ObamaCare Debunked, Part II

Political optimism from people of my ilk is hard to come by these days; however, more and more, I'm slowly getting a sense that people are beginning to see ObamaCare for what it is - and rejecting it. Of course, with the way the President and the majority of Congress think, it still could pass anyways, despite the fact that people's attitudes towards health care are basically the same as they were in 1993-4; when they tried to force HillaryCare down our throats.

Anyways, the real reason I'm posting now is to direct your attention to a fine article over at Investor's Business Daily examining the myth that Medicare and Medicaid costs have risen at a slower rate than private health care costs. Needless to say, it's actually been the reverse, as Medicare and Medicaid have seen the highest increase in costs. This fact is significant because the great Hope-y One has cited Medicare as the example that his own 'Universal Helath Care' plan will follow. To quote:

"The centerpiece of President Obama's plan is a "public option," described by Tom Daschle as "a government-run insurance program, modeled after Medicare." The president asserts that this new Medicare-like program would cut costs.

But there are nearly 40 years of experience to consult, and they offer a resounding rebuttal. Across the years, Medicare's costs have risen far more than the costs of privately purchased care.

A new study I've completed, published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector."

Indeed. Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention over the last, oh, let's say 15 years. Medicare and Medicaid costs have been growing at outrageous rates; further proving the absurdity of Obamarama's claim that he can reduce costs through more massive government spending. Simply put, it's kind of like trying to cure ballooning deficits with $trillion 'stimulus' packages - i.e. it's something that won't work, but that Obama will do anyways.

Furthermore, and more importantly, this article illustrates a concept that we have brought up here before: namely, that when it comes to solving the problem of rising health care costs, conservatives are the only ones with a solution that actually addresses and deals with this problem.

What Obama and other liberals have proposed is designed to give you enough money to be able to afford the higher cost. In other words, they just want to make sure you can cover it; and thus, whether or not their Government plans actually lower costs is irrelevant, so long as they can claim the number of uninsured Americans has decreased.

Nevermind that, for the umpteenth time, the problem is the cost, not the insurance, and the goal is the cure, and not coverage.

Conservatives want to introduce more competition into the market, drive down Doctors' costs with Medical Malpractice reform, etc., and, in the process, make the actual cost of health care more affordable - even if you don't get that fat check from the government to help you pay for it. This is why conservative solutions make better sense on healthcare, as they are more in line with what is actually needed.

And that would, of course, be those lower costs and higher cure rates - neither of which any Government-run health care program has ever done as well as the private sector.

On ObamaCare

Earlier today, while glancing at a television tuned to CNN, I happened to notice our President, on TV, doing what he does best - reverting to campaign mode. Only, this time, his campaign mode was a townhall meeting on the subject of the Socialized Medicine that he is about to hoist upon us, so I decided to give him a listen and see what he might have to say on the topic.

Needless to say, I was not impressed.

Rather than go over the basics of why government-run health care is not a good idea, again (browse past selections, if you so desire...), I thought I would simply address two points made by Obama himself, earlier today, in Wisconsin.

First, he tried to pass of the government-sponsored insurance plan he has proposed (something that even the liberal AMA has come out against) as simply another competitor to private insurance. Using all the key words that a true Capitalist likely would, The President did his best to explain to us commoners how government run health care will actually lower the cost of private insurance, and thus be beneficial to all.

The problem, of course, is that government is no ordinary competitor. The government can keep prices artificially low, as it not only has the power to print money, but also to dip into the funds of the US Treasury. In other words, the government can deficit spend to its heart's content, print as much money as it needs to run this "competitor," and raise taxes to finance its operations. Ordinary, private insurance companies, on the other hand can do none of these 3 things. Simply put, the problem with the President's argument is that he's trying to say the government's entry into the health insurance market isn't unfair to other competitors, despite the fact that the government is the very organization tasked with making the rules in that market.

In other words, it's like letting a referee play in the very same game that he's officiating.

It's not normal, and it gives the referee unfair advantages over the other players. Capitalism may not be the most gentle (for lack of a better word) economic system around, but it absolutely requires that all potential profit-makers be given the same opportunities as the others at the start of the game. (Hence the conservative belief in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.) When the ref is playing, that simply doesn't happen.

The second issue I took with the tomfoolery I saw in Obama's speech was his continued insistence on the need to cut deficits. Indeed, the man desperately wants you to know that fiscal responsibility is important to him, too.

It is the type of thing that only a politician could say with a straight face.

The tortured logic that Obama continues to use, in which he claims that spending new, radically higher amounts of money on healthcare will actually reduce deficits, is beyond preposterous; indeed, it is a violation of the basic laws of mathematics. A trillion dollar deficit, plus additional spending, plus a still-tanking economy only equals a bigger deficit. That is, unless Obama plans to break shatter his promise not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans.

Of course, this is what we all should have come to expect from Obama and his team by now; afterall, ever since they've been in office, they've simply taken advantage of the personal popularity of the President to push every major item on the liberal agenda despite using some of the most asinine and downright idiotic justifications that anyone has ever heard. So let's be clear, this healthcare plan has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or anything remotely resembling the concept - it is, plain and simple, Obama pushing his backdoor attempt at socialized medicine now, while he has the votes in Congress.

And so, with apologies to the Canadians, who will just have to deal with their own shitty system now, since, after this plan, ours isn't going to be worth driving south for, I guess all that's left to do is just buckle down, folks, because this behemoth of tortured logic and spending stupidity is coming, like it or not. It's "Change," afterall.

Masking Mediocrity

Ah, the joys of "free" healthcare:

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients...

He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.' "

Lovely, huh?

The great thing about this story is that it's a perfect example of why the type of "Universal Health Care" system desired by President Obama, other liberals, and even some 'Conservatives' (hello, Mitt Romney...) here in the U.S won't, ultimately, work.

Many a time during the campaign, when asked to defend himself against charges that his Healthcare plan was a thinly veiled attempt at socialized medicine, President Obama responded by saying that, since those who so desired would be able to opt out and get private health insurance, his plan couldn't be dubbed socialized medicine. Indeed, the point of the "universal" part of his plan, he argued, was simply to ensure that those millions of uninsured Americans would never have to go without, thanks to the government sponsored insurance he would be offering.

Well, guess what? In the U.K, people with the financial resources do have the option of getting private healthcare; and furthermore, in a manner that would seem to dovetail nicely with President Obama's plan, those who can't afford such a luxury are given all the health coverage they need via the NHS. Nevertheless, despite being fully provided for by their government, the British folks who were supposed to have been saved from the pain of being uninsured by the almighty hand of a government health care program still aren't getting the health care that they need.

Indeed, despite having a truly "Universal" system of health coverage at his disposal, Ian Boynton was unable to do something as simple as find a dentist to examine his toothache.

What this particular story illustrates so well is a point, which I have made on many an occasion before, that neither socialized medicine nor Universal Health Care (not that the difference is all that substantial...) will solve the current Health Care problems in the United States. This is due the fact that, like all big-government programs, they are inherently flawed solutions because they fail to address the real problem facing the system. In this case, both in the U.K and U.S, the real problem is that Health Care is to expensive. What Socialized Medicine and Universal Health Care both do to address this problem is to offer you either "free" or insanely cheap Health Insurance to make sure that you have enough money to cover this high cost. In other words, instead of directly addressing the problem of expensive health care, and trying to bring down these high costs, these programs are designed to simply mask it through government welfare.

Of course, the problem with masking crises instead of confronting them is that they tend to fester and come back - usually with a much greater degree of monetary pain than they hit you with on the first go-round.

That's why, if we want to try to offer real health care reforms here in the United States, we can't fall into the trap of simply offering up ideas that don't address the real problem. If we want to make Health Care in the U.S better, we need to look at solutions that will actually reduce the costs of health care and thus make it affordable to an even greater number of Americans - without us having to give them a welfare check, first. Two quick and easy ideas to jumpstart such a change would be to allow insurance companies to compete across State lines and to reduce our Doctors' operating costs through Medical Malpractice reform.

Just anything but Big Government, please. Because, afterall, I can already pull my own teeth out with pliers for free - and I don't even have to bankrupt my country's future in the process.

On Healthcare in '08

So far in this election, John McCain has not been particularly good at deflecting the Obama campaign's attacks and, in some cases, outright lies about his proposed policies, to the detriment of McCain's campaign. Perhaps the single best example of this phenomenon is the issue of healthcare; on which Obama, who has what amounts to Socialized Medicine as his plan, has somehow managed to gain the upper ground. So, in the interest of clearing the air, lets take a new look at these 2 Candidates Healthcare proposals.

First up is Senator McCain, whose healthcare plan, despite what Senator Obama may say, is actually an excellent plan that will help to reduce the cost of healthcare both to you and the government that your tax dollars finance. However, given that I am somewhat lazy, and also rather busy these days, I will, in the interest of time, direct you to an excellent article which effectively analyzes McCain's plan: here's the link. Also, if you want to do some more reading, you should certainly check out the McCain/Palin (emphasis on the Palin) website, where they dig in and disprove all of the various smears that the Obama camp has directed towards their plan (link here).

However, lazy and time-pressed though I may be, I do want to go through a few crucial aspects of the Obama healthcare plan myself; if only because, for some strange reason, I sadly neglected to mock the Obamarama plan for healthcare catastrophe during the Democratic primaries, paying attention only to the Hillary and Edwards versions. So let's get to it.

In the very first bullet point of his helathcare plan (straight from the campagin website), Obama states his intention to mandate that insurance companies give "all Americans, regardless of their health status or history [] comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums." Lovely. Who doesn't want to help out sick people, right? Unfortunately, what this idea reveals is that, apparently, Obama does't understand what, exactly, health insurance, well, is.

Allow me to explain: Health Insurance consists of an insurance company, essentially, making a bet with you that you won't get sick. Thus, the more likely you are to get sick, the higher your health insurance will likely be. This is not because the insurance companies are mean, evil bastards, but rather because the likelihood of a sickly person getting sick (and thus the insurance company losing the bet and having to shell out dough for hospital bills) is fairly high. Consequently, mandating, as Obama wishes to do, that insurance companies must make what will, essentially, amount to sure-loss bets, will only drive up the cost of everyone else's health insurance, since the insurers will be looking for ways to cover the losses they are almost certain to incur on these high-risk patients.

The second scary part of the Obama healthcare plan comes from his desire to "[require] large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care." In other words, more government mandates on private companies. This time, however, he wants to force companies to offer their employees a type of benefit.

Think about that for a second; he's going to force people to give their employees benefits. Never mind that benefits are not a necessary part of any job, but rather one of many things that employers can offer, if they so choose, to entice people to work for them. In other words, as I've said time and again here, if an employee wants benefits, like healthcare, he should become employed by a company that offers them - not have the government step in an mandate such a thing. Moreover, this aspect of the Obama plan assumes that the choice of the employees themselves on the matter of their own health insurance is irrelevant. After all, what if the employee doesn't want to get his health insurance through his employer, since he or she changes jobs often, and would rather have a larger paycheck with which to purchase a private insurance policy? Or, better yet, what if an employee of one of these large companies doesn't want health insurance at all? I suppose the answer to such queries, in terms of the Obama plan, is something akin to that of the aforementioned John Edwards healthcare plan: "you don't get that choice."

In any case, the final major area of concern in the health care plan of our Lord, The Messiah, Barack Obama the Holy One, is the area where his roots and true colors as a believer in socialized medicine shine through. It is the creation of what he dubs "a National Health Insurance Exchange." In this proposal, after making all the appropriate political nods to private insurance, the Obama plan includes the creation of "a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." In other words, while he's driving up the cost of private insurance and employment-based coverage with all these government mandates, he's going to be offering you a really, really cheap program that the government will pay for.

Perhaps, you see where this is going, huh?

Basically, since the government can keep its health insurance prices artificially low (thanks to the Treasury backing they will receive), people are going to naturally drift towards the government-run healthcare since it's going to be the cheapest option around. It is, admittedly, a rather well-laid trap; but still, it is one which ultimately will lead to more and more people relying on the government dole for their health insurance - but hey, no worries, Obama's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts and refuse to cut any of your other taxes, so there should hopefully be enough money for it, right? So hey, when Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all go broke, at least you'll still have your French-style healthcare around!

What it all adds up to is this: the Obama healthcare plan is nothing more than a massive government interference in the private market, and one which will cost our flat-out-broke government to incur large and increasing additional costs every year. Furthermore, it is also one which will hand the government an increasing degree of control over your healthcare.

I know Obama is too slick to ever use the term himself, but that sounds an awful lot like Socialized Medicine to me.

Of course, on the other hand, you have John McCain's healthcare plan; which will place an emphasis on giving you, as an individual (independent, even, of your employer), a greater degree of choice, not cost the government increasingly large sums of money, and potentially help to reduce the long-term costs of both Medicare and Medicaid. The choice shouldn't be that hard.

So vote for 'Medical Capitalism.' Vote McCain/Palin.

On Socialized Medicine

***The following is an article I wrote for a publication here at school. I thought I'd put it up here too, particularly since it deals with one of this blog's favorite topics. However, be forewarned, I ripped off a few lines from myself, so you might recognize one or two of the sentences.***

One of the most important, consistently discussed issues in American election-year politics over the past several years would, in my view, have to be that of Health Care. Furthermore, insofar as this particular issue is concerned, an increasing number of Americans seem to favor the introduction of some kind of “Universal Health Care” program. However, in my estimation, such a program is nothing more than a thinly-veiled offering of socialized medicine, and thus, like its counterparts in Europe, Canada and other ‘western’ nations, an inherently bad idea. Certainly supporters of “Universal Healthcare” want to differentiate their programs from socialized medicine – for they remember the catastrophic downfall of Hillary Care’s 1990’s inauguration – but let’s be honest, any system which requires hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and contains mandates for either employers, insurance companies, hospitals, Doctors, or regular folks is a socialized system. As, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can grant such sums of money, without so much as a thought, and easily gain the compliance of the various actors mentioned in “universal healthcare” proposals.

No bonus points if you guess what it is.

Yet, putting the labeling deception of its proponents aside for a second, let’s turn to something that even the supporters of universal healthcare admit: these plans will cost money. No one is entirely sure where all of the money will come from, but they just assume it will be found. Never mind the fact that even the current government-run, but much less inclusive, Medicare and Medicaid programs are over budget and running out of funding. Never mind the fact that raising taxes on the rich or eliminating Earmarks would account for only a small increase in revenue; or that the government is already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit – we’ll figure it out.

However, as we sit on the eve of a massive $700 Billion bailout, we have to be, if we want to be sensible and realistic about our generation’s financial future, looking for ways to significantly decrease the amount of money that our government spends. Saying we can add this or that expenditure and still make things work out is about as reasonable as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. Nevertheless, as problematic as the financial burdens of this system may be, they are, in my view, the least worrisome of the three major issues that a socialized medical system brings to the table.

One of the major faults of a socialized medical system was perhaps best illustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s quip during the primary debates that Canadians would have nowhere to go for treatment if Americans were to socialize healthcare. While many perhaps saw this as an allusion to the waiting lines that often develop in places like Canada, it is more enlightening when thought of in terms of healthcare quality. Europeans and Canadians, despite the “free” nature of their own systems, often do come to the United States; because, simply put, the American healthcare system and its Doctors are more likely to cure them than their own socialized systems. Indeed, across the board in terms of things like cardiovascular disease and cancer, the United States healthcare system has consistently higher cure rates than its more socialized (or should I say more ‘Universal’) counterparts. And this is despite the fact that, due to skyrocketing obesity rates, Americans are, comparably, more likely to get these diseases in the first place.

In my mind, this has and always should be the goal of a healthcare system: to cure the highest possible percentage of the sick. Worrying about paying for an expensive cancer treatment certainly is a big issue, but receiving free treatment for cancer, in which the quality is so low that it won’t keep you alive, is a bigger issue. Thus, as any good capitalist will understand, they key to improving the American system will lie in our ability to reduce government interference in the Doctor-Patient interaction and to increase the competitiveness of the market. This combination will increase the quality of the services provided by Healthcare professionals and decrease the cost. Afterall, the highest quality healthcare in the world at a reasonable cost is a much more laudable goal than 100% coverage and inferior quality care.

However, leaving aside cost and quality for a moment, there is one other major, philosophical, problem with socialized medicine. Any “universal” system is also, as proponents will happily tell you, all-encompassing. It makes sure that the things you need are both done and provided for you. A fact which ultimately makes it another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs that result in the removal a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). When this estrangement between the individual and responsibility occurs, people no longer become accountable to the consequences of making a bad choice. Furthermore, by deferring such accountability and, indeed, personal choices to the government, you also defer an aspect of your freedom to the government. This is because the kind of freedom espoused and celebrated by our Founding Fathers becomes quaintly irrelevant if it comes without responsibility and consequences – as the concepts are inextricably linked.

This fact is why ‘Universal Healthcare,’ in addition to its terrific costs and inferior quality, is an unconscionable solution to the flaws in American Healthcare. For any system that's ‘all-encompassing’ is simultaneously all-controlling; and when crucial aspects of your life have government controls on them, you don't have near as much freedom.

On The Deification Of French Healthcare

Great. Just when we're at the point in our Nation's history when, thanks to the two Democratic Presidential candidates, we might actually be unfortunate enough to get saddled with Socialized Medicine in the next few years, ABC has decided its time to try and re-introduce another round of deifying the French Healthcare system into the American media. Afterall, us idiots in the American proletariat might not be smart enough to, you know, buy into all this socialized bullshit, so we need to be shown just how amazingly-wonderful-awesome the French system is so that we'll be more willing to take that last step over the edge and into the abyss.

I chose the word abyss in that last sentence because, in fact, that's exactly where adopting a French-style Healthcare system would lead us to: the bottom of a very dark and scary abyss. But alas, Ms. Mary Cline, a freelance writer living in Paris, doesn't see it that way at all; which means it's time to examine her short article on French healthcare and dispel her of such bullshit notions. (Yes, we like to pretend that the people at ABC News might, actually, read this pithy blog. Just keep quite, and don't shatter our illusions of grandeur.)

The first and most obvious problem with Ms. Cline's assessment is her admiration of just how cheap, in many cases "free," visits to French hospitals and Doctors are. Sadly, this is, to an extent, true; at least for Ms. Cline. You see, Ms. Cline is not a French citizen; she's an American who just happens to be staying in Paris; which means that she doesn't really pay taxes to the French government, because she files her taxes with the IRS. Thus, while the system is "free" to her, it's really not. She is, in actuality, a leech on the backs of French taxpayers, who are financing all of her healthcare for her. If any of this sounds familiar, it should, as this is one of the biggest problems we have in the United States from illegal immigration - namely, that the illegals become leeches on all of our social services, which costs us more and more money, all while they, as undocumented workers, don't actually contribute anything to the financing of such programs.

But hey, considering we're running up deficits and that all of our big time programs are going to be going bankrupt in like 20 years, what better way to improve the American Healthcare system than to adopt a system which not only doesn't solve that problem but in fact exaggerates it?! Of course, herein lies one of the fundamental lies underlying the myth of the French system, that its money supply is somehow endless - it's not. The rising costs of this "free" and "cheap" system, are one of the reasons why France has a national debt which is some 65% of its GDP. In other words, it only seems cheap to idiots and fools like Ms. Cline, who have no understanding of how exactly it is that governments raise money to pay for such fantabulous programs.

(As a side note, its kind of funny that when talking about how wonderfully cheap French care is, she's giving the example of when she took her son in to get stitches; which, as we all know, is just a horribly expensive, outrageously difficult, and monumentally impossible procedure to do in our meek, stupid American Healthcare system.)

Then, after amusing us with anecdotes about her son's stitches experience, she regales us with some statistics which are, apparently supposed to make us bow down before the almighty behemoth of Socialized Medicine. First, she tells us that the French system is ranked number one, 36 spots ahead of the damn U.S, on the World Health Organization's list of best health care systems.

Ah, yes, because, as we all surely know by now, there is nothing on this planet as infallible as a rankings system devised by an organization that is a subdivision of the United Nations. They would never have an agenda. Nope, not the UN.

On a more serious note, it should be pointed out that the study Ms. Cline cites came out in June of 2000 (link here), so it's kind of outdated. But, more importantly, one of the primary means that it uses to measure the quality of the overall health system is how fairly the financial burden of medical care is distributed. In other words, this rankings system is inherently biased towards more socialized systems because these will, naturally, be more likely to have "progressive" (read: Marxist) mechanisms in place for income redistribution.

Next up, Ms. Cline attempts to throw around one of Socialized Healthcare supporters' favorite statistics: life expectancy. Because life expectancy is higher in France than it is in the United States, they argue, France has better healthcare. The argument, however, is false; and that is simply because other factors go into life expectancy besides just the quality of the healthcare one receives. Americans are much more likely than Frenchmen to be fat and overweight, a fact which significantly affects life expectancy, but is a result of lifestyle choices made by the individual citizens, and not their national healthcare systems. Americans have lower life expectancies because they make poorer lifestyle choices, not because they have worse healthcare.

Ms. Cline then goes on to discuss her experiences with receiving Breast Cancer treatment in both California and Paris and decides that her French experience was better. She makes this decision based on the how much more lax the French system is, mainly because they'll let her stay longer in the hospital. This conclusion presents two problems; the first is, obviously, financial (there's a $$ reason American hospitals don't like to keep patients longer than is necessary) and thus, was discussed at the top of this, now rather long, essay. However, the second problem with this conclusion is that it's based entirely on anecdotal evidence, and, thus in need of an important correction. You see, if Ms. Cline had bothered to do any real research on Breast Cancer treatment, she would have likely arrived at a different conclusion. She would have discovered that most all of the technologies and medicines that are used to treat Breast cancer were developed in none other than the American healthcare system. She would have also discovered that, despite the fact that American women are more likely to get Breast cancer than French women, they are also less likely to die from it. Meaning that, shockingly, the American system not only is able to take care of more breast cancer patients than the French system, but also more likely to cure the ones it gets.

Based on this data, the survival rate for breast cancer is 81.2% in the United States vs. 76.6% in France. (As an aside, even the raw numbers here indicate that American women are less likely to die from breast cancer (19 vs. 21.5); again, despite the fact that they are 9% more likely (101.1 vs. 91.9) to contract it - a phenomenal statistic.) Moreover, these statistics showing survival rates are even more impressive (at least for the United States) when applied across the board to all forms of cancer. Basically, the bottom line is that, while the Doctors in France may be friendlier and more accommodating, they're also less likely to keep you alive - which, in my book at least, is a hell of a lot more important than being 'happy' with the nursing staff.

Finally, Ms. Cline really gets me shaking my head when she pines about how her husband once had to wait "several hours" to be seen in a Manhattan Hospital because they couldn't track down his insurance company. This causes her to go on and assert that such a travesty would never befall one in Medical-Heaven-on-Earth, France. Indeed, she claims that

"There's no question you'll be treated in France. Everyone is."

Right, sure. Although, something tells me that the over 14,000 people who died in August 2003 in France during that fantastic heat wave would beg to differ. I mean seriously, you're bragging about this healthcare systems' ability to treat all of its potential patients when 14,000 people died on its watch, mostly from simple dehydration? Is it really that difficult to inject people with fluids and monitor them afterwards? Hell, I know how to do that, and all I have is basic training in First Aid - and I probably won't ask for you tax dollars if you come up to me and ask for help either.

Of course, there are other issues that Ms. Cline doesn't even mention in her article that I could bring up. I could talk about waiting lists, and how the elderly usually don't get seen (most of those heat wave victims were old folks), how under-skilled their Doctors are compared to ours, how our medical technology and equipment is superior to theirs, and, of course, I could go into even greater detail about the financial burdens of "free" French healthcare; but, at the end of the day, Ms. Cline makes perhaps the most eloquent argument against the French Healthcare system when, towards the end of her article, she comments on how it is "an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave system."

Indeed.

It is, ultimately, another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs, designed to remove a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). But by removing people from responsibility for themselves, you remove them from personal choice in matters of everyday life - afterall, how can you be trusted to make choices for yourself if you can't be held responsible for those choices? - and when those two things come together, the diminishing of both responsibility and choice, your personal rights and liberties are not far behind them on the path away from freedom.

Any system that's "all-encompassing" is simultaneously both all-knowing and, most importantly, all-controlling - and when your very health is being controlled (by a government agency, no less), you don't have near as much freedom.

1984 2008

As we've noted before in this forum, one of the key issues surrounding the Democratic Presidential primaries this year is the question of which candidate has the most awesomest Orwellian plan for "Universal Health Care." Indeed, the issue has become front-and-center in the Democratic debates with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton duking it out for the right to be the "I-care-for-you-the-mostest" candidate. The only real substantive difference between the two's policies is that Mr. Obama's apparently allows a few blessed souls to avoid the impending 'U.H.C' catastrophe while Mrs. Clinton's takes the more communistic approach and vows to leave no one behind. The only problem, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to specify exactly how she plans on enforcing the Health Care mandates that her system promises.

(Gosh, who'da thunk, a politician with a plan and no explanation as to how it might actually work.....)

Thankfully though, Mrs. Clinton was on ABC yesterday to assure all of us in the proletariat that she most certainly "[has] an enforcement mechanism" in mind for this (surely genius...) health care plan of hers - and she was even willing to expound upon this rhetorical talking point (unusually rare for the current meaningless platitude war that is the '08 Dem Presidential primaries). On tap for Mrs. Clinton's potential enforcement plans were "[garnishing people's wages], some other mechanism through the tax system, or automatic enrollments."

Because clearly the best way for us to try and stave of a possible recession is to jack up taxes on the middle-class workers who refuse to voluntarily accept her health care mandates. Alas, with these pro-"Universal Health Care" folks, raising taxes is always fair game - never mind the fact that some of these people probably can't afford health insurance on their current salary because their taxes are too high as it is.

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton's answer was, to be blunt, not particularly heavy on specifics (a fact which Mr. Obama was quick to point out), but let's be fair; she was indeed justified in claiming that "there are a number of mechanisms" which could be used to bring her plan to fruition. Indeed, this, sadly, is the reality of social democracy - the government is big and powerful enough to coerce a good deal out of you, including money for misguided "universal health care" programs.

But hey, it's for your own, personal Health Care for godssakes - so don't mind the dark beady eyes and toothbrush mustache staring down at you from the telescreen; afterall, he's there for your own personal good!

Here, naturally, we hit upon the reason that Mrs. Clinton refuses to directly articulate her means for enforcing these Health Care mandates - because the only agency that can enforce these mandates is the Government; and this would deny her the facade of claiming, as she has in the past, that the program is "not government run." Indeed, it would, in effect, be an admission that the program is not "universal health care;" but full-blooded Socialized Medicine. Moreover, as she learned in 1994, most Americans aren't willing to accept Socialized Medicine; they're smart enough to know that socialism is a bad idea. This is why, in the aftermath of the massive failure of HillaryCare I, the socialized medicine movement here in the United States cleverly changed its rhetoric. No more would Americans be asked to suffer European-style, Socialized Medicine. No, instead, they would be asked about "universal health care" and told of the "millions of uninsured" (especially children!!!) who desperately needed help - it would be presented to them as a sob story.

No longer would it be, as it was in Europe, a top down movement forced upon the majority of citizens "for their own good;" but rather, it would be portrayed as a great, grassroots effort by the lower class to get what they rightfully deserved - indeed, were owed - in this, the wealthiest Nation in history.

And this was the story that Americans would slowly buy into.

Never mind that, even if under different pretenses, they were actually being sold the same damn bill of goods (by the same saleswoman, no less!); the marketing was different, more likeable, so they bought it. Thus proving, with all due respect to Shakespeare, that, in American politics, what's in a name does matter - at least to the many gullible voters we have.

Ignorance is strength, if you will....

Anything You Coerce, I Coerce Better

Finally, after months of silence on the issue, the bastion of this Presidential Election's socialist talking points, John Edwards himself, has risen to the challenge of proving to you, the concerned men and women of that 'other' America, that his Socialized Medi..., er, Universal Health Care program is several degrees of mastery above those of his closest rivals for the title of best able to mimic Eurotrash, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Of course, in differentiating his plan from theirs, Mr. Edwards was not trying to sling political mud. No, he was "[talking] about what we need to do for healthcare;" you know, to make it better for all Americans - because he's always looking out for you, the common man. It may be from the window of his $6 million, 28,200 square foot mansion that he's looking out for us common folks - but, rest assured, looking out for you he is.

Anyways, back to what he actually had to say about the good Senators Obama and Clinton's health care plans (this talking about them, of course, came after he said that he "[didn't] want to talk about them" - which really forces one to admire his brilliance at constantly speaking out both sides of his mouth at the same time).

Edwards' problem with Senator Obama's plan was simply that it did not sufficiently expand the role of the federal government; because, per Mr. Edwards, "it just does not cover everyone." And by gosh, who would want to be left out of all the fun and excitement that comes with Universal Health Care. Why, not covering everybody would mean that some people might not get to spend months, even years, on medical waiting lists! They might not have the pleasure of having to drive hundreds of miles to find a mere Dentist! And worst of all, they might miss out on paying the massive tax increases that would be necessary to support such a system!!!

Yet, we must give credit where credit is due; Mr. Edwards has hit on a rather important nugget of information here; as this marks the first time in many years in which Senator Obama has actually been to the Right of someone on issues of public policy.

Another stroke of genius from Edwards comes in his criticism of Madame Clinton's Health Care policy (which, for those of you who remember correctly, is, in her words, most certainly not Government-run). In this case, Edwards says that while her plan does have the proper mandates to force Health Care down all of our collective throats, she forgot to come up with a "way to enforce the mandates" - and hey, what good would big government be if it didn't have a massive bureaucracy around to make sure you did as you were told? Of course, Mr. Edwards' idea of enforcing his mandates amounts to making sure that "every time you come into contact with the healthcare system or the government you get signed up." In other words, if you show your face in public, we will keep tabs on you - like in a police state, only, in this case, it's to make sure you get free Health Care, which is a good thing, so don't worry about it.

No word yet on how he plans to deal with the first invasion of privacy lawsuit that gets slapped on him when he forces your Doctor to turn over all your private info to his government.

The amazing thing is, Edwards continually criticizes President Bush for wiretapping phone lines, calling it a violation of peoples' right to privacy. ("Pot, meet Kettle.....").

Finally, in what was, perhaps, the best part of Mr. Edwards' little talk about his Universal Health Care plan, he decided to take questions form reporters, presumably so they might help him clarify his brilliant plan to those of us living in the 'other' America. While doing this, one of the reporters asked him what would happen if someone didn't want to get involved in his Health Care plan. Mr. Edwards' response? I kid you not: "You don't get that choice."

Indeed. One could hardly think of a better way to so succinctly summarize the folly of Universal Health Care.

So Much For An American Version!

Finally, definitive proof that Socialized Medicine just won't work here in the United States! In New Zealand, this past weekend, a British woman, looking to join her husband there, was denied entrance to the country because she was too fat. The reason her excessive weight was a problem? Well, according to the New Zealand Government, their universal health care system cannot take on anymore overweight people because it cannot afford to provide care for them.

That's right, socialized medicine in New Zealand has come under too much financial strain from the burden of the overweight and obese.

Now, in New Zealand, 50% of all adults are either overweight or obese; whereas, in the United States, that percentage has 'stabilized' at, ahem, 66.2%. So, if New Zealand officials feel they must deny long-term entry to overweight folks to preserve their Health Care system, imagine the problems we might have with such a Health Care system in this, the most vastly and disgustingly overweight Nation in the world?

But who the hell am I kidding? The people who want an American, socialized Medical system won't be concerned with the potentially devastating costs from the obesity epidemic - they'll just jack taxes way up to pay for it all.

But hey, at least it'll be free, right?

Socialized Medicine - Continuing to Impress

Imagine: you're laying on the table in an O.R in an Australian hospital, about to go into surgery, feeling pretty good, given that your surgery is "free" and whatnot, and then, YEECH, a cockroach runs up onto the operating table with you!! Ah, well, if you go in for surgery at Sydney, Australia's RNS Hospital, you won't have to imagine, as it's actually happening.

Gosh, just gives you all sorts of confidence in their sanitation procedures down there, doesn't it?

Of course, this isn't the only thing going wrong at the RNS Hospital; other problems there include an operating table which broke in half, while a patient was anesthetized on it, because it was so old, and (the whole reason they're having to investigate the hospital in the 1st place), a woman miscarrying in the hospital's E.R bathroom after having waited 2 hours to see the Doctor.

Lovely, isn't it?

Indeed, like all businesses run by the Government, it seems Australian Healthcare has become inefficient, sloppy, and poorly managed - and why not? It's not like they have any competition for the services they offer. Thus, the government can afford to be negligent with things like hospital sanitization; they're petty, time-consuming, and not really necessary in a stagnant market.

Well, that is except at election time, when the Pols will have to, at the very least, pay lip service to better Healthcare in order to rack up a few extra votes (and hey, whadda you know, Australia has Parliamentary elections soon!).

But hey - it's "free," so no worries, right mate?

A Reason To Care

One would think that by now, given all the statistics that have been compiled and predictions that have been made on the subject, Washington politicians would have realized that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare reform is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with immediately. Sadly, of course, they haven't, and our oversized, bloated federal programs remain on track to create a fiscal catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

Thankfully (or rather, frighteningly), we have evidence of what will happen if we continue down this path towards Democratic Socialism. The evidence, of course, is Europe. We have the high unemployment rates in France and Germany, the horrors of Britain's National Health Service, and the stagnated growth rates in Scandinavia, all of which, understandably, should warn us of the perils of Democratic Socialism. Even more frightening than the consequences of such programs, however, are the solutions that one must implement if one refuses to downsize or privatize these massive programs in the face of a rapidly ageing population. The obvious one is to increase the tax burden on the young and force them to finance the handsome pensions of their parents' and grandparents' generations; and in Britain, that's exactly what they've decided to do.
This article, from The Times, reports a shocking new statistic: that British college graduates could lose up to one-half of their starting salary to taxation. What a terribly large amount of money to have removed from one's paycheck to help finance government welfare programs - but, unfortunately, this is what has to happen in Britain. With declining birthrates, increased spending on welfare programs, and increasing longevity, increasing taxes on the young is one of the few ways to make the numbers work. The reason is simple; one of the most profitable taxes, from a government perspective, is the income tax - and old people don't work! So, youngsters will begin to see less and less of their paychecks if the system is to be maintained.

There is, of course, another downside to this that any good supply-sider will have already recognized; and that is that drastic tax increases on your workers' paychecks translates into less disposable income. This, in turn, means that people will be less likely to spend money and contribute to the overall economy. In other words, as President Reagan proved, higher income taxes means less overall economic productivity and an all-around, weaker economy.

And that brings me back to the United States, a country where we still have the pleasure of deciding whether we want our future to be like Britain's (or France's, or Sweden's....) or if we want it to be, well, as American as it's always been.

It's hard to talk about things like privatizing Social Security; or to tell our Senior citizens that they just might have to endure a benefit cut; hell, these days it's becoming hard to simply oppose, outright, all forms of socialized medicine; but at the end of the day, these are the things that we need to talk about - and must do. Especially considering that the alternative is figuring out how to distribute a massive tax burden.

As Painful As Pulling Teeth

Ah, the wonders of Socialized Health Care, they just never stop coming:

"[In the U.K,] large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area"

Gosh that sounds like fun, having to pull my own teeth out because I can't find a dentist - hey wait a minute, I guess this means you really do get free health care under socialized medicine!! I mean, you're certainly not going to pay yourself for doing your own Dental Work.

But hey, at least this dental shortage has spawned some of that good ol' creativity:

"Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. 'Filled own teeth - clove oil and Polyfilla,' said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque."

There's some crafty ol' chaps still left in Britain, yes sir; and good thing too, because I can't say I really expect their MPs to do anything about it - anything that will work, at least.

Indeed, one Liberal Democrat spokesman, quoted in the article, noted that "this survey shows the system is at breaking point." Really?!? Maybe it's just me, but if you have a system that's been around for 8 years (as this one has) that's supposed to provide Universal Dental Care, and people are still having to pull their own teeth, the system ain't at a 'breaking point' - it's already busted.

Moreover, the solution of the London politicians, whether Liberal Democrat, Labour, or even Tory, will be to 'reform' the program - you know, make some changes so that the NHS will 'work better' and 'be more responsive to peoples' needs,' and all those other tried and true slogans politicians use. But none of the reforms they can propose will work.

Why? Because, ultimately, the problem isn't a kink in the system - it's the system itself.

The Bitch Is Back

Drum roll, please, Ladies and Gentlemen! For today is a momentous day in American history!

Yep, get ready folks, HillaryCare is back!

Because, prior public response be damned, The Socialist Revolution must go on!!

All that remains is for her to pull off this magic act of convincing voters that she is, in fact, sufficiently 'moderate' enough to be representative of more than just the people of San Francisco; thus enabling her to bring the re-birth of this great catastrophe to its full and inevitable conclusion.

God save the USA.

HillaryCare, naturally, had to come back with a bang, and so it did. Right out of the gate, she dove headfirst into the classic Hillary/Socialist position of outlandish ridiculousness. Don't believe me? Check out what she said about her proposed plan for 'Universal Health Care:'

"This is not Government-run."

No really, she actually said that. Honestly, the sheer laughability and idiocy of that remark could, by itself, stand alone as a testament to the idiocy of her program - but I just-so-happen to be in the Hillary-bashing mood, so I'll continue. This non-government-run program is going to cost the Federal government a cool $110 Billion (money which they obviously won't control - because it's not government-run. Really, I swear). I mean seriously, she thinks the Federal Government is going to magically drop $110 Billion smackaroos on something and not retain at least some degree of control over how that money is used?!?!? The implications of Government bankrolling, to any degree, a certain system are not difficult to determine. Just look at similar initiatives in our own country. In the 1960's, many Doctors signed on to the Medicare and Medicaid programs proposed by LBJ; they, at the time, believed it would not seriously infringe on their control of the manner in which they treated their patients.

They were naive.

Soon after the programs began, the Government used Medicare and Medicaid, specifically, and pay attention here Mrs. Clinton, the money they spent on those programs, to demand (and get) ever-increasing control over the Health Care system. In other words, even if the beginnings of Mrs. Clinton's program are in some way benign, they won't stay that way - that's not how Governments operate; particularly when money is involved. The fact is, Governments, unchecked, naturally grow and increase in size; and it's because they're trying to. Our job, as citizens is to try our best to stop feeding the beast, not serve it a five-course buffet.

But let's get back to that $110 Billion for a second, because, you know, that kind of money doesn't just materialize in thin air - somebody has to pay for it. Naturally, this means a tax hike; and not just any tax hike, mind you, but a tax hike on the rich. Indeed, she actually said, in no uncertain terms, that those better able to pay for health insurance should be forced to help those who aren't so able.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor - the classic Robin Hood mentality.

Of course, at the end of the day, Robin Hood was never anything more than a petty thief; albeit one who tried to absolve himself of his crimes by doing the Medieval equivalent of giving the booty to charity. Moreover, while Robin Hood may have felt like he had some higher moral imperative, thus causing him to give the money away, it is highly unlikely that a Government would feel a similar sense of moral purpose. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a historical recording of a government that showed a more lasting interest in helping people than in helping itself.

The very term 'Moral Government' strikes me more as an excellent example of oxymoron rather than as a genuine historical entity. But hey, with $110 Billion a year on the line, why not let Hillary have a shot at reversing all of human history. It's not like its all that much money anyways....right?

Wasteful spending, increased taxation, and this, brand-new, benevolent government are all essential for any good 'Universal Health Care' proposal, but, to make sure you know she's serious, Hillary throws in some other goodies too. Like the part where she wants the Government to mandate that all Americans get Health insurance. Because, you know, whether you want to or not is irrelevant - when Hillary's Government decides what's best for you, you will comply.

Furthermore, since it's always fun to impose additional regulations on private business, Hillary is going to require (a.k.a mandate) all employers to offer some form of comprehensive Health Coverage to their employees. Sheesh, they're called benefits, and not necessities, for a reason! If you think health insurance is important, look for a job that offers it; but health coverage is in no way a mandatory part of an office business plan. It's simply one of the many tools a business owner may use in his quest to hire the best workers. The decision making should be left to employers and their potential employees - not the whims and beliefs of some self-anointed Queen.

In the end, one has to wonder how a program with all these 'mandates' can be passed off as "not government-run." Perhaps it's another one of those quirky Hillary things, but, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can collect extra taxes from people and also force them to comply with the aforementioned policy mandates. No bonus points if you guess what the organization is.

The lesson, I think, to borrow from Shakespeare, is that 'that which we call a colon, by any other word, would still be as full of shit.'

Private Health Care Still Working

Well, that is, if you assume that, when a patient gets something like cancer, the best Health Care system will be the one that keeps the most patients alive. Which, if I may say so, seems a pretty fair assumption to make.

Here's the link.

The important info is in the table on the right side, which shows the survival rates of all cancer patients in European Countries by gender. For good measure, they threw in the United States' rates and, unsurprisingly, they were the highest rates for both males and females. The margin was much smaller for females than it was for males, but I'm guessing the Americans who make up that slightly-more-than 1% edge in female survival rates would caution you against calling that percentage insignificant.

Moreover, if you were to go by the numbers, you might say that there are some things that those in Universal Health Care paradises could learn from us - things such as, you know, how to better cure their patients - but, fortunately for Europeans, a good socialist doesn't have to let facts and figures get in his way.

One other thing to note is that this study, done by The Lancet, calculates the survival rate based on how many of a Nation's cancer patients have survived their cancer 5 years after their diagnosis (with the research being done between 2000-2002). When one expands the research beyond that 5-year period, and looks at the ultimate mortality rates from cancer diagnoses, the United States puts a great deal more distance between itself and many of its, more Socialistic, competitors. At least, that is insofar as some of the most common types of cancer are concerned.

(Indeed, the article I linked to above doesn't quite do the United States' advantage in some areas of the 5-year study justice, for a better look at the numbers click here)

At the end of the day, of course, irrespective of the margin or time frame, the lesson to be learned remains the same: American Health Care does a better job of curing cancer than its European counterpart - despite being less socialized in its nature.

This is not a coincidence.

T.A.N.S.T.A.F.L

As ya'll surely know, the Department of Defense has recently been rocked by scandals surrounding not only the Walter Reed Hospital, but other Veteran's Health Care facilities as well. In the aftermath of the scandal's revelation, sharp criticism has been directed not only at the Bush Administration, but also the various Military Bureaucracies which are supposed to be responsible for these types of things. However, I would like to suggest that these folks are not truly the one's to blame. I know, I know: I'm the last guy on earth you'd expect to absolve politicians of blame for one of their (frequent) screw ups; but, in this case, I think that what blame does lie with those in charge is a much smaller share than most would attribute them or, at the very least, comes from a quite different angle. How might I draw such conclusions? Allow me to explain.

First, what exactly went wrong at all these V.A care facilities? Well, one of the problems is that the hospitals' sanitation conditions are appallingly abominable. A second problem arises from the fact that many soldiers have to wait months or even years before receiving the proper treatments. Another issue is that the Hospitals' staffs are overworked, undertrained and, thus, frequently, negligent in their duties. And finally, a last issue that many of these Military hospitals seem to be having is an overabundance of patients.

My, my, if you didn't know any better, you might have thought I was giving you a summary of a recent Government meeting in Paris on problems with the French Health Care System.

The similarities are striking, no?

Indeed, the Health Care crisis faced by the United States Army and those fast engulfing Nations such as France and Germany do have noticeable similarities - and this is no accident. Rather, it is the result of a simple, undeniable fact: both the V.A and France have their Health Care facilities and programs run by the Government. It is this Government run Health Care, or, more aptly, socialized medical system, which directly causes the kind of horrid conditions found at the Walter Reed Army Hospital.

How, you ask, do I draw such conclusions? Simply by examining the situation. When soldiers return from combat injured, they usually use the Army's Care facilities. Why? Well, because they don't have a choice; if they want to be able to use whatever Health Insurance the Army gives them, they have to go to the Government's Hospitals. Moreover, these Hospitals are poorly run, not because their staffs are evil people, but there's just no motivation for these Hospitals to be efficient, it's not like they have any competition for their patients. The long waiting periods for vital tests and procedures? Why not? It's not like the quality of the services these Hospitals offer has any effect on the Doctors, Nurses, Bureaucrats and Politicians running them (or not, at least, on their paychecks). Oh, and speaking of these Hospitals' staffs, know why they're not exactly the best professionals around? Because the best of America's Doctors and Nurses are in the Private Health Care business, where they get paid like America's best Doctors and Nurses.

The bottom line is that the absence of any degree of free-market competition and the totality of the Government backing create an atmosphere in which there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for these Military Hospitals to operate in a normal, efficient manner. Indeed, this system is, in many respects, the epitome of Socialism: no Capitalist, 'Bourgeois' elements, a complete 'leveling' of the playing field, no greed driven Capitalists operating the system, and, best of all, it's free. Hell, other than the small, tiny, insignificant problem that the actual Medical Care sucks ass, it sounds like the perfect system!!!

The title of this post, as some of you may have noticed, is one of the most famous acronyms in all of Economics: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. Simple and easy to understand; yet, so often ignored and overlooked. It seems the Army is being given a 'School of Hard Knocks' lesson in this basic principle. Sure, the Health Care they dole out is 'free' in monetary terms; but the recipients of it are forced to 'cover' the costs in other, crueler ways. And here is where I fault the politicians. They not only proposed and enacted this system, but they continue to try and solve its flaws by firing bureaucrats and convening 'investigative commissions.'

Newsflash: The problem is not the people running the system - it's the system! The solution to this problem lies in reducing Government's role in it, and not the other way around.

There's no question that the veterans of our Armed Forces, whether from Iraq, Vietnam or the Second World War, deserve the best. The Problem is, the Government has never been very adept at giving people the best of, well, most anything. So, why not try giving these people, who do so much to defend freedom, a little in their own Medical System? Allow Private companies to own and operate facilities such as Walter Reed. Give injured Veterans the option of multiple hospitals from which they may choose; and, above all, try to remove Government interference as much as possible - just let the free market do its thing.

Sanity demands it.

Free Health Care!! (Just Don't Worry About the Taxes)

The race for the 2008 Democratic Nomination is already in full swing; so much so that the candidates aren't even trying to hold back their Socialist instincts. Hillary has the best outburst to date, as this past weekend she boldly stated that she wanted to "take [Oil Companies'] profits and [put] them into a strategic energy fund." Yikes, she wasn't even shy about it! She's going to take your f-ing money (because a company's profits, remember, go to its shareholders) and put it in a Government fund! And you will comply! One can only begin to imagine what other proposals Hillary has in store for us; but you can bet that one of them is her Socialized Medicine package. In desiring the Utopian 'Health Care for all' Senator Clinton is hardly alone. Indeed, none other than the ever-pandering John Edwards has come busting out of the gates brandishing the sword of sweeping Health Care socialization.

To his credit, Edwards, in a highly unusual move for him, has been somewhat honest and forthcoming about his Health Care proposals. On Sunday's Meet the Press, sandwiched in between his unfounded claims about the decaying state of American Health Care and the usual 'help the Middle Class' nonsense, the Sleezball extraordinaire admitted that "we'll have to raise taxes" to pay for his wonderful, 'free' Health Care plan.

The first thing that pops to my mind when contemplating the various things Edwards said Yesterday is the contradiction of his plea to "help middle-class families with [Health Care] costs" and his tax hike. Who exactly do higher taxes hurt the most? The wealthy can generally afford them. The poor generally don't pay them. So, who's left - yup, the middle class. If the Middle Class is already struggling to pay for private health insurance, it seems a bit illogical to solve that problem by raising their taxes and further disenabling their ability to purchase the said insurance. Consequently, to me, it seems that a better idea might be simply to lower taxes.

Of course, John Edwards doesn't want to lower taxes - for any class of people. He wants to raise them and create big government spending programs. He wants to do this because he is living in a warped reality were Government is the ultimate problem solver. He thinks that increasing government interference will make things better. Indeed, he believes that his new Health Care proposals will "create competition that doesn't exist today." What he fails to understand is that the competition that 'doesn't exist' nowadays, but which he is trying to create, is, in fact, no competition; and, honestly, no competition is a form of competition I'd rather not have.

Ultimately, this is the consequence of Government intervention: the destruction of competitive markets. Problem is, a competitive Health Care market is what creates outstanding Health Care systems.

Once (or shall I say, if) Mr. Edwards figures this out - he should pass the message along to Hillary.

Hillary Care - Arnold Style!

Thank God Arnold Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally banned from running for President. After having spent the last few months catering to California's large population of illegal immigrants, he's now taking the policy a step further - he's decided to give them free Health Care! Of course, it's not just illegal aliens that Arnold thinks should get free Health Care, it's everyone! Yup, that's right, 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) is back and, sadly, this time it's a Republican proposing it. (Which genuinely begs the question: to what Political Party do America's actual Conservatives now belong?)

Arnold, like everyone else who believes in the fantasy of Socialized Health Care, is devoid of facts and economic reality. So let's examine a few components of Arnold's plan.

If you're going to provide people with Health Care, there is, of course, this little problem that you must, well, pay for such services; a problem Arnold tackles head on. First and foremost is the stupidest part of his plan: to "tax doctors 2% of their gross revenue and place a 4% tax on hospitals." Oh my, where to begin. First of all allow me to point out that this type of 'tax the Doctors and Hospitals' plan has already been tried in New Mexico. As a result of this plan, New Mexico has a very difficult time attracting new Doctors. Furthermore, many of the Doctors they already have are quick to move across the boarder to Texas where, just by crossing the State Line, they see their income jump about 10-15%. You know, if you're trying to get Health Care for "all Californians," instituting a plan which has been proven to reduce the number of Doctors you have, doesn't seem very bright. Because, ya know, those Doctors, they're pretty crucial to the whole 'Health Care' industry.

Also, let's not forget that taxing only the Doctors and Hospitals is, well, discriminatory; and while discrimination is a wonderful thing for policemen, airline baggage screeners and the CIA to base their work off of - it's no basis for a system of taxation.

One last observation on this point, and that is this: what exactly is accomplished by taxing the Doctors? In the end, isn't the money supposed to go to them? I mean, if you're poor, and you need money to help pay for your visits to the Doctor, why does the Government have to come in, take money from the Doctor, to give you, so you can go to the Doctor and then.....give the money back to the Doctor. Wait a minute! Why does the Government have to be the middle-man here??

I think my inner Libertarian may have just had a heart attack.

The plan doesn't get any better. Next up is the most hilarious line in all of Arnold's proposal; the one where he claims that, under the current system, those who do have Health insurance are paying a "hidden tax." Which naturally means we should eliminate it in favor of a real one. Duh! It's almost like he's saying 'You're already getting screwed - so now let's make it official! Yay!'

What a farce!

However, I must give credit where credit is due; there is a hidden tax for California tax payers. It's called the tort tax, and it's the real reason that Health Care in California is too expensive for 1 out of 5 Californians. Nevertheless, as we can see from the example of Texas, the way to eliminate this hidden tax is not to legitimize it, but to enact legal reform that will reduce it. Moreover, if we reduce the tort tax, and all of the frivolous lawsuits it represents, Doctors' insurance premiums will decrease, which will, in turn, allow Doctors to decrease the rates they charge their patients. That's how you make Health Care available to more people.

Here, of course, is the crux of the Socialized Care debate. The problem is very simple: the cost of Health Care services is too high for some people to afford. The Arnold solution is, let's not worry about the cost, let's just try to give people enough money to cover it. The Conservative solution to expensive Health Care is more logical - it simply aims to, surprise, lower the cost! Furthermore, in the Arnold solution, no attempt is made to increase the quality of the actual Health Care being administered; however, in the Conservative solution, by increasing market competition, the quality of the actual Health Care is likely to improve. Indeed, as evidenced by other Socialized medical systems around the world, the Arnold solution has the additional problem of decreasing the quality of the Health Care.

On top of all the Health Care concerns with Arnold's plan, there are some important buisness ones as well. Arnold wants to "ban insurers from refusing to offer coverage to some individuals because of their prior medical conditions;" a proposal which ignores any basic business sense. If insurance companies are going to be forced to cater to individuals who will loose them money, why would they want to be insurers in that particular market at all? Granted, California is a fairly large market, so the Governor may not have to deal with the consequences on this one.

A second part of Arnold's plan which ignores basic business sense, however, may prove more costly. He plans to mandate that all businesses "with 10 workers or more [buy] insurance for their workers or pay a fee of 4% of their payroll into a program to help provide coverage for the uninsured." Whoa! Speaking of hidden taxes, how about this hidden tax on private businesses? Look, it's been said before and I'll say it again, the services that businesses provide to their employees are up to those businesses! It's not an area that the Government should be involved in, period. If you are an employee and your company doesn't offer Health Insurance you have two options: a) Deal with it and have no Health Insurance, or b) Go work for a business that offers Health Insurance. Hopefully that's not too complex for Arnold to understand.

In the end, it comes down to the simple question of what does a better job of providing Americans with the best possible Health Care: the Free Market and the individuals who compose it or the Government? The answer should be obvious.

So I ask that before Arnold wrecks California Health Care, he take a step back and listen to, well, himself. From Arnold's speech as the 2004 Republican National Convention:

"...have faith in Free Enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy."

Have faith indeed. In any case, it's a lot safer than having faith in the Government.

Survey of Cancer Patients Says: 'Private Health Care Works'

Once again, it seems statistics are putting a massive hole in the armor of socialized medicine. Check out This article from the CATO Institute. It simply compares the survival rate of American Cancer Patients versus the survival rate of British, German, French and Canadian cancer patients. And would you believe it, the survival rate of American Cancer patients is, in many cases, over twice as high as that for Patients in the socialized paradises. Just to list a few examples: "less than one out of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but 57% of British men and nearly half of French and German men will," not to mention that "just 30% of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to 74% in Britain, 62% in New Zealand, 58% in France, 57% in Germany, 53% in Australia, and 36% in Canada."

The numbers for Canada are significantly better than those for the other socialized nations; however this is in no way a positive reflection on the Canadian Healthcare system. What that indicates is that Canadians diagnosed with cancer, who have the means, come to the United States to receive treatment. (Many on the recommendation of Canadian Doctors, as is pointed out in the article)

It's quite simple really: if you want a healthcare system that actually cures patients and helps make their illnesses better, in short one that works, you need Private Healthcare. Socialized medicine merely degrades the quality of the services you, as a patient, receive. Further, it destroys any incentive to develop new Medical technology or new cures. (For evidence of this phenomenon see the 2nd to last paragraph of the article.) American 'Capitalist' Healthcare has better treatments and is able to successfully help more patients in less time than European Socialized care can. And that is not by accident.

Liberals, Frenchmen, and all other socialism lovers can have their crappy healthcare; but if I get old and develop a tumor, I know where I'll be going for treatment.

Health Coverage

It seems that whenever you talk with a typical person, they will gladly tell you that they are for better 'health care' in the United States. They point to the Socialist European countries, like Germany, France and the Netherlands and comment on what excellent 'health care' they have. Indeed, Democratic candidates in the United States (and some Republican ones as well) win votes by promising better 'health care' to constituents.

But this represents a misunderstanding of basic terms. What these people mean is that they will get better Health Coverage for their constituents. Germany and France have some of the best Health Coverage in the world; Health Care is a different story. Health Coverage implies how many people are insured, or can financially afford to receive medical treatment; whereas Health Care is the actual service being provided by Doctors, Nurses and Hospitals. Improved Health Care means a improved quality of the services provided by Doctors, improved Health Coverage means more people have access to the services, regardless of the quality.

While socialist nations can clearly boast of the greatest Health Coverage in the world, as a direct result they also posses some of the worst Health Care amongst all the industrialized nations. The counrty with the best Health Care in the world is the counrty that spends the most time training its Doctors. The country with the best Health Care in the world is the counrty that only lets qualified individuals provide medical services. The country with the best Health Care is the country where, in the vast majority of cases, Doctors get the diagnoses and surgeries right the first time. And most importantly the country with the best Health Care is the country that can provid Health Services on demand to those who need them most, when they need them the most. The country with the best Health Care in the world is the United States.

Sure they have better Health Coverage in Canada, but they also have to wait 12 weeks just to get an MRI. Sure German Physicians have cheaper costs than American Physicians, but their surgeons haven't had 12 years of intensive, pre-job training. And sure France can get all of their citizens to the Doctor, but it takes them so long that thousands died of a heat stroke a few years back, just because they had to wait to get in a hospital when they really needed (fairly basic) treatment. (American Hospitals would have been sued out of buisness if that had happened here.)

So the bottom line is this: Quality Health Care is much more important than Health Coverage because quite frankly, without good Care, Coverage means nothing.