Hitler’s Health Care

Hitler’s health care is an ingenious system where the sick, the poor, the old, the uneducated, and the stupid get handily exterminated under the pretense that they are “covered” for their illnesses, when actually they are being herded into cattle cars before being stripped of their valuables and executed. The strong get stronger and the weak are eliminated. Praise Darwin!

That’s what I think of the current “private” health care system in the United States. It’s corrupt, it’s wasteful, it’s deceitful, and any “conservative” who tries to defend it is a thieving, lying pig.

For a more rational and perceptive account of its problems, here is John J. Reilly:

The United States is now engaged in a great experiment in connection with its health system: how big can the parasite grow before it kills the host? The figure usually given for the fraction of GDP given up to the medical industry is one sixth. Since insurance premiums expand by 10% and 20% in some years, one could extrapolate that the medical industry slice would grow to a third within a decade or so, but that is unlikely to happen. The system will snap long before that.

Remember, these increases are not for essential services, or even for luxuries. They are for nothing. They impinge on the real world chiefly as lost-opportunity costs. They are why the labor markets no longer generate salary increases: any more money available for personnel goes to the medical insurers. That in itself is a lethal impediment to economic growth, because it means consumer demand can no longer rise. Investment money that might otherwise go into productive investment goes to thicken the paper-blizzard or to expand the infrastructure of a diagnostic system that has less and less to do with treatment outcomes. Small businesses cannot start up, and large established enterprises turn into medical-insurance brokers with incidental manufacturing divisions.

This hypertrophy began about the same time as the risk-shift movement in the financial industry, and perhaps there is a deep connection between the two phenomena. Certainly both involved making a great deal of money by expanding worthless vacuums. How the investment banks got away with it is a question that has received some attention in recent months. Regarding the medical industry, I can only repeat what I have previously suggested in this space: for a variety of reasons, medical security is now necessarily a public function, and when a public function is administered by private parties the result is tax farming. Tax farming is always a bad idea.

A great mistake in these discussions is to frame the issue in terms of rights, either of the right to medical care or the right to be free of government interference in medical decisions. It is equally a mistake to frame the question in terms of compassion. Compassion does not have a nickel’s worth to do with it. The issue is what option is most conservative, one that will tend to preserve a system of free labor markets, rational investment, and personal mobility. The answer to that is clearly a single-payor system, paid for by taxes and divorced from the workplace entirely, with market features in the delivery rather than the payor dimension. Like police and fire services, the medical service will become part of the predicate for the market and civil society. This would leave us with an America something like the one we know. The current system will not.

Less ideal systems could suffice, of course. On the scale of acceptability, I do not know where to place the bills currently before Congress. The chief objection to the principal bill in the House is that it leaves too much of the current system intact. It is unclear that the reforms being contemplated would stem the tax-farming tendency to raise costs arbitrarily. Much worse is that it leaves the whole morbid insurance industry in a position to lobby to prevent real reform from occurring.

Historically, tax farmers have tended to be lynched. In the current context, I am sure that that is just a metaphor, but maybe a useful one. The financial industry recently imploded and was in large measure nationalized. Don’t expect the medical insurers to do much better.

Update I:

I gave my manifesto against health insurers here:

Winds of Change

I’m sorry to say it, because I love my paranoid populist buddies, but they are completely wrong-headed in their “anti-communist uprising” against Obama’s health care reform. What exactly are they trying to preserve about the current US system? Is it the 30% payroll deduction subsidy for insurance company executives? Is it the dropped coverage, overworked doctors, increasing premiums, or snarky claims adjusters? Maybe they really want to die from untreated “pre-existing” conditions, just to prove how much they love the insurance industry.

Update II:

For anyone wandering here looking for ways in which the US federal government is like the National Socialist government of Germany from 1933 to 1945:  I think you need to learn what National Socialism is about. National Socialism (“Nazi” ideology) is about the central government protecting and supporting certain privileged groups in society, including the politicians, the political brown-nosers, and the corporations that are essential to the national economy. Meanwhile, the useless, the old, the sick, and the genetically defective are allowed to die for the good of society. Welcome to the US private health insurance system.

There is absolutely no “conservative” or “libertarian” solution to healthcare that does not begin by eliminating all government support and protection for private health insurance. And if it made any difference, I would totally support doing that without having any government-supported insurance at all. None. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no VA, no government employee plans, nothing.

I say, let’s see what happens. And if it fails to make the healthcare providers and the patients wise up and rationalize pricing, well then, too bad. We’ll all learn our lesson and move on.

But I think all you smart-mouthed phony conservatives are too weenie to do it. You love your sugar daddy National Socialist government, as long as the money only goes to people who “deserve” it.

See also:

Hitler’s Health Insurance Plan

Commies at Businessweek?

Hitler’s Capitalist Heroes

25 thoughts on “Hitler’s Health Care

  1. I found the title of this post interesting because I was recently forwarded an email from a conservative family member that called the current proposed reforms Hitleresque for the opposite reasons.

  2. You misunderstand the premise behind the anger of many people. It is not that they necessarily like the current system; it is that they do not want to make it worse. There are very few that would claim that we do not need to fix some things with regard to health insurance and health care (which are 2 distinctly different things).

    Compare the current health insurance system to say, car insurance. When you go buy car insurance, they are not forced to provide payment for routine maintenance, oil changes, tire rotations, etc. They provide coverage when something unforeseen happens that will have significant and immediate economic impact on the customer.

    If we really want to reform health insurance, there are several very easy things that can be done (and all at the state level): tort reform, health insurance regulation reform, and tax reform.

    The 1/6th GDP number thrown around makes things sound terrible, but the problem isn’t a lack of care. When almost 2/3rds of US citizens are considered obese, is it any wonder they spend so much on healthcare? If we switch to a single payer system, are we to then ban all foods that are considered “fattening” and require everyone to exercise daily or lose coverage to keep the costs to the nation down?

    • I agree that health insurance companies should not be forced to pay for health maintenance. The sense of entitlement that people have with regard to health care is astoundingly stupid. Their employers take at least 30% of their paychecks to buy them “peace of mind” because the costs of health care are overinflated. Costs are artificially inflated because there is too much demand, since all the costs are charged to a third party, the insurer. Most of their costs are charged to another third party, the employers. It’s just like that old game of the “company store” that sells you overpriced junk, but you pay for it because it’s the only place to buy.

      Everyone whining about Obamacare is basically lobbying for the health insurance companies and explicitly supporting their “right” to issue fake contracts and extort money indefinitely. On the other hand, anyone promoting the idea of “mandated coverage” is doing the same thing. See, we really DO have a choice: we can be ruled by robots or monkeys!

      Supposedly, the greatest threat to our liberty and the national economy is if a federal plan were made available to all US citizens. The consequence would supposedly be the decimation of the health insurance industry, to perhaps 10% of its current size. As with the investment banks and the mortgage holding companies, I think contraction in this area would be very beneficial. If the destruction of the venal and worthless health insurance industry is the worst nightmare of conservatives, then I say that they are on the wrong side of the issue.

    • I disagree with your demand assessment. Costs cannot be artificially inflated due to “too much demand.” Supply/Demand is what fuels costs. The reason health insurance premiums have risen in some areas (not all, as my personal premiums have gone down 10% over the last 12 years) is due to several problems: bogus malpractice lawsuits forcing doctors and hospitals to pay higher malpractice insurance, malpractice insurance companies settling on many of those bogus cases because it is cheaper than fighting it in court, state regulations requiring health insurance companies to cover things like yearly physicals and routine blood work, and state/federal regulations that make it difficult for insurance companies to offer affordable health insurance to individuals. Combine that with the entitlement mentality (which I do agree with you on). Health insurance is hardly a profitable business, which is why many of them are actually divisions of NPO’s. It is not that we have too much demand for the given supply; the main problem is that the suppliers are not really allowed to give customers what they would really like to have. Ironically, the same entity that is preventing them from doing so, is also trying to “fix” the system.

      You misunderstand the conservative mindset. Conservatives really could care less about the health of any industry; they do not want government running an industry (any industry). To conservatives, the government is a referee there to make sure that everyone playing the game does so under the rules that have been established. It is not there to play the game itself.

      The concern about Obamacare has many sides. First, Obama, himself, has proposed no plan. He has only spoken in generalities. So listening to him speak on this issue is pointless at the moment. The real concern is about provisions in the House bill (HR 3200) which has many problems, not the least of which is the fact that there are entire sections of it that are “to be determined later” (generally, when trying to push a bill to the floor, you kind of want those things fleshed out). The 4 versions of a bill in the Senate are all over the place and not even worth talking about until they come up with a more stable draft.

      There really is no need to rush something like this through without thinking about it. That is how we got things like the PATRIOT Act, TARP, and that massive waste that they pushed as a “stimulus” bill. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right … so take the time to do it right. That said, there is absolutely no reason why any bill other than a budget should be more than 10 pages in length (and that is a very generous number). These 1000+ page bills are ridiculous. Someone should give Congress a lecture on the K.I.S.S.O.F.F. philosophy; it would do the entire country some good.

  3. I agree that Obama’s remarks are meaningless at this point, and that the legislative process should move slower. He is basically trying to mold public opinion while the bills are in the formative stages, so that legislators will be able to make more precise political calculations when the votes come up.

    However, it is a bit hypocritical to attack the current bills on the grounds that they have not been thoroughly read and fleshed out. It is my impression that most bills pass without being thoroughly read by all legislators; in fact, I think the legislators are not always familiar with the sections they themselves sponsor. The difference with these bills is that they will probably concern almost everyone in some way, so suddenly we have demands for direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

    When I refer to “demand,” I don’t mean demand for insurance. Insurance is not a product and should not be a routine service. As with stock derivatives and mortgage-backed derivatives, demand for health insurance is completely elastic and easily faked. Risk insurance of all kinds is always sold entirely on the basis of fear and greed.

    The “demand” I was referring to is that for immediate health care services. Because immediate needs have been conflated with wellness services and complex treatments, the demand for health care appears to be elastic. That is why I think the health care industry needs to be rationalized, so that demand is controlled; but the method is not to use the failed “health management” model for all services. It is important to remove the artificial cost structure imposed by the overinsurance of health care services.

    On this statement, I completely disagree:

    You misunderstand the conservative mindset. Conservatives really could care less about the health of any industry; they do not want government running an industry (any industry).

    For any industry or interest group that a politician deems worthy, that politician will do their best to let the representatives write their own regulations and to ensure perpetual subsidies for them. (Here I carefully avoid any suggestion of bribery or quid pro quo; it is simply a matter of preference, regardless of motivation. Also, it applies equally well to all types of politicians.) To suggest that the health insurance industry is not being protected here would be really ignorant; just look at how the S&P Managed Health Care index changes with every nuance of the public discussion.

    • Attacking a bill that certain politicians are trying to push to the floor (despite being incomplete) is hardly hypocritical; in fact, it is highly responsible. The parts of the bill that are wrong, should be discussed, and the parts that are vague, incomplete, or even empty, should be pointed out. Since Congress in intent on using the “general welfare” phrase in the Constitution’s introduction as a justification for enumerating more and more powers, it is not only within the people’s rights to question their representatives, it is their civic responsibility.

      Now that I see what you meant with your demand statement, I agree with your assessment; but I disagree with the approach to fixing it. To put it in terms of another industry (for comparison purposes), it would be like trying to control the soda demand by saying that everyone is allocated 2 liters of soda a day. That is a highly inefficient way to control demand (as much at is it is pointless to try). A much better way is to allow the natural economic impact of supply/demand settle to its equilibrium price. That is, if you allow everyone to make their own decisions about what care they want/need and pay for it themselves (instead of having a 3rd party pay for it, which inflates the demand by discouraging proper decision making), they suffer the consequences of their actions and (hopefully) make better decisions in the future.

      The statement I made about conservatives was deliberately not talking about politicians (as there are very few politicians in DC that are even remotely “conservative” by definition). I was talking about the people that are going to these town hall meetings and questioning their representatives (note: not the ones yelling or picking fights … those people tend to be radicals that are looking to cause chaos).

      On a side note, your comment about direct vs representative democracy reminds me why we need to repeal the 17th Amendment … we have lost the state’s representation in the federal government due to that amendment. And if we don’t reverse the 2 Supreme Court rulings regarding Social Security in 1937 (that opened the door for these “general welfare” programs) soon, we’ll end up in a spiraling cycle of politicians in office that do nothing but promise groups A and B ice cream at the expense of groups C and D.

      “When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” (attributed to Ben Franklin)

  4. I meant that it is hypocritical to attack the bills at this point in the process as being somehow flawed, as if it were not normal for them to have large unread or ambiguous parts at this point. I think all bills should be dissected in public before they are voted on, but it only seems to happen when politicians are in fear of losing their jobs.

    I don’t want health care demand to be controlled by allocation. It should be controlled according to its economic characteristics. Immediate needs, complex treatments, and nonessential services are all distinct, and cannot all be treated as luxury goods being purchased by highly educated, perfectly healthy, objectively informed consumers with upper middle incomes. Yet, these are the basic assumptions of every “conservative” plan. I say, just acknowledge the realities of the situation and move on with policymaking, instead of clinging to fantasies about perfect consumers in a perfect marketplace.

    • Ideally, serving in Congress would not be viewed as a “job” but as a service (as it was intended to be). If we ever got back to that point, we wouldn’t see people in Congress for 20+ years (nor getting insane salaries, benefits, and pensions). I’d favor a simple term limit amendment to solve just that problem … but I digress.

      The problem is the only thing government can control is allocation. It does not have the resources to manage in the way you describe (no entity does). By assuming people are idiots that cannot think for themselves and make their own decisions, you contradict the very premise of a free society. In order to remain free, you must allow citizens to make their own decisions regarding their lives and let them suffer the consequences. When you attempt to remove the freedom to fail, you also remove the freedom to succeed and the incentive to try. The fundamental contradiction with the Progressive mindset is that assumes most people are idiots and need a nanny to live in a free society. The problem arises that, with the nanny, you are no longer in a free society.

      In terms of healthcare, that becomes especially dangerous for a very simple reason: rationing. Lets face it, Obama’s goal of paying for a single payer system by cutting out the inefficient parts of the insurance industry and medicare/medicaid is a pie-in-the-sky goal. No government agency runs efficiently, and even by improving those systems, it would not cover the amount needed to run this type of program. Given that you don’t save any money on the healthy, the only way you will save money is by cutting out expenses on those that need treatments. This is where the attempt to control demand by way of government intervention will lead (and it has every time a government has tried this type of program).

  5. I think that the governments need to control demand by regulating health care providers rather than by managing health care themselves, and by removing all tax incentives for health insurance.

    With regard to immediate needs, the assumption is that people can decide for themselves. They should also pay for it out of pocket, without any form of insurance, private or public. However, it needs to be provided on a realistic cost basis, without using it to subsidize other services and without protecting anyone such as drug companies. If this market is regulated so that there is no profit incentive and costs are determined by the consumer’s willingness to pay for “stripped down” service, I believe it will be rationalized. This market is already partially served by a charity sector, and that should also be encouraged to continue. Mutual aid societies and service bartering should also be allowed.

    With regard to complex treatments, most people should be treated as idiots. They don’t need a nanny; they need a medical degree and two years of internship. The experts are licensed medical professionals who should be in business for themselves. The government’s job is to license them, not manage them. To the extent the LMPs fail to serve the market, patient advocates will step in, as they currently are in some cities. Public or private health insurers should play the role of financial counselors in adjunct to the LMPs, and have no decision-making role whatsoever. All insurance should be strictly actuarial in its basis, without any phony “group cost” assessment. Anything that cannot be financed or insured can be thrown out to the charity market for philanthropic consideration.

    Regarding anything that LMPs don’t want to stake their reputations on, let the people do whatever they want. As far as I’m concerned, they can die by the thousands choosing to use untested recreational drugs. No one should regulate the market for crazy, dangerous, nonessential health care services, except to ensure the full disclosure of whatever is known about them.

    “Rationing” is a meaningless buzzword. Rather than use it, why not just talk about cost reduction, policy recision, and claims denial, the way the insurance companies do? The reason is because we expect a private health insurance company to let someone die in order to save the bottom line, but we get offended at the thought of a federal bureaucrat letting someone die in order to save tax money.

    • Government already regulates health care providers (and insurance companies) – and it is the way it regulates those industries that is a large part of the current problem. The tax incentives are there to encourage employers to provide it for their employees. While I disagree with the employer-based system, until you change it to an individual-based system removing them will only increase that number of “uninsured” that members of Congress love to throw around.

      The problem with forcibly removing the profit incentive (which essentially is forcing charity) is just that: it is forced. Charity, by definition, is given. When it is forced, it ceases to exist, and society suffers for it.

      You’re 3rd paragraph almost makes you sound libertarian :)

      Rationing is not a meaningless buzzword. When an insurance company refuses a claim, you can change insurance. When there are no insurance companies and, instead, the government denies your claim, you have no recourse. You want to save tax money? Don’t have the bureacrat to begin with.

  6. Pingback: Rationing Common Sense « Brainbiter

  7. Removing the profit incentive from the basic care sector eliminates the effectiveness of the currently popular bait-and-switch tactic for selling insurance, in which everyone “needs” it to pay for regular doctor visits and prescriptions, but 90% of their premiums are really just used to subsidize the complex treatment claims of others. Instead, healthy people should be buying low-cost catastrophic illness plans with those premiums and paying doctors directly for basic care.

    It isn’t “forced charity,” because it isn’t charity at all. All of the medical providers’ costs are recovered, including salaries. We have a clinic like that in my city and it gets by just fine with LPNs providing basic care at cost to people without insurance. If someone can’t pay, then they can apply for charity, but that isn’t written into the business plan.

    “When an insurance company refuses a claim, you can change insurance.”

    No, I can’t, because it would then be a pre-existing condition, and thus not eligible for coverage.

    Employer-paid health insurance is a price-fixing scheme for the labor market and the health insurance market together. If it were eliminated overnight, you would suddenly see the cost of premiums drop as insurers were forced to compete in an open market for consumers who could make real choices with their money. Since most people would not buy insurance at all, they would have to compete on price. Hopefully, they would get out of the “health maintenance” market entirely, and then doctors would also have to compete on price.

    I want all my compensation in cash, instead of getting a bogus “total compensation” statement every year. Any health care reform short of that is just propping up a wasteful bureaucracy that perpetuates irresponsibility in patients.

    And no, I don’t want to save tax money, because I don’t make enough money to pay federal income tax. I just wanted to point out this discrepancy: Private health insurance shills are perfectly willing to let my employer waste $1000 a month in premiums for 20 years and then have my claim for treatment denied by a corporate bureaucrat after I am diagnosed, at which point, of course, I cannot get coverage from anyone else because it is now a pre-existing condition. Meanwhile, I will never get that so-called compensation back and the insurance company can walk away with all their money and let me die. Yet, these same “fiscal conservatives” are intensely angry at the thought that a federal bureaucrat would deny a claim just to save their tax money. It is pure hypocrisy, and that is why it is meaningless to complain about “rationing.”

    • Regarding your first paragraph, take a look at Singapore’s system. While parts of their system would never work effectively in the US, one part that would is eliminating insurance companies from paying for routine doctor visits. There system doesn’t remove the profit incentive, but people pay for their own visits. The problem I have with forcibly eliminating the profit incentive (which, essentially forces the cost of the service to the equilibrium price) is that it causes the supply curve to shift without the associated shift in price. In other words, you will have less people willing to go to medical school if they know that after paying a couple hundred thousand dollars for schooling, they will essentially be making the same amount as someone who spent less than 5% for their schooling.

      As a example, lets say a garbage man makes $85k a year and (without a profit incentive) a doctor will make the same amount. How many people are going to try to become doctors when they can make the same amount picking up garbage?

      There are companies that cover existing conditions. Hence, you are still able to switch. It does, however, take some research to find one in your area.

      I’m completely agree with your thoughts on the employer-based system. I dislike it completely. However, you have to look at why it exists before you can hope to make it better. The federal government set it up via tax incentives. If you want to get rid of it, you have to do 2 things: get rid of the tax incentives and allow for a better system to take root. A competitive market-place would fix our problems in short order, but a single payer system is the antithesis of that.

      As I’ve bought the federal government a car each of the last 4 years, I do want to save taxpayer money. Insurance, by definition, is money you give to someone else in hopes of never needing to use it. You can negotiate a better contract with insurance companies (something many people fail to realize) and create a plan that matches exactly what you described in the first paragraph. You just have to put in the legwork to get it done.

      Again, you miss the point about why rationing in a single (government run) payer system is a problem compared to private companies denying a claim. It is the matter of recourse. If a private company denies your claim (and assuming you cannot find another company to help you out), you can sue for breach of contract. There are lawyers that specialize in that. If the government denies your claim, you are out of luck. There is nowhere to go as you can only sue the federal government if it lets you do so.

  8. It is irresponsible to encourage consumers to rely on the judicial system to correct the unethical behavior of insurance companies, when they are negotiating their contracts in bad faith. The insurance system is corrupt and should be eliminated. If that means a little bit of the open market for health care, so be it.

    • Irresponsible? That is the purpose of civil court. How is it irresponsible to handle contract disputes in the entity that exists for that purpose?

  9. It’s irresponsible to promote litigation rather than improving regulations, and the current state regulations are no longer adequate. There is a reason why most insurance policyholders cannot sue in state civil courts: because most large companies now are self-insured, and their insurance plans are exempt from state regulations.

    Insurance executives virtually admitted to Congress that they deliberately make contracts in bad faith, when they stated that they would not support any constraints on refusing to cover pre-existing conditions or on canceling policies without cause. Their profit margin relies on deceptive practices and subsidies from employers.

    The federal government needs to stop propping them up, because in a truly free market they would fail. If you give employees all the money they earn, most of them would not buy the ridiculous insurance policies that they now get through their employers. The phony “groups” would fall apart and insurers would be forced to compete. That is the worst nightmare of these so-called capitalists, and that is why any Republican plan will restrict competition instead of promoting it.

    • I never said we shouldn’t improve regulations; in fact, that is what I do promote (more on that in a minute). However, ALL policy holders can sue their insurance company and if an insurance company is operating within a state, they must follow that state’s regulations.

      Part of the problem (and one of the few parts the federal government should be involved in fixing) is that insurance cannot be carried across state lines unless that insurance company also operates in the other state as well.

      You are completely misinformed about how insurance companies work and I encourage you to investigate it further. That said, when any company makes a contract in bad faith, they can be sued and lose lots of money. Contracts cannot prevent you from suing the other party (they can introduce arbitration first, and even state which state they can be sued it, but in the end, you can still file the lawsuit). There are insurance companies that offer to cover pre-existing conditions (though, they tend to be more expensive for obvious reasons). The ability to cancel a policy without cause depends on a given state’s laws and the contract itself.

      The federal government needs to stop holding up all private companies (GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc). If you gave all employees the money they earned, most of them wouldn’t contribute to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid either. So, I agree … get rid of programs that people don’t want (and really aren’t Constitutional anyway).

      You do not increase competition by greating government programs. The government cannot operate like a business while making the rules at the same time (that’s called conflict of interest). It is like a game where a single player is not only playing the game, but writing and interpreting the rules as well. The other players have the deck stacked against them so much that they simply will stop playing.

      I have yet to see a viable plan from any Republicans as right now they are pretty focused on preventing the current Democratic proposals from gaining speed. However, the Democrats’ proposals would not encourage competition, it would eliminate it and at the same time, put our country in a very sticky position where the federal government can pretty much tell everyone how to live their lives under the guise of it being for the “general welfare”.

      A good reform bill (at the federal level) would do a couple things:
      - Remove tax incentives for employer-provided health insurance (removing the income tax altogether would do this as well)
      - Allow insurance to be carried across state lines. (If I buy a policy in VA and then move to NC, I shouldn’t have to change policies/companies to retain coverage)

      Then it would be up to the states to fix what’s left how they see fit:
      - Fix Tort law (Prevent bogus lawsuits from being filed by forcing the plaintiff to pay the defendant the amount the plaintiff asked for in the lawsuit and the defendant’s legal expenses should the plaintiff lose – subject to appeals of course)
      - Allow for catastophic-only policies
      - Adjust state tax laws to remove tax incentives for employer-provided health insurance
      - Remove laws that essentially require hospitals to obtain a permit from the state in order to operate. That is, if someone wants to open a hospital across the street from one that already exists, more power to them.

  10. No, you are wrong about how state regulations apply to self-insured plans. I work with a patient advocacy group, and many people I have known under self-insured plans had no recourse with state regulators or courts.

    Any short-term insurance scheme is a scam, basically, and can’t make money honestly.

    I agree with all your proposals. I don’t think any of them will be included in legislation. Of course, neither will mine or Ron Paul’s.

    • When those people have no recourse under state courts (which I cannot find any evidence of in VA, but each state would be different), they should challenge the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (which is what allowed the self-insured setup to begin with).

      I completely agree that insurance is nothing but a scam. One of the many reasons I loathe the fact that almost all states require citizens to carry car insurance. Requiring them to carry medical insurance would be just as harmful, if not moreso. Insurance in any form is little more than a legal Ponzi Scheme, but at least they are somewhat honest about its structure (in comparison to say, Berny Madolf).

      Personally I think its time we throw out virtually every member of Congress and vote in fresh minds that are willing to consider the kind of ideas that Ron Paul and Jim DeMint have been pushing for years.

  11. Pingback: Myths About the Health Care Debate « Brainbiter

  12. Dave Dave Dave:

    What’s it like to be young and ignorant of the things you speak about?

    Every problem you speak of has its roots in government interference of a potential free market. And your solution, let the government run it all!


    • Indeed. Let us remove all government subsidies and support for health insurance companies. No more tax breaks for employer-funded insurance. Let every health insurer self-destruct under the weight of its own corruption. Eliminate all Medicare and VA plans as well. All the sick workers will die off, and only the strongest will be left to serve you your tacos and cut your lawn.

      I think you need to learn what National Socialism is about. National Socialism (“Nazi” ideology) is about the central government protecting and supporting certain privileged groups in society, including the politicians, the political brown-nosers, and the corporations that are essential to the national economy. Meanwhile, the useless, the old, the sick, and the genetically defective are allowed to die for the good of society. Welcome to the US private health insurance system.

      There is absolutely no “conservative” or “libertarian” solution to healthcare that does not begin by eliminating all government support and protection for private health insurance. And if it made any difference, I would totally support doing that without having any government-supported insurance at all. None. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no VA, no government employee plans, nothing.

      I say, let’s see what happens. And if it fails to make the healthcare providers and the patients wise up and rationalize pricing, well then, too bad. We’ll all learn our lesson and move on.

      But I think all you smart-mouthed phony conservatives are too weenie to do it. You love your sugar daddy National Socialist government, as long as the money only goes to people who “deserve” it.

Instigate some pointless rambling

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s