I would summarize the ideals of Democrats (socialists) as follows:
- There are unequal life outcomes in society
- Those who have little wealth are the victims of those who produce wealth
- We (democrats) must transfer wealth until everyone’s life outcomes are equal, regardless of their life choices
- We (democrats) must use government coercion to achieve this equality
- Since we (democrats) are so morally superior, we are not obligated to transfer our own wealth to anyone
Consider health care. Some risky lifestyle choices are more likely to require more health care services. The socialist’s goal is to make sure that no one is deterred from making these risky choices. Those who do not engage in these risks must be forced to pay for the health care of those who do choose to take on these risks. That way, everyone is equal in the end.
The way this is done is to make sure that people who don’t engage in risky behaviors cannot pay less for their health care than those who do engage in risky behaviors. Let me explain.
Suppose a safe person S knows that he only needs coverage for catastrophic care, since his lifestyle choices eliminate the need for elective treatments like abortions, birth control, STD medications, sex changes and drug addiction treatments. He can be covered for a very low premium.
Consider another irresponsible, risky person R who is engaged in all kinds of risky behavior. He can be covered for all of the medical services for a very high premium. His own choices expose him to risks that will require more medical services.
Democrats (socialists), solve this problem by forcing S to pay for mandatory health care with a very high premium that covers services he will never use. That way, he is really paying for his own health care, and R’s health care, too.
Take a look at this article I found on Health Care BS. In the article, they cite Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, who analyzes the health care policies that may be included in the Democrats’ health care reform bill.
This is the one I want to draw your attention to, because this is what single-payer countries like Canada have that causes them so many problems:
An Individual Mandate. Every American will be required to buy an insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even individuals who are currently insured — and happy with their insurance — will have to switch to insurance that meets the government’s definition of acceptable insurance, even if that insurance is more expensive or contains benefits that they do not want or need.
And here is another one that will force employers to lay off American workers because employers have to pay more for the same productivity.
An Employer Mandate. At a time of rising unemployment, the government will raise the cost of hiring workers by requiring all employers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize government coverage.
Yes, that’s right. Socialism attacks businesses. Attacking businesses causes unemployment.
And there’s more:
A Government-Run Plan, competing with private insurance. Because such a plan is subsidized by taxpayers, it will have an unfair advantage, allowing it to squeeze out private insurance. In addition, because government insurance plans traditionally under-reimburse providers, such costs are shifted to private insurance plans, driving up their premiums and making them even less competitive. The actuarial firm Lewin Associates estimates that, depending on how premiums, benefits, reimbursement rates, and subsidies were structured, as many as 118.5 million would shift from private to public coverage. That would mean a nearly 60 percent reduction in the number of Americans with private insurance. It is unlikely that any significant private insurance market could continue to exist under such circumstances, putting us on the road to a single-payer system.
When government controls your health care, you pay them at gunpoint and when you want care you get in line behind people who paid nothing into the system. That is socialized medicine, the dream of all Democratic socialists.
And there’s also redistribution of wealth:
Massive New Subsidies. This includes not just subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance, but expansions of government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
And remember what I said about the government needing to reducing costs when demand skyrockets for “free” care?
Government Playing Doctor. Democrats agree that one goal of their reform plan is to push for “less use of aggressive treatments that raise costs but do not result in better outcomes.” While no mechanism has yet been spelled out, it seems likely that the plan will use government-sponsored comparative effectiveness research to impose cost-effectiveness guidelines on medical care, initially in government programs, but eventually extending such restrictions to private insurance.
This is all caused by the good intentions of people who have no knowledge of economics, whatsoever. And it is important to note that it is this kind of naive, incompetent meddling in the free-market that leads to poverty and the loss of all of our liberties.
Here are some previous links that are relevant:
- Senator Jim Demint introduces a bill to prevent the Democrats from restricting choice in health care
- Democrats block Senator Tom Coburn’s amendment to defend the conscience rights of medical professionals
- An analysis of good health care policies in Ireland, and bad ones in the UK
- Massachusetts state-run health care costs are spiraling out of control
- Economist Walter Williams evaluates Sweden’s health care system
- The provision in Porkulus-1 that gave Washington control of your health care decisions
- The anti-science funding of useless ESCR instead of useful ASCR to appease pro-abortion special interests
- A damning assessment, with video clips, of Canada’s single-payer socialized medicine system