no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

ObamaCare is National Socialism

June 24th, 2009

For the record: I can’t wait until the lustre of the Obama Miracle Machine begins to fade, when people wake up and realize that he can’t turn water to wine; like every other mortal, he’s only capable of turning water into piss.

Why? Because I’m tired of hearing about single-payer healthcare, national healthcare, Obamacare. It’s failed in Canada. It’s failed in the U.K. It’s failed in Japan. The nearest American control group for this pitiful experiment is Massachussetts where, (you guessed it!) it’s another epic fail.

National Healthcare’s awful track record notwithstanding, “our government” is still attempting to bring Obamacare to fruition.

House Democrats on Friday (June 19, 2009) unveiled draft legislation they said would cover virtually all of the nation’s nearly 50 million uninsured as President Barack Obama has promised. However, they offered few details on how to pay for it.

For starters, claiming that there are 50 million uninsureds is about as dishonest as it gets. Seventy-five percent of those “50 million” are either disproportionately young, disproportionately wealthy, or disproportionately not-even-fucking-citizens. So 50 million people who don’t have insurance because they don’t want it, are too lazy to use the programs already available, or don’t qualify for welfare on account of not being citizens, and this is somehow a national crisis?

No. The only crisis is the looming decision on how to pay for it. Obamacare will almost certainly be financed by a tax increase of some sort.

Higher taxes on upper-income households appear likely, but broad levies — even a federal sales tax — are also under discussion.

One of the reasons given for nationalizing healthcare is that (although this is disputed) the few uninsured folks cost the rest of us a few hundred to perhaps $1,000 each year. Perhaps the few people who are truly uncovered are costing me a few bucks a week in implicit costs. Perhaps. But the solution here given—the best solution that government could come up with is: let’s make the costs explicit.

So much for not raising taxes on the middle class! I’ve even heard that benefits from my employer—several hundred dollars per month—might be taxed to pay for Obamacare.

Ironic. Raise my taxes in order to pay for something that I’m already (allegedly) paying for in the first place. Let’s cut the crap and call a turd a “turd,” OK. This isn’t about healthcare. It’s not about welfare or well-being or compassion or any of that flowery language that politicians use like some fourth-grade Fashionista with a Bedazzler and a few too many sequins.

Pure and simple: this is about control.

It would require all individuals to obtain health insurance and force employers to offer coverage to their workers, with exemptions for small businesses

If you don’t want it, you buy it. If you can’t afford to offer it to your employees, you become a “small business” or you go out of business.  Or else you go to jail. Every time you read the words “require” and “force” in this context, understand that there is nothing but violence behind it.

Control over healthcare expenses puts all individuals in a very precarious position with regards to their government, since the government will have a very effective but essentially invisible means of control, of social engineering. Like every other arena in which Federal funds play, there will be “strings attached”; obliged to provide us with healthcare, the government will begin making choices regarding what’s left of our personal liberties.

Given a few hours, I could probably come up with a list a mile long, but try these on for starters.

  • We don’t provide treatment to the elderly. Budget constraints.
  • We don’t provide treatment to gays. High-risk lifestyle.
  • We don’t provide treatment for hairlips. Aesthetic/non-essential.
  • We don’t provide treatment to fat people. Lifestyle choice.
  • We don’t cover your broken wrist; snowboarding accidents are excluded.

It might begin quietly, with certain foods or habits (transfats, alcohol, tobacco, etc) but will eventually impact lifestyle choices of all sorts. Your freedoms, my freedoms, pitted against one another in a popular vote, they’ll ask each of us to vote away the others’ liberties.  Many will play along, willingly.  And no matter who wins, we all lose, as more and more power accrues to the government.

It’s war against community, for the health of the State.



  • Zach S. says on: June 25, 2009 at 12:20 am


    Althought I still believe Obama was the lesser of 2 evils, I am getting more and more depressed about the state of affairs in the United States.

  • Zach S. says on: June 25, 2009 at 2:19 am


    Wow. There are 3 doctor's visits a year for every american. That is nuts. I have literally not been to the doctor in 3 years, and the only reason I went before that for about 3 earlier years was b/c the Army made me get a physical.

    America has some major preventitive health problems.

    • nothirdsolution says on: June 25, 2009 at 3:15 am


      And if people get them for free, they'll use them, which makes the cost of providing all those "free" doctor visits skyrocket, because the supply of doctors is relatively limited and inelastic in the short-run…

      I started this post as a commentary on the idea that "You can't make something more affordable/less expensive by spending ever-increasing sums of money on it," but that quickly devolved into the rant you see, above. Maybe someday I'll revisit the economic ignorance topic.

      • Zach S. says on: June 25, 2009 at 2:07 pm


        But the thing is, it's not free. Everyone's taxes go up. It's like social security, the government forces you pay for a "retirement" fund or forces you to pay for "health care." Fuck, don't force me to do shit. I was fairly happy with the Health Fund idea the governemtn already had where you can put XXX amount of dollars into a health fund account tax free. It makes sense for people like me who only go to the doctor when I have a broken bone or am coughing up blood.

  • JRS says on: June 25, 2009 at 2:47 pm


    Maybe we should get rid of socialized fire rescue. I mean, why should I be forced to pay for firefighters putting out fires at other people's homes? Let's implement private fire rescue insurance–call it Blue Hook and Blue Ladder. Your employer will provide it to you. If you choose not to have it and your house catches fire, you're presented with a huge bill, forcing you to declare bankruptcy. Let's implement private trash collection insurance. You shop around for the best trash collecting service. If you don't have the insurance you have to dispose of your trash yourself. Let's get rid of socialized police protection. Why should I have to pay for cops to check out someone else's home for a possible burglary? Let's get ride of socialized education (to the 12th grade). Why should I pay to educate other people's children when I have none myself? Finally, let's get rid of socailized library services. Why should I pay for someone else to take books out of the library when I prefer to buy books myself? This US socialism really sucks, doesn't it?

    • nothirdsolution says on: June 25, 2009 at 5:40 pm


      If you choose not to have it and your house catches fire, you're presented with a huge bill, forcing you to declare bankruptcy.

      That was your choice, after all. Why are your panties in a knot?

      Seriously though, it's funny you would bring up fire rescue. You've obviously never heard of Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon. Both fire and police protection were historically provided on a subscription basis, successfully, until they were co-opted by the State in the mid-19th century.

      Trash collection is still done on a subscription (private) basis for commercial/industrial properties, and probably a good deal of condominium associations and subdivision associations. It's only public for residential properties in primarily urban/suburban areas. Also, it's not an insurable risk. There is simply no reason why it couldn't be provided privately. If you don't want to buy it, then get rid of your own trash. It's not rocket science.

      Why should I pay to educate other people's children when I have none myself?

      Doesn't seem fair, does it?

      This US socialism really sucks, doesn't it?

      Yes, it does. I wish you were serious.

      • Zach S. says on: June 26, 2009 at 2:57 am


        I find it odd that individuals believe if the government did not provide "public" services with TAX money (people remember, taxes come from YOUR pocket) that the private industry would not. Not only would the private industry provide everything the government provides, they would provide it cheaper and better. Yes we would all have to pay for it, but I'd get to keep my tax money and pay for it myself.

        You're probably the same people who think if we run out of oil, the world will end. People will find a way to make it work.

  • PAUL says on: June 25, 2009 at 3:40 pm


    Enter text right here!
    failed in Canada? you don't have a clue what you are talking about.The U.S has the highest rate of infant mortality, lowest life expectantcy etc. of any G8 nation. The U.S has the best health care system in the world FOR THE RICH. Socialism did not cause the current economic meltdown. The greed of large entities such as banks, car manufacturers and HMO'S did.

  • M. Rocks says on: June 25, 2009 at 8:22 pm


    Excuse me please! It's failed in Canada? Maybe you should ask some Canadians about that. Okay, I confess, I'm Canadian and IT HAS NOT FAILED ME … or anyone I know. BTW, having lived in the U.S. for a 10 year period I can say my American husband and I were NOT young, NOT wealthy and one of us was a U.S. citizen (I was a legal resident alien) and we were NOT insured the entire time. Scared the beejeebers out of us. We worked long and hard at our own business but we never made enough to even dream of being able to pay health insurance premiums. My health care plan consisted of "if I get sick, put me in a doggy bag and ship me back to Canada ASAP". There was no health care plan for my husband except "hope for the best". Ultimately we moved to Canada where we are still NOT young, still NOT wealthy and we both have access to good health care whenever we need it. We are grateful for this and neither of us has ever over-used the system.

    • David Z says on: June 25, 2009 at 8:05 pm


      You must not have done your research. A friend of mine is 29 years old, healthy, and self-employed. He maintains a catastrophic loss policy for under $100/month. He doesn’t use “health insurance” to pay for doctor’s visits or the occasional flu medication, any more than you use “car insurance” to pay for oil changes and tire rotations. A cat-policy, and some money in the bank, is adequate if you’re young and in good health.

      I talked to a Canadian about their health care system a few months ago. He couldn’t afford private insurance. But he could afford to sit at the bar next to me and drink $5 Molsons. And he could afford to go to the Burning Man Festival, halfway across the continent. He said in a nutshell, that the Canadian system was “better than nothing” but that if you have any money, and you really need a procedure, you go somewhere else where you don’t have to wait for it.

      But don’t take my word for it. Read David Gratzer’s The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care. (He’s also a Canadian).

      • M. Rocks says on: June 26, 2009 at 7:19 am


        Okay that's downright insulting. We did research health insurance and the so-called catastrophic insurance was not a viable option for us. As for $5 Molsons and music festivals … forget about it. While experiencing our American "dream" we did not waste our money on drinking (still don't) and only attended free concerts in the park whenever we could get away from work. You and that one Canadian you talked to obviously enjoy a different lifestyle. And what part of we were NOT young and NOT wealthy didn't you get? BTW, having worked in Canadian hospitals for many years I'm satisfied that there is no need for us to seek health care outside this country. Obviously your mind is closed on the single payer option … so to each his own.

        • nothirdsolution says on: June 26, 2009 at 11:51 am


          Major Medical polices have been around for a while, it’s not like I invented them yesterday. They are hands-down the cheapest of all health insurance policies.

          And I wasn’t accusing you of making the same lifestyle choices as the young Canadian with whom I spoke, just using him as an example.

          Obviously your mind is closed on the single payer option … so to each his own.

          Now, this is insulting. The problem with a single-payer system is that it doesn’t allow “each” to have “his own.” That essential point, that’s the locus of my entire argument set forth in the post above (and reiterated in comments, etc.). So yes, my mind is “closed” to the single payer option in the exact same manner that my mind is “closed” to the slavery option.

          Look, don’t berate me for using the anecdotal evidence at my disposal. You say “I have anecdotal evidence that Canadian system works” and I have anecdotal evidence that it doesn’t work. Anyone who spends his money on $5 beers while complaining about how he can’t afford insurance is flat-out ripping you off (and the rest of taxpaying Canadians). He’s not the only one, I can guarantee it.

          How Good Is Canadian Health Care? This good:

          When compared to other Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries that have publicly funded, universal access health care systems, evidence suggests that the Canadian model is inferior, say the authors of a new Fraser Institute study.


          * Estimates indicate that Canada spends more on health care than all OECD nations with “universal access” health care systems save Iceland.
          * Canada does not rank first in any of the seven health care outcome categories or in any of the comparisons of access to care, supply of technologies, or supply of physicians.
          * Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that outlaws a parallel private health care system for its citizens.

          On an age-adjusted basis, Canada has among the fewest number of physicians in the OECD:

          * Canada ranks 24th out of 28 countries with 2.3 doctors per 1,000 people for a total of 66,583 doctors; only Turkey, Japan, the United Kingdom and Finland have fewer doctors.
          * To be comparable to first-place Iceland, Canada would need 57,071 more doctors than it had in 2003.
          * In 1970, when public insurance first fully applied to physician services, Canada placed second among the countries that could be ranked in that year.

          The overwhelming evidence is that, in comparative terms, the Canadian system produces longer waiting times, and is less successful in preventing death from preventable causes, and costs more than almost all of the other systems that have comparable objectives. To improve on this underperformance, say the authors, the system needs to emulate the more successful models of universal care — such as allowing privately funded purchases and private medicine.

          Source: Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker, “How Good Is Canadian Health Care? 2006 Report,” Fraser Institute, December 2006.

  • Doug says on: June 25, 2009 at 8:53 pm


    First off, Insurance itself is a form of socialism. Everyone pays a fee and only a few people ever draw on that reserve. I've payed thousands of dollars in state mandated auto insurance and have not had need to draw on that insurance. For health insurance, healthy people like me pays tens of thousands of dollars and maybe ever use a couple hundred dollars worth of services. Other folks use hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars worth of health care.

    How about a "pay as you go" system with no insurance and no one forced to pay for anything they don't use. Let the chronically ill folks pay for their millions of dollars of health care and let me pay for my hundreds worth.

    I'm also not too keen on paying taxes that go to education. I don't have children and thus see no benefit in paying for an education system that is broken anyways. Most kids would get better education at home, assuming their parents were half-way educated themselves.

    As for the cost of health care, it is outrageous. There is no reason a bed in a hospital should cost $10,000 per day, which doesn't even pay for the care you get while in that bed. The only reason the costs are so high is because of insurance. Get rid of insurance and then doctors and hospitals will only be able to charge what the market will bear – what people can pay. The prices would thus have to drastically decrease or they would get no business at all.

    Insurance is the problem. It is socialism and socialism always causes problems throughout any economic system. Outlaw insurance and the huge corporations that profit from it and our health care system will sort itself out.

    • David Z says on: June 25, 2009 at 7:54 pm


      You’re right about education, but flat wrong on insurance. Insurance – mutual associations, fraternal orders, voluntary charities – these things all arose in a more-or-less natural manner because people didn’t like the prospect of bearing a catastrophic loss, and they learned that, since others were also risk-averse, they could pool their risk together, and for a small, small fraction of the cost, be much more secure in the event that one did suffer a loss.

      It’s not socialism, because it’s voluntary. I don’t understand why this part is so hard for people to get through their thick skulls.

      In any event, there are a number of contributing factors to the high cost of health care, not the least of which is the AMA which functions as a cartel to artificially restrict the supply of MDs, and to keep the price of primary care service artificially high. Since they are a state-licensed cartel, it is illegal to compete with them. The net result is that they get nice salaries and relatively easy working hours, and we pay more, and receive less.

  • gmale says on: June 25, 2009 at 9:40 pm


    failed in Canada? stop listening to FOX you ditto-head! I'm a Canadian who just finished a battle with skin cancer…2 surgies and 1- 6 week high dose drug treatment…total cost? $89 for an upgrade to a private room in a world class facility calle Princess Margaret Hospital.

    I never spoke to a "bureaucrat", just the best trained doctors from around the world…stop the PROPOGANDA!!!

    • David Z says on: June 25, 2009 at 7:48 pm


      I haven’t watched a single program on FOX in probably 4 years. Just because I don’t like socialized health care doesn’t mean I’m a flag-waving republican.

      What’s your effective tax rate? Don’t forget to include your income tax, GST, PST, as well as hidden taxes like sin taxes (built in to the price of products you buy), gasoline surcharges, etc. Any VATs? Import duties? Etc. Add it all up. And then add $89 to that sum. And then tell me, with a straight face, that in a truly free market the cost of insuring against an unlikely (albeit catastrophic) event like cancer exceeds that sum. It wouldn’t even be close.

      If anything, you got ripped off. But not half as much as the rest of your compatriots who were forced at the barrel of a gun to provide you with health care, which – if there was a free market – you could’ve easily purchased on your own. Or not, it’s your life to do with as you please.

      • Zach S. says on: June 26, 2009 at 2:32 am


        I think this is the biggest part people fail to see. It costs socialist countries nearly half their income (more if you count all the other taxes you talked about) to support this "free healthcare"

        A very small percentage of people end up with diseases/issues/etc that require significant amounts of funding…hence the relatively cheap cost of catastrophe insurance that Brad is so fond of. Other than that, let me toss my "tax money that goes to the national healthcare" in an interest bearing account for all those little trips to the doc for the sniffles…and if i get cancer, etc, hey i have the $50-$100 bucks a month i'm paying towards catastrophe insurance.

        Just b/c people can't seem to budget their money properly to fund their basic needs doesn't mean the answer is the government should horde my money for me.

  • Surferdave says on: June 25, 2009 at 11:55 pm


    It works fine here in Australai, stop the nonsense.

    • Zach S. says on: June 26, 2009 at 2:39 am


      I don't think anyone says it doesn't work per se, but it certainly is not the answer.

  • Brad says on: June 26, 2009 at 12:45 am


    Dave – I get the feeling that the last couple of commentors are confusing how you use the word "fail." Everybody above talks about the care they receive at the hospital. I do not know the stats but it can't be that much different than in the U.S. A Dr. is a Dr. is a Dr. right? Could the lowest life expectancy question from above be because people don't take care of themselves? There has to be data available showing how the US is one of the fattest nations in the world There is only so much a Dr. can do if you are over weight, don't eat right, etc. Would using the word "bankrupt" instead of "fail" clear up the what happens inside the hospital vs. what it does to the countries pocket book issue?

    JRS was on to something. Too bad he was not being serious.

    Ron Paul 2012!!!

    • Zach S. says on: June 26, 2009 at 2:38 am


      Brad- we are by far the fattest country. During my MBA program, I did an in depth study on childhood obesity and in the past 20 years, it has at least TRIPLED in the US!! And thats just the children. Obesity is one of the major causes of death in the U.S. Geez, I wonder why our life expectancy isnt so high.

      Another interesting thing I concluded; obesity rates in children had a high (more than 70%) correlation with family income. THe lower the income, the more likely the children were to be obese and the more likely the parents were obese. I wonder why they need to see a doctor so much?

      Basically, the answer isn't universal healthcare. If anything, it should be universal PREVENTATIVE care which costs practically nothing except time & education. You kill weeds at the root, not at the surface.

    • nothirdsolution says on: June 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm


      No, I really meant "fail."

      Some of my other posts on the topic, that I\'ve linked to here in the comments, address this idea.

      The CoyoteBlog's Uncovering some really bad science debunks some of the recent methodology used to arrive at the low life expectancy figures.

      He's also discussed infant mortality rates, which are not uniformly measured across the world, there are no rules about how to count live vs. stillborn, etc. Many infants that die shortly after birth in the U.S. would have been counted as stillborn in other parts of the world. One idea is that the success of our system allows many infants to survive childbirth that otherwise wouldn't have. Also, many infants die in utero in other countries, which our system would've given at least a chance at life. Some of them eventually die outside the womb.

  • nothirdsolution says on: June 26, 2009 at 2:16 pm


    I'm having some trouble with IDC today. Some comments (to which I replied) have disappeared after I tried to edit broken hyperlinks. The comments still appear on my Admin dashboard, so I expect them to return eventually. Just an FYI so nobody accuses me of trying to silence them.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics