Medicare and Medicaid, 50 Years Later: The Awful Truth

For Medicare Supplement Help – Click here

The real truth about Medicare and Medicaid and their true nature and consequences are completely unknown to most people. Murray Sabrin has just released a documentary on the 50th anniversary of their creation setting the record straight, and providing an alternative. Not to be missed! Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

17 thoughts on “Medicare and Medicaid, 50 Years Later: The Awful Truth

  1. On the idea that doctors want to be independent and think individually.
    Good luck. The med school students and residents that I know would feel
    more than *honored* to be a piece on the chess board of the bureaucrats to
    “benefit to society”. Most of these are hardcore progressives. They see
    their status as pion tool of the controllers as their way of “giving back”.
    It’s sad.

  2. The role of government in a free society should be the lead exhibition in
    the Smithsonian Institute in the section of:

    Really bad ideas in history.

  3. Get government out of the health insurance business as much as possible.
    Limit them to limited regulations and financial support for health
    insurance to those who need it.

    Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People
    under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level
    should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health
    insurance.

    Keep the federal regulation stating that insurance companies have to cover
    pre-existing conditions as long as the person had previous insurance.
    Allow people to purchase insurance from any state. Deregulate state health
    insurance markets. Unhinge medical insurance from employers in the tax code.

    Getting government out and increasing competition in this way will lower
    health insurance costs. It cuts the bureaucracy costs, cuts the fraud costs
    and improves competition and quality of care.

    Why not do financial assistance for health insurance the same way we do
    financial assistance for food?

  4. You can’t phase out socialism, it has to be killed outright and quickly.
    National, state, county and city bankruptcy is probably the only solution
    at this point.

    • +Ed Waggoner Sr. (Papatch) The only way it is going to die quickly is the
      government running out of money. That would require half the population
      refusing to pay taxes or an economic collapse.

      Increasingly I am for the latter and always for the prior.

  5. It seems more of a supply and demand problem with doctors. Just increase
    the number of GP doctors by tens of thousands. Pass a Federal law requiring
    that each state produce 10,000 doctors per year for the next ten years.
    This would force states to close worthless Liberal Arts programs and start
    up Medical Schools. The vast number of doctors would lower the costs of
    basic medical care and the cost for Medicare/Medicaid would go down.

    • In a perfect world, or free market, this problem would have never happened.
      The market needed more affordable medical services and the education system
      would have provided more doctors. But the people in government and crony
      businessmen got in the way and prevented it. So just use the same tools to
      fix it.

      But the market did provide more toys at a very affordable price because the
      government did not get in the way. It sat on the sidelines or provided free
      trade agreements which opened the doors to cheaper toys from mostly
      overseas factories.

      The states are very good at meeting most federal mandates. Just look at the
      streets with the numerous safety signs, painted white lines, etc….which
      have to be replaced with new and improved ones every few years because
      someone in the federal government has determined this will improve safety.

      Once government gets involved with various industries, such as the medical
      system, and distorts the supply and demand part of it, well, it’s over. The
      government in the past has paid hospitals not to train new doctors for
      whatever reasons, usually because the AMA or some other group does not want
      too many doctors i.e. competition. So just swing it back the other way.

      There are hundreds of thousands of people that want to be a doctor but
      there are just not enough seats. Why? There is the huge demand for more GP
      doctors but the medical schools are not producing enough..here in the USA.
      Many new doctors are coming from overseas to fill the demand.

      What could be worse than seeing doctors fighting for patients instead of
      patients fighting for doctors?

    • +David Well No no no, the government should not be determining how many of
      each job there should be. The market will determine the number of doctors
      that will best seek the equilibrium between supply and demand, and thus
      resources will be allocated most efficiently.

      Yes, if you increase the supply of doctors, prices for medical care will go
      down. But, likewise, if you increase the supply of toy-makers, the prices
      of child toys will go down. Should we then have laws forcing a certain
      amount of people to become toy-makers? Because obviously if you are against
      such a mandate, you hate children and don’t want them to have any toys!

      Also, what happens if the states don’t meet this law’s mandate? Do state
      governments then force citizens into medical positions? Your solution seems
      to me to be an artificial, forced statist “solution” that will only make
      things worse.

    • +Pdrum2 There has always been a limit on the number of doctors being
      produced and sometimes by the government itself. I remember a few years ago
      the government was paying some colleges in NYC not to produce doctors. I
      know the AMA does not encourage more doctors and less English Majors. It
      just seems so inane not to increase the supply of doctors.

  6. Murray Sabrin said he couldn’t accept raising taxes on low-income families.
    You know, the families that get vastly more benefits from the government
    than they ever pay in taxes. Yeah, I mean, paying any amount of tax is more
    than paying negative amounts.

    • +w.s.x.d.r It’s also nasty to arbitrarily define one class as rich, the
      other as poor, and steal from the former to give to the latter.

Leave a Reply

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