Reason.tv: What If Government Ran Health Care? (Sprint Ad Remix)

LOL, you think its bad now? ROTFL, let those idiot politicians get involved and we are ALL screwed because all they will be in it for is to see which one can pocket the most money. Luckily for us, the medical lobbyists have all the law makers in their hip pockets and it will never happen.

RT
http://www.anon-tools.tk

|6.26.09 @ 10:36AM|#

"What if government ran health care." In what country is that being proposed? You guys would have more credibility if you dealt with issues as they are, not as they are in your worst nightmares.

|6.26.09 @ 10:36AM|#

Putting government in charge of health care would be like putting Reason in charge of comedy.

|6.26.09 @ 10:41AM|#

One punchline dragged out for a full minute. Semi funny, relevant, semi original.
grade: C

|6.26.09 @ 10:41AM|#

BTW - Who would you rather have rationing health care - insurance companies that are accountable to no one, or the government, which (in theory, at least) is accountable to voters. We already know that the insurance companies are scoundrels who divide the population into two camps 1) Healthy people who don't presently need health care, and can therefore be insured, and 2) Unhealthy people who currently need health care, and will therefore be denied coverage.

|6.26.09 @ 10:44AM|#

Who would you rather have rationing health care - insurance companies that are accountable to no one,

Well, no one except their customers and state regulators.

or the government, which (in theory, at least) is accountable to voters.

The regulatory agencies and bureaucrats aren't accountable to voters, but to Congress and the President, which are accountable to voters only every 2 - 4 - 6 years.

I think I know who is more accountable, here, and it ain't the government.

We already know that the insurance companies are scoundrels who divide the population into two camps

The government will divide people into two camps as well - those who are worth paying for their health care, and those who are not, based on their age, condition, and lifestyle.

|6.26.09 @ 10:47AM|#

//Well, no one except their customers and state regulators.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the hearings on capitol hill. Ever heard of rescission ? Dropping patients for absurd reasons when they get sick?

|6.26.09 @ 10:47AM|#

the government, which (in theory, at least) is accountable to voters

Now see, reasontv? That's how you do comedy.

|6.26.09 @ 10:59AM|#

Absurd reasons for dropping people like lying on the application?

Do we prefer the fraud and unaccountability demonstrated by government programs like Medicare and Medicaid?

What we need to do is get insurance back to what it should be, which is a manager of severe risk, and not in charge of paying for every doctor's visit.

Does your car insurance include paying for oil changes and tuneups?

More government is NOT the answer. More consumer choice IS the best answer.

Joel|6.26.09 @ 11:01AM|#

The regulatory agencies and bureaucrats aren't accountable to voters, but to Congress and the President, which are accountable to voters only every 2 - 4 - 6 years...

...in both the congressional voting districts that are actually up for grabs in any given election, at which point the voters in those districts get to throw out one used-up bum and install a shiny new one. As for the president, the voters get to choose between Statist Stooge A and Statist Stooge B.

Bad as they are, I'll take my chances with insurance companies. But thanks for caring.

Timmy|6.26.09 @ 11:08AM|#

Rob, perhaps you should follow the polls that show a majority of Americans are satisfied with their current insurance and expect the pending government action to make things worse.

Spoonman|6.26.09 @ 11:12AM|#

You know who should regulate healthcare? Doctors, patients, charities, and other organizations retained by the patients.

creech|6.26.09 @ 11:15AM|#

Yeah, those insurance companies are doing a bang-up job denying care. So much so that TIME reports the cost of unnecessary health care is about $700 billion per year, or 1/3 of total expenditures! One can imagine how high this will soar when Obamessiah eliminates administration costs like, say, auditors and code reviewers. Heck, aren't all health care providers greedy? Do you think they'll be less so and less inclinded to fraud when the insurance gatekeepers are pushed aside for compassionate government overseers? And why has Obamessiah asked for $1 billion to study "best practices" (as if the insurers haven't already done so and use the list to deny experimental or procedures not shown to work)? Any bets that the government "best practices" list won't be used to ration health care (at least for those who don't avail themselves of political connections to get the 'very best care' Obamessiah wants for his family.)

|6.26.09 @ 11:15AM|#

You know who should regulate healthcare? no one.

Tomcat1066|6.26.09 @ 11:20AM|#

To err is human. To really screw everything up, you need the government.

Rich|6.26.09 @ 11:24AM|#

R C: "The government will divide people into two camps as well - those who are worth paying for their health care, and those who are not, based on their age, condition, and lifestyle."

... age, condition, lifestyle, and [insert other parameters as needed].

|6.26.09 @ 12:00PM|#

I'd rather be screwed over for a rational financial reason than for some absurd and likely arbitrary political one.

Besides, what's the problem today? A free market in healthcare? What kind of partisan glasses does it take to assert that this industry isn't already largely controlled by the government? And a huge part of the problem is the state regulators, who've created so many barriers to entry to limit the insurance options of consumers.

Nah, it's your government(s) that caused this mess. Insurers, doctors, and plaintiffs' attorneys have contributed, but the big problem is trillion pound gorilla.

|6.26.09 @ 12:01PM|#

"""I think I know who is more accountable, here, and it ain't the government."""

Never is.

"""You guys would have more credibility if you dealt with issues as they are, not as they are in your worst nightmares."""

There's some truth there. But if government can bullshit people about how good it will be, can't we bullshit people about how bad it will be. Turnabout is fair play.

Non-sequitor Observation Guy|6.26.09 @ 12:06PM|#

Nice, it has one of the actors from Defenders of Stan. Glad to see him getting work.

Kevin|6.26.09 @ 12:10PM|#

Does your car insurance include paying for oil changes and tuneups?

Amen. I've come to believe the problem is too much insurance (another way, an overreach of insurance). For vision, your choices range from Wal-Mart to a specialist. Why can't the rest of health care be that way? And what exactly IS "health care"? Everything you do affects your health.

Sorry for sounding like Andy Rooney.

|6.26.09 @ 12:12PM|#

Rob Levine

Maybe when, like me, you had to wait six months for surgery to save your eyesight from severe glaucoma, you might really appreciate the "benefits" of health care that is "accountable to the voters".

|6.26.09 @ 12:12PM|#

//Absurd reasons for dropping people like lying on the application?

Funny - the ins companies don't care about that stuff while the patients are paying premiums for DECADES. It's only when they make a claim that the initial application is scrutinized for any possible anomaly. I believe someone testified that they had paid premiums for like decades, then got cancer, then got kicked off health ins for not reporting getting treated for acne.

|6.26.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Aresen - what kind of health ins do you have, private or public?

Some Guy|6.26.09 @ 12:37PM|#

Such a great concept, but such bad execution.

Kevin|6.26.09 @ 12:38PM|#

Any federal beurocracy, the likes of which a national health plan would create, is not accountable to voters. Consider the Federal Reserve or IRS. Good luck changing IRS policy with your vote.

|6.26.09 @ 12:39PM|#

I believe someone testified that they had paid premiums for like decades, then got cancer, then got kicked off health ins for not reporting getting treated for acne.

PSSST...Anecdotal evidence is better than nothing...sometimes. But not in this case.

|6.26.09 @ 12:51PM|#

The USA spends more money then any other country for healthcare, and we need to spend an additional trillion dollars to fix it? This won't include what Medicare will cost in a few years when more of the babyboomers become eligible. Does anyone really think the governement is going to make things better here? Why is it every industry the government is heavily involved (like healthcare) tends to be screwed up? At the end of the day, we will end up paying more for less.

Michael Ejercito|6.26.09 @ 1:12PM|#

How would Los Angeles County, California run health care?

|6.26.09 @ 1:26PM|#

"Absurd reasons for dropping people like lying on the application?"

No... absurd reasons for dropping people like when those people have the audacity to get severely sick or injured.

|6.26.09 @ 1:40PM|#

Rob Levine | June 26, 2009, 12:14pm | #

Aresen - what kind of health ins do you have, private or public?

Government.

I'm Canadian.

BTW, I also had to wait 18 months for hernia surgery. The surgeon who did it used to offer to do it in his office on a Saturday for $1200, but the government banned the practice and threatened to pull the license of any surgeon who did so. Accordingly, I had to wear a truss that rubbed painfully for a year and a half. (BTW, the hospital cost for the hernia surgery was $3,000. Doesn't government medicine give wonderful economic savings?)

OMGGOD|6.26.09 @ 1:57PM|#

that was just a lame video. I expect better from you reason.

|6.26.09 @ 2:04PM|#

Aresen - I sympathize with your plight. I really don't think we're going to single payer, so that won't happen in the U.S. You might consider that 18,000 - 18,000 - people in the U.S. died unnecessarily last year because they had NO coverage.

|6.26.09 @ 2:07PM|#

Aresen

You mean to say that all those people telling us how great Canadian Medicare is are wrong?

Actually another anecdote I heard about BC's health plan* is that there is a committee that checks every prescription and orders substitutions of lower cost substitutes. There is not a single medical, nursing or pharmaceutical professional on that board.

*For anyone who don't know, while Medicare is a federal mandate, it is up to each province and territory to establish and fund its own plan in conformance with federal guidelines.

|6.26.09 @ 2:11PM|#

DOH...

"For anyone who do[es]n't know..."

I've pretty much given up on spelling errors but a grammatical error that bad just screams for correction.

|6.26.09 @ 2:14PM|#

I know a couple of USAians who work in Canada who carry private U.S. insurance, too. Probably illegally.

|6.26.09 @ 2:25PM|#

If political reality dictates that we need a national health plan (or whatever), the last place anyone should be looking for a model is Canada.

Britain would be the winner of the race to the bottom except that they do have a private alternative.

But considering that the biggest country on display for consideration has about a fifth of the population of the USA I'm not awfully sanguine about the success of any such scheme here.

I also get the impression that many of the European welfare states do not do particuallarly well at delivering their social services to racial and ethnic minorities.

|6.26.09 @ 2:37PM|#

"I really don't think we're going to single payer, so that won't happen in the U.S."

I'm not so sure about that. How can private insurance compete with tax subsidized public insurance? How long will it be before they go under?

|6.26.09 @ 2:44PM|#

Rob Levine

You might consider that 18,000 - 18,000 - people in the U.S. died unnecessarily last year because they had NO coverage

About the same ratio of Canadians died waiting for surgery or treatment.

As for the single payer, Canadians were assured in the 1960s that they would still be able to get private insurance.

Why is it now banned?* Because the socialists who run the system don't want a "two tier" medical system - one of the most popular bogeymen in Canadian politics.

*Having private insurance, like Pro Libertate's friends, through a US carrier is not illegal. You just have to go to the US for treatment. Many people in the upper income brackets do this, so Canada actually does have a two tier system.

As a side benefit, there is proportinately much less medical research done in Canada, so Canada is almost entirely dependent on the US for medical advancement.

|6.26.09 @ 2:45PM|#

The basic problem with private health ins is the nature of human life itself. Needs for health care generally group around birth, giving birth, and the dying process (end of life care). This means to properly average the cost of care it must be done over an entire life, not the short one year or whatever terms offered by private insurers. They can cream off the people least likely to make claims leaving all the others who actually need care on their own. Basically, it's a con.

|6.26.09 @ 2:48PM|#

So if the U.S. goes to socialized healthcare, what will Canadians do? I think that might be an act of war on our part. I must urge Obama not to provoke Canada in this manner.

Aresen, can you arrange some mass protests?

|6.26.09 @ 2:50PM|#

I really don't think we're going to single payer, so that won't happen in the U.S.

Over time, we will. The reforms being talked about are toxic to private insurance in the long run. (By design, I believe).

You might consider that 18,000 - 18,000 - people in the U.S. died unnecessarily last year because they had NO coverage.

[Citation needed]

|6.26.09 @ 2:52PM|#

Basically, it's a con.

So, you don't carry health insurance, Ron?

|6.26.09 @ 3:02PM|#

"Who would you rather have rationing health care - insurance companies that are accountable to no one,"

With insurance companies you can have a choice. You can pay lower premiums for a policy that doesn't cover as much or pay higher premiums for a policy that covers more, etc. You won't have those choices when the government ends up taking over as it eventually will.

|6.26.09 @ 3:07PM|#

"They can cream off the people least likely to make claims leaving all the others who actually need care on their own. Basically, it's a con."

And national healthcare can ration off the elderly as they do in so many countries with nationalized healthcare. Obama has even hinted along these lines.

|6.26.09 @ 3:13PM|#

"As a side benefit, there is proportinately much less medical research done in Canada, so Canada is almost entirely dependent on the US for medical advancement."

In case Rob hasn't made the connection, the reason other countries don't pay as much for R & D as the US is because of their trying to save costs. Do we want this in the US?

|6.26.09 @ 3:20PM|#

bookworm - and where does the money for basic research come from? The government. Who makes the profits off this research? Private companies. In the U.S. expenses are pawned off to the public while profits are privatized. It there a worse way to do this?

|6.26.09 @ 3:21PM|#

//With insurance companies you can have a choice

On the front end, what you pay, yes. On the back end, when you need care, no. They will try to not cover you once you run up a bill.

|6.26.09 @ 3:22PM|#

"18,000 - people in the U.S. died unnecessarily last year because they had NO coverage."

Not really following your argument here. What is the estimate 32 million uninsured (low number right?)so .05% (Yes, 1/20 of a percent) of uninsured people died. Sad but stat wise not much. Also, how many chose not to have insurance? How many weren't eligible for whatever reason? (Illegal, etc).

If these 18,000 need medical treatment right away, there is the ER which by law can't turn you away if you don't have insurance.

But more to the point Rob, you complain about insurance companies - you really want the government deciding if you are supposed to live or not. Obama already stated in his infomecial that we shouldn't prolong life if it's not cost effective.

side note - I have health insurance with a high rate deductible. Meaning I pay out of pocket about 1100, before insurance kicks in. so for me it's like auto insurance. There for an emergency but not there to be abused. As with anything that is "free" people would abuse a system and go for every sniffle, every ache instead of only when necessary.

|6.26.09 @ 3:30PM|#

"18,000 - people in the U.S. died unnecessarily last year because they had NO coverage."

Did they die because they didn't have insurance or would they have died anyway? How many people died who did have insurance? Did their having insurance cause their deaths?

|6.26.09 @ 3:35PM|#

"bookworm - and where does the money for basic research come from? The government. Who makes the profits off this research? Private companies. In the U.S. expenses are pawned off to the public while profits are privatized. It there a worse way to do this?"

Yes, countries with socialized medicine where less pharmaceuticals are produced. By the way, not all R & D is paid for by the government in the US. A hell of a lot of it is paid for by the companies themselves.

|6.26.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Institute of Medicine: More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care. And that was 2002.

|6.26.09 @ 3:52PM|#

Rob,

Seems to me that they're correlating preventable deaths solely with whether the decedent had medical insurance or not. I think it goes without saying that such correlations depend on other variables, such as whether the person's lifestyle was otherwise risky, whether a doctor suggesting prevention would've been listened to, the availability of clinic care (if we're talking high blood pressure, lack of insurance probably isn't the total story to the lack of treatment), etc.

In any event, the flaws in our current system and even in a hypothetical free market system pale in comparison to an American socialized system. So much of the world depends on us having a more capitalistic system to support R&D and advanced medicine--it would be horrific if that were to stop or even slow down. And it likely would. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the kinds of nonmedical decisions the government would make affecting the availability and quality of healthcare (ask Aresen about Canada!).

|6.26.09 @ 4:53PM|#

18,000 out of a whopping 300 million. Not too bad when you really think about it. I mean, you expect me to believe there aren't at least a FEW THOUSAND Canadians or Brits or peoples elsewhere in single-payer or socialized systems that die because their gov't-run healthcare plan was inefficient, and the doctors couldn't get them treatment or surgery in time? Of course there are plenty of deaths there as well because of inefficiencies in their systems! I'm just getting so sick of these utopian leftists who want EVERYTHING perfect: no one dying of cancer and all these other diseases ever again, no uninsured folks ever, no poverty, etc.

I hate to break it to the Left, but that's just not realistic. We should set realistic goals, if anything. Benchmarks help us get results. Whining and expecting 100% success all the time does nothing. It just sets us up for obvious failure.

Remember, as economists like to say, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

And btw, why the hell do we need a new agency for a public option? Can someone explain this to me? Don't we already HAVE a public option called Medicaid for poor non-seniors? There's also SCHIP for kids. If a new healthcare plan is inevitable, you might as well save money by combining SCHIP and Medicaid into the new public option. Of course, with all the people that will apply for public option, it's unlikely we'll save any money, so we'll just keep spending more and more of our GDP. Obama's such a fool. We can see through his bs about the gov't "saving healthcare dollars" with so-called "reform."

MORE BUREAUCRACY IS NOT REFORM! Higher taxes aren't, either. Limiting gov't and unleashing the power of the market is. And who says we have to choose between being beholden to insurance or the gov't? I say we deregulate and make the healthcare market accountable to CONSUMERS, like it used to be or should've been all along. It can work. Don't let leftists tell you "healthcare is different." It's not. All markets work the same way in the end.

|6.26.09 @ 5:04PM|#

Rob Levine

Correct me if I am wrong, but your comments seem to indicate a presumption that it is wrong to profit from providing health care. You also seem to believe that government can make health care "more accessible" as well as "more efficient".

While there are certain benefits to a socialized system - people are less likely to delay seeking help, there are fewer people stressed by financial consequences of illness, and the single provider has more of an interest in long-term preventative measures - there are also undesireable consequences.

The first of these is defacto rationing. As the government coffers only permit a certain level of expenditure, the available resources are limited. Thus there are long wait times for necessary procedures - which is what I was getting at in my 12:12 & 1:40 posts. In my country, people frequently die while waiting for treatment.

Secondly, there is bureaucratic interference. Sometimes the government, like the private insurers, will not pay for procedures because it deems those procedures not "ineffective" but "not cost effective".

Thirdly, there is a tendency to skimp on tests, mainly because the resources are not available. This results in misdiagnoses and, in some cases, deaths.

Fourth, there is a tendency to discourage research on anything but conditions that are common or any procedure that is novel. Such research that is approved gets done only after a long struggle to get through bureaucratic hoops.

Also, when profits are discouraged or limited, there is no incentive to undertake high risk research.

Finally, on the subject of profits: Almost every single advance in the last century has been made because somebody wanted to make a profit from it.

Taken further, I would point out that the doctors and nurses who treat you and even the janitors in the hospitals you go to is "profiting" from your medical treatment.

Kreel Sarloo|6.26.09 @ 5:07PM|#

I keep wondering where the moral superiority is in someone dying because they failed to get medical care because of some government quota versus because they were too poor to pay for it.

|6.26.09 @ 5:13PM|#

I think we can trust the government with health care only after they prove they can handle their basic constitutional commitments.

I think they will prove themselves worthy sometime around never.

|6.26.09 @ 10:15PM|#

Rob Levine: "The basic problem with private health ins is the nature of human life itself. Needs for health care generally group around birth, giving birth, and the dying process (end of life care). This means to properly average the cost of care it must be done over an entire life, not the short one year or whatever terms offered by private insurers."

Are we talking about health care or health insurance here? The two are not the same. But so many people are doing a fine job of conflating the two and simply glossing over the fact that "no insurance" does not equal "no health care".

The government already does a fine job of offering free top-of-the-line health care at VA hospitals; ask any vet what a wonderful experience a visit to a VA hospital is.

As for insurance - this is why we will need to outlaw private insurance and private health care. Obviously, the system will not be financially sustainable if only those who need insurance and health care pay into the system, it will be necessary to force the majority of people who need neither to cough up the funding.

In other words: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

But why should we fear the efficiencies of a government-run monopoly on health care? Isn't this why we get our daily bread from the government bread store rather than depending on some mythical "market" to somehow feed us? Can you imagine the horrible waste and inefficiency and resultant high prices and dismal service if we allowed as many as 5 or 6 stores in one city to all sell bread however they wanted to?

|6.27.09 @ 10:06PM|#

If there were no third party pay system whatsoever, overhead costs would plummet, since our office hires two people to do the haggling, coding, billing. Don't act like suddenly a single pay gov't system is any different, since medicare is the one that started this crap. make the transaction more complicated, and prices go up. maybe the lawyers who write the rules for the rest of us would let us doctors and hospitals use the same pricing structure they get to use.... the free market. no lawyer can price himself out of business... and neither can a doctor. 1st party pay is the way to go.

|6.28.09 @ 9:15AM|#

Research? Private research focuses on how to help men get hardons or grow hair. Public focuses on heart disease and cancer, for example. Which is more important? Get real.

|6.29.09 @ 12:38AM|#

I was covered for a number of years by Blue Cross at work. When I developed kidney cancer; I was dropped after the initial treatment and had to take a state mandated policy at three times the cost. I complained to BC and was told to take it up with Human Resources at my employer. When I explained to them that I owned the f******g company along with two other people; BC's representative lost their cool and said they would be in contact with me. We switched to Aetna while waiting for a reply. If you're going to get handed off to the govt. every time you get seriously ill; why wait?

|6.29.09 @ 6:48AM|#

Rob Levine,
Where on earth are you getting the idea that the majority of R&D is from the government? Until recently, the best medical breakthroughs out there were from the civilian sector. Until IEDs in Iraq started blowing body parts off of our young men and woman, the government wanted nothing to do with it. And they are STILL far behind the curve. And as for R&D in anything else that government has done better then the civilian sector? I want three examples, or I declare shenanigans on you.
And as for price? Let me spell it out for you.
All the old timers I know say that when they were growing up, they had no problem affording health care when it was truly needed. Yet they all tell me the same story - once medicare and medicaid entered the scene, the price blew up like a stick of dynamite.
The why is simple. Where does the government get its money from? Taxes, or borrowing money from the FED, China, or where ever (either way us citizens are still forced to foot the bill). So whether it be through inflation caused by the prices imposed by companies who foot this bill pass on to us, or through direct taxes themselves, things naturally go up in price.
And what does the average middle class citizen get in return? Nothing. Because chances are if you make enough money from a JOB, then you see a good chunk taken out in taxes, medicare, etc. The you have bad accident, and no insurance. You go to hospital, and run up a bill. Not having insurance, you go to medicare, and what do they tell you? You make to much to use it. Forget the fact that you maybe contributed 20K+ in the last few years, you still can't have it.
Because homeless cokehead OD'd and took up a hospital bed, electricity, medical supplies etc. This comes out of YOUR pocket.
Of course to make up the differance (and to cover lawsuits), hospitals pass the bill to you.
I gotta stop...damn truth is a disgusting thing.

|6.29.09 @ 10:50AM|#

"""In other words: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.""""

Didn't that side lose the cold war?

engineer|6.30.09 @ 2:10PM|#

""""In other words: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.""""

Didn't that side lose the cold war?"

No, it just made a tactical retreat.

johnny john john|7.3.09 @ 3:06AM|#

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

Mmmm USA pays more than any other country in the world for comparable or shittier quality healthcare.

Yes. Our system works perfectly. Our Free-er market system is far more efficient! Those socialist suckers have to pay less for better care!

dbsb3233|7.3.09 @ 11:31AM|#

The primary group that should be keeping health care accountable is CUSTOMERS. The end target for our health care system should NOT be govt-based plans, nor employer-based plans, but individual/family plans, just like most everything else in life.

Moving away from employer-based plans (which now leave coverage gaps between jobs, reduce options available to individuals, and shift most of the choice to company benefits managers instead of individual consumers) would be a good move... but NOT moving to govt plans instead. The best scenario is to foster a robust marketplace of health plans and services marketed directly to consumers, competing for their business. Strong free market competition inherently creates accountability to customers.

That doesn't alleviate the need for a minimal govt safety net for the poor, of course. We'll still need that, but it should be via monetary assistance to individuals to pay for a private plan, not creation of a govt plan that becomes unfair (heavily tax-subsidized) competition to the private sector.

The Libertarian Guy|7.3.09 @ 11:42AM|#

Standing in line at a post office a while back, I observed somewhat loudly:

This is what government health care will look like, although it would be less likely one would bleed to death in the post office.

I got some VERY ugly looks, likely from the Democrats - though there are enough big-government Republicans to spoil the soup.

|7.3.09 @ 3:22PM|#

I would love for any of these people who believe that government should control health care to point me to ONE government agency that is run to their liking...please. Government run health care will be handled with the same level of customer service as the DMV, the VA, and (insert agency). Please open your eyes people!

Ratdog|7.3.09 @ 6:09PM|#

I come from a M.D. rich family, so get a look at these "life saving" professionals that most likely most Americans don't. Maybe if people saw them close up like I do, they wouldn't be so eager, even arrogant, as to trade in far more valuable liberties trying to make it so everyone can this supposed wonderful medical care. Not that it will necessarily even be there, given the fact many doctors will leave their practices in event of government run health care. Personally, I have little more trust for doctors than for politicians, somewhere between little and none. Two uncles, an aunt, my youngest sister, and my kid brother all have successful practices, and all of them have a tendency to be suckers for all kinds of nonsense. Most of them have told me at one time or another that a large part of healing under a doctors care has to do with a patient's faith in the doctor. Which if true would explain much of the irrational thinking on the part of those wannabe do-gooders who think everyone has some imaginary "right" to medical treatment, the whole things has elements of religion involved with the M.D. as the high priest and the shills for government run health care playing the part of incessant door knocking Jehovah Witnesses spreading the word. Maybe they may be well served to refresh their awareness of medical malpractice cases before this hysteria to have everyone receive medical care does anymore damage. What happened to Hillary's proposal to force all American's to buy health insurance or face punishing fines? Insurance companies are one of the biggest lobby groups, now wouldn't they just love that.. insurance is only healthy if like any other product purchase is completely voluntary, when the government thinks it has the right to force it down our throats, regardless of how many Useful Idiots think it's a great idea, it's near tyranny. If those endlessly bawling and whining for this kind of crap were sincere, and not just doing such because their masters gave the queue, quite obviously they'd just jump across the border, why wait for what one can have today when something is so important. They don't because they are not sincere, they are people who for whatever the reason feel their role in society has been side-lined leaving them in a powerless and therefore helpless feeling situation, and easy targets for politicians craving power. It's an easy call on that one, the politician simply has to make a statement recognizing that person, a "I see you, and I feel your pain, help me so I can help you make everything right," and their helpless feelings of uncertainty are magically replaced with a certainty of "hope and change." The control is cemented when their new masters assure them they are the intelligent ones and power is in their hands now, both of course could not be further from the truth. May these people be the victims of gross medical malpractice for what they're helping to happen to all of us.

|7.5.09 @ 12:39AM|#

Great FUD campaign by the health care companies.

Government seems to run the police and fire services just fine. Maybe we should privatize them?

I live in Canada and we count our blessings every day. Don't believe the faked poll numbers - you aren't getting the truth. Canadians would riot in the streets if anyone tried to mess with our health care system.

We never get turned away because of a pre-existing condition.
Nobody in Canada ever went bankrupt because of health care costs.

TSowell Fan|7.5.09 @ 10:19AM|#

@ Roy Murray:

Your illogical comments are likely to leave a bad impression of us Canadians. I certainly find them embarrassing.

Our healthcare system is unsustainable -- consuming an increasing proportion of government expenditures EVERY year as treatment wait times and the queue for a family doctor grow in unison. As the boomers soon enter their highest maintenance years, the pressure on our system will be unbearable. The CD Howe Institute just reported that our entire social welfare system will be unsustainable -- too few workers paying to support it -- unless our birth rate is raised to replacement levels or our immigration rate -- already the highest per capita in the world, I believe -- is more than doubled. Good luck with either option.

There are other ways to avoid bankruptcy due to medical costs that don't require a gov't single-payer system. And, you (deliberately?) ignore gov't programs, like Trillium in Ontario, which cover your drug costs beyond a certain small fraction of your income. But, pretending that the only choices are between paying nothing and facing bankruptcy is, well, a logically and morally bankrupt statement.

Unfortunately, about 45% of Canadians pay no income tax. So, we have a built-in near-majority of citizens with NO incentives to argue against expensive gov't-funded programs. Any guesses about which "Canadians would riot in the streets if anyone tried to mess with our health care system"?

This is one Canadian praying that the US does not follow Obamessiah into the socialist wilderness. Americans and the entire world will suffer. But, that's just me being selfish.

As for privatized police and fire services, you've wandered into "apples and oranges" territory - the land of counterfeit arguments.

|7.5.09 @ 12:42PM|#

Are we really that dumb? Can we not take the best of the best European health care systems and make it the American model? I mean, this is not rocket science; it's just a research job. Gerhardt

Freeranger|7.6.09 @ 3:22PM|#

Even libertarians believe in equal opportunity, but unless there is equal access to health care, there is no equality of opportunity.

And I wish the private sector would insure everyone but it never has and never will because insuring everyone would be a bad investment. It's econ 101. Universal health insurance has positive externalities--benefits that accrue to society rather than the insurance seller.

|7.8.09 @ 2:05PM|#

Check out the V.A. system for the BEST healthcare government can provide i.e. 10,000 veterans exposed to hepatitus and HIV because of improperly cleaned instruments, wounded veterans housed in rat and insect infested quarters, the list goes on...I would prefer treatment from the enemy compared to much of the V.A. You people have your head up your ass...go visit a nearby VA hospital or is that just another inconvenient truth to be ignored

|7.8.09 @ 8:43PM|#

Ron Paul's "negative outcomes" insurance sounds like a brilliant idea to me. If the chances of a negative outcome were 1 in a 100 and the procedure costs $50,000, the up-front premium would be $500. Ok, maybe $550 with profit motive but it is a very appealing idea to me. This along with a malpractice cap of some sort would significantly reduce prices and cut out waste. It would also keep my medical decisions between me and my doctor (as well as my medical records).

The government's only funtion here should be to prevent collusion between insurance companies - that's it.

Brian T. Schwartz|7.9.09 @ 2:36PM|#

I think this video makes the same point more effectively, and with more humor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kadjlv-LPbI

It won the Do No Harm Contest from the Galen Institute. It's gotten only 2,000 views, it warrants more than that.

|7.10.09 @ 1:50AM|#

Private research focuses on how to help men get hardons or grow hair.

Viagra was originally developed as a vasosuppressor to treat angina pectoris.

Your point, again?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements