Socialized healthcare means higher taxes and more government control

I wonder if Cory Heidelberger read this in the Madison paper:

Two words used in the national discussion over health care reform need to be clarified: "affordable" and "access."

They are both good political words, implying that our elected officials will do something to lower prices, perhaps even to zero, and make sure health care is readily available to everyone for their needs. The two words are good to use during elections and on press releases.

But in essence, they both mean that our taxes will pay for health care, and government officials will control it.

Governments, using tax dollars, already pay about half the health care costs in the United States. About 20 percent of the nation is employed by federal, state and local governments, while Medicare, Medicaid and other programs fill up the rest.

The "access" part of the debate intends to provide free health-care for those who don't either pay for it themselves, have an employer who pays it on their behalf, or have it paid through a government program. Estimates assumes between 15 and 25 percent of the population are in this group.

So let's assume that the government -- using our taxes -- will soon be paying the vast majority of health care costs in the U.S. When it does, the next logical step is to take over decision-making.

We often think of receiving government funds as free money, but it usually turns into a loss of control. When South Dakota decided to rely more on state taxes rather than local taxes to finance K-12 education, local school boards lost much of its budgetary control to state legislators.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

I did read that, Steve. Jon Hunter will be receiving a letter from me next week. (Alas, he won't publish that on his website.)