When it comes to health care, do you want politicized rationing or private decision making?
Last year the president and Democratic Congress demonstrated that they believed “smart professionals,” or successful politicians, at least, should decide how much health care all the “morons called U.S. citizens” should receive. And that is always how Medicare has operated. Recipients get one set of benefits. Government sets the payment rates. If a retiree doesn’t like it, tough!
Instead, people should be able to choose the health insurance plan which best meets their and their family’s needs. Obviously, purchasing medical care isn’t as simple as buying a car. Most of us are going to want to rely on advice from “smart professionals.” But ultimately, only individuals and families can decide the best coverage and the right trade-offs. Instead of voting to nationalize medical decisions, Congress should have encouraged more personal decision-making in the purchase of health insurance.
Legislators also should apply this principle to Medicare. Help those who need help, but let them choose the benefits best for them.
Last year, in the midst of fevered debate over ObamaCare, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams flew to Miami for heart surgery. It seems Canada’s vaunted socialized system limited his treatment options. Williams responded to criticism: “This is my heart, it’s my choice and it’s my health.”
So it is for all of us.
Those who advocate government control of health care decision-making contend that “rationing” is inevitable. If the government’s doesn’t do it, someone else will do it.
But there is a dramatic difference between individuals deciding how to spend limited resources while choosing among competing goods and services and government telling individuals how to spend their money or spending it for them. Even in today’s highly regulated and restricted health care system some choices remain. Ever greater government control ultimately means no exit for anyone—except the wealthy, who can afford to go anywhere for any treatment.
I’ll take the latter. We’re gonna get the former.
(I actually disagree with some of the premise even in the article. It is not the role of the federal government to help people afford health care. At all. But I’m crazy like that. I’m willing to take small steps in that direction.)
(Oh, and as I’ve suggested since ObamaCare was even a suggestion – if you want the best health care, you better start saving now. If you rely on the government to take care of you, expect to be disappointed.)
May 30th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Find a country that has a fairly operational medical system and damn well try – do your best – to just copy what they do. Copy. forget everything else. Copy.
Additionally, we must rid ourselves of this corruption; with it there are NO solutions. None.
May 30th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
The US had a very good medical system prior to ObamaCare. Most of the problems can be eliminated with less regulation and more freedom, which is not what ObamaCare did.
We can eliminate corruption by taking the power away from government.