Health Care Trojan Horse, Canada Edition
Next in my series about the health care Trojan Horse for fascism, comes this story via Q&O in Canada (McQ gives as good a definition of any of the Trojan Horse: "once government has control over your health care, it will use all
sorts of justifications and excuses to exert more and more control over
your life as a result.")
For 60 years or more, libertarians and conservatives have been arguing
that government programs intended to promote the public welfare
inevitably end by restricting freedom more and more: as the state does
more for you, it finds itself doing ever more to you. Who
would dare challenge that premise now, in the face of Judge James
Blacklock's decision? The man made no secret of the chief pretext for
his ruling. Motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets are more costly to the medicare system; therefore, in the name of reducing those costs, the government is free to require the wearing of helmets,
even if that conflicts with a fundamental Charter right and interferes
with the most personal and intimate sort of decision-making conceivable.
Mark S.:
Have you ever considered the possibility that he might be right? That, in essence, by allowing people the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet is also an unfair tax? Through higher insurance rates and higher medical costs?
I own two bikes and would be very upset if the state where I live was to allow motorcycle riders to not wear helmets. Were that to happen, through no fault of my own and through nothing that I did, my insurance rates would automatically go up? Please to tell me how that is fair to me? By minimizing my risk, I should get rewarded, but I won't be. Also, the taxes will go up to pay for the increased medical costs of keeping people on life support. Study after study show that people without helmets are more likely to not have health insurance.
That's not liberty...that's poor policy.
March 11, 2008, 9:26 amtribal elder:
But people who have no insurance do have emergency room coverage, after all, hospitals can't turn 'em away. Their uncollectible bills become the overhead (1/3 fully uncollectible accounts receivables) that the rest of us 'cover' in higher premiums and high hospital services charges. The risk adverse (insured) subsidize the imprudent NOW. We even subsidize the illicit drug industry via hospital E/R's !
And the seriously injured draw public benefits if they become casualties. Taxpayers reward imprudent behavior.
Government uses statutes (and penalties thereunder)to compel hospitals to accept certain patients. Taxpayers, under threat of confiscation of property and incarceration, pay taxes to fund transfer payments for those who suffer self-inflicted misfortune. COERCION.
March 11, 2008, 9:46 amParatrooperJJ:
Nothing wrong with that.
March 11, 2008, 9:49 amJody:
To the various commenters above. Do you not see how when the government intrudes into society to solve one "problem" it inevitably causes many more?
The government mandates that hospitals cannot turn away emergency room patients. To limit the impact of this govt problem, individuals are outlawed from engaging in behaviors they otherwise would've been allowed to.
Because the government has given tax favored status to company provided insurance, premiums to offset the risky behavior of individuals cannot be passed along to individuals and instead must be distributed to the entire group. This problem is further exacerbated by the government limiting what kinds of policies can be issued and what issues can be considered when assessing premiums.
Government is not the cause of every problem (see murders spawned from relationship issues), but it inevitably causes more problems whenever it tries to solve a problem. With 300 million people, one-size *never* fits all. As an added bonus, it taxes you so it can create these sometimes-not-so-unintended consequences.
March 11, 2008, 10:53 amJim Collins:
Personally I don't care one way or another about motorcycle helmets. I think your missing the point here. What else will be determined to raise medical costs? We have noticed a trend in the number of skiiers that break arms and legs. This raises medical costs. Skiing is now banned. We have determined that salt raises blood pressure. This raises medical costs. Salt is now banned. Get the idea? Give government an inch they take a light year. This is what is in store with universal health care. Orwell's book was right, its title was wrong. Not 1984, 2084. The timing should be about perfect.
March 11, 2008, 11:35 amBearster:
There are two basic views:
March 11, 2008, 12:21 pm1) I don't want to force others or to be forced...
2) Others should not be allowed...
morganovich:
mark s-
i can certainly see where you are coming from, but wouldn't it be awfully easy to remedy if insurance companies were simply allowed to write text into the policy voiding or limiting coverage in the event of an accident in which the rider was not wearing a helmet? seems pretty straightforward and lets the party facing the actuarial risk price it. if people want to pay up to have that clause removed from their policy and be covered helmetless, that ought to be between them and their insurer.
not just healthcare, but insurance regulation needs to be dramatically loosened. the requirement to cover everyone in the same way simply subsidizes expensive choices made by some with the better choices made by others. it you agree to split the bill evenly at the end of dinner, what incentive is there not to order the lobster? (especially if, as in insurance, no one will know who ate it)
March 11, 2008, 12:29 pmMr. Mercy Vetsel:
Mark S.,
Thanks for providing exhibit A in support of Coyote's post. If the government is responsible for taking care of you then ANY risky behavior becomes the government's concern.
Based on your logic the government should also ban motorcycles entirely since they are 5 times more dangerous per mile than cars.m
Why should I have to subsidize your reckless thrill-seeking?
-Mercy
March 11, 2008, 12:53 pmtim:
I race motorcycles on a track with about 20 other people on the weekends in the summer. We hit speeds around 135mph should my hobby be banned because it is dangerous and I might wind up on the tax payer dole? If the answer is yes, then what about sky diving? Cave diving, wreck diving? What about eating double cheeseburgers until I weigh 500 pounds? Most of all, if it is ok for the government to deny my choices because of the costs that it might have to society. What about all the problems people can get into financially? If not wearing a helmet is costly to society then surely so is a loan given to almost anyone from subprime to alt-A. And as long as we are on the subject of "costly to society" how about high school dropouts and teen pregnancies? What things can we do to those expensive drags on society?
Here is an idea, how about everybody minds their own business? You do what you do, I do what I do and we both take responsibility for ourselves and our actions.
March 11, 2008, 2:52 pmFred Middleton:
Personal responsibility. This would solve most of our nations domestic problems.
Why do people build buy appropriate a house in S. Calif. , in a high fire zone, and expect some miracle to save their house? Or FEMA to subsidise their fire insurance. The mortgage lender to loan without some degree of confidence that their investment will be in place a year from today.
The original (in California) debate Helmet vs no Helmet was about who would pay the medical bill for REST OF LIFE(minimal brain activity-motor sensor) tubes and hoses care when if any insurance ran out. One brain save by a helmet wearer, then, would save the tax burden of about $200 grand. The real perspective of what this argument is about one would need to go pick up some 100 motorcycle accident victims as the first responder. This would need to be in a zone of HELMETS are a personal responsibility.
Most needs of people that are left without the ability to manage their affairs properly will end up being helped by the big G. Public roads became a nightmare in the early 1900's do to inconsistent driving practices. So came drivers licenses and the test to qualify.
If Canadian health care were required to invent their own medicine, the end result would be catastrophic. Sustained yield harvesting of forests are funding (primary) that health care to our North. If the weather turns warmer, harvest can go up. If it gets colder, harvest will go down.
March 12, 2008, 7:21 am