Russell Williams
Well-Known Member
Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights.
"I believe that free-market principles will solve our health-care problems," Scott said, adding that he was successful in cutting costs and improving customer satisfaction at both Columbia/HCA and his Solantic clinics.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "solve". In a free-market system people get to choose from among a variety of products and select a product that most suits their needs. Of course, if they have no money they do not get any product. So one way of "solving" is to simply say that patients will have a variety of healthcare choices and if they have no money they will get no healthcare. Probably it would also make sense, in a true free-market situation, to eliminate Medicaid and Medicare and go back to the old system of, if you can pay for it you get the service, and if you cannot pay for your medical treatment you do not get medical treatment.
People have also been pointing out that the Liberals are talking about redistributing the wealth. In Maryland this is already being done. All Maryland children are eligible for some healthcare and in some cases this health care is paid for with tax funds. Obviously this is a wealth redistribution scheme in which money is taken from well-off people of work hard to earn their money and that money is used to provide medical services to children whose parents have not done the things necessary to earn enough money to provide medical care for their children. I assume those who object to redistributing the wealth take the position that if the parents can not pay for a child's medical care the child should not get the medical care. Certainly a sick child at home will provide parents with the incentive to go out and look harder for work and to take any jobs available. Certainly no reasonable person who has a child at home who is dying would devise their own wealth redistribution scheme and rob stores and banks to get enough money to pay for their child's medical care.
"I believe that free-market principles will solve our health-care problems," Scott said, adding that he was successful in cutting costs and improving customer satisfaction at both Columbia/HCA and his Solantic clinics.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "solve". In a free-market system people get to choose from among a variety of products and select a product that most suits their needs. Of course, if they have no money they do not get any product. So one way of "solving" is to simply say that patients will have a variety of healthcare choices and if they have no money they will get no healthcare. Probably it would also make sense, in a true free-market situation, to eliminate Medicaid and Medicare and go back to the old system of, if you can pay for it you get the service, and if you cannot pay for your medical treatment you do not get medical treatment.
People have also been pointing out that the Liberals are talking about redistributing the wealth. In Maryland this is already being done. All Maryland children are eligible for some healthcare and in some cases this health care is paid for with tax funds. Obviously this is a wealth redistribution scheme in which money is taken from well-off people of work hard to earn their money and that money is used to provide medical services to children whose parents have not done the things necessary to earn enough money to provide medical care for their children. I assume those who object to redistributing the wealth take the position that if the parents can not pay for a child's medical care the child should not get the medical care. Certainly a sick child at home will provide parents with the incentive to go out and look harder for work and to take any jobs available. Certainly no reasonable person who has a child at home who is dying would devise their own wealth redistribution scheme and rob stores and banks to get enough money to pay for their child's medical care.
