RSS Feed MenuDespite the fact that most Americans are already happy with their health care, including the uninsured, the Democratic Party has convinced the nation that there’s a crisis of apocalyptic levels plaguing our nation’s health care system. (There is a forthcoming crisis in health care, actually: it’s Medicare, and it’s not going to pay for itself. But I digress…) To fix this “crisis,” Barack Obama and his cheerleaders are promoting what they call a “public” option to promote more “competition” in the health care market. Sounds awfully capitalisty. Competition and choice and all that, after all.
What they mean, of course, is a government option funded by taxpayers to naturally monopolize the health care market. It isn’t “competition” for one side to start out with unlimited resources and three hundred million donors to the kitty. Lest one be under the illusion that the government option is going to merely “compete” with the private sector, he need only glance at the education system. “Public” “schools” are merely “competing” with the private sector. That’s “competition,” too. Except that the entire nation is forced to buy stock in the “public” option, whether they want to or not. The inevitable result is obvious. And such is the essence of socialistic policies: everyone’s covered. Poorly. But it’s like the radical leftist historian Howard Zinn has said about the Soviet Union’s policies: hey, at least there was universal coverage, and at least there weren’t billionaires. The quality of your health care might decrease and your freedom might contract, but at least you get to stick it to the man, America.
Perhaps one day we’ll be “universally covered,” just like Britain, and our government, too, will ban life-prolonging drugs when they’re deemed “too expensive.” Or maybe private care will be made illegal, like in Canada.
To be sure, our current system is riddled with a seemingly endless list of inefficiencies and problems. We spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation on Earth, and yet seem to get results that don’t live up to such exorbitant spending. We can get more for less — but not by handing the system over to the federal government. It should be remembered that it is the private sector that created absolutely everything that the federal government is dangling over the heads of voters as goodies. Government cannot create. It can only seize and redistribute wealth that has already been produced. It isn’t an accident that America produces far more new life-saving drugs than Europe on an annual basis. Are we really ready to slay the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Absolutely no one can “compete” with a behemoth “public” option. The multi-trillion dollar federal government is better-funded than any other operation in the universe and can crush everything in its path — just like it did to our schools. If you’re itching for the quality of the nation’s health care to be equal to the quality of our schools, then sign on to the Obama plan. But please, don’t call it “competition.”
ottovbvs // Jul 8, 2009 at 5:43 pm
balconesfault // Jul 8, 2009 at 4:39 pm
….You’re not getting bad data…..but you are putting them between a rock and a hard place.
sinz54 // Jul 8, 2009 at 7:38 pm
sftor1: The only European nation with lower unemployment rate than the U.S. is Britain.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/unemployment_rate_2008_0.html
So what exactly is this “strength” of European nations you’re talking about?
sinz54 // Jul 8, 2009 at 7:49 pm
ottovbvs: What I thought I was doing, was pointing out how a government (local, state or federal) can use its power to eliminate all potential private competitors to its services–and then be free to stagnate and provide inferior service with no threat of competition.
It took over forty years of costly litigation, fighting state by state, for United Parcel Service to win court approval to be a common carrier of packages nationwide, alongside the U.S. Post Office. That battle wasn’t fully won till the 1970s. And yet today, package delivery is the mirror image of the “public health care option”: It’s UPS and FedEx that keep forcing the U.S. Postal Service to keep upgrading its services and holding down delivery rates, or else lose business to UPS and FedEx.
As I’ve said many times before, the peculiar nature of the supply-demand curves for health care makes it impossible for providers to compete effectively on price. But they can still compete on services offered and quality of service.
Liberals who advocate single payer are quite prepared to force middle and upper class Americans to live with less health care, in order that the poor and the uninsured should have care. I have confronted them point blank on this, and they have been quite upfront about wanting to make this tradeoff. They reject any kind of two-tier concept in which the poor would get a less generous health care plan than the affluent.
But their schemes become impossible as long as there is a private insurance market. Try to take away existing health care benefits from the affluent, and they will flee to private insurers. And that’s why liberals are out to destroy the private insurers. Because that’s a necessary precondition to government rationing of health care.
sinz54 // Jul 8, 2009 at 8:00 pm
ottobvs: One more thing.
The advocates of single-payer whom I have confronted, are also demanding the passage of a law that will forbid any private insurer from offering services that “duplicate” the services of single-payer. In other words, they are not just content to create a single-payer system; they want to outlaw any potential competition too.
What are they afraid of? If their single-payer system is so wonderful, why is it necessary to outlaw potential competitors? Are they afraid that disgusted Americans might flee the single-payer system if a private insurer like Blue Cross still existed?
In fact, that’s exactly what they’re afraid of:
http://tinyurl.com/3wu7qa
SFTor1 // Jul 9, 2009 at 3:08 am
sinz, I am in awe of your points of view. You look around the developed world, and all countries have chosen public health care, except the U.S. In the developed world all people enjoy access to care, except for in the U.S. In the developed world the affluent may purchase additional medical services from private care givers, except for in the U.S. where that is your only choice. In the countries with public health care people are healthier, live longer, and fewer babies die young. It just works better, by EVERY standard. And please don’t tell me they ration care and we don’t. We ration care, through ability to pay. That may be OK with adults for some, but it sure as hell isn’t OK with kids. 12-year old with lymphoma or Hodgkins, and Mom and Dad can’t pay—too bad, right? And I’m sorry sinz, a bake sale just won’t do it.
Your opinions feel obstinate and contrarian. Your mind feels closed. Do you really think you are fighting some kind of good fight with this?
UPS and the Postal Service is exactly the same story, you’re right. The Postal Service had to serve every household in the country, no matter how remote. UPS could cherry-pick areas with high business activity. Not a level playing field, get it? Hence the resistance.
Private insurance is doing exactly the same. Pre-existing condition? Pay through the nose, if you get covered at all. Older? Pay through the nose. Have kids? Pay through the nose. When people get seriously ill, find reasons to deny care and terminate their policies. I have friends with two kids who pay $2,400 a month for coverage. Does that make sense to you?
I’m just making myself nauseous here. Sinz, if you think it is important to have a tiered program so the rich don’t have to be bothered with the smell of the poor, then I think you should work on that. The simple solution is to let the rich buy whatever services they want from private providers. But they absolutely should contribute toa system that treats their workers, helpers, and servants.
Meanwhile there will be others who will spend their time to get the roughly 50 million without care a doctor they can go to, get kids some fillings in their teeth, and perhaps even some inoculation shots.
ottovbvs // Jul 9, 2009 at 7:57 am
sinz54 // Jul 8, 2009 at 8:00 pm
……To start with single payer is not even on the agenda……I’ve no idea who these people are that you mention who are attempting to ban private insurers from the health market…….you don’t name them and I’m sure they are an irrelevant fringe group……Even Alex above agrees with me that a public option would not remove private insurers from the market although he claims it would shrink them….In short you seem to be indulging in some paranoiac fantasy that doesn’t actually exist.
ottovbvs // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:06 am
sinz54 // Jul 8, 2009 at 7:49 pm
……Then we get this:
“As I’ve said many times before, the peculiar nature of the supply-demand curves for health care makes it impossible for providers to compete effectively on price. But they can still compete on services offered and quality of service.”
…….Where you seem to be falling into the common trap of mixing up the issue of who “pays” for the treatment and who “provides’ it. Insurance companies don’t provide healthcare they pay for it!
……Basically your whole argument is an invention……there is no plan to force private insurerss out of the market……as I point out about even Alex admits that’s not going to happen…..Even in Britain doyenne of the single payer systems there is a private insurance market….. I’m quite willing to debate reality but not invented fantasies.
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:40 am
ottovbvs: The public option is a ruse to force private payers out of the market, so we end up with single-payer maybe 10 years from now. Robert Reich admits it, TMPCafe admits it, but you insist it’s false.
Just one year ago, Obama said to a friendly audience that he wanted single payer, before he got the nomination and had to campaign against McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
but you insist it’s false.
I believe them and not you. They’re the activists who are pushing for the public plan. They know what it’s truly for.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:55 am
ottovbvs sez: “Where you seem to be falling into the common trap of mixing up the issue of who “pays” for the treatment and who “provides’ it.”
That issue has already been “mixed up” for years.
The only way a total separation of provider and payer can exist is if we have a pure fee-for-service provider system, in which we get whatever care we want, and each visit to the doctor is paid for by the provider, no questions asked.
That hasn’t been the case since managed care–and it will probably disappear under health care reform.
Under managed care, the insurer often refuses to pay for certain meds and treatments, discouraging their use. Example: Last year my physician had ordered certain medical supplies from a supplier, to treat my health condition. My insurer not only refused to pay for these supplies, but they actually ordered the supplier to cancel the shipment to me. I never got the supplies, even though I would have gladly paid out of pocket, they were so vital to my health. I had to phone the supplier myself and place my own order with my own credit card–and wait for them to arrive.
Here in Massachusetts where I live, rising costs are forcing the Commonwealth to take the next step–begin to move away from fee-for-service toward giant networks of providers similar to what managed care used to have–and also a “capitation lite” payment system in which total payments will be limited. This will force providers to limit or drop certain expensive treatments or those that require many follow-up visits to the doctor.
Obama’s call for a “Comparative Effectiveness Board” is also going to lead to some painful choices: Do we pay for a hip replacement for an 82 year old man, like my own dad? Is it worth paying for prostate biopsies, just to catch a few extra cases of prostate cancer–or let a few men get prostate cancer and die because it just isn’t cost-effective? At what point does *cost* get factored into “comparative effectiveness”?
With outcome-based medicine, comparative effectiveness, capitation, managed care, and outright rationing, the payer is intimately involved in deciding what care we get. It’s unavoidable. We simply cannot afford to give every poor person in America the same kind of health care that Bill Gates’ family enjoys–or that Obama’s family enjoys.
ottovbvs // Jul 9, 2009 at 9:16 am
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:55 am
“That issue has already been “mixed up” for years.”
………Largely as a means of muddying the water by those who want to preserve the status quo. And you kept right on mixing.
“Robert Reich admits it, TMPCafe admits it,”
“You’re entitled to your opinion.”
……..So these are sources of your conspiracy theory…….are you serious…..It’s an opinion Alex Knepper the author of this diary attacking the public option hardly an advocate of single payer says he agrees with.
ottovbvs // Jul 9, 2009 at 9:25 am
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:55 am
“Is it worth paying for prostate biopsies, just to catch a few extra cases of prostate cancer–or let a few men get prostate cancer and die because it just isn’t cost-effective?”
…….Funny you mention this which to me at 69 is a matter of some interest…..I recently read a study raising questions about the entire effectiveness of prostate biopsies and ops……I’m afraid you as usual can’t see the wood for the trees………Lots of people already aren’t getting prostate biopsies starting in the early to mid fifties if merited by other tests because they DON’T HAVE health insurance……Basically your whole premise seems to be you’re happy with the maintenance of the status quo which is untenable for a host of reasons.
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm
ottovbs: The original idea for a public plan came from Jacob Hacker, a political science professor at Berkeley.
And when he came up with this idea, he himself said:
“Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan horse for single payer,’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there,’” Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. “I’m telling you, we’re going to get there, over time, slowly.” Here’s the video of it:
http://tinyurl.com/ndjsvf
And in that same video, Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky is telling a friendly audience that yes indeed, the public plan will destroy the private insurance market and lead to single payer. The audience whooped and cheered.
Now how many more examples do you want me to give you???
Obama said he wants single payer, but there will necessarily be a “transition process.” Dr. Hacker, the inventor of the public option said he wants single payer. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, one of the ultra-liberal congresspersons, is happy over the way the public option will lead to single payer.
So stop being disingenuous.
Virtually all the activists pushing for the public option understand what it’s for. They just won’t tell us to our face.
Naturally you’re denying it. You’re just like the Dems. Secretly gloating over the prospect of single-payer while publicly denying it.
ottovbvs // Jul 9, 2009 at 1:22 pm
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm
……Sinz I’m not gloating about anything…… as I’ve stated elsewhere where this topic is under discussion I don’t think the private insurers are going to disappear from the business nor do I think they should do because of their role in keeping the public option honest………If the best you can come up with is some blog, Bob Reich and some obscure professor as being prophets or dictators of what the final outcome is going to be when they are up against the massed forces of the multi billion dollar health insurance industry and their allies in congress you have a somewhat, no you have a totally zany, sense of the balance of forces involved in this matter.
sinz54 // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:13 am
ottovbvs: Let’s look at a really authoritative source. Whom, do you suppose, wrote this on “The American Spectator”:
“At the end of the day a single payer system is quite simply the most efficient way of operating a universal healthcare system….It’s not going to happen overnight for both presentational reasons (which is what Klein is really talking about) and organizational/economic reasons. A whole industry has been built around the current very expensive way of doing things and that cannot be dismantled overnight.”
Who wrote that? Can you recall? No?
It was YOU.
race42008.com » Blog Archive » The Hidden Utilitaranism of the Health Care Scheme // Jul 17, 2009 at 11:43 pm
[...] result of nationalized health care is indeed rationing, and everyone who promotes the “public option” (not such an option after all, according to Investor’s Business Daily) secretly [...]