But what is health care? The concept of reimbursable health-care service rests on the premise that the medical problem in need of servicing is the result of involuntary, unwanted happenings, not the result of voluntary, goal-directed behavior. Leukemia, lupus, prostate cancer, and many infectious diseases are unwanted happenings. Are we going to count obesity, smoking, depression and schizophrenia as the same kinds of diseases?Actually, that's kind of the point of Obamacare, working to lower these behaviors in the populace in order to lower costs, but moving on...
Many Americans would willingly pay for insurance to protect them against the exorbitant cost of treating their own leukemia. But how many Americans would willingly pay for insurance to protect them from the expenses of treating their own depression?Don't feel that's relevant to the question, but okay.
Everyone recognizes that the more fully we wish insurance companies to defray our out of pocket expenses for our car repairs, the higher the premium they will charge for the policy. Yet foregoing reimbursement for trivial or unnecessary health-care costs in return for a more suitable health-care policy is an option unavailable under the present system. Everyone with health insurance is compelled to protect himself from risks, such as alcoholism and erectile dysfunction, that he would willingly shoulder in exchange for a lower premium.Still kind of an odd argument, but continue...
The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion. Rich and educated people not only receive better goods and services in all areas of life than do poor and uneducated people, they also tend to take better care of themselves and their possessions, which in turn leads to better health. The first requirement for better health care for all is not equal health care for everyone but educational and economic advancement for everyone.Holy Schnikes. So, right off the bat this guy under the Hippocratic Oath admits the fatal flaw in our current program (cost as a barrier/rationing criteria to care) and calls universal care a delusion, and then he says "Oh, the non-delusional way to fix this is to make everybody rich."
And this guy's a psychiatrist.
Jesus.
Szasz is a political libertarian who has made his whole career as an inside critic of psychiatry as false medicine and merely a form of political control. Here he gets to combine the two: medicine and "big government" strangling the free man in a straitjacket of "socialized medicine" paternalism!
ReplyDeleteThe Wall Street Journal is simply using him as a convenient mouthpiece. They no more believe - or, likely, understand - his ravings than they do those of Sarah Palin. He's just against the same things they're against, so they give him a soapbox because it happens to serve their self-interested purposes.-
Yeah, after reading that article I looked into Szasz's career. You're dead bang on him, Kevin.
ReplyDeleteImagine that. A News Corp. media outlet acting as a mouthpiece against liberalism. Perish the thought.