When a healthcare bill lands on President Obama’s desk sometime after the New Year, it will almost certainly contain a provision that requires health insurers to spend a large percentage of total premiums (probably 80 percent) paying medical claims. This sounds like a common sense measure but, in fact, it will either discourage innovation or, more likely, do nothing at all.
The mandate won’t have significant consequences since it doesn’t actually impact that many insurers. The average insurer spends about 13 percent of premiums on marketing, care management and other general overhead. The most efficient, large ones spend 5-6 percent. Only a handful of smaller health insurers—many of which pride themselves on expensive practices like having actual people (rather than computers) answering their phones–spend more than 20 percent of premiums on “overhead.” Particularly at the margins, it would be reasonably easy for insurers to force some of these costs onto medical providers and, yes it’s possible, cut some executive perks and figure out ways to work smarter.
But even apparent “efficiencies” might come at a cost. Under a mandate to minimize “overhead spending” an insurer that develops a computer system to monitor care and make sure that all of its diabetic clients get the exams they need to avoid limb amputations has simply added to its “overhead” costs and might get dinged for it. On the other hand, doctors who recommend expensive, ineffective back surgery, on the other hand, will give insurers “credit” for providing reimbursed care. Likewise, if insurers simply transfer certain types of record-keeping and care management burdens to medical care providers, they can reduce their own “overhead” without increasing true medical care spending a penny.
In any case, a mandate that dictates how insurers spend their money might well squelch innovation. An insurer that wanted to make a large one year investment in a new computer system, increase size and realize new economies of scale through relentless advertising, or step up anti-fraud enforcement to lower long-term premiums for its clients might find itself forbidden from doing so. Even more likely, smaller insurers that don’t compete on price to start with, may find themselves in deep financial trouble if forced to cut “overhead” costs that are a source of competitive advantages.
It’s not desirable for insurers to spend enormous amounts of money on overhead. But not all overhead is waste. The “overhead” controls in the new healthcare legislation won’t do much. And they might do harm.
82 responses so far
1 Kevin B // Dec 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I don’t find this argument convincing. The insurance companies will do their best to make a profit under the new regulations. Making the profits they want will require more innovation.
I don’t think these regulations will squelch the capital investments needed to reduce operating costs.
2 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Wow, 8 stories on the health care bill in one day. You right wingers must be really scared of the resulting advantage to the Democrats from the passage of this bill.
3 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm
teabag,
you’re an idiot. yes, of course we’re scared, because once national healthcare passes, the party of liberty will essentially be destroyed. national healthcare is endgame for a free economy. i know that means little to nothing to you, but for educated people it spells near doom to america as we know it.
4 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm
DOOM DOOM and more DOOM. WillyP if it scares you then I am delighted. It must be a good thing.
5 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“the party of liberty will essentially be destroyed.”
You mean the party of Torture, Corporate rape and the self described American Taliban. Could not happen to a more deserving bunch of Hypocrites.
6 LFC // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Why is the the stock argument whenever the obvious fact is brought forth that we can’t continue spending the amount of GDP that we do on healthcare? Cover most people? You’ll kill innovation. Allow Medicare to bargain for drug prices? You’ll kill innovation. Allow people to buy cheaper drugs from Canada? You’ll kill innovation. It’s like trying to argue with a freaking parrot.
I tell you what, Eli. Let me spend 50% of GDP on healthcare and I’ll give you INCREDIBLE innovation, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t bankrupt the country in the process.
7 LFC // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm
OMG! Republicans are holding up funding for our troops to try to delay healthcare reform. Wow. The GOP wants to win so badly, they’ll defund our troops. Why do they hate America?
And before the wingnuts come out of the swamp, I’m simply using the exact same metric you used for anybody who did not vote to approve any and all defense spending bills without debate. Well, not quite. The Republicans don’t even want to try to change and improve the bill. They just want to slow things up for political gain, so they’re blocking funding for troops. This action by the GOP should make any real American want to puke.
8 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm
lfc, because republicans realize that democrats now have to own the national security issue. in other words, they need to fund the troops period, and hence the trump card. you, and i for that matter, may not like the tactics, but it should demonstrate just how much is at stake here.
foolish people without a sense of economics or history don’t really grasp the dramatic change in society that a national “healthcare” program initiates. you want to really, really KILL the individual initiative, the self-efficacy of ordinary citizens, the belief in oneself to change the world? well, then pass national healthcare. you’ll have a nation of zombies who view the apparatus of the state as the only viable tool to change society. and as the state functions de facto through coercion and force, you’ve simultaneously created a less civil, more bullied nation.
liberals don’t get any of this, of course, which is why they’re not truly liberals, but statists.
9 PracticalGirl // Dec 22, 2009 at 2:56 pm
WillyP:
What, exactly, are you areguing for? We know what you’re against, but the “innovation” inherent in the current system brought us to exactly where we are now. The Republican argument that the free market solves all would be a good one if the counter examples weren’t so abundant.
10 LFC // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:06 pm
foolish people without a sense of economics or history don’t really grasp the dramatic change in society that a national “healthcare” program initiates. you want to really, really KILL the individual initiative, the self-efficacy of ordinary citizens, the belief in oneself to change the world? well, then pass national healthcare. you’ll have a nation of zombies who view the apparatus of the state as the only viable tool to change society. and as the state functions de facto through coercion and force, you’ve simultaneously created a less civil, more bullied nation.
Willy, both my wife and I have pre-existing conditions that make us 100% uninsurable on the private market. The Democratic answer is to make sure that I can buy insurance at an affordable price if I lose my job and the attached medical benefits, thus saving our lives in the event of a medical condition that we can’t foresee, pay for, or prevent. The Republican answer is tough luck, I should spend all my money to keep myself and my wife alive, and then we should die. (It was Republicans who voted to make bankruptcy due to medical bills harder, remember?)
I have no power to change the world of private insurance. After all, what leverage do I have? What you are spouting is pretty rhetoric, but it has no roots whatsoever in reality. But your pretty words are nicer than “if you don’t have money, you die.”
11 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:07 pm
practical,
ahem, what free market in health care do you see? medicare, medicaid, social security, tax incentives for employers and not individuals, tons of regulations on insurance companies, inability to purchase insurance over state lines, hostility towards the growing number of tax-free health savings accounts (an actual free market innovation), the fda (which won’t even approve drugs that are widely used in europe until they undergo 20 years of testing), and biomedical research in academia, which is nearly all NIH directed (trust me).
are you still going to tell me about those abundant “counter” examples?
12 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm
lfc, i have no idea what you mean by “pre-existing” condition. and i’m sure you receive excellent care from the private sector. if you could not pay, you’d be on medicaid. that’s the current system. if medicaid were eliminated, there would be private charity (unless you deny that people are naturally generous, in which case you’re an incurable (no pun intended) pessimist).
as for “if you don’t have money, then die,” this is the old canard of compassionate liberals. matter of fact, your straw man arguments are repulsive to me. as i explained in another area of this forum, i was born with several pre-existing conditions to a not exactly wealthy (read: lower middle class) family, was in and out of hospitals and unable to eat solid food until the age of 4, was operated on at under 24 hours old as a matter of life and death, and had open heart surgery.
so quit the “liberals monopolize compassion” BS, and own up to the fact that national healthcare will create more losers than the current system. it amazes me how you libs automatically think that free-marketers are so oblivious to the real world around them, which is filled with suffering everyday. in fact, it would be your twisted, top down, authoritarian system which would prematurely end treatment to diabetics, to preme infants, to cancer patients.
they’d also skimp on legitimately treating serious injuries, as when I witnessed my canadian friend’s hand go through a champagne glass: after 2 operations that never sufficiently dealt with the nerve damage (they simply stitched him up and sent him home without examining the injury), he had to have a third with very questionable efficacy. he can write off his climbing excursions, i suppose. or perhaps my other friend in canada, who had leukemia for nearly his whole life, and who was routinely left in the waiting area for 16 hours while he was ill and suffering from the side effects of chemotherapy. at least they gave him marinol! or my other friend who was attacked by a raccoon who walked into his apartment and bit him, and the doctor said “we’ll monitor the condition” as oppose to vaccinating him for rabies. luckily he did not get ill.
oh the compassionate liberals. look at all their good deeds.
13 LFC // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm
ahem, what free market in health care do you see?
I see United Healthcare still refusing to pay bills of mine from March, April, and May. These are bills they are contractually obligated to pay. They signed a contract promising to do so, and yet they are still throwing up excuses left and right. (My favorite, used a half dozen times against my providers so far, is telling them I’m not a known subscriber because the bill wasn’t submitted with my middle initial. First name, last name, plan ID, and member ID were all correct.) BTW, we’ve finally straightened out problems with Blue Cross that have been ongoing since August.
There is a good reason the industry is so regulated. If they weren’t, they’d f*** people left and right. They’re still doing it (read about rescission), but the damage they can cause in the name of profit is at least reduced.
And what health care plan has not screwed up, not even once, since my wife became disabled and started to receive it? MEDICARE! Actually, years ago U.S. Healthcare was awesome, but once they were bought out by Aetna, they went down the tubes too.
As to offering insurance across state lines, that’s really improved the choices in cell phone providers, broadband providers, and cable TV providers, hasn’t it? I’m in Pennsylvania, a state with a pretty good sized population, so there must be dozens for me to choose from, right? GONG!
Now I don’t actually have a problem with those industries competing and consolidating across state lines. I can decide to use their services or not as I wish. But market forces fail for healthcare because your only option may very well be to die.
14 LFC // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm
WillyP said… i have no idea what you mean by “pre-existing” condition.
Then you have no business discussing healthcare reform.
15 LFC // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm
as for “if you don’t have money, then die,” this is the old canard of compassionate liberals. matter of fact, your straw man arguments are repulsive to me.
That’s because you’re ignorant. Read and learn … if you’re capable of the latter.
16 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:32 pm
lfc, so the solution is what? nationalize healthcare and endure all the problems i’ve listed? foolish, selfish, and shortsighted – i say.
as for your comment about pre-existing conditions, i think it’s clear that a) i had several pre-existing conditions b) i meant that i had no idea what you referring to, as there are thousands
as for your problems with insurance companies, i’d merely suggest that you’re going to get your money a lot faster from pep boys than you would the dmv.
17 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:35 pm
lfc, why don’t you look at what i just relayed to you – anecdotal evidence from 4 short years, health care for people in the early 20s.
it’s no paradise up there in canada. if i were ever very sick, i’d immediately get over the border.
18 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:43 pm
lfc, and the more i read your tired rebuttals, i realize you take things out of context, do not finish reading my sentences, and have no owned up to the fact that nationalized healthcare DOES HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS.
in other words, you’re a hack.
19 cporet // Dec 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Anytime someone uses the moniker of Obamacare you expose yourself as a hack. Pelosicare or Reidcare or democare I can see, but Obama had very little to do with what the Senate is voting on.
20 sinz54 // Dec 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm
WillyP:
Medicaid is strictly means-tested.
You have to be without any source of middle-class income (not even income from stock market investments) before you can qualify for Medicaid.
So yes, if you’re unemployed and you’re prepared to liquidate your IRA and 401(k) plans and spend yourself penniless, then you can qualify for Medicaid.
But in no other Western country or Japan, do the citizens have to choose between health care and financial solvency. That’s unique to the U.S.–despite the fact that our GDP is larger than any of them.
21 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm
sinz, well, we could make sure that people have jobs! and the best way to do that would be to further lower taxes and cut regulation!
as for “highest gdp” “only western country” “citizens must choose!” etc., well, it may not have struck you that the reason we have the highest GDP is because we (for the most part) insist people pay their own way. this is a good thing, and i’d never be so shortsighted as to sell my liberty for a little security.
22 sinz54 // Dec 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm
WillyP:
Isn’t there ANYTHING that we can do to reform the current system, short of “nationalizing healthcare”???
For example, what do you have against the Grand Bargain that Romney made in Massachusetts: Insurance companies would agree to accept any applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, in exchange for greatly widening the pool of policyholders by mandating that all Massachusetts residents must obtain coverage?
That’s how I was able to obtain coverage after I lost my job and with it, my group health insurance. And that Grand Bargain would have helped out “LFC” greatly.
And there was no “nationalization”; Blue Cross, United Health Care, etc., all continue to operate in Massachusetts as before. With all the new policyholders, these insurance companies are doing well and have no intention of pulling out of Massachusetts any time soon.
What bothers me is that you equate any attempts at reform with “nationalization”, “socialism,” etc.–as if the current health care system, which even YOU admit is a patchwork mess, is somehow the only way to go.
23 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 4:42 pm
sinz, i think you should realize that i would be for radical deregulation the medical sector, including the research end. the nih is kind of ridiculous to begin with. what the heck is a national institute of health? i actually work within the biomedical community, and you would literally not believe how unorganized research scientists are when it comes to finding resources. there is huge amounts of duplication, even on the same campuses. and most of the time the professors from one department don’t know what goes on down the block, even though they’re using the same type of equipment!
in the age of the internet, it seems to me that the least savvy people information-wise are research scientists. does this seem counter-intuitive? i can’t believe it either, but i can personally assure you it’s true!
i am not for the status quo. i am for deregulation and elimination of corporate and special interest subsidies. sure, leave some programs in place to catch those who are truly helpless, but let private charity handle the rest!
i am vehemently against any further regulating, which is why i’m against just about anything the government proposes! more intervention = more power = more dependency on government. is this so hard to understand?
24 balconesfault // Dec 22, 2009 at 4:58 pm
willyP nationalized healthcare DOES HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS.
Correction. Nationalized healthcare CAN have major problems.
We spend more per capita than Canada in taxpayer financed healthcare. We spend about twice as much per capita as Canada in total societal healthcare expenditures.
It shocks you that there are things that insurance companies in the US will pick up that Canada’s national healthcare system won’t?
That’s because we’re spending a LOT more money than Canada. And nobody is making the argument that you can’t buy better coverage if you throw more money at healthcare.
Although some people seem to be ignoring that reality whenever they engage in these discussions.
25 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm
balcones, and where does it not? pray tell.
why on earth would i ever decide that a central decision making body is more capable of delivering quality, timely care than several decentralized bodies – insurance companies, towns, even states.
above i have listed a sampling of what i witnessed first hand while in canada. do these gross maltreatments sound appealing to you? they came from benevolent government.
geez, i am not for “the status quo.” i am for DEREGULATION. is this so awful? what is wrong with the american population when they aren’t even sophisticated enough to recognize that the current system is already a massive public/private hybridization scheme that, despite its failures, is still better than completely public schemes?
DEREGULATE
26 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The individual elements of healthcare reform are popular, and so is the bill when described in detail.
The most popular provisions of the bill protect against insurance company abuses, expand coverage and make healthcare more affordable.
The public supports requiring large and mid-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees by nearly a 3-to-1 margin (73%-25%,
CNN).
The same is true for expanding Medicaid to the poor (75%-25%, CNN).
Providing subsidies for families that make up to $88,000 a year is favored by a 2-to-1 supermajority (67%-32%, CNN).
Additional regulations on insurance companies, such as banning rescission and denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions are also very popular (60%-39% and
60%-40%, respectively, CNN).
So Take away the death panel lies and the Republican negativity and people are pretty happy. Of course this is not a Rassmusen poll so it means nothing
27 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:49 pm
you can’t “take away the death panels.” they are part of the system because they MUST BE by virtue of design. there’s an omnipresent problem called “scarcity,” you know.
28 balconesfault // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Willy: why on earth would i ever decide that a central decision making body is more capable of delivering quality, timely care than several decentralized bodies – insurance companies, towns, even states.
That doesn’t depend on the size of the decision making body so much as it depends on the intent. Insurance companies have as a primary goal maximizing the amount of revenue that flows through them, and the amount of profit that they can extract from that revenue. Why? Because they’re free market businesses, and that’s the primary function of free market businesses. If they don’t maximize revenues and profits, their investors leave for companies that do a better job at these things than they do.
But we’re confusing things here. Insurance companies do not deliver care. They provide the money to pay for private and public hospitals and medical practices to deliver care.
above i have listed a sampling of what i witnessed first hand while in canada. do these gross maltreatments sound appealing to you? they came from benevolent government.
As I note, that benevolent government spends half on healthcare than we do as a society in the US. That said, while I favor a system where the government guarantees coverage to all, I do not favor a single-payer system. I would always expect a country as wealthy and with as large of class divisions as we have in America to have a supplimental private insurance market to provide additional coverage not available via the government system.
i am for DEREGULATION. is this so awful?
Sinz has already written on this in detail. It hardly seems worth addressing if you’re not going to respond to his issues.
29 balconesfault // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Willy: you can’t “take away the death panels.
Of course. And until we get universal healthcare, every congressman is most certainly an active member of a death panel … and those voting against universal healthcare are most certainly voting in favor of more rapid death for large numbers of Americans.
30 Oneon1isto // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:54 pm
That picture of the “sad doctor” is such BS.
The regulations will make sad pandas out of insurance companies, but won’t “destroy” all that beautiful innovation coming out of pharma and those evil government funded colleges that, you know, do the bulk of the pro-bono not-profit-motivated work.
Incredible.
31 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:58 pm
what issues are you talking about? you cannot simply legislate out “profit” from the system and expect things to improve. if this were a feasible option, we’d do it not only for insurance, but for every other industry! of course, such trifling idiocy overlooks that profits in one sector flow into another, and create a dynamic, responsive, societally accommodating business environment.
you really are a functional socialist. i’m sorry you do not possess the wherewithal to recognize this blatant fact, but you can take my word for it.
32 WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 6:00 pm
one can spend all day trying to educate the masses, but in the end some refuse to learn…
33 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“you really are a functional socialist. i’m sorry you do not possess the wherewithal to recognize this blatant fact, but you can take my word for it.”
I wouldn’t take your word for it if you were the last person on earth. You are so wrong about almost everything that your word is totally and completely valueless.
34 Independent // Dec 22, 2009 at 7:03 pm
” You are so wrong about almost everything that your word is totally and completely valueless.” –teabag
talk about projection -darn, you made it a textbook example with that line, teabag. you really need to t-h-i-n-k before posting.
——————–
i’m not worried about obamacare. it’s what BO wants; it’s what democrats want. it isn’t what republicans want. it isn’t what independents and moderate voters want. but the deal making and near-bribery scandals that will come out about the democrats looking for the 60th vote and whatever they need in the house, will hurt the ruling party in congress and obama to some extent… stripping BO of the teflon-like covering he’s enjoyed lately will require far more scandalous things than mr nelson getting bought for a billion $$$s or another socialist or maoist uncloaked inside the white house. it reminds me of the scene from casablanca where the french vichey captain is surprised and shocked by gambling inside rick’s cafe as his winnings make their way to his greedy hands… bribery in the senate? no!! democrats for sale?? no, say it aint so!!!
it’s a tough thing to convince voters who went out on a limb to elect Obama that he’s essentially corrupt, wrong-headed or incompetent… because we’d have to believe we were wrong in voting for him. obamacare will mean higher taxes for the people obama promised not to raise taxes upon; tough luck. obamacare will surely mean more bureacrats making life-altering decisions for more of us; more tough luck. obamacare will mean fewer doctors and nurses entering the field because their future will be dictated by govt red tape and back-benchers second guessing them… instead of a faceless insurance worker denying Timmie his operation, it’s now replaced by a faceless govt unionized worker denying Timmie his operation.
no difference there in my book. we need far more larger scandals before americans will jump ship or the shark on BO or his political party.
35 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Mr Independent MIGOP-ers alter ego surfaces from the mud.
How is it down in the muck?
Obviously you have your finger right on the nations pulse Mr Indy Pity the rest of the country does not agree with you dumbass.
The individual elements of healthcare reform are popular, and so is the bill when described in detail.
The most popular provisions of the bill protect against insurance company abuses, expand coverage and make healthcare more affordable.
The public supports requiring large and mid-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees by nearly a 3-to-1 margin (73%-25%,
CNN).
The same is true for expanding Medicaid to the poor (75%-25%, CNN).
Providing subsidies for families that make up to $88,000 a year is favored by a 2-to-1 supermajority (67%-32%, CNN).
Additional regulations on insurance companies, such as banning rescission and denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions are also very popular (60%-39% and
60%-40%, respectively, CNN).
36 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:05 pm
A tearful teabagger calls into C-SPAN, worried that following Tom Coburn’s exhortation to pray for a member to not show up for the health care vote led to the death of Senator James Inhofe, who skipped today’s health care cloture vote:
Transcript:
CALLER: Yeah doctor. Our small tea bag group here in Waycross, we got our vigil together and took Dr. Coburn’s instructions and prayed real hard that Sen. Byrd would either die or couldn’t show up at the vote the other night.
How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough
HOST: Senator Barasso, he was referring to Senator Inhofe, who was not part of the round of voting this morning.
BARASSO: The votes today, they needed 60 votes in favor of the bill. Senator Inhofe is opposed to the bill, and whether he was there or not didn’t make any difference. There was no way that Jim Inhofe was going to vote for the bill, the senator from Oklahoma. So that’s why he wasn’t there this morning.
HOST: Do you know where he was, senator, why he wasn’t able to make the vote this morning?
BARASSO: No, I don’t know.
I’m not sure what’s funnier: the tearful teabagger’s delusional fear that he prayed Inhofe to death, or Barasso’s response that it doesn’t really matter whether or not Republicans like Inhofe show up to vote.
37 franco 2 // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Teabag,
C-Span call- in shows are weird. I gave up on them long ago. Isn’t there some good porn you should be watching?
38 balconesfault // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:36 pm
but the deal making and near-bribery scandals
mr nelson getting bought for a billion $$$s
LOL – just to make clear … the “near bribery scandal” that “bought” Ben Nelson was him getting a few more federal dollars to pay for Medicaid coverage in Nebraska.
Wow. Such rank corruption. It’s annoying to note that this kind of horse trading supercedes people’s “principles”, but it always has and will. But bribery? Scandal? Seriously?
39 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“Teabag,
C-Span call- in shows are weird. I gave up on them long ago. Isn’t there some good porn you should be watching?”
Yes but this is so far out there. Well worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0uxURKIFqU&feature=player_embedded
40 COProgressive // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:48 pm
teabag @ 36 said:
“I’m not sure what’s funnier: the tearful teabagger’s delusional fear that he prayed Inhofe to death, or Barasso’s response that it doesn’t really matter whether or not Republicans like Inhofe show up to vote.”
That’s easy. The funny part was whether they had prayed Inhofe to death. That it doesn’t matter whether or not the Repugs show up to vote is an old joke going bake to 1/20/2009.
41 COProgressive // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Lehrer said:
“In any case, a mandate that dictates how insurers spend their money might well squelch innovation. An insurer that wanted to make a large one year investment in a new computer system, increase size and realize new economies of scale through relentless advertising, or step up anti-fraud enforcement to lower long-term premiums for its clients might find itself forbidden from doing so.”
If an insurer wanted to make a large one year investment in a new computer system, they could pass the hat to the corporate executives to kick in a million or two of their overinflated salaries or cut back on the country club memberships.
42 teabag // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“If an insurer wanted to make a large one year investment in a new computer system, they could pass the hat to the corporate executives to kick in a million or two of their overinflated salaries or cut back on the country club memberships.”
Look it’s tough for us to live on out 20 M I L L I ON a year. We barely get by as it is. If I only get 18 MI I L L I O N a year I will have to lay off some slaves, sorry help.
We health executives are the salt of the earth and only have our clients best interests close to our hearts. Cough Cough.
43 canadianmoderate // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:08 pm
WillyP, I know you mean well, and generally I’m a fan of deregulation, but I can’t sit idly by and listen to what you say about health care. Do you think we have death panels in Canada? I’ll save you some time here, we don’t. We have plenty of problems though, and I, for one, believe that there can only be a private sector solution to our particular problems. And rationing, you are right, is a serious problem here. But rationing doesn’t cost lives here like you think it might. For the most part it just makes things incredibly inconvenient, especially if you have a problem everyone else has.
We don’t die in waiting rooms, at least no more than Americans do, but we do live with non-life-threatening conditions for months longer than you would, as we are on waiting lists. I’m trying to say that Obamacare can’t possibly be as scary as you think it will, because it’s nowhere close to being all out single-payer, and even that is more of a frustration than it is the nightmare some people make it sound like.
44 mthen // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:17 am
” CALLER: Yeah doctor. Our small tea bag group here in Waycross, we got our vigil together and took Dr. Coburn’s instructions and prayed real hard that Sen. Byrd would either die or couldn’t show up at the vote the other night.
How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough”
Anyone who would believe the above is a legit call and not a lefty making a joke is either stupid or playing pretend themselves.
45 athensboy // Dec 23, 2009 at 7:19 am
So national healthcare will kill innovation.Limbaugh said yesterday the bill was fascism and would destroy the country.Hey Beck, can you top that one? Everything the Democrats do, the far right screams, “it will destroy the country.” When someone cries wolf all the time, sane people just tune them out. If our uber wealthy insurance companies fall behind on innovation (a strawman argument at best) I’m sure China, or India, or Europe will pick up the slack. I believe the gop is flailing around trying to invent arguments against healthcare. Why do they hate America?
46 teabag // Dec 23, 2009 at 8:27 am
So, in conclusion: pulling the plug on grandma? Terrible, terrible thing. Praying for grandpa’s death, on the other hand? Well, that’s really just the American way!
Yep praying for your opponent to die is all part of the party of family values. Very sick in the head!
47 MI-GOPer // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:00 am
franco2 asks: “Isn’t there some good porn you (TeaBag) should be watching?”
For guys like TeaBag, I mean BarryS, I mean 1FingerWillie, I mean balconesfault, I mean HardlyConservative…. well, whichever name(s) he’s posting under in this thread, this is porn for him. It’s how trolls like rbottoms and teabag get their jollies. Of course, for a website that is dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to its majority party status, you gotta wonder why DailyKos-sak trolls keep filling up the threads? Are their lives so deplete of intellectual stimulation from the Left that they have to find it here?
TeaBag’s been a fast-running hot air machine since he came up with his 9th, 10th, or 11th incarnated character here.
The best part, franco2, is when TeaBag or balconesfault HAVE TO enter the echo chamber for soothing supportive comments to counterbalance their flagging sense of destiny with the far Left democrat activist agenda.
No one should be surprised that Obamacare means less innovation and more regulation… just look at MediCare or MedicAid or VA or the PostOffice or AMTRAK… bureaucrats don’t want innovation –it ruins their afternoon work plans to stare out the window or play games on the ‘puter.
It’s why American voters are against ObamaCare. I’m not sure what the bigger story in the Quinnipiac poll is, whether it’s that 56% of of voters do not favor the proposed changes to the health care system or that 56% say they don’t want the system overhauled if it will increase the deficit – and 73% say it will do just that… increase the deficit wildly. And they’re right.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/22/quinnipiac-majority-oppose-health-care-plan/
The Quinnipiac polling tracks closely with the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly tracking update which shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the bill and 55% are opposed.
It will be interesting to see what the polls look like after the full details of the final bill emerge. Going by what we’ve all seen so far, it’s bound to get ugly for the democrats and Obama.
TeaBag and all his manufactured names can enter the echo chamber, but it won’t protect them from the voters’ wrath in 2010 and 2012… and that’s great news. One failure after another –and ramped up violence and uncertainty in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. These guys will probably make al Qaeda “Man of the Year” for Time in 2010.
48 teabag // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:11 am
The individual elements of healthcare reform are popular, and so is the bill when described in detail.
The most popular provisions of the bill protect against insurance company abuses, expand coverage and make healthcare more affordable.
The public supports requiring large and mid-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees by nearly a 3-to-1 margin (73%-25%,
CNN).
The same is true for expanding Medicaid to the poor (75%-25%, CNN).
Providing subsidies for families that make up to $88,000 a year is favored by a 2-to-1 supermajority (67%-32%, CNN).
Additional regulations on insurance companies, such as banning rescission and denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions are also very popular (60%-39% and
60%-40%, respectively, CNN).
So Take away the death panel lies and the Republican negativity and people are pretty happy. Of course this is not a Rassmusen poll so it means nothing
49 sinz54 // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:15 am
WillyP:
Insurance companies don’t deliver care, they deliver MONEY to pay for the care.
Let me give you an example of what happened to me with one of those insurance companies: My physician had ordered certain medical equipment that I was to use to treat my condition at home. That equipment was to be shipped by the supplier to my home via UPS.
Not only did my insurer refuse to pay for the equipment, they ordered the supplier to cancel the order–and never told either my physician or me about it. I only found out about it days later, when the equipment never arrived and I had to trace what happened to the order. The insurer never even gave me a chance to pay for the equipment with a credit card–they just canceled the order and I never got the equipment for my treatment. That was unconscionable.
I was furious and wanted to drop that insurer. But because I now had a serious health condition, any other insurer would consider that a “pre-existing condition” and wouldn’t insure me. Except that RomneyCare forced them to. And so that’s what I did–I switched insurers.
As for a “central decision making body,” the Bush Administration made several such decisions–most notably Bush’s decision to restrict embryonic stem-cell research to the stem-cell lines existing at the time. If you’re so concerned about the effect of central decision making on research, then should not this decision on embryonic stem-cell research have been left up to the states, instead of Bush issuing a one-size-fits-all order?
50 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:18 am
canadianmoderate says:
“but I can’t sit idly by and listen to what you say about health care. Do you think we have death panels in Canada?”
I relayed, honestly and succinctly, what I witnessed when living in Canada.
-I observed that the “waiting line” problem continued on, despite years of alleged fixes;
-I observed the news cycle dominated by healthcare debate;
-I observed political campaigns dominated by pseudo debate on healthcare – what to tinker with here and there to “improve” a bureaucratic system that will perpetually be in shortage/crisis because of its very nature;
-I heard stories from Canadian friends about extremely long wait times for orthopedic surgery, when members of my own family had scheduled surgeries within mere months.
-I heard and read about, for years, the “brain drain” to the higher paying southern neighbor.
-And every bit I relayed earlier, from my mountain climbing friend who lost feeling in one of his fingers to a friend with leukemia who was routinely left in waiting rooms for 16 hours, overnight, is all true.
On the other hand, having spent the other years of my life in the United States, I have heard of problems with doctors, problems with insurance companies and their plans, and difficulty getting coverage for certain elected surgeries. From the insurance side, my sister – an underwriter – has explained to me the insurance process and has never said its corrupt. And I know from doctor friends that dealing with insurance companies from a business to business standpoint is draining. Yet I’ve never heard anyone missing out on critical treatment, or unable to schedule a timely visit. The doctors detest the idea of a government takeover, and regularly rail against the State insurance programs because they actually lose money on the procedure.
Never outside of a political scenario do I hear people complaining about their healthcare coverage, when about half the people I know suddenly discover their acrimonious side and start hating the healthcare industry. Only one friend I have, irresponsible as he is with money, refuses to pay for healthcare insurance (he’s a private contractor), and thinks it’s the Republicans’ fault.
Personally, I am grateful for the American healthcare system, despite of all its flaws. Reform must consist of DEREGULATION. Decouple insurance incentives from businesses and allow individuals to purchase, tax free, their own plans (it’s not like the employee doesn’t pay anyway… only very stupid people don’t consider benefits part of their overall compensation). Set up special tax rules for health savings accounts. Allow nurses to handle a larger range of illnesses, and issue basic prescriptions. Allow people to purchase insurance from across state lines – this would stop states from mandating that “basic” coverage pay for frivolous things like sex change operations, which only raises premiums.
While we’re at it, start unraveling the massive debt bomb that is Social Security and Medicare by allowing new taxpayers to divert funds into private investment channels. Instead of this bratty “generation baby boom” forcing their children and grandchildren to pay into redistributionist schemes, allow them to REALLY save money! (Of course, stopping the Fed from doubling the money supply would also help the savings pool, but I digress.)
51 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:23 am
sinz, i can sympathize. i had an aunt who was diabetic her entire life, and was always fighting with insurance companies, especially towards the end of her life. I obviously won’t claim to speak for her, but if you’re concerned about chronically ill patients, I humbly submit that you’ll be the first cost cut in a state system.
RomneyCare sounds great. Too bad it’s over budget already. You see, it’s not a sustainable solution if the price keeps going up and up and up. It’s a state debt bomb, which is why Kerry just brought in $500 million of Fed money to subsidize it:
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/12/23/health_bill_will_keep_mass_overhaul_intact
I believe it was PJ O’Rourke who said: If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.
52 balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:18 am
WillyP at 9:18 am: Never outside of a political scenario do I hear people complaining about their healthcare coverage
WillyP at 9:23 am: i had an aunt who was diabetic her entire life, and was always fighting with insurance companies
Are there two WillyP’s?
53 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:25 am
might as well clear this up now-
balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:18 am
WillyP at 9:18 am: Never outside of a political scenario do I hear people complaining about their healthcare coverage
WillyP at 9:23 am: i had an aunt who was diabetic her entire life, and was always fighting with insurance companies
Excepting hyperbole – I VERY RARELY hear people complain about the treatment they’re provided with. Usually it is timely, excellent, and extensive. I cannot say the same for my Canadian friends (though they are oddly proud of their wait times).
Every now and then, because we don’t live in a dreamw0rld, people complain about insurance companies and doctors. Just like people complain about parking garages, supermarkets, department stores, and cellular providers – and still frequent and appreciate them.
At heart here is a question that not I, but the STATISTS must answer – WHAT LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY DO I HAVE FOR ANYONE ELSE’S HEALTHCARE? What lien do you have to my labor? If I choose to give to charity, that is my choice. Seizure through taxes that fund non-specified (i.e., conjured-up) government “responsibilities” is a FRAUD and in a right-thinking world, ILLEGAL.
54 balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:48 am
Willy. I’ve posted this before, but I’ll repeat it – national healthcare makes sense for the reasons I’ll list below. As for why you’d have a legal responsibility – for the same reason that other people have legal responsibilities to pay for things we share all across society by nature of deciding to live in America.
a) our population contines to grow, and continues to grow more compact. Sure, we don’t have the filthy lower Manhattan immigrant ghettoes of the first half of the last century, but with urban infill, climbing energy prices, the need to keep some prime farmland from being turned into tract housing complexes, the higher water demands of suburbia versus urban areas …. higher densities are our future. In such environments, infectious diseases have a much faster route to turning into serious health risks to our productivity and well-being. Universal health care will provide a needed front line of defense.
b) On the same point … when discussing universal care, I’ve had people saying “yeah, but then people will be running to the doctor the first time they have the sniffles” To which I say – exactly. Ideally, a nurse will triage most of the “sniffles”, but if they get into clinics the nurse will also be able to determine who needs to see a doctor immediately. And don’t you want the guy who wraps your burger at McDonalds, or the waitress who brings you your prime rib, to find out immediately if they have a serious infectious disease? How about the kid who sits next to your kid in school?
c) While global trade agreements limit protectionism and subsidies, our competitors are directly subsidizing their industries by picking up their healthcare tabs.
d) America is filled with brilliant entrepreneurial people, but people who might be willing to take a risk on lost wages for some period of time to jump out and start a new business … but not willing to take a risk on their ability to provide healthcare for their family. It is very possible, if not likely, that universal coverage would unlock one of the biggest entrepreneurial booms the country has seen. And the nice thing about smaller entrepreneurial businesses is that they tend to develop and hold jobs and skills in America, rather than farming them off overseas the first time there is a narrow profit margin to be made by doing so. (and it doesn’t hurt for megacorp when they no longer have to pay healthcare costs for those jobs in that country they’ve shipped them to).
e) Small businesses are afraid of taking on workers onto permanent payrolls, because they’re afraid of taking on someone’s health care costs, unless they’re absolutely sure they can ensure those costs long term. For a megacorp dealing in thousand of hirings and firings in a year, this doesn’t play as much a psychological role for the Board of Directors … but for Joe the Real Plumber in Smalltown America who is hiring on people from his community, people he sees in church each day, whose kids go to school with his kids, who are the coaches and Scoutmasters who surround him, it is a major step to add healthcare for an employee. Because you know the consequences, and potential damage to the community around you, if you ever have to take that healthcare away for economic reasons. Government covering healthcare would allow businesses to more readily hire people without the responsibility/fear that if there’s a downturn you’ll not only take away an income, but a family’s healthcare plan.
f) Do we really want our emergency rooms to be a means of providing Universal coverage?
g) a disproportionate number of bankrupticies in America result from medical bills. A huge percentage of those cases are where people actually had health insurance coming in. When someone goes bankrupt, that is a stone in the water that has a lot of ripples that cause economic damage to others who have been acting in good faith – our economic health depends on deciding under what circumstances we believe people should be brought to bankruptcy. In my opinion, healthcare costs aren’t one of them.
55 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:58 am
balcones, i’ll respond more fully later, but i think this quote from mises should pop your comedic, starry-eyed vision:
“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!”
56 balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Eh. The American people have already voted repeatedly that we want a social safety net.
57 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:18 pm
a “safety net” is not a (purportedly) full service national healthcare system. it’s meant to catch those who fall through all cracks, and when private charity is unable to help.
the bottom line is that socialist schemes cannot calculate, as was laid out by mises in 1920. unless you can refute his logic, which nobody has ever done, i consider you to be willfully advocating a lie. all the rhetoric in the world cannot replace the real role played by accounting in determined the allocation of resources, and this applies just as much to medical care as to widgets and guns and butter.
58 canadianmoderate // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm
WillyP, I agree that there are problems in Canada, and they’re the same problems you’re talking about. But we’re not dying while waiting in line, we just have sore knees and shoulders while waiting for orthopedic surgery, for example. I’m not saying that that’s a good thing – and I believe the only solution to our Canadian problems is a private sector one – but it still doesn’t amount to a death panel, or anything crazy like that.
59 balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Eh – Mises embraces the theory of Neutrality of Money. There have been plenty of refutations of that on a theoretical basis, and from an empiracle standpoint no major nation on earth would be stupid enough to run their economy purely on that basis.
60 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 1:25 pm
canadianmoderate,
who does make the ultimate call, if not the person who controls the costs?
no, they’re not called “death panels,” but someone is in charge of allocating dollars. this comes down to a government bureau, does it not? if not, who does it come down to? when a province is treated like a pool, without any discrimination based on likelihood of care, you are dealing with a socialized pool. Eventually we’re going to enter into probability theorems, which isn’t necessary to understand the basics – that you must make trade-offs somewhere, and the market system is the only system that consistently makes the best trade-offs based on consumer preferences.
61 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm
balcones, you’re simply wrong.
http://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp5.asp
he did not embrace the “neutrality of money.” he viewed it as ridiculous and ignorant.
62 MI-GOPer // Dec 23, 2009 at 1:29 pm
TeaBagged’s been bagged again: quoting str8 (well, I guess that’s not an option for him) from the DailyKos-sak Bible:
DaliyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/22/817937/-Polls:-Opposition-to-reform…but-support-for-its-benefits
TeabBagged, ditto-ed the language. What a plagiarist that troll has become of late, eh?
Can’t you hide the far Left democrat activist trolling even a little bit, teabagged? Quoting DailyKos? What’s next? Balconesfault doing the HuffPo dance inside your echo chamber?
Sorry you tried to put such a great face on a meaningless set of polling questions… of course most Americans (note, not voters) favor getting health care from their employer –it’s the way it’s been done for decades… just like many senior Americans like their MediCare plan because it’s mostly free… but unlike most low income families on MedicAid don’t like it because doctors and hospitals want nothing to do with the govt single payer burden that entails MedicAid.
When the pollsters ask, based on what you know about ObamaCare, do you support it? The answer –overwhelmingly– is No. When asked if they think it will reduce or increase the national deficits, they answer overwhelmingly “Yes”. We’ve had 5 major Obama initiatives now and each has added whompingly huge red ink to the natl deficits and debt.
I bet if your source –democrat activist and far Left pollster Mark Mellman (you know, the guy you quoted so you could look a tad intelligent here just once)– could find the stats, we’d also learn that most Americans don’t like the anti-tamper screw off lids and he’d spin that into a rousing endorsement for ObamaCare.
Sorry TeaBagged, you’ve been bagged –and had. By your own people, too; so pathetic. Not to worry, though… I hear LyinJoeBiden gives plagiarism classes at the Oval Office every Tues and Thurs… maybe you should take a class –it might help with your future fakery here.
63 canadianmoderate // Dec 23, 2009 at 4:25 pm
WillyP, you’re right to say that ultimately bureaucrats have the final say here in Canada, even a panel of them – I’ll give you that – but they want to keep their jobs, so they’re not letting us die. They’re actually pretty committed to making sure we don’t die for want of health care, so much so that people with less serious and non life-threatening conditions are forced to wait for those with more serious problems to get help first. So it is rationing, yes, and it is bureaucrats who make the ultimate decisions, but they (and their children) all get their health care within the same system as we do, (and they’re not about to let their friends and family die simply because they don’t have access to adequate health care). They will, however, make their friends and family wait for treatment for less serious conditions, just as they themselves must wait.
The way around this, as I think you mentioned in one of your posts, is for people who can afford it to go to the U.S. for treatment, though Canadians mostly cross the border for MRI’s and other diagnostic procedures (or for cutting edge drugs/treatments if they have a lot of money). And obviously this speaks to some of the strengths of the American system in comparison with the Canadian one. But if Canadians can show that they have life-threatening conditions, even if they feel they had to go to the U.S. to get proof, they would be bumped to the front of the line for treatment in Canada. What I’m saying is that this is the policy of our ‘death panel.’
64 canadianmoderate // Dec 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I’ll give you one example if how our system works, the most familiar example I know. We kept track of how my mother’s breast cancer treatment worked, so I can give you an accurate timeline. (This was ten years ago, by the way.) She went for an appointment with her family doctor (and our doctors operate private clinics, by the way) on September 10th. He agreed that she had a lump and sent her for a mammogram, which she got on the 14th. By the time the results came back, she had a meeting with the surgeon to discuss the results, and this was on the 21st. She had a partial mastectomy on the 28th, and after a short recovery, they began chemo in mid-October. I have more examples like this, because I’ve had many sick people in my family, but this is the only one I know in this much detail.
65 canadianmoderate // Dec 23, 2009 at 4:42 pm
So since our panel of bureaucrats makes keeping people alive at all costs, even if it means making other people wait, they could probably be more accurately described as ‘life panels.’
66 WillyP // Dec 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm
canuck (i feel i can say that and not be accused of acrimony!),
what would happen if the united states were to crumble in healthcare investment, which would happen if the government were to take over the sector? where would the spill-over go? like you said, a significant amount of Canadians who need screening sooner rather than later will cross the border.
also, would our private liquor stores be seized, like they are throughout canada, in order to pay for the new system? would cigarettes jump to $12/pack, like they are in canada? would every other advertisement tell me how wrong my current lifestyle is because i eat too much of this/don’t eat enough of that? we have enough of this ALREADY in america (remember, we spend a huge amount on public healthcare).
more importantly, what does 85%-90% of the population have to gain who already have excellent coverage and treatment options? if obama weren’t a doctrinaire socialist, employment would pick back up, eliminating the concern of widespread un-insurance. sure, there is always cyclical unemployment because economic conditions are not static, but for this reason the united states could extend benefits on health savings accounts.
as for the “life panels,” why do you not adopt similar panels for other industries? why not have a “drivers panel” for automobiles, a “communications panel” for telephony companies, and a “shelter panel” for housing? since the nature of the problem is the same – allocation of scarce resources – why not take a similar approach? there is no sense in using the profit/loss system in any industry if it is not ideal.
i maintain, importantly, that without the united states acting as a cushion for other badly deteriorating medical sectors, there would be enough political pressure to deregulate national healthcare schemes. you say: “So since our panel of bureaucrats makes keeping people alive at all costs, even if it means making other people wait, they could probably be more accurately described as ‘life panels.’” Well, if you paid your doctors properly, they would not leave, and you wouldn’t have to wait because there would not be a shortage. Americans don’t wait for elective surgeries, and certainly don’t wait for emergency medical treatment. Do people sometimes go bankrupt? Yes, but to those who think this is a bad thing per se, you might want to ask why we don’t just legislate out of existence the concept of bankruptcy. (hint: RELATIVELY FEW WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE)
i cannot recall right now, but very recently a major group of physicians in canada recently announced that there were serious structural problems with the healthcare system in canada, and it made the news down here. i would appreciate a link if someone could find it. i’ll continue to look.
67 balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:07 pm
as for the “life panels,” why do you not adopt similar panels for other industries? why not have a “drivers panel” for automobiles, a “communications panel” for telephony companies, and a “shelter panel” for housing? since the nature of the problem is the same – allocation of scarce resources – why not take a similar approach? there is no sense in using the profit/loss system in any industry if it is not ideal.
For what it’s worth, the automobile industry, communications industry, and housing industries already have VERY stringent standards for existence. Our governments mandate standards for each industry and anyone who can’t comply with those standards is out of business.
I really don’t see how the government making money available for someone to receive counseling from their physicians on what end-of-life care options will be available to them down the road is anywhere close to blocking sale of an automobile, banning use of certain telecommunications devices, or requiring upgrade of housing to code before it is deemed habitable, but I’m sure Mises has something to say about that as well
68 balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm
a major group of physicians in canada recently announced that there were serious structural problems with the healthcare system in canada
And I’m sure that wouldn’t have anything to do with Canadians spending 1/2 per capita on healthcare what we do in the US?
69 canadianmoderate // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm
You’re quite right that we Canadians benefit from having you guys right across the border. If I thought that Obamacare would end all innovation in the U.S. (and I find that to be an extreme position and an unlikely scenario) then I would be more worried. Even if innovation is affected, and it may very well be, there will likely still be more innovation in the U.S. than in Canada. So I think we’ll still benefit from you guys – from the very things that you think are the strengths of your system. And some of our doctors leave and go south for that cutting-edge factor, along with the pay (which, incidentally, is something I think our bureaucrats should be rethinking).
The only reason that I wouldn’t suggest a panel of bureaucrats for any of those other services is because we, the taxpayers, don’t subsidize those industries (well, not entirely – we do provide lots of R&D grants and the like to different industries).
You’re also right to mention that many doctors are concerned here, and they do believe that there are structural problems. In fact, the last head of the Canadian Medical Association made this issue the main point of his parting speech. The CMA now has the hard job of convincing Canadians that we need more private sector delivery of health care because single payer, as it stands now, is full of problems that are likely to get worse if we don’t act soon. The province of Quebec has actually taken the lead on this one, and is actively pursuing something of a hybrid public-private system. The advantage of a hybrid system is that everybody is covered under the single payer aspect, but there is more room for innovation, better allocation of resources, etc.
We haven’t had our health care debate yet, not the one that’s likely on its way. The problem is for someone like me who wants to see more health care come from the private sector, and how other Canadians will look at me (and others with the same view). We’re not supposed to question the current system, and we’re also not supposed to suggest that the profit motive is benign. Canadians, by and large, are convinced that profit and health care shouldn’t be mixed. Just like it’s controversial to question private health care in the U.S., in Canada, single payer is sacrosanct, and challenging it like I do is seen as unpatriotic. So you’re right that there are problems, and we have to address them, but we won’t give up universal coverage just to do so.
70 mthen // Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm
canadianmoderate The left views the profit motive like this: The profit motive is good in me and evil in everyone else.
71 canadianmoderate // Dec 23, 2009 at 7:50 pm
What’s funny is that most of the time when I’m talking to lefties, they almost always revert back to the ‘the problem is greed and profit.’ I then ask them what they mean by profit, to which they reply, ‘money’ – and they say it like I’m the idiot. So I pull a $20 bill out of my pocket and ask, ‘is this profit?’ They then reply, ‘obviously not, profit is capital.’ But then I inform them that capital is money that goes into enterprises, while profit comes out the other end (sometimes). A few weeks back I had this exact conversation with someone, and she then told me that profits were revenue. She had no idea that ‘money,’ ‘capital,’ ‘revenue’ and ‘profit’ all mean different things – and she’s somewhat of a ringleader among lefties at my university. How do I explain to people like this that we need more private health care delivery in Canada? Hopeless.
72 WillyP // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:22 am
balcones says:
“For what it’s worth, the automobile industry, communications industry, and housing industries already have VERY stringent standards for existence. Our governments mandate standards for each industry and anyone who can’t comply with those standards is out of business.”
I completely agree! And how’s that automobile sector doing? The housing market? AT&T had a government sanctioned monopoly on the nation’s telephones up until not too long ago. Do you approve of government forced monopoly? (Industries also do this through the creation of legal “standards,” raising the barriers of entry so as to remain dominant.) I don’t think you realize the incredibly bad repercussions of the government’s involvement with the housing market: a looming financial collapse. This economy is nowhere near on the road to recovery. In fact, such statements are rank propaganda coming from an inflationary Fed and increasingly desperate White House. What happens when commercial real estate tanks? What happens when inflation really boils over? The left will predictably clamor for price controls; the free marketers will once again tell them to LAISSEZ FAIRE, and likely be ignored.
“I really don’t see how the government making money available for someone to receive counseling from their physicians on what end-of-life care options will be available to them down the road is anywhere close to blocking sale of an automobile, banning use of certain telecommunications devices, or requiring upgrade of housing to code before it is deemed habitable, but I’m sure Mises has something to say about that as well ”
“Making money available” is quite the euphemism. What you mean to say is that you don’t understand how government stealing my money to pay for your care is anything close to blocking sales of automobiles, etc… At this point is when I should point out that they both violate economic freedom in a flagrant way, hamper trade, and ignore private property rights. If these three issues don’t make you think twice, well, I would suggest you reflect on how critical efficient production is to civilization. I mean, there’s a reason we’ve been using the same accounting methods since the 1500s.
73 sinz54 // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:27 am
WillyP:
Well you just opened the door.
Those “who fall through all cracks” include EVERYONE who lost their job due to severe illness, and as a result, lost their group health insurance too. Now they can’t purchase individual insurance due to a pre-existing condition. I would be one of them if it weren’t for RomneyCare.
That cohort includes tens of millions of people. It has to. Because the longer you live, the more likely you’ll get chronically sick. It’s that simple.
And private charity can’t afford to take on all those cases. Consider my situation. My first year of treatment cost in the neighborhood of $100,000, and future years look to be only slightly less expensive. Multiply that number by several million, and ask yourself where private charity is going to get the funds.
You developed your illness as a child, and your parents were still working, presumably already had insurance, and that paid for your medical bills. What if the situation had been reversed, and your PARENTS had become chronically ill and unable to work to support you? And if they had lost their insurance? What would have become of you then?
74 sinz54 // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:38 am
WillyP:
The same thing I would have gained, had health care reform been enacted 20 years earlier:
The peace of mind knowing that they can never lose their health insurance, even if they become too sick to work, even if their employer goes bankrupt, even if their employer outsources their jobs to a foreign country. The peace of mind knowing that if they want to kiss their dead-end job goodbye and go into business for themselves, they will still be insured and can concentrate on building their new business instead of going begging for health care.
You just don’t get it.
The current system, which links your health insurance to your employment, is an anachronism in today’s dynamic economy. Free-market conservatives always championed “creative destruction” in a dynamic economy. But there’s nothing dynamic about being bound to your employer like a serf, afraid of losing your job because you won’t have the money to pay for your continuing health care or that of your dependents.
When conservatives used to champion a free-market approach to fixing this problem, at least they had a proposal on the table. But YOU seem to be championing the status quo. Given that this status quo was enacted by FDR as a quick fix for his wage-and-price controls, that’s really strange coming from a guy who quotes Mises.
75 WillyP // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:45 am
canadianmoderate,
“She had no idea that ‘money,’ ‘capital,’ ‘revenue’ and ‘profit’ all mean different things – and she’s somewhat of a ringleader among lefties at my university.”
Money is the medium of exchange; http://bastiat.org/en/what_is_money.html
Capital resources are what enables production;
“Capital,” in the vulgar, imprecise, and confusing sense, is money used to fund ventures;
(see here: http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/MarxismUnmasked.pdf …lecture #6)
Revenue is all money entering the firm;
Profit is what’s left (if anything) after costs.
(see here http://mises.org/daily/2321)
It isn’t so difficult.
76 WillyP // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:49 am
sinz, are you willfully distorting everything I say? who has been louder calling for DEREGULATION than me, from decoupling the ties of insurance and employment than me?
Besides all that bullshit about peace of mind and security (which no matter how much you will it, can never be accomplished outside of productive work, which the private sector alone produces), you’ve read my last ~20 or so postings about further deregulating the industry, and claim i support the “status quo.” Dishonesty; no two ways about that!
77 canadianmoderate // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:04 am
WillyP, maybe you didn’t get what I was saying. I have no trouble distinguishing between those terms, rather it’s people I talk to – all of them on the left – that seem to have that problem.
78 canadianmoderate // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:12 am
Also, WillyP, I understand that you want free-market solutions for (just about) everything, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But what do you think your ideas are realistic? I can envision a world where things work like that, and it’s an attractive idea, but do you not agree that it’s unrealistic to expect to see anything like that in our lifetimes? Who’s going to get rid of the welfare state? I’m not trying to defend the welfare state here, but it’s probably going to be the status quo for a while. Don’t you think it would be more constructive not only to rail against the welfare state but to try and think about ways to make it better?
79 WillyP // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:13 am
canadian,
“How do I explain to people like this that we need more private health care delivery in Canada?”
You start by clearly explaining those terms. That’s why they’re listed, with plenty of reference – for your own edification, so that you may edify your doppelganger ringleader.
80 WillyP // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:25 am
canadian,
how do you square a circle? you don’t – you start the drawing over!
i am unsure of your age, but in pleading the case for “reforming” a hopelessly broken system (see the entitlement bomb) you sound like a resigned old cad. frum and his ideas for “reforming” the welfare state are ludicrous. if any of the ideas work, it will be very mildly, and for an extremely limited duration. at that point, all the energy spent on petty, purposeless reforms will be wasted, as a new crises emerges and the statists take more ground.
what we need is severe distinctions between principles and approaches. we need people who are conversant in classical political economy, and able to rebut their opponents with wit and fact. we need a populist who can deliver on the promises – liberty, after all, is popular.
the nature of interventionism is like the nature of whack-a-mole. you hit down one problem to prop up another, worse problem, until there is a legitimate political crisis. we’ve seen this in the 1930s and 1970s. while it is attractive to think of obama as carter, whomever as the eventual reagan, i don’t think hastening our decline into carterism or new dealism (like frum does, regularly) is particularly wise, intelligent, or benevolent. i think it’s imprudent, for precisely the reason stated in the title of this article: OBAMACARE. such programs never go away – we’re still stuck with social security, medicare, medicaid, schip, etc., all while the country has ~$60 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
what kind of nation does that to its youth? you may live in canada, and not care very much because you don’t pay into the tax system here, but millions upon millions of americans are going to see a massive cut to benefits. a government propagated lie that i can’t rightly support in any form.
the welfare state doesn’t work because it can’t work. it will collapse in on its own weight. i’d rather say what i can now than make meek, bland, and compromising suggestions that only obfuscate the problem.
81 canadianmoderate // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:28 am
Though I am not as laissez-faire as you obviously are, believe me, I do what I can to edify the lefties I know about economics. It works at times, too. I’ve let some people borrow ‘Basic Economics’ by Sowell, and it has gotten a pretty good response. That was one of the books that pulled me away from my former leftiness.
82 WillyP // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:37 am
and just to make sure that the creditors (read: savers) are totally wiped out, our brilliant Fed has doubled the monetary base:
http://www.drorism.com/blog/Monetary%20Base%20.png
this alone would be tremendously troubling to a more educated population.
You must log in to post a comment.