A Stitch in Haste

It would seem that, with the Democrats having won control of both houses of Congress and the 2008 presidential race now in the prenatal stage, the debate over socialized medicine, d/b/a "universal health care," has notched up several prongs on the national agenda. So it will consequently notch up several prongs on my agenda. I have added a new category for the subject and will critique articles, op-eds and blogposts on the subject far more frequently than I have previously.

As prologue, remember always the two key blank-outs ignored by advocates of universal health care:

1. The current "failed" system is entirely a creation of the federal government, through provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that favor employers over employees when it comes to health care benefits. So in essence the health care socialists' argument is, "We must replace a government program with another government program." And this they call being "progressive."

2. Basic economics, indeed basic metaphysics, dictates that scarce resources must be rationed. If the rationing is not achieved by the free market (i.e., by patients, physicians, health care companies and health insurers), then it will be achieved by the government (i.e., by politicians and bureaucrats). Progressives are perfectly entitled to argue that the latter is hunky-dory to them, but they are not entitled to pretend that "universal health care" will somehow eliminate the need to ration scarce resources. The laws of economics are not subject to repeal by any legislature.

And with that, it's time to clean out the aggregator:

ITEM: Libertarians of course reject the premise that "the will of the majority" is sufficient justification to impose universal health care on an unwilling minority. But what exactly is "the will of the majority"?

Although two-thirds of respondents [to a recent nationwide survey] said providing health care for all Americans is more important than holding down taxes, support slipped to 56 percent when a choice between the current employer-based system and a government-run universal health insurance program was presented, even without asking about a consumer-based system.

Support for universal government-provided coverage fell further when the survey suggested the possibility of higher costs or taxes (35 percent), waiting lists (33 percent), limited choice of doctors (28 percent), or loss of coverage for some treatments (18 percent). ABC News' coverage did not call any of these a "significant hurdle" for supporters of universal coverage to overcome. (Source.)

MY TAKE: People have a right to know the full consequences of public policy proposals. And when they are told those full consequences, their views change accordingly. Go figure.

---

ITEM: "Full consequences" such as this...

Newly released patient data show that people who receive their dialysis from a national chain generally fare better than those treated by an independent provider.

But the chains are largely blocked from operating in New York by a state law that effectively bars publicly traded companies from owning health care facilities in the state.

MY TAKE: Remind me again how government control of service providers and the reining in of "greedy" corporations will make the system better? (SIDEBAR: The article points out that diabetes is increasingly responsible for dialysis demand. New York City's response: revoke the civil liberties of diabetics. The universal health care state and the nanny state will be largely indistinguishable under socialized medicine. We are of course seeing it already on several fronts.)

---

ITEM: ...or this —

New Jersey regulators are considering limiting how much doctors can charge insurers for treating people hurt in vehicular accidents - a move some fear might make it hard to get medical care.

The state Department of Banking and Insurance's proposal would restrict how much medical professionals could charge for over 1,000 car-accident-related procedures.

MY TAKE: Price ceilings create shortages. You would think that the health care socialists would want to avoid shortages of emergency health care providers. You'd be wrong. (SIDEBAR: And what if a doctor refuses to accept vehicular accident cases at the government-imposed rate? Revoke her license? Throw her in jail?)

---

ITEM: Think that last item was a state-specific anomaly?

The Federal Trade Commission today announced its decision to challenge the conduct of several organizations representing more than 2,900 independent Chicago-area physicians for agreeing to fix prices and for refusing to deal with certain health plans except on collectively determined terms.
...
The Commission's consent order would prohibit the respondents from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among physicians: (1) to negotiate with payors on any physician's behalf; (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor; (3) to designate the terms upon which any physician deals or is willing to deal with any payors; or (4) not to deal individually with any payor, or to deal with any payor only through any arrangement involving the respondents.

MY TAKE: Keep in mind that this "antitrust violation" was merely a group of private physicians trying to collectively bargain with insurance companies. I thought socialists liked "collective bargaining." Go figure. Or as Skip Oliva summarizes:

Payers may represent thousands of individual consumers and present doctors with a "take it or leave it" contract offer. But if even a handful of doctors get together to present a counter-offer, it's a "per se" antitrust violation.

Explain to me again how universal health care won't end up enslaving physicians (and nurses and dentists and technicians and orderlies and...)?

---

ITEM: But what about Britain's experiment with socialized medicine?

Smokers, people with alcohol problems and the obese could be denied priority treatment on the NHS if they do not try to change their lifestyle.

The Cabinet is discussing the controversial idea as part of a drive by Tony Blair to secure his domestic political legacy by pushing through a final round of public service reforms before he departs next year.
...
Ministers want a "cultural change" in public services so the state can support and encourage people to change their behaviour to improve their life chances and well-being. (Source.)

MY TAKE: Even universal health care must ration. Is nanny-state-inspired "anti-obese" rationing somehow more moral than other forms of rationing?

---

ITEM: But at least Britain's NHS keeps costs down, right?

[P]atients admitted to hospital on a Thursday remain a day longer on average than those admitted on a Sunday.
...
According to the [study], the trend has prevailed for the last five years and suggests that the structures and procedures of the NHS, rather than medical needs, are to blame.
...
"If the NHS was a private company, this sort of thing would not be allowed to go on." (Source.)

MY TAKE: The reason is of course, those "evil" physicians who — gasp! — take weekends off. Have they no shame? And why should they care, since their country's universal health care system is picking up the tab (at least for now)?

---

ITEM: Oh wait, it's not about escalating costs, it's about the uninsured — those poor, helpless, chronically uninsured!

[A] fourth of the 35 million uninsured adults are under 24, and half are under 35.
...
One in five workers with access to employer-subsidized insurance actually decline it.
...
Three-quarters of the uninsured remain so for less than a year.
...
One of every three uninsured live in households with incomes of more than $50,000 a year. One in seven live in households with annual incomes that top $75,000.

Universal health care: A lie inside a fraud wrapped in an ulterior motive...

---

ITEM: ...which of course explains why John Edwards embraces it —

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards says it is more important to invest in universal health care and lifting people out of poverty than to reduce the budget deficit.

MY TAKE: Whatever happened to "we were the party that balanced the budget"? Oh right: they were the minority party when they said that; now they are positioned to control Washington after 2008. To butcher Emerson: A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little politicians.