Friday, June 26, 2009

Ronald Reagan On Socialized Medicine



H/T Bill Whittle of Pajamas Media. Take a look at Bill's video for an up to date look at Ronald's speech and what it means for us today.

3 comments:

John_Ballard said...

Cute.

To date the only purely socialized medicine we have is available in two forms via military service. Those on active duty and their dependents have access to the professional medical services of the various branches. Veterans have access (more or less) to the services of the Veterans Administration.

Of the six or seven actual bills in the pipeline in Washington (one of which has been introduced every year since 1957) only three come even close to what might be called "socialized medicine," and none of them has any chance of serious consideration. Thanks to Washington politics the two or thee plans being considered are insurance company wet dreams. The only remaining challenge to the insurance industry's having its insatiable appetite curbed is what has been a proposed "medicare for all" OPTION.

It has nothing to do with the delivery of medical care but everything to do with how it is paid for. As a government-run INSURANCE plan (like Medicare) it will not be expected to reap enough money to pay dividends to share-holders and (unlike private insurance) will have incentives to reduce the revenue stream.

References to "socialized medicine" are red herrings.

M. Simon said...

If the government puts a gun to your head and forces you to buy insurance it is socialized medicine.

That was the way things were done in Socialist Germany 1933 - 45. It is called corporatism or fascism and is a socialist variant.

The way to deal with the problem is either do nothing or make the USA a national insurance market.

As to an insurance company "wet dream". How exactly could you expect anything different? Government is inherently corrupt. or don't they teach that in schools any more?

M. Simon said...

As a government-run INSURANCE plan (like Medicare) it will not be expected to reap enough money to pay dividends to share-holders and (unlike private insurance) will have incentives to reduce the revenue stream.

Government interested in reducing its revenue stream? I take it you are one of those reality based guys. You have the right reality no doubt. What you have is the wrong planet. You'll have to show me your space ship some time.

What happens here on earth is that if benefits exceed income benefits will be cut or taxes raised. Neither popular. I guess it is better if government has the onus vs insurance companies. After all you can do without insurance. You can't do without government (they wouldn't let you even if you tried).

BTW you touting VA care? You know the one that made veterans pay for the care of their service connected wounds? Or the one whose hospitals are considered shoddy?

What has created the mess we are in is that in the medical field there are too many third party payers.