The presidential candidates were tossed a simple and fair question in their second debate by moderator Tom Brokaw.
Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
John McCain answered that it is a responsibility, and then went on to trash Obama’s health care plan
Barack Obama said that it should be a right, and justified his answer by noting how wealthy we are as a country.
McCain was close with his answer. Obama was dead wrong. Here’s why:
A “right” is bestowed from a higher authority. It cannot be revoked, it cannot be transferred. The Declaration of Independence refers to “inalienable rights” — those which cannot be taken away. Wikipedia defines them as that “which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society”.
If health care is a right, then why not define other necessities of life as a “right”? How about food? I could go a week without health care, but going a week without food could be fatal. Should I have a “right” to have my food given to me by my federal government?
How about “transportation”? I need a ride to get to work. Perhaps door-to-door public transportation should be a right that is given to me by my government.
Or my job itself. Many countries guarantee employment. Shouldn’t mine? Should my employer be forced to keep me hired in all circumstances because I have a right to have a job? And if I cannot find one, should my government grant me a job as a right?
If health care is defined as a right, a slippery slope of new “rights” is sure to follow. There will be no stopping people who demand more and more rights bestowed upon them by government.
As the states of Massachusetts and Hawaii have already proven, government cannot afford to grant that right to its citizens without going bankrupt.
Don’t be fooled by Obama’s claim that his health care plan merely supplements whatever existing insurance the population already has. As soon as federal health care is made available, large numbers of people will drop their personal insurance (or their employers will do it on their behalf). The government will have to pick up the tab for just about everybody anyway.
And that’s just fine with the Obama/Hillary socialists, because universal single-payer health care is exactly what they had in mind for everybody in the first place. The plan in Obama’s presidential campaign is merely a placation for the control-minded HillaryCare advocates that have been around since FDR.
My health care is my responsibility. Your health care is your responsibility. The health care (as well as the well-being) of innocent children and those who cannot fend for themselves is society’s responsibility, which may or may not involve the federal government.
But the federal government is the last person I want in charge of my health care. You will never believe how expensive health care can be until it’s free.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Health Care as a Comodity
Atroubling trend in presidential debates that I have noticed is the tendency not to answer the question that was asked.
Candidates seem to have a template of talking points to cover and they just drop those points whenever they some key word in the question that matches the template.
Since the candidates won’t answer the questions, I’ll answer them here — the way they should have answered them in the first place.
I’ll start with the definition of health care, as asked last week in the “town hall” debate in Nashville between Barack Obama and John McCain.
Question: Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?
Senator Obama ignored the question, whined about how health care costs are “breaking family budgets,” and how McCain was going to tax health care benefits.
Senator McCain talked about his health care plan — which includes government giving everybody $5,000 to buy insurance — and how Obama is going to fine small businesses that don’t insure their employees.
Neither answered the question. So here’s my answer.
For the economically uninformed, a “commodity” is defined as a good or service for which there is a demand and abundant supply and for which that supply is essentially undifferentiated except for the price.
Using that definition, yes, there are many aspects of health care that are commodities. In fact, most trips to doctor’s offices are very routine. A prescription for an antibiotic; a bandage on a wound; relief from the symptoms of the flu or a sore back or a headache.
This is not to diminish the work of the medical profession — it just illustrates that a large portion of their work can easily be undifferentiated in the marketplace.
That type of treatment is rightly a commodity. In fact, health clinics to handle routine health care are already cropping up in pharmacies all across the nation, handled quickly and efficiently by medical paraprofessionals.
Do you know what happens when a product becomes a commodity? The price goes down!
I’ve seen it happen in the telecommunications industry. The telecom companies fought for years to guarantee that long distance and wireless voice communications were not commoditized. As soon as they were, competition and the invisible hand of the economy drove the price down — even while the quality of service went up!
It happened in telecom; it can happen in health care.
Let the marketplace determine the cost and availability of routine health care. I guarantee that if the government would get out of the way, everybody who needs health care would be able to afford it. The companies that provide the service would finally have the incentive to provide a quality service at a price that everybody could afford.
There are already government programs in place to act as a safety net in catastrophic and extreme circumstances — as there should be. But if the socialist policies of Obama and Hillary and the DNC were ever enacted as they would like, every antibiotic, every BandAid, and every tongue depressor would be dispensed by a Washington bureaucrat with the compassion of the DMV and the efficiency of the IRS.
That’s a scenario that should inspire Republicans and cure Democrats.
Yep, except in extreme cases, health care should be a commodity.
Maybe next time I can explain to Senator Obama the difference between a right and a responsibility.
Candidates seem to have a template of talking points to cover and they just drop those points whenever they some key word in the question that matches the template.
Since the candidates won’t answer the questions, I’ll answer them here — the way they should have answered them in the first place.
I’ll start with the definition of health care, as asked last week in the “town hall” debate in Nashville between Barack Obama and John McCain.
Question: Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?
Senator Obama ignored the question, whined about how health care costs are “breaking family budgets,” and how McCain was going to tax health care benefits.
Senator McCain talked about his health care plan — which includes government giving everybody $5,000 to buy insurance — and how Obama is going to fine small businesses that don’t insure their employees.
Neither answered the question. So here’s my answer.
For the economically uninformed, a “commodity” is defined as a good or service for which there is a demand and abundant supply and for which that supply is essentially undifferentiated except for the price.
Using that definition, yes, there are many aspects of health care that are commodities. In fact, most trips to doctor’s offices are very routine. A prescription for an antibiotic; a bandage on a wound; relief from the symptoms of the flu or a sore back or a headache.
This is not to diminish the work of the medical profession — it just illustrates that a large portion of their work can easily be undifferentiated in the marketplace.
That type of treatment is rightly a commodity. In fact, health clinics to handle routine health care are already cropping up in pharmacies all across the nation, handled quickly and efficiently by medical paraprofessionals.
Do you know what happens when a product becomes a commodity? The price goes down!
I’ve seen it happen in the telecommunications industry. The telecom companies fought for years to guarantee that long distance and wireless voice communications were not commoditized. As soon as they were, competition and the invisible hand of the economy drove the price down — even while the quality of service went up!
It happened in telecom; it can happen in health care.
Let the marketplace determine the cost and availability of routine health care. I guarantee that if the government would get out of the way, everybody who needs health care would be able to afford it. The companies that provide the service would finally have the incentive to provide a quality service at a price that everybody could afford.
There are already government programs in place to act as a safety net in catastrophic and extreme circumstances — as there should be. But if the socialist policies of Obama and Hillary and the DNC were ever enacted as they would like, every antibiotic, every BandAid, and every tongue depressor would be dispensed by a Washington bureaucrat with the compassion of the DMV and the efficiency of the IRS.
That’s a scenario that should inspire Republicans and cure Democrats.
Yep, except in extreme cases, health care should be a commodity.
Maybe next time I can explain to Senator Obama the difference between a right and a responsibility.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Hillary wants to take it — all of it
Do you own anything? Anything? You might as well hand it over to Hillary Clinton. Right now.
She is currently the odds-on favorite to become the 44th President of the United States in 2008. And she has just declared that she wants it. All of it.
What is “it”? While speaking at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Hillary made this chilling statement:
Those are six stunning words. Words that should never be uttered in public. Certainly never by an elected official...
“I want to take those profits.”
They send chills up my spine.
Just whose “profits” does she think she’s “taking”?
Mrs. Clinton, with all due respect (actually, with a total disregard for respect, but that’s just a polite thing to say), corporations don’t earn profits! They can’t. By their very definition, the profits belong to the owners of the corporations. In a capitalistic society, we refer to those owners as stockholders.
If you have money in a bank, if you have money in a mutual fund, if you have money in a 401k or an ira, if you have attempted to put away a little bit of money for your retirement years — there is a good chance that you are a stockholder. And Hillary wants to take your profits.
Hillary doesn’t want to take the profits from some nameless, faceless, fat-cat puffing on expensive Cuban cigars. She wants to take money away from you. She just doesn’t have the guts to admit it.
She has already identified several industries that — in her mind — don’t deserve to exist. Their role is better done by Big Government. They include the oil industry, the health care industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. At least. Big government has already taken over the education industry. Can transportation be far behind? Communication? Farming? Construction? Manufacturing? Where does it end?
“I want to take those profits.”
Well, Mrs. Clinton, there are a few profits of yours I’d like to take.
As a United States Senator, you earn a salary of $165,200 every year. I want to take those profits.
In 1979, you turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit. I want to take those profits.
In 1996, you wrote a best-seller named “It Takes a Village”, which earned you hundreds of thousands of dollars. I want to take those profits.
In 2000, you earned an $8 million dollar advance for your book Living History. I want to take those profits.
Watch out, people. Hillary is coming after you. She wants to take your profits. She thinks they belong to her.
She is currently the odds-on favorite to become the 44th President of the United States in 2008. And she has just declared that she wants it. All of it.
What is “it”? While speaking at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Hillary made this chilling statement:
The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies ...
Those are six stunning words. Words that should never be uttered in public. Certainly never by an elected official...
“I want to take those profits.”
They send chills up my spine.
Just whose “profits” does she think she’s “taking”?
Mrs. Clinton, with all due respect (actually, with a total disregard for respect, but that’s just a polite thing to say), corporations don’t earn profits! They can’t. By their very definition, the profits belong to the owners of the corporations. In a capitalistic society, we refer to those owners as stockholders.
If you have money in a bank, if you have money in a mutual fund, if you have money in a 401k or an ira, if you have attempted to put away a little bit of money for your retirement years — there is a good chance that you are a stockholder. And Hillary wants to take your profits.
Hillary doesn’t want to take the profits from some nameless, faceless, fat-cat puffing on expensive Cuban cigars. She wants to take money away from you. She just doesn’t have the guts to admit it.
She has already identified several industries that — in her mind — don’t deserve to exist. Their role is better done by Big Government. They include the oil industry, the health care industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. At least. Big government has already taken over the education industry. Can transportation be far behind? Communication? Farming? Construction? Manufacturing? Where does it end?
“I want to take those profits.”
Well, Mrs. Clinton, there are a few profits of yours I’d like to take.
As a United States Senator, you earn a salary of $165,200 every year. I want to take those profits.
In 1979, you turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit. I want to take those profits.
In 1996, you wrote a best-seller named “It Takes a Village”, which earned you hundreds of thousands of dollars. I want to take those profits.
In 2000, you earned an $8 million dollar advance for your book Living History. I want to take those profits.
Watch out, people. Hillary is coming after you. She wants to take your profits. She thinks they belong to her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)