Courtesy of FoIB Jeff M comes this rather bizarre news from Vermont:
"At least one roadblock stands in the way of Vermont's path toward becoming the first state to adopt a single-payer health care system: coverage for illegal immigrants."
As we've noted here before, illegals make up a disproportionate share of the uninsured (d'unh!), but it doesn't seem to occur to the fine folks of Vermont that there's a good reason for this. Namely, illegals are here, well, illegally. Since criminals are not particularly well-known for playing by the rules (hence the term "illegal"), it stands to reason that they're not rushing out to buy health insurance (well, along with the fact that they couldn't if they tried).
So the solution - natch - is to simply put them on the rolls, thus shifting the cost of their health care to the actual legal citizenry. Now, we're on record as supporting the "57 state laboratory" model of health care, so of course we recognize that Vermont is free to experiment with this notion at its own cost.
There's a deeper problem here, though, and it's neatly summarized:
"When we say health care is a human right, we mean for everybody"
That is so wrong, on so many levels, that it's challenging to know where to begin.
Of course, that won't stop us from trying.
First, folks who bandy about the silly notion that health care is a "right" overlook a fundamental issue: at whose cost? That is, if the delivery of health care is a "right," then that means that the state has the power to compel providers to treat anyone and everyone, regardless of whether or not they'll be paid for doing so.
Note that I'm not saying "paid fairly" ; after all, that's a judgment call. No, I meant what I said: that they be paid at all. That is, the right to health care would trump the expectation of payment for services rendered.
Of course, what these thoughtless individuals most likely mean is that the payment for health care should be made by the state, which means thee and me. That's really the underlying premise of "universal" health "care" (to use the disingenuous and patently false terminology of its proponents). Note that there's no talk here of personal responsibility or accountability: it just "feels good."
Not a promising premise.
"At least one roadblock stands in the way of Vermont's path toward becoming the first state to adopt a single-payer health care system: coverage for illegal immigrants."
As we've noted here before, illegals make up a disproportionate share of the uninsured (d'unh!), but it doesn't seem to occur to the fine folks of Vermont that there's a good reason for this. Namely, illegals are here, well, illegally. Since criminals are not particularly well-known for playing by the rules (hence the term "illegal"), it stands to reason that they're not rushing out to buy health insurance (well, along with the fact that they couldn't if they tried).
So the solution - natch - is to simply put them on the rolls, thus shifting the cost of their health care to the actual legal citizenry. Now, we're on record as supporting the "57 state laboratory" model of health care, so of course we recognize that Vermont is free to experiment with this notion at its own cost.
There's a deeper problem here, though, and it's neatly summarized:
"When we say health care is a human right, we mean for everybody"
That is so wrong, on so many levels, that it's challenging to know where to begin.
Of course, that won't stop us from trying.
First, folks who bandy about the silly notion that health care is a "right" overlook a fundamental issue: at whose cost? That is, if the delivery of health care is a "right," then that means that the state has the power to compel providers to treat anyone and everyone, regardless of whether or not they'll be paid for doing so.
Note that I'm not saying "paid fairly" ; after all, that's a judgment call. No, I meant what I said: that they be paid at all. That is, the right to health care would trump the expectation of payment for services rendered.
Of course, what these thoughtless individuals most likely mean is that the payment for health care should be made by the state, which means thee and me. That's really the underlying premise of "universal" health "care" (to use the disingenuous and patently false terminology of its proponents). Note that there's no talk here of personal responsibility or accountability: it just "feels good."
Not a promising premise.
Posts
