Blog author: jwitt
by on Friday, September 18, 2009

If it doesn’t faze you that

  1. Uncle Sam badly mishandled the stimulus porkanaza
  2. Congress would have directed bazillions to a surreally corrupt Acorn but for these two young heroes
  3. Michael Moore’s Sicko is Wacko
  4. Canadians will no longer have a free market healthcare system to flee to
  5. Government-run health care will look and smell and feel like the Department of Motor Vehicles … with sharp needles and bedpans
  6. If none of this has convinced you that a government-run healthcare system is a bad idea, then spend some time perusing Jay Richards’ thoughtful blogging work on health care here at The Enterprise Blog.

And have a blessed weekend.


  • http://politics.mcwresearch.com Rick

    You left out the following:

    * Several states have already begun such social experiments and none have turned out to be wildly successful.
    * None of the bills so far would adequately reduce health care cost
    * The question of how to pay for reform remains to be answered
    * If Medicare/Medicaid can be used as a barometer, the government has no business in the health care industry.

    Now we have an even 10 reasons.

  • http://rvcalgary.blogspot.com Fred

    What seems odd to me, a Canadian, who can walk into any hospital at any time for health care, is that the USA constitution guarantees your right to bear arms, but not to health care?

  • Roger McKinney

    One reason to accept Obamacare: it’s not the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable.

  • http://www.fearlessambition.com Crystal O’Connor

    I love this site and its content! I am subscribing to your blog and RSS Feed immediately! You have all of my support.

  • mr teachersir

    Fred,

    Health care does not equal health insurance. In the United States, anyone can walk into an ER and get the care they need, insurance or no. The problem is how to pay for it effectively.

  • Neal Lang

    “What seems odd to me, a Canadian, who can walk into any hospital at any time for health care, is that the USA constitution guarantees your right to bear arms, but not to health care?”

    On what basis can a “limited” government guarantee a “ritght to health care.” First, “medical care” (not health care” is not the province of the Federal government, although the Feds “attempt” to “guarnatee” safe and efficacious drugs and medical devices through testing and licensing. The State government “guarantee” safe medical practice by testing and licensing, medical schools, doctor, nurses, and medical facilities. Beyond that the government cannot possibly “guarantee” an “unlimited” “right to medical care” regardless of the circumstances and cost. The entire concept is asinine. As for a government “guarnatee” to have any and all medical care paid for by someone else, this, too, is total preposterous.

    Medical care is a “right” only to the extent that is between you and your medical care provider. You have a “right” to be assured by the State that your medical care provider is trained, tested, and licensed, and that the drugs and procedure that he proscribes are safe and effective, to the extent to which that can be pre-determined. However, your most important “right” in this regard is that final agreement as to the course of this “medical care” and how it will be paid for, is between you and your medical practicianer. If you prefer, you can entust your “payment” arrangement to a medical insure company, who through “pooling” risks may offer the medical you want and need with the medical poracticianers you prefer to deal at a “pre-paid” price you can better afford. If you are uninsure, either because you cannot afford it or prefer to carry the entire cost risk yourself, that is your problem and not mine, nor my doctor’s. In such cases, their are many private charities, churches, hospitals, and even private practicianers who may provide you with either the necessary medical care or the mean to pay for it. Americans are an extremely generous people when comes to helping care for the sick and needy. However, they draw the line when government reachings into their pockets to coerce them into being charitable.

    You have a “right” to good medical care, you just don’t have the “right” to have someone else pay for it for you.

    BTW, the “right to keep and bear arms” is directly related to preventing a tyrannical government from reaching into the pockets of Americans in order to take thir money to pay for someone else’s medical expenses.

  • Neal Lang

    “One reason to accept Obamacare: it’s not the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable.”

    And committing suicide will eliminate all your medical care problems, too. Should we also try that simply it is “not the status quo.” It would be very easy to euthanize all the seniors and cut the cost of medical care in the US by over 50% and at the same make a lot more hospital beds available for those who are “more worthy.” That would also not be “the status quo” but would you consider that as being “acceptable.” Those pushing Obamcare the hardest seem to think that solution might have some merit and that it could “fix the system” immediately.

  • Neal Lang

    “Government-run health care will look and smell and feel like the Department of Motor Vehicles … with sharp needles and bedpans ”

    Some of the most corrupt parts of the present medical care system today can be found in the local quasi-government hospital commissions, many of which are filled with nepotism and a “good ole’ boys mutal aid society.” If ObamaCare plans to save money by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the medical care system, that maybe a good place as any to start.

  • Neal Lang

    BTW, why tort reform ALWAYS “off the table” when Democrats talk about fixing the medical care system in the US and making it more affordable. Perhaps because “popularist” Democrat Presidential Candidate John Edwards made his fortune bilking the medical care system for tens of millions in frivolous lawsuits.

  • Roger McKinney

    Neal: “And committing suicide will eliminate all your medical care problems, too.”

    Not exactly. But real free market solutions are not even being considered, even by Republicans. We will have to go through more socialism, and suffer the consequences, before the American people will begin to consider free market solutions.

    And, we need relief from ridiculously high medical costs. The most immediate relief can only come from wage and price controls because no free market solution is under consideration. I know it seems odd for a libertarian to promote greater socialism, but the only way to break the American love affair with socialism may be to give them what they want.

  • MaryAnn

    Roger, I actually agree with your last comment “the only way to break Americans’ love affair with socialism is to give them what they want.” Americans have been way too spoiled for far too long. I question, however, if we would be able to return to the free market and liberty. Liberty, once lost, cannot be regained.

  • Roger McKinney

    MaryAnn, I share your concerns, but I’m confident that greater socialism will lead to disaster. I don’t wish disaster on this nation, but severe crises are the only times in which Americans will consider real change. For example, Reagan was able to accomplish some things for freedom because of the disasters of the 70′s, even though they weren’t Carter’s fault. They were the result of Nixon’s socialist policies.

    The next big disaster will be when baby boomers retire. Medicare and Social Security costs will hit the moon. The Federal government will be bankrupt. All that the healthcare reform will do is speed up the bankruptcy. At that point, maybe Americans will reconsider socialism.

    Europe holds out some hope, too. Merkel and Sokarzy got elected largely because the people know that socialism has bankrupted their countries.