Political Discussions
"Healthcare Cheaper and Better"
Posted by jeremyjanson • 9/05/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: health care, obama, obamacare, public option, socialism
It is a slogan today among the healthcare left to say "corporations fear government will do it [health insurance] cheaper and better then they can." Well, first of all, does "better" even have a place here? I mean, if it's corporations buying health insurance, and most of them just want to 1) say they have it, and 2) reduce sick days from common illnesses, is there really any reason why "better" is even a consideration in this market? Like it or not, individual plans are a small minority - most health insurance is corporate. This is part of the reason why regulation is so important in this particular sector: the market, having virtually no brand name or reputation competition, has very little ability to regulate it's own quality.
But beyond that, let's go to the question of "cheaper." I suppose the question is, for whom? For the particular person who is buying the plan (corporate or individual) or for all the other people who were forced to chip in against their will by violent government? Those people, being captive at, essentially, gunpoint (and IRS agents do carry guns,) have no influence on the market. Their "demand" will not be heard. And they will lower the ticket price, but the cost doesn't just go away just because you forced someone else to pay it for you. That was money that could've been used for something else. Whether that something else was investment capital from the wealthy, consumer goods from the middle-class, or food from the poor, the bill will be collected in full, and one way or another America will be hurt by excessive cost.
And, as Margaret Thatcher once put it, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money to spend."
Why do you think that an entity with that little reward or punishment for its success or failure in competition will lower cost? See, you can say that politicians will lose their seats, but who elects their politicians only for healthcare? And how far would it have to go for it to be sufficiently visible for a distracted and largely sleep-walking American public to react? Certainly further then a small change in the bottom line.
User Comments
-
I'm a little unclear on what you are talking about. In other words your position is very foggy here, the writing unclear. I know the unregulated insurance industry is lobbying for mandatory coverage? They don't want government competition, but they want (ARE SALIVATING OVER) mandatory coverage, because their stockholders like the looks of the extra 51 million people, so their minions, most not medical professionals, can decided on the life and death and care based on what is best for the stock holders?
We have a health care industry that encompasses way too much of the GDP, something that occurred starting with Reagan but steeped during the past 10 years. An inefficient system, that is such a huge part of the GDP but is too expensive — gives little for what it costs, in other words you give karats and get carrots that is called a coercive system, it is a threat in and of itself to the economy.
The following link is from the CJR, it's too the Commonwealth Fund and is a resource for journalists, but probably should be read by anyone who is going to blab about health care, so if they haven't had at least a couple of college econ and statistics courses they can make some sense of what they are saying.
Most people writing about it watch way to much telly and do not do enough research, The Project for excellence in Journalism found
that so far this year "55 percent of coverage of health care has been about the political battles, 16 percent about the protests, and only 8 percent about substantive issues like how the system works now, what will happen if it remains unchanged, and what proposed changes will mean for ordinary people."
cjrarchive.org/img/posts/commonwealth.pdf-
Strictly speaking, it's not really a matter of "position." I'm pointing out a major fallacy in many health care arguments with regards to the free-market.
Further, who are you to say it is too much of GDP? Maybe it's what people want and need. We have an aging population, as you age you need more care and want less of other things. Maybe the real reason we have "too much" healthcare spending is because we had too few children. Besides, it's not like healthcare doesn't create good jobs, certainly better then what retail et cetera (what would replace it) usually create.
EDIT: If you're wondering what my angle is, I support increased regulation but no government plan and I am APPALLED at the idea of rationing. In fact, I think that even the rationing that already occurs in the private sector should be done away with as part of that increased regulation. -
"They don't want government competition, but they want (ARE SALIVATING OVER) mandatory coverage, because their stockholders like the looks of the extra 51 million people..."
Only about an extra 10-15 million extra customers. That is the true number of long term, chronically uninsured. This info is available from the Census Bureau.
The argument that we pay too much for health care has always bothered me, too. I mean we pay too much as opposed to what? Snickers' Bars? Tongue depressors? Toothpicks? When you look at all the advances America has made and the strides that we have accomplished in the furtherance of health care combined with the drastic reduction in formerly near deadly ailments, such as coranary heart disease, then I see no problem with what we pay. Think of the status of health care in the world but not for the USA leading the way in the vast majority of all medical breakthroughs in the last 50 years. Why is it that we are paying too much? What price do we put on the lives we have saved? -
"I support increased regulation but no government plan and I am APPALLED at the idea of rationing. In fact, I think that even the rationing that already occurs in the private sector should be done away with as part of that increased regulation."
I like when you put things in simple terms (my mind can't process great amounts of information like it could 25 years ago)
Anyway, I basically agree with this stance, although I do support a government plan, even if only for affordability. I also support government run medical care, just because it allows everyone (almost) equal coverage.
However I can live with the insurance plans as we have them, if, as you suggest, they are regulated. Like you said, rationing should be eliminated completely, as should denying coverage for high risk people or those with pre-exixting conditions.
-
-
Think back on your college econ class. The almost 18 percent of the GDP which is health care is not sustainable at all economically, continues to climb that would have been more problematic - that is really the crux of the problem, and one that should have been address throughout the years ( and the different administrations from Reaganon up), as the percentage started to creep up.
That is really the bigger issue.
The other issue is that the market is not regulated,the industry is doing what is called price gouging, owned by stockholders and with decisions on treatment and life and death based currently on stockholder profits, which have taken a steep incline over the last 5 to 10 years. There is making a decent profits and then there is coercion, where the profit the corporation makes can't be equated with the serviced rendered.-
"The almost 18 percent of the GDP which is health care is not sustainable at all economically, continues to climb that would have been more problematic" Actually it's very sustainable because economic rent expenditures, like housing, will drop. Real Estate values will decline, as will the prices and emphasis placed on consumer goods not valuable for an aging population. If you don't need that 15% spent on furniture, don't spend 15% on furniture.
-
"The almost 18 percent of the GDP which is health care is not sustainable at all economically..."
Actually, it is around 17%, but none the less, the ONE industry, save for the the public sector that has been EXPANDING is the health care industry. We may spend 18% of our GDP on it, but so what? That 17-18% represents money paid to doctors, nurses, lab techs, janitors, administrators,and even trial lawyers.
"There is still an industry that is growing and successful, that produces 17% of the Gross Domestic Product, and that employs over 10% of all American workers. The medical industry incorporates more than 820,000 businesses: hospitals, physician's offices, dentist's offices, home healthcare services, kidney dialysis centers, medical laboratories, X-Ray imaging centers, radiotherapy facilities, mental hospitals, physical therapy centers, nursing homes, outpatient surgical centers, dental laboratories, rehabilitation facilities and ambulance services with combined annual revenue of over $1 trillion. It immediately plows most its growing income right back into the economy for wages, and directs additional business to satellite industries such as pharmaceuticals, drugstores, and insurance companies. It even produces billions of dollars in revenues for the medical malpractice trial lawyers. Americans medical care costs more than government programs elsewhere, but it provides better care and better results, the best in the world. American patients, even the destitute, do not give birth in hallways, or wait months for essential diagnostic tests and treatments.
Suddenly, it seems that brisk industrial growth, creation of new technologies, expansion of employment, healing of once-fatal illnesses, prolongation of life, and prevention of pain are not even success, but a just terrible fiscal burden that our overlords deeply resent. They want that money to spend elsewhere, for monuments to their narcissistic prowess."
www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/medical_care_is_a_successful_a.html
So you see, cooper to say that it is unsustainable is crazy, left wing talking points. Right now the last thing our economy needs is to transform the ONE healthy, robust industry into another Government dependent one.
Sorry, but the American people already own enough corporations in the form of banks and auto companies, we don't need to add to that.
-
-
Think back on your college econ class. The almost 18 percent of the GDP which is health care is not sustainable at all economically, continues to climb that would have been more problematic - that is really the crux of the problem, and one that should have been address throughout the years ( and the different administrations from Reaganon up), as the percentage started to creep up.
That is really the bigger issue.
The other issue is that the market is not regulated,the industry is doing what is called price gouging, owned by stockholders and with decisions on treatment and life and death based currently on stockholder profits, which have taken a steep incline over the last 5 to 10 years. There is making a decent profits and then there is coercion, where the profit the corporation makes can't be equated with the serviced rendered. -
"And, as Margaret Thatcher once put it, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money to spend.""
Margaret Thatcher, what a wonderful leader! Ask the British how her changes in government made their lifes so much better - especially the "Poll Tax."
Even though she had been long ago voted out of office by the time I lived there, I (and every other Briton) was still effected by her destruction of the labo(u)r unions. One of these long lasting results was no overtime after 40, which meant that even if I worked 70 hours, I was still paid straight time.
So yes, let us look to Margaret Thatcher for guidance on how to run a country.-
"One of these long lasting results was no overtime after 40, which meant that even if I worked 70 hours, I was still paid straight time."
While we feel very sorry that your bubble had to burst, may I remind you that a company which constantly asks its workers to work 70 hours under such conditions will likely a) lose its workers to competing businesses or b) all the other companies will do the exact same thing. If "a" happens, their labor costs will increase, as fewer people will want to work for them, hence why Microsoft & Amazon (which program boring stuff) has to pay its' programmers over twice as much as EA and Blizzard (which program video games.) If "b" happens, production yields will increase to the point where there is too much supply for demand, lowering prices across the board. Either way, you get paid your overtime without the "overtime."
Now, if you were simply puffing up the figures without actual demand, you were probably damaging your economy all along and did not notice it, especially with higher consumer prices. I know in particular it is far more expensive to live in London then NYC or LA even though both cities have absurd geographical constraints (wide rivers in NYC, oceans in both and high mountains on all sides and sharp canyons in LA) while London has nearly none. It is painful when bubbles work there way out of the system, but it has to be done or else the bubble will grow worse and worse and worse like it did in Soviet Russia. -
that Maggie was a crazy Tory broad... -
You're a naughty, naughty boy Agit8r.
-
You're really a naughty naughty boy.
-
Now I'm wondering about your sexuality, Jeramy. -
What I can say, I'm a gnome-o-phile!
-
WHAAAT?
-
Come back over here little boy! You need your spanking.
-
-
It's your spanky time!
-
u iz n2 sum freaky shiz
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
