Scan the history of government programs. The scope and costs usually grow much larger than originally projected.
Moreover, ham-fisted government intervention distorts markets, causing shortages or excesses of supply, leading to high prices for goods that should be cheap, and so on.
When the problems pile up one can either repeal the controls or heap on more controls.
Guess which “solution” politicians tend to prefer.
Regarding medical care, the politicians’ answer to decades of government bungling is more bungling: regulation, subsidies, rationing, mandates and a new “public option” in health insurance to squeeze out private plans.
President Obama and other public option advocates promise, on stacks of Bibles, that this is not “somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”
But they’re lying. Go to YouTube. Watch the videos of Obama and congressmen explicitly admitting their goal of a single-payer system. Just two years ago, Obama was saying, “But I don’t think we’re gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s gonna be potentially some transition process.…”
That’s how we lose our freedoms. Not all at once, but a slice at a time.
Oh, and about employer-provided medical insurance. That’s a clumsy institution that exists because of World War II wage controls. We do have to transition out of that system. But we should “transition” towards more freedom, not less.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
6 replies on “The Big “Single-Payer” Lie”
[…] The Big “Single-Payer” Lie […]
I’m not a supporter of the single-payer system. Competition works. Having said that, Paul, you are tilting at non-existent windmills, debating the Obama that apparently exists in your head. Single-payer is off the table, as you well know. It would never pass and we liberals all know it. It’s a fear-monger fantasy that exists only in conservative heads.
Here’s your logical fallacy: “If one measure is taken, more must necessarily be taken.” My boss wants me to move from Tampa to Cincinnati. I must then necessarily conclude that he’ll tell me to move to the North Pole? Logic, Paul, logic.
Public Option. That’s OPTION. The other options remain. Like ’em? Keep ’em, and God help you.
It doesn’t require any stretch to see the Public Option leading to a single-payer system. Since it is subsidized by taxpayers and not subject to the same market forces private insurance faces, private insurance could be effectively squeezed out of such a perverted market. That would leave only one, single payer … the federal government.
Why must comments by libs like LM be so condescending. Conservatives and their perspective are not stupid. There is plenty of history and substantive discussion to support the expectancy of another ever-growing government program.
Responses like his discourage useful consideration of proplems and possible solutions.
Marv is on the money.
These topics are so confusing but this hleepd me get the job done.