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
Tags: ,

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    I agree – which is why those who idolize the Canadian system are basically speaking through their hats because the long wait-times inherent to a 100% publicly funded healthcare system are mitigated by the safety valve of being able to purchase such services directly here in the States.

    The notion that you wouldn’t be able to engage in a profession (being a doctor is truly a profession) unless you were doing so under the auspices of government seems antithetical to the American ethic.

    Yes, true. But there are a lot of successful blended systems.  It isn’t just a choose between Canada and the US.

    • #31
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Forcing people with means to accpet the same wait as someone without means is just evil.

    Why? Should people have been able to buy themselves onto lifeboats on the Titanic?

    (Also, I just provided the Bernie money quote. Some societies do decide to make health care [to some level] universally available. It’s a right the way access to public schools is. )

    That is a non sequitur. 

    Please try again. 

    • #32
  3. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Why? Should people have been able to buy themselves onto lifeboats on the Titanic?

    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…)

    • #33
  4. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    They certainly have, pretty much, in every market economy with universal health insurance – and done so without being coerced.

    Really. No coercion?

    Can a doctor in Canada not participate in their single payer plan and make a living?

    Nobody is forced to be a doctor.

    LOL. And there you have it.

     

    • #34
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Why? Should people have been able to buy themselves onto lifeboats on the Titanic?

    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.

    One man’s Titanic is another man’s cancer diagnosis.  

    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…)

    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.  

     

     

     

    • #35
  6. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    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.

    • #36
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    https://www.mdmag.com/physicians-money-digest/lifestyle/the-10-countries-with-the-most-physicians-per-capita/

    • #37
  8. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #38
  9. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    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.

    • #39
  10. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    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.

    • #40
  11. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.”

    • #41
  12. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    • #42
  13. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    • #43
  14. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    • #44
  15. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    Proverbs 21:20:

    Precious treasures and oil are in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man consumes them.

    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.

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #45
  16. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    https://www.businessinsider.in/What-Its-Like-When-Youre-An-American-Using-Britains-NHS/articleshow/46057777.cms

    • #46
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.