending that this was not Corporate Welfare bill approved by the biggest insurance companies, but actually some sort of welfare program for the poor. This acually enforces false left-right BS instead of combatting it as she pretended to do.

  • Tony||

    This bill is a bit of a Frankenstein's monster, so I can't say for certain that costs will be well controlled or not.

    If we'd just gone single-payer we'd know for sure. Cutting out the middle man is a time-honored way of lowering costs, after all.

  • Contrarian P||

    "If we'd just gone single-payer we'd know for sure. Cutting out the middle man is a time-honored way of lowering costs, after all."

    Although inexplicably the absence of a middle man in Medicare and Tricare has failed to lower costs. Hmmm....wonder why?

  • Tony||

    You'd have to compare the costs of Medicare with the costs of what it would be not to have it. And it would win.

  • Contrarian P||

    I'm not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion. Medicare costs an enormous amount of money and has a tremendous amount of hidden cost, including quite a bit of fraud. You imply that there is no other system that could possibly be superior. Honestly I don't see how any reasonable person could make such an assertion.

  • ||

    Medicare, along with any government run/subsidized healthcare eventually teaches people to not be responsible for themselves, not to take care of themselves. That is why it is enormously expensive, and ultimately unsustainable. You have to take care of yourself first before you can help others.

  • JoshInHb||

    You'd have to compare the costs of Medicare with the costs of what it would be not to have it.

    But we do know what the costs were before Medicare.

    Those costs were the basis for projecting Medicare would cost $12 billion a year in 1990 when the true figure was $100 billion.

    CPI inncreased by 350% over that time, so its fair to say the balance of the increase was government "efficiency".

  • ||

    The administrative costs of Medicare were compared to those of private health insurance. It was found that "Medicare and Medicaid spend 26.9 cents for every dollar of benefits versus 16.2 cents for private insurance." - Mark Litow and the Technical Committee, "Rhetoric vs. Reality: Comparing Public and Private Health Care Administrative Costs," The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, March 1994. This study did include the costs of other government agencies besides CMS handling Medicare related business, but did not include the costs forced onto the private sector. Of course, direct payment by the patient eliminates the middle man entirely and is the most efficient method. That is why my average fee in 2008 was $49, including labs, medications, and even house calls, in my family practice.

  • ||

    I heard an Obamacare proponent arguing on Fox that costs in Massachusetts' health care would have increased by even more if Romneycare hadn't passed. Is this true?

  • Federal Dog||

    That person bears the burden then of explaining history before the mandate existed. Rates did not go up by 70% then.

    They did so after the mandate was imposed, and there is no sign whatsoever of the increases slowing.

  • ||

    Good answer!

  • ||

    +1

  • Mike in PA||

    Don't you know... Words like "hubris", "Arrogance", or "uppity" just show that you're a racist.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "there are (almost) no libertarians in emergency rooms."
    WTF?

  • ||

    That is some amazing new intellectual defense of libertarianism we see here at Reason huh CN? with friends like this...

  • Citizen Nothing||

    If Cathy Young, Bush and Obama were in a burning building, I'd still pick her to save, Gabe.
    She's at least sympathetic to libertarian ideas (until her appendix bursts, apparently).

  • ||

    Then you are racist CN...I'd save Obama.

  • ||

    LMAO

  • Rich||

    I think she meant "librarians".

  • ||

    I'm both and have been in the ER four or five times.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "there are (almost) no libertarians in emergency rooms."
    See how neatly she took care of you, Mr. Almost?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Of course, it would be accurate to say there are almost no libertarians (give or take 2-3 percent of the population) anywhere.

  • ||

    [sob] I could have been somebody. But now I'm just an Almost.

  • michael||

    Where dis this insane idea that ERs are free come from? I'm pretty sure that enormous bill I paid wasn't optional.

  • ||

    Shh... don't shatter their illusions. The notion that anyone pays for an ambulance ride or ER visit or MRI out of pocket is anathema to them. If people could actually do something like that, then they probably aren't taxed enough.

  • ||

    You know, it's interesting, but in a little town like mine we have an entirely voluntary fire department/EM squad. Local taxes (and I would assume with some help from the state)pay for the vehicles, training and firehouse and rides to the emergency room is free, aside from the above mentioned local taxes. It is a service we provide each other. The thing is, when things are kept small and local you will always have civic minded people to man volunteer services. Even local officials get paid token salaries. None of this stuff are things people do for a living. They do it because it is in the nature of people to cooperate and help each other given even a fraction of a chance.

  • ||

    "is our children learning?"

  • ||

    Amazing how making things as voluntary and local as possible works really well.

  • ||

    I volunteer for a small, local rescue squad. We can't get enough volunteers - and are facing a crisis of 911 calls being unmet. Voluteerism is dying in this country. For example, while visiting Virginia Beach, I saw and add on tv asking for volunteers - I'm assuming they're having the same problems we are. BTW, I'm in Alaska -- and our town has not taxes whatsoever.

  • Patrick||

    That's because we are invincible.

  • cynical||

    It's true! Shit, physical invulnerability's pretty much the main reason I became a libertarian.

    Anyway, even if Cathy Young isn't Reason's most orthodox libertarian writer, she at least promotes trying to maintain perspective and think about issues as though the people who disagree with you are not aliens, soulless abominations, or sinister harbingers of a terrifying revolution. Given our society's ongoing breakdown into deranged political hysteria, it's a valuable, if thankless, service.

  • Comrade Zero||

    And you call yourself "cynical"?

  • Binky||

    Thats where the hard questions come in. What degree of income-based inequality in life-and-death matters can we accept and regard ourselves as a moral society?

    First, answer a harder question: What is a "life-and-death matter"?

  • ||

    Ponies. I don't have a pony.

  • ||

    Man-up and die, people. Man-up and die.

  • Ratko||

    AmerIndian = respect for the old + the old and infirm don't make themselves a burden.

    Works for me.

  • Untermensch||

    Hubris is followed by nemesis.

  • ||

    Need some atë, too.

  • Patrick||

    In turn followed by emesis.

  • ||

    Trailed distantly by Genesis? The band, not the book.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    There are almost no libertarians writing Cathy Young columns.
    There. I said it.

  • ||

    ""What degree of income-based inequality in life-and-death matters can we accept and regard ourselves as a moral society?""

    That is the question.

    While I can understand the desire to do something for life and death situations, I don't like the idea of paying for their insurance.

    There is a big difference between paying someone's hospital bill and someone's insurance premium.

    The dems have looked at it as a medical care issue, not an emergency care issue. Their starting point is health care for all. I don't see a problem with starting with freedom to choose and freedom to accept the concequences of that choice and adjusting from there. If we should pay, we should pay as little as necessary.

    While denying someone life saving care may be considered inhumane, the concept of no insurance if you can't afford it isn't.

  • Contrarian P||

    The trouble is that the way the law is currently written, under EMTALA I have to give you a "medical screening exam" whatever the hell that means, if you show up in my ED for whatever reason. I've had to examine patients with such interesting complaints as "I was hit by a comet" and of course "I need a pregnancy test". I can't refuse them, no matter how ridiculous their "illness". Of course I must also generate a chart because I need legal documentation of the visit so that if they decide to sue me for what they perceive as poor care (that I never got paid to provide) I can defend myself. Of course if they win, I get to have a permanent stain on my record as a practitioner, no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit might be. All for free.

    Anyhow, doing those things takes about 15 minutes of my time. The nurses also must document vital signs, that we've offered such services as the flu vaccine and HIV testing to the patient, that nobody is attempting to harm the patient, and so forth...oh and they also document stuff related to why that person is actually there. The charts are used to attempt to bill various sources of reimbursement including the patient, often to no avail, but still taking up the time of hospital coding and billing staff, postage and so forth. Oh, and don't forget that if the patient took an ambulance to get to the ED, EMS is also trying to bill whoever they can.

    Hell, even if the patient has insurance, if something is not documented to the insurer's satisfaction or we fill out the form wrong, we still might not get paid. Medicare can come through and audit charts retrospectively and decide they don't want to pay us. And now we'll have even more of this.

    Sorry, but as a physician this mess of a health care bill does absolutely nothing to fix these or any of the other major problems I see every day. Of course I guess someone might be able to apply for insurance while in my emergency department to cover that broken leg they just came with, so maybe that's a bonus?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Cathy has just proven that the opposition had no chance of stopping Obamacare, along with all the horrible consequences.

    Because Cathy, like so many up and down the spectrum on the Right, cannot think clearly enough to see the horrible consequences of what Obamacare, or any other government take-over of the medical industry, will inevitably lead to.

  • Comrade Zero||

    ES, I happen to think she's dead on in at least one respect: the European social democracies have been around for a couple of decades by now. In fact many scaled back their social welfare schemes to convert to the Euro system. There are no GULAGs, no one is being disappeared into the night and fog. In fact, the people are pretty much left to whatever depravity they like. It's more "Brave New World" than "1984".

    HCR is wrong, it will drive up costs and weigh down the medical establishment with regulations, but despite even my own rants to the contrary it isn't Stalinist/Maoist tyranny. Screaming that it is, as a serious debating tactic, will cost anyone their credibility.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Democrats do it because they love you, and Mother Earth more (I mean too).

  • ||

    Such fallacies on display.

    First, around half the hospitals in this country are non-profits. Even if they were allowed to by law, they wouldn't turn people away from their ERs for inability to pay. Thus, the actual "income-based inequality in life-and-death matters" is a chimera. You simply wouldn't see it in any systematic way.

    Freedom of choice is an empty concept if one of the options is death or disability; what's more, this is one area where better and costlier goods and services may be a matter of necessity rather than luxury.

    Again, there has been no showing, none, zip, zero, nada, that anyone is denied care in this country for inability to pay. Even the poster children trotted out by the Dems at their press conferences proved, on examination, to be getting treatment. Rather, the real argument was whether people should be expected to part with their own assets (however limited) in exchange for their own health care.

    This isn't about health. Its about wealth, redistribution of.

  • ||

    "What degree of income-based inequality in life-and-death matters can we accept and regard ourselves as a moral society?"

    I believe the "acceptable degree of inequality" is that which is brought about through voluntary action, without the government intervening to protect the politically favored groups from competition. In general the stronger the economy the better the average health becomes over time....in the meantime some people DO CARE enough to give their own money and time and capital to charity cases.

    The more we attack property rights and protect the AMA/insurance companies/big pharma and medical device companies from competition...the weaker the economy will be.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    There are (almost) no libertarians staying at Marriott hotels.
    There are (almost) no libertarians currently using Google.
    There are (almost) no libertarians in the nation's major airports.
    There are (almost) no libertarians in the voting booths.
    This is easy!

  • ||

    No true libertarian would use an ER. Even if they paid for it. It's like sunlight and vampires, we would burst into life and wither to ash.

  • ||

    Life->Flame. Odd typo.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I assumed you meant we would put off the mantle of undeadness. Made perfect sense to me.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    holy crap...I am starting to intuitively understand SF. I need to take a break...or another disgusting story.

    One way or another boy, you are coming with me!

  • ||

    "There are (almost) no libertarians in the voting booths...."

    Zeno of fucking Elea would be proud of Cathy Young...you have mastered the ancient arts of the dialectic.

    What is the point of arguing with your brilliant peace of pro-libertarian goodness? You have already made it known that true libertarians must ignore libertarian ideas on this topic and shuffle on over to compassionate conservatism...thank you miss young Good work!

  • ||

    God bless REASON. They're doing God's work in some of the toughest ER's in America!

  • Drinking Game Inquiry Czar||

    Is that drinking game worthy yet? I propose its addition.

  • michael||

    The use if 'we' in this article is childish. There is no 'we' that pays for government programs, and no society is moral or immoral; individuals are forced to pay for programs and only individuals can be moral. You see, ma'am, morality is based on responsibility for choices made freely. As society can neither make a choice nor act in any way, calling a society immoral because the majority of voters don't like Obamacare makes as much sense as saying "The forest is mean" or "This toaster lacks discretion." Can we get a more sensible use of language in here?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Nope.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Can we get a more sensible use of language in here?
    There is (almost) no "libertarian" in the dictionary. (You can look it up!)

  • ||

    Can we get a more sensible use of language in here?

    Of course not! The agenda of the State relies upon unclear thinking; unclear language facilitates unclear thinking.

  • ||

    It really is no use to explain things to her. She is the type to actually get excited about arguing how "the surge" was fucking awesome and we had to show those sand monkey bastards in Iraq that we weren't gonna put up with any more of their terror attacks.

    She'll act like the government/CIA being involved in the heroin buisness is a crazy "conspiracy theory".

  • Citizen Nothing||

    There are (almost) no libertarians in Iraq.

  • ||

    There was one! Well, I guess I was Libertarian AFTER I got out...

  • John Donne||

    No man is an island entire of itself; every man
    is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
    if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
    is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
    well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
    own were; any man's death diminishes me,
    because I am involved in mankind.
    And therefore never send to know for whom
    the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

  • Contrarian P||

    I don't know about you, but I'm positively overrun with indiscrete toasters.

  • ¢||

    There are almost no libertarians writing Cathy Young columns.

    Many on the out-of-control right whip up sky-is-falling hysteria over this false dichotomy, but there is only one Cathy Young column—even even even, even.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Now you know why this piece of garbage Obama & Co. just shoved down our throats will never ever be over turned.

    The very best we can hope for, is that somehow the US economy manages (once again) to grow faster than the government's capacity to consume it.

    Which doesn't seem so very likely this time.

  • ||

    Freedom of choice is an empty concept if one of the options is death or disability

    Bullshit. That's the time when freedom matters the most.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Freedom is a luxury we can no longer afford in this time of
    1) terrorism
    2) rising health care costs
    3) rainbow unicorn scarcity

  • ||

    Freedom of speech is a luxury we can no longer afford in this time of
    1) rising militias
    2) rising violence against congress
    3) the rapid spread of conspiracy theories

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Unfunny sock puppets are a luxury we can no longer afford in this time of
    1)Well, uh, - anytime.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    (see, CO, I at least attempted to include a punchline in mine.
    First lesson free.)

  • ||

    I can see value there

  • Murray Rothbard||

    Just remember that value is subjective!

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Observe the consequences of a century of statists and socialists running the public educational system.

    There is utterly no hope of ever framing this issue in rational terms in the public arena. The public doesn't know, and the only thing you can put up in the public arena is little sound bites.

    Chances of getting the public arena steered in the right direction, even if all libertarian types tried really hard: perhaps 1 in 10,000.

    Chances of this being the thing that finally breaks the US economy: 9,999 in 10,000.

  • ||

    ""Chances of getting the public arena steered in the right direction, even if all libertarian types tried really hard: perhaps 1 in 10,000.

    Chances of this being the thing that finally breaks the US economy: 9,999 in 10,000.""

    What data do you have to back that up?

    Or was guessing king at the non-public school you attended?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    You think I'm wrong?

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Perhaps his school failed to teach the use of hyperbole? Or perhaps it did not seem to be hyperbole to him because he in fact believes your numbers are too conservative.

  • ||

    ""Chances of getting the public arena steered in the right direction, even if all libertarian types tried really hard: perhaps 1 in 10,000.

    Chances of this being the thing that finally breaks the US economy: 9,999 in 10,000.""

    What data do you have to back that up?

    Or was guessing king at the non-public school you attended?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I bet they taught about double-posting, though.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    btw, I still contend: the center of our battle line should be repealing the individual mandate.

    The rest of it is just wealth redistribution writ large. But the individual mandate is a huge federal power grab and that will set a horrible, liberty-killing precedent.

    Kill the individual mandate, if there's going to be any semblance of liberty left in the aftermath.

  • ||

    Just killing the mandate hastens the collapse of private insurance and the transition to single/government-payer.

    Single-payer is what will kill any semblance of liberty, as it is an open invitation to government control of all aspects of your life.

    Of course, we're only talking about how fast we will get to the totalitarian-nanny state, not about whether any permutation of this bill doesn't get us there eventually.

  • ||

    Let the mandate happen. I can afford this shit longer than 90% of the population.

    The Empire will hang itself...givem all the rope they need to get the job done right.

  • Federal Dog||

    "Of course, we're only talking about how fast we will get to the totalitarian-nanny state"

    Please stop alread with this "nanny-state" nonsense.

    People responsible for that legislation are not nannies -- they are thugs. Bribes, threats, deception, concealment, middle-of-the-night misconduct, etc. characterize thugs out to prey on people, not nannies -- who, presumably, actually care for the children in their charge.

  • ||

    agreed...nannies are actually pretty likeable. Most are not the overbearing types you think of on TV. They pretty much just want to go out drinking with friends.

    I think the humans in the government are sleazier then mere thugs though...more like mobsters.

  • Sudden||

    Agreed +1. I think Mary Poppins is far too nice to be considered a bureaucrat. I think, especially given the emphasis on health care by our government hereafter, Nurse Rachet is a best case comparison.

  • Ratko||

    Be cautious, talk like that will result in Mary Poppins' enforcers crashing into your living room with their police armored personnel carrier.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    You're assuming the Doom-o-crats will still be in control when that time comes.

    I predict they won't be by then. There might even be a chance, by then, to roll some of this train wreck back.

    An outside chance yes, but way better than an alternative of no chance at all.

  • ||

    Well, gang, I'm off to my American Health Lawyers Association webinar, titled (I am not making this up):

    The New Jobs Bill for Lawyers: Healthcare Reform.

  • ||

    ""The New Jobs Bill for Lawyers: Healthcare Reform.""

    Probably by design.

  • ||

    I do not believe this conspiracy theory. Nothing on the internet is true.

  • Ratko||

    And nothing on the outernet is untrue.

  • Dee||

    Churches, civic organizations, and private charities have a long-standing reputation for out-performing government programs with respect to identifying and helping the truly needy.

    One problem I see with this article is that she presumes that markets exist in isolation from each other. There are various government interventions destroying free market principles that lead to people not having the funds to pay for things.

    When onerous regulations exists on various goods and services, it affects the prices, availability, and/or quality of those goods and services. When one is paying more because of these regulations, he doesn't have as much for services such as health care or health care insurance premiums.

    Also, our current system is not an insurance system; it's a health care payment system. If we had true insurance, more people would be able to afford it.

    With respect to life and death, is your life worth as much as your house, your car, your bling? Why do people expect their lives to be heroically saved without any payment, being able to keep all of their "stuff" at the expense of others' lives, liberty, and property? We currently do not deny access to health care for emergencies. People should be billed for the services they receive, with reasonable payment plans. If they don't pay, they should have assets seized.

  • Ratko||

    If people had listen to the Jesus sermon before they got their handouts they'd soon find a way to not need handouts.

  • Cookie Kwan||

    Oh, get off the cross Cathy Young. Spare me your righteous indignation and go write for MSNBC where someone will give a crap about what you have to say.

    Regardless of your martyrdom, people in this country were/are not dying in the streets. This is a total lie. We have free clinics around the country (see Hill Burton), Catholic hospitals that offer around 30% of their care to charity and non-profits offering grants to those without insurance, not to mention Medicare disability and Medicaid.

  • ||

    In this thread:

    - enthusiastic supporters of medical bankruptcies

    - persons incapable of imagining or articulating the enormous difference in cost and provisioning between emergency care and preventative care

    - cheerleaders for unregulated profiteering on matters of economic and physical life and death

    - much love of liberty, especially the liberty to choose between one's home and one's health

    - a thick cloud of bong smoke

  • Warty||

    HUHUHUHUHUH LIBERTARIANS ARE REPUBLICANS WHOO SMOKE POT HUHUHUHUH

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Unregulated profiteering! Yea!
    (And I seriously mean that. Pass the bong!)

  • Cookie Kwan||

    So, what's your point orel hazard? I don't see what the problem is.

    (Keeping up the comradery and passing the bong to the next pot smoking R.)

  • Soonerliberty||

    What is a medical bankruptcy? So, because Orel was too busy giving his name in a back alley to a stranger and not planning on getting herpes and syphilis of the mouth, we have to pay for his inability to calculate risks? If someone can't afford health care, wtf do they have a house? This is the same sort of brain dead mentality that got us into the housing crisis.

    I wonder why syphilis of the mouth, aka Orel, doesn't attack farmers for profiteering from hunger. It's so easy to be a brainless leftist. "No one should make money while people starve. It is immoral. Unregulated profiteering is bad, bad, bad. Grocers and farmers only think about profit while people starve on the streets of America. Free food care for all!" Strangely, I have a funny feeling this will be their next attack: food industries.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    If health care is a basic human right, then food certainly is, too.

  • Tony||

    Maybe we should have a subsidy for food for the poor. Maybe it could take the form of a stamp.

  • Tony||

    I also endorse subsidies for finding the most delicious penises to devour.

  • ||

    I expect plenty of dumb around free-market fundamentalists, but I don't expect even the most sullen libertarian teenager to mistake the concept "regulated profiteering" for "any profiteering". The way basic English works seems pretty straightforward and hard to get so totally wrong like that. I guess I just keep overestimating the literacy levels of economic libertarians.

    Either that, or you've sparked up some serious bud, dude.

  • ||

    Emergency care is cheaper. I'd explain it to you but you're not worth my time.

  • ||

    Suuuuure it is. On planet Libertopia, tumors and diseases are actually cheaper to deal with in a 24-hour facility geared toward bleeding out than they are to deal with before they get to that stage. Riiiight.

    http://bit.ly/b48RcF

  • Contrarian P||

    No, most tumors and diseases that kill Americans are easy to deal with by not smoking, drinking in moderation, maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding risky sexual and drug behaviors, and exercise. There is no medical therapy that can overcome the long term effects of ignoring the above causes of disease. All we can do is hope to ameliorate the effects, but the effects are still there.

    Once patients present to the ED in advanced disease states, they are unlikely to last very long. Chronic treatment for the diseases is extremely expensive. You should figure out how much those office visits and all those drugs cost, especially when you consider that you will still pay for the same end of life care. You'll just pay for it later rather than sooner. And by the way, you'll still be paying to staff a 24 hour emergency facility "geared toward bleeding". You won't be saving money. Sorry.

  • Contrarian P||

    Oops...forgot about wearing a damn seatbelt. My bad.

  • John Stewart||

    But have you ever seen a republican.... on weeeeeeed?

  • Suck it up Crybaby||

    It is up to the citizens of this country to help each other. Government just hires more and more public employees which raise the cost and little gets done compared to the private sector. People with out money can get help at most hospitals or clinics. All the illegal immigrants just call 911 for minor things like colds and the Paramedics still have to respond. This health care will throw this country deeper into debt that we may all soon be bankrupt. This nation is the most compassionate and giving in the world. The people of this country (not government) give more to charities than the rest of the world combined. Not just in this country but around the world.
    www.suckitupcrybaby.com

  • Tony||

    How dare Obama work to enact the central domestic policy he campaigned on! Hubris!

  • Tony||

    However, Cathy makes some excellent points.

    Libertarians try to weasel their way out of being totally morally bankrupt on this issue by appealing to the forms of socialized medicine that already exist, such as medicaid or charities. This, of course, is having your cake and eating it too. Either healthcare access should be wealth dependent or not. I don't think libertarians want to admit to this because it would essentially render their worldview morally bankrupt.

  • Soonerliberty||

    Dude, I don't know any libertarians arguing for medicaid. How ridiculously dumb do you have to be to not realize that charity is voluntary, whereas medicaid is not? It is exactly your system that makes health care access more expensive and less available. You would know this if you had any economic sense. Take a trip to Russia or the Ukraine and see what your system did to access. It created an even more wealth-dependent system, whatever the hell that even means. How is it moral to steal from the private sector and destroy jobs, wealth, and technology and to give the money back inefficiently and partially? How is it moral to deprive someone of full health care because you have a limited amount of tax dollars to work with? How is it moral to inflate the currency to pay for your system, thus impoverishing the poor forever? How do you feel about being in bed with bankers and the Treasury, the only way to finance your social democratic utopia? Do you at least feel used? Is there a redeeming bone in your ignorant body that would allow you to understand how you are getting played by the wealthy, who have no problem signing up under your system, because they know their spots are safe under it? Morally bankrupt is the definition of social democracy.

  • ||

    Hmm I think I have this philosophy down:
    - I’ve got mine so screw everyone else.
    - I will always and forever be on top, so screw everyone else.
    - In case I am wrong and need this benefit I will shut up and gladly die in a corner.
    - If everyone else behaved like me the world would be a better place.
    Um... OK, sounds like a winner to me, go for it!

  • Soonerliberty||

    I don't have mine, but I have no claim on others' stuff. How childish can you be? That's why there is no social mobility in social democracies. Everyone has a claim on other people's things.

    "If everyone else behaved like me the world would be a better place."

    Umm, not what I said. I couldn't care less how others behave. It's not my business. A philosophy that assumes it is its business is tyrannical. Such a philosophy also requires that bureaucrats and politicians be not self-interested and selfless. Yup, that works great. Probably why every gov't that has ever existed has failed and will fail. I know, let's make a law banning nature and the fall of gov'ts. This is how simpleton you people are. If we make a law, it doesn't exist. And the whole time you and the Tonies of the world are sodomizing the taxpayer against their will.

  • RichN||

    "The doctrine of regulation and legislation by "master minds," in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find "master minds" so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

    "Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger."
    --Address of Franklin D. Roosevelt as Governor of New York, March 2, 1930.

  • Tony||

    Medicaid IS voluntary. We voted for our government did we not? Want to abolish it, get a majority of the people to go along with it.

    It's utter crap to claim that private charity would ever do the job socialized healthcare does. In your world we'd never even be allowed the CHOICE of socialized healthcare, even though it obviously works better than anything else, and just because a minority doesn't approve. Your minority. You are a fascist.

    For the record, I am not in favor of authoritarian communism so I don't see how your examples relate.

    As for being played by the wealthy and powerful, I was arguing against corporate control of government the entire time your beliefs were providing pro-corporate think tanks and politicians philosophical cover for their looting. So don't lecture me. I want a strong government, one able to withstand the influence of wealthy interests.

  • Tony||

    Penises are the best.

  • Tony||

    Having black men force their cocks up your ass is voluntary!

  • ||

    We voted for our government did we not? Want to abolish it, get a majority of the people to go along with it.
    Who you callin' "we", white man? I never voted for it, and your votes have precisely the claim than me and my friend Hanibal's votes (after all, between the three of us, with an arbitrary border drawn about, we're the majority) to process you into soylent green for our supper.

    It's utter crap to claim that private charity would ever do the job socialized healthcare does.
    Actually, voluntary association and charity did better until government made it illegal. The CHOICE we had to form our own solutions as free humans was destroyed by nationalistic and fascistic busy-bodies of your ilk, not mine.

    For the record, I am not in favor of authoritarian communism
    Sure about that? Check out Engels debates with the anarchists at the various Internationals; the majoritarian rapine of minorities you're pumping for is exactly what the authoritarian commies thought Communism would be.

    I want a strong government, one able to withstand the influence of wealthy interests.
    That's like saying you want the Washinton monument, which is a metallic sphere. There is no such thing.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    "Either healthcare access should be wealth dependent or not. I don't think libertarians want to admit to this because it would essentially render their worldview morally bankrupt."

    I'll admit to it with glee. In case there is any interest, my moral worldview consists of what I can conclude from my starting axioms, the latter two of which are assumptions. 1. I am. 2. sentient existance is good. 3. Although all perceived reality is subjective, an absolute objective reality does exist. I can get pretty far without the third although oddities crop up, such as it being morally permissible to kill people in their sleep because they are only potential humans at that moment. Anyway, if you wish to discuss the moral bankruptcy of my worldview and propose an alternative I'm observing.

  • Tony||

    A little philosophy 101 edumacation can be worse than none at all, it seems.

    Okay... but people are starving. And the only reason you have your loot is because your throat isn't currently being slit, because government exists to protect you. Your grand moral claim to your stuff is "finders keepers." College philosophy 101 masking kindergarten ethics.

  • Tony||

    I love penises

  • Contrarian P||

    How exactly does government protect me from getting my throat slit, and by whom? Some invading force? I don't think anyone opposes the idea of national defense...it is after all one of the reasons government should exist. Another is to protect the rights of the few from the many. Unfortunately now the few get to pay the way of the many. Maybe you think the police protect me from getting killed? Funny, I see plenty of gunshot wound victims roll through and none of them were protected from that fate by the cops.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Actually, my "moral claim" to my/everyone's loot/property is that I believe myself best able to utilize it to reach the goal of maximizing "good" as defined by sentient existance and those things abetting sentient existance.

    Unfortunately others share my belief. They think THEY best know how resources should be spent. Since the matter is subjective, (I can't accurately calculate the life of a man vs that of a dolphin for example, or how to weigh the impact of hypothetical happiness/misery units)there is no fool proof test to determine which of us are most right. It's a moral wash.

    Pragmatism comes into play. I wish to maximize my control. At the same time whatever level of control I morally claim may be morally claimed by any other. If you have a moral right to use MY resources FOR ANY REASON, I have an equal right to use YOUR resources for ANY REASON. Community resources collapse into eternal battlegrounds where loot really does belong to whomever slits the last throat. The best solution I can see is a minimal government tasked with recognizing the existence of personal property, protecting it, and enforcing contracts. One cannot morally expand beyond this scope unless one can prove that he really DOES know better than everyone else.

    You presume much,(erroneously) and your tone was insulting. If you want a serious discussion I'm quite willing, but if you just want to trade barbs I'll find a less wasteful use of my time.

  • Tony||

    Tasty cocks are tasty

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Either food access should be wealth-dependent or not.

    Either housing access should be wealth-dependent or not.

    Either job access should be wealth-dependent or not.

  • Aspersions||

    Reads like a Peggy Noonan column. This is the kind of mush you hear from people just before you recommend they read REASON for a different perspective.

  • hah||

    Why is an article like this posted on a libertarian site?

  • Tony||

    I got AIDS from taking random cock in my ass, now I want you all to pay for my mistakes. I have a right to anti-AIDS cocktail.

  • ||

    Simple fix: abolish the 50 health care markets in America and form one set of regulations so persons and associations can buy healthcare insurance across state lines, as price competition develops start to pay for routine care out of pocket (it will be very affordable) and then insure for catastrophic care. There are ways to handle pre-existing conditions and other vexing issues. See http://reason.com/archives/200.....surance-so

  • MacGhil||

    Sarah Palin and some others on the right have whipped up hysteria about "death panels" that will deny lifesaving medical care to the less fit—claims that Cato Institute expert Michael Tanner, a strong critic of the reform legislation, has dismissed as unfounded.

    It is called a [Comparative Effectiveness Research] Council, and not a death panel. But if you should develop a fatal illness which you might have survived had you been allowed to receive a treatment that the Council has deemed cost-ineffective, then you might be forgiven for thinking of the CER Council (from your insular, personal, narrow-minded, self-interested point of view), as a death panel. But there are no death panels in HR 3200, and Sarah Palin should be ashamed of herself for suggesting otherwise.
  • ||

    Seems that from my "insular, personal, narrow-minded, self-interested point of view" there are death panels in HR 3200.

    It does not matter that you would rather euphemise the euthanasia.

  • ||

    US "healthcare providers" and associated corporate interests demanded ObamaCare because they value automated payment for the automated services, many of questionable quality, that they'd like to provide EVERYONE, via coercion. Remember the old Soviet Union & Maoist China? Didn't they excel at producing goods & services that no one actually WANTED, too? Joke, the idea that ObamaCare isn't worse than "socialism"! Almighty Fat Federal Govt has steadily worsened US medical care ever since it began meddling in it. Medical care necessary to save life (as opposed to most US medical care actually rendered) used to be provided via charities; the immoral majority, believing itself entitled to covet & coerce the spending of OPM on itself then voted for Medicaid & ObamaCare. "Healthcare providers" currently work for the govt, rather than for the patient--I fail to see why ANY PATIENT wouldn't run the other way! (Fast)!

  • ||

    All after the fact health care is SickCare. Health starts with personal responsibility to eat right and exercise and reduce stress.

  • Ratko||

    Well, I went to the doctor
    I said, "I'm feeling kind of rough"
    He said, "I'll break it to you, son
    Your shit's fucked up."
    I said, "my shit's fucked up?"
    Well, I don't see how--"
    He said, "The shit that used to work--
    It won't work now."

    I had a dream
    Ah, shucks, oh, well
    Now it's all fucked up
    It's shot to hell

    Yeah, yeah, my shit's fucked up
    It has to happen to the best of us
    The rich folks suffer like the rest of us
    It'll happen to you

    Warren Zevon wrote that song as he was dying. Warren had plenty of money, but as he implied in the song being rich doesn't mean you get to live. Stealing from others to give yourself rich man medical care doesn't mean life, it just means you die a shit-stain.

    It's not medicine that is "life-and-death" Ms. Young, it's life that is "life-and-death."

    Since we are all going to die and many of us will die ill, where is the logic in trading liberties, the only thing that gives life meaning, for false security?

    I'm not interested in trading my liberties for anything, period. Especially for some immature coward who can't face the reality of life and death or the unfortunate person who just got dealt a bad hand.

    If people can do things in an optional way where I can be left out of their chicken-shit schemes no problem, but don't drag me into them and take my liberties in the process.

    Small children often face their ends with more courage and dignity than the adults bawling for this nonsense.

    Everyone who took the bait and helped throw away a big chunk of what little freedom we have left will die in time just like everyone else dies. With a little luck, and help from the medical profession they so valued. they'll get to suffer like hell first.

  • ||

    Correction: this Zevon tune was released in 1999 three years before cancer diagnosis.

  • ||

    +1

  • Patriot Henry||

    Today, someone who would have been doomed to disability or premature death a generation or two ago can often lead a long and full life—and to deny them that opportunity because they (or, in the case of children, their parents) cannot afford it should be troubling even to the most pro-free-market among us.

    I haven't yet met or read of a person who believes that the mere inability of an individual to pay for medical care should be an absolute guarantee that they do not receive medical care.

    The question is if they can not pay for it, and their families can not pay for it, and no one else can willing pay for it, then how can everyone pay for a government to tax them and to pay for it? In addition, there are further losses by the disincentive on production by the process of taxation, and there is the reduction of the reward of giving directly to charity and to insurance, and there is the additional incentives for people to avoid taxes and to seek the maximum amount of "free" health care. All of this adds up to more expensive, lower quality, lower availability of health care.

    What should be troubling to all people, especially to the most free-market people amongst us, is that the fiction of the State is so pervasive in our country and our world today that so many are willing to sell themselves into servitude, poverty, and destitution for the promise of a free ride.

    The current reform legislation won't lead us into communism.

    No, it will lead us further into fascism, squarely so. Perhaps that will be the golden colored ticket to lead us into communism.

    Some other sky-is-falling predictions seem very unlikely to come true such as a health-care police state in which the governments new role in insurance regulation is used to silence critics through the threat of access denial.

    Given that we are talking about a global empire with a very long and very dark history between the government and medicine - that prediction seems reasonable.

    Indeed, as with atheists and foxholes, there are (almost) no libertarians in emergency rooms.

    People of principle are a rare thing indeed.

  • JB||

    It's a monument to stupidity.

    Obama = stupid cunt.

  • FDR||

    "The doctrine of regulation and legislation by "master minds," in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find "master minds" so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

    "Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger."
    --Address of Franklin D. Roosevelt as Governor of New York, March 2, 1930.

  • ||

    According to Morgan Spurlock, Americans are a race of rapacious gluttons incapable of controlling their ravenous consumption.... If that's true (which it is), then the government should just have one big bake sale to raise funds for health care... It almost worked for the PTA.

  • ||

    What ever happened to the 80 year old badasses that (upon being informed they had Cancer) refused to accept the fact that they were dying and went on working until they happily expired in their own beds?

    Do people really want to spend their time laying in a hospital waiting to die a slow, miserable, laborious death?

    Instead of accepting these bizarre socialist economics, the American public should simply re-learn the concept of self-delusion and denial.

    You're not sick, stop crying and get a job.

    Your leg isn't broken, that's just what it feels like when pain leaves your soul!

    Be a man!

    "I need free health care 'cos I'm a penniless mooch whose got some sand in his pussy".

  • Contrarian P||

    "What ever happened to the 80 year old badasses that (upon being informed they had Cancer) refused to accept the fact that they were dying and went on working until they happily expired in their own beds?"

    They're still around. Unfortunately they don't "happily expire in their own beds". Generally they begin to waste away and are in incredible pain.

    I'm taking care of a patient like that right now. Dying slowly, barely able to breathe, and gasping for air. He refused any treatment for his cancer. He was a brave, brave man, and a hardworking one. That was a year ago. Now he's operating on about one half of one lung. He's dying. He's suffering. And I'm working to ease his pain. That's it. There's no treatment for him. But I guess I should send him home to die bravely in his bed?

    I don't think you know anything at all about which you speak. Please, fill out your living will now. Make sure you include that part about being left free to bravely die. Otherwise I'll be legally obligated to treat your sorry ass when you no longer can speak for yourself.

  • Buck||

    I think we really need to admit to the fact with any commodity, health care included, that if you can't afford it, you can't get it, unless you can get someone else to VOLUNTARILY pay for it. I cring when anyone, ESPECIALLY libertarians or Republicans yield in any way to that...by saying that no-one should be denied any care. That's impractical, and it's wrong and immoral when someone else is FORCED to fund that care.

  • ||

    Buck is absolutely right. An easy way to prove this accurate is to question the liberal argument for universal health care.

    "Everybody deserves to be healthy, not just the wealthy"

    Ok, so that means the U.S government should fund the entire world's health care?

    They don't believe in that because it would be our government having too much power and micromanaging global economics... but if you observe the same logic on a smaller scale, it is equally unfair.

    If charity starts at home, keep it there. If you care that much about someone elses' health, then do something about it. Work with a local church, fund raising groups, community groups.. give up your ipods and cellphones.. sell everything of needless luxury that you have and give it to charity.

    Ironically it is some of the most priviledged members of our society that swallow this communist/socialist rhetoric. Poor parents saved up their whole lives so their little brats can go to college and learn how money is evil.

    Anyway,

    Using taxpayer money to fund federal health care makes just as much sense as it does funding the world's health care.. . none.

  • ||

    Maybe, just maybe, Obamacare will come to a halt and here is why:

    http://www.thomasmore.org/down.....ryInju.pdf

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • xiaoyang||

    Beer and wine kisumu 2 possess a small amount of methyl alcohol, also known as fuel line antifreeze along with cook oven fuel. It is just a harmless quantity in ale and wine beverage but when distilled atmbt sapatu the wrong temp a dangerous amount of methyl alchol can be done.

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