We’ll probably need a mixture of these approaches to figure out what works. Instead, Republicans decry the technocratic rationing model as “death panels.” Democrats have gone into demagogic overdrive calling premium support ideas “privatization” or “the end of Medicare.”
Let’s be clear about the effect of this mendacity: We’re locking in the nation’s wealth into the Medicare program and closing off any possibility that we might do something significant to reinvigorate the missing fifth. Next time you see a politician demagoguing Medicare, ask this: Should we be using our resources in the manner of a nation in decline or one still committed to stoking the energy of its people and continuing its rise?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=2
"Figure out what works?" Fifty years of failed government health care isn't long enough to figure out it won't work? Of course the politicians are mendacious - that's what they are good at. What a comic approach. This man is glad politicians are gaining control of the payment and distribution of health care, but surprised that their primary tool of their trade is to avoid truth, thus being able to say they are everything to everyone.
Mr. Brooks' closing paragraph is noteworthy. I agree that locking the nation's wealth into a failing Medicare system is an absurdity - if the original idea was "we must do something to ensure that people can still get care while they are old and we can at least pay for some of that via the coercive power of the state", the truth now is we could be spending every penny the government has to throw at the problem and we still won't be able to pay for all the care that could be bought. And yes, the death panels are an inevitability - once we've given the government the power to tax us to pay for our health care, we have also ceded control over how much we get to spend when in decline, and how heroic the efforts will be to save us. When it comes down to keeping the dying alive or healing the young, the bureaucrats will choose the later. It's only logical. It's also soulless and anyone who fights this bureaucratization of health care is fully justified.
Lastly, look at the assumptions in this absurd statement:
"Should we be using our resources in the manner of a nation in decline or one still committed to stoking the energy of its people and continuing its rise?"
Restated: Should we continue to allow the political class to seize the results of our life energy and spend it on their re-election and political legacy, or should we respect property rights thereby allowing the citizenry to benefit from their own ingenuity and labor, and from the undeniable boost in wealth and productivity that results from cooperative trade amongst free men? This author has a serious case of the fatal conceit.
Let’s be clear about the effect of this mendacity: We’re locking in the nation’s wealth into the Medicare program and closing off any possibility that we might do something significant to reinvigorate the missing fifth. Next time you see a politician demagoguing Medicare, ask this: Should we be using our resources in the manner of a nation in decline or one still committed to stoking the energy of its people and continuing its rise?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=2
"Figure out what works?" Fifty years of failed government health care isn't long enough to figure out it won't work? Of course the politicians are mendacious - that's what they are good at. What a comic approach. This man is glad politicians are gaining control of the payment and distribution of health care, but surprised that their primary tool of their trade is to avoid truth, thus being able to say they are everything to everyone.
Mr. Brooks' closing paragraph is noteworthy. I agree that locking the nation's wealth into a failing Medicare system is an absurdity - if the original idea was "we must do something to ensure that people can still get care while they are old and we can at least pay for some of that via the coercive power of the state", the truth now is we could be spending every penny the government has to throw at the problem and we still won't be able to pay for all the care that could be bought. And yes, the death panels are an inevitability - once we've given the government the power to tax us to pay for our health care, we have also ceded control over how much we get to spend when in decline, and how heroic the efforts will be to save us. When it comes down to keeping the dying alive or healing the young, the bureaucrats will choose the later. It's only logical. It's also soulless and anyone who fights this bureaucratization of health care is fully justified.
Lastly, look at the assumptions in this absurd statement:
"Should we be using our resources in the manner of a nation in decline or one still committed to stoking the energy of its people and continuing its rise?"
Restated: Should we continue to allow the political class to seize the results of our life energy and spend it on their re-election and political legacy, or should we respect property rights thereby allowing the citizenry to benefit from their own ingenuity and labor, and from the undeniable boost in wealth and productivity that results from cooperative trade amongst free men? This author has a serious case of the fatal conceit.
No comments:
Post a Comment