LibertyorDeath1's forum posts

Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts

Here is a segment from a terrific article, The Right Vision Of Health Care, by Yaron Brook.

Prior to the government's entrance into the medical field, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market--no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans' rising productivity would have allowed them to buy better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn't for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product--for which each individual must assume responsibility--had given way to a view of health care as a "right," an unearned "entitlement," to be provided at others' expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

Today, what we have is not a system grounded in American individualism, but a collectivist system that aims to relieve the individual of the "burden" of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%.

The result of shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them was an explosion in spending.

In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a "right," demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the "right" to health care. And Republican politicians--not daring to challenge the notion of such a "right"--have, like Romney, Schwarzenegger and Bush, outdone even the Democrats in expanding government health care.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a "right" to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our founding fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

So long as Republicans fail to challenge the concept of a "right" to health care, their appeals to "market-based" solutions are worse than empty words. They will continue to abet the Democrats' expansion of government interference in medicine, right up to the dead end of a completely socialized system.

By contrast, the rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights would provide the moral basis for real and lasting solutions to our health care problems--for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the government incentives that created our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts
Libertarian.
Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts
[QUOTE="LibertyorDeath1"]

This quote from Walter Williams sums up my opinion.

"Conservatives and liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. First, let's make sure we understand what government spending is. Since government has no resources of its own, and since there's no Tooth Fairy handing Congress the funds for the programs it enacts, we are forced to recognize that government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong -- in effect, legalized theft. Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage." -- Walter Williams in his book All It Takes Is Guts

Engrish_Major

Nothing in there about military spending? That's quite a hefty chunk of change...

Listing everything each side likes to spend on would simply be impractical.

Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts

This quote from Walter Williams sums up my opinion.

"Conservatives and liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. First, let's make sure we understand what government spending is. Since government has no resources of its own, and since there's no Tooth Fairy handing Congress the funds for the programs it enacts, we are forced to recognize that government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong -- in effect, legalized theft. Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage." -- Walter Williams in his book All It Takes Is Guts

Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts
This movie looks like utter garbage.
Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts
[QUOTE="LibertyorDeath1"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="bluezy"][QUOTE="GrandpaDeath"]isn't the us in like a trillion dollar debt? oh well. you cant make money without spending money =/notconspiracy

More like $5 trillion.

more like $9 trillion

The real deficit is actually in the neighborhood of $46 trillion. The government's audited financial statement does not factor in the cost of Social Security and Medicare, which is why the deficit is shown to be only around 9 trillion. If the government would follow common accounting procedures and report financial burdens as they are incurred and not as they come due, around $40 trillion in loses because of Social Security and Medicare would be shown.

But the original poster is correct, this is ridiculous, the national debt is only going to increase unless we cut the budget and reduce spending. Sadly, that is something Democrats and Republicans won't do. America desperately needs Ron Paul.

he's just like every other politician. promises all this crazy **** during his campaign and doesn't do **** when he gets to office

His record in the House shows otherwise.

Avatar image for LibertyorDeath1
LibertyorDeath1

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 LibertyorDeath1
Member since 2007 • 103 Posts

[QUOTE="bluezy"][QUOTE="GrandpaDeath"]isn't the us in like a trillion dollar debt? oh well. you cant make money without spending money =/notconspiracy
More like $5 trillion.

more like $9 trillion

The real deficit is actually in the neighborhood of $46 trillion. The government's audited financial statement does not factor in the cost of Social Security and Medicare, which is why the deficit is shown to be only around 9 trillion. If the government would follow common accounting procedures and report financial burdens as they are incurred and not as they come due, around $40 trillion in loses because of Social Security and Medicare would be shown.

But the original poster is correct, this is ridiculous, the national debt is only going to increase unless we cut the budget and reduce spending. Sadly, that is something Democrats and Republicans won't do. America desperately needs Ron Paul.