Nathan Moore's Thoughts
With a Drum Roll…Introducing Socialist Gray Sasser
The son of former Democrat United States Senator Jim Sasser has written a screed of fear, published proudly (one supposes) by the editorial board of The Tennessean
Today, the rising cost of prescription drugs, patient’s bills and the outrage over the way President Bush is playing politics with our kids’ health insurance is reason enough to make health-care coverage a moral issue, and it is certainly cause for outrage.
Some will use the tired scare tactics of “socialized medicine.” Some will rely on their professional background in the health industry to argue that the system is working. Others will echo President Bush and say that no one goes without health insurance here in America because you can just go to an emergency room.
Being a good Democrat, he brings in the kids, and causes a pseudo-moral ruckus. Gray Sasser is apparently reading a different Constitution than the one I have access to - the one lacking the amendment confirming lifelong health care as an absolute right. In addition to a most un-enlightened view of morality, we learn medical “professionals” are to be trusted less than Democrat politicians. His perverse morality demands an exponential growth in government, misrepresents history, and cares not for its effectiveness outside of the expediency of uninformed votes.
So let’s not stop with his murky sense of morality, or his complete lack of respect and knowledge for the United States Constitution (it’s a short, easy read - come on, please). Gray confirms he has no need to counsel history to make his point. For instance
Just as previous Democratic presidents ushered in Medicare to provide health care for the elderly, the Democratic contenders offer leadership on the same moral issue 73 years later.
They are stressing that just as we should expand the SCHIP program, which provides health insurance for more middle-income children across America, expands indigent care in Tennessee and continues to build upon the innovation of the private sector, so should we continue to offer states and employers the tools they need to offer universal health-care coverage so that every citizen gets a real chance to live the American dream.
Has our history curriculum in Tennessee been this awful? Medicare is a Great Society program, proposed by Lyndon Johnson, not Franklin Roosevelt, leaving decades of Sasser’s argument unaccounted for (does The Tennessean even edit these things?). Neither does Sasser note that TennCare is already more generous than any other state’s Medicaid-hybrid system. All minor details, to be sure, but just another example of a modern-day Democrat selling accuracy to the proverbial spiritual blender in favor of cheap political points. Further, if Mr. Sasser cared a lick for private sector innovations, he would wholesale denounce universal health care as a charlatan’s proposition. The free market innovates when separated from the government, not the other way around.
Sasser’s denouement is typical class warfare tripe
Health care is a moral issue for our leaders in Congress and in the White House.
Today, a union worker in Spring Hill, a mother in Clarksville and 47 million more Americans will worry about health insurance. Tomorrow, with a Democrat in the White House, they will not.
Using some rather rudimentary math, I came to note that 253 million people are not worried about health insurance. Or dare I further note that a Democrat in the White House is either unqualified and “stinky” (Barack Obama) or is advocating a Hugo Chavez-esque nationalization of nearly 20% of the economy (Hillary Clinton). There’s nothing like a lack of competition to keep costs down.
You people must be more serious.
Keep costs down by re-connecting the provider and the consumer. Higher co-pays and less coverage for less costly services are the answer, creating the right incentives and keeping serious matters covered. Preventive care is favored. Reprehensible politicians like Sasser will continue to sell the snake oil to buy the votes, until the system collapses, and those paying for it finally opt out.
The Democrats are intent on killing the golden goose. And at times, I fear there are too few of us to stop them from doing so.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
The true free market solution would be to abandon Medicare, and allow health insurance providers to drop elderly patients after a certain amount is spent. Then, instead of spending thousands of dollars to prolong a less valuable life (value denoted by their contributions to the blessed Market) they’ll die naturally as they did back in the good ol’ days in the 1800s.
In Adam Smith’s name we pray.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:21 am
I am simply advocating that a market exist - that consumers and providers are connected in a meaningful way to preserve incentives and maintain competitive pricing. Prices are increasing because there is no check on demand, whether by need or price. A perceived unlimited government purse only exacerbates the problem.
Besides, nowadays there are so many ways to prepare for medical expenses. For instance, tax deductible investments such as health savings accounts, which are the longterm solutions. Knowing what we do, those of us years from retirement age should expect nothing at all from the government to cover us for our failure to adequately plan.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:09 am
Is that really the cause for the higher costs? People going to the doctor because of the sniffles? Or is it people going to the hospital after 20 years of living an unhealthy life, with few if any annual checkups, and expecting the doctors to fix them all at once?
Knowing what we do, those of us years from retirement age should expect nothing at all from the government to cover us for our failure to adequately plan.
Perhaps we shouldn’t, but people will. Being a moral nation, we aren’t going to sit by and say, “sucks to be you,” when poor people (or people who didn’t adequately plan) are dying from treatable diseases or medical conditions. We step in, and that is the whole issue, Health Care does not fit neatly into the market because emotion plays so heavily into the decisions being made.
People will mortgage their lives away to see their spouses and kids survive from treatable, but highly expensive, diseases. In terms of elderly parents, in a cold rational pros/cons world, many would have treatment stopped long before they currently do, as the costs of treatment outweigh the benefits. But do we, as individuals or especially as family members, make decisions based on rationality, or sentimentality?
There is not equal power between supply and demand in the health care market. The demand side is at the mercy of what the doctors tell them because of a general lack of knowledge about the product being offered. Most people, if the doctor tells them to get an MRI just to be on the safe side, will agree even if the costs are high, because failure to do so could result in the death of you or a loved one. There is no guarantee that services rendered will be of any benefit, except for the doctors word.
While there surely are market solutions to some of the health care problems (for instance smaller clinics for lesser problems), to blindly rely solely on Adam Smith’s theories to deal with this problem, is counter to the principles of morality that govern our society along with the principles of capitalism.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“Gray Sasser is apparently reading a different Constitution than the one I have access to - the one lacking the amendment confirming lifelong health care as an absolute right. . .
So let’s not stop with his murky sense of morality, or his complete lack of respect and knowledge for the United States Constitution (it’s a short, easy read - come on, please).”
So, I guess this means you also believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, and that we had a socialist revolution in 1937?