QuoteJuly 28, 2009
10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'
By Dennis Prager
1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?
2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?
3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.
4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?
5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?
6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others'
money -- i.e., taxes?
7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?
8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?
9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?
10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.
Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/28/10_questions_for_supporters_of_obamacare_97651.html?utm_source=rcpwidget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=ibdpostelection
In regards to questions 3 here is an excellent article by Thomas Sowell. I would highly recommend Mr. Sowells books on economics. They are written for the layman and explain the basics which are so easily forgotten or lost in the heat of emotional arguments. Politicians, especially our current crop and their supporters, count on it.
QuoteIs there a coherent argument for government-controlled medical care or are slogans and hysteria considered sufficient?
We hear endlessly about how many Americans don't have health insurance. But, if we stop and think-- which politicians hope we never do-- that raises the question as to why that calls for government-controlled medical care.
A bigger question is whether medical care will be better or worse after the government takes it over. There are many available facts relevant to those crucial questions but remarkably little interest in those facts.
There are facts about the massive government-run medical programs already in existence in the United States-- Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' hospitals-- as well as government-run medical systems in other countries.
None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes "universal."
As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.
In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance.
Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms. But unless you think that any situation you don't like is a reason to give politicians a blank check for "change," the relevant question becomes whether the alternative is either less expensive or of better quality. Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes.
Such questions seldom get asked, much less answered. We are like someone being rushed by a used car dealer to sign on the dotted line. But getting stuck with a car that is a lemon is nothing compared to signing away your right to decide what medical care you or your loved ones will get in life and death situations.
Politicians can throw rhetoric around about "bringing down the cost of health care" or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don't match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data.
An old advertising slogan said, "Progress is our most important product." With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. And they confuse medical care with health care.
Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years-- repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?
Refusing to pay the costs is not the same as bringing down the cost. That is why price controls create these problems. When developing a new pharmaceutical drug costs roughly a billion dollars, you are either going to pay the billion dollars or cause people to stop spending a billion dollars to develop new drugs.
The confusion of "health care" with medical care is the crucial confusion. Years ago, a study showed that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. Are doctors who treat Mormons so much better than the doctors who treat the rest of us? Or do Mormons avoid doing a lot of things that shorten people's lives?
The point is that health care is largely in your hands. Medical care is in the hands of doctors. Things that depend on what doctors do-- cancer survival rates, for example-- are already better here than in countries with government-run medical systems. But, if political rhetoric prevails, we may yet sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage.
www.intellectualconservative.com
www.townhall.com
Thanks, and yes Sowell, as well as Walter Williams are a couple of my favorites to read.
1. We only include the most expensive group now you want to expand the group to include more favorable members.
2. Great Question maybe you should have to opt out for a time period. I am not against requiring insurance to be a resident.
3. Just to bug you. We all know we are talking about insurance and that equals better care.
4. It has to be better than the insurance company deciding under the current rationing system.
5. So we get to enjoy the cost of developing the drugs for the rest of the world. I do think there is much truth in this question.
6 No I think the goal is public Health care subcontracted to the private sector.
7. Real concern on my part over this but the people on Medicare have received great care.
8. Yes, I know my son has received many thousands of dollars of tests for something that is nothing the Doctors know it will say but not officially diagnose it as nothing.\
9. You are right but we have to do it now because we squandered our last boom cycles. The timing is about politics and I am OK with that.
10 . Life expectancy is a great measure. It is about great health care when you are older extending your life. We have Socialized medicine for our older citizens.
Today I heard Obama talking about coverage being denied under the current health care system under private insurance. Well, once the government takes over, they won't deny coverage, they'll just deny care. I am not comfortable with a bureaucrat in Washington saying what I can and can't receive due to my pre-conditions, comorbidities and age. I am happy to say I am one of those uninsured who has chosen that I don't need insurance. I can afford it just fine. Also, I am a nurse; so, I can take care of myself and trust God as my doctor. My question is, "what makes this '46 million' uninsured worth more than the rest of the 256 million Americans?" Why must we bend over backwards for this group when the vast majority of the country is insured and most of those are content with the care they receive. A human life is a human life, why are the lives of the uninsured minority so much more important than the insured majority? Why must the insured have this thing thrust upon them.
Once Obamacare would take affect. Doctors and nurses will leave the professions in droves because of the dock of pay. This will burden us with an even larger shortage and wait times will exponentially increase. If you are over 50, the chance of you receiving essential care such as dialysis and bone replacement decreases significantly because the government will not see these as cost efficient. Also, if you don't maintain a certain BMI or are not seen as sufficiently healthy, you will be cleared for less care. Another, is where will Canadians go to get there health care when the United States becomes just like them.
Quotethey won't deny coverage, they'll just deny care. I am not comfortable with a bureaucrat in Washington saying what I can can't receive due to my pre-conditions, comorbidities and age.
The private insurance company you have now is looking for a reason to deny any claim. Are you comfortable with that ?
I am not convinced the government can pull off health care but rationing is not a real argument. The purpose of private managed health care is to ration.
The private insurance companies stated goal is profit, not evil or deceitful just to get payed and not pay.
You shouldn't try to convince me that the motivation of bureaucrats is less in our interests than the private insurer.
BTW Kudos to the insurance industry for creating a system where you get to provide insurance to the young and able to work (people who can pay and need less care) and get to ignore those too sick to work and give the old to the government.