NOT a border issue but you need to read Jim's post below.
7. Comment by Jim K. (Jim K)— March 31,2008 @ 6:11AM
Ratings:-1+5
These
arguments are the same old recycled cr*p that is used to justify
nationalizing almost any industry. If we just take the profit out of
the system it will be cheaper for everyone, the argument goes.
Wrong. The profit motive is what motivates sellers and providers of
services to provide the goods and services that people want at prices
that they are willing to pay. One of the major problems with the
current system is that the consumers of medical services are rarely the
ones who actually pay for it. To use a crude example, if someone else
is paying for my transportation needs, I will want the best car and
first class seats on non-stop flights. If I have to pay for my own
transportation, I’ll get the car that meets my needs, but which also
fits my budget. I’ll book the flight that I can afford. I’ll still get
there, but it will cost a lot less. Any true reform must be
market-based, not collectivist.
Some of the earlier comments pointed out how much tax rates would
increase to fund collectivist, taxpayer-paid health care. That’s just
the start, folks. It will go up and up and up, just like Medicare,
Social Security, and pretty much every other government entitlement.
Moreover, quality will go down. For example, Canada achieves some of
its savings by restricting supply of certain medical equipment and
services. The waits for certain diagnostic procedures and other
treatments is far longer than in the States. That will not work in the US.
Americans want the care that they want, from the providers they choose,
when they want it. That means high capital costs, lots of expensive
personnel, and lots of capacity. That costs money, lots of money.
The author’s assertion that collectivist health care is more popular
must have overlooked the recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court
that invalidated part of Canada’s national health care law. The
decision was a stinging rebuke of the system.
In addition, the author points out several services that the
government provides that are supported by tax dollars. Two, schools and
highway construction, are great examples of what a boondoggle
single-payer health care will become. We now spend far more on public
education than in the past, even in inflation-adjusted dollars.
However, the quality has decreased. Highway construction is often
tainted by political patronage and cronyism. Remember the “bridge to
nowhere”? How about the “tertiary care hospital and trauma center in
the middle of nowhere”?
Well said Jim, but you had better watch out, anyone who dares expose the Democrat Agenda to control our lives from sperm to worm gets booted by Bolton's crooked gang of liberals. ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
These arguments are the same old recycled cr*p that is used to justify nationalizing almost any industry. If we just take the profit out of the system it will be cheaper for everyone, the argument goes.
Wrong. The profit motive is what motivates sellers and providers of services to provide the goods and services that people want at prices that they are willing to pay. One of the major problems with the current system is that the consumers of medical services are rarely the ones who actually pay for it. To use a crude example, if someone else is paying for my transportation needs, I will want the best car and first class seats on non-stop flights. If I have to pay for my own transportation, I’ll get the car that meets my needs, but which also fits my budget. I’ll book the flight that I can afford. I’ll still get there, but it will cost a lot less. Any true reform must be market-based, not collectivist.
Some of the earlier comments pointed out how much tax rates would increase to fund collectivist, taxpayer-paid health care. That’s just the start, folks. It will go up and up and up, just like Medicare, Social Security, and pretty much every other government entitlement. Moreover, quality will go down. For example, Canada achieves some of its savings by restricting supply of certain medical equipment and services. The waits for certain diagnostic procedures and other treatments is far longer than in the States. That will not work in the US. Americans want the care that they want, from the providers they choose, when they want it. That means high capital costs, lots of expensive personnel, and lots of capacity. That costs money, lots of money.
The author’s assertion that collectivist health care is more popular must have overlooked the recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that invalidated part of Canada’s national health care law. The decision was a stinging rebuke of the system.
In addition, the author points out several services that the government provides that are supported by tax dollars. Two, schools and highway construction, are great examples of what a boondoggle single-payer health care will become. We now spend far more on public education than in the past, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, the quality has decreased. Highway construction is often tainted by political patronage and cronyism. Remember the “bridge to nowhere”? How about the “tertiary care hospital and trauma center in the middle of nowhere”?