The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : If the UN Likes It, then It Must be Okay

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

If the UN Likes It, then It Must be Okay

By Doug Bandow on 3.25.10 @ 2:32PM

Health care reform must be a good deal. The UN likes it. Really.

"The people in this country and their leaders are courageous. That (healthcare reform) is an unprecedented achievement," WHO Director General Margaret Chan said.

She was speaking to reporters after a lecture in which she argued that unrestricted market forces were limited as a means of redressing imbalances in global health care.

The reforms of the $2.5 trillion healthcare sector passed by Congress after months of heated debate will extend health insurance to 32 million Americans who currently have none.

It will also bar insurers from refusing coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions, expand the Medicaid government health insurance program for the poor and impose new taxes on the wealthy.

Conservatives and other critics argue that it will send the U.S. budget deficit soaring and slow economic recovery, but also that it represents unwarranted federal intrusion into the freedom of individuals to make healthcare choices.

Chan has made clear her view that governments and global organizations such as WHO should make a case for market regulation to deliver more equitable health benefits.

Of course. UN bureaucrats are a vastly better record than the rest of us in a free marketplace. Remind me again about what a great job the UN does in preventing wars, promoting development, expanding freedom, advancing human progress ...

(H/t Nile Gardiner.)

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Philip| 3.25.10 @ 3:05PM

Yes, and you know what ? Cuban leader endorses US health care reform too :

http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....0625.story

Well, this is hardly a surprise considering the muzzie in chief has a first cousin named Fidel Castro Odinga.

PCC| 3.25.10 @ 4:13PM

On "pre-existing conditions":

Let's say I have diabetes, a chronic disease which greatly increases my risk for expensive long-term medical treatment for such ailments as liver failure, pancreatic disorders, blindness, possible amputations, etc.

What insurance company, notified in advance of the presence of my condition, in its right mind would want to insure against those costs? Or, if it were to do so, mandated or otherwise, wouldn't charge an eye-wateringly high premium to do so? And who could blame them?

The costs of such medical treatment are not imaginary or free. Someone has to pay for them.

If the mandated coverage further establishes limits on premiums, if the premium levels are not high enough then or the insurance company will go out of business. You can't just wish this stuff away.

What is the sense in that?

I have greater sympathy for the argument that says if a person becomes ill then the insurance company cannot terminate coverage in the midst of the ailment (after all, that's what insurance is for), but even then one can reasonably argue that the company can justify a total cap on expenses, or that a competitive marketplace can produce a result equal to or better than a government mandate.

What a dog's breakfast this whole mess is!

Curly Smith| 3.25.10 @ 4:46PM

The insurance company doesn't "cap" the amount of expenses that they will pay -- you do when you buy your policy. You can buy a policy with a $1 million cap, a $2 million cap, some other amount, or one with no cap. The cost will quite naturally increase with the insurance company's exposure.

The Dems want you to believe that there's "corporate greed" involved when the insurance company refuses reimbursement once you've exceeded the mutually agreed limit. They're saying that the $50,000 policy on your house should pay $500,000 if your house is destroyed in a fire. They're saying that the argument "I would have purchased the more expensive policy if I'd known my house was going to burn down" is valid.