Monday's mini missed the mark. The author insinuated that President Bush is the genesis of expensive health care. Did Bush flick his evil Republican wand, forcing prices higher? Hardly.
Neither are rising costs the products of a failure in the health care market. Rather, health care has ceased to be a free market -- it is expensive due to a lack of competition among providers. The lack of competition and high prices can be blamed solely on government intervention. If truly free market competition were allowed, the price of health care would certainly decline.
The average family of four spends about $26,000 each year for health insurance. Only around half is used for the family. The rest is taken in taxes to pay for government-run care for other people. In short, government -- not the market -- is the reason for the current health care prices.
It won't get better with universal health care. As P J O'Rourke said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
Families need choices. They barely have any now and surely won't under a universal health care scheme. They should have the ability to make decisions regarding their own health care without government's incessant meddling.
Deadly equality in British socialized medicine
People are not allowed to help themselves
In still yet another shuddering preview of health under Hillarycare or whatever form of socialized medicine that the mainly Democratic candidates promise to impose on us, Britain's National Health Service has issued this truly Orwellian/Kafkaesque decree.
A woman will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug. Colette Mills, a former nurse, has been told that if she attempts to top up her treatment privately, she will have to foot the entire 10,000 pounds bill for her drugs and care. The bizarre threat stems from the refusal by the government to let patients pay for additional drugs that are not prescribed on the NHS.
Huh? And what is the purpose of this truly potentially deadly NHS policy?
Ministers say it is unfair on patients who cannot afford such top-up drugs and that it will create a two-tier NHS. It is thought thousands of patients suffer as a result of the policy..... The Department of Health said: "Co-payments would risk creating a two-tier health service and be in direct contravention with the principles and values of the NHS."
So instead of a two tier system, good (private) and bad (public), only one system--bad--is allowed in England with no role model for improvement (private). Death, in the holy pursuit of equality, seems to be the goal.
Other solutions are up against equally twisted negative rationalizations. And beware the politician who oh so sincerely promises that a similar situation could not happen here. Oh yeah? Surrendering to government for free treatment means surrendering freedom.
Having many friends and relatives, alas, afflicted with breast cancer, this article, and previous ones on socialized health posted here, and here, and here touch me personally and deeply. While these friends and relatives are in various stages of treatment--and sadly, a few are gone--not one seems to have been denied a beneficial treatment. For some reason, Michael Moore's film, Sicko, a paean to socialized medicine, failed to mention cases like this. He didn't so we must.