Comments (83)

• Zach Bibeault

  Amen. I've been saying this exact thing for months now since this healthcare debate has been going on. The statist-left has been going on mockingly: "Haha! Of course there are no death panels you silly teabagger! Find a single mention of one in the bill!"

  Yet, like Henry Hazlitt and Frederic Bastiat stated, we have to look for the UNSEEN consequences that come later, not just the immediate impact. And death panels, while not here immediately, are objectively inevitable once state healthcare completely takes over -- which it will.

  Published: September 10, 2009 10:14 PM

• K Ackermann

  Grammy, the guvmint says theys got to kill you. You're too old!

  Oh, dear.

  We really liked you too. I'm votin' for that new feller who says he will kill 1/3 less relatives.

  Why don't they send me to Afghanistan?

  I already axed. They say it's immoral.

  Published: September 10, 2009 11:04 PM

• Zach Bibeault

  Amen. I've been saying this exact thing for months now since this healthcare debate has been going on. The statist-left has been going on mockingly: "Haha! Of course there are no death panels you silly teabagger! Find a single mention of one in the bill!"

  Yet, like Henry Hazlitt and Frederic Bastiat stated, we have to look for the UNSEEN consequences that come later, not just the immediate impact. And death panels, while not here immediately, are objectively inevitable once state healthcare completely takes over -- which it will.

  Published: September 11, 2009 2:03 AM

• Walt D.

  I suppose they will have a sign "Arbeit Macht Frei" and Mozart chamber music.

  Published: September 11, 2009 2:08 AM

• Chi Iron

  Real life observation tells us that, more often than not, those who work the hardest achieve the most.

  Published: September 11, 2009 3:45 AM

• Mushindo

  'Walt D.
  I suppose they will have a sign "Arbeit Macht Frei" and Mozart chamber music.'.

  Mozart? Wagner, surely...?

  The final insult is that people who wish to exit this life on their own terms, for their own personal reasons, will no doubt still be prohibited from exercising that choice themselves.

  Published: September 11, 2009 4:01 AM

• K Ackermann

  Grammy, the guvmint says you got to take a Freedom Nap - they's got to kill you. You're too old.

  What?

  You're too old!

  Oh, dear.

  Yeah. We really liked you too! I'm votin' for that new feller who says he will kill 1/3 less relatives.

  Why don't they send me to Afghanistan?

  I already axed. They say it's immoral. You're SOL.

  Published: September 11, 2009 4:29 AM

• Gil

  Don't you really mean 'government death panels' who will have the well-to-do die because they want the money to go to the 'lil Timmys' of the world? As opposed to 'charity death panels' who would decide which people they rather spend their money on and who will have to go without (e.g. preferring to spend their limited resources for a child with luekemia over a old smoker with lung cancer)? Besides what's stopping anyone from selling 'suicide pills' for those who have no intention of living safely and no intention of wanting treatment either?

  Published: September 11, 2009 5:56 AM

• Gil

  Zach Bibeault - I'm sure meant to use the term 'teapartier.

  Published: September 11, 2009 5:58 AM

• Dick Fox

  One government ploy is to say that today insurance companies deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Can't people see that the government will deny not just coverage but care for pre-existing conditions such as chronic illness (since treatment will not make someone better; as Obama says just take a pill), heredity, and of course age will be denied in the government plan.

  Under an insurance plan you may see denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, but under the government plan you will see denied care for potential and real pre-existing conditions.

  Published: September 11, 2009 6:58 AM

• Pete

  Is it not true that there are no "death panel's" in Canada, that none are even on the horizon; and that their health care costs in Canada are half as much as the US?

  Published: September 11, 2009 7:15 AM

• From Canada

  They don't need death panels.

  Come and visit Canada and you will see that if the government wants to put someone to death, they simply delay his care until the person dies.

  Waiting months for simple blood tests, simple scans and years for surgery when you have life threatening conditions.

  We call this the waiting role, they basically wait you to death.

  Also, the fact that you have no say regarding the quality, quantity and expediency of your care. Doctors have all the power and information and the patient is to act like an obedient, docile mentally retarded.

  There are private clinics but the law forbids them from doing major procedures.

  So the entire Canadian health system is a big bureaucratie death panel.

  "folks tomorrow will soon forget that the market can supply healthcare."

  In Canada, everybody thinks that 42 million Americans die every year in the USA because of lack of health care, yet you guys are 300 million and growing.

  They think that the market cannot offer health care because of profits, insurance etc.

  They think there is a conflict of interest between profit, greed and quality health care.

  They insist it must be provided by the government. Everytime there is a private initiative to offer quality and fast health care at private clinics, leftish activists and politicians decry this situation, as if offering private health care was a crime.

  Individuals, they say, should die in the name of solidarity.

  Please, don't go the Canadian way. Because if you socialize your healthcare like us, where will we Canadians go if we need health care ?

  Hmm, maybe in India. I feel that medical tourism will flourish in the next couple of decades. Perhaps this will be beneficial for airliners.

  If Obama gets his health care reform and you see that health care is drifting towards socialism, buy airline stocks, they will go up as swarms of disenfrenchized patients flock to India or elsewhere to get the private health care they need.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:27 AM

• Horst Muhlmann

  "Is it not true that there are no "death panel's" in Canada, that none are even on the horizon; and that their health care costs in Canada are half as much as the US?"

  No.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:30 AM

• Tina Brewer

  Dick Fox

  I don't think what you say is actually true of any of the single-payer systems in existence; people with chronic conditions get treatment, and there is no such thing as a pre-existing condition, since everyone is covered from birth. The fact is, though, that these systems cannot overcome scarcity, and so even though their citizens get coverage IN PRINCIPLE, in reality they often meet with scarcity in the form of long lines, wait lists, etc.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:30 AM

• USA Today

  Mushindo,

  "The final insult is that people who wish to exit this life on their own terms, for their own personal reasons, will no doubt still be prohibited from exercising that choice themselves."

  And forcefully committed to psychiatric institutions where they will die a slow and painful cruel death of mistreatment, degradation and psychiatric assault.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:32 AM

• USA Today

  Tina Screwed,

  "IN PRINCIPLE, in reality they often meet with scarcity in the form of long lines, wait lists, etc. "

  Waiting list, another word for saying death panel.
  They place you on waiting lists based on priority and more oftenly than not, when you waited months for a surgery procedure, you receive a nice call telling you that the procedure has been delayed to another date, only to be told at that later date that the procedure is again delayed.

  Hip replacement, 2 years minimum in Canada.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:37 AM

• Pete

  Thanks "From Canada". I wrote the above comment because I am involved in a debate with a Canadian on such points on another forum. You've well described my opponents views. Since reading Mises and Rothbard, I realize that Canada's system cannot be so great as my opponent asserts, for it would be a violation of economic law. I've asked the above questions because, as a US citizen, I lack familiarity with the particular's of Canada's allegedly great health care system. Any further information about it shortcomings would be appreciated.

  P.S. I am for the short-term limited to a dial-up internet connection, so my ability to search for information is limited.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:39 AM

• Jeffrey Tucker

  This post is correct, but consider the current situation: people's lives are being artificially prolonged to an absurd extent. Head over to any hospice care/nursing home situation. Millions of Americans are being kept alive in a barely functioning state, hooked up to elaborate machinery, simply because the tax payers are paying the bill and the institutions and doctors want the money. Once the money runs out, the savings are all eaten up, and there is no more money, the person dies, penniless, sometimes longer than a decade after this unfortunate state of affairs began. Again, this affects many millions of people. the children are imposed upon to an incredible extent, and this introduces terrible anxieties. Neither is it something that either the family or the patient want. I'm not suggest euthanasia. But I am suggesting that tax-subsidized artificial care can and does go too far. in a free market, there would be tradeoffs to make in light of medical ethics. The current situation has the medical industry keeping people alive for as long as possible so that they can pick over the coming corpse as long as possible. This is just as unethical as death panels.

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:44 AM

• Christopher

  Do private insurers who decided which care a policyholder will be allowed to receive already function as a "death panel"?

  Published: September 11, 2009 9:55 AM

• Reply To Christopher

  Christopher,

  No, because a patient can always pay out of his own pockets. The care is here. Private insurers don't deny care, just coverage.

  Under government, care will be denied.

  Published: September 11, 2009 10:11 AM

• Christopher

  What does being able to pay out of pocket have to do with it? If "being able to pay out of pocket" is a difference maker what's to keep a individual living under single payer system from simply traveling to Mexico or some other country and obtain the care 'out of pocket'? Many Canadians travel to the US for care which they pay 'out of pocket'.

  Is there significant a difference between denying care vs. denying coverage?

  Published: September 11, 2009 10:21 AM

• Gil

  "But I am suggesting that tax-subsidized artificial care can and does go too far. in a free market, there would be tradeoffs to make in light of medical ethics. The current situation has the medical industry keeping people alive for as long as possible so that they can pick over the coming corpse as long as possible." - J. Tucker.

  Suddenly death is good and government care becomes 'life panels'?

  
  "Under government, care will be denied." - R.T.C.

  What does that bald assertion actually mean? What does it mean to those who do get off the waiting list and into medical care? Are they then villlians for receiving care that they shouldn't have. If they couldn't afford that care, they shouldn't have got it from government?

  Published: September 11, 2009 11:10 AM

• LionHeart

  We need a public option. Patients vary widely in what they want from health care; some want to visit their doctor six times a year to get the slightest thing checked, while others are ill-at-ease with even regular checkups every year or few. The overall point - that a public option will not bankrupt private ventures - is entirely sound, and is supported by the result of similar plans in numerous other countries. France and Switzerland are two prime examples.

  Published: September 11, 2009 11:17 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  LionHeart, you speak as if a public option is simply one more option for consumers to choose, and maybe that's exactly what you mean. But since the government cannot provide anything without taking it away from the private sector, any public option is not really going to increase our options, and, due to its inefficiencies, may end up reducing consumer options. Certainly, if we were going to a complete universal solution, we would have little or no option, but even when government merely tries to compete with private solutions, the public does not benefit--it's always a redistribution of wealth, not an increase in wealth.
  
  The real solution is to look at what government has already done to health care, and try to unravel the Gordian knot, not to add to it.
  

  Published: September 11, 2009 11:26 AM

• Tina Brewer

  USA Today

  Which part of "intelligent and civil" do you not understand?

  Jeffrey Tucker

  I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly with what you say about the grotesque situation so many elderly people face, being used as living funding-sources for a medical system gone insane. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "tradeoffs" ?

  This seems like one of those areas where answers to the dilemma won't come from the facts of economics; people need to come to grips with their own mortality on an individual level, and prepare themselves inwardly for the inevitability of their own deaths. This is a major basic task of a psychologically healthy person. People who accomplish this task tend NOT to want or demand extraordinary treatments at the end of their lives. They recognize the signs of impending "systems failure" and accept them as leading inevitably in a single direction, namely towards death. I guess under a fully free-market system, one could purchase very expensive types of insurance plans which would cover essentially unlimited services, or one could choose cheaper plans with restricted coverage based on the medical ethics tradeoffs to which you refer.

  I have noticed that there is an unspoken thread running through every single healthcare debate I get into, and it is the underlying feeling people have, perhaps as an aspect of their basic humanity, that it is somehow "icky" that some people can afford better care, particularly better life-saving care, than others. Is this just bad religion? I think it probably is. People don't like the way the world is. They don't like that there is inequality, both natural and economic. They don't like that there is health inequality. Its not "fair" or "nice". With this pervasive underlying motivation so widespread, socialism will always win, unless the advocates of free markets can successfully convince people that markets are a BETTER way of achieving this elusive "fairness", which they most certainly are NOT. They are a better way of maintaining liberty and improving everyone's lot. But markets maintain relative inequality, the basic bogeyman. There is a certain low urge in the human heart which makes it willing to accept even disastrous conditions so long as people can comfort themselves with the notion that 'at least we are all in this together'.

  Published: September 11, 2009 11:35 AM

• Jim Fedako

  Jeffrey,

  Yes. And you are so right. I have a personal experience with this that still burns me.

  Fifteen years ago, my grandmother (age 89) suffered cardiac arrest. She was taken from the nursing home to the hospital and admitted into the cardiac unit. They poked and prodded, stuck her with needles, etc. My grandmother suffered greatly – having to be strapped down to stop her from pulling everything out.

  Her doctor said that this was being done so that my grandmother could enjoy a few more days with her family. Some enjoyment.

  Then, after 30 days, her doctor stabilized her and moved her to a regular room. She regained lucidity and died a day later.

  The best answer I could get is that medicare only paid for one month in the cardiac unit. So my grandmother was a money machine for the doctor and hospital. And after the money moved out, nature took its course.
  

  Published: September 11, 2009 12:32 PM

• Russ

  LionHeart wrote:

  "We need a public option."

  Why do we need an option that will force some people to pay for the health care of total strangers, instead of being able to use that money to take care of their own families? Why do we need that?

  "Patients vary widely in what they want from health care; some want to visit their doctor six times a year to get the slightest thing checked, while others are ill-at-ease with even regular checkups every year or few."

  When people do not pay more for more care, they will demand more. This is part of the problem with a public option, of course. Besides, private providers have many different options. You can currently choose any number of deductible/premium combinations, for instance.

  "The overall point - that a public option will not bankrupt private ventures - is entirely sound..."

  Look at education in the United States. How many private schools do you see? Not many. The reason? Because people can't afford to pay twice for their childrens' education; once in taxes, and a second time in private tuition. The same could easily happen in health care. It is impossible that private ventures could compete with a public option that 1) makes the rules of the game, and 2) is able to raise taxes to cover business losses. Private ventures cannot do that.

  "... and is supported by the result of similar plans in numerous other countries. France and Switzerland are two prime examples."

  Most of Europe has the advantage of not having to pay for their own military defense. And the only way they can pay for these programs, with their dwindling fertitlity rates (France's is approx. 1.9, Switzerland's is approx. 1.5, replacement rate is 2.1), is to let in more Muslims. But many of them go on welfare, and are a net load on the system. Yeah, that's sustainable.

  The conclusion is simple. Medicare is failing now, and Social Security is not far behind. The politicians don't want to do the hard but right thing and phase out these unsustainable Ponzi schemes. Instead they are doubling down to try to prop up a failing system. It's like a gambling "system"; if they lose, they double their next bet (with our money). Worst case (for the politicians), it will all come crashing down on somebody else's watch.

  Published: September 11, 2009 1:11 PM

• Christopher

  The biggiest problem I see with healthcare is that demand is, for the most part, inelastic. Am I wrong here?

  Published: September 11, 2009 1:45 PM

• Doctor Killvorkian

  80% of a person's lifetime health care costs occur in the final year of their life. The government can save all that money by letting people die. You can believe whatever you want about nationalized health care, but the government already knows what has to be done to save money.

  Published: September 11, 2009 2:25 PM

• Russ

  Christopher wrote:

  "The biggiest problem I see with healthcare is that demand is, for the most part, inelastic. Am I wrong here?"

  I'm not an economic expert, but I think you are half right:

  It's inelastic in a downward direction, yes. People who have serious health problems will continue to demand health care. If you need dialysis to live, for instance, you're going to attempt to do without it.

  It's very elastic in the upward direction, though. If people are getting their health care "for free", they will demand it for every scratchy throat and achy knee. And they will want all their drugs for free, too. If a public option is created, demand will sky-rocket.

  Published: September 11, 2009 2:44 PM

• Shay

  "When people do not pay more for more care, they will demand more. This is part of the problem with a public option, of course."

  Or rather, when they are forced to pay for care whether they get it or not, they are going to get it. When paying themselves, they will likely do a cost-benefit consideration, taking into account the other things they could be spending the money on instead.
  

  Published: September 11, 2009 2:45 PM

• Russ

  Oops. I committed a "thinko" (like a typo, but where your brain accidentally drops a whole word). I meant to write:

  If you need dialysis to live, for instance, you're *NOT* going to attempt to do without it.

  @Shay:

  I stand corrected. You are right, looking at it as people being forced to pay for health care is more accurate.

  Published: September 11, 2009 2:49 PM

• Vanmind

  Yes, as with education, public health care would leave only one area where inherent government incompetence keeps it from destroying the higher quality and lower cost of market-based services: the so-called "luxury" niche.

  Then, of course, the dimwits -- the socialists -- would automatically start complaining that "no business should be allowed to offer any health (education/etc.) services at all because, well just look, they care only about rich people."

  Published: September 11, 2009 4:07 PM

• Soylent Green

  As a Canadian, I simply call "bull@&*#" to "From Canada". People with "life threatening conditions" do not wait years for "simple blood tests", etc. Pure nonsense. To copy a member of the US House of Representitives during a Presidential address, to "From Canada", you lie.

  But I believe in the US, Americans are entitled to government-funded healthcare. Is this what is called Medicare ? So would the good folks at Mises advocate doing away with Medicare ? How many Mises folks here avail themselves of Medicare ?

  It seems to me that the US Medicare system is the biggest rip-off going. Most healthcare cost is sucked up in the last few months of your life. So here the old-folks are getting tax-paid healthcare (the expensive part) paid for by healthy younger people. I think you have it all backwards. Medicare should only be for people UNDER 65. Plus you would solve your social security problem by having the old folks die off shortly after turning 65. Maybe Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh could start campaigning for this...

  Published: September 12, 2009 12:02 AM

• Donna M

  Gee, I'm glad I got educated about the Canadian healthcare system from a bunch of Americans who probably couldn't find Canada on a map.

  As a Canadian, I best tell the govt to take back the blood tests I receive immediately or the xrays.

  I better tell them to take back the hip replacement a 90 yr old got just recently and waited only several weeks.

  I better tell the govt to take back the life saving heart surgery my friend's elderly mom got within a week of being diagnosed.

  And I best tell the govt to take back the ER service my own elderly mom received within 15 minutes of arrival for a broken wrist.

  I best tell the govt to take back the excellent service my disabled brother received when taken to the hospital in an ambulance.

  And oh yeah, I best tell them that the hospital called twice to check up on his progress. Bastards!!!

  I best tell them, eh? Don't they know they have death panels to operate? Don't they realize there are a bunch of people south of the border who know this is the case, even though they can't find the country on the map?

  Published: September 12, 2009 10:37 AM

• mpolzkill

  Donna,

  I'm an American, and I'm looking at my map right now. Your country is the huge orange blob with the word CANADA on it. It is sitting on top of of the smaller green blob that says United States on it. Now, I reckon I'm qualified for this here "debate."

  "As a Canadian, [list of services rendered]"

  This is not the issue. Of course governments don't waste EVERY dollar they confiscate from producers. All scarce resources are rationed; the MORE resources there are, the looser the rationing will be. We (libertarians) advocate letting the producers choose how they ration the goods THEY have created. This is the humane position if one believes that most people have the ability to be responsible, because we believe they will use their resources more wisely them than the State ever could. The government position of taking responsibility away from people is the humane position when one has a contempt for most people's ability to be responsible. There tends to be a ratcheting effect here when enough take this position: the less people are trusted, the less responsible they become, the more call for government, the more resources are wasted. This is what we are against.

  Published: September 12, 2009 11:46 AM

• mpolzkill

  * because we believe they will use their resources more wisely than the State ever could.

  Published: September 12, 2009 11:55 AM

• Russ

  Donna M wrote:

  "Don't they know they have death panels to operate? Don't they realize there are a bunch of people south of the border who know this is the case, even though they can't find the country on the map?"

  Re death panels. If the market doesn't decide where scarce resources go, some bureaucrats have to do it. So, you do have death panels, in one form or another. It's an economic certainty.

  Re "can't find the country on the map". Do you really think these insults are productive?

  Published: September 12, 2009 1:45 PM

• Fallon

  Regardless of assumptions about human capacity for responsibility a market situation implies no privileges or protections, unlike government. The likelihood of accountability is much higher under a condition of market based equality.

  Besides, the anecdotal exchanges about Canada are meaningless without apriori theory to give it meaning. Efficacy of socialized medicine is not just a question of guns vs. butter allocations. Austrian theory explains why rational evaluation of actions are denied to government because bureaucrats do not act within a context of prices evolving from private property and voluntary exchange. Without profit/loss feedback, government decisions are out in la la land. The price mechanism allows economic evaluation when there is myriad competing wants/needs of millions of people, scarce resources and time, and countless choices to made concerning what to do with what and when.

  Government can only impede this holistic process.

  The Soviets put a man in space but had to import grain in spite of having possession of the 'Breadbasket of Europe' in the Ukraine. Was it merely a guns vs. butter choice? Even intuitively one can see that it would have benefitted the space project if the Soviet planners had been able to maximize grain production. It had to be something else contributing to the situation: the lack of the price system.

  Published: September 12, 2009 1:47 PM

• K Ackermann

  Look, Donna, no amount of facts are going to change our biases. You should get with the program and tell us what we want to hear.

  Of course you have lousy care up there. Why else would we (real Americans) pay twice as much as you do? The problem is you perceive your system as good, and you are going by personal experience to come to this conclusion. This is wrong. There are horror stories about people dropping like flies in Canada as they wait ages for routine life-saving treatments. What about them? It could happen!

  And another thing - if it turns out that maple syrup is very good for you, then that would go a long way toward explaining why Canada's health care costs are lower and the results better than the US. You have vast deposits of maple syrup sitting underground, yet you export little tiny jugs of it for outrageous prices that the poor simply cannot afford. Typical elitist.
  

  Published: September 12, 2009 1:56 PM

• Tina Brewer

  mpolzkill
  "because we believe they will use their resources more wisely than the State ever could."

  I don't believe this. I just believe, often fairly reluctantly, that people have the right to use their own resources however stupidly they wish, as long as they do not harm others while doing so. We should never confuse people using their own resources according to their own preference with using them wisely. We should also not make the grave error of believing, or assuming, that freedom will automatically result in some sort of magically smooth social condition.

  Its much wiser, and more true, to admit that total freedom produces demanding and risky conditions, requiring great alertness and activity, conditions which we should nevertheless embrace because it is the moral position.

  Published: September 12, 2009 1:57 PM

• Fallon

  Tina,

  Socialists can make a grand moral case just as much as any freedom lover.

  Published: September 12, 2009 2:17 PM

• K Ackermann

  I would like to know how much one particular US subsidy adds to health care costs.

  The subsidies on corn have made corn syrup a very popular choice of sweetener in junk food. Even if there are no ill effects from high-fructose corn syrup, it makes junk food more affordable at the time of purchase.

  The question is, how much does an increased intake of junk food contribute to health problems? They can come out with a conclusive study on HFCS and find that it is not harmful, but that would not really be accurate if it contributes to a poor diet.

  No more Ring Dings and Lucky Charms for breakfast. Stick with beer. Studies have shown beer contains many essential nutrients.

  Published: September 12, 2009 2:28 PM

• Donna M

  Of course I know you guys know where Canada is on the map. It's like that old punchline .. why'd you hit him on the head with a bat..well, you gotta get his attention. lol

  It really doesn't make any difference to me or probably most Canucks what Americans think of our healthcare system. But, most of us do find it interesting what is being debated.

  IMO, it's not the govt you should be lambasting, but the insurance cos. It is they who take millions from people who believe they are covered for healthcare, until the day they really need it. It's then they find the insurance provider has changed rules in mid stream. Or are cancelled because of some minor precondition never mentioned.

  Some doctors are now refusing to immunize children because the ins cos don't pay the whole 100% and some patients aren't paying the shortfall.

  If you're speaking of death panels, it's the ins companies who have created them and make sure they continue on a daily basis.

  I do wish you luck on this very important issue. Just as you believe it's you're right to carry arms, I believe it's your right to basic healthcare.

  
  

  Published: September 12, 2009 3:02 PM

• mpolzkill

  Tina,

  Assuming you are a responsible person (that means you are fully prepared to bear the results of your choices), you believe that the State can better allocate your money than you? If you believe some State agents DO know better how to run your life, you are only opposed on abstract moral grounds to these wise strangers taking your money?

  Magical "smoothness" as a result of freedom from coercion? No, no more magical or "smooth" than any other systems in nature. Preferable to a vertical chain of command? I think so.

  Published: September 12, 2009 3:08 PM

• mpolzkill

  Donna,

  To lambast the American government IS to lambast the American insurance companies. Who do you think helps write the regulations and who do you think Obama is compromising with?

  "Just as you believe it's you're right to [defend yourselves], I believe it's your right to [pick others' pockets for whatever you feel you're owed]

  Thanks, Donna. I disagree and so do all responsible people, American or Canadian.

  Published: September 12, 2009 3:19 PM

• mpolzkill

  Ackerman says:

  "no amount of facts are going to change our biases. You should get with the program and tell us what we want to hear."

  Cute. I hear this talking point constantly: "people love their Medicare". Yes, most people love to be given other people's money, particularly when they are trained to not consider it what it is: theft.

  "Of course you have lousy care up there. Why else would we (real Americans) pay twice as much as you do?"

  What IS "health-care"? How can such a thing be quantified? This "twice as much" figure is meaningless. We would be better off to drop this idiotic phrase. The reasons that Americans spend so much on medical services are far too complex for any meaningful comparison to what is done in Canada.

  American corporatism is an evil and idiotic de facto SOCIALIST system (sorry for the redundancy). I think Donna is responding to some American jingoists she has run into. Except for the fact that, overall, more profit in the medical fields is allowed in America, with the resultant higher level of innovation and availability of different services, I can see no reason why any American would look down on Canada's brand of socialist medicine.

  Published: September 12, 2009 3:42 PM

• Russ

  Donna M wrote:

  "IMO, it's not the govt you should be lambasting, but the insurance cos. It is they who take millions from people who believe they are covered for healthcare, until the day they really need it."

  Well, part of the problem is that the government is making insurance companies cover people that it's not in their best interest to cover. They have to cover that loss somewhere. If the government would quit doing that, the insurance companies could charge the actuarially correct amount, and wouldn't have to try to make up the costs somewhere else.

  "If you're speaking of death panels, it's the ins companies who have created them and make sure they continue on a daily basis."

  This is what a lot of people don't want to acknowledge; there will always be something along the lines of "death panels" as long as medical care is a scarce economic resource, which I expect it will always be. The difference is, with private insurance, you can get a different provider and choose who your "death panel" is going to be to a certain extent. Once we go single payer public insurance, we can't do that without moving to a different country.

  "I do wish you luck on this very important issue. Just as you believe it's you're right to carry arms, I believe it's your right to basic healthcare."

  The difference here is that my right to carry arms does not obligate others to do anything special. Your "right" to basic healthcare obligates others to either provide it or pay for it. To the extent that they are obligated to do so, those people are your slaves.

  Published: September 12, 2009 3:43 PM

• Donna M

  "Your "right" to basic healthcare obligates others to either provide it or pay for it. To the extent that they are obligated to do so, those people are your slaves."

  And what do you think you're doing when ins rates skyrocket because they insist there is an increase in claims; yet you have never made a claim more than an annual physical?

  I read some US site where it was estimated that Canadians pay 100s of dollars each just for healthcare. I have never paid 100s of dollars a month. Yet, I have relatives who are US citizens who do pay 100s of dollars out of their own pocket (after taxes) for healthcare insurance.

  As for the idea of higher profit leads to innovation. I need to call you on that. It has been proven that most of the operating budget for pharm companies go to advertising now and not R&D. And it's also been proven that many of the new drugs are redundant.

  I'm all for a capitalist system, but people should be protected from companies who insist the bottom line is more important than my child's life.

  Published: September 12, 2009 4:09 PM

• Russ

  Donna M wrote:

  "And what do you think you're doing when ins rates skyrocket because they insist there is an increase in claims; yet you have never made a claim more than an annual physical?"

  I hate to break this news to you, but most people other than your own family and friends don't really care about you. The insurance company exists to make money. They have no moral obligation to insure you for the amount that you think you should have to pay. If their rates go up, and you don't like that, find another insurer.

  "I'm all for a capitalist system, but people should be protected from companies who insist the bottom line is more important than my child's life."

  I am not opposed to making sure that insurance companies live up to their contractual obligations, and I know that some companies don't. But the government is part of the problem here, as I explained before. Government is the problem. More government is not the solution.

  If you are instead saying that other people should be basically enslaved, in order that your child get health care, then I disagree. There is no "right" to health care, just as there is no "right" to food. There is a right to attempt to honestly buy such things with money that you have honestly earned, but there is no right to hold the government's gun to other peoples' heads and tell them that they owe your child such things.
  

  Published: September 12, 2009 4:21 PM

• Donna M

  We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not attempting to change your mind, nor are you attempting to change mine..I think. :)

  When Tommy Douglas first brought in universal healthcare many years ago, he said doctors protested, claiming they would make less money. After the first year of implementation, the doctors' income actually increased based on income tax returns.

  This meant one of two things.

  1: Doctors were getting paid either more for some procedures or paid for things the doctors would not charge low income patients.

  2: Doctors lied on their income taxes every year.

  I go for the latter. lol

  Published: September 12, 2009 4:31 PM

• Soylent Green

  @Donna

  As a Canadian, here's my advice. Give it up. You're wasting your breath. Just admit that all us Canucks, the Europeans, etc, are wrong.

  The Republicans (via Sarah Palin) have framed the argument as "death panels". The Democrats missed the opportunity to frame the discussion as "greedy profit-seeking Corporations".

  The Mises folks will never agree with you. Until it is their insurance that gets cancelled for some "pre-existing condition". Of course, they can take comfort in the fact that the decision was made by a compassionate, nameless Insurance employee just trying to make his month-end quota and bonus. Capitalism rocks !!!

  In fact, it rocks so much, that the US government is willing to give trillion$ to the too-big-to-fail Corporations because thats Capitalism. Government healthcare is pure, unmitigated Communism. As a Canadian, I better dust off my picture of Lenin that I have hanging over the mantle...

  Now I'm going to go drink a gallon of Maple syrup, eat a pound of back bacon, crack open some beer, and go snowmobiling.

  Published: September 12, 2009 4:42 PM

• mpolzkill

  Donna,

  "And what do you think you're doing when ins rates skyrocket because they insist there is an increase in claims; yet you have never made a claim more than an annual physical?"

  That's not the definition of slavery; one can drop them. Though in America the big insurance companies TRY to force you to stay with them through the byzantine set of regulations they help write. It is a corporate/government partnership in America and the corporations are the junior partners. The "free market" is the fall guy for the ensuing mess and the State plays the white hats. Come on, Donna, you can understand this, right?

  "I have never paid 100s of dollars a month."

  What's your sales tax rate, Donna?

  "higher profit leads to innovation. I need to call you on that."

  That's more than a little disingenuous, Donna, second guessing the business decisions of the firms that create so many of the drugs your countrymen need. I'm not any kind of expert on this, but I do believe that American drug companies and medical equipment companies lead the world. I'm looking at the top 50 drug companies in the world right here. 10 of the top 18 are American. How many Canadian firms do you think are in the top 50? (Pfizer alone is 45 times the size in revenues AND money spent on R&D as the smallest non-American companies on the list)

  Earlier, Russ was cogently speaking of how so many welfare states are made possible in great part by their not having to pay for their own defense. Similar kind of thing here, I believe.

  Published: September 12, 2009 4:42 PM

• Russ

  Donna M wrote:

  "We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not attempting to change your mind, nor are you attempting to change mine..I think. :)"

  Yes, Virginia, I am trying to change your mind. :-P

  You say "I'm all for a capitalist system", but really, when it comes right down to it, you're not. You're for capitalism, as long as you don't have to pay too much. But if the real costs of your family's health care are "too much", then you prefer socialism. That is, you prefer to use the government to force others to pay for your family's health care. That's not capitalism, and that's not freedom. That's what I like to call "compassion fascism".

  People in the US tend to think "It can't happen here" ("it" being fascism, if you're not familiar with the Sinclair Lewis book). But they're wrong. It not only can happen here, it already is. What two words better describe Obama's policies than "National Socialism"?

  Published: September 12, 2009 4:48 PM

• Russ

  Soylent Green wrote:

  In fact, it rocks so much, that the US government is willing to give trillion$ to the too-big-to-fail Corporations because thats Capitalism."

  Ummm, no, that's corporativism, and most of us here are against that, too.

  "Now I'm going to go drink a gallon of Maple syrup, eat a pound of back bacon, crack open some beer, and go snowmobiling."

  I just hope the Beer Store isn't closed yet. And don't forget the nude strippers at the "Windsor Ballet". Rock on, eh.
  

  Published: September 12, 2009 5:01 PM

• mpolzkill

  Soylent Green,

  You've got it all figured out, you're doing great, why all the concern for what Palin and the Dems do? I swear, you care about that battle more than I do. What gives?

  What a strange mix the end of your post is, of accepting (for us) and mocking (for yourself) the false, binary political spectrum that is propagated. America is just about as "capitalist" as you are "communist". Russ has it, our countries are two flavours of fascist, and yours is just a satellite, with most of the rest (hence the world's great and unhealthy concern about American politics).

  Published: September 12, 2009 5:11 PM

• Donna M

  "What's your sales tax rate, Donna?"

  Right now I believe provincial and federal combined is 13%. Now, I have a relative in the US who a few years ago told me he paid $500/mth for health ins.

  Based on a sales tax of 13%, that would mean I would need to spend over $4,200 per month on taxable items for the govt to take $500 from me.

  My total Fed tax taken off my pay cheque is $800/mth. Most of the healthcare costs come from my income tax, which probably comes to about one third of my taxes.

  And remember, that $500 my relative paid was after taxes. So he really paid a heck of a lot more than me and he only bought basic coverage for him and his wife.

  Published: September 12, 2009 5:18 PM

• Russ

  Donna,

  Let's assume, for sake of discussion, that your relative in the States is paying the market price for his health care coverage, and you are paying less for equal coverage. That would mean that other Canadians are paying for part of the market price of your family's health care coverage. What gives the Canadian gov't the right to make those others pay for your coverage?

  Published: September 12, 2009 5:31 PM

• Donna M

  Russ, don't you think your premiums are going to pay for others'? Honestly?

  Again you're acting as if we all are our own island. We are not. Whether the service is supplied by the govt or a private institution, we are all thrown into a pool and help pay for the other guy's hospital stay.

  Published: September 12, 2009 5:36 PM

• Russ

  Donna M wrote:

  "Russ, don't you think your premiums are going to pay for others'? Honestly?

  Again you're acting as if we all are our own island. We are not. Whether the service is supplied by the govt or a private institution, we are all thrown into a pool and help pay for the other guy's hospital stay."

  Sure, that's how insurance works. The difference is, insurance companies cannot force people to sign up for their services; governments can. If you don't like your insurance provider, you can drop it and get a new one. Apart from moving to another country, you can't opt out of paying your taxes.

  And you've artfully dodged my question, so here it goes again, in slightly different terms. What gives the Canadian gov't the right to *force* others pay for your coverage?

  Published: September 12, 2009 5:55 PM

• Tina Brewer

  It seems like some of the posters here are losing sight of just how difficult it is for most people, uneducated in economics, and having been raised in the myth-factories that are public schools, really to GET the difference between "capitalism/free markets", and the corporatism which reigns in this country. Its an obvious distinction to those who have studied these issues at length, but not to others.

  Also, it comes off as a bit disingenuous to protest that
  "oh we aren't FOR the status quo, which is evil and fascist..." when in fact nobody ever hears from the free marketeers except when a commie comes along and tries to make things even more socialistic...then they come flying out of the woodwork to protest "...but we just CANT have THAT!"

  Published: September 12, 2009 6:37 PM

• Russ

  Tina Brewer wrote:

  "With this pervasive underlying motivation so widespread, socialism will always win, unless the advocates of free markets can successfully convince people that markets are a BETTER way of achieving this elusive "fairness", which they most certainly are NOT. They are a better way of maintaining liberty and improving everyone's lot. But markets maintain relative inequality, the basic bogeyman."

  I agree and disagree. We have to point out that most people will be better off in a free market than under socialism, even though some will be better off than others. Imagine a world where everybody gets the same health care, rich or poor... but that health care is the same that a wealthy man would have received in 1850! Yikes! That's what equality will achieve; a world where everybody, rich and poor, could die of an infection that could be cured today with a simple anti-biotic (as one of the Rothschilds did, IIRC). The only hope is to convince people that they will be, long term, *better off* under a free market, not to convince them that they will be *more equal*. People always seem to assume that "more equal" means that everyone will be lifted up to the level of the richest. It never seems to occur to most that it could also mean that everyone will be lowered to the lowest common denominator, after the parasites kill the host.

  "Also, it comes off as a bit disingenuous to protest that "oh we aren't FOR the status quo, which is evil and fascist..." when in fact nobody ever hears from the free marketeers except when a commie comes along and tries to make things even more socialistic...then they come flying out of the woodwork to protest "...but we just CANT have THAT!""

  I think that comment is more appropriately directed to the neo-con Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Michael Medved types, not libertarians. For all their faults (and they are legion) the people here and at LewRockwell.com quite consistently bashed W. in his day every bit at much as they bash Obama now.

  Published: September 12, 2009 7:31 PM

• K Ackermann

  Tina, you are absolutely correct. The problem is "Free Market" and "Capitalism" are wedded to Wall Street, and, really, the worst corporatist offenders always seem to hold up one of the terms when threatened.

  Those terms also provide the cop-out politicians need. When failed institutions were using TARP money to pay bonuses, they screamed sanctity of contracts. The pols said that's right, we can't break contracts.

  If they read them, they could have. There is always some fine print item that could have been used to show why the contract could have been invalidated. If they were profitable, nobody would care. However, to use public funds to pay a bonuses at failed companies is an affront to the institution of capitalism.

  Wall St would be well served to keep the area where it feeds nice and neat if they want to claim they don't need oversight.

  Published: September 12, 2009 7:48 PM

• newson

  to tina brewer:
  you're right about the allure of egalitarianism in furthering socialism. but i think you're quite wrong in suggesting that socialism actually reduces inequality.

  compare the living-standards gap between party and non-party members in cuba or the former ussr and i think you'll find it's just as wide, or wider than under the hampered-markets of the west. it's just that everyone, even the rich, is poorer under socialism.

  Published: September 12, 2009 9:19 PM

• newson

  russ is right for focusing on the moral aspect. those who can stomach an home-invasion to pay for one's child's medicals should have no qualms about socialized medicine. on the other hand, people with more children will probably be comfortable raiding one-child families; their need is greater.

  Published: September 12, 2009 9:30 PM

• Russ

  newson wrote:

  "russ is right for focusing on the moral aspect."

  Thank you. But I must confess that part of my reason for doing so is that I'm not sufficiently informed on the medical systems in other countries to make utilitarian arguments that they would accept. I've heard the stories about ten month waits for maternity ward rooms, just as you probably have, but I don't know if they're true or typical.

  At any rate, your "home invasion" analogy is a good one. If you support the use of government force to coerce people into paying into a medical system they don't want to pay into, why isn't directly holding a gun to a person's head and taking their money to pay for your medical care also morally acceptable? The only answers I can think of are 1) most people don't think of it this way, and 2) it's easier to look the other way, morally speaking, if the government does the dirty work for you.

  Published: September 12, 2009 10:09 PM

• mpolzkill

  Donna,

  One can't put dollars and cents on it like this.

  - - - - - - - - - - - -

  Tina,

  I can't figure out your angle.

  - - - - - - - - - - - -

  Ackerman's inanities never cease. "Wall Street" NEVER claims they need no oversight. They ARE the oversight.

  - - - - - - - - - - - -

  I would very much like to hear from Russ a partial list of our legion faults. I hope they are just the standard ones known to the ancients that all humans are susceptible to. Or perhaps the major source of our faults is due to our not being open to the "lessons of 9/11" and like events? Very curious. I hope a proper forum opens soon so that I can learn the gist of what Russ learned after that awful day.

  Published: September 12, 2009 10:26 PM

• Russ

  mpolzkill wrote:

  "I would very much like to hear from Russ a partial list of our legion faults. I hope they are just the standard ones known to the ancients that all humans are susceptible to."

  Well, yes, hubris is one of the classics. *grin* I'm not sure about Utopian wishful thinking, or contrarianism for its own sake.

  Of course, I also have my own share of flaws. As Nathan Fillion in "Serenity" said when informed that his sin was pride, "Actually, I'm a fan of all seven."

  Published: September 12, 2009 10:43 PM

• newson

  to russ,
  the problem with utilitarian arguments in complex systems like health-care is that the medical ponzi-scheme works quite well for the early-comers. the failures take a while to become apparent, and are borne by a different demographic.

  plus, most of the rationing is done by doctors without any explicit policy; patients aren't often aware of all the alternatives that they're missing out on.

  Published: September 12, 2009 11:10 PM

• Russ

  newson wrote:

  "the problem with utilitarian arguments in complex systems like health-care is that the medical ponzi-scheme works quite well for the early-comers. the failures take a while to become apparent, and are borne by a different demographic."

  Quite true. And the "different demographic" could be the children or grandchildren of the people who benefit. So a variation on your home invasion scenario could be, would it be acceptable to take a time machine to the future, and rob your grand-children in order to pay for your medical costs? Because that is essentially what people are doing, even though they may not realize it.
  

  Published: September 12, 2009 11:20 PM

• Tina Brewer

  @mpolzkill; I've blathered on so much here that I am not sure which "angle" you don't get, so I'll just take a stab at it: I am basically of the belief, unlike many libertarians, that life would be a great deal riskier, and generally more demanding, if we were all as free as we are constantly arguing we should be. I am okay with this. I think it would be good for people, long term. Maybe I am wrong, but I often get the feeling that libertarians can tend to underestimate the relative degree of chaos which can result from more freedom. We are so used to the static, slow, safe type of life that all of the regulation, oversight, bureaucracy generates, and we correctly long for a freer, more DIRECT experience of cause/effect, action/consequence, but do we REALLY want it? Its like the East Germans when the wall finally came down...it was this great celebration of freedom "Yeah! We are free!"...and how long was it before a certain segment of the population wanted nothing more than a return to total socialism...just give me back the security of knowing that I don't have to do anything much, and everything I see and consume will be cruddy and pathetic, but at least its always there AND I DON"T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT!!

  @newson: I didn't mean to imply that I think that socialism actually ACHIEVES equality; its just that the emotional/political appeal of socialism is all wrapped up in its constant promises of an egalitarian or at least MORE egalitarian society.

  @ russ: when I made the comment about libertarian protests coming off as disingenuous, I meant this from a PR angle. People who are new to the libertarian position, having been essentially robbed of the opportunity even to have been exposed to it for most of their lives by schools and MSM, need to be helped to begin to understand the finer distinctions we have been referring to. Like another poster quite correctly said, the Republicans THINK they are defending market economics and freedom, but what they are really defending is a monstrous hybrid. If we ever even APPEAR to be on the same side as those defending this monster, we will be condemned and lumped together in people's minds. When I said "nobody ever hears from libertarians until some commie comes along..." I was referring to the totally unfortunate fact that the political right in this country cynically uses libertarian ideas when it suits their vicious politically driven purposes, only to discard those same ideas the instant it finds itself in power. This unholy matrimony is also cynically utilized by libertarians, who can sometimes fall into the habit of appearing all too happy to have their ideas championed by whatever fascistic dirtbag says pretty words about wanting a small government. Ultimately, this bond will have to be broken in people's minds, or we're getting nowhere. We need to have a constant and consistent presence on issues where we are never ever caught defending the status quo against change in the wrong direction, when what we really should be advocating is RADICAL CHANGE in the opposite direction.

  Published: September 13, 2009 1:09 AM

• Donna M

  Russ wrote:

  "And you've artfully dodged my question, so here it goes again, in slightly different terms. What gives the Canadian gov't the right to *force* others pay for your coverage?"

  I'm not dodging. FYI, Canadians gave the govt a mandate years ago to implement universal health care.

  Russ, you have your own social programmes, like welfare, unemployment ins, Medicare, food stamps (which btw, Canada does not have). Your taxes are being used to pay for supporting people though you think you would never use the services yourself.

  Newson wrote:

  "plus, most of the rationing is done by doctors without any explicit policy; patients aren't often aware of all the alternatives that they're missing out on."

  I don't know where you got that info. It sort of reminds me of the day a couple of wks ago I was listening to talk radio. A caller said a US colleague was here for the first time on business.

  They were walking along the street and passed a couple of medical clinics. The US visitor asked where the line ups were to see a doctor. The caller said, there never is any. To which the US visitor stated that is what he is told on US tv commercials about our healthcare.

  There is a medical clinic I visit if it's the weekend, as my GP doesn't work Sat or Sun. I have never had to wait more than a half hr to see a doctor.

  The longest I ever had to wait to see a doc in a clinic was an hour, and that was when I worked downtown where the population explodes from 9-5.

  Russ wrote:

  "Imagine a world where everybody gets the same health care, rich or poor... but that health care is the same that a wealthy man would have received in 1850! Yikes! That's what equality will achieve; a world where everybody, rich and poor, could die of an infection that could be cured today with a simple anti-biotic"

  Boy! That right there is just crazy. It's almost on the level of "Let them eat cake."

  So, if there's a horrible car accident and one man is poor, the other rich, yet both have the same injury. Does the rich guy get the benefit of having a chance of living and poor fella just bleeds out?
  

  Published: September 13, 2009 7:46 AM

• Fallon

  Tina Brewer writes:

  "Maybe I am wrong, but I often get the feeling that libertarians can tend to underestimate the relative degree of chaos which can result from more freedom. We are so used to the static, slow, safe type of life that all of the regulation, oversight, bureaucracy generates, and we correctly long for a freer, more DIRECT experience of cause/effect, action/consequence, but do we REALLY want it?"

  Libertarians more often overestimate the amount of freedom they might have in a society based on property and voluntary exchange. Granted, nothing will change unless the majority of the populace is anti-state and pro-market. That said, market based relations bring about more checks and balances on people's behavior than government fiat. There may or may not be more opportunity to do what you like up front but, structurally, the likelihood of being made to account for your deeds is higher. Possible actions are chosen in an environment that incentivizes accountability- the way that only property can. Nobody would have the kind of privilege that government brings.

  Society would be much more complex than it is now and hence much stronger too. The division of labor could increase without state interference. Albeit there are no guarantees.

  Those that make bad choices that hurt other people will more likely be responded to in a just fashion. Those that make bad choices that hurt themselves will most likely have better opportunity to be helped by their fellow man since people will generally have more to give due to the rationalization of commerce and the individualization of conscience.

  But there is no utopian future. The state exists due to the self-fulfilling mindset of the vast majority. It could come back no matter what the future holds.

  But have no doubts about it: the state is chaos. No matter how many constitutional limits or democratic mechanisms are placed on it, all state forms can never resolve the problem of "Who will guard the guards?" (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). It is the privilege of government power, along with the inability of government planners to act economically (calculation) that allows us to know ex ante that relative chaos and oppression are the inevitable results of state.

  I have enjoyed all the back and forths btw!

  Published: September 13, 2009 10:37 AM

• Fallon

  Donna,

  What gives the *right* for Canadians to mandate 'universal health care'?

  Published: September 13, 2009 10:53 AM

• Tina Brewer

  @Fallon

  I just LOVE these two phrases of yours : "an environment that incentivizes accountability" (hurray for that) and "the individualization of conscience" . I think you are right in what you say. Maybe the "incentivizes accountability" thing is what I am getting at when I describe an environment that is "a great deal riskier and more demanding". I also think it very insightful what you wrote about libertarians OVERestimating the amount of freedom they might enjoy. I think this is a better analysis than mine. Its probably true that the freer environment is really the more naturally limited environment...which is so healthy. Incidentally, this piece is always what I feel is so frustratingly missing from the defense of "free markets" now appearing in the MSM. The fixation on using the term "freedom" can tend to underplay freedom's natural complement, responsibility.

  Published: September 13, 2009 11:18 AM

• Lionheart

  Sorry, but I'll go with the public option; much better subject to the will of the majority than subject to the will of the top 5% of people making absurd amounts of money, who aren't in the least bit interested in covering illnesses or provide adequate health insurance.
  I do NOT want my health at stake with those greedy bastards making the call.

  Published: September 13, 2009 11:22 AM

• mpolzkill

  Lionheart,

  By all means, the greedy bastards of the bottom 51% should make the call.

  Published: September 13, 2009 11:41 AM

• mpolzkill

  Tina,

  Yes, you told me what I wanted to know. Fallon's response, posted while I was typing, was brilliant and he has taken all my thunder and rendered my response a puny, rambling thing by comparison, damn him! I'm posting it anyway, but over here:

  http://blog.mises.org/archives/010643.asp

  Not a perfect fit but definitely closer there to the topic we've drifted into.

  Published: September 13, 2009 11:57 AM

• Fallon

  Hmmmm. Should my name come before or after Ludwig's in the newly renamed Institute?

  Thanks for the the feedback, Tina and Mpolzkill.

  Published: September 13, 2009 12:30 PM

• Russ

  Donna M wrote:

  "I'm not dodging. FYI, Canadians gave the govt a mandate years ago to implement universal health care."

  So, if the government acts on behalf of *some* Canadians (I'm assuming this wasn't unanimously agreed on), then the government must be exercising rights that *some* people, individually, have. Right? So, where do these individuals get the right to force other individuals into this program? Do you think that you, individually, have the right to force others to pay for your needs? Or am I wrong here, and somehow the right to do this magically appears through the democratic process?

  "Russ, you have your own social programmes, like welfare, unemployment ins, Medicare, food stamps (which btw, Canada does not have). Your taxes are being used to pay for supporting people though you think you would never use the services yourself."

  I'm painfully aware of all this, and I am against *ALL* redistribution programs.

  "So, if there's a horrible car accident and one man is poor, the other rich, yet both have the same injury. Does the rich guy get the benefit of having a chance of living and poor fella just bleeds out?"

  Instead of thinking about the "rights" of the poor guy to medical care, try thinking about the *obligations* on others that all supposed rights necessarily involve. Do other people have the *obligation* to provide or pay for health care for the poor guy? I say, NO! Do you and others like you have the right, through the democratic process, to force these obligations on others? Again, I say, NO!

  What it comes down to for me is, that no matter how many safety nets and how much Nerf padding we have in this world, we're all going to die sometime. We will all be equal in the grave. Until then, I would rather have the freedom to enjoy my life, and live it for me and mine, not for everybody else in the world. I'm willing to pay my fair share for those functions of government that cannot be supplied without a government, like military defense, law enforcement, etc. (unlike some anarchists here, I believe that government is necessary). But other than that, I do not think that I should be considered an X% slave to everyone else, working against my will X% of the time to supply the needs of others who, quite frankly, I don't care about.

  Published: September 13, 2009 1:44 PM

• mpolzkill

  Fallon, haha, good stuff. Thanks back at ya.

  Published: September 13, 2009 1:46 PM

• Russ

  Lionheart wrote:

  "I do NOT want my health at stake with those greedy bastards making the call."

  I would rather have my health care in the hands of "those greedy bastards" than in the hands of people too intellectually benighted to be able to pay for health care on their own.
  

  Published: September 13, 2009 2:32 PM

• FTG

  Lionheart,

  Sorry, but I'll go with the public option; much better subject to the will of the majority than subject to the will of the top 5% of people making absurd amounts of money,

  Notwithstanding your really creepy decision to submit to the "will of the majority", I have to tell you that one does not simply decide to "go" with ANY public option - it is merely imposed upon you and me. Unless you can figure out an entirely different set of ethics that nobody has heard about, you will have to explain to everybody how can it be moral or ethical to make everybody pay for the medical bills of everybody else.

  The second thing here is that you present a false dilemma by establishing either a public option or placing your fate in the hands of CEO's as the only possible alternatives. This is nothing more than a simplistic caricature of what really is happening in the US.

  I do NOT want my health at stake with those greedy bastards making the call.

  No, what you don't want is having these "greedy bastards" decide not to use their money to pay your medical bills - you can always opt to pay your medical bills yourself. Under a public "option" (which has proven NOT to be an option in many places, but a mandate), you could not buy the medical services yourself because these are supposed to be offered for "free" by the State, regardless of availability or urgency. I would not be so cavalier about placing MY life in the hands of bureaucrats who would care infinitely less about my life than the people making "absurd" amounts of money (whatever that's supposed to mean). I am willing to take my chances with somebody that wants to make money (which can only be achieved by pleasing the customer), rather than being left at the mercy of impersonal and obtuse bureaucrats.

  Published: September 14, 2009 2:13 AM