Bill Richardson’s promise of government-mandated universal health care may well have foundered on “fiscal and economic reality” (as National Review puts it), but it’s another aspect of the debacle which ought to be a wake-up call for everyone:

And what did that proposal include? First and foremost, it targeted doctors for significant cost savings by forcing anyone practicing medicine in New Mexico to prescribe whatever care the state or health-insurance companies deemed adequate. While such a move may appear logical to those who believe government is the font of all wisdom, the reality is that doctors — already scarce in the state’s rural areas — would flee New Mexico in droves if they became the target of ever-increasing demands for cost-savings.

If this is how you want your health — and that of your children and your aging parents — taken care of, vote Democrat this fall. It’s that simple.

Tags: Barack Obama, Socialism, Hillary Clinton, Health Care, Rod D. Martin, Election 2008, TheVanguard.Org

1. Most people agree we need health care reform. There are, as always, two ways to go from where we are — to socialism or to capitalism.

   Socialism, as always, means redistributing the current supply of health care. You freeze the price and then you ration. And most people who have do worse. And since most people have, most people will indeed do worse.

   Capitalism means policies that create more supply so everyone has access to more.

   Should be a no-brainer, but not enough pro-market folks explain it well enough….that plus media bias make it tough to get out the message that free-market solutions are a viable alternative to socialized medicine.

   Comment by Charles Gordon — April 26, 2008 @ 6:28 pm