David R. Henderson  

Biden Calls for Free Market in Health Care

PRINT
Austrian Myside Bias... Name Robin's Creatures...

At least for women. He didn't address health care for men.

In his acceptance speech for the vice-presidential nomination last night, Joe Biden, surprisingly, called for a free market in health care for women. He stated, to much applause:

we see a future -- we really honest to God do -- . . . where women once again control their own choices, their destiny and their own health care.

I look forward to his following through. I await his call for ending the restrictions that prevent women from getting contraceptives without a prescription and his call for ending restrictions that prevent women from getting drugs that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved.


Comments and Sharing





COMMENTS (15 to date)
roystgnr writes:

Amusing, but not quite correct modus ponens.

"A is true; A implies B, therefore B is true" is a valid syllogism.

"Joe believes A, A implies B, therefore Joe believes B" is not a valid syllogism, unless you first show that Joe knows "A implies B" and that Joe is capable of basic deductive reasoning.

David R. Henderson writes:

@roystgnr,
"Joe believes A, A implies B, therefore Joe believes B" is not a valid syllogism, unless you first show that Joe knows "A implies B" and that Joe is capable of basic deductive reasoning.
Good point. I guess I’ll have to concede that Joe Biden does not seem capable of basis deductive reasoning. My bad.

Ken B writes:

Hilarious David.

You are unlikely to get a better and clearer policy statement from Joe Biden.

sieben writes:

Here, "health care" is a euphemism for abortion. It is always a code-word for some ulterior goal. No one ever thinks "health care" means eating vegetables and exercising.

I wonder how much credibility they would lose if they were honest, and described large increases in health expenditures as necessary to offset fast food consumption.

stephen writes:

Hilarious quote, for about as many reasons as words it contains. Glad you read this stuff so I don't have to.

Foobarista writes:

I always thought the term "healthcare", as used by politicians, is an oxymoron.

kebko writes:

That's a great catch.

Even without this irony, it's an amazing rhetorical notion to push, that having someone else pay for something gives us control over our choices. Give any 18 year old the choice between buying their own contraception and having their parents buy their contraception, and see which choice they believe gives them more control over their choices. I don't see how replacing your parents with a committee of 300 million strangers helps.

Daniel Artz writes:

What the applause was for was the unstated punchline. For those unfamiliar with Democrat-speak, here's a complete quote:

"We see a future -- we really honest to God do -- where women once again control their own choices, their destiny and their own healthcare -- And government will force someone else to pay for all of those choices."

malclave writes:

Will women have the freedom to go without health insurance if they so desire without paying a penalty tax, or do we not trust women to make that choice?

thomass writes:

Or to be able to buy insurance that covers things the government panels don't approve of... and to not interfere with doctors or hospitals that want to provide those things...

Donavon Pfeiffer writes:

Or buy insurance that only covers those services they are likely to use?

Micha Elyi writes:

Obviously you do not understand, malclave. Feminists are liberating women! Freedom has nothing to do with it.

Jason Lee writes:

I doubt pharmacists are going to want to shoulder the entirety of the litigation risk that comes with ensuring (and documenting) that the patient understands the risks of OCPs including the risk of life-threatening blood clots (and the increase in that specific risk that comes with tobacco use and with age over 35) ... as well as the risk of of pregnancy that comes with numerous OCP-drug interactions and OCP-food interactions ... as well as the increased risk of various malignancies.

I have no doubt that pharmacists are up to the task of delving into the patient's past medical history and personal risk factor profile and family history, but if they take on all of this time-consuming burden along with the cost of higher malpractice insurance that would come with the added responsibility, that's going to add to the cost of OCPs from the pharmacists' end ... and the visit to the pharmacist will be a less convenient process.

This idea of having pharmacists assume responsibility for the whole process of selecting and dispensing medication might be worth a try, but I doubt it would work nearly as well as hoped.

Nick writes:

The vast majority of retail pharmacists only exist because of government law forces stores to have them. There is absolutely no need to have a super highly educated person putting pills in bottles all day when machines and less educated people could do just as good of a job. They must have a great lobby organization.

Steve S. writes:

kebko writes:


...I don't see how replacing your parents with a committee of 300 million strangers helps.

The teenager will experience great freedom under the committee of 300 million as long as their interests coincide, or at least do not conflict. When the committee of 300-million decides something against that teenager, the teenager will be powerless and would prefer the parental limitations because those could at least be argued.

So many of the "liberation" arguments fall into this trap. It's a false freedom.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top