Free up health care market
My column for the West Band Daily News is online. It’s called, “Free up health care market.” Here’s a little bit:
When health care decisions are made in the free market, all of the other normal market forces are brought to bear.
For example, while the naive among us might like to believe that all of the remarkable new drugs and medical devices that keep us alive and improve our quality of life are created by altruistic nerds working at minimum wage in some laboratory, the fact is that they, like the rest of us, are motivated by the profit motive. These remarkable scientists and physicians earn a good living because the companies for which they work reap the profits off of their intellectual product. If there wasn’t any money to be made, the scientists and doctors would be out of work and the health care businesses would be in another line of work.
Much as the socialists among us like to sneer at the profit motive, history proves that there has never been a more powerful and productive engine to the betterment of mankind.
Well said! However, the lefties won’t get it. They hate the rich, hate people making profit (unless it’s them). By the time they realize the Right was right, it will be too late.
The left always uses the masses as an experiment. First it was the brown bag haters. So they used plastic. Now the same people who touted plastic bags, not hate them. Then it was the don’t drink the tap water people, so they touted plastic water bottles, now those same people now claim that the plastic water bottles are bad and are banned in come cities. It’s nuts!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0828 hrs
The problem is that the Health Care Industry has proven impervious to market forces. When considering decisions over life and death, or even quality of life, the traditional internal cost benefit that an individual normally goes through is sent out the window.
People want the best treatment, the newest drug, the cutting edge technology when they have a health concern. Compounding the problem is the lack of expertise that the normal person has available to them to adequately sift and winnow the information that is out there. Put those two items together and they are left to defer to the experts, who just happen to be the very people selling the product.
An additional layer is how the current system continually shifts the cost on down the line. Leaving the private pay individual with the largest bill at the end of the day. Further hampering the ability of the individual to control the outcome.
There is a reason utilities are either in the hands of the public or regulated so severely. It is due to the stranglehold over the market place the producer of the good would maintain if unchecked. While market forces by and large keep most products in check, there are some goods and commodities that, due to the inability of individuals to function without them and a lack of genuine choices, simply overpower the market place and operate on their own accord.
Most of the western world has figured out that health care is one of those commodities, including this country. That is why we have Medicare, VA’s and the requirement to provide emergency services. What you are standing against Owen is not universal health care, that decision has already been made and we already have it. What you are standing against is the reforms necessary to make the universal health care systems in this country more effective and more affordable.
Unfortunately, Obama and the Dems aren’t offering much more than piece meal improvements over the current system. They have shown they lack the spine to make the hard sell on a single payer system in which the government simply acts as the purchaser from the private sector. This model has been extremely successful both abroad and at home. Instead they continue to allow themselves to get beat up in a debate over whether government run health care, ala Canada or the UK is the right system in the US, when no one is trying to implement a system even remotely resembling the ones in those two countries.
But I digress. At the end of the day, this debate isn’t about socialism. No one is trying to control the forces of the economy, or grant the state a take over of the means of production. We are simply talking about the best way to handle an essential good and service that will fracture our economy if left unchecked, just like water, sewage, gas/electric, and telecommunications.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0912 hrs
Ever since Nixon, the rightwing has retreated to their claims of socialism whenever the kitchen gets hot. It didn’t work in stopping the civil rights movement and it rings just as hollow today in the health insurance reform movement.
I don’t use prescription drugs. So why should my contributions to health insurance companies include drug R&D costs? Where’s the “free market” forces that ought to come to my rescue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0922 hrs
I don’t use prescription drugs. So why should my contributions to health insurance companies include drug R&D costs? Where’s the “free market” forces that ought to come to my rescue?
Wow, I don’t even know how to address this, other than it’s completely out in left field. Your health insurance premiums certainly don’t go directly to drug R&D costs. If you don’t understand that, then you have a fundamental lack of understanding of “free market” and where your money is spent. You should try reading your insurance documents at some point. *blink*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0938 hrs
No one is trying to control the forces of the economy, or grant the state a take over of the means of production.
Lefty, when scott comes in here and states that we need to set up a universal health care system to improve our bargaining and setting of prescription drug costs, and then points to Canada’s cheaper costs for scripts, production control is exactly what will result. Sure, we won’t have government employees actually working in the factories, but when we take our 300 million populate and state to the drug makers that we’re only going to pay $X for Y drug, and the companies start taking a loss on it, the company will eventually go out of business. It won’t be sustainable to create new drugs and treat new illnesses. We’ll have our existing line of generic drugs, and that’s it. I still posit that one of the reasons that our drug prices appear so much higher than other countries, is because we’re subsidizing their collectively bargained lower costs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0945 hrs
Jason -
I should have made a clearer distinction. Various people are advocating for different levels of reform, that is true. That statement was in regards to the charges of socialism so often levied at advocates for health care reform in this debate.
We live in a complex society. And aspects of democracy, capitalism and socialism make up various proportions of it. But no one is advocating for a socialist government simply because they support health care reform.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0953 hrs
Until we agree on what caused the problem, we will never solve this problem. Owen, you are so very close but a third party payer system gave to much incentive to charge what they pleased. Much of health care has to be put back in the hands of the people with the exception of accidents. Everything else could be done by giving people tax breaks, protections, and medical accounts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1010 hrs
This health care plan is also known as Universal Health Care that means everyone is covered even those who do not contribute. That is a socialist idea, thus we dub that socialism.
The high end people are brought down levels the non-contributors are brough up levels and the middle is on lessor ground…this is the basis for socialism.
Socialism does not work. Universal Health Care will not work and Obama Care will not work.
It’s risky, and I don’t want to risk it. It’s my health and the health of family afterall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1035 hrs
Kelly -
What do we have today if we don’t have universal health care? You cannot be denied emergency care in this country. There is what, 45 million people enrolled in Medicare? How many vets do we serve? How many public employees have government funded health care? Retired public employees?
The piece meal system we have is the problem, not the issue of whether or not we want universal health care. That issue was decided long ago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1048 hrs
Lefty, when your “reform” consists of eliminating the “piece meal system” with a single payer system with the government as payer then it’s socialism. Not all reform is socialism. That one is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1119 hrs
Single payer is the best solution and all the politicians know it but will lose their support from the insurance lobby. Single payer does not mean that the only payer will be the government. Single payer means that every person will pay the portion that reflects their income.
There will always be those that have no income but we are paying for them already.
The system is already in place, it’s called medicare.
The current system is not sustainable and everyone knows it. Your employer may be paying for you and that gives you security for now. Too many people are learning that it should not be taken for granted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1221 hrs
Lefty- You are correct, everyone does have health care… so tell me why is Obama so quick to pass Obama care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1253 hrs
The current private system is infinitely more sustainable than medicare / medicaid. It makes an effort to put a present value on future liabilities and account for them while being obliged to allow a profit margin. Medicare simply borrows money on the assumption that it can borrow infinite amounts of money indefinitely with the additional premise that its’ borrowing causes no ill to the rest of society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1258 hrs
The current system is not sustainable and everyone knows it. Your employer may be paying for you and that gives you security for now. Too many people are learning that it should not be taken for granted.
The system is already in place, it’s called medicare.
Medicare is not sustainable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1300 hrs
I can’t explain to you why Obama is pushing the pile of crap in congress right now. The cynic in me says he knows he can’t defeat the insurance lobby, so he simply is trying to create an option that will cover so many people as to develop a critical mass that will require comprehensive reform at a later date.
As for why I support HC reform. Well it comes down to spending 5 or 6 percent more of our GDP as a nation than other western countries with universal or single payer systems, with no better, and arguably lesser, results. Call me a conservative, but when we choose to ration HC (as we already do) I’d like it to be based on a system other than simply when we run out of money to pay for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1341 hrs
The ability to pay eventually limits all consumption, health care included. It always has, always will and always should. We’re not going to see ever increasing real health care costs for exactly this reason; unless, of course, we do something stupid, like turn those costs over to an organization that can print and borrow money to no end and that does not need to account for the economic return on those costs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1435 hrs
“There will always be those that have no income but we are paying for them already.
The system is already in place, it’s called medicare.”That system would be MedicAID
Medicare is typically for people 65 and older, and the disabled.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0001 hrs
“Compounding the problem is the lack of expertise that the normal person has available to them to adequately sift and winnow the information that is out there. Put those two items together and they are left to defer to the experts, who just happen to be the very people selling the product.”
I disagree. Many if not most plans offer health counselors to assist in sorting thru the information. They are independent of the service provider and have nothing to gain by “selling the product”. Quite the opposite in fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0015 hrs
I should have said most plans REQUIRE contact with a health counselor, not offer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0019 hrs
Currently most people are insured. IMO, there are two types of people not insured. Those that choose not to be because they don’t want to foot the bill and those who are inbetween jobs.
The media, I believe over states the numbers and blows this way out of proportion in favor of Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0707 hrs
The CATO Institute reported that while we will be able to have our own private insurance, within a few years everyone would jump ship and be on the government dole.
It also stated that with Medicare or government run health care you get a lower quality of care at a higher price. Currently Medicare costs more than most private insurance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0820 hrs
Kelly,
Medicare insures the elderly and disabled, slightly higher risk group.
Also, the government makes greater payments in health care and prescription drug coverage than the private market today.
You are fighting an effort to make the current universal system cheaper. The fight that you are putting up is watering down real proposals, leaving us with the pile of crap that Obama and the Dems want to do. Essentially this keeps the cost to you raised by building an inferior product.
All so you can say you opposed one type of universal coverage in favor of maintaining the current, more expensive version.
Conservatives really need to figure out their priorities on this one, and stop buy the arguments of the insurance lobby.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1110 hrs
The media, I believe over states the numbers and blows this way out of proportion in favor of Obama.
According to the government, nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007. Where have you seen the media inflate these numbers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1117 hrs
Lefty- Here is my priority. Keep government the heck out of my business.
The current system cost less than the government run program call Medicare. I’m familiar with the system having two aging and ill parents to have since passed.
The only problem(s) I see with the current system is that way too many people are taking advantage of the system by way of over using it. Others refuse to be insured because they don’t want to pay for it. Others never had fore-thought to save for a rainy day. Most folks are currently covered with some for of health care/medical services.
Anything that is “universal” is headed for disaster. We are each individuals who want different things for their own care. Taking it universal is riddled with problems from the get-go. I want to be in charge of MY care, not Obama, Frank, Pelosi or Dodd. Me, myself and I. The government wants to play Russian Roulette with my life…I will not stand for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1138 hrs
No, NYTexan, that is incorrect. That 46 million includes several million people who are in fact insured as well as several million people who are not in fact Americans, as well as several million people who could afford insurance and choose not to do so, and several million more people who wer unindured only part of the year, thus the 46 million figure quickly drops down to a figure closer to 15-20 million.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1208 hrs
@NYTexan
Cut from an FYI blog.
…According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That’s 38% of the uninsured in America.(2)
In fact, 9 million – 20% of the uninsured – reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3)
…And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.
…14 million people without health insurance are eligible for government health care programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but choose not to enroll. (7) They represent 1 – nearly one third – of the uninsured in America.
…The U.S. has 12 million illegal immigrants who don’t buy health insurance but still get health care.
…So, how many are truly uninsured? Around eight million. Just 18% of the 45 million that we hear about so often.”
So less then 3% of all Americans are truly uninsured and all you hear about is that the system is a calamity and it needs to be completely replaced by the great socialized medicine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1208 hrs
I know plenty who choose not to pay for insurance and actually prefer Badger Care. Of course they run the ER for a hang nail or a headache, which is part of the problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1307 hrs
See what happens when BIG government gets invovled:
“WASHINGTON (AP) - A senior House Democrat threatened banks Wednesday that if they don’t volunteer to save more homeowners from foreclosure, Congress will make them.
In a sternly worded statement, Rep. Barney Frank said Congress will revive legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down a person’s monthly mortgage payment if the number of loan modifications remain low.Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, also said his committee won’t consider legislation to help banks lend unless there is a “significant increase” in mortgage modifications.”
Can you even imagine what it would be like when the get involved in OUR health care??!!! You’re too fat, you’re too old, you’re too thin, you’re to ill, you’re too rich, you’re too slow, you’re stupid. May the good Lord help us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1608 hrs
My question with health insurance is why is it tied to employment at all? We all know it’s burdensome to businesses, especially smaller ones. Why can’t health insurance operate like auto insurance, where the consumer gets to choose the company and plan that offers the features he or she values the most? Health insurance companies already have some individuals who buy coverage directly from them, so it shouldn’t be a difficult switch for the industry. Likewise, consumers already shop around for their auto insurance and other agreements such as cell phone plans. If we all bought health insurance as individuals, the competition for our business should keep prices down, in theory.
The can of worms with this approach is the age-old problem of “bad risk” customers getting denied. As someone once said, health care is very affordable if you’re healthy. I don’t have a problem with a safety net for those who can’t get or can’t afford private coverage, and such a safety net already exists. Would more people use it if they weren’t covered by their employer? Probably. So the criteria for who qualifies for the safety net might need to change, or patients might need to pay on a sliding scale based on income, or the private insurance companies might need to make their basic plans very attractive.
I can understand the mistrust that the government would not or could not play fair in competition with private insurers. Then again, I’ve never envied the care that those on BadgerCare or Medicaid receive, and would gladly pay for better. I know I’m not alone on that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1629 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 12:35 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).