Democratic blogger Ezra Klein appears to be positioning Dem health care reforms as a way to cut costs, on the grounds that a reformed system will be able to make "hard choices" and "rational" coverage decisions, by which Klein seems to mean "not providing" treatments that are unproven or too expensive--when "a person's life, or health, is not worth the price."
Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Socialized Medicine
I keep telling you that one of the main reasons to be against government-paid health care is that in times of tight budgets, health care would have to be cut. Your government would be telling you, "I'm sorry, but there's no money for your surgery this year. Better luck next year." It seems like idiot leftie Ezra Klein has finally figured this out:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that very few of the MSM picked up on the quote from the Canadian health official who explained, after Natasha Richardson's fatal accident (where she was driven all over the place to a trauma center that could handle head injuries) that they just didn't have the money in Canada for med-evac helicopters like "you do in the states."
ReplyDeleteLiving in a military town I have a lot of friends who are veterans and who use government health care. Many hate it, and shudder at the thought that people actually think they want the government in charge of healthcare.
If we moved to a socialized system, there is no proof that any individual would have his health care rationed or be told by the government that there's no money for his surgery. For, regardless of what happens, there will always be some free market for people willing to pay. Currently, there is a considerable number of doctors already opting out of our national system and private insurance system. Some doctors refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid patients. Others are opening "boutique practices" in which patients pay a yearly fee for preferential access. That will remain, even if the HAA passes or FEHBP passes or Medicare-For-All passes or anything else happens. Thus, for those willing to pay for it, health care will always be available. That's always been the brilliance of America, and it always will be.
ReplyDeleteI saw a column which made an excellent point regarding this issue.
ReplyDeleteHummm, as a teacher I've had government paid for health care all my career. It's worked out pretty well for me.
ReplyDeleteRichard
Liberal press advocates of universal health care do not want to hear negative outcomes. They don't want to hear about Richardson's failure to get trauma care that is readily available in the US in most midsized towns. They don't want to hear about Scotland and the UK rationing care to specific population based on behavioral history. They don't want to hear that many of the upper classes in those nations choose to go outside their healthcare system for surgery that is cheaper and more timely than that they can get under their current national plan. And what is worse, the media does not want to hear that young medical students will not be able to survive on the compensation structure that a nationalized system will impose. That's why we have so many doctors from other nations coming here to work.
ReplyDelete