Skip to comments.A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage
Posted on 12/13/2007 7:05:22 AM PST by cinives
click here to read article
This is an issue that will become more important every year as costs rise.
Since we know that "free" care at emergency rooms is not going away, and nor is Medicaid/Medicare or VA hospitals, solutions should reflect these realities and striv to be as "efficient" as possible, preferably with little to no government bureaucracy.
How about not posting this repeatedly?
A Conservative Case for
Universal Health CoverageSocialism.
Take note - “For discussion - please read carefully before trotting out the reflexive posts.”
PING for later read.
The author offers no solution, just a recitation of costs. He doesn’t appear to understand what universal health care means. The devil is in the details.
The turn toward socialized and very expensive health insurance came with health maintenance organizations and tying health insurance to employment.
There is way too much government intervention in medical care, although I have no problem with the Feds caring for our veterans, who laid their lives on the line for our country's defense. However, migrating to socialized health care will inevitably result in the sort of shortages and rationing that have occurred in every other nation that has gone this route. The wealthy may be able to pay for surgeries and other medical care privately, if any socialized system provides for an opt-out as Britain currently does. Alternatively, they may be able to go to places like Singapore, Hong Kong, or some Caribbean island to get the services in a freer market environment. The middle class will be screwed under universal health care, as are their counterparts in Canada and Western Europe.
When you consider how poorly governments handle the services to which they have been entrusted, like highways, public schools, and the courts, there is no reason to believe that socialized medicine would fare any differently. The bottom line is that socialism never works.
I did a search of this, and no one else posted this. What’s your beef ?
Maybe we should quit discussing everything, since surely everything has come up at least once in the history of Free Republic ?
The author’s point is, we already have socialism in the health coverage “market”.
Mine is, we need to look at the programs already existing, and push a “solution” to at least get something better than we have now.
Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt, ie will be paying out more than it takes in in taxes in the next few years, so this is an issue that must be addressed very soon.
There is no Conservative case for UHC. Yes, I read the whole thing.
This statement is the springboard for the rest that follows. Problem, no one is defending the status quo. Some (Romney, Clinton, Edwards) argue for more govt control and others (Thompson, Giuliani) argue for less to no govt. control. This piece is a false argument based upon a phony premise.
Well, yes, but the details are something we as conservatives should start thinking thru so we can ask Congress/President to shape a conservative solution.
Yes, I know conservatives prefer no government in this area - I’m in the forefront of that idea. But, since Medicaid/Medicare, VA hospitals, S-CHIP and the like are not going away soon, how can we get to a better place thn we are now.
Even as this article indicates, the real problem is that health care has no known cost.
None of us really know what our health care costs. The market has been so thoroughly tampered that the costs are spread about by Leviathan forces.
If we had to pay our medical costs out of a pocket, we would witness market forces changing medicine for the better.
That is clearly the case but the rhetoric of health care is so vicious that it is hard to imagine a candidate prevailing on a return to the market.
I notice no one is saying much about Bush’s second veto of child health care.
Bush is lampooned as a conservative fraud and yet who can imagine any Republican candidate really resisting the political pressure to sign such a bill. . . FOR THE CHILDREN.
Bush has done pretty well to veto it twice without any positive response from his so called base.
I’d put the turn down to VA hospitals and Medicare/Medicaid plus mandates by states, and polished off in 1986 by “free” care in ER rooms.
Hundreds of hospitals across America have closed because they can no longer profitably operate because the federal law requires them to give free emergency room medical care to everyone who either has no insurance or cannot or will not pay for it.
Instead of throwing up our hands and surrendering to the Liberals in America; we should be deporting every illegal in America which would automatically allow hospitals, that are presently on the verge of closing because of the free hospital care that they are required by law to give to everyone including illegals, to remain open and DEMAND that only those who are in life & death circumstances be given free emergency room hospital care. An affordable national health insurance plan similar to what members of congress have could be instituted whereby everyone could be covered who isn't already covered by Medicare or Medicaid.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water;
throw the illegals out with the bath water.
"Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P.J.O'Rourke
I saw nothing "Conservative" in the article.
“we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it.”
Since we haven’t received the bill for universal health care yet, I don’t know how anyone can say that. My suspicion is that the cost of health care will double if the government mandates universal health care. Currently, we’re told that 1/3 of the people aren’t getting the health care they should have, and that means we’re only providing 2/3 the amount of health care we should be providing, so that means we’ve got to provide 50% more health care than we are currently providing in order to cover that 1/3 who aren’t getting it.
Doctors already average 60 hour work weeks. In order to provide 50% more health care, the doctors will need to work 50% longer hours, which means 90 hours a week. There is no way you’re going to be able to get them to work 90 hour weeks without paying them a whole lot more than we are currently paying, and that means bidding up the cost of health care.
I’d rather the Feds help soldiers in a manner similar to the GI Bill after WW II - give insurance to the soldiers to buy whatever type of health care or insurance they want.
VA hospitals should not duplicate the private sector. I think we’d save a huge chunk of change and soldiers would get better care if we do the above.
I agree with you completely about socialism and bureaucracy never working.
For my part, I’d prefer tax credits for health insurance, HSAs, and no free care in the ERs.
Now how in the world can you group VA hospitals in with those other programs? VA hospitals are NOT entitlements. The folks there earned whatever care they get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.