HOW I SEE IT: Government health care won’t work
Published: November 13, 2009
I wholeheartedly oppose the health care “reform” that was recently passed by Speaker Pelosi and the other progressives in the House of Representatives. Not only is it immoral and unconstitutional, but it will harm America economically.
Remember: America has prospered in large part because of our economy’s capitalistic nature. The market system encourages efficiency of both production and resource allocation by harnessing human nature — the individual works and economizes to achieve the greatest personal profit he can, and society benefits by enjoying a greater variety of goods at higher qualities and lower prices.
By contrast, history shows that command (government-controlled) economies fail, and governments spend money inefficiently — ours included. This is because when spending is dictated, human nature is not harnessed but appeased. Government control fosters pork-barrel and special-interest spending, other types of corruption, misinterpretation of market demand and misallocation of funds. In a word, it fosters waste.
Now, it’s widely known that the health care industry comprises roughly 15 percent of our economy. If President Obama’s reform is passed in the Senate, the U.S. government will effectively take control of this enormous economic sector.
Rather than having a “government option,” the government’s insurance package will become our only option. Why? Not only will hidden features of the proposed legislation increase the government’s ownership of the health insurance industry, the state also has an another weapon: Unlike private health insurance providers, the government can artificially deflate its prices.
Are government premiums too high to be competitive in a free market? No problem! The politicians can simply draw more money from another area to “lower” premiums. They raise income taxes or start taxing soda purchases (which, coincidentally, Obama has proposed), and suddenly the government has extra money lying around to help pay for universal health care.
Then private firms will suffer as Americans increasingly choose the “cheaper” government plan, and eventually the government will be the only game in town — just as the progressives intend. Americans will still be paying more money, and the government will come to dominate a large sector of our economy. Consequently, government waste will go to work, and economic performance will deteriorate.
It is ridiculous for the Obama administration to think it can nationalize health care and reduce the net cost of insuring America. Economic theory and history prove this. Rhetoric and clever number fudging can give an appearance to the contrary, but the truth is that if the progressives succeed in socializing the health insurance industry, spending will skyrocket. The average American, who already has health insurance, will be paying much more — and for someone else’s care.
If we want to remain the world’s largest economy, we must reject this overhaul and seek market-based solutions. Fellow patriots, call your senators before they vote! Tell them to hold off on “reform.”
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
My gosh, Eld…I just don’t know…the only thing I know is that I’m tired of this, so I’ll catch you on another subject. I think we’re beating a dead horse and I need a break from it all. Been fun though.
rog, the bottom line is that the massive $$$ would not be spent on the consumer unless it had a positive effect. What other effect could it have but to encourage the consumer to encourage the prescriber?
You’re right eld. There are doctors who are punished for a variety of reasons, just as there are in all professions but I prefer to believe that is the exception rather than the rule.( If not, it’s no wonder we have a doctor shortage) and I’m sure you’re right about R&D in the pharmaceutical companies. but that doens’t mean that my doctor (and I hope not yours) will hand out whatever you want. PATIENTS should participate with the doctor in their care but not to the point of self prescribing. I believe that is called practicing medicine without a license.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2008) — A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.
rogers, there are doctors who are punished for dispensing whatever the customer wants ALL THE TIME. Where have you been?
If the advertising didn’t work they wouldn’t bother paying for the TV time that they KNOW hits the consumer.
Technicalities again,rjma….I don’t believe you’ll find a doctor anywhere that calls his/her patients “customers”..That puts a whole different connotation on his/her practice. Get real…
So big pharma must be so kind as to sponsor tv shows with ads that they get no benefit from. Do you think the stockholders know about this? Of course the patients are customers. They buy services, making them customers. Check your dictionary.
I should have made this clear…ETHICALLY you would have no first hand knowledge..One must be VERY specific when having a debate with rjma.
Incidentally , rjma, you don’t have to watch, or listen to commercials. That is your choice. I do other things during commercials. Or I mute my TV. yes, I know, that is not your point, but your point is b
Are you suggesting that M.D.‘s hand out prescritions to “take the easy route”? If this is the case, and you really know this, then it is your moral and ethical duty to report this person. I thought so…Unless this is your personal physician you would have no first hand knowledge and you’re pulling things out of thin air. I agree there should be less ads for meds on TV, no question about it but they are sponsors of some of what, I am sure, are your favorite programs. It’s all down to business. BTW. people who see doctors are PATIENTS, NOT CUSTOMERS.


Advertisement