Print Post Print Post

Daniel Hannan On Foxnews Discussing Nationalized Health Care

Written by | August 8th, 2009

Daniel Hannan is a British politician, and Member of The European Parliament (MEP), who represents South East England for the Conservative Party, visits Fox News to discuss nationalized health care in England.

For any United States citizen that thinks nationalized health care sounds good; I would agree, on paper, every citizen having accessible and affordable health care, would be good. However, before handing over control of your health, and the health of the ones that you love the  most, to the government, I am asking you to “please” watch this video, and find people and doctors that live in countries such as England and Canada, that currently have these government ran health care systems, and get their views on it as well.

I would also like to add, that many, including “some” government officials, would like some to believe, that people like myself, or Glenn Beck, don’t care about fellow Americans; on the contrary, we do care “very much” about our fellow citizens, and “that is why” we bring this information to the public.

There are many possible solutions to making health care affordable and accessible to the general public, while maintaining your privacy and freedom; but as you will hopefully learn, government ran health care systems are “not” an efficient or best approach to national health care concerns.

Please watch the below (interviews) videos with Daniel Hannan, on nationalized health care…

Share
Like/Follow us
on Facebook

13 thoughts on “Daniel Hannan On Foxnews Discussing Nationalized Health Care

  1. markross Post author

    If you forward to 4:10…

    Here is Daniel, again, on Jun 8, 2009, in Denver, Colorado, speaking about nationalized health care, the free-markets, and the undesirable principals of socialism.


    Reply
  2. markross Post author

    Please see the below articles, and resources, on nationalized health care, and the nationalized health care debate:

    Can you afford government health care? by Keith Blackie

    Britain’s medical poker game by Melanie Phillips.

    Democrats launch counter-offensive on health care by Anthony G. Martin

    The Whole Foods alternative to government health care by John Mackey

    Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine

    John Stossle report on Medicare

    Conservatives for Patients’ Rights

    Is this what your doctor’s office will look like under a government-ran health care plan?

    Is President Obama’s “public” health care option going over like a lead balloon?

    Reply
  3. rodney

    Thanks for putting the link up, much appreciated. Our TV coverage was very limited here in South Africa and I have difficulty in finding particular items on Youtube. The Telegraph should do it.. but……

    Reply
  4. markross Post author

    Hi Jackie,

    The simple answer is, because the government has demonstrated "clearly" that they can not "prudently" manage any programs that utilize large amounts of tax-payer dollars. For example, Medicare is said to have an unfunded liability of 34 trillion dollars; I am yet to see a private sector company that can survive with the same fiscal irresponsibility as our government.

    In fact, I will go as far as saying, this government has done more to hurt this country, economically, over the last hundred years, then they have helped. 

    In regards to Medicare and Medicaid; before they start trying to sell another huge government program, perhaps they should first demonstrate that they can fix the programs already in place.

    One of my thoughts is, they are desperate for more money…  if they can sell this public option to the people, they can then extort more money from us, through progressive (income tax) taxation; which will give them more money to fund the unfunded programs already in place. Then they can "further" distribute the wealth as they please; such as insuring "illegal" immigrants on the tax-payer's dime. None of these are very pleasant thoughts, but all are quite possible.

    No new government agencies!

    That would be impossible! With every new government program comes a new level of government bureaucracy, which further adds to the government overhead, and becomes a further burden on the tax-payers.

    Like every other clear-minded citizen, I want health care to be more accessible and more affordable. I have heard a lot of great ideas for reform, while keeping health care in the private sector, and out of the irresponsible hands of the federal government.

    I am utterly amazed that the government can even be trying to sell a government controlled, national health care plan; it clearly demonstrates just how far removed we have become from the government envisioned by our founders, and our Constitution.

    Jackie, you may appreciate this, it is very informative…

    John Stossle report on Medicare

    Reply
  5. Jackie

    We already have 2 government run health care systems, Medicare & Medicaid. Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the poor. Why can’t we just fix them, and offer them to more people? Right now CHIP, which is for children, has both a free plan and a plan for about $50 a month. Why not make all of Medicaid that way?

    This way everyone who wants health care but can’t afford it, can get it. Also, maybe they could offer a Medicaid supplement to help those who have ridiculously high deductibles. The supplement could be secondary to our primary plan.

    No new government agencies!

    Reply
  6. Jackie

    Very well said.  I feel there needs to be major reforms in the Medicare & Medicaid system.  And now, after watching the John Stossle report, they need to work toward eliminating a good portion of people off Medicare.  This country is only going to get worse and worse as more people feel entitled to hand outs from the government.  And like my post entitled <a href ="http://faithfulinprayer.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/american-slavery-in-the-21st-century/&quot; target= "_blank" rel="nofollow">"American Slavery in the 21st Century", once you are on these entitlements, it is extremely hard to get yourself off of them.

    We need to go back to holding people accountable for their behavior and choices in life, instead of enabling them.

    Our federal government is insane.  As Glenn Beck said recently, "Who exactly is in control of our federal government?

    Another quote from "The Mist" – "If you scare people badly enough, you can get them to do anything.  They'll turn to whoever promises a solution, or whatever"

    Reply
  7. markross Post author

    Thank you Jackie!

    Yes, The Stossle report was excellent and eye-opening for sure.

    Even if our government had the right intentions, initially, with these entitlements, the cost “always” balloons way bigger then they originally projected; as would any type of national health care plan, regardless of how you feel about it otherwise. 

    I agree 100%! We need all private sector solutions, and the most needy can still be helped through charitable contributions.

    Some, including our president, wants to argue how immoral it is that some don’t have health care; I take an opposing point of view, and submit, it is far more immoral to bankrupt an entire nation, future generations, and further jeopardize our fiscal well-being and sovereignty.  He has a constitutional mandate to defend our nation, and to further jeopardize our fiscal well-being, can very well put us into a national security problem.

    We have heard many great potential fixes for reforming the private sector health care industry, and I believe we should “always” start from the lowest common-denominator, and work from there. However, politicians want to continue to do what they do best: promise the world today, and figure out how to pay for it tomorrow.

    As far as Medicare, that is really complex; none of us who are compassionate wants to see any of our seniors be denied care, or abruptly dropped from a program, but something needs be done to slowly wean them off from this monstrosity and onto a more viable solution. As a nation, we should all be looking for free-enterprise solutions to these problems, but instead, many of these far-left liberals want to keep promising the world, and somehow coming to an assumption that they have a right to make the rest of us pay for it, via income tax.

    These dam entitlements have made people so dependent on government, and has often kept people sadly mis-informed as to doing what is right, in regards to their retirement and health care.

    “If you scare people badly enough, you can get them to do anything. They’ll turn to whoever promises a solution, or whatever”

    Great quote! Yes, this government has fear-mongered us for far too long, and I believe the people are finally wising up to it! Even to a point to where we are losing all trust in our federal government.

    Reply
  8. KEB

    I can't do the math the government is trying to do, even though it should be simple.

    Consider that the US spent about $2.26 trillion in 2007 for health care, or about $8500 per person. Using the example the government uses as an example of what we can do to improve our health care system, they point to Medicare .. yeah it is broke, but getting them to admit that won't change a thing.

    Anyway, lets add the 50 million Americans they claim are not getting health care because of whatever reason … that pushes the cost to about $2.7 trillion to cover everyone, in 2007 dollars. Push that up with inflation and you get closer to $2.9 trillion for 2010.

    Now, human nature is such that if anything is "free", people tend to use more of it and use it more unwisely because:

    a) it isn't costing them anything

    b) if they don't use it someone else might

    Of course this is not necessarily a wise move, but then most people lose their mind when something is "free" … and in this instance health care would be "free" to millions who pay a big fat goose egg in taxes. Those would also tend to use the system more. How much more is debatable, but lets consider that the increase in usage of health care services is a nominal amount.

    I think it is perfectly reasonable if you go to the doctor when you are sick, you will continue to do so, and that if you seldom go to the doctor when you are sick, you will go, because why should you feel ill when money is no longer an obstacle to obtaining health care. Aside from the regular visits, one might see, we could likely expect an increase of about 20% in additional visits to doctors. Considering that an increase in visits of 20% will likely push the overall cost of health care to about $3.5 trillion annualized.

    Now lets look at some of the health savings that we can expect. If we follow the Medicare example and limit payment to about 85%** of the current rate, we still end up with a cool $3 trillion in medical expenses for the entire nation, or about $9600 per person per year.

    I don't know about you, but I can't afford to pay another $9600 per year in taxes, not to mention the increased government bureaucracy that will have to be created to "manage" this monstrosity.

    But lets just use a nice straight line method of calculation to see where it takes us. The administration says that we can do Obamacare for about $700b .. about what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid combined … and those programs cover about 90 million people .. do the math and you end up with a figure right about $2.5 trillion a year … or about $8000 a year per person … in 2007 dollars … or about $8700 in 2010 dollars .. OK, so it is $1000 less than my math .. but it closely matches the current estimates of all medical costs.

    In the end, I can't see how the government can cover everyone and pay for $3 trillion in medical expenses with a $700 billion budget .. it just ain't happening.

    Reply
  9. markross Post author

    Hey K,

    No doubt!

    If somebody handed you a grocery insurance card, with no set limit, can I assume that you would only buy the absolute necessities?  I doubt it! And that is more reason to make the consumer more aware and responsible for the amount of money they are spending for each level of health care. Even with our current system, there is no incentive to be prudent, except that we have to pay co-payments, which is one way to keep ballooning costs from getting anymore out of control.

    Assuming your above math is correct, with the proper reforms in the private sector, we could all likely be gainfully insured for a lot less then $9600 a year.  In fact, I recently heard one great suggestion; if health care is properly reformed, then insurance companies should insure people in the same way term life insurance is done; once under-written and approved, you should be put on a 10 yr or 20 yr term policy to which your rates are guaranteed not to go up, regardless of medical conditions, for the duration of that policy.

    If the government option was forced on the masses, and the costs spiral out of control, then there is two "absolutes" that must occur: either taxes will be raised, or care will limited, or rationed. Neither one of those options sound very reassuring.

    Besides all of the aforementioned reasons why we can't allow government to start, run or manage any further large entitlement programs; as you have further demonstrated above, it simply would not be sustainable financially; and certainly not without denying people critical care at some point. In my opinion, both of those options would be morally reprehensible.

    Reply
  10. markross Post author

    "OK, so it is $1000 less than my math, but it closely matches the current estimates of all medical costs".

    K,

    After a second reading of your comment, and again, assuming your math is correct, I came to the same conclusion; mathematically, their national health care plan would cost at least as much as the system is currently costing us; with a more then likely chance, a government run system, cost-wise, will spiral out of control in the future.

    Therefore, if they can not justify any savings, and there is a more then likely chance that care will decrease, while costs increase, then we are much better off doing nothing; unless of course, we start with the most "rational" of fixes to the current system.

    Also consider, using the 50 million uninsured number, which is an average of one-million per state:

    By adding that many more people into a system that isn't ran by the free-markets, there is a very high risk that the system could be overwhelmed; which would lead to increasingly longer wait times, and perhaps, denial of services.

    Reply
  11. markross Post author

    "unless of course, we start with the most “rational” of fixes to the current system"

    The other day, Howard Dean, at a townhall meeting, openly inferred, because of political reasons, tort reform is not likely to happen…

    Here is Howard Dean's recent words, vertbatim…

    "This is the answer from a doctor and a politician: Here is why tort reform is not in the bill: When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that; the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers, in addition to everybody else they were taking on; and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that's the truth."

    And while I appreciated Howard Dean for his candor, it only further demonstrates that special interests, and political expediency, still supersedes the "overall goodwill" of the people of this country.

    Therefore, don't be fooled by their rhetoric:

    More then the health care system, the true reform needed in this country, is the reform of our current political system. That is a "moral imperative" that most of us could agree with.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook