ObamaCare? Ask the British and Canadians

"We spend more on health care than most other countries." "We need to bring costs down."

To address these complaints, enter ObamaCare -- which may or may not include a "public option" or a taxpayer-assisted "co-op" to keep insurance companies "honest." But do countries with government-run health care succeed in retaining high quality while "bringing costs down"?

Civitas, a nonpartisan British think tank, recently scolded the British National Health Service (NHS) for "putting the patient last." Why? Civitas blames the government-run health care system's monolithic nature, lack of competition, and the burdensome and wasteful regulation, redundancy, oversight and meddling by government -- including some 69 public bodies besides the Department of Health, such as the Care Quality Commission and the Environment Agency. This means the NHS serves the bureaucrat, not the patient.

After all, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said that if "starting from scratch," he'd emulate their "single-payer," government-run system. Tell that to the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, the equivalent of the American Medical Association.

"We all agree that the system is imploding (emphasis added). We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," said Dr. Anne Doig. "We know that there must be change," she continued. "We're all running flat-out. We're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands." She said the Canadian model has some "very good things," but "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now -- if it keeps on going without change -- is not sustainable."

What does the current president of the Canadian Medical Association suggest? Competition.

Dr. Robert Ouellet conducted a fact-finding trip to Europe, meeting with those involved in health care from England, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. On his return, he said that "competition should be welcomed, not feared."

How many of us take for granted the things created by our profit-driven, competitive system of capitalism? Someone seeking profits created the computers we use, the chairs we sit on, the clothing we wear, the food we buy, the cars we drive.

To many people, profits -- when it comes to health care -- represent pure evil. But how many of the same people turn down salary increases in order "to equalize incomes" of their colleagues? How many sell houses for less than they could get for them when other would-be buyers offer more? No, only the greed of others requires government to rein them in -- lest they lie, cheat, steal.

Health care and insurance are not "rights." Freedom of speech is a right. A fair trial -- in which one is judged by a jury of one's peers -- is a right. Protection against government discrimination based on race or religion or against being victimized by unreasonable searches and seizures are rights. One is no more entitled to health care or insurance than one is to a Lexus or a mansion or courtside seats at a Los Angeles Lakers game. Desirable? Sure. A "right"? No. Yet unlike the Lexus, extending health care to the unfortunate is a moral imperative. That's the definition of charity. But it's not a constitutional right.

Health care and insurance are commodities. Without government intrusion, excessive regulation and mandates, they would get cheaper and more affordable. Free market competition -- the same system that gives us ever-cheaper flat-screen televisions and cell phones with more power and ever-expanding functions -- remains the greatest wealth-producing system with the most widespread benefits known to humankind. It gives us cheaper and higher-quality elective surgeries, such as laser eye surgery, face-lifts, hair transplants and liposuction. Inexplicably, the President seems to understand this. He recently said, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the post office that's always having problems."!!??

Apart from these arguments against ObamaCare, what will it cost, and who will pay?

With the millions of soon-to-retire baby boomers, the Social Security "safety net" will run a massive deficit. Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, is tens of trillions of dollars under-funded -- meaning no money for future demands without substantially higher taxes on current workers. Medicaid -- the state/federal program of health insurance for the poor -- is in similar shape.

Nearly 40 percent of voters pay nothing in federal income tax. The number could soon reach 50 percent. So by voting in people like Obama and the Democrats (and many Republicans), people vote themselves a raise. The money comes from taxing the so-called rich (the top 1 percent -- earning more than $410,000 a year -- who already pay more than 40 percent of the nation's income taxes while receiving 23 percent of the nation's income), borrowing (taxes on layaway) or simply printing currency (causing inflation, which lowers the value of money).

As a result of all this spending on entitlements, bailouts and -- perhaps in addition -- some form of taxpayer-funded ObamaCare, expect inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates -- disincentives for those who take risks and create jobs. Unless and until we turn to less government, lower taxes and fewer regulations, the outlook is bleak.

Obamacare=Dollar Store health care. Duh. Better care costs more. Uh it is acually cheaper if you die faster, suffer more and just go away once you have outlived your usefulness to the collective. Socialism has one template I really like..Everything is free..And one I don’t ..There isn’t any.
Long Live the Collective.

The best way to fix the healthcare system in this country is to get rid of co-pay and get rid of lawyers. Years ago when I was growing up my parents took me to the doctor (other than shots) exactly twice. If we had a cold they took care of us, not the doctors. If that didn’t work they would visit the physician and pay for the office visit.

The best way to fix the healthcare system in this country is to get rid of co-pay

WRONG!

The co-pay is exactly what kept your parents from taking you to the doctor for every sniffle.

We need such a mechanism on Medicaid, to help quash the rampant over-utilization by the gimmiegirls and other welfare thieves.

"We spend more on health care than most other countries."

You know.... who the f**k is Barack Obama to say that we spend too much on health care? How much should we spend on health care? AFAIC, health care is one item you don't scrimp on. This is just one example of the false arguments advanced in this whole fight.

You are correct with reigning in the lawsuits. I say make the the loser pay for court costs and place a cap on $, possibly with a mechanism for review by health and legal experts before the case is even entered into the courts if there are unusual circumstances. Frivolous suits would decline and million dollar suits would not be the norm anymore. Medical insurance premiums would also decline and doctors would use less diagnostic testing unless it was called for, not just to cover their asses.

But sorry. You are wrong with the co-pay. There needs to be higher co-pays to discourage abuse. When someone can get something for free, they take full advantage of it. If there is a cost to a doctors visit or ER visit, they'll think twice about going unless of course it is absolutely necessary. I say at least $25 a pop for all. It'll stop doctor shopping too.

What does the current president of the Canadian Medical Association suggest? Competition.

Competition is the very thing that Marxist/collectivists like OH!bama and many liberal Democrats in Congress hate with a passion. It's also the very thing that made the US the foremost manufacturing and trading nation on earth during the first 3/4 of the 20th century.

Marxists hate competition and capitalism because it isn't "fair" that the people who are willing to work harder, give up more of their time, and risk more of their money to create jobs, wealth, and personal satisfaction are invariably wealthier and more successful than those people who choose not to do any of those things as long as they can sponge off those who are are willing.

OH!bama is a committed Marxist, and as such he is of course determined to install socialized medicine in the US, that's just what Marxists do when they come into power. If we allow our slugs in Congress to acquiesce to OH!bama's demands and afflict us with this failed Marxist health care monstrosity that is being grossly misrepresented as simply another medical insurance option, our children will curse us in our graves.

Excellent presentation of the truth, but unfortunately multiplied millions of Americans have been told that health care is a basic human "right" on the same level of importance as free speech and a jury or one's peers. And it's very convenient to believe that hogwash if you need medical care, don't have employer paid health insurance and can't afford privately funded health insurance. What is never mentioned in these arguments for socialized medicine is that every hospital in America that accepts any form of government remuneration for services is required by law to provide medical care to all comers regardless of their ability to pay.

If anyone doubts that, just go to the nearest hospital emergency room and read the government-mandated placards on the walls printed in plain English. And of course in plain Spanish for those who won't undertake the effort required to learn the official national language of the nation in which they choose to reside and earn US dollars to send back into their native country's economy.

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.