moonbattery.gif


« Forced Conversions to Islam — In London | Main | Barack Obama's Church Honors Louis Farrakhan »


January 14, 2008

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino Goes to War Against Affordable Health Clinics

When allowed, the free market will provide solutions to most any problem. For example, healthcare costs have been driven through the ceiling, largely as a result of the gargantuan greed of Democrat-backed trial lawyers like John Edwards. Malpractice suits have made the medical profession less appealing, with the result that people sometimes have to wait months to see a doctor. CVS and other retailers have stepped up by opening medical clinics inside their stores.

However, liberals insist that only coercive solutions be allowed. Boston's moonbat Mayor Thomas Menino has launched a jihad against the affordable and convenient mini-clinics. A strong-arm tactic under consideration to keep them out of Boston is forbidding the stores that incorporate them from selling tobacco products. Menino's justification is right out of a speech by Vladimir Lenin:

Limited service medical clinics run by merchants in for-profit corporations will seriously compromise quality of care and hygiene. Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong.

In the absence of evidence that quality of care and hygiene would be compromised, Menino seems to oppose the clinics only because profit is involved — as with everything in a free economy.

Doctors and hospitals also operate for profit. But Democrats are working to fix that.

Thomas-Menino.jpg
Thomas Menino, Boston's answer to V.I. Lenin.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at January 14, 2008 1:23 PM

Comments

Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong.

But allowing government to make money and increase its power off of sick people is a moral imperative.

Posted by: V the K at January 14, 2008 1:39 PM

I love the hypocrisy of these people. They absolutely hate tobacco products, especially cigarettes, yet they refuse to just ban them outright because they bring in lots of tax revenue.

Moonbats get what they deserve. Unfortunately, they want to force it on everyone else.

Posted by: Steve at January 14, 2008 3:24 PM

What the left doesn't seem to understand is, like it or not, the government is like a big corporation. Its business is maintaining law and order. If the government grants itself a monopoly on a particular business,(i.e. socialized medicine...or socialized anything for that matter,) they have just granted monopoly power to a huge inefficient corporation with no immediate incentive, (i.e. loss of customers and profit to competitors as a penalty for substandard service,) to run the business efficiently or provide quality service. As a matter of fact, taxes would likely go up to "fix" the problem if the public wasn't satisfied with the care they received under socialized health care.

Posted by: butlerj at January 14, 2008 3:41 PM

They need to throw this bum out.

Posted by: Kevin at January 14, 2008 4:26 PM

When they started having these walk in clinics here in Minnesota, the major clinics and hospitals screamed bloody murder,claiming it wasn't safe, etc etc. Now, after about 3 years of success (you can get a kid diagnosed and treated for strep throat for about 50.00 with no waiting for an appt, vs 200 or more at a regular clinic)the bigger clinics are starting to jump on the bandwagon and rushing to open there own walk in, routine care clinics. The attitude of this Governor is asinine!

Posted by: flowerladytoo at January 14, 2008 4:31 PM

Since when were American hospitals intended to operate on a for-profit basis?

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 14, 2008 5:30 PM

When the hospital is privately owned you dingus. You know it's called capitalism,comrade.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at January 14, 2008 6:04 PM

He is not against profit. He's against competition. He wants a monopoly on health care for his government entity so he can receive financial and electioneering support from health care unions. People will still have to pay for health care. Only he wants people to only pay his organization.

Posted by: d at January 14, 2008 6:07 PM

In the real world, the profit motive is what makes businesses offer higher quality of service and lowers prices. Which is why the cost of elective surgeries in the USA have been declining while other medical costs have been skyrocketing... comrade dingus.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 14, 2008 6:09 PM

"...the profit motive is what makes businesses offer higher quality of service and lowers prices..."

Do you believe that it does?

Has it so far?

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Do you believe that it does?

Has it so far?

It did, until "Great Society" incompetence and fraud in massive socialist endeavors such as Medicaid drove prices through the roof.

Posted by: Strat at January 14, 2008 8:19 PM

Quotes don't defame "Great Society" sufficiently. It was Johnson's Horrible Society, similar to the Great Leap Backwards.

Posted by: d at January 14, 2008 8:28 PM

Hospitals that are tax exempt are supposed to be non profit in most places. But they skillfully get around that by redefining what profit is and dividing the business into profit/non profit divisions.

Why doesnt this guy complain about trial lawyers suing for millions driving up health care costs? Even more than the actual lawsuits - hospitals now order batteries of unneeded tests just to cover their asses in case they get sued. Things like this are why churches, that used to run hospitals as true non profits using men/women from religious orders, have largely sold out because of this.

Another reason healthcare costs are soaring is insurance itself. When people have to pay for things they use, they tend to use what they can afford. However when insurance picks up the tab they tend to run to the hospital for everything under the sun since they insurance just pays for it.

The biggest reason by far is technology and medical science keeping people alive into their 80s and 90s at an increasing rate. The cost of keeping these people alive is staggering. Its a double edged sword. Sure we live longer but we also end up being expensive burdens on society. How can this be solved? No easy answer. Its only a matter of time before they starting herding old people into euthanasia centers like in the movie Soylent Green. In Europe they are already starting to do this in a minor way - with angels of death doctors bumping people off.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 14, 2008 9:06 PM

"...Medicaid drove prices through the roof..."

Ah, so it was MEDICAID that drove those prices up!

Strat?

In what year was Medicaid introduced?

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 14, 2008 10:14 PM

The idea of retail medicine, where workers have a financial to treat patients with respect and quality care is certainly better for consumers than the DMV-style bureaucratized health care systems so beloved by the left. The market works.

Hillary wants to mandate that everybody has to participate in her system because "if healthy people opt out, it will cost too much." Do you know what that means? It means that people who make good health choices ... maintaining proper weight, not smoking, not using drugs, not having unsafe sex... get taxed outrageously to subsidize the bad health choices made by others.

Which is what the left always does... punishes the responsible to subsidize the irresponsible. My taxes will be increased so some AIDS-victim can get government-subsidized v1agara.

Posted by: V the K at January 15, 2008 3:14 AM

There appears to be a critical misunderstanding of what "non-profit" means.

Any organization, hospital, clinic or whatever that generates less in revenue than it consumes in operating costs is going to cease to exist sooner or later. That includes so called non-profit organizations.

A private, for-profit organization can choose to distribute its excess revenue (profit) to its shareholders. A non-profit organization cannot make any distributions to its owners. That is the only practical (and legal) distinction.

Because an organization is non-profit has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is efficient, fairly priced, or even delivers adequate services.

Posted by: Peter Boston at January 15, 2008 6:20 AM

Is that convicted tax evader Diane Wilkerson right behind Mumbles in that picture - why YES IT IS!

Posted by: Bandit at January 15, 2008 8:13 AM

"'...the profit motive is what makes businesses offer higher quality of service and lowers prices...'

Do you believe that it does?

Has it so far?"

Let's see if we can come up with an example of a monopoly being forced to compete and the product improving and a reduction in price as a result.

Anyone? Anyone?

I know! How about phone service! Remember when you used to have to wait until 11 pm to afford to make a long-distance call?

What about computers? Not a former monopoly, but still, the price has dropped and the product has improved since TI's first calculators in the 70s that sold for a lot more than the $5 you have to pay at the Walgreen's checkout now.

Posted by: class-factotum at January 15, 2008 8:25 AM

For a counter-example look at the government-run school system. Every year, it demands more and more money and every year the "product" gets worse. Why would it be any different with government-run health care?

(And even moonbats know this is true, but they lust for the mediocrity of socialism; mainly, I think, because they see it as a way to punish people who are better off than they are.)

Posted by: V the K at January 15, 2008 10:04 AM

"It means that people who make good health choices ... maintaining proper weight, not smoking, not using drugs, not having unsafe sex... get taxed outrageously to subsidize the bad health choices made by others."

I respectfully disagree. Just because you drive safely, follow the traffic laws and wear your seatbelt does not mean some other idiot isn't going to hit you. If you own a car, you must have car insurance (in most places).

By the same token, you should have health insurance (I don't mean government insurance, though), even if you eat right, exercise and don't smoke. Just because you do all these things doesn't mean you won't get cancer, be hit by a bus, or have a premature baby, and unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars budgeted for medical care, the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab.

Posted by: class-factotum at January 15, 2008 7:56 PM

But I should pay less for it. I shouldn't have to subsidize someone else's bad decisions. People with clean driving records pay less for insurance than people who get lots of tickets.

Posted by: V the K at January 15, 2008 8:48 PM

Yes, but you don't get to opt out of car insurance altogether. I don't have a problem with rating health insurance by behavior and age because those factors affect costs. I just have a problem with having to pay for someone's chemo when that person decided to go without insurance. If you don't want to be insured, that's fine, but then you should have to pay any and all medical expenses you might incur. Don't make the taxpayer assume the risk.

Posted by: class-factotum at January 16, 2008 7:00 AM

The attitude of this Governor is asinine!

Not governor, mayor of Boston. Our governor ("Coupe D'Eval") is much worse than Menino...

P.

Posted by: Peet at January 16, 2008 2:28 PM