« Labels in Modern Politics | Main | Special Forces in Iraq ( Spezialtruppen ) »
February 23, 2008
BIG Healthcare Rebuttal
Posted by Tina Grazier
A portion of the following, posted on the blog “REDSTATE,” counters one of the arguments made against the health insurance industry. “Medicare Part E” also references a bill that Rep. John Conyers (Democrat) has introduced in Congress several times. Find a link to the Conyers bill, in pdf format, at the end of this post.
…from what I can see, the health insurance industry doesn't really do insurance in the first place anymore. Rather than underwriting risk and spreading it across large pools, their primary activity is now all about managing health expenses. And a huge part of that activity is navigating around the dense thicket of federal, state and local regulations, not the least of which relate to Medicare's byzantine cost-control procedures. The private health-insurance industry creates economic value primarily by dealing with the inefficiencies created by the Government.
How many times have you heard a doctor complain that her job has become an endless shuffle of paperwork? The future is much more of that, in either a mandated-coverage world or a single-payer world. There's no practical difference between the two approaches.
As free-market advocates, what should we be proposing as an answer to Conyers, Moore, Clinton, and Obama? ** Well, we need to start by observing that our current bloated and needlessly expensive system is not a free-market system by any stretch of the imagination. It's a socialist bureaucracy worthy of the Soviet Union or any other regime that ever bore the name. ** Why? Because our current healthcare system eliminates the most elementary feature of free-markets: the matching of supply with demand through signals carried by prices. ** No one directly pays for their own healthcare anymore. You either fill out a form for your employer-provided insurance and hand over a twenty-dollar bill, or you go to the emergency room for minor ailments, or you fight with a combination of Medicare and your co-payment insurance. You have no clear idea what is being paid or by whom, in return for the service that you consume. So you have neither the ability nor even the opportunity to exert the cost-controlling magic of free-market competition. ** If you could directly pay for non-emergency healthcare when and where it's provided, you would make informed and careful economic decisions about what and how much to consume, just as you do with everything else you buy. And the healthcare industry would rapidly transform itself to meet the free-market incentives that would instantaneously appear.
Posted by Post Scripts at February 23, 2008 09:21 PM
Comments
"If you could directly pay for non-emergency healthcare when and where it's provided, you would make informed and careful economic decisions about what and how much to consume, just as you do with everything else you buy."
So, let's say that the average American wants to have a knee replaced. Are you suggesting that they should just save up the $75,000 that it will cost? In Butte county that represents twice the annual household income. Your simplistic free market analysis fails the real world test.
Posted by: Sean at February 26, 2008 09:40 AM
So, let's say that the average American wants to have a knee replaced. Are you suggesting that they should just save up the $75,000 that it will cost? In Butte county that represents twice the annual household income. Your simplistic free market analysis fails the real world test.
First of all I don't consider knee replacement surgery an average medical expense..and I don't think you do either...that was knee jerk, right? Be honest with me, I'm trying to be honest with you.
If your description was in fact the "real world test" you'd be right. Sadly what you describe is the nanny state reality of a spoiled generation or two. What you described is the real world rhetoric of socialist politicians that can't wait to take even more from our salaries for their assured place in the politically elite chambers of government.
If democrats really wanted to reach across the aisle (as they claim) to solve this problem they would seriously consider some of the proposals put out by the Heritage Foundation and others and actively seek solutions. They don't. They never change their socialist position...ever! They don't want to solve your real world problem...they want to lock you and I into an ever bigger needy system where they have ultimate control over everything...period.
People should buy insurance for expensive medical procedures, both emergency and non emergency.
Unfortunately, people now expect insurance to pay for literally everything and that has caused higher fees for services as well as insurance premiums. This has also resulted in insurance regulated guidelines for treatment. (their bottom line is being challenged by the overburden too)
If people were allowed (encouraged)to save to pay for yearly checkups and simple procedures, instead of relying on their insurance, the cost would come down.
What if a small portion of your pay from the time you begin working could be placed in a safe investment account (tax free)that over time would grow and that would be available to draw from for unexpected medical treatments? The account would belong to you (you earned the money) and if you didn't use it all it would become part of your estate...if you needed it, and it's likely you would as you got older, it would be there to use as you see fit. Your own nest egg.
What if the cost of insurance could be brought down and customized to your specific needs or requirements. I'm a grandmother why should my insurance include coverage for childbirth for instance. Would you then be willing to buy your insurance just like you buy car insurance? There are ways to bring down the cost of insurance.
Sean...this is about people being responsible for their own lives. When they do that, the free market comes into play and it really does work. When government gets involved the burden of paperwork, staying compliant with changing rules, hiring legal types to keep you in compliance, hiring bookkeepers and extra staff, etc. becomes overwhelming to both budget and nerves. And the cost just keeps getting greater.
The increase is ultimately passed to the consumer. Pssst...the big bonus for the socialism pushing government "servants" is that the consumer blames business instead of politicians for the mess and the for higher cost. Neat trick, huh?
I really do encourage you to read some of the alternative solutions to government run healthcare. The government programs we have in place now will begin to explode in the coming years. Politicians on both sides have said it will cause financial disaster of one type or another and need to be reformed. Republicans offered a solution and democrats maintained the same position of government first.
So, ask yourself this question: If they know this is becoming a problem why are they so eager to add another program to the mix? Why do they resist trying other ways?
Posted by: Tina at February 26, 2008 04:32 PM