The unpopular truth about ObamaCare

Jeff Perren writes the following regarding health care:

...the health care bill(s) are not bad chiefly because they're too costly. That's true, but far from fundamental. They're bad because they restrict liberty, they violate rights — to freedom, property, and voluntary trade.

They do so on the ever-useful excuse that it's morally mandatory to "help the poor obtain medical care," which is not merely false, but pernicious. We are no more obligated to "insure the uninsured" than we are to provide food, housing, or anything else to those who can't afford them.

Apart from all the other arguments that might be made, one has to wonder why altruists refuse to make any distinction between those who deserve assistance — even privately — and those who do not. All 'poor people' are somehow presumed to be that solely through no failure of their own.

But that, too, is not essential. Even those who find themselves in need of medical care they can't afford after trying their utmost have no moral or legal claim on the public coffers.

VH: Truer words have rarely been written on the subject: Health care is not a "right." In order for some to get it, others have to be compelled, by force, to provide it. There is no difference between bailing out AIG and ObamaCare. Additionally, in either case, we whistle down the primrose path towards fiscal ruin.

And here come the price controls

From The Washington Post:

President Obama will call for new government power to regulate insurance-rate increases as part of comprehensive changes to the health-care system that the White House will unveil on its Web site Monday, senior officials said.

The proposal -- part of a package that a top official said will serve as a "starting point" for the bipartisan health summit Thursday -- comes as Obama has pointed to recent rate increases as evidence that his proposed changes are necessary.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius drew attention to a California health insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross, which planned rate increases of up to 39 percent. Obama mentioned the increases in his weekly radio address and at a town hall in Nevada.

The new proposal, which a White House official described Sunday night, would give Sebelius new authority to oversee, and potentially block, rate increases that are deemed unfair.

VH: I'm sure that this will work out like other price control schemes have since time immemorial---It will fail miserably. It will make insurance premiums even more unaffordable. You would think that all those Ivy league economists that buzz around the White House would have a clue.

Another Canadian chooses American medical care

From The Canadian Press:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn't closing properly, creating a leakage.

He said he was told at the time that the problem was "moderate" and that he should come back for a checkup in six months.

Eight months later, in December, his doctors told him the problem had become severe and urged him to get his valve repaired immediately or risk heart failure, he said.

His doctors in Canada presented him with two options - a full or partial sternotomy, both of which would've required breaking bones, he said.

He said he spoke with and provided his medical information to a leading cardiac surgeon in New Jersey who is also from Newfoundland and Labrador. He advised him to seek treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami.

VH: It's nice that Mr. Williams had the option to come to the U.S. for his treatment; he was wise not to sit and wait before it was too late. It must be comforting to have an option even if it means leaving your country.

Around The Horn

Jeff Perren asks: Is Obama a Pragmatist?

Harrison Price: If Canada’s healthcare is so great…

Is Health Care a right?

More than you bargined for...

Government programs tend to slowly evolve and grow beyond their original intention and mandates. Will ObamaCare be any different?

HT: Life, Liberty, and Property

How Expensive Will It Be?

The creation of a new entitlement program will create another powerful interest group that will aggressively oppose deficit-reduction measures. Expect our federal deficit to remain high for decades to come.

German Health Care Costs Rise

The Bismarckian model revered by Democrats and liberals alike is facing stiff deficit issues.

A 70-80 Percent Tax Increase!!!

Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University took a long hard look at Max Baucus' healthcare bill and has concluded that it is a massive tax increase (close to 80%!!) for a very large portion of the American working population. While I am not surprised by Mr. Mankiw's overall assessment, I am very concerned that his analysis will be spun as right wing political noise. You can bet that most in Congress that want "reform" at all costs will not be debating this expensive conclusion.

If you're poor and get sick...

Where would it be best to get sick if you are poor? Canada? France? Britain? And considering life expectancy, is it really much better in Canada, France, and Britain? Some new research on the subject.

Choosing Between Health Care and Alcohol

More on Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality

I found this just recently and I thought it was worth sharing. It's on Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality statistics that we constantly encounter during the health care debate. Single payer and government option advocates are constantly using these gross statistics to validate their agenda. A closer look at how this statistics are compiled and interpreted is very valuable. It turns out that single payer and government option advocates' claims about Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are not sound.

It's not technically "Death Panel's" but still...

From the Telegraph:

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn...

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

Comment: This is what occurs when government is charged with the responsibilty to budget and set guidelines for end of life procedures. No one should be surprised by this.

HT: Carpe Diem

John Stossel: Insurance Makes Healthcare Far More Expensive

If there is one thing that this video highlights, it's that the current state of health care lacks price coordination, transparency, and real competition.

BTW, notice how Stossel puts the health insurance lobbyist on the spot.

Oregon Health Plan Denies Chemo Medicine

Happy Monday! This is a sad and sorry video; coming to an America of the future if we get ObamaCare.

Profiting From The Sick

From The Mises Institute:

An old-time socialist cliche in favor of socialized medicine is that private companies profit from people's sickness, which is supposed to be unconscionable. Actually the best way to meet people's needs is through a system that permits profitability as a sign of success and efficiency, just as it makes sense that farmers should profit from people's hunger or builders should profit from people's need for shelter etc.

Progressives tend to frame capitalism as a system of profit only. But they ignore the threat of losses that are the results of inefficiency. More importantly, I don't buy the argument that if people are motivated by profits, it means that they will automatically be greedy and immoral.

A Question About Private Health Insurance

Cafe Hayek has a wonderful post on private health insurance. A reader named Tom commented thusly:

Imagine we had entirely private health insurance market – no Medicare or Medicaid. If I live to be sixty-five, I will probably have a personal and/or family history that indicates a strong probability of developing an expensive chronic condition. I would wager that is true of almost all sixty-five year olds.
So here is my question: which insurer in their right mind would take on my risk?
I suspect none. Once philanthropy and savings were exhausted, I would surely risk a painful life and preventable death.
Do I want this? Does anyone? Isn’t “socialized” medicine for older people an unpleasant moral necessity for our wealthy society? Please note I am deeply suspicious of most arguments cast in moral terms in discussions of politics and economics. I ask these questions guardedly.

Russell Roberts encouraged some of his regular commenters to respond to Tom's concern with excellent results. Here is one of my favorites by a commenter named aleksanderhansen:

Tom,

I will give one (out of many) potential solution. Will insurers simply stop offering coverage to these individuals less they pay very high premiums?

One solution to your problem would be to enter into an insurance contract today which guarantees you continued coverage when you reach that age. On one hand, such an insurance policy might have premiums that are, ceteris paribus, higher than other insurance contracts to compensate the insurer over time for the (increasing) probability of you developing a condition in the later stages of your life. On the other hand, the fact that you are committing to a very long-term contract benefits the insurance company - they will have a secure income stream for a long time. This would exert downward pressure on the premiums.

Along similar lines one might also imagine a futures market for insurance, i.e., you buy a contract today which guarantees you coverage when you reach a certain age, at an agreed upon price.

Some of the other comments which address free market solutions to health care are excellent so go check out this post.

Don't Forget The Liberal Goose Step!

John Mackey CEO of Whole Foods writes an op-ed in the WSJ on how to fix health care via free-market solutions and the Left are now organizing to boycott his business. Mackey didn't goose-step in time for Liberals, he voiced his opinion, and now they are ready for blood. So much for tolerance, understanding, and constructive debate.

Michael Cannon discusses Health Care

If The Government Controls Health Care...

Jonah Goldberg writes the following on health care:

Now, I don’t think Soylent Green-style solutions are coming down the pike. (Government cheese is people!) But every nationalized health-care system to one degree or another rations care based on the quality of life and number of “life years” a procedure will yield. That’s perfectly reasonable. If you put me in charge of everyone’s health care, I would do that, too. That’s a really good argument for not giving me — or anyone else — that power.

When it comes to civil liberties, liberals are often distrustful of government power. But, for reasons that baffle me, they are quite comfortable with Uncle Sam getting into the business of deciding, or providing “guidance” on, which lives are more valuable than others. A government charged with extending life expectancy must meddle not just with our health care, but with what we eat, how we drive, how we live. A government determined to cut costs must meddle not just with how we live, but how we die.