Jan
6
Class Warfare - Yes; Solutions - No
Filed Under Healthcare | Leave a Comment
With Congress currently working on healthcare reform, many pundits on TV, online, and in print have been analyzing what effect the current Democrat bills would have. While all of the consequences of enacting either the House or Senate legislation are important, I think it also underscores a key flaw of the healthcare reform bills. Rather than solving existing issues with the current healthcare system, it is simply creating new ones. Analysts must devote their time to figuring out all of the new obstacles being enacted without proposing solutions to the problems already present.
Also, the healthcare bills and their subsequent amendments seem to be driven not by reality and economics, but by anger and emotional class warfare. Take this amendment offered in December by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas):
Washington – U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) today unveiled her plan to cut the current $1 million tax shelter for insurance companies’ executive compensation. Current law allows businesses to deduct up to $1 million annually per executive as a business expense. Lincoln’s proposal would limit this amount to $400,000—the President’s salary—for health insurance companies that will profit as a result of health insurance reform.
Compensation, even for executives, is a business expense. It should be included with all other expenses and deducted from income when filing taxes. Moreover, there is no credible reason why executive compensation should be at all considered when enacting any kind of healthcare reform legislation. Blaming insurance issues on executive compensation is like blaming the coach’s salary for a holding penalty.
It also shows that expansive entitlements and legislation will innevitably lead to more and more political control over our personal and professional lives.
There are plenty of other examples out there of these kind of class-warfare shenanigans (when we’re allowed to see what’s going on). The question I would have for voters is this: Do you want your healthcare being decided by politics, as this amendment suggests, or by reality between you and your doctor, and the applicable costs at hand? I would assume many would choose the latter. Unfortunately, however, the Democrat Party seems to be favoring the former.
Nov
19
But This Time Around….
Filed Under Healthcare | 1 Comment
On an episode of Democracy Now! last week, host Amy Goodman spoke with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) about the recently passed House healthcare bill. Kucinich was lamenting the fact that the legislation was not sufficiently socialist for his standards, as it did not include a public option:
And we’re being told all the time, Amy, that our options keep getting limited. We were told last year the only way people could get unemployment benefits is if Congress votes for war, the only way we can pass a hate crime is if Congress votes for war, the only way we can get housing is to give Wall Street a bailout. And that didn’t put people back in—most people back in their homes who lost them. You know, we’re going to get jobs by giving Wall Street a bailout; that didn’t work. Businesses are going to be helped by giving Wall Street a bailout; that didn’t work.
Obviously, Kucinich and I are on completely different ends of the political spectrum. However, I share his disappointment with the results of government action as opposed to what was promised by legislators when bills were passed.
What I don’t share is Kucinich’s continued faith in government to solve our problems. Many on the left and far left complain that Washington and the politicians who run it are “controlled” or “bought and paid for” by “corporate interests” and the like. Such influence shapes bills that come out of congress to the benefit of these special interests. My solution would be to greatly reduce the bills coming out of congress period. If the government is so corrupt and tainted by whatever boogeyman the Democrats are pointing out today, then wouldn’t the most prudent course of action be to let the government have as little control over our live as possible?
Kucinich and the liberals disagree. They believe that the problem is not the system of government itself, but just the specific individuals that are currently in power. Just give ME a chance, and I’ll fix it, they say.
This time it will be different!
Faith in “reform” that amounts to nothing more than expanded government relies on your trust in politicians. The video below pretty much sums up my feeling here:
Trust me.
Oct
31
Panic! At The Capital
Filed Under Healthcare | 2 Comments
Let’s talk about preferences.
I have preferences, and you can find them listed on my Facebook. Likewise for a good friend of mine. I like playing Wii, history, and Seinfeld. My friend likes running, Donnie Darko, and filmmaking. We both like the Discovery Channel, writing, and football.
When it comes to music, my friend and I have different preferences. Especially regarding one of my favorite bands, Panic! At the Disco. Music expert, I’m not, but I love Panic. Their songs are catchy, their lyrics clever, and their stage presence unparalleled. My friend has railed online several times against Panic. Their tunes are pop garbage, their lyrics nonsensical, and garb bizarre. So it goes with different preferences.
My friend also has a preference for health care reform and a public option, put forth by Democrats. My preference is for a free market to provide health care in the way it provides us shoes, microwaves, and software. My friend prefers that younger individuals are forced to subsidize health care for older ones. I prefer that individuals are allowed to subsidize their own older days with increased tax-free health savings accounts in their youth. My friend prefers the government dictating what coverage is necessary for individuals. I prefer consumers dictate what their own needs are, via a dynamically competitive private insurance market, sans the interstate barriers and coverage mandates that make up the status quo. My friend sees the current health care challenges as the failure of the market. I see them as stemming from the absence of it.
When it comes to solutions, my friend and I clearly have different preferences, just like with Panic! At the Disco. But how are they different?
Differences settled over coffee and on Facebook are absent of force. Differences settled on Capitol Hill are dependent on force. Private preferences for something like health care allow good ideas to be tested. More importantly, however, they allow bad ideas to be refused. There is no recourse with a government solution. When government agencies run against your personal preferences, your personal preferences don’t matter. Innovative ideas won’t be tested, because they don’t have to be. The status quo is a guaranteed sale.
I can’t force my preference for Panic! At the Disco on my friend. He controls his iPod. But if things go the Democrats’ way, my friend will force his preferences on me. There’s nothing compassionate about that.
May
1
The Problems With Health Care
Filed Under Healthcare | Leave a Comment
With the current economic recession possibly pushing more people into the ranks of the medically-uninsured, many Democrats will be looking to seize the opportunity to create an expanded government health care system. Whether this comes from mandates, expanding existing programs, a combination of the two, or the less-likely alternative of single-payer has yet to be seen.
Of course I oppose any measures that involve the government meddling with or providing health care. The purpose of government is to protect us from force and fraud. Providing health care does not fit under this umbrella. It’s that simple really.
At least to me.
Now there are some that believe that my point is wrong-headed because our fellow humans are entitled to health care. Of course I would love to see everyone’s medical needs taken care of. However, having the state force some people to pay for the needs of others is robbery. We need shoes, do we not? If you support hiring the state to force earners to pay for others’ health care, why not shoes?
In case my moral posturing hasn’t persuaded you against government run or subsidized health care, perhaps a consequentialist argument will suffice. The problem with access to health care is not so much in having enough money. Health-care, like education, has had a ton of money thrown at it over the years with little or no gains in return. In an excellent piece from Dan Boudreaux (who blogs at CafeHayek), we can see clearly how not allowing individual incentives to do their work, as they do in the free market, has led to a mess in healthcare. Dan begins by saying:
One of the cherished beliefs of many Americans today is that health care can be improved only through a collective effort. As a television talking head expressed it recently, “We all have to pull together to improve health care in this country.”
Nonsense.
Each of us has it within our power to improve our own health care.
To help explain the dynamics of the situation, Boudreaux offers up an analogy:
To see why, ask the following question posed by my George Mason University colleague Russell Roberts. If you go to dinner with a large group of strangers and you know that the bill will be split evenly, aren’t you more likely to order pricier dishes and drinks than you would order if you, and you alone, were responsible for picking up your full tab?
The answer is surely “yes.” Let’s say that you’d be content to order the pork chop priced at $15, but would get even greater enjoyment from ordering the rack of lamb priced at $25. If you alone were responsible for your tab, you’d order the lamb only if it is worth to you at least the extra $10 that it costs. So suppose that you value the lamb by only $8 more than you value the pork chop. In that case, you’d order the pork chop. You wouldn’t spend an extra $10 to get extra satisfaction worth only $8.
But if the bill is evenly shared among, say, 10 diners (yourself and nine others), then if you order the lamb, your share of the higher bill will be only $1. That’s $10 split evenly 10 ways. You’ll order the lamb.
You might think that this sharing arrangement is good. After all, in this example, the cost to you of getting something you valued more (the lamb rather than the pork chop) was reduced. It became sensible for you to order the lamb.
Look more deeply, though. What happened is that society (here, the 10 diners) was led to supply something that wasn’t worth its cost. The lamb was worth to you only an additional $8, but to make it available to you, society spent $10. Ten dollars were used to raise the welfare of society by only $8. (You’re a member of society, so any improvement in your welfare counts as an improvement in the welfare of society.) That’s a waste of $2.
You are better off, but the group is worse off.
Now look even more deeply. Everyone at the table faces the same incentives that you face. You’re not the only person who will order excessively costly dishes and drinks. Everyone will. The entire table over-consumes. The total bill is higher — even your share is higher — than it would have been had the bill not been split evenly. Resources are wasted.
Such sharing of our medical-care bill takes place now on a massive scale. It is impossible to see how expanding this sharing will reduce the bill.
Make sure to read the whole thing. I realize I quoted more than half of it, but the point made is important. I illustrated the point back in March here.
Megan McArlde warns against expecting any kind of Utopian solution to health care, while also noting the similarities between healthcare and education:
What you will see–what you do see, among specialists who are monitored for their success rates on procedures–is what liberals complain about with insurance companies: physicians will compete to get rid of their sicker patients. Pay for office visits, and you will get a lot of unnecessary office visits. As David Cutler once told me, it’s no coincidence that health care and education are the two fields where outcomes are hardest to monitor, and where costs are growing uncontrollably.
I’ve tried my best to make the point that socialized health care is not only wrong, but ineffective. But what about the unintended consequences? I’ve warned many times on this blog that once you allow the government into bed, it’ll start taking all the covers. There are strings attached:
Access to healthcare is one of many very important issues to which the left in this country have a never-ending list of government solutions. However, we as citizens need to be aware of the strings attached when we accept such bribes. Whether it is universal healthcare, or light rail from stimulus funds, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Maybe New Zealanders should join gay Mexicans in voting Republican. The following from Cato @ Liberty illustrates an important point:
One of the factors considered by New Zealand in ruling on applications from would-be immigrants is health. If you are fat — and thus at risk for various health conditions — forget it!
The 51-year-old, who has not been named, argued that her 52 inch waistline was no obstacle to her work as a nurse, which involved 60-hour weeks.
She was offered a job in a home and hospital for the elderly in a provincial town in New Zealand, documents from the country’s Residence Review Board said, and applied for residence in March 2008. But officials rejected the argument that 10 years’ experience as a nurse meant she should be allowed to live there — even though there is a shortage of qualified nurses.
The woman decided to move to New Zealand after a holiday in 2007 and wanted to set up home there with her husband, a crane driver, and her daughter who planned to work in a shop.
But medical advisors calculated that with a weight of 21 stone and height of 5ft 1in, her body mass index (BMI) was 55.2, putting her at a high risk of developing health problems.
This isn’t the first time New Zealand has turned down an applicant for health reasons. Adds the Telegraph:
In 2007, a British man who moved to New Zealand was told his wife was too overweight to join him.
Socialism, in all of its forms and degrees, not only is wrong from the perspective of rights, but it is ineffective and only serves to grossly expand the powers of the state.
Mar
16
Health Benefits May Be Taxed
Filed Under Healthcare | 1 Comment
It appears the “change” we will be getting from President Obama is change from his own campaign rhetoric.
From GOP 4 Liberty:
Remember back to the October 8th Presidential debate. The one where Barack Obama chided John McCain’s health care plan by saying what John McCain ““doesn’t tell you he’s going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever.” Obama argued that this would lead to ““the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”
Today, March 15th, four months after Barack Obama won the election and almost two months after taking the oath office, the administration seems to be considering that idea themselves.
Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear of the NY Times tells us,
“At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden , an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”
Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.”…
…When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.
The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenue for a single year. Stopping short of full taxation, as Mr. Baucus and others suggest, would mean less new revenue.
During the campaign, Senator McCain’s plan was to indeed tax employer-paid health benefits, but raise the deduction of private health insurance premiums to a greater rate than previously allowed. This lowered the total tax liability of dollars used to fund health insurance, and gave the individual the deduction as opposed to the corporation. This would mean the individuals who are making decisions about health care costs are the ones actually receiving it. As we have seen in almost every other area of consumption, a competitive free market allows individuals to demand better products at lower prices. Yet with employer paid health insurance, incentivized by the tax deduction, the consumer (the patient) could to a limited degree make a choice in regards to quality of service, but was unaware of the price. Medical professionals would oftentimes refuse to discuss costs with the patient, as the insurer would be the one paying, and provider would get the money. Naturally, prices began to rise to a point where millions of Americans can not afford health insurance.
So why not be in favor of the presidents plan? Unlike McCain’s plan, President Obama will not be offsetting the tax increase on health benefits with an expanded deduction on private insurance premiums. The government will be pocketing the money, which will be used to fund an enourmous federal beuracracy that will create millions more consumers who make decisions with no heed to price, rasing costs for everyone. Private insurers will be forced to raise premiums, making health insurance unnaffordable for many more people, which will be used as an excuse to add to the government largesse. This is nothing but a concerted effort to force citizens into poverty, and to use it as an excuse for government control.
I included the following on my Quotes page that relates to the effects of government spending on costs:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
-Milton Friedman
This article from 2005 also highlights a lot of the issues I discussed.
Mar
2
With Strings Attached
Filed Under Healthcare | Leave a Comment
With very few exceptions, any time one is given something, there comes with it strings attached from the giver. Sure, your mother might help you out with the wedding bills, but this means she must be consulted on the flower arrangements. Sure, your boss will approve that three day weekend coming up, but this means you’ll be staying late next Wednesday. When someone has a vested interest in something, especially financially, they are apt (and probably within their right) to have a say in how their assistance is used. Money from the federal government is no different.
Along with the global warming hoax, there is no greater example of this than government control of healthcare. Leftists in power (the Democrat party in particular) would love to not only institute universal healthcare, but use it to spread the slimy tentacles of the octopus known as the federal government into every facet of our lives. Coyoteblog has referred to this in many posts as the “Healthcare Trojan Horse,” where the trojan horse of healthcare (or some other government program that promises something to the public) is full of an army of government controls. From a post on the subject at Coyoteblog:
When health care is paid for by public funds, politicians only need to argue that some behavior affects health, and therefore increases the state’s health care costs, to justify regulating the crap out of that behavior. Already, states have essentially nationalized the cigarette industry based on this argument.
Government programs give the state a vested financial stake in the personal lives of its citizenry. I urged gay Mexicans to vote Republican by arguing that the Social Security Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, and state welfare programs were legitimizing the arguments against gay marriage and open immigration.
Last week, author Mark Shapiro hoped for such intrusion when he appeared on statist radio show Communism Now! Shapiro was on the show lamenting that US regulations are more lax when compared to the EU in regards to testing the safety of - makeup. If left unchecked, Shapiro warned, the evil American cosmetics industry (along with their supposedly formidable lobbying forces) would hawk dangerous foundations and mascara on the open market that would harm and possibly kill consumers! But wouldn’t consumers not buy products from a company that either neglected to do internal quality control, or sold such products, therefore providing an incentive for companies to do their own homework? Obviously, host Amy Goodman didn’t bring up that point, as it could in no way lead to government control of private enterprise.
So how could the poor federal government finally nab those evil makeup barons?
AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting. Do you think, as we talk about healthcare costs, that there’s more concern in Europe, because the states are paying the healthcare costs?
MARK SCHAPIRO: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, single payer.
MARK SCHAPIRO: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: They’re paying for those costs.
MARK SCHAPIRO: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Here, the state isn’t, so less concerned.
MARK SCHAPIRO: Well, when the debates began in Europe, one of the—you’ve identified the exact huge motivating force in Europe. The European states pay for healthcare of their citizens. So, when people, advocates and scientists and such, started arguing these cases with their governments, they made an economic argument.
Access to healthcare is one of many very important issues to which the left in this country have a never-ending list of government solutions. However, we as citizens need to be aware of the strings attached when we accept such bribes. Whether it is universal healthcare, or light rail from stimulus funds, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the government is willing to control your choice with makeup, what else do they want to get their hands on?
