Here’s another method by which you can demonstrate that health care isn’t a right:
Brought to you by the College of Subversive Knowledge.
Single-Payer Falls Apart In Vermont
Vermont, which is an extraordinarily liberal state with at least one openly socialist senator, was at one time regarded as America’s frontrunner for single-payer healthcare. But that frontrunner status just changed.
Single-payer, a disastrous idea on dozens of different levels, means that everyone pays for everyone else’s healthcare, and Vermont has just discovered one of the reasons that single-payer is, in fact, disastrous: taxes must rise.
Quoting the liberal mag Politico:
Advocates of a “Medicare for all” approach were largely sidelined during the national Obamacare debate. The health law left a private insurance system in place and didn’t even include a weaker “public option” government plan to run alongside more traditional commercial ones.
So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor.
Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.
“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”
Vermont’s outcome is a “small speed bump,” said New York Assembly member Richard Gottfried, who’s been pushing single-payer bills for more than 20 years. But opponents says it’s the end of the road.
“If cobalt blue Vermont couldn’t find a way to make single-payer happen, then it’s very unlikely that any other state will,” said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business.
“There will never be a good time for a massive tax increase on employers and consumers in Vermont, so they should abandon that silly idea now and get serious,” Mozloom added.
Might hurt the economy, Governor? I think you can bet your health on it.
A Bartender Responds to Barack Obama’s “If-You’re-a-Bartender” Comment
The ObamaCare Provision That Compels You To Pay For My Contraception
The storm of controversy surrounding the provision in ObamaCare that will force America’s many Catholic institutions to fund, for example, sterilizations, contraceptives, and morning-after pills for their employees — “despite each of these being fully athwart fundamental Catholic doctrine on sexuality, abortion and life,” as Rex Murphy eloquently put it — has many people like me wondering the following:
Why suddenly the big furor now? I mean, this is socialism:
I don’t pay for my own medicine, because it’s not my responsibility: it’s yours.
This is exactly what you voted for when you voted for Barack Obama.
Please don’t insult us by being surprised now, after all the time we spent trying to tell you.
Governmental compulsion: it’s the American way.
“We’ve actually been operating in a way entirely consistent with free-market principles.” — Barack Obama, 2009
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: ‘The Health Care Bill Is A Disaster’
No shit.
The only real question here is this: what took you liberals so long to figure it out?
And, make no mistake, Evan Thomas is a liberal — about as liberal as they come, as a matter of fact, once even uplifting his hero Barack to the status of a deity.
From The Daily Caller:
“It ain’t because of Congress,” Thomas said. “The unemployment will go down a little bit but the game in Washington will still be this unreal game. Health care though – I got to say, is one place where I think where Republicans are right.”
Back in November 2009, Thomas admitted the health care reform bill had flaws, but still voiced his support for it. Now he has proclaimed it a failure.
“The health care bill is a disaster,” Thomas continued. “We’re sort of slowly learning – it’s not working. It’s interesting – they’re implementing it and it’s not working out at all as people anticipated. There’s all sorts of wildly wrong projections. As it’s being practiced – it’s failed.”
Watch the video here:
Saudi King Abdullah Won’t Use “Universal” Health Coverage But Comes To The U.S. For His Blood Clot Treatment
This isn’t new: everyone knows and has always known that the best doctors and the best healthcare in the world are to be found in the United States. Which is why, when the chips are down, the United States is precisely where they all come for treatment.
No, the reason this particular story is a little more interesting than the usual traduce-America’s-health-care-system-until-you-get-seriously-sick scenario is that Saudi King Abdullah reportedly phoned Obama the day after Obamacare was forced through congress (via the unlawful use of the reconciliation process) and congratulated him on its passage.
As Doug Powers reports:
The day after the Obamacare law passed, Saudi King Abdullah reportedly called President Obama to congratulate him. The bill, it seems, was one more step toward the US embracing a superior universal health care system like that which can be found in Saudi Arabia, where treatments for medical problems such as, oh, say, blood clots, are fully covered.
Now, the king of the country with that health care system that gives the US something to strive for won’t be treated in that system, but will instead come to the US for treatment. He’s lucky the law that will make US health care system more closely resemble the Saudi system — the one that isn’t good enough for Saudi royalty — hasn’t kicked in yet:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia’s aged ruler will fly to the United States for medical tests over a blood clot, according to a Saudi official, in a development that would renew questions about succession in the oil-rich kingdom.
The 86-year-old King Abdullah is set to leave on Monday, three days after he was admitted to the hospital suffering from back pain due to a blood clot, the official said late Saturday. The official didn’t say which hospital would receive the king.
To paraphrase John McCain’s question, when Obamacare is fully implemented in America, where will rich Saudis go for health care?
(Link)
Seven Simple Rules for Health Care Reform
The 2000-plus-page ObamaCare legislation would of course obliterate any remnants of free-market medicine that still exists in this country, and in so doing it would not lower the cost of medicine, nor would it improve medical quality, nor would it ultimately insure more people, as the democrats themselves admit. The reason American medicine is so expensive in the first place is because of the massive bureaucratic apparatus that has gripped the American medical industry — an apparatus that was initially put in place in the mid-1930’s, under FDR and his horrific tax discrimination laws (which created employer-sponsored healthcare), and then expanded drastically in the 1960’s under LBJ.
The obvious question, then, is this: if government intervention created the problem, how is more government intervention going to help?
Answer: it’s not.
In fact, it’s going to compound the problem astronomically.
The following, however, which comes to us via Richard E. Ralston, Executive Director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, would help solve the problem, and it would do so without the unconstitutional coercive measures ObamaCare explicitly endorses.
Seven Simple Rules for Health Care Reform
The first simple rule: Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes. Those who complain about the cost of medical care and insurance must be confronted with the fact that if we cannot afford medical care, we surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the money we set aside for it.
The second simple rule: Allow an individual or corporate tax deduction equal to double the value of the service for all charity care by medical care providers. At one time America had a vigorous network of private charity care, which was largely destroyed by the government barging in. We need to restore that environment of private charity, which was more efficient, effective and compassionate.
The third simple rule: Pass legislation now proposed in the U.S. Congress that would give every individual or business the ability to purchase insurance in a national market, from insurance companies in any state. That would allow for ownership of health insurance that is more affordable and can follow individuals from job to job and state to state. The increased competition between insurance companies would restrain the cost of insurance.
The fourth simple rule: Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles. That, more than anything, would make insurance premiums more affordable for Americans who fear the financial consequences of health misfortune.
The fifth simple rule: Broaden the availability of optional coverage provided by Medicare Advantage, but allow for additional tax-deductible premiums to be paid by those seniors who elect such options. More choices from more options should be available to retirees—but not paid for by taxpayers. This would allow for expanded and more efficient coverage, and reintroduce an element of competition to those who seek to provide health care to seniors.
The sixth simple rule: Allow Medicare patients to utilize their Health Savings Accounts to pay for services from their Medicare physicians. This could bring thousands of doctors back into the Medicare program overnight and eliminate the ridiculous and unjust prohibition on those who want to spend their own money on their medical care.
The seventh simple rule: Limit non-economic or punitive damages in all malpractice or other litigation against medical providers or drug and medical equipment firms to a maximum of $250,000 (indexed for inflation). This would wring the bonanza for a few law firms out of the current ocean of litigation—and the high cost of “defensive medicine” now practiced by providers as protection against such legal extortion. The effect would be a reduction in the cost of medical care and insurance for everyone.
(Link)
For more on the atrocity exhibition of cradle-to-grave healthcare, please read Dr. Yuri N. Maltsev’s account of socialized medicine in Russia. Dr. Maltsev was for many years an economist for Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team. He now teaches economics at Carthage College, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Read also medical doctor Paul Hsieh’s limpid explanation of how ObamaCare will prevent good doctors like him from upholding their Hippocratic Oath.