|« Previous||Main||Next »|
AMERICA is at a crossroads when it comes to healthcare.
All Americans want to increase the quality, affordability, and portability of healthcare. The 2008 election presents a decisive debate on how to reach this goal.
The Democratic candidates for president believe in a government-mandated model that looks for inspiration to the socialized medical systems of Europe, Canada, and Cuba.
Most Republicans believe in expanding individual choice and decision-making. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. Instead of being more like Europe, we need to be more like America.
[T]he healthcare system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates, wasteful bureaucracy, and massive distortions in the US tax code that punish self-employed and low-income workers. Since 2000, Americans have seen their health insurance costs nearly double. Frivolous lawsuits have led to defensive medicine and doctors leaving the profession. More than 45 million Americans are without health insurance.
Hogberg? Catron? Browning? The above comments weren’t made by any of us bloggers here at freemarketcure.com. Actually, the author is the former mayor of New York, Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.
His comments, which appeared yesterday in the Boston Globe, are concise, intelligent, and, yes, free market.
Earlier this week, as has been widely reported, Mayor Giuliani announced his principles for health care reform. First and foremost: tax fairness for the millions not covered by employer-sponsored insurance. He outlined other ideas: Cutting drug prices by reforming the FDA, reigning in trial lawyers, encouraging states to drop costly regulations (esp. mandates), reforming Medicaid by using welfare reform as a template.
Sure it’s early. And we need to see the details before drawing firm conclusions on RudyCare. But what we’ve seen is quite promising. And, yes, I’ll confess my bias. But even the Wall Street Journal had kind things to say – and that editorial board tends to be hard to please.
With that in mind, I’m a bit disappointed with David Hogberg’s earlier posting. I almost always agree with you, David. And, when I don’t, it’s usually because I’m wrong.
But in this case, I think you may have been too harsh. Don’t you think there is something compelling about a candidate who sees this as a contest between socialism and market reforms – and favors the latter?