First, "Access." Now, "Excess"

Thursday, May 14, 2009

The first time I heard the term "access" used as a euphemism for theft, I played hooky from work, endured a long wait for the pleasure of seeing a government official of the Virgin Islands texting, and got to hear a union thug in a Hawaiian shirt say, "we have the rocks." In other words, I was present for "testimony" at an "unofficial hearing of the House Judiciary Committee" regarding HR 676, aka the "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act").

The poor, as they claim, lack "access" to medical care. The implied solution, government insinuation in and control of medical care necessarily involves stealing from physicians, as put so well by the character Dr. Hendricks in Atlas Shrugged (HT: Doug Reich):

I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't." (687)
And now, from the very same people who are proclaiming that they'll take care of you comes the following admission that they will "take care of" you:
Treasure the tax benefits from your health savings account? Some experts say the accounts encourage "excess consumption" of health services -- and committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) agreed they're worth a look. Money in the pot: $60 billion over 10 years.
That's right: If you obtain more medical care than John Conyers, Barack Obama, or Donna Christian-Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) feel like allowing you to have, that's "excess consumption."

I suppose that one way to get around your constituents not having "access" to medical care is to effectively make it illegal.

-- CAV

This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on May 14, 2009.


Vigilis said...

Well said, Gus.

In the universal healthcare scheme to be taken up next month, we must be prepared to insist members of Congress subject their families to the same health care facilities to which the public will be subjected, not the separate and privileged Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) they currently enjoy at taxpayer expense.

Secondly, the hallmarks of the terms public and universal as in restrooms or military conscription (the draft) have often meant lowered standards. Restroom sanitation particularly comes to mind in both public highway rest stops and VA hospitals (Washington post article: Apr 19, 2009 - VA: 3 patients HIV-positive after clinic mistakes
Initial tests show one patient each from VA medical facilities in Murfreesboro, Tenn., Augusta, Ga., and Miami has the virus that causes AIDS, according to a VA statement. ...The patients are among more than 10,000 getting tested because they were treated with endoscopic equipment that wasn't properly sterilized and exposed them to other people's body fluids. ...The VA also said there have been six positive tests for the hepatitis B virus and 19 positive tests for hepatitis C at the three locations. ... The VA has said it does not yet know if veterans treated with the same kind of equipment at its other 150 hospitals may have been exposed to the same mistake before the department had a nationwide safety training campaign.

Finally, with few exceptions, the current administration is comprised of lawyers. There can be little doubt that the final Universal Health Care Act will require private medical insurance
accounts and health care providers. This will assure lawyers' job security (right to sue for malpractice claims).

Will the cost of health care be lowered as healthcare standards decline? The answer is almost a foregone conclusion, in my opinion.

Gus Van Horn said...

Heh. I never considered what might happen with malpractice suits.

That said, your idea of congressional "families [being subjected] to the same health care facilities to which the public will be" will fall on the same deaf ears as all prior evidence of the failure of such schemes to deliver good medical care already has and, even if that weren't the case, I prefer to insist on everyone having the same opportunity for good medical care that the free market has to offer.

The intended audience should usually not be the current crop in office, but other voters and other potentially better politicians.