Charlie Smith at Of Two Minds weighs in on the health sick-care reform boondoggle.

There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for health-care.

Be sure and check out the very interesting graphic of costs associated with giving birth at Santa Monica hospital ca. 1952.

Would returning to the days of old be regressive? Would quality of care plummet? Would the cost put the health of people living from paycheck to paycheck at risk?

The answer to each question has to be an emphatic No.

Has care gotten better since 1952? Only marginally. People are still getting sick and dying.

Quality of care will actually improve. After all, nearly all the money paid for treatment goes to insurance companies… which goes to cover inflated values of costs, and handsomely reward executives with exorbitant compensation.  After all the execs didn’t get into health-care to help people, rather it is to help themselves. Put the money where it counts, in actual care for the patient.

The free market will actually drive the cost of health-care down so that everyone would be able to actually afford it. Even people like me who are uninsured (my choice). They would also be forced to answer that wake-up call that they are responsible for their own health and not the fatherhomeland, and better quit smoking/overeating/drinking/drug usage/texting while driving.

Debate as it is purposely being framed isn’t about health care it is about health insurance
The entire health-care debate underway is completely slanted in maintaining the status quo. It isn’t about how to best maintain and support good health of our fellow man and child; it is centered on how best to compensate the middle man, i.e. the insurers and big pharma, and inflate the cost of care to guarantee big bonuses, while still having the ultimate say on quality of care you should recieve- and the healthinsco still reserves the right to refuse you any time it is deemed too costly.

It makes perfect sense to let the free market set the level of each individuals cost of care, not bureaucrats, not parties where profit motive is their primary (only) interest.

Not only would this idea of a cash-based system be the tonic necessary to eliminate fraud and waste, but the quality of care would actually rise.

But of course, rational ideas such as this are immediately shut out of the “debate” because so many special interests have their hands in the pie. They prefer to install a system that helps them to rip-off Americans, where the state and crony accomplices want to keep you alive as long as possible to squeeze the last dollar out of your cold dead hands.

[Of Two Minds]


Ilargi comments:

The difference between US and Western European health care lies exclusively in the political power acquired by corporate industries, in this case -mainly- a combination of drug manufacturers (closely linked to the chemical industry) and insurance companies (which are in turn closely linked to Wall Street banks). The US needs to fabricate its own system because it needs to satisfy the perverted influence industry has on not just health care itself, but also on the political process.


***UPDATE***4:11 PM 8/5/2009

Healthcare “Reform”: Cui Bono–To Whose Benefit?

[Of Two Minds]

“It will be many years before the masses discover just how completely they have been fleeced by the power elite.” -Richard Smith


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: