The High Price of Obamacare’s Socialized Medicine

Written by on November 28, 2016

The High Price of Obamacare’s Socialized Medicine
Season 1

 
 
00:00 / 1:03:08
 
1X
 

American Christianity has surrendered ground in areas that have supposed “little gospel application”.  But the Lordship of Christ is over every area of our lives, and this means the gospel applies to everything–including our healthcare.  Dr. Jim Brook, author of The High Price of Socialized Medicine, joins us to discuss why the free market would provide higher quality, cheaper healthcare in contrast to Obamacare.  Dr. Brook runs his own practice, and rejects health insurance in order to keep his pricing low and his service focused on the patient.Jesus is Lord overall, and as we seek to bring every thought captive under Christ, this should include our understanding of healthcare and economics.

FacebooktwitterrssyoutubeFacebooktwitterrssyoutube

Reader's opinions
  1. Jim Brook   On   November 28, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    We did not talk about the minimum wage in the interview, but when I listened to the whole podcast later, I heard some discussion of the minimum wage. As you said, everything would come to the same point, just with different numbers. However, that does not consider the elderly. I think the following would happen. In the short term, businesses that cannot afford to pay $15 per hour for workers whose work is worth much less would close down. Those people would then be out of jobs. We have seen that happen in Seattle. In the first 6 months after their increased minimum wage law passed, 1300 restaurant workers lost their jobs. Businesses that could afford to do so would automate to the extent possible, and those who cannot would shut down. Thin what about more skilled workers who are currently making $15 per hour, or a little more or less? They would demand more. There would be no incentive for somebody to learn to be a welder or an electrician or a mason, and put their bodies through the hardship of those jobs, if they could make roughly the same amount without the learning, on a much easier job. We would have a shortage of skilled workers, so it would take more money to attract people to learn those skills. That would continue up the wage scale. Ultimately, everybody would be demanding higher wages, and receiving them, or those jobs would go unfilled. A person’s wage is a reflection of the value of his work, relative to other workers. Naturally, prices would have to rise to accommodate the higher wages. Even in the short term, prices would have to rise because automation, to avoid payroll costs, is not cheap. An equilibrium would be reached over time, with wages for every skill level doubled, and prices doubled, and we would be in the same situation we are in now. All except one group. Can you guess who that would be? Those who have worked when wages and prices were much lower. The retired elderly. Costs of everything would be doubled, while their retirement nest eggs have not grown. You would have effectively cut the value of their savings in half. So, why are all those advocates of a higher minimum wage workers so callous and unfeeling toward the elderly? Or have they really not thought this one through? I offer another suggestion. Learn a skill, and make your work worth $15 per hour, or more.

  2. Jim Brook   On   November 28, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    When you said, “if you’re afraid to say no to the free money, then what you’re saying is ‘the government can run my life,'” that brought to mind the following from my book:
    People should be free to perform whatever self-destructive activities they choose, so long as they do not bill somebody else for their consequences. Do whatever you want, just don’t send me the bill. If you want the laws to allow something as long as it is kept in the privacy of your own bedroom, then don’t take it out of your bedroom and into my wallet.
    On the other hand, the people getting the bill for your behaviors may very well decide to do something about them someday. We already see society heading away from free choices in matters of what to eat, and smoking. Legislation could well spread to other behaviors.
    Sorry, folks, but Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, has a legitimate point. If society, through government, has to pay your medical costs, then society, through government, has a right to tell you how much soda you can drink. And, for that matter, whether you can have a trampoline, and when you have to wear a helmet, and with whom you can have sex. Like to go four-wheeling, or skydiving, or bullriding, or dirtbiking? Like to eat a bacon double cheeseburger? Then don’t bill other people for your health consequences. Otherwise they have every right to say what you can and can’t do, and even what you must do. Eat a plateful of brussel sprouts every day, or else, by the precedent set by John Roberts, you can even pay extra tax. Get your exercise every day, or pay extra tax. I call this the Bloomberg effect.
    Society has just as much right to outlaw unhealthy behavior, and to mandate healthy behavior, as you do to bill them for the consequences of those behaviors. I do not want the government telling us what we can and cannot do. I want to be free to make my own choices of my own free will, and I want people of other viewpoints to be free to make their own choices, whatever they may be, as long as they do not pick my pocket or break my leg.

Comments are closed.


Current track

Title

Artist