James Taranto pointed out this editorial in an Oregon newspaper.  It describes the response of the state’s health care system to a 64-year-old lady with lung cancer.

After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, “Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide.”

The column speaks of how the state “tries to ration health care.”  Health care rationing.  That sounds fantastic.  Remember what happens when you ration something?

In this particular case the cancer drug wasn’t authorized because the patient stood a less than 5% chance of survival, which is the state approved threshold.  This situation provides a perfect “ultimate extension” argument against socialized medicine - the government deciding who gets to live and die.  Actually, this case is worse than what I originally anticipated.  I expected to hear stories about treatments being denied.  “Sorry Fred,” the doctor would say, “but you don’t qualify for heart surgery.”  Instead of simply just letting you die what we’ll actually see is the government offering to just kill you.

People in Massachusetts are calling Mitt Romney’s beloved universal health care plan “The New Big Dig.” Ouch.

One lesson here is that while pledging “universal” coverage is easy, the harder problem is paying for it. This year’s appropriation for Commonwealth Care was $472 million, but officials have asked for an add-on that will bring it to $625 million. For 2009, Governor Deval Patrick requested $869 million but has already conceded that even that huge figure is too low. Over the coming decade, the expected overruns float in as much as $4 billion over budget.

…
Hailed at first as a new national model, the Massachusetts nonmiracle ought to be a warning to Washington. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing versions of RomneyCare on a national scale, with similar promises that covering everyone under a government plan will reduce costs. Mr. Obama at least argues that more people would be covered were insurance more affordable. But his solution is Massachusetts on steroids – make insurance less expensive for policyholders by transferring the extra costs onto the government. Mrs. Clinton likes that but also wants the individual mandate, despite the mediocre results so far.

The real problem in health care is the way the tax code and third-party payment system distort incentives. That’s where John McCain has been focusing his reform efforts – because that really does have the potential to reduce costs while covering more of the uninsured – and Republicans ought to follow his lead.

Wow, it’s remarkable (but not surprising) how much worse their universal health care plan has become in the last year - and it looked bad then.  Taxpayers were originally told that the cost for 2007 would be $125 million.  By early 2007 the projected cost had more than doubled.  This year the cost is going to be well over half a billion dollars.  And there are still 300,000 who are uninsured in Massachusetts! Just imagine the cost increase of all of them started freeloading as well.

This is why under our federal system of government the states are laboratories of democracy.  They can individually embark on grand experiments as the folks in Massachusetts foolishly chose to do.  The beauty of this system is that when bad programs invariably fail they don’t cripple the entire nation.

From AL.com:

Ninety-two percent of Alabama voters agree that people should not be exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace, according to a poll released Monday by the American Cancer Society.

The results of the poll, conducted among 503 randomly selected registered voters across the state from Dec. 14-18, was released Monday during a news conference at the Statehouse.

The poll also showed 78 percent of the respondents favored a law making all Alabama workplaces smoke-free.

I wonder what percentage of respondents actually work at a place where smoking is allowed.  I would not be one bit surprised if the 78% in favor of a workplace smoking ban already work in a smoke free workplace and simply want their preference imposed on the other 22%, some of which may have chosen to work in such an environment of their own free will and do not support a law to stop it.

Maybe I’ll try to obtain and look through the poll numbers if I get the time.

From Down Under:

A British man who moved to New Zealand has been told by officials that his wife is too fat to join him.

Why, you might ask?  Because New Zealand has a fantastic government health care system.

Richie Trezise, 35, a rugby-playing Welshman, lost weight to gain entry to New Zealand after initially being rejected for being overweight and a potential burden on the health care system.

His wife, Rowan, 33, a photographer, has been battling for months to shed the pounds so they can be reunited and live Down Under but has so far been unable to overcome New Zealand’s weight regulations.

This is the kind of story that should set off alarms in your head when you hear some modern day socialist talking about the “common good” and demanding “universal health care.”

BTW, “universal” health care is a stupid phrase.  Any politician elected in this country could, at most, impose a national health care plan.  He/she couldn’t even thrust upon us an international plan and most certainly not a “universal” plan, which would presumably cover all life forms in the universe that we haven’t even discovered yet (or should I say that haven’t discovered us yet?).

Mrs. Former President is set to announce her latest foray into socialized medicine today.  She was kind enough to leak out the basics ahead of time so that the AP could start giving her some ink.  I’ll reserve my full commentary until I get a chance to look through the gory details, but the basics aren’t pretty.

First of all it is built upon the employer based system, which is itself one of the core problems with health care in the U.S.  I don’t see why it would be wise to build a huge bureaucracy on a shaky foundation.  And of course her plan isn’t free - remember that “free” health care is anything but.  It’s going to cost, according to the story, about $110 billion per year, which probably means about half a trillion in the unfortunate event it gets implemented.  How will she pay for it?  Raising taxes, of course.

If you pull the string on a liberal you’re going to hear the raise taxes mantra.  The current batch of liberals have changed their language, but don’t be fooled.  The catch phrase of the days is “repeal Bush tax cuts.”  Folks, repealing a tax cut is a tax increase.

Clinton’s plan imposes an “individual mandate” on all citizens.  And no, she isn’t using that phrase to try to get support from Larry Craig and Barney Frank.  Every citizen will be compelled by the government to have health insurance by threat of force.  You’re a young, healthy person?  Too bad.  The article compares - probably parroting what will be one of H-Rod’s talking points - the “individual mandate” to compulsory car insurance, which is a false analogy.  States adopted mandatory auto insurance to protect drivers like me, who already carried insurance for our own economic reasons, from bozos who drove around recklessly without insurance.  In that situation compulsory insurance protects me from others.  There is absolutely no comparison with compulsory health insurance other than she is using that analogy to seize upon the familiarity of the populace with governmental force.

And make no mistake about it, under H-Rod’s plan every business will make a cold hard decision about whether to offer insurance or drop coverage and pay the government imposed fee.  That will effectively eliminate your choice in the matter and force you into the government program because current tax policy and regulations make it prohibitively expensive to purchase insurance privately.  Here’s how it will likely go down.  At first the government fee on businesses will be comparable to what they currently pay for, say, Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  However, the government insurance will probably not be quite as good.  Many businesses will drop coverage and opt for the fee as a rational business decision.  The affected people who find themselves in the substandard government plan will have no option but to petition the government for better coverage, which politicians will be more than happy to do - more power for them.  Taxes on businesses will increase, but so will premiums for private plans because they are now spreading the cost over a smaller group of people.  Eventually there will be few hold outs and a large swath of the country will be under full control of the government.

And make no mistake about it; H-Rod’s program is just a stepping stone to the U.S. adopting a British type health care system.  And in Britain they are predictably moving towards using their socialized health care system to manipulate the lives of private citizens.

Failing to follow a healthy lifestyle could lead to free NHS treatment being denied under the Tory plans.

Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.

Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services - such as jumping the queue for council housing.

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.

A comment with the article left by Neal Asher of Chelmsford, England says it best:

State run health care results in the next power grab: we make you pay for the maintenance of your body, therefore we own your body and can tell you what you must do with it.

Take a look at this article from the BBC.

More than 10,000 campaigners have held a march and rally in a last-ditch effort to save services at the Vale of Leven Hospital.

That is what we have to look forward to if the Democrats impose their socialized medicine plans on us.  We’ll have to take off of work (those of us who actually work, that is) to carry around friggin’ signs so that some bureaucrat doesn’t close one of our clinics.

This really gets to the heart of the issue: control.  With socialized health care the government controls your health care, leaving you to beg and plead with those in power for things we now take for granted as choices.  I’m sure they will be more than happy to lavish us with health care pork from time to time to secure our continued support of their lordship over us.

From the Telegraph:

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of “emotional abuse”, even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.

Social services’ recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children’s services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services’ request for an emergency protection order - these are usually granted - will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.

I can’t wait until John Edwards or one of his compatriates implements UK styled government preventative health care here.

… somewhere else.  Like Wisconsin.

The land of cheese is on the precipice of passing a socialized health care plan for all residents under the age of 65.  I guess the older folks are covered by Mother Washington.  Their plan will initially result in a tax increase of $510 per month for every worker and could eat up about 20% of family incomes.  But they will have a 16 person panel charged with lording over the health of an entire state.

Since Wisconsin is lucky enough to be run by progressives socialists they will impose a hefty portion of the new taxes on businesses.  How nice of them!  Good thing they aren’t taxing regular people.  Those businesses will respond in a number of predictable ways: passing costs on to consumers (real people), depressing profits of owners (real people), or maybe simply relocating out of state (leaving real people unemployed).  Those newly employed people will continue to get their free health care - which will be provided by the shrinking number of actual workers who will begin to carry an even larger tax burden.  Think of it this way, the state of Wisconsin is putting every business within its borders at a nearly 15% cost disadvantage compared to businesses in other states.  And you thought NAFTA was going to make a big sucking sound.

John Stossel pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter:

America needs “Healthy Wisconsin.” The fall of the Soviet Union deprived us of the biggest example of how socialism works. We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-vehicle departments.

It’s not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what “universal” coverage is like.

Let’s just hop they can crash and burn before such onerous mandates get imposed on the country at large.  Maybe when they encounter a financial crisis as they become a mecca for the infirmed and unemployable, lose businesses, and tax their residents to death Americans will see the folly of socialism.

Beware that request when the government is involved.  But it is a potent weapon in the quiver of those who favor larger government becaue it uses naked emotion to tear down reasonable opposition.  The latest “do it for the kids” spending hike: expanding the State Child Health Insurance Program.

I’ll get into the absurd particulars of SCHIP in a minute, but first I’ll address the justification of any such program.  Healthcare for children presents a moral dilemma because it is easy to believe that individuals who have spent a lifetime making poor decisions don’t deserve health care, but it is difficult to deny care for children who suffer the plight of being born to irresponsible parents.  The problem is that it is undesirable for people who cannot afford to have children to continue to procreate.  It is foolish to encourage such undesirable actions by forcing society to bear a sizable share of their burden.  I believe that a reasonable middle ground would be to make long term (>= 1 year) and temporarily irreversible birth control (i.e. not just free condoms) for the woman and the man a prerequisite for any welfare assistance.  I’ll be more than happy to help pay for your child’s care as long as I know you aren’t going to compound the problem because you know that you won’t be the one footing the bill.  I have enough trouble providing for my own kids in the manner I choose to pay for the offspring of others as well.

The left is of course deriding Republicans who oppose expanding SCHIP funding as anti child.  But what exactly is this child friendly program that the Dems are touting?  Take a look for yourself.

“It is one of our most important national priorities to cover all Americans, and that should start now with all of our children,” [Hillary] Clinton said July 16.

Of course, it depends on what the meaning of the word “children” is.

Washington already lets 14 states cover 670,000 “boys” and “girls,” up to age 25, some of whom have been drinking legally for four years and voting for seven. Ninety-two percent of Minnesota’s SCHIP budget insures adults.

Clinton’s proposal, like the House Democrats’ bill, would cover children in families up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), double today’s target. Thus, a family of four making $82,600 could receive federal-government medicine. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation’s Rea Hederman estimates, 70,000 “American families are both poor and high-income — simultaneously.” They qualify for SCHIP and the alternative minimum tax.

Madder still, 77 percent of children between double and triple FPL and 89 percent between 300 and 400 percent of FPL already have private health insurance, notes Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon. Nonetheless, the Democratic House Wednesday night approved $47 billion for SCHIP through 2012, 88 percent above its current $25 billion, five-year budget.

Senate Democrats would fund this extravaganza via a 156 percent cigarette-tax hike — from 39 cents to $1 per pack. Heritage forecasts that 22 million new smokers would have to light up by 2017 to keep SCHIP afloat.

So, in summary SCHIP is for the kids.  Well, at least the 25 year old Democrats classified as kids who are probably sitting around playing video games while they take the 7-year option as they matriculate through some liberal arts college majoring in a subject that will likely leave them unemployed in the event that they eventually graduate.  Oh, and you might be both poor and wealthy.  Should I feel bad or happy for you?

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) penned an op-ed advocating single-payer health insurance - better known as socialized medicine.  McDermott believes that our current health care system is broken.  No argument there.  McDermott believes that the government should take over health care.  I disagree.

McDermott counters the argument that government shouldn’t concern itself with health care by stating that 70% of health care today is paid for by state and federal governments.  Hmmm…  It doesn’t take a genius to correlate the perceived growing health care crisis with increasingly heavy government involvement.  Does he really believe that increasing government involvement to 100% will all of a sudden fix everything and create a health care panacea?  Give me a break.

Next McDermott explains that private insurance is not as efficient as Medicare because overhead on private plans is three times Medicare’s.  I hope he isn’t seriously using Medicare as a shining example of how great things will be with government run health care.  We have a relative who was on Medicare at one point in time.  She strongly cautioned us against even seeing a doctor that accepted Medicare patients due to the deficient treatment she had witnessed first hand.  I’ve found that such feelings are far from rare.

He then makes two of the flat out dumbest statements I’ve seen in a while.

Health-care coverage is the single biggest domestic crisis facing America.

Try looking at entitlement programs and the looming threat to people of my generation when the roof collapses.  It will be bloody and painful for all involved and will make today’s health care crisis look like a sunny day.

America was founded on the common good and it is time we reaffirm this core value.

No, congressman, you must have us confused with the Soviet Union - the former Soviet Union.  America was founded on the concepts of personal freedom and just representation.  McDermott’s “we, not me” rhetoric that is popular among today’s Democrats should strike everyone who believes in personal freedom and individualism as deeply troubling.

Affordable health-care coverage should be a right, not a privilege, in America.

Oy vey.  He sounds like John Edwards, which is not a goal one should aspire to.