Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

[Previously posted on the Gang of Four blog...]

In his April 24th article about Democrats “backing off health care promises”, David Sirota makes the same incorrect analysis of socialized medicine that most of the liberal elite makes. Namely, he assumes that America truly supports the leftist vision of government-provided “single-payer” health care.

Here’s the problem for the socialists: Americans, like any other people, love the idea of a free lunch, especially a good one. But once the details of their plans emerge, it turns out that the lunch, rather than a free steak sandwich at a fine restaurant, is more like an old Spam sandwich with a big price tag from a “roach coach”.

There’s a reason that “HillaryCare” never even got a vote in Congress. People…and I (just barely) include politicians in that category…realized that socialized medicine is so obviously not a free lunch that they wouldn’t be able to sneak it by the voters.

Similarly, there’s a reason that California’s recent attempt to create a state-based socialized health care system was killed by Democrats in the legislature. They realized that what is required to implement such a plan is so far from what even economically-illiterate voters would accept that it would be a political disaster for them to move forward.

After all, it’s no accident that Hillary has said she would garnish wages if necessary as part of her plan.

Voters would probably take the Spam sandwich if it were free, but not for more than a good lunch would cost, and that’s the situation with socialized medicine, which offers not better care but rather long lines, rationing, and all the other negatives which make residents of Britain and Canada want to come here for their health care.

Life expectancy following a cancer diagnosis is a particularly telling statistic. Quoting from a National Center for Policy Analysis paper about international care for cancer patients:

Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:
• American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
• American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

Results for Canada. Canada’s system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O’Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:
• For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
• For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

David Sirota and his socialist allies want a “movement” to socialize medicine. Instead, why don’t we just start a movement to increase cancer rates, decrease our access to medicine, force us all to stop exercising, or put any other requirement on Americans which will simultaneously reduce our overall healthiness while expanding the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government? And don’t think for one second that when socialized medicine begins to fail, as it must, that Sirota and friends won’t come back to us, the same way liberals do with public education, saying that it could all be fixed if only we would just accept higher taxes.

No, David, we don’t need a movement to keep us all sick and poor. We need people to learn, even if you and your friends never will, that the best thing government can do for American health care is to let the market function. In particular, we need to be able to buy health insurance across state lines, such as with car insurance. And we need people to be able to opt out of mandates which force up the cost of health insurance. Why should government force me to buy insurance that covers fertility treatments, mental health coverage, or hair transplants if insurance without those coverages would save me money every month?

The liberals’ lamentations about the stagnation of their drive to wreck our health care system shows that while voters may not spend a lot of time thinking about politics, they’re at least aware enough of the damage and cost that socialized medicine would cause that politicians are hesitant to continue down that road to medical serfdom.