At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, followed Benjamin Franklin from Independence Hall. He recorded a question asked by a lady, directed at Dr. Franklin.

The lady asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic," replied Dr. Franklin, "if you can keep it."

IN DEFENSE OF MINORITIES!

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Responsible Health Care Considerations

We've seen a patriotic resurgence in America prompted by the Obama Administration & the Democratic Congress pushing for the country to adopt a system of socialized medicine. Polls show that 85% of all American residents are pleased with their healthcare. The other 15%, made up of American citizens and illegal aliens feel the system does not benefit them.

Many of us feel that healthcare is not a "right" and we understand that people can go into any emergency room at any hospital for treatment with the understanding that they will be charged based on their ability to pay. Still, there seems to be a broad consensus across the US that the healthcare system we have now, which is the best in the world, needs to be improved. I can't argue that point because I agree that in addition to tort reform, we need to craft regulations that require fairness from the insurance companies that sometimes simply isn't there.

Irrespective of your views on the problem, MORE GOVERNMENT is always a bad option.


Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) weighs in on the issue
with a balanced, intelligent solution that
doesn't include a government program.

4 comments:

Canadian Pragmatist said...

You would prefer the tyranny of the private insurance companies that is the status quo to the gov't?

A bunch of well meaning people in suites who aren't out for profit.

FASCISTS!

More gov't is always a bad option? Based upon what evidence?

LL said...

A free market provides competition, spurs innovation and ultimately controls costs. Profit is good and so is competition. You can decide which insurance company you want to use and how much coverage you want. If one would serve your needs better than another you can switch.

Facism implies nationalist political ideology - as with National Socialism where the government decides which industry will produce what and how much.

Capitalism implies that the government should remove itself as much as is practical and allow the market to decide which industry will produce what and how much.

The current mortgage crisis in the US was caused by GOVERNMENT regulations, requiring banks to provide loans to unqualified individuals. So long as mortgage prices rose, the bubble remained intact. Once the trend reversed, the bubble popped. It was a classic example of government over-regulation in an area best left alone. I can't think of very many examples where more government is a good option.

Government has a proper role in society - making and enforcing laws, coining currency, securing borders, raising an army and navy for the common defense. We pay taxes for those services. I would argue that the government governs best that governs least.

Canadian Pragmatist said...

So, you'd prefer a form of privvate tyranny to gov't?

Because the way I see it, whatever is not in the hands of the gov't must be left ot the private sector. We can go on all day about the ineptitude and evils of the gov't, but compared to the private sector the gov't is full of saints.

Look at the coca-cola industry as an example. They take water from droughted areas and sell it back to the poor people of those areas as a carbonate,d high-sugar beverage. "Profit is good and so is competition" is what you wrote, but we see no proof of that there.

The private insurances companies have left 47 million Americans uninsured; at least according to the census bureau:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737.

Is that a good thing?

Also, your analysis of the cause of the mortgage crisis is simply wrong. The gov't doesn't require banks to provide loans to unqualified individuals. In Canada it has always been the exact reverse. There are regulations to make sure that people who get mortgages can afford it, and that is why we were not so hard hit by this mortgage crisis.

Also, the bubble doesn't have to pop. If gov't rose interest rates, and conserved more money during the rise, they would have more money to soften the inevitable fall. Right now, because gov't hadn't been saving money during the up shot there is little left to cushion the down turn.

Whose fault is that?

LL said...

CP:

(1) People don't have to buy Coke products. The amount of water taken from any given area to produce Coca Cola products can't be a meaningful percentage of all water available. (provide an example where Coke causes a draught please)

(2) The 47 million number of Americans uninsured is not valid number. If you look further, 17% of uninsured in America are ILLEGAL aliens. So you can remove that number from the balance. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOW_MANY_UNINSURED?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) Additionally, uninsured people can walk into ANY emergency room in America and receive treatment at no cost at present. There isn't anyone who can't receive treatment including illegal aliens.

(3) My assessment of the mortgage crisis is CORRECT. Yes, the government DID require banks to provide mortgages to unqualified people. That is why they're all defaulting. I can't speak to Canada, but do your homework on the problem in the US.

There was an error in this gadget

Followers

Blog Archive

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed