For some time now, Barack Obama and his apologists have trumpeted slowing healthcare costs as somehow…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Sticker Shock: Healthcare Spending Spikes As ObamaCare Takes Effect

For some time now, Barack Obama and his apologists have trumpeted slowing healthcare costs as somehow attributable to ObamaCare.  Never mind that the declines predated Obama's election, and that even The Washington Post gave him three Pinocchios in its Fact Checker analysis of this claim on November 5 of last year:

Healthcare inflation has gone down every single year since the law [ObamaCare] passed, so that we now have the lowest increase in healthcare costs in 50 years - which is saving us about $180 billion in reduced overall costs to the federal government and in the Medicare program."

To illustrate how he played the role of rooster taking credit for the sunrise, healthcare cost inflation reached 7% in 2003, but plummeted to approximately 2% before Obama even took office.…[more]

July 31, 2015 • 10:02 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
“Let Him Die” Or Government Healthcare? That’s a False Dichotomy Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Friday, September 16 2011
Those who seek even more bureaucratic control of our healthcare options portray the issue as a choice between bigger government versus people without insurance 'left to die.' That doesn’t accord with the facts.

Americans are often subjected to a false dichotomy in our ongoing healthcare debate:  Even more government healthcare versus letting people just die in the streets. 

That false binary choice isn’t just intellectually sloppy.  It also emotionally tilts the issue in a manner favorable toward advocates of ObamaCare or wholesale government takeover of the world’s most innovative healthcare sector.  After all, the mental image of citizens without insurance being left to die in the gutters should cause any compassionate and reasonable person to recoil. 

Unfortunately, a line of questioning from CNN host Wolf Blitzer during this week’s debate among Republican presidential candidates served to perpetuate that false dichotomy, to the subsequent glee of the leftist commentariat. 

Here is a transcript of Blitzer’s exchange with Congressman Ron Paul: 

Blitzer:  Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor.  You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.  A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, ‘You know what?  I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.’  But something happens.  All of a sudden, he needs it.  Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example?  Who pays for that?

Paul:  Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him. 

Blitzer:  Well, what do you want? 

Paul:  But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself.  My advice to him would be to have a major medical policy, but not be forced… 

Blitzer:  But he doesn’t have that.  He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months.  Who pays? 

Paul:  That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.  This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody… 

Blitzer:  But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die? 

Paul:  No.  I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school.  I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them.  We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul didn’t respond nearly as well as he could have or should have. 

First, we must keep a few important facts in mind.  Of the uninsured in the United States, most are either not American citizens, are eligible for government assistance but unenrolled for their own reasons or earn above the median national income and are therefore capable of purchasing coverage. 

Accordingly, various government-provided forms of assistance such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) currently exist for those unable to afford health coverage.  In fact, some government assistance programs cover citizens earning several times the official poverty level.  Thus, it is recklessly ignorant or dishonest to claim that those without private insurance are somehow left on their own or even to die on the streets. 

Second, the hypothetical person without insurance as explicitly described by Blitzer in the debate “makes a good living,” and thus earns enough to purchase insurance but foolishly chooses not to do so.  In such a case, that patient is likely capable of paying for the treatment he receives either out of existing assets or through future earnings.  It’s no different than if he inflicted damage upon another person via automobile accident or other negligence – he could later be held accountable for the monetary consequences of his behavior through his current and future earnings.

How that simple reality escapes an established media figure such as Blitzer is troubling. 

Third, as briefly referenced by Paul in his response, innumerable sources of private charitable care exist for the hypothetical patient described by Blitzer.  Not only are many hospitals run by religious or other philanthropic organizations, but private contributions and partnerships exist to benefit those who cannot afford the care that they need.  Moreover, physicians themselves across the nation also generously donate their time and efforts to care for those less fortunate. 

Those who seek even more bureaucratic control of our healthcare options portray the issue as a choice between bigger government versus people without insurance “left to die.”  That doesn’t accord with the facts, and we cannot allow them to succeed in using it as a ploy to advance their partisan agenda. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Obama Administration officials stated in April 2015 that under the nuclear deal with Iran, “you will have anywhere, any time 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has”?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"[Trump's] rise is not due to his supporters' anger at government. It is a gesture of contempt for government, for the men and women in Congress, the White House, the agencies. It is precisely because people have lost their awe for the presidency that they imagine Mr. Trump as a viable president. ...Mr. Trump's supporters like that he doesn't in the least fear the press, doesn't get the dart-eyed,…[more]
 
 
—Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
— Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
 
Liberty Poll   

On August 6, Fox News will televise two debates with the Republican presidential candidates, at 9 p.m. with the top 10, and at 5 p.m. with the rest of the field. Do you plan on watching one or both?