Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill. If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country. Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse. Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences.
But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention. We see this not only in healthcare policy, but also in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in monetary policy – basically, in all areas of public policy. It was even claimed that the House bill would increase competition in healthcare, and thereby improve the private sector’s business model for insurance.
It is fascinating that politicians would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism. This demonstrates a couple of things. One, that politicians truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market. By definition, a free market is free from government intervention. But once a little intervention is accepted as legitimate, politicians will blame the problems created by their intervention on the free market and present themselves as saviors that must intervene even more.
It also demonstrates that politicians know that Americans still believe the free market is a good thing. People know and understand that competition among businesses is better for the consumer than a monopoly. However, competition between a private business and a government or government-favored entity is not real competition.
In real competition, your competitor can go bankrupt if they do a bad job. Everyone knows a government program is forever, no matter how poorly it performs. In real competition, efficiency is necessary for survival. In government programs, waste is rewarded as budgets are often determined by how much money a department is able to consume in a year. In real competition, one business does not have regulatory or taxation authority over its competitors. In real competition, businesses get sued and punished for breaking contracts and defrauding people, and are kept accountable in this way. But just try to sue the government when you are unjustly harmed by it!
The reason real competition is a good thing is because good businesses get bad ones out of the consumer’s way. Can the government put someone out of business? Most certainly! But it will have the opposite effect: an otherwise good business will be replaced by a poorly performing government agency, or a government-favored monolithic business that behaves almost like a government agency.
If Washington really wanted to give consumers more choices they would remove legislative and regulatory barriers to competition across state lines for health insurers. They would remove barriers for new and innovative models of healthcare and tort reform. They wouldn’t have run so many church and charitable hospitals out of business. Washington is keenly interested in healthcare reform, but it is certainly not going to increase competition or to expand your options for healthcare.
#14 You must work for an American insurance company. If you were really a Canadian from BC you know that there are several private MRI clinics in BC. You would know this because there has a huge amount of press about them over the last several years.
Here is the list of 11 private MRI clinics in BC if you choose not to go the public MRI clinics.
http://tiny.cc/fkRX7
Yes we do have plenty of choice in Canada. If you have the money you can either drive 50 miles to the U.S clinic or head to one of the private clinics in Canada. However, for the vast majority of the population, including many very conservative Canadians, they have chosen a good system, not great, but good one where they never have worry about losing their coverage, EVER, even if the lose their job, or have had a heart attack. In many cases the health care service is delivered faster in Canada than the US since the doctors does not have to contact the government or a private insurance company to authorize treatment. The doctor makes the decision on the spot. As a citizen we are always fully covered.
My father was in a car accident several years ago and the doctors were worried enough to order a MRI scan for him. With in 1 hour of arriving in the hospital he had seen an emergency room doctor and had an MRI test. His cost $0. To this day he is still fully covered.
Contrary to what chuck says we don’t have 5 MRI but 20 MRI’s.
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/media_13jan2005_tab7_e.html
Come to Canada and get an explosion of high paid bureaucrats
Not improved health care just more and more government buildings and staff
Lots of graphs and charts showing upward trends
Just try to find one Canadian citizen who will tell you that anything has improved one iota
Over 30 % of people have given up even trying to find a General Practitioner MD
Many people now pay and go to third parties gladly – naturopaths , chiropractors ,acupuncturists etc etc
There is no such thing as a free lunch or free health-care
Just the cancer of highly paid governmental agents
#34. I willing to bet you that the executives at the American insurance companies are paid far more than the bureaucrats in Canada, probably 1000% more, and then there are the ‘bonuses’. No bureaucrat get bonuses in Canada. As for staff we do have more medical staff, but far less high salaried people in the legal department and the accounting departments.
“Just try to find one Canadian citizen who will tell you that anything has improved one iota”
I am one. I have seen things get much better over the years. As for finding a doctor, I have never had a problem finding a doctor when I moved to Montreal, Hamilton, Vancouver, or Prince Rupert.
90% of what is wrong with this country that can be fixed is due to the bad choices of somebody in or who has been in the Federal government.
#35 Well even the Dems who scored this turkey off a bill thinks we are going to end up paying Much more for health care than we do now and not be much if any better off.
To repeat one TN member of the House who voted for this cow pie said he only did so because he expected the Senate to clean it up which is a just another way of saying that if he thought the bill he voted for was going to stand he’d have voted against it.
#34
Haha, let’s try that the other way:
Come to America where 44,000 Americans die every year because of lack of insurance
Where you can pay OVER DOUBLE the per-capita cost for coverage than any other major country
http://tinyurl.com/32j8mb
Where 4 out of 5 people driven bankrupt by medical expenses HAD INSURANCE
Were, for all the expense, Americans live less long, have higher child mortality rates, and lose in nearly every medical metric measured
Where the US is ranked (despite paying over double per person) 37th by the WHO
http://tinyurl.com/akdzd
WHAT A COUNTRY! WHAT A GREAT SYSTEM!
#17, Mr. Fusion
“Hhmmm, so are you suggesting we should privatize the military?”
If we’re talking about fiscal irresponsibility, that’s not really the example you might want to use, considering the United States spends more on its military than the next 13 nations on the list combined.
“But something tells me you don’t want to reform the insurance industry.”
Hell yes I do, didn’t you read what I wrote? No, of course not, you just took the opportunity to make a mindless rant. In order to fix healthcare, we *MUST* fix the legal system and the insurance industry. Any fix that does not address these problems is nothing more than a cheap bandage.
“How does a drug company mass marketing a drug that causes death or serious injury cause medical costs to rise? Such class actions suits are because the companies lied and covered up the damages. This is a tort action, not a medical problem.”
We’re not talking about individuals recovering compensation, we’re talking about lawyers lining their pockets on the misery of others. Most of these massive lawsuits, the lawyers make more than the rest of the claimants combined. Or didn’t you know that?
“And would you show us the doctor paying $100,000 + insurance? Please? Just show us one doctor paying that amount that has never had any problems. Come one, you can do it, just one.”
Could show you thousands. I have friends who are doctors who pay in that range. But once again, you don’t have a goddamn idea what you’re talking about, you’re just spouting off at the mouth.
“Woah, another piece of unsubstantiated bullshit. So an insurance company negotiates with a doctor to pay $45 for a visit but the doctor now has to charge $75 for an uninsured patient to make up for it? Or a hospital charges $1,800 for X-Rays but only bills the insurance company $150.”
No, actually the reality is that a procedure that costs the hospital $200 to perform will get routinely paid by the insurance company (and Medicare) for $20. The numbers work out around 10%. Therefore, to stay solvent, the hospitals have to raise their rates and charge $2000. The insurance pays $200, which is what the procedures cost, and the hospital breaks even. Unfortunately, the law prohibits them from charging different amounts, therefore the uninsured guy that comes in the door has to pay $2000 for the $200 procedure as well.
“You oppose insurance companies negotiating with doctors and hospitals? A free enterprise activity.”
Sure, if they would. Unfortunately, they operate by fiat. This is what they will pay, take it or leave it. But you don’t understand how the industry works, you’re too busy pulling idiotic liberal rhetoric out of your ass.
Everything you need to know about Capitalism can be learned by playing the board game Monopoly.
Where is the link to the original story, Mr. Cherman?
LOOK:
If you could do a few things, I would LET IT go the NATURAL COMPETITIVE way..
Doctors ARNT on the Stock exchange..its the INSURANCE companies that are HURTING all of this.
they ARENT competing, AS THEY must MAKE A PROFIT, AS THEY have to give a dividend to SHARE HOLDERS. TO DO that they MUST make a profit, and ALSO make wages BETTER then anyone ELSE.
REALLY.
Its NOT the Doctors or HOSPITALS..they INFLATE prices and costs, JUST to get paid DECENTLY.
YES, some are stupid and charge TO MUCH.
But this has been going on for 40 years.
Its a BACK and forth battle, AS WELL as with schooling, WHICH hasnt gotten CHEAPER..
“It is fascinating that POLITICIANS would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism. This demonstrates a couple of things. One, that POLITICIANS truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market.”
– CONGRESSMEN Ron Paul
Cursor_
#22, Guyver,
Tort reform is needed for medical malpractice. Frivolous lawsuits involving ridiculous amounts of money have helped drive up the cost of health care.
1) How much of every dollar spent on health care goes to cover frivolous lawsuits?
2) How much is it worth to the patient / family if (for example) during the operation the oxygen is turned off, the doctor doesn’t notice because he is talking on the phone to his stock broker, and the patient ends up alive but brain dead? And the patient is six years old.
3) Please give some examples of lawsuits that made it to the jury that were frivolous?
HINT, frivolous lawsuits are almost always tossed out before they go very far. Of course, if you consider amputating a woman’s breasts when she is there for a knee replacement to be frivolous, … .
The greedy, selfish Liebertarians love to toss out these ideas as if they happen every day. They always fail to give examples though.
#38, Cephus,
So again you pull numbers out your ass and expect everyone to fall for them.
“But something tells me you don’t want to reform the insurance industry.”
Hell yes I do, didn’t you read what I wrote?
So where was your insurance reform? Instead you spent the rest of your post complaining about others things, most of which have nothing to do with health care costs.
We’re not talking about individuals recovering compensation, we’re talking about lawyers lining their pockets on the misery of others.
No, we are talking about those who were injured by a medical professional to recoup on their loss. If you hire a lawyer that takes all your settlement then you signed with the wrong lawyer. See your State Bar Association. The lawyers did not injure the patient.
Since operations are ALWAYS individual, there are very, very few class actions for medical malpractice. I know of none.
“And would you show us the doctor paying $100,000 + insurance? Please? Just show us one doctor paying that amount … .”
Could show you thousands. I have friends who are doctors who pay in that range.
But you can’t because there aren’t any. Although some specialties do pay more (eg. OB/GYN), they only approach that amount IF they have had negative histories.
No, actually the reality is that a procedure that costs the hospital $200 to perform will get routinely paid by the insurance company (and Medicare) for $20. …
If the hospital was receiving only $20 from the insurance company or Medicare they either
1) agreed to provide the service at that price, or
2) need to sue someone.
No hospital accepts 10% of the cost of a service without mitigating factors. Every hospital would just stop providing that service if that was the case. Even for Medicare. Of course, you don’t have any collaborating information other than the numbers pulled out your ass.
“You oppose insurance companies negotiating with doctors and hospitals? A free enterprise activity.”
Sure, if they would. Unfortunately, they operate by fiat. This is what they will pay, take it or leave it. But you don’t understand how the industry works, you’re too busy pulling idiotic liberal rhetoric out of your ass.
So a hospital of doctor that accepts an insurance company’s pay schedule is somehow being forced to accept the terms? What ever happened to competition being good?
So if Hospital “A” refuses to accept an insurance company what happens? The patient becomes responsible is what happens.
Hospitals seek out doctors who will perform in their hospitals because that is where the big money is. A doctor won’t perform there if the hospital won’t accept a specific insurance company.
Our child’s pediatric dentist does not accept our insurance. We must pay cash and recover from the insurance company. We stay with him because he is good.
And contrary to your idea, I do have good contacts in the medical community. Most doctors that understand the concept support health care reform.
Worth a read for all…
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
I’ll say it again:
Sigh… more libertarian BS. Instead of posing inane and irrelevant hypothetical questions, LL, why don’t you explain to all us collectivists how getting rid of the EPA, the FDA, the USDA, the SEC, the OSHA, and all those burdensome government regulatory agencies will make us all “free” again.
Now, does one of you gutless libertarians actually want to address the point and tell us whether or not you want to get rid of all these regulatory agencies? How about a straight answer to a straight question?
You libertarians are the ones saying we don’t need laws against pollution, people can just sue polluters. And we don’t need laws against unsafe drugs and food, people can just sue food and drug companies. And we don’t need laws against unsafe cars, people can just sue the car makers. Et cetera, ad nauseum. So go ahead, follow it to its logical conclusion. If you have the guts.
#47 Actually, Guyver, what wingnuts don’t understand is that “working hard” and “caring for others less fortunate than me” aren’t mutually exclusive.
46, No, I do not want to get rid of ALL regulatory agencies per se. That being said, you have a cookie-cutter mentality when it comes to regulations (since you have an all or nothing outlook on things). I can’t help you there since you’re predisposed to believe everything the government does is great.
Some regulations are well-intentioned or needed. Others have unintended consequences or ulterior motives. I pointed out where the FDA, USDA, and EPA doesn’t really look out for the little guy (but favors corporations).
Good business people don’t p1ss in their backyard. They will be conservationists to maintain their business models. Stupid business people squander their resources and put themselves out of business.
The problem with people who take an all or nothing approach to government regulations is that you essentially go down the path of Big Brother regulating most of your life and lifestyle. Liberals embrace it because they have a herd mentality. Libertarians / Conservatives run away from excessive government control.
And because you’re probably going to ask, yes excessive is subjective. The Dems are worried about elections in 2010 which is why they’re rushing to ram government-run health care down our throats as quickly as possible behind closed doors for something that won’t kick in until a few years from now. They’re worried about a backlash from the public over the excessive growth of government. Real hope and change will happen hopefully in 2010.
48, What Liberals never understand is that caring for others doesn’t require government.
When there are Conservatives or Libertarians who do provide care for others, the liberals attack them because those people may be faith-based or support something other than the Liberal Party.
#49 Well thanks Guyver, at least you tried, unlike LL.
And you’re the one with the black and white thinking. I don’t know of any liberal who thinks everything the government does is great. And no one’s talking about an “all or nothing approach” to government regulation.
And yes, regulatory agencies often get corrupted by the businesses they regulate. That doesn’t mean we should get rid of the regulatory agencies, it means we should stop big business from corrupting them.
The Boston Globe recently had an article about Blue Cross/Blue Shield raising medical insurance premiums on small businesses 50% or more. The current system is not working, it’s been getting worse for a long time. That’s why we have to do something.
And finally, what libertarians and “conservatives” don’t understand is that without regulation, there is no free market. Without that “government control” you so hate, you’d be under the thumb of the big corporations — they’d stifle all competition and you’d have to pay them whatever they want for whatever shoddy goods they want to sell you.
#50, Guyver,
48, What Liberals never understand is that caring for others doesn’t require government.
OK, I’ll accept that point. But what about the 45,000 that die every year because they couldn’t afford the health care?
What about the million + that filed for bankruptcy because of over whelming health cost even though they had insurance?
Do you really think some church will provide or the family can just have “pot luck dinners” to raise funds for these procedures?
You are either very naive or extremely disingenuous.
Ron Paul is the congressman for the district I live in… and I am constantly embarassed by him. Absolutely the worst ploitician in the country.
51, When you phrase your question about getting rid of ALL regulatory agencies, then that (to me) is an all or nothing question.
To an extreme, Liberals embrace large government as well as government control / regulation of everything. To an extreme, Libertarians would embrace anarchy to very small government.
Most Libertarians and Conservatives are not opposed to ALL forms of regulations or ALL regulatory agencies. Regulations should be made to foster maximum competition and not to stifle it.
As long as government mainly addresses monopolies and collusion, the free market should pretty much handle the rest. People do a pretty good job of voting with their wallets in a free market.
The problem is over-regulation has created a market that struggles / fails which the liberals call a free market and then blame capitalism for its failures.
The more you get government involved, then the less free the market will be. Case in point. Cap & Trade. How is a bakery going to use less energy to make a loaf of bread? How will that affect how many people a bakery employs? How will that affect the price for a loaf of bread?
52, I think church-sponsored soup kitchens do a little more than provide a “pot luck dinner”. In fact, liberals opposed funding these soup kitchens under the Bush Administration because they said it was a breach in the separation of church and state. It didn’t matter that these soup kitchens provided a service to the poor based on charities alone, the fact that it was church-sponsored bothered a lot of liberals. Who ended up getting the shaft? And before you assume, no I am not religious.
On the matter of all the people who die, where do you want to draw the line? Why stop in America? Why can’t we save the world of people dying? At some point, you have to decide what you can stomach. Is it insensitive to each person’s plight? Perhaps. Is it fair? Probably not. Life is not fair.
On the matter of people forced to declare bankruptcy due to high health care costs, we now have a circular argument. If we had tort reform so that hospitals didn’t have to worry about constant litigation over malpractice, then health care would eventually become a lot more affordable. That won’t help the people you’re citing as having declared bankruptcy, but it would put us back on the path to more affordable health care for those who would otherwise be in a similar situation.
#54 Most Libertarians and Conservatives are not opposed to ALL forms of regulations or ALL regulatory agencies. Regulations should be made to foster maximum competition and not to stifle it.
As long as government mainly addresses monopolies and collusion, the free market should pretty much handle the rest. People do a pretty good job of voting with their wallets in a free market.
I can agree with some of this but this is where we part company: There is ample evidence that there are some things done better by government, things that require economy of scale. Power, for example: Does it really make sense to have multiple companies stringing power lines throughout the country competing to sell you electricity? There are other examples; this topic has been endlessly discussed before.
Government in America really isn’t the problem, it’s the big corporations that have hijacked the government and twisted it to their bidding that’s the problem. So the solution isn’t throwing out the government, it’s stopping the big corporations from controlling it.
I agree that much regulation today is harmful, set up by the big corporations to favor them. But the solution is not to get rid of regulation altogether — that would put us even more at the mercy of the big corporations. The solution is to get rid of the influence of corporations in government. And that’s an incredibly difficult problem — they have the money to pay off politicians, and fancy lawyers to write legislation that favors them.
Focusing on the government is missing the problem completely. This is not Ayn Rand’s Soviet Union, where the government controls everything. Never has been, never will be. Libertarianism is a solution for a problem that never existed here, and doesn’t exist anywhere in the world any more.
I do like Ron Paul, but often don’t agree with him.
This thread is hilarious. #33 asks to be shown one Canadian citizen who likes their system. I direct his attention to #32.
The free market works for consumer goods, assuming no monopolies exist and no price collusion between major producers.
As has been noted in above posts healtcare is not a product and can’t be sold as such. As has also been noted once a national system is in place it is impossible to remove. Wonder why? People love them. No NHS is perfect, but at least you won’t die in the street or face financial ruin in your moment of need.
The argument for a public military and not public healthcare has also been unleashed, but it is a bad argument on two fronts:
#17, The military uses contractors already, and they cost about twice as much to employ. Since the military trained them in the first place it approaches comical.
#22 National defense IS NOT a constitutional Federal obligation. The Revolutionary army was disbanded after the Revolutionary War. When we started displacing Native Americans a standing Federal force was instituted.
And regarding health care… a free market approach just doesn’t work for it. I think Mr. Fusion spelled it out, but here’s just one example: if I need heart bypass surgery, there’s no way I can make a meaningful choice between competing heart surgeons, because I don’t have the knowledge to choose meaningfully. There are certain criteria that must be met to have a free market, and health care doesn’t meet them.
Now where did that little punk LL go? Here, LL, I’ll make it easy for you. One simple question, Mr. Free-Market-Handles-Everything: Should we get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, and force Americans to sue mega-billion dollar companies if they dump toxic waste in our back yards?
Yes or no.
#50 What Liberals never understand is that caring for others doesn’t require government.
BS. There have been huge social problems in our past (old people being neglected, children being abandoned) that have required government, because individual charities haven’t stepped up. If they had, the government wouldn’t have had to do it.
I personally am willing to spend some of my tax dollars on providing for old and poor and sick people. I understand that you may not be willing, and it annoys you that your tax dollars go to it. Well join the friggin’ club. I don’t like that my tax dollars are spent on bogus wars in the Middle East.
#53, Mr. Ed,
Well, you might be embarrassed, who could blame you, but he isn’t the worse. Not by a long shot.
#59, Phydeau,
Should we get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, and force Americans to sue mega-billion dollar companies if they dump toxic waste in our back yards?
Before the creation of the EPA, it was very difficult to impossible to sue anyone that polluted. Since the EPA came about, most law suits have been proactive to stop illegal activity instead of seeking damages.
When you add the right wing’s demand for Tort Reform to this, there would be no safeguards.
56, I was not including natural monopolies which is what you’re now talking about.
So if government isn’t the problem, then you also disagree with the founding fathers. We can both sit here and chase our tails over which is more evil but in the end Government has the power to extort money from the citizenry. Government can stack the deck against mom & pop stores. Government can impose eminent domain. But can you or I sue the government? We can sue a corporation.
BTW, extra rules and regs hurts sole proprietorships more than they do corporations.
57, On the matter of contractors, many of them are ex-military who are doing the same job they would otherwise be doing in the military. They just make a lot more money as contractors.
You do realize we do not live under the Articles of Confederation? That’s what you’re implying we live under with your Revolutionary War comment. Please go back and study. Under the Constitution, national defense is a Federal government responsibility.
58, As a military vet I’ve used government-run health care through the VA system when I got out. It sucks. Regardless of what is being promoted or debated for the national plan, the VA plan had waiting lists with frequent cancellations of appointments along with rationing of services. If the VA can’t get it right, I have no reason to believe a bigger version of it will be any better.
At least with the free market approach, you have gains in medical innovation. If you remove the profit incentives for “greedy” corporations to make new discoveries, then innovations will come to a crawl. Where do most of the medical innovations happen in the world?
60, We already spend money on the poor and on professional welfare recipients. In fact, poor people have been voting Democrat for over 50 years and they’re still poor. LOL. I have no problems with donating my money to causes I believe in. I don’t believe government will donate my money in good faith to those causes. For now, politicians use other people’s money to buy votes. No more, no less.