The way Hillary is trying to distinguish herself now is by being the more sensible candidate…
Babak Golshahi

The phrase “demand single payer healthcare” is meaningless; or rather, means to many different things to different people. Face it, there is no one who argues against everyone having access to health care, not even the evil, vile Republicans. But those who (so far as I can tell) promote “universal free health care” envision unlimited access to the highest quality health care on demand, and paid for by government.

By that definition, the whole country will quickly go bankrupt. Those who provide the unlimited supply of health care on demand, who develop the innovations to maintain the highest quality, have the reasonable expectation to be paid for it. The hospitals and clinics who invest in the latest technology have the reasonable expectation to be paid for it. The government will pay with money they either have to borrow or tax. Borrowing is a fast way to disaster, so tax money it is. And we can tax every dime the rich earn and not come close to enough. So guess who’ll be taxed….

So here’s the unavoidable problem the socialists never address. Health care has to be limited, rationed in some way to keep it affordable. In Europe, there are long waits for some procedures, and some are made unavailable to the elderly. There are fewer machines of the latest technology per 100,000 people. Doctors work for the government, so their salaries are prescribed, meaning they work standard hours. Limiting payments to hospitals means resources per 1,000 patients are lower. European style “free” health care is not without its problems.

It is basically the tradeoff of supply, demand, resources, quality and cost. Unavoidable. And if we don’t have a thorough airing of the issue and reach a consensus among the people and the providers, we’ll have another one-sided failure like Obamacare.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Rick Fischer’s story.