As a conservative, I’d probably rather have ‘single-payer’ than Obamacare
September 11, 2012 16 Comments
Obamacare is economic fascism. ‘Single-payer’ is more like ‘democratic socialism’. Forced to choose, I’d take the socialism.
The latter would be more open and honest, with an easier to understand relation between inputs and outputs. Reasonably designed it would also almost certainly be simpler for the end-user. Meanwhile Obamacare commandeers a patchwork of insurance companies, who (therefore) become essentially yet more GSEs to distort the economy, their function being to launder the left’s socialist aims in opaque and rent-seeking ways, and also largely preserves the (dumb) connection between health care and employment. This gives the end user even more confusing bureaucracies to deal with from the IRS to the ‘exchanges’ to their companies’ HR ladies just to see a doctor.
I’d rather just have socialism.
(For asdf.)
I’ll copy a response here.
You claim that welfare is whenever anyone gets more then they pay for, whatever the system for that may be. That is certainly true in single payer too because the sick will get more then they pay for and the healthy will get less, even if their coverage is the same.
As to your preferences you’ve already acknowledged that you think the sick should get medical coverage. You’ve also acknowledged that obtaining this medical coverage should be affordable. Since there are some people who, by the nature of their health conditions, will not be able to obtain affordable coverage you acknowledge that they have to be subsidized. Further, you’ve now acknowledged that the best way to subsidize them is through single payer.
You endorse single payer. Not with conditions. Not “with a gun to my head and only two options.” The natural logical conclusion of the very conditions you have laid out leads inevitably to single payer.
Yeah…no.
About as good as most of your counter arguements.
Sheesh! That’s the last post I write for you. Ingrate,
Pingback: dustbury.com » Your first issue for 2016
“their function being to launder the left’s socialist aims in opaque and rent-seeking ways, and also largely preserves the (dumb) connection between health care and employment”
My God. This sentence is a real eye-opener. (I’m saying that in a serious tone, not a sarcastic tone) You’re absolutely and completely right and this should be shouted out from the rooftops. It’s the left’s old stereotypical-yet-true cowardice that they’re too scared to stand up for single payer, so they use Obamacare to sneak it in under the radar, but in doing so they just create the worst of both worlds.
Re: the above comments: if you aren’t advocating Single Payer, what do you advocate? If you were pronounced king, how would healthcare work under your absolute monarchy?
Well, I can’t specify my preferred health care system in all its details (nor would I want to, any more than I can specify my preferred food distribution system). Clearly, in broad terms I would just prefer it to be free-market and transparent as possible. Insurance, if it existed (it doesn’t have to – I am agnostic) would have nothing to do with one’s employer. It would probably play no role whatsoever in the defraying of regular or semi-regular, and thus more or less predictable, costs such as doctor visits, which would be paid ‘out of pocket’ (i.e. using money). I imagine most people would have what we call ‘catastrophic’ insurance with some high yearly deductible. I suspect that charity hospitals would play an (even) larger role, though I can’t ‘prove’ this nor could I ‘prove’ that No Patient Would Be Left Behind, for those seeking such solace (and who assume this government *can* guarantee this). There may be health care ‘clubs’ similar to the mutual-aid societies that used to exist. Another thing I might mention is that I suspect some states would have full-on single-payer systems, where others wouldn’t. That’s ok. There’s no obvious reason to make this one-size-fits-all federalized.
Sounds good, I’ll vote for you when the king elections come up.
Can I be one of your ministers? I’ll help make things even more free-market by shaking up the medschool/licensing system. All the infrastructure currently devoted to stopping people from practicing medicine without a license will instead be devoted to making sure doctors clearly state their qualifications for people to make informed decisions.
For cases of “Emergency Room + Patient Unconscious + No I.D. On Patient”, we can borrow from the court’s way of doing things and have “Public Defender”-type doctors. (Maybe sometime you could write a post about public defenders, whether you support them or think they count as evil socialism and if the former, what separates them from healthcare)
“I suspect that charity hospitals would play an (even) larger role, though I can’t ‘prove’ this nor could I ‘prove’ that No Patient Would Be Left Behind, for those seeking such solace (and who assume this government *can* guarantee this).”
That’s honest. Though it still leaves the simple problem. If you are one of those people that would be left behind due to their genetics you are naturally going to support a system that doesn’t leave you behind.
And since all people can potentially have a child that is in that situation, or get caught on some coverage small print, or simply feel empathy for the sick there will always be a significant voting block that supports a program that does promise No Patient Left Behind.
The size of that voting block appears to be >50%.
The size of the voting bloc who disagrees with what I think is right is >50%? What else is new.
Oh sorry, something just occurred to me: was that supposed to constitute the argument that I should change my mind?
1) You haven’t presented an argument that can be proven objectively. You have no objective metric with which to say your policy prescription is better at achieving the same goals. Therefore you can’t win an argument.
2) Not only can you not win an argument conceptually, there is no way to win the argument practically.
Therefore, what exactly is the point of your blog?
Golly you’re right! I should stop the blog I guess /end blog
I don’t know if I could ‘prove objectively’ with a ‘metric’ that, say, free speech is a good idea. Or countless other things. Your point here is if I can’t do that, and >50% may disagree with me, I should not express the view or try to persuade, using (sub-’objective proof’ level) arguments.
That is a weird thing to think and even weirder is that you seem to think saying it IS an argument of its own.
Tell me by what magic the government won’t leave any patients behind. They get left behind plenty on government-funded insurance.
Which one is easier to repeal? (That’s a real question. I am not certain of the answer but I think Obamacare is easier to repeal.)
Seems kind of academic to me at this point, since the chances of ‘repeal’ are slim to nil. The bureaucracies have already started implementing it. The court bent over backwards to bless it.
The elites want this law.
‘Repeal’ is a fairy tale some (R)s will tell to try to capture/appease certain voting blocs. But they will never actually do it.
I would love to be wrong. Don’t think I am.