October 28, 2007

The Three Fallacies Of Single Payer Health "Insurance"

I think this really sums the matter up quite nicely, since the Democrats seem to believe that we have enough extra cash around to "insure" the health of every single American and any illegal alien able to sneak across the border.

The first fallacy should be obvious to anyone. The government does not have any extra money! In fact, our government owes $9 trillion, give or take a few billion. That is what we call the national debt, but really, it is not owed by the government; it is owed by you and me. Every time some politician gets another bright idea to give away a million dollars here or $250,000 there, it comes out of your pocket. DonÂ’t just believe me; ask your pocket.

The second fallacy may be more subtle. What is being called “health insurance” by the politicians is nothing of the sort. As we have already established, insurance is a financial gamble where you put money at risk on the chance that you will reap a reward later. Notice the word “risk.” But the only one assuming any risk in the “feel-good” version of insurance being proposed by Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the gang is the American taxpayer. What they are talking about is “free health care,” not insurance. But it is only free for the sick person; instead of them paying for their own care, you and I pay for it.

* * *

Which brings us to the unstated third fallacy of the health-care debate, the one which is pivotal and sadly which is accepted as truth by the vast majority of people. It is this: If there is something that is good for me, I am entitled to it, whether I can afford it or not.

Put more simply:

1) We can't afford it.
2) It is socialism, not insurance.
3) It isn't a right.

Interestingly enough, medical care used to be affordable for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Then the government got involved in paying for it for those who couldn't? The result? Prices went up to the level that health insurance became a necessity for everyone else -- which drove costs still higher. After all, when you have to document every aspirin in triplicate and submit the paperwork to get reimbursed, that pill that costs a penny to buy does start to cost $4 to administer..

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Would it be more expensive than what I am paying for health insurance plus taxes? Because that would be an apples to apples version.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Oct 28 16:07:31 2007 (IU21y)

2 Absolutely -- in terms of overall cost and the ability to make health care decisions free of government control.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Oct 28 21:31:15 2007 (9X4/7)

3 Do you currently make health care decisions free of government control?

Posted by: Dan at Mon Oct 29 00:48:02 2007 (IU21y)

4 We could afford it easier one would say if we weren't flushing money away everyday in Iraq. Health insurance groups have been on the same gravy train all big business has been on for the past 30 years - Democrat or Republican. Romney, Rudy, Hillary, they are all already bought and paid for. We have such a joke of a system.....

Posted by: PeachPit at Mon Oct 29 08:32:57 2007 (m9tb8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
7kb generated in CPU 0.0067, elapsed 0.0146 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0098 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]