| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
The philosophy of single-payer health insurance
First, I think we should all agree that single-payer health insurance is probably the most un-conservative idea that one could possibly imagine and that this is one issue that Republicans should go to the mat and beyond fighting against.
But what I most object to is the philosophy behind single-payer health insurance. It is a philosophy of dependency on government. It is the philosophy of entitlement - that we are all entitled to certain things without having to work for them. It is the philosophy that government should provide citizens with needs, even if they are able to pay for them themselves. It truly is the old-school hard-core central-planning-style socialism.
De Tocqueville was an amazing man. In his book Democracy in America, he wrote (among many other things) about ways that a democratic nation like America might succumb to despotism. It would of course be different than the despotism of a king, emperor or tyrant since a democratic nation has none of these. Instead, he wrote (yes it's long but read the whole thing anyway):
"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.
"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
"Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
The reason why De Tocqueville couldn't come up with a name for this despotism was because it hadn't yet been invented in the early 19th century. He was writing of the despotism of the welfare state. It doesn't crush a person's spirit like a jailhouse tormentor might, but it simply attempts to divert a person's life into a prescribed direction, like a shepherd does for his flock. I don't want government as my sheperd. And that is why I oppose single-payer, and that is why I am a conservative.
P.S. For those of you seeking conservative ideas about health care, see this website and associated book from the Cato Institute.


Comments
Single Payer System Will Destroy The Quality Of Healthcare
We do not have a free market in healthcare now, Free markets did not fail health care, health care was removed from the realm of free markets with the passage of Medicare. The quickest solution to healthcare is:
Open HSA's for all. Private Sector Catastophic insurance for anyone above $ 10,000 in expense in a year. Abolish Medicae, Aboish Medicaid, HSA's for all. with catastophic insurance to cover the balance.
This system will create better quality and lower cost. Name one government program that ever cost what we were told it would cost, just one.
I completely agree
n/t
It's inevitable
American businesses operate at a disadvantage globally due to the lack of a national health care system. That's why the conservative Chamber of Commerce is supporting national health care.
Still...
I've spoken with Aussies and Canadians about their health care system, and neither was developed at the national level, but rather at the state and provincial level. It was proven at the state before it went national. (Residents of British Columbia also have their auto insurance through the government)
My main beef is that it doesn't address the inefficiency in the system. Americans take 1.8 pills to the Brits 1. It's rather in vogue these days to identify a lot of fruity crap as a medical need.
If you've ever read Glasser, you would know that medication beyond six months for depression is not therapuetically viable. Yet so many take Prozac for more than 6 mos, because they're unwilling to make the lifestyles changes necessary.
I don't like the idea of paying for a bunch of fat people to have insulin because they got diabetes due to their weight.
But really, it's inevitable.
I think we should focus more on crafting the plan to prevent abuses, and work at the state level.
It was an unpopular move for Matt Blount, but I really think he did the right thing.
it's not inevitable
American businesses operate at a disadvantage globally due to the lack of a national health care system. That's why the conservative Chamber of Commerce is supporting national health care.
Umm, sort of. They also support it because they want to free-ride on the backs of the government. If they can get government to pick up the tab for their current employee health care expenses, so much the better for them.
Keep your chin up, it's not inevitable. In the 1930's everybody was saying that central planning socialism was inevitable too. It wasn't. We are different. We find unique solutions to important challenges. My hope is that we can stop the stampede for socialized medicine before 2010 and then force the 2010 election to be a referendum on socialized medicine.
But what I most object to is
But what I most object to is the philosophy behind single-payer health insurance. It is a philosophy of dependency on government. It is the philosophy of entitlement - that we are all entitled to certain things without having to work for them. It is the philosophy that government should provide citizens with needs, even if they are able to pay for them themselves. It truly is the old-school hard-core central-planning-style socialism.
revivogen
just like police and fire departments.
meh. single-payer will hopefully remain an option, but not mandatory. good enough for you?
I have just run across what looks like...
...an interesting health care approach website. It is called Code Blue Now, a national, nonpartisan, grassroots, 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to giving the public a voice in shaping a new health care system.
Apparently, their approach was created by a one Dr. R. Vaughan Glover, winner of a contest that was sponsored by Kathleen O'Connor, a Seattle-based health care consultant.
The submissions were adjudicated by a team of nine judges all of whom are senior health care executive and decision-makers and well-versed in health services policy. Entrants included university professors, physicians, lawyers, accountants, retirees and homemakers - all of whom had strong opinions on how to fix the American health care system.
Dr. Glover's submission with its emphasis on putting patients at the centre of the system was deemed the most revolutionary (emphasis mine).
Platform Highlights:
Interesting. As I say, I really don't know too much about these people or this website, but it does seem to me that if we really want to have an effective health care system we ought to have one that places the patient at its center.
If anybody else has any more knowledge about their unique approach to creating affordable health care; I would very much like to read see it.
ex animo
davidfarrar