Furthest Right

Repeal, Not Replace, Obamacare

The healthcare debate has entirely been dominated by the Leftist urge to install some kind of subsidy, which is disguised as “insurance” but really, is a way to make those with decent incomes pay more to subsidize the rest, in defiance of Darwin and common sense, which points out that such a system will naturally be abused and abusive. Breitbart reports:

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), and a specialist in internal medicine, tells Breitbart News if people pay for their own routine health care, costs for that care would come down. She recommends “insurance” for catastrophic care only.

“‘Insurance’ (third-party payment) costs way too much, as does medical care, and one cost spiral enables the other,” she explains. “We need to get the middleman out of medical care, restore true insurance, and insist on honest price signals. The right ways to buy medical care are cash, catastrophic insurance, and charity. We need to stop the legal plunder.”

The Left knows one rule: we all must be equal so that I — the individual Leftist — am guaranteed a seat at the table. Most of them are not bad people, and so are not uncaring about the results of their actions so much as oblivious to them; this is a prole trait, and it is why sensible histories refer to Leftism as prole revolt. Their leaders are canny sociopaths.

When it comes to healthcare, therefore, the Leftist is interested only in those plans which provide guaranteed care for everyone so that he will be included. For this reason, when Leftists mention healthcare what they mean is “health insurance,” because insurance — like unions, welfare and social benefits — is de facto socialism, transferring wealth from the owners to the group of all members in society.

The problem with this is the problem with socialism, equality and democracy themselves: focus on quantity reduces quality, meaning that everyone gets the same thing but it is terrible, and therefore results are bad for all. Focus on quality establishes a minimum and then gradually improves it by rewarding those who can rise above it, but focus on quantity establishes a maximum and then downgrades it in order to compensate for the inevitable result of people staying below that maximum because it is a limit, and not an affirmative goal, such as rising above a minimum.

If we want quality healthcare, the right way to do it is to remove barriers to the feedback loop between doctor and patient. That is: patients react to how well a doctor provides care, which means that better doctors are paid more because they are more in demand. That in turn forces worse doctors to lower their costs, eventually driving them out of the market.

Health insurance — designed by fiendish morons — provides a barrier in there by removing the choice of care provider to a higher level, which like a union subsidizes the worst of the doctors by giving them a guaranteed income. It is administered by bureaucrats, who tend to be obese and dumb or spindly and weak, and they derive a great rush from “beating” other people by telling them “no.”

As usual, equality is the opposite of quality. Obamacare gave up to four million people healthcare, which is fortunate because the way the law impacted the market, only the truly destitute benefit from Obamacare, while the middle class bled for it. There is no fixing this type of law. The only solution is to remove it, and any other regulations we can, to get back to sanity.

Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn