I find it ironic that the same news sources who just two years ago were reporting on the failures of America's existing system of socialized medicine — that of the United States military — are now the lead cheerleaders trying to force that type of care onto everyone else.
Two years ago, the New York Times was reporting on "poor housing, neglect and a hopelessly complicated bureaucratic maze" at the military's premier hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Now, the editorial board is advocating for the same type of top-down bureaucratic maze to be imposed on every American, claiming "that the great majority of Americans — those with insurance and those without — would benefit from health care reform." Of course, the particular "reform" they're referring to here is not the type that would increase consumer choice and competition and drive down costs. It's the type that would nationalize the industry, lead to the destruction of consumer choice and a deterioration in quality.
In evaluating plans for a national universal health care system, it's odd that so few people are taking the time to examine the performance of the United States' existing system of socialized medicine in order to draw conclusions.
Two years ago, the New York Times was reporting on "poor housing, neglect and a hopelessly complicated bureaucratic maze" at the military's premier hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Now, the editorial board is advocating for the same type of top-down bureaucratic maze to be imposed on every American, claiming "that the great majority of Americans — those with insurance and those without — would benefit from health care reform." Of course, the particular "reform" they're referring to here is not the type that would increase consumer choice and competition and drive down costs. It's the type that would nationalize the industry, lead to the destruction of consumer choice and a deterioration in quality.
In evaluating plans for a national universal health care system, it's odd that so few people are taking the time to examine the performance of the United States' existing system of socialized medicine in order to draw conclusions.
Posts
1 comments:
You are forgetting one thing: who was in charge 2 years ago as opposed to who's now in charge (and whom the NYT will do its level best to keep in charge). When you believe that "government, in the right hands, [is] capable of improving the common good and providing opportunity for all citizens to overcome ignorance and poverty," then that makes all the difference.
Others of us, however, are influenced by the overwhelming historical evidence that increasing the power of government only serves to reduce its effectiveness and increase corruption. Thus, we take such examples of government failure as a warning against increasing the power of government, regardless of who happens to be in power.
Post a Comment