Giuliani explains why he’s against universal health care

One of the more encouraging political developments of the last few years is the acceptance of universal health care, at least in principle. Americans want to see the system changed, and they want universality to be integral to any reform measures. Politically, this is no longer just a Democratic belief — Republican governors (most notably Schwarzenegger and Romney) have also endorsed UHC with some enthusiasm.

And then there’s Rudy Giuliani, the alleged moderate whose progressive domestic policies are supposed to make him a credible general-election candidate, explaining to the Weekly Standard that he’s against a health care system that extends coverage to everyone.

“It’s a no-risk society,” Giuliani went on. “If we continue with this idea of collective responsibility, we’ll become a society that deteriorates. And it’s a battle that has to be fought now.”

He offers health care as an example. “Democrats want universal health care, collective responsibility — honestly, it’s their version of socialized medicine.” Even the recent health care reform in Massachusetts, designed by the Republican governor Mitt Romney, was tainted with collectivity, because it required every citizen to get health insurance.

“I don’t like mandates,” Giuliani says. “I don’t like mandating health care. I don’t like it because it erodes what makes health care work in this country — the free market, the profit motive. A mandate takes choice away from people. We’ve got to let people make choices. We’ve got to let them take the risk–do they want to be covered? Do they want health insurance? Because ultimately, if they don’t, well, then, they may not be taken care of. I suppose that’s difficult.” He lets the idea sink in, though it seems to bother his audience not at all. “The minute you start mandating, you always end up with more expensive government programs.”

Fascinating. Let’s unfold this a bit.

Society “deteriorates” if the nation introduces collective responsibility into the health care system. Why? Because it’s “socialized medicine.” That’s standard Republican claptrap, I suppose, and is hard to take seriously.

But Giuliani really sounds clueless when he says the “free market” and “profit motive” are what “makes health care work in this country.” Really? Work for whom? Put it this way — someone needs to ask Giuliani whether he believes the U.S. health care system is effective and efficient right now, governed only by the free market.

As Jonathan Chait put it:

Our system is far more expensive than anywhere else, denies medical services to tens of millions of people except when they have emergencies, and by most measures produces no better outcome. So is there any reason our system “works” except the tautological justification that it’s the best because it’s the most market-based?

For that matter, it’s hard not to laugh at Giuliani’s suggestion that people might prefer not having any health care coverage at all. The implication isn’t subtle — it’s fine to leave Americans behind and vulnerable, because, who knows, maybe they like it better that way.

Tell you what, Rudy, ask the 45 million Americans with no insurance whether they’re more worried about a “mandate” that would protect themselves and their families, or about being one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

And what does “It’s a no-risk society” mean, exactly? The millions of families already at risk aren’t at risk enough? Does Giuliani want to see more risk? Why?

I’m afraid Giuliani has about as much expertise on domestic policy as he does foreign policy. Which is to say, none.

I’m thrilled to hear Giuliana bring this up. I hope all the reThugs do, and all the Dems, because it “legitimizes” the discussion in the eyes of the msm. Nothing will move us to a rational universal health system more quickly than people asserting that the profit motive makes our system so dandy, and that some people just choose not to have health insurance. In many ways, this is the equivalent of McCain’s stroll through the market in Baghdad last week. It highlights the absurdity of the position.

On another topic CB might grab hold of, Atrios noticed that the WaPost changed a story that said American troops found an EFP factory in Iraq, into a story that said EFPs kill our troops and US intelligence says they are made in Iran. It is quite stunning, and lays another sad story really bare – that the msm insists on flogging the Iran is the devil theme while ignoring any evidence pto the contrary. In this case, they specifically changed the story to fit their theme. It’s at http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_atrios_archive.html#117595681241609223

  • Wonder if Rudy and others opposed to “socialized medicine” are against mandates that everyone pay taxes, including those without health insurance, so that Rudy, Bush, Cheney and other anti-universal health care officeholders can have their “socialized medicine”. No doubt people are streaming out of nations with various types of universal health care to escape the tyranny of “mandates”. In so many ever increasing ways the U.S. becomes an ever bigger Joke!

  • Goodness gracious me! I certainly don’t want our society to deteriorate. That would be ever so awful. It could result in things like the crumbling of our infrastructure, maybe even the compromise of our constitutional rights. Who could ever imagine such a thing!

    Well, the nice Mr. Giuliani has certainly opened my eyes.

  • This is entirely of a piece with Il Rudy’s “leadership” in New York City: there are the deserving, and the undeserving. Immigrants were deserving; the Great Man’s grandparents were immigrants. Anyone on welfare, or homeless, or most non-whites, were undeserving, and if you “gave” them anything, they’d just take and take and take more.

    His politics is almost entirely explained by the fact that he’s a mean-spirited prick.

  • Man! This ‘collective responsibility’ is truly rotting our society. Just think how great we would be without roads, bridges, parks, schools, or any of the other ‘collective responsibilities’ that have been forced down our throats!

    Who is Rudy hoping to pander to with this nonsense?

  • This is akin to those in Texas who don’t want their daughters to receive a vacine for uterine cancer because it will promote sex. As if they can guarantee 1) their daughter won’t have voluntary sex behind their backs, and 2) their daughter won’t be the one of four women who is raped.

    And didn’t Rudy just argue that abortions should be funded?

  • Why am I not surprised to hear about yet another ReThug who hates the idea of “Collective Responsibility”? Those schmucks haven’t yet mastered individual responsibility.

    Meanwhile we’re supposed to believe a society with a healthier population will “deteriorate.” Gee Mr. Goolieani, many of the people you expect to vote for your worthless hide think divorce leads to the deterioration of society. Care to comment?

    Fuckwit.

  • He wasn’t even that good a head persecutor, other than grabbing headlines that didn’t tell the truth about that situation, either.

    The guy is the living reality of every bad Italian-slur joke ever made.

  • Like McCain’s stroll in Baghdad, I hope Rudy just committed political suicide. Let the Republicans drop one by one for their individual (no, collective) stupidity.

  • WTF, this just proves Ghouliani is another Republicancerous growth on America’s ass. Maybe his wife, Dogkiller Ghouliani, who has profited from sales to doctors is still receiving residual profits from her canine bloodshed and is worried that universal health care would cut into her income. For Republicancers, money always trumps pain, suffering and death of others, 2-legged or 4-legged. I guess the UK’s society will disintegrate any second now.

  • Yes, it’s the profit motive that makes health care work, all right! Don’t we all idolize those doctors who are famous for the millions they made from sick people, instead of those not-in-it-for-the-money ninnies like Albert Schweitzer, Florence Nightingale, or Walter Reed?

    Why, if we take away the free market, it would be like saying people ought to get health care because they need it, not because they can pay for it! And before long you have a society where compassion and charity actually matter. You might even end up in a country where people felt their enlightened self-interest was served by caring about other people, even people they didn’t know! And then what chance would an authoritarian sociopath have of being elected in a place like that? No, we can’t take that risk! That’s why we have to fight that battle now. Lest society deteriorate like that.

  • I had both my parents die within a year of each other and I can say that their health care was very poor. Socialized medicine could not possibly be any worse!

  • I”m taking a different stance on this one.

    Just like JoeW in post # 6 mentioned, there are collective responsibilities that should be covered by mandatory taxes. Health care fits in that category, not so that everybody can take advantage of it, without taking personal responsibility, BUT… to make it mandatory that EVERYBODY needs to pay for health insurance, including the homeless and people on welfare. (fee structures can be calculated to make it work) NOBODY should be able to walk into an emergency room and get medical services without any financial cost to them. There should be graduated co-pays for everybody, including the homeless and people on welfare.

    On the surface that may look unfair, but is it fair that a certain segment of the population gets to use healt services for free, while those costs are calculated into the insurance premiums that the other people end up paying? Our current system has proven that they way it works now, more and more people can’t afford the ever rising cost of health insurance.

    As a comparison, when Social Security started, it was about 13 workers supporting one retired person, now we’re almost at 3 workers supporting one retired person. That is a flawed system that we can either pretend isn’t there, or we need to do something drastic about it. I don’t see the current health care any different.

    It is time that we realize that becoming sick is not an option. Therefor doctors and clinics and hospitals should not have the benefit of the ‘free market’ to set prices. When you’re sick you don’t go shopping. It’s not like checking the store with the best deal on a TV or any other merchandise, nor can you wait for a better deal to arrive in a few weeks. If you have a broken leg or you have a serious illness, you have to take care of it now, not later. Most hospitals and clinics are monopolies in their geographic areas, especially outside the metropolitan areas.

    Being a health care provider myself, I don’t see any reason why a doctor’s visit needs to cost more than what the average worker makes in a day, or that a day at a hospital costs more than a week’s vacation at the beach. Those are the reasons why ordinary people rather forgo medical care because it puts such a huge dent in their budgets.

    Part of the solution needs to be caps on fees and reduction in the massive burocracy that feeds the beast. A sick person should not be able to sue a medical facilty because they didn’t like what the doctor did. Granted there are malpractice claims with merrit, but why should a person with a bad heart, who doesn’t live a healthy lifestyle, doesn’t heed the advice for exercise and diet, has been taking multiple medications over the years for a variety of conditions , have the right to sue a pharmaceutical company because there is evidence that side effects could have caused a ‘second’ heart attack, or that a doctor ‘shou’d’ have done a test sooner to see that he was about to have a heart attack. Am I ranting? maybe but it all adds up to extra cost to society when someone can sue and walk away with several million dollar settlements because they didn’t take personal responsibility for their own lifestyle.

    In short: YES there should be socialized medicine. WITH caps on fees. WITH caps on malpractice compensation. WITH co-pays for everybody, regardless of income. Mandatory enrollment for health insurance coverage.

  • I’m not sure what you’re getting at in #14, Bruno. If health care is paid for through taxes, then at some level, everyone has contributed according to their ability (in theory, at least) The level of universal coverage and additional fees (co-pays) is open to negotiation at this stage.

    I haven’t heard anyone argue for free unlimited liver transplants for alcoholics. Nor do I see what kind of money the homeless, or people on welfare could scrape together for anything other than an utterly trivial contribution. $1.49 for an MRI? The accounting costs alone would exceed the contributions. And where do you send the invoice to a homeless person?

    As for mandatory insurance? The insurers have been part of what’s gotten us to this point. I don’t want to run them out of business any more than I want to reward them for the poor job they have done til now. If there is a market for extra health care via insurance, I’m fine with that. But basic checkups, emergency/trauma and a reasonable access to medicines should be available to all without feeding the insurance beast.

  • Well, JoeW, I’m not as articulate in getting my ideas across, but I was trying to convey that it takes more than just advocating universal health insurance. We need to make sure that abuses are kept in check, that we just don’t create another bureaucracy, that each person has to at least have some co-pay.

    In regards to the $1.49 MRI… The majority of MRI’s performed are a waste of money. More and more research is coming out that there are a lot of tests performed that add cost to the system without substantial benefits.

    Personal case in point. My sister-in-law passed away last month. She was diagnosed last Summer with inoperable stage 4 lung cancer. The prognosis was at the most 3 more months to live. The doctors told her that at the very best they could prolong her life with a few months, but it would take extensive therapy: aggressive radiation on the bone cancer that had spread to her pelvis, and agressive chemotherapy to try to arrest the growth of the cancers.

    The doctors talked as if there was a ‘real’ chance, so she opted to try it. After the radiation, there was no improvement, but the doctors felt they may have a better chance with chemo. After several weeks of Chemo that turned out to be to no avail, they suggested to do some more chemo. By that time she had decided that the pain and agony she was experiencing was not worth the price, because her quality of life was significantly reduced and she was confined to bed. She went with hospice care and passed away with some dignity intact 2 weeks later.

    She did not have insurance, and now the hospital, labs, doctors, and clinic are all wanting their money; which is more than $100K. An amount her husband is unable to afford. As she said during her final 3 weeks; if she would have known, she would not have taken those doctors’ advice because it only caused more pain and agony and added nothing to the quality of her life.

    I’m not asking for sympathy here. Do we need a system that prolongs life at all costs, regardless of what the patient’s needs are? I wouldn’t want to see a health care system where all tax payers pay for keeping people allive long after their quality of life has already deteriorated beyond what any person would consider ‘life’. Doctors hide behind their oath to do no harm, but that is hypocrytical when considering that their oath is directly attached to the amount of services they can bill for over the longest period of time.

  • Good health care requires investment in infrastructure and research. Without long term investment – health care gets worse for everyone (and more expensive). What you see now are those who can afford healthcare, sucking off of the investments that were made in the past.

  • Asking, or not, you have my sympathy, Bruno. The things you cite from personal experience highlight what a tremendous mess we have allowed the system to become. The problem is that much of this is subjective and situational. You say this, referring to your tragic experience, “I wouldn’t want to see a health care system where all tax payers pay for keeping people allive long after their quality of life has already deteriorated beyond what any person would consider ‘life’.”

    My question is this: If your sister-in-law was holding out against hope in order to see the birth of her first grandchild, would you view it in the same light? I don’t ask that to belittle your point, or your suffering. I ask it to illustrate the subjectiveness of ‘quality of life’. I basically agree with you, but at the same time, there are situations where everything goes out the window.

    One of the problems with health care now is that these decisions are made by insurance managers and accountants consulting cost tables and relative liability – as opposed to doctors and patients. It’s as dehumanizing as it is inefficient. I do not blame the doctors. They’ve become mere employees of the insurance/medical establishment.

  • Wishful thinking:

    Make all health insurance companies non-profit orgs. Put a cap on CEO salaries. Require all health insurance companies to donate a certain percentage of profits to medical facilities. Do whatever it takes to stop health insurance companies acting as the “gate keeper” to patient care.

    In other words, make health insurance as a “regular” business unattractive to people who are obsessed with the bottom line.

  • This collective responsibility thing is a real concern. Certainly we could not consider something which deteriorates the nation.

    We must eliminate projects which depend upon the collective ASAP and stamp out socialism. I suggest we start with the war in Iraq. Wouldn’t we be better off if every individual was responsible for opposing terrorism rather than deteriorating the country by collectively sending an army to Iraq.

    Besides, conservatives are always telling us that when government gets involved things are done in a foolish and inefficient manner. What could be more inefficient than to respond to a terrorist attack than attacking the wrong country?

    I’m sure we can count on Rudy to speak out against this collectivist project any day now.

  • I’m currently paying almost $400 a month for COBRA health insurance. One of my co-workers has no insurance, for himself or his child. The contracting agency we both work through has laughable health coverage.

    I can’t afford NOT to pay for my insurance because of my HIV and the related meds, but I’m also at the point where I can’t afford to pay for the insurance itself, anymore. Now I learn that I’ve got a rate increase coming in May. Half the time I’m willing to just give up all meds until I qualify for disability, but that’s not the kind of person I am.

    Our nation’s health care system sucks, and until it gets better, we’re going to have more and more people going without, going to work sick when they should be staying home recuperating (sp?), and dying because they couldn’t afford the appropriate care/medication to help them recover.

  • I’m surprised that no one made the connection to Steve Forbes’ endorsement. Forbes is a taxaphobe. The only way that UHC is affordable is to rollback Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I guess we know who owns Giuliani.

  • I’m thinking this whole thing is just code to the rich elite class in America. Rudy is telling the “ruling class” that he, too, believes in social darwinism in a profit-based economy. A place where leviathans of investment and industry can cruise the social waters like sharks, gobbling up the weak and small and helpless.

    This whole theory Republicans tend to have misses an essential element of humanity; compassion. If your greed quotient outweighs your compassion, you tend not to see those who need help. You tend not to empathize because you’ve never been down on your luck, fired, screwed over by “the man” or broke. Elites simply can’t understand, like those who’ve never met someone who did their own taxes, that life without priviledge is HARD. Things aren’t handed to you, college isn’t guaranteed, contacts and networking don’t necessarily land you cheese jobs, dividends don’t flow in to take care of the little things.

    If people like Rudy and those he wishes to serve were to spend one day poor in America, or better yet somewhere far worse for the “lower classes”, like Bangladesh or Karachi, they may learn the truth and immutable wisdom of compassion, and why we lose our souls and our humanity when we lose sight of it.

  • Never having been a fan of Emperor Rudy, his free-market BS about health care is no particular surprise. He doesn’t like mandates? That reminds me of Bush’s comment about dictatorships, ” I don’t mind a dictatorship as long as I’m the dictator.” Guiliani doesn’t like mandates unless they’re his. Guiliani is a fascist, pure and simple.

  • Giulianni is off is rocker, he obviously doesn’t know what is going on in the Health Care business. He has great health care, he doesn’t have to even think about it.
    There are people like me who have tried to get health care. I was seriously injured on the job, lost my health insurance. I have been turned down by 5 providers, because I had surgery in the last 6 months and take more than two medications, it doesn’t take much to be turned down. Giulianni obviously has no clue what is going on. I’ll never vote for this guy or any Republican, everyday I’m more convinced they (Republican’s) are doing the work of the devil.

  • In response to #19 – it is not always the Health Insurance Company that is the “gate keeper” – I would know, I work for a Health Plan (one of the largest) and I work in the contracting department so I know how the agreements between Medical Groups and Health Plans go. In my personal experience with the medical group I am signed up with, they determine my access to care not my heatlh plan. Every agreement is different. It is really easy to pontificate about matters which few of you are experienced in. I don’t mean that as an insult but a suggestion to become more educated about the current system instead of passing judgement or in many of all of your cases writing scathing criticisms and seething statements. Try to take the emotions out of it and look at it from a factual, practical standpiont. If you think Universal Healthcare works, why do Canadians come to the US for healthcare? Do you know that people wait as long as three months to see a doctor? And if it is not profitable enough for a physician, how many will leave their practices or never enter the field at all because their income will be controlled? This will limit even further access to care since there would be fewer healthcare professionals. There are many ways to reduce the cost of healthcare – I do not believe from what I have learned and experienced, that Universal Healthcare is the answer. And yes I have gone several years in my life time without insurance.
    As far as Giulianni goes, he was a mayor of a city – I don’t believe he has any understanding of how to run a country – I would not vote for him anyway. Please let me be clear – I am not an expert but from all I have experienced and read, I ask you to research this further – how is it working in other countries? I think you will find that Universal Healthcare is not all that it is cracked up to be. I for one cannot afford to shell out more money in taxes to pay for everyone’s healthcare. I am barely making it as it is and I have no debt ( I know – hard to believe in this day and age).

    In response to # 22 – the tax cuts for the umpteenth time were not just for the wealthiest Americans, I don’t have two pennies to rub togehter and I got a bigger tax break because I am married. My sister who isnt raining green got an additonal 600 dollars back form the gov for each of her children. It wasnt tax cuts for the rich, it was tax cuts for whoever pays taxes, the poorer Americans don’t even pay taxes. The top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 96.54% of the taxes. Who should get a tax break? People who don’t pay taxes? These are poeple who earned $29,000 dollars and up. Is a 29,000 dollar a year income wealthy? If so – I’m rich!!!

    The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

    Again – instead of parroting what you hear from the media (you can’t believe them anyway since they have an agenda of their own) take the time to learn the facts and base your opinions on those things instead of getting your underwear all in a wad over BS. I am sure among many of you this will not be received well but I thought I would give it a shot anyway.

    There is my two cents…
    Nadey

  • For all of the ignorant universal health care supporters out there, I just wanted to open your eyes to a few problems that you’ll be complaining about when your wish comes true…

    Aside from the fact that universal health care plans (funded and regulated by the government) would turn our economy in the direction of communism, it will also end up costing everyone in more ways than you realize.
    Not only will EVERYONE’S individual taxes be raised, but if you own a small business and you can’t afford insurance for your employees, you’ll also be charged a special additional fee – thousands of dollars per employee per year – from the government so that they can give insurance to your employees for you. So much for your entrepreneurial dreams and our competition driven economy.
    As for all the people who aren’t working (whether they really can’t work or they just don’t want to because the government gives them handouts for everything anyways) they will be “given” insurance, paid for by increased taxes and increasing our national debt by approximately $110 billion per year… if we’re lucky.
    In addition to the billions of dollars we’ll be throwing down the drain, government regulation of medical prices and will decrease doctors’ incentive to work, and to innovate new technology. This will result in longer wait times to get into doctors who won’t have made a medical discovery since this plan went into effect.
    Did you know that it takes an average of 20 months to get an appointment at a specialist in Canada? They have socialized health care. In that amount of time, you could die from cancer before you were ever diagnosed.
    Last time I checked, socialist countries weren’t leading the way in medical advances either… WE are.
    So go ahead, vote for universal health care. Just remember, Russia fell apart for a reason. Communism doesn’t work.

  • Universal health care is garbage. why should i pay texes and work hard so those who dont can get free health care? why should my texes be higher? why shuold illegal aliens who dont pay texes get free health care? why should my family have to wait 6 to 12 months to see a doctor so everyone can? ask people from the Britain or Canada how accessible health care is once its free. its crap.

  • I’m always amazed by the Democrats’ oh-so-intelligent defenses for their irrational opinions. Like, Giuliani is “the living reality of every bad Italian-slur joke ever made (9),” and “he’s a mean-spirited prick (5).” Wow, good points! I’m impressed! Now, give me some real proof.
    And, next time you leave a comment somewhere, maybe you should make sure you know how to spell the person’s name you’re trashing. It does wonders for your credibility.
    Now explain to me how socialized healthcare is going to help people get medical attention. Take into account that in 2006, at any given time 900,000 people were on a waiting list just to get admitted into a hospital in Britain (who has a universal healthcare system). Also, 50,000 operations were cancelled. Yeah, that’s what I want to happen in the U.S.

  • I am an American living in the Britain and I can tell you that the healthcare system is not ‘crap’.
    It is so wonderful not having to worry about getting seriously ill. And to be able to walk into any hospital anywhere and receive the care I need without worrying about payment. And now as I am living in Wales I can get all my perscriptions for free. And how does Britain afford this healthcare?
    It puts a percentage tax on your income, dependant on how much your earn. It is a lot better than getting stuck with the bills if and when I get sick. There is no fear of bills or after care payments, all you have to do is concentrate on getting better.
    Don’t get me wrong, there are problems. Waiting lists for operations can be long and are based upon the severity of the case.
    But I would rather be on a waiting list for a month then never be able to afford the operation at all. Besides, if you really want to pay for healthcare here, you can go private. But at least if you are a person who can’t afford to pay for healthcare, you are still taken care of.
    It is the ‘what is best for me’ attitude demonstrated by #29 that is holding back America. Why in the world wouldn’t we want to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves?

  • Let it be known that I am an independent that is anti-neocon/Bush/McCain, and I can’t stand Giuliani – I don’t defend him, I defend my own position in saying that UHC is actually immoral and unconstitutional and that those proponents kick-out the platform on which they claim to stand. I’m attacking the “morality” of their argument.

    I do not want to be forced to take this health care plan, nor will I support a measure that forces it upon others. I want to be able to choose the best health care options, for myself [and future family], by myself. Perhaps my own plan through my employer/personal payments is better, because I have good doctors, fast service etc. and I am able to suit my own needs in the way I see fit. Why can’t I say ‘no’?

    I will not infringe upon the life and professions of doctors and force them to work for something they don’t want to. I will not turn doctors and medical professionals into slaves, because I am against slavery in all of its forms. “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…with unalienable rights…life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” It doesn’t give you, or anyone else, the right to tell someone else to “take care of me” or bear the burden of my life. Doctors are a profession, they are serving their own interests (much like every single individual on earth), and they have every right to their own life as long as it doesn’t infringe upon others (and if they do, they deserve the consequences of legit malpractice suits). Also, perhaps doctors decide to not become doctors because they do not want to deal with all the bureaucratic headaches and standards and restrictions; and now there is a lack of doctors? Are you going to force them to do it?

    The argument that the quality will improve really doesn’t work either. Show everyone the proof that the quality is better; even better life-saving procedures, safer medicine. Just because the quantity of people are being treated, doesn’t mean the quality is better. Are these doctors waiting to treat everyone in order to perform at their full potential? Did they struggle and fight for their education, success, and creation of their practice in order to be controlled by government standards? (By the way, who’s “standard” will be used? Is that good enough for every person?)

    It won’t be magically cheaper – perhaps it appears cheaper upfront in co-pays, but the real cost has to come from somewhere. They propose everyone pay, which means increased taxes (and the “expense” of doctors). They need to look at the real costs of medicine, medical supplies – perhaps their expensive machines can be made more efficiently, thus driving down costs. (Maybe they should do something to counter all this inflation as well). Don’t just slap on this policy and ignore the real questions that need answers – they NEED to be answered before anything happens.

    They kick-out the platform on which they stand upon because they claim to have a moral reason – “a return to morality”. Somehow its moral to infringe upon the rights of individuals, in the US, to bear the burden and pick up the slack of those that “won’t” or “can’t”? (the “can’t” needs to be defined clearly – those that are incapable are excluded because they cannot help themselves). Their “morality” is anti-“cans”, anti-“those that can” – all it takes is a “need” or “want” for it to be moral? Misfortune doesn’t give you rights to rewards. It’s moral to take away the things earned by others in order to satisfy a need of someone else? That’s immoral and it also violates the rights granted in the constitution (and its immoral that I must be forced to accept this plan). (Robin hood was wrong because he took things that weren’t his; if he gave from his own possessions, that’s different).

    The ones that can (“the haves”, the successful etc) are not guilty of immorality because they (as long as they earned their success legitimately) do not infringe upon others, they do not ask others to live their lives for them. It seems that you are not allowed to live your own life, as you see fit – somehow you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with being human, polite and generous (from your own initiation) and wanting to fulfill your aspirations and wants, there is nothing immoral about it – somehow, according to proponents, it is. The rights of those that “need” are more important than the rights of those that “can”? No one person is more important than anyone else (perhaps in certain contexts), but not in this instance.

    I am not arguing for preventing health care for anyone, and yes it is unfortunate that more and more are uninsured, but do not force others to bear your responsibility – they, we, you, have enough problems of our own to deal with and we have to live our own life as well. For those that really cannot, no problem – something should be implemented to lend assistance, but for those that “won’t”, I have no sympathy for you in this regard.

  • Few clarifications…

    “For those that really cannot” = medical, physical ailments that hamper the ability to live.

    What happens when people need more medical attention, beyond the “set standard/norm/distributed allotment” (which they have to do) by the government? How can a government agency know what is good enough for every person? They don’t; we, you, I know what is best.

  • Comments are closed.