Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Senator Sanders: Are You Lying or Merely a Sap?
In our preferred world, politics would revolve around intelligent argumentation, clever rhetoric, and appropriate deference would be given to facts. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. The world we live in is more dominated by popularity and personality than it is by principle.
This reality is why Bernie Sanders is still a contender to win the Democrat Presidential nomination. How has he gotten this far? By promising his followers a bribe. The opening bid? Forgiveness of all student loan debt. But that’s merely an aperitif; a foretaste of the giant enchilada Senator Bern has promised everybody in the form of free healthcare for all.
As conservatives know, however, life is infrequently a set of choices between “good” and “bad” outcomes but more frequently a choice between lesser and greater tragedies; want always exceeds supply. Surely, as addlepated as Senator Sanders seems, somewhere deep inside he and his followers must know this to be true.
You’d think that given how ambitious his plans to give away things for free are, he’d start small, just as a test … you know, to see if it works? Perhaps: From the architect of free healthcare for all comes the free t-shirt!
No?
If you think that your t-shirts are expensive now, just wait until they’re free.
Published in Economics
Yes, true. But there are a lot of successful blended systems. It isn’t just a choose between Canada and the US.
That is a non sequitur.
Please try again.
It’s a non-sequitir argument – we aren’t talking about emergent situations in every single case where the patient will sink or swim (metaphorically) without public intervention.
But I wouldn’t have had a problem with it per se if Jacob Astor had said to some passenger in steerage: “Look, I promise to care for your children (whom I’m taking with me in this boat) in perpetuity as if they were my own if you let me take your seat.”
Would that truly be morally repugnant? (Assuming he kept his word, etc…)
LOL. And there you have it.
One man’s Titanic is another man’s cancer diagnosis.
How would that work for someone who can’t afford cancer treatment?
It presumes payment from one patient to another, but in fact the payments are made to the medical or insurance industries.
The Titanic had a limited number of lifeboats. They couldn’t make more on the spot. The number of doctors is changeable over the course of years. Take away the financial incentive and there will be fewer doctors.
https://www.mdmag.com/physicians-money-digest/lifestyle/the-10-countries-with-the-most-physicians-per-capita/
What does that even mean? Have you read the financials of most major health insurers? Their margins are pretty slim.
Here in America we’ve made the commitment to granting even the destitute a minimum level of care. That does not mean that a homeless person is going to get to go to the Mayo Clinic; it means essentially that they’re going to get to go to the equivalent of an Army Mess Tent for medical treatment (sort of like the VA) rather than an expensive, private clinic.
And yes: that means if you have an expensive, chronic illness and no resources you are likely to live a shorter life – but there are probably other reasons for that before we contemplate the provision of healthcare which carry more weight.
The harebrained notion that “Nobody should go bankrupt from getting sick” is utterly moronic. If you have an illness that will cost $100,000 to treat, no assets and no health insurance, you’re probably going bankrupt. There are definitely fates worse than going bankrupt however… like “dying” because such treatments simply aren’t available.
Lastly: Why is healthcare not a right?
Because healthcare is delivered by service providers who need to be paid, using materiel that needs to be bought in facilities that need to be built. Healthcare is not delivered by unpaid slaves or robots using fairy dust. It is a consumer good whose provision would be better handled as a regular, arm’s length financial transaction rather than what it is now: a stilted, bureaucratic mess and tangle of government mandates wrapped in a layer of corporate bureaucracy which gives it the veneer of private ownership.
That’s a great way of losing elections. Bravo! You really are working for the Democrats. You’re right in there with the Wall Street Journal and other libertarians.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not, so I’m just going to go with: “Uh Huh.”
Not at all. It’s definitely a political loser.
Actually, HSAs (Health Savings Accounts) with HDHPs (High Deductible Health Plans) are very popular with the people who have them.
Politically, we should be pushing for more of that and less Obamacare-style regulation.
That does absolutely nothing about cost of a hospital stay which is where the problem is. That does nothing about closing of rural hospitals. Only two problems.
What is the absolute loser is saying medical care is just another consumer cost as though a hospital stay for a heart attack is something of choice.
What is the absolute loser is saying there is no right to medical care which is then interpreted as “you have no right to health care” and then spend the next 200 years explaining no, no, no, that’s not what I meant.
This sort of underlines the reality: Hospitals are businesses; if a business’s revenues are less than its expenses for too long, it goes out of business. The question of rural hospitals going out of business is nothing less than an expression of this iron-clad law of economics.
Proverbs 21:20:
Translated to the modern era: “Purchase insurance to defend your assets against potential economic or health catastrophe; save money for a rainy day and buy less avocado toast.”
The mutation of insurance so far beyond its ostensible purpose is mostly to blame for runaway cost inflation. How much would it cost if you were to go to your doctor for a routine checkup or procedure today. They typically can’t tell you, and the reason for this obscurantism is because people rely upon their insurance to serve as some sort of agent for them.
Doubling down on this folly and indulging or encouraging more of it is basically going to end in catastrophe.
A right to health insurance is not the same thing as access to health care. Ask people on the NHS in England how that works.
https://www.businessinsider.in/What-Its-Like-When-Youre-An-American-Using-Britains-NHS/articleshow/46057777.cms