If you read only one health care article today, read this piece in The Objective Standard. Paul Hsieh and Lin Zinser, of FIRM, argue that government-run health care is not merely impractical but immoral:
The myriad problems with American health care and health insurance are the result of decades of government interference in the markets for these goods and services. The systemic violation of the rights of health care providers and insurers to freely produce and trade goods and services has created a dysfunctional system that has harmed countless providers, insurers, employers, and patients.
In other words, the government is the cause of the current “crisis,” and more government involvement in health care is ethically indefensible as well as logically untenable.
Comments 7
WOW, I have to admit that I don’t think I have ever read a more poorly written piece of trash. That article had more incorrect assumptions and comparisons than your standard state of the union address. First, the insurance industry wanted medicare and medicaide, these are populations with higher risks that they didnt want to cover, they lobbied for it for gods sake, just like every business lobbies for it’s interests, and blue cross and blue shield started as non profit, and got advantages, all non profits get advantages in this country, credit unions, churches etc. etc. that “is” how business works. The insurance industry wanted to do business with employers, one time payments, one organization to bill and collect from, it is easier. The government has stepped in only in response to heavy lobby from the insurance industry, or where the industry was lacking, so realistically the whole mess that we now have was created and driven by “private” health care, and now you are crying about it? Health insurance/care has had almost 100 years to get it right, and look what we have. And comparing car or home insurance to health insurance, give me a break, these insurances are catastrophy only ins, they don’t cover normal wear and tear, which is what we are asking from health ins, these are not comparable, sad, very sad.
Posted 07 Dec 2007 at 8:59 am ¶“The goal of “universal health care” (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical; it violates the rights of businessmen, doctors, and patients to act on their own judgment—which, in turn, throttles their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services in question” These people are clearly uneducated about morals and ethics, it is well established that the concerns of human suffering and death far out weigh the rights of businessmen and doctors.
A link to this article is sad, even for you.
It is well established that the concerns of human suffering and death far out weigh the rights of businessmen and doctors.
You have once again missed the point, which is as follows: a health care system in which the government contantly meddles INCREASES patient suffering while damaging the providers who must take care of them.
Posted 07 Dec 2007 at 11:21 am ¶I guess you missed the point as well. The govt meddling was brought on by the gaps in care left by the insurance companies, and the insurance companies requests through lobbying.
Posted 07 Dec 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶Yes, the article is one of the longest jokes I’ve ever seen - all it does is propose returning to the times we had in Victorian Britain, where the poor had to rely on charity. And it puts the rights of corporations above people. It’s nonsense, from beginning to end.
Posted 07 Dec 2007 at 2:23 pm ¶Marc/drmatt, I notice neither of you address any of the article’s fact claims. Très intéressant.
Posted 07 Dec 2007 at 4:53 pm ¶Ignoring basic economic principles does not make them vanish.
Posted 07 Dec 2007 at 8:10 pm ¶I didn’t see any facts beyond those that are historical, just supposition, assumptions and bad comparisons.
Posted 10 Dec 2007 at 6:24 am ¶Post a Comment