Socialized medicine: check your premises

[JamieElizabeth]

Column by Bob Burg - Jul 24, 2007


Perhaps the greatest gift I received from reading Ayn Rand was an admonition that has helped me think clearly and logically whenever I felt the heat of emotion carrying me to a faulty conclusion:
“Check your premises.”
Things don’t happen in a vacuum. Typically, not only is there a reason for something, but that something happened further back than the emotional decision point.
So, first, check your premises. Go back to the beginning and make sure you are basing your solutions on the correct basic idea or assumption.
Case in point: Universal healthcare is now the big topic of the day. The mainstream Democratic politicians are totally for it, and even Republican politicians are getting there.
Heck, former Republican Governor Romney instituted a forced — er, I’m sorry; a much nicer word is “mandatory” — state-run healthcare system in Massachusetts as did Republican Governor Schwarzenegger in California.
In addition, Michael Moore’s newest movie, Sicko, is already playing in much of the country. Most likely he’ll introduce us to Americans who have no health insurance and are being left to suffer, or worse, to die.
And, you know what? When I see those people on screen I will feel terrible. My heart will break for them. Indeed, like many others, I’ll ask myself why — in this most abundant of nations — should we have anyone without healthcare?
But before I go running to our federal government to set things right for us ... I’ll check my premises. Before asking government to solve our “ills” — something they’ve proven not proficient at in most areas — I’ll first ask, “why are we in this position in the first place?”
Well, I know what most politicians, what Michael Moore, and, unfortunately, what most Americans would answer: “the free enterprise system has let us down.”
The reason I know this is because I hear it constantly. I only wish that before people — especially influential ones — utter these conclusions, they would first take Ms. Rand’s advice and check their premises.
So, is it the free enterprise system that destroyed our health care system?
Let’s take a quick look back about 50 or so years ago. At that time, our U.S. healthcare system was basically market-driven. What were the results?
Well, let’s see:
* Practically all Americans who wanted health insurance had it. It was affordable.
* Doctor’s offices weren’t reminiscent of Grand Central Station. In fact, doctors actually were known to make house calls.
* People who were less fortunate financially could always find a doctor or hospital that allowed them to pay on a sliding scale.
* And, hospitals? Well, if you recall, practically every major city had at least one charity hospital.
Was anyone ever left out in the cold? Unfortunately, yes.
Utopia — even in our great country — has never been an option. However, our healthcare system came pretty darn close. Certainly closer than at any other place and time in history, before or since.
And, then, a funny thing happened on the way to our healthcare system breakdown....
Government got involved. Really involved. I mean, really, really involved. As usual, they decided they knew more about how the market operates than ... the market.
Between excessive regulation of private health insurance, coverage mandates, lack of price competition for medical services, Medicare, Medicaid, government-forced reliance on third-party payers, more rules, more regulations, more taxes, etc., we have been driven into a system in which far too many American families go without any kind of health coverage because they simply cannot afford it.
Was this government’s purpose? Surely not. It’s just what they do.
They take either non-existent, slight problems, or even legitimate problems, and they turn them into national disasters.
Now government is being asked to come to the rescue, and they will gladly oblige. Just listen to Hillary, Barack, Edwards, Romney and others. For them, a complete or virtual government takeover or supervision is the solution to your healthcare woes.
Putting this into healthcare vernacular, could we not say that government has broken our legs and is now being asked to fix them? Hmmm, they’ll probably then say, “See, if it wasn’t for us, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”
The point: Free enterprise did not give us our current “Sicko” healthcare system; government intervention did.
Let’s look at these politicians’ solution, “universal healthcare.” Basically, this means that Americans would be taxed even more than they currently are. However, at least everyone would have coverage and access to “free” health care.
(Of course, nothing is free. You’ll actually be paying more for your own healthcare as well as for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it. Why? Because it will be run in the typical governmental fashion of high waste, where approximately 70-75 percent out of every dollar will go to administer the system rather than to health care itself. This percentage of waste is the norm for all government programs.)
Except that this is not completely true. In fact, it’s far from true.
Note the word “access.” Actually, what people will have is access to is a waiting list.
They will have access to having a bureaucrat who doesn’t know or love them deciding if the illness they or their children are suffering rates a visit to the doctor. If it rates an operation. If it rates treatment of any kind.
There is nothing speculative or “conspiracy theory-ish” about this. We know it’s true because we see it regularly within those countries that have “universal health care.”
There is a huge difference between access to a list and access to actual medical treatment.
In a recent column in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon wrote:
Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain’s Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year.
Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that “access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”
Interestingly enough, in Canada, where by law they cannot pay for private medical treatment, the only option for those who must either have an operation or die is often to travel to America.
Of course, once our system is as socialistic as is theirs, that will no longer be an option.
Speaking of our friendly neighbors to the north, Canada is currently looking at massive changes in their system.
First, the citizens are in an uproar due to long waiting lists. Second, the costs of the system are completely out of control.
Is this really what we want? Are we so anxious to blame a not-guilty party — the free enterprise system — that we will throw away still another freedom, the freedom to care for ourselves and our loved ones the way we see fit, not the way some faceless bureaucrat sees fit?
Do we want our children getting the same “expert and loving” medical care as did our wounded vets at Walter Reed and in similar government-run hospitals?
Would we really rather see everyone suffer through this kind of healthcare mandated for all? Except the politicians, of course.
Senator Hillary will never have to wait in line. Governor Romney will never be told, “Sorry, no CAT scan for you until every poor person can get one.”
The solution is actually quite simple. Get the government out of our healthcare system and let the free market, private charity, and loving-kindness do what it once did: Provide us with a healthcare system that really works.
Please, don’t buy into this new government takeover. And don’t buy into Michael Moore’s propaganda, as well-intentioned as he probably is. Don’t let emotions make this decision for you.
Instead, check your premises.

Bob Burg speaks on the topics of positive persuasion and business networking. His books, Endless Referrals: Network Your Everyday Contacts Into Sales and Winning Without Intimidation: How to Master the Art of Positive Persuasion have each sold well over 150,000 copies. For more information, visit his web site.

Socialized Medicine? Check Your Premises! - Ayn Rand Admirers at The Atlasphere

[Grimmlok]

This guy, like all the other articles from the same stupid place you seem to love posting about, is an idiot.

He doesn't take into account the fact that medicine back in the 50's wasn't run by HUGE UNREGULATED PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS and absolutely behemothic HMO's AND INSURANCE COMPANIES that need to wring every last cent of profit out of the market.

Private practice and state run hospitals in the 50's vs. what we have today? There's no comparison at all! The whole "government is bad" straw man argument is fucking stupid.

Back in the day, you COULD have a reasonably unregulated market and expect a somewhat good return. Now? Impossible.

If you want to see a completely unregulated market doing what it does, look at China. That's what you fucking get. Poison toothpaste, poison pet food, poison air and poison water.. all for the almighty buck.

God i hate these articles. They're so painfully, obviously and stupidly written. UGH.

[JamieElizabeth]

LOL

What makes Britian and Canada health care work so well then? Your countries must be intergrated? Or you laid down a better framework initially?

The US relies on corporate america as the context that that we work within. That is what integrates(and regulates)us all on many levels. Socialization would call for a much different context than what we're relying upon now?

[Grimmlok]

Canada's health system works REASONABLY well. It's not the fastest, it's in need of an overhaul (in the process) but we pay a good chunk of money into it and we get pretty good care. For more specialized stuff you can get referrals or go the 'pay yourself' route if you want.

Socialization means the ridiculous self regulated corporate market would NOT run healthcare.. the gov would. They would levy the taxes, they would set the standards, they would control, adjust or punish HMO's or pharm companies who try to bilk people.

Why do you think prescription drugs cost your firstborn, or a hospital stay runs into the tens of thousands in the US right now, or that 40 million cant afford health insurance? It's PROFIT.

[gardenofeve]

Gotta love it when conservative Americans rant about Canadian healthcare. Just goes to show how completely clueless they are beyond their own little world.

[crumpet]

Well, I happen to agree with the premise of the article but would add that our litigious society and skyrocketing malpractice premiums also contribute to the high cost, which the author did not mention. Then again, I don't think anyone is automatically entitled to be taken care of just because you fucking breathe air. It is also a fact that we do not all contribute equally to this society (genuinely disabled, kids, and elderly excluded) so the idea that we should all have some equal quality of life is bs to me,too. And I'm not a conservative, I'm a Libertarian and don't toe any party lines.

[JamieElizabeth]

"Then again, I don't think anyone is automatically entitled to be taken care of just because you fucking breathe air."

I thought the same thing today. I think that the Dems realize this, and with the whole ensuring everyone controversy could also be a way for them to break apart the market. It probably gets tricky b/c you don't want to be called rascist or whatever else. I personally think that this could be race thing, and that the different races would be best fit to straighten it out, but then again it doesn't work that way.

[crumpet]

It probably gets tricky b/c you don't want to be called rascist or whatever else.
You know, that race card is so played out that I'm past giving a fuck what anyone wants to call me.

[Grimmlok]

*snort*

Libertarian generally means 'unrestricted free market' until something bad happens to them in particular, then they go screaming for government standards. Libertarianism, much like actual communism, looks great on paper but does not create a functioning, healthy society.

Having sick people dying and rotting in their homes or homeless because they can afford either medicine or shelter does not for a great society make.

I hate to break it to hardcore individualists, but SOME stitching together of the social fabric is needed or else you end up with a complete mess on your hands, a dysfunctional bunch of little islands all screaming "me me me!" while everything around them falls to shit and nothing is accomplished.

Now...

Does that mean overhaul amnd stricter controls arent needed for such a (very slight) social system? Of course not. Being a citizen ought to guarantee you a few things: A decision in the political process, reasonable healthcare, and reasonable safety, a productive job market considering we all work for it (except for the tards and infirm, but wtf percentage of the population is that? 1%? 2%?). That's how societies work. The issue with the support structures with those is that too many people bilk the system, and sometimes the truly needful don't get the services they need. It happens. Stricter controls, regulate the damn markets to a degree that people can actually AFFORD insurance or healthcare, and sniff out bilkers with bloodhounds.

[JamieElizabeth]

It probably gets tricky b/c you don't want to be called rascist or whatever else.
You know, that race card is so played out that I'm past giving a fuck what anyone wants to call me.

True. Hopefully we have finally evolved past this because it is going to really suck when some of these other Eastern countries start moving ahead of us and laying down environmental stardards.

The problem with the African American race is that they don't even associate with Africa.
It's like a dislocated race in North America for some of them. We'll never go forward with that. To me, this is just as bad as Bush and the Conservatives.

[JamieElizabeth]

*snort*

Libertarian generally means 'unrestricted free market' until something bad happens to them in particular, then they go screaming for government standards. Libertarianism, much like actual communism, looks great on paper but does not create a functioning, healthy society.

Having sick people dying and rotting in their homes or homeless because they can afford either medicine or shelter does not for a great society make.

I hate to break it to hardcore individualists, but SOME stitching together of the social fabric is needed or else you end up with a complete mess on your hands, a dysfunctional bunch of little islands all screaming "me me me!" while everything around them falls to shit and nothing is accomplished.

Now...

Does that mean overhaul amnd stricter controls arent needed for such a (very slight) social system? Of course not. Being a citizen ought to guarantee you a few things: A decision in the political process, reasonable healthcare, and reasonable safety, a productive job market considering we all work for it (except for the tards and infirm, but wtf percentage of the population is that? 1%? 2%?). That's how societies work. The issue with the support structures with those is that too many people bilk the system, and sometimes the truly needful don't get the services they need. It happens. Stricter controls, regulate the damn markets to a degree that people can actually AFFORD insurance or healthcare, and sniff out bilkers with bloodhounds.

It's already tremedously problematic. I've been once in my life to public office and you're dealing with the wrong type of people. It's very sad places.

I'm not putting people down, but the office that I went to there were 3 obese women that wouldn't give me the time of day. They have their own mental and helath issues. Even more so than others! Why would anyone want to go there for help?

I'm just saying the quality isn't there. That's all. And you can't reverse that fact I don't think.

[Grimmlok]

Wtf does being fat have to do with anything?

The problem with these places is that they arent given the tools or funding they need to properly do their jobs.

[JamieElizabeth]

It's perceived that way here.

Rather than saying that the quality of life has been degraded and taken away? Bad terminology on my behalf.
Still, there isn't very good standards set here as far as that goes.

[Mariesoleil]

Then again, I don't think anyone is automatically entitled to be taken care of just because you fucking breathe air.

I am totally in shock at this statement... Wow, I can't believe people think like that. Self-centered, selfish, me, myself and I kind of thinking.

So what you're saying is because someone is poor he/she should get shitty healthcare or none at all?? Wonder if you would still think this way if you went bankrupt tomorrow (because you never know what can happen, the market may crash, you may lose everything and so on)? Or if it happened to someone in your family.

Sorry, but YES someone is entitled to the same care as everyone else because they are "fucking breathing" as you put it. Why would they not?? Did someone say you were better than anyone else and deserved healthcare because you have money??

[JamieElizabeth]

Sorry, but <b>YES</b> someone is entitled to the same care as everyone else because they are &quot;fucking breathing&quot; as you put it. Why would they not?? Did someone say you were better than anyone else and deserved healthcare because you have money??

<br />
<br /> Yet, if our governmet has failed at setting standards for people who were living in this country originally? There is no a precendency!! Obviously, there's not a very good one or we would have set better standards in the institutions to begin with. If someone else can better institute that, well, more power to them then. But, what I see in society is people mainly fighting for whatever material rights.