MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘health care’

Rights Versus Wishes – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 11, 2020

Let’s apply this bogus concept of rights to my right to speak and travel freely. In the case of my right to free speech, it might impose obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. It may require newspapers or television stations to allow me to use their property to express my views. My right to travel freely might require that others provide me with resources to purchase airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

When God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment — “Thou shalt not steal” — I am sure that He did not mean, “Thou shalt not steal — unless there is a majority vote in the U.S. Congress.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/walter-e-williams/rights-versus-wishes/

By

Sen. Bernie Sanders said: “I believe that health care is a right of all people.” He’s not alone in that contention. That claim comes from Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives. It is not just a health care right that people claim. There are “rights” to decent housing, decent food, a decent job and prescription drugs. In a free and moral society, do people have these rights? Let’s begin by asking ourselves: What is a right?

In the standard usage of the term, a “right” is something that exists simultaneously among people. In the case of our U.S. Constitutional decree, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness imposes no obligation upon another other than the duty of noninterference.

As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess simultaneously. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.

Sanders’ claim that health care is a right does impose obligations upon others. We see that by recognizing that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy who gives resources to government to pay for medical services. Moreover, the money does not come from congressmen and state legislators reaching into their own pockets to pay for the service. That means that in order for government to provide medical services to someone who cannot afford it, it must use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the earnings of another American to provide that service.

Let’s apply this bogus concept of rights to my right to speak and travel freely. In the case of my right to free speech, it might impose obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. It may require newspapers or television stations to allow me to use their property to express my views. My right to travel freely might require that others provide me with resources to purchase airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. What if I were to demand that others make sacrifices so that I can exercise my free speech and travel rights, I suspect that most Americans would say, “Williams, you have rights to free speech and you have a right to travel freely, but I’m not obligated to pay for them!”

A moral vision of rights does not mean that we should not help our fellow man in need. It means that helping with health care needs to be voluntary (i.e., free market decisions or voluntary donations to charities that provide health care.) The government’s role in health care is to protect this individual right to choose. As Senator Rand Paul was brave enough to say, “The basic assumption that you have a right to get something from somebody else means you have to endorse the concept of theft.”

Statists go further to claim that people have a “right” to housing, to a job, to an education, to an affordable wage. These so-called rights impose burdens on others in the form of involuntary servitude. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, it means that another person does not have a right to something he did earn.

The provision by the U.S. Congress of a so-called right to health care should offend any sense of moral decency. If you’re a Christian or a Jew, you should be against the notion of one American living at the expense of another. When God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment — “Thou shalt not steal” — I am sure that He did not mean, “Thou shalt not steal — unless there is a majority vote in the U.S. Congress.”

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What to watch for in governor’s budget proposal – Erie Times E-Edition Article

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2020

http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=24e52dd54

What to watch for in the (PA) governor’s budget proposal

“It is laboring under an estimated $67 billion debt in its two large public sector pension systems”

The Tom Ridge legacy.

“Persistent cost increases for health care, prisons and pensions can be expected to absorb much of the state’s natural growth in tax revenues.”

We have had a national health department since 1939. We might as well have called it the war on health as cost wise it has had the same result as the wars on drugs, poverty and terrorism. We should expect better after 80 years.

We have the highest per capita prison population on the planet. Manly due to the failed war on drugs filling prisons with non-dangerous offenders. Illegal drug trade has turned Mexico into a disaster.

Education

“Wolf is expected to continue his five-year push to give more money to public schools amid a lawsuit accusing the state of harboring deep inequities in how it funds the poorest public schools.”

It is no secret a major education expense is the skyrocketing administration load which surpasses enrollment rates.

It is time to trash all the “Therian studies and acceptance” programs, safe rooms and the plethora of administrators and get back to being grownups.

The state runs these programs, not grownups, and that is why the hole keeps being dug deeper. The solution will never come from the “state”.

Be seeing you

facebook_1574076533302.jpg

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Should Racists Get Health Care?

Posted by M. C. on December 31, 2019

Political correctness recently took a dangerous turn in the United Kingdom…

The UK is one big dangerous turn.

NHS’s infamous “waiting lists…

Since many people define racism and sexism as “anything I disagree with,” the new policy will no doubt lead to people being denied medical care for statements that most reasonable people would consider unobjectionable.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/december/30/should-racists-get-health-care/

Written by Ron Paul

Political correctness recently took a dangerous turn in the United Kingdom when the North Bristol National Health Service Trust announced that hospital patients who use offensive, racist, or sexist language will cease receiving medical care as soon as it is safe to end their treatment.

The condition that treatment will not be withdrawn until doing so is safe seems to imply that no one will actually suffer from this policy. However, health-care providers have great discretion to determine when it is “safe” to withhold treatment. So, patients could be left with chronic pain or be denied certain procedures that could improve their health but are not necessary to make them “safe.” Patients accused of racism or sexism could also find themselves at the bottom of the NHS’s infamous “waiting lists,” unable to receive treatment until it truly is a matter of life and death.

Since many people define racism and sexism as “anything I disagree with,” the new policy will no doubt lead to people being denied medical care for statements that most reasonable people would consider unobjectionable.

This is not the first time NHS has withheld treatment because of an individual’s behavior. A couple years ago, another local health committee announced it would withhold routine or nonemergency surgeries from smokers and the obese. Since reducing smoking and obesity benefits both individual patients and the health care system as a whole, this policy may appear defensible. But denying or delaying care violates medical ethics and sets a dangerous precedent. If treatment could be denied to smokers and the obese, then it could also be denied to those who engage in promiscuous sex, drive over the speed limit, don’t get the “proper” number of vaccinations for themselves and their children, or have “dangerous” political views.

Government bureaucrats denying care to individuals for arbitrary reasons is the inevitable result of government interference in the health-care market. Government intervention is supposed to ensure quality and affordable (or free) care for all. But, government intervention artificially lowers the costs of health care to patients while increasing costs to providers. As demand rises and supply falls, government imposes rationing to address the shortages and other problems caused by prior government interference.

Rationing has been part of American health care at least since the passage of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Every plan to expand government’s role in health care contains some form of rationing.

Advocates for government intervention in health care will counter complaints about rationing by saying the related health-care decisions are being made to benefit people’s quality of life. But, claiming government officials know how medical treatment can best enhance quality of life is as absurd as claiming that government officials know the correct prices of automobiles.

The only way to reverse the slide into national health care and rationing is for those who understand the economic and moral case for liberty to keep pushing to replace Obamacare and all other government intrusions into health care. Government-controlled health care must be replaced by free-market health care that empowers individuals to determine for themselves what does and does not enhance their quality of life.


Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Be seeing you

Waiting List News and Political Cartoons

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How the Government Ruined U.S. Healthcare and What We Can Do About It

Posted by M. C. on March 23, 2017

http://theantimedia.org/government-ruined-healthcare/

How the Government Ruined U.S. Healthcare — and What We Can Actually Do About It

March 21, 2017 at 3:53 pm

Share

Reddit

+1

Pin

(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) Government’s meddling in the healthcare business has been disastrous from the get-go.

Since 1910, when Republican William Taft gave in to the American Medical Association’s lobbying efforts, most administrations have passed new healthcare regulations. With each new law or set of new regulations, restrictions on the healthcare market went further, until at some point in the 1980s, people began to notice the cost of healthcare had skyrocketed.

This is not an accident. It’s by design.

As regulators allowed special interests to help design policy, everything from medical education to drugs became dominated by virtual monopolies that wouldn’t have otherwise existed if not for government’s notion that intervening in people’s lives is part of their job.

But how did costs go up, and why didn’t this happen overnight?

It wasn’t until 1972 that President Richard Nixon restricted the supply of hospitals by requiring institutions to provide a certificate-of-need.

Just a couple years later, in 1974, the president also strengthened unions for hospital workers by boosting pension protections, which raise the cost for both those who run hospitals and taxpayers in cases of institutions that rely on government subsidies. This move also helped force doctors who once owned and ran their own hospitals to merge into provider monopolies. These, in turn, are often only able to keep their doors open with the help of government subsidies.

This artificial restriction on healthcare access had yet another harsh consequence: overworked doctors.

But they weren’t the first to feel the consequences hit home. As the number of hospitals and clinics became further restricted and the healthcare industry became obsessed with simple compliance, patients were the first to feel abandoned.

According to Business Insider, the average doctor has thousands of patients, and each visit lasts less than 30 minutes. Prior to the government’s slow but absolute control of health care, the doctor listened to the patient — many old timers will confirm — even if they couldn’t afford itFew were turned down. Now, doctors can hardly recall the conversations they have with the people they are supposed to be looking after.

As President Barack Obama pushed further restrictions on the insurance industry by touting his Affordable Care Act as a piece of legislation that would make insurance more affordable — ignoring that insurance isn’t the same as care — the overall cost of coverage also increased over the years. And as a result, a new group of independent healthcare professionals went on to ignite one of the most liberating revolutions in recent U.S. history.

Direct Primary Care: Removing Artificial Restrictions from the Picture

Business Insider chronicles the story behind Dr. Bryan Hill’s practice.

As a pediatrician, Hill spent most of his life dealing with insurance companies. But one day after answering an impromptu house call, he decided he had had enough.

That’s when he learned about primary care clinics. These offices remain open by giving patients memberships in exchange for a monthly fee that covers most of what the average patient requires. As a result, the patient pays the doctor directly, and neither party is forced to navigate the complicated rules imposed by insurance companies.

In September 2016, Hill opened his practice in South Carolina, and he’s not planning on going back. But he’s just one of many. As ACA became increasingly suffocating to patients and providers, many doctors ditched the system altogether while others went into the primary care business.

On average, members of these direct primary care clinics pay as little as $60 per month, with couples paying about $150. Without having to handle heavily regulated middlemen, patients have a clearer picture of how much they spend on their health by being members of such practices. They also enjoy the peace of mind of knowing their doctor.

Studies have already demonstrated that when there is good communication between doctors and patients, treatments are more efficient. This is not simply because doctors are giving patients attention, but also because they are able to tailor a certain treatment to that patient’s lifestyle, health, and activities.

By removing the government entirely from the picture and allowing patients and doctors to once again deal directly with one another, the practice of embracing primary care helps to illustrate the importance of an individual and personalized approach to health care.

For governments and government bureaucrats, everything is dealt with from a collective perspective — after all, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When government gets involved in health care, everything looks like another number, another statistic. But what bureaucrats fail to understand is that they do not possess all the answers. Only a doctor who is paying attention will be better able to help the individual patient — not a few thousand new regulations.

In essence, what this growing movement seems to suggest is that, even if doctors and patients are unaware of the interventionist forces driving the cost of doing business and receiving medical attention, they’re still driven into the open arms of the free market at some point or another. In the end, needs speak louder than ideology

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »