Denouncing Dems’ Health Care Plan For All the Wrong Reasons: Kucinich is Still an Idiot
I thought there might be something worthwhile in this Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s denouncement of Pelosi’s (and the Democrats’) “Health Care Sell-Out”. Sadly, every cogent argument he makes is countered by a proportionally retarded proposition.
Cogent argument: Massive bureaucracies avoid paing bills effectively, hospitals are forced to hire their own bureaucracies to “fight insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills“
Retarded proposition: “Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem… They are driving up the cost of health care.”
For every State in the union which an insurer writes paper, there is a State bureaucracy to deal with. Some of these companies have to deal with fifty State-level bureaucracies, each with their own set of rules and regulations and requirements, from the mundane to the absurd. For example [1]:
- 49 states require insurance companies treat alcoholism
- 27 states require insuance companies cover drug addiction
- Minnesota requires insurance companies to cover the cost of hairpieces (i.e., a wig or a toupée)
- 12 states bar insurers from asking AIDS-related questions
Additionally, the pharmaceutical companies are largely at fault for the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, aided and abetted by the Food and Drug Administration’s lengthy and onerous approval process. This is by no means an exhaustive list of what’s wrong with the “system” in the U.S., but I can’t leave out the AMA.
The AMA, the board which certifies doctors and practitioners, sets requirements for medical schools, and determines quota alottments, etc., is a tremendously effective labor cartel, perhaps rivaling the Bar Association for the title of “most powerful labor cartel in the country”. The AMA effecitvely quashes the supply of practitioners, ensuring monopoly rents to those privileged enough to practice medicine, and forcing consumers to pay higher prices for limited access to care.
Cogent argument: America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system.
America does continue to stand out, but not in the manner Kucinich suggests.
Why do thousands of sick and injured people flock to the U.S. each and every year? The “socialized health care” programs in their respective countries have failed them. After their government defaults on its promises to them, they are willing to pay out of their own pockets to get the care they need.
Cancer survival rates in the U.S. are higher than anywhere else in the world. When normalized for differences in sample population the U.S. also boasts the highest life expectancy. And instead of falsifying statistics about infant mortality, callously labeling ultra-low-birthweight babies “unsalvageable” or declaring them miscarried or stillborn, (I’m pointing fingers: Canada, Germany, Austria, Norway…) the evil profit-seekers in America try to save them all despite a mortality rate of 869 per 1,000 live births in the first month of life [2].
Retarded proposition: America is “less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care”.
Idiot. Subsidization does not make an industry competitive. Subsidization is a negative-sum game by which dollars are removed from one industry and channeled into anothery, with rent-seeking and lobbying skimming off the top. If other countries want to tax the bejeesus out of their citizens in order to make their exports more affordable to the rest of the world (including the U.S.) then we should be happy for the windfall in our favor.
Cogent argument: “In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.”
Indeed, HR 3962 is essentially a bailout to big insurance. Any measure which requires (without exception) individuals to purchase a product or service which they don’t want, or can’t afford, or are philosophically or religiously or morally opposed to, is an abomination. It’s not freedom when you don’t have a choice.
But just when I think Kucinich is starting to see the light, he blows me away with cognitive dissonance:
Retarded proposition: America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals
There are no social and economic benefits to any monopoly, whether private or public. It is, as Bastiat said over 160 years ago, “to heap absurdity upon absurdity” [3].
+++
1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Uncertainty and Its Exigencies: The Critical Role of Insurance in the Free Market
2. Meyer, Warren. Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality?
3. Bastiat, Frédéric A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
Possibly related posts:
- Health Care Statistics: Two Big Lies
- “No One Should Die Because They Can’t Afford Health Care”
- Health Care: Rationing vs. Allocation
- Does the NHS Provide Better Health Care?
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
About The Author
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/cvctrcpsgq–He-was-a-retard
David,
I didn’t quite get what you are conveying here:
“If other countries want to tax the bejeesus out of their citizens in order to make their exports more affordable to the rest of the world (including the U.S.) then we should be happy for the windfall in our favor.”
Maybe I’m a bit thick today, but could you rephrase?
He’s saying that other countries use their insanely high taxes to subsidize their industries, effectively allowing them to export their products at a cheaper price.
For example, I am the government of Country X. I tax country X’s citizens, I then use some of that money to pay Country X’s automotive industry money so that they may sell their product cheaper. If the government did not give the automotive industry the tax money (subsidy), they would be forced to sell their product at a much higher price which in turn would probably cause them to fail.
It happens in the U.S. with farming. We pay so “little” at the market b/c the government used tax dollars (technical our money in the first place) to pay the farmers to sell product at a cheaper price.
Thanks Zach. Gilligan, this is basically a variant on the Candle Maker’s petition.
Aside from the vested interests of domestic industry, the only people who really have a right to complain about subsidization are the foreigners who are being forced to subsidize (politically favored) industries in their own country, for the benefit of the rest of the world. Bastiat wrote at length about this sort of thing in Economic Fallacies, if you shoot me an e-mail, I’ll dig up a better quote for you :)
No problem. I’m glad I could provide an intelligent and coherent post every once in a while :)
So, if this is what Ivy League education puts out, I don’t know why people pay so much for it. I’d rather vote to put in a community college economics major. At least they care and understand 1+1=2.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by David Z Ⓐ, InsuranceRateReview. InsuranceRateReview said: no third solution » Blog Archive » Denouncing Dems' Health Care … http://bit.ly/3zoE5J [...]
People! Wake up! Everyone is ignoring the most fundamental question of all.
Where in the Constitution does it provide that the federal government has the authority to regulate health care?
How about Education?
The topic people should really be getting steamed about is an out of control congress overextending its power and might into areas that they have never been delegated authority over. Remember, the federal government only has authority to regulate interstate commerce. i.e. commerce between the states. It has no authority to regulate anything else PERIOD!
Alan, Congress determined for itself (and with the help of some SCOTUS decisions) that anything which has any impact on interstate commerce falls under that umbrella. I’m not saying this is a correct interpretation of the letter of the law, but that’s reality, and most people as you note, are dead asleep.
IMO, the most fundamental question is not whether the constitution has authorized this particular usurpation (or others), but rather, whether the constitution itself is a valid and binding on any man alive today. It’s been years since I believed in that relic.
As Spooner wrote, either the constitution authorizes the government which we now have, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Gentlemen, this, and thousands of other theft schemes perpetrated by the US gov’t is covered under the *general welfare* clause.
DAGS for “constitution+general welfare” and learn how the gov’t has exceeded its bounds in what I would normally say just about every realm, but it continues to shock me everyday.
There really is no other way….this thing has to explode, before things will get better.
Isn’t there some clause that allows for the American people to overturn laws with a 75% vote? Or is that the States or impeachment? I can’t remember and obviously can not come up with the correct keywords to find the answer. Anyone?
I think 75% required for the Senate to override a presidential veto.
…but nothing that I know of that would allow for a purely democratic (i.e., popular) referendum to overturn a federal law.
Notice if you will that there is no built-in tool in that constitution for the ruled to overthrow the rulers unless you want to read between the lines in the 2nd amend.
Similarly there is no penalty in that parchment under glass for politicians that try to circumvent that document.
Essentially what you are dealing with is the same as if you encounter a thug on the street. Individual on individual.
The politician in DC can’t harm you but his hired thugs at the street level will. Thus, you are left with the nasty task of dispatching them when they attack you. There is a very low success rate for this sort of thing so whats left is that you must hide and hiding is difficult.
An airtight box has been constructed all around you and you don’t like that box but what are you to do?
Suggestions?
Thanks folks for the clarification.
David, you don’t have to shoot me the quote as I have been fortunate enough to be somewhat exposed to Bastiat.
My iPod is most boring. I have nothing on it but audiobooks. Human Action, The Law, Bob Lefevre (really. really. good.). Since my commute is an hour, that gives me two hours a day listening. Sometimes I miss my exit. ;)
@Don:
“An airtight box has been constructed all around you and you don’t like that box but what are you to do?
Suggestions?”
You’re familiar with Agorism?
[...] As David was kind enough to point out to me, citing Lysander Spooner:, either the constitution authorizes the government which we now have, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. [...]
A few years ago I listened to pretty much every podcast of LeFevre’s that I could get my hands on. Very good stuff, indeed.
@Gilligan:You’re familiar with Agorism?
Yes, and at least 99.9% of my life is based on that idea though for a long time I never knew it had a name, I thought it was just the way people naturally are/were.
I always knew things *weren’t quite right* in the world, from an early age but it wasn’t until later in life and the advent of the web about 15 years ago or so that I started finding out that I wasn’t alone in my thinking and that indeed things are not right.
All in all I’m pretty much convinced that the state of the world today is not caused by any stylish titles of practices but rather these 3 things, ignorance, greed and worst of all laziness on the part of individuals everywhere. Gov’ts simply amplify all of those things to horrendous levels.
Those 3 things seems to be inherent in a majority of people these days and that is why I don’t see any way out of the current global fiasco’s except total collapse of all systems everywhere.
Quite simply, there are way too many idiots in the world in relationship to those that are not and because of this we will all suffer.
“Quite simply, there are way too many idiots in the world in relationship to those that are not and because of this we will all suffer.”
You’re right. It all started by letting government get into the provision of indoctrination camps – public schools – and deflect us from learning in our arguably most receptive state. After that, we have a mainstream media trolling/shilling for the legitimacy of the State as a booster shot.
I am fortunate enough to be able to send my kids to a Montesorri school where, although better than a public school, I saw them sing the national anthem first thing in the morning and recently doing kids crafts commemorating Remembrance Day. All part of the subjugation process. I was nauseous.
Can you imagine if I tried to launch a cogent discussion with the headmaster as to why I object to the State anthem, stating it is a brainwashing technique to take pride in a sado-masochistic worship and defence of a morally repugnant taxation/inflation pogrom confined to an imaginary political border? Now imagine if I defended it in front of all other parents. The horror! ;) The headmaster would be furiously hitting the security button under her desk.
Collapse is more likely than reform. Agorism is your best defence.
@gilliganscorner….a cogent discussion with the headmaster…
You should be the headmaster.
My wifes journey for the past 20 years exemplified right here: http://www.everythinghomeschooling.com
Take control of your legacy.
Yes, you will make an excellent teacher, though the learning curve to unlearning is sometimes steep but in no way unsurmountable. Learn to learn.