3 ms·

It's somewhat true that insurance coverage can determine what treatment someone will get. But, one always has the (perhaps theoretical) option of switching insu

by dpatru 16y ago

It's somewhat true that insurance coverage can determine what treatment someone will get. But, one always has the (perhaps theoretical) option of switching insurance companies or paying for treatment out of one's own pocket. When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears. You seem for government regulation yet mention high unemployment, health insurance tied to employment, large mortgage debt, large credit card debt, and no savings. All of these problems are caused or worsened by government. Government tax rules make it more expensive and complex to hire. Government minimum wage requirements make it outright illegal to profitably hire the lowest-skilled workers. Government unemployment benefits provide workers with incentives not to find a job. Employers did not normally offer health insurance until government tax rules encouraged them to do so by not subjecting health insurance benefits to the normal income tax. Government is responsible for making it more expensive for a worker to purchase insurance himself rather than through his employer. Large mortgages are encouraged by special tax treatment for mortgage interest and by tax breaks associated with home ownership. Government's inflationary monetary policy and its prohibition/discouragement on citizen's use of other money encourage people into debt and discourage saving. In an era when everyone seems to be in debt, interest rates should be very high, encouraging savers. Yet interest rates are at or near all time lows. Would that more people would vote against government regulation. Unfortunately, most seem to have been brainwashed by government propaganda.

DanI-S 16y ago
"When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears." This is never likely to be the case. In the UK, the state provides a high standard of free universal healthcare in the form of the NHS. There is also a huge network of private hospitals and clinics that you can pay for in cash or using insurance. Many employers offer private health insurance as a benefit.
- dpatru 16y ago
  Hilliarycare (President Clinton's healthcare proposal) failed in part because it would have given the government too much control over healthcare decisions. As described at http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual-prerogatives/hillary-started-it-limiting-individual-prerogatives-part-2 http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual-prerog...: "In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty, Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private doctor’s fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get “extra” healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in December, 1993, “Mr. Clinton’s plan turns normal patient advocacy into a federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in prison.” According to the source above, Obamacare is modeled on Hillarycare, except that it's less organized and twice as long (2700 pages vs 1368 pages.) The reason why people object to government interference in the marketplace is because government involvement necessarily implies coercion, otherwise whatever government is doing could be done privately. If you have a scheme to provide affordable healthcare that is a "win" to all parties involved, you're welcome to do it privately, without relying on coercion.

by dpatru 16y ago

DanI-S 16y ago

"When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears." This is never likely to be the case. In the UK, the state provides a high standard of free universal healthcare in the form of the NHS. There is also a huge network of private hospitals and clinics that you can pay for in cash or using insurance. Many employers offer private health insurance as a benefit.

dpatru 16y ago
Hilliarycare (President Clinton's healthcare proposal) failed in part because it would have given the government too much control over healthcare decisions. As described at http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual-prerogatives/hillary-started-it-limiting-individual-prerogatives-part-2 http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual-prerog...: "In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty, Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private doctor’s fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get “extra” healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in December, 1993, “Mr. Clinton’s plan turns normal patient advocacy into a federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in prison.” According to the source above, Obamacare is modeled on Hillarycare, except that it's less organized and twice as long (2700 pages vs 1368 pages.) The reason why people object to government interference in the marketplace is because government involvement necessarily implies coercion, otherwise whatever government is doing could be done privately. If you have a scheme to provide affordable healthcare that is a "win" to all parties involved, you're welcome to do it privately, without relying on coercion.