People forget that words have specific meanings and that certain ideologies can accrue very real negative consequences; whether intended or not. The health care question is not merely what type of government takeover we want, but how much our government can fake reality. American’s today are so far disconnected from reality that their concept of rights, among other concepts such as medical coverage versus medical care, has been eroded to mean whatever politicians or intellectuals tell them it means.
Ignoring facts has deadly consequences. For example, many American’s are under the impression that other industrialized countries are far superior to America because they all have some form of single-payer government medical care. The idea that a whole country is ‘covered’ for medical services will not alter reality. Medical services are a limited resource and thus it is impossible for every person in a country to have access to their own MRI, CAT, or private doctor twenty-four hours a day. Rationing must take place. The possible choices historically are to either allow the government to ration in any way it sees fit, or to allow prices to ration objectively in a free society. Looking strictly at the practical results it is the latter option which has proven far superior.
In Canada, a country that has a single-payer system, the average time a person might wait from being referred by a general practitioner to actual treatment is over 17.7 weeks according to The Fraser Institute’s annual waiting list survey. Depending on where a Canadian patient resides the time could range anywhere from two to twenty-four weeks simply to receive a diagnosis using machinery such as MRI’s, CT’s or ultrasounds. Britain is no different, worse even. In 2002 the London Observer (3/3/02) published statistics illustrating cancer patients waiting over eight months for treatments, during which time cancer can become incurable. Even taking into account America’s heavily regulated medical industry, it usually only takes a few days to receive diagnosis and begin treatment.
The evidence that socialized medical care systems are deadly can be seen by simple investigations into any countries with socialized medicine. Yet, the country always damned, America, is the one country the entire world depends on for new medications, treatments, technological advances, and more.
Another absurdity often touted is that unchecked capitalism has allowed greedy business people to run up costs on innocent and unsuspecting customers. To believe this idea is to completely divorce oneself from reality. Our government is the single largest spender of medical services in America, totaling nearly half of all spending in the industry. The so-called ‘private’ companies are subject to thousands of federal and state mandates, regulations, oversights and more. To call this capitalism is an absolute abnegation of reality.
A more serious abnegation is American’s vast disconnect with reality in regards to the concept of rights. To believe that someone is born with a right to have unlimited access (or any access) to medical care; is to disregard the fact that medical care doesn’t grow in nature, and that someone will have to provide this service whether they want to or not. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave.
It is claimed that every American has the right to life; after all, it says so in the constitution. Once again, words have specific meanings and to negate the concept of rights is to destroy all of humankind’s progress so far. A right can only pertain to actions. A person has a right to pursue a career in order to make money so they can buy a house or pay for a health insurance plan that fits their needs. They do not have a right to a car, a house, health care, a cell phone, a trip to Fiji or any other such good or service which must be provided at the expense of someone else.
To those who say that many American’s are unable to afford health insurance; look at reality. American’s can most certainly afford medical care. Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? They get it from the American middle class taxpayer. Although, the rich do pay higher taxes, there are vastly more middle class American’s than there are rich ones, and the burden will assuredly fall to the middle. For those truly unable to afford insurance, they must rely solely on other people’s charity. Regarding this concept and its modern negation, consider two points.
First, there can only be a small minority of people who truly can’t afford healthcare in any country considering comprehensive single-payer health care. If a majority couldn’t afford medical care that country couldn’t afford a massive government takeover.
Second, this small minority must rely on private voluntary charity, which is abundant in a free society. In the 1960’s when Medicare and Medicaid were being pushed through congress, liberals did not claim that the elderly were not receiving medical care, because they were. Less fortunate elderly people should not have to rely on charity is what they claimed. Switching the meaning of a word doesn’t change reality. If some people receive a service at no cost to them, and paid for by others, this is charity. It doesn’t matter what name someone gives it. To assume the government taking money from one group of individuals and giving it to another is not forced charity is like saying a college student receiving most of their income from their parents is ‘self-reliant.’
Evading facts of reality doesn’t change anything. To continually push our country down the road of socialism and call this a good solution is to flat out ignore all the countries throughout history that have suffered under socialist ideology. It is time we advocate “change;” let’s try capitalism for once.
No comments:
Post a Comment