- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
The Right Prescription
Switching to the Tune of the Times
It is true that what you see depends upon where you sit. But moving from one seat to another may as easily distort your perception of reality as clarify it.
When Frank Keating was the governor of Oklahoma, he vigorously opposed the federal death tax, which is incredibly destructive of family farms and family businesses. However, once he became head of the American Council of Life Insurers, the members of which thrive and flourish on the chaos created by the federal tax on estates and gifts, he became a strong supporter of the death tax.
Now, the creator of the famous Harry and Louise ads, Chip Kahn -- the guy who, when he represented big health insurance companies back in the 1990s, single-handedly did the most to defeat Hillary Clinton's scheme to nationalize health care and give it to the government to run -- now that he lobbies for hospitals, which have supported nationalized health care for many years, he has come out in support of President Obama's plans to, you guessed it, nationalize health care and give it to the government to run.
But clearly there is more going on with Kahn's flip-flop than simply moving his backside from a perch in the health-insurance industry to a seat atop the hospital industry. Big insurance companies, which financed the torpedoing of HillaryCare, are themselves on board the ObamaCare Express this time around. Not only have some of the players switched seats, and hence what they see, there has been a tectonic shift in the position of the seats themselves so even those who remain in the same seats see the world differently when it comes to health-care reform.
In much the same way the government created the financial crisis by debauching the currency and destructively intervening into financial, housing and other markets, government has brought on the health-care crisis through years of ill-considered intrusion and interventions into the health-care marketplace. Now that government policies have brought the American health-care system to the breaking point, politicians are clamoring for change in the name of "The People" although there is good evidence "The People" are fearful and skeptical of any government-run solution.
According to a March 19, 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, most Americans like their health-care coverage. More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in the survey said they're satisfied with the quality of health care they receive. And, nearly three out of four said they are happy with their overall health-care coverage.
Politicians, though, don't listen to "The People," they pander to organized interests who in turn clamor to be in the room so they can be in the deal when government expropriates health care. Just as the government is compounding the problems it created originally in financial markets by layering on more ill-conceived government policies, so to will President Obama and Big Health together break the American health-care system altogether if they are allowed to nationalize health care and turn it over to the government and its big-business cronies to run. Heaven save us from another "public-private" partnership, the monstrosity of the Republican Party now used by liberal Democrats as the means of bringing fascism to America.
Organized interests -- from liberal advocacy groups to big business associations -- see a huge political risk in getting in front of the ObamaCare Express, which they fear cannot be derailed before it runs them over. Moreover, they perceive a huge business opportunity if they climb aboard the ObamaCare Express Club Car and help design the new system. Even if big health-care firms are forced to accept price controls and health-care rationing, which they almost certainly will under ObamaCare, they calculate a two-fold advantage if they can help craft the government takeover of the industry.
First, Big Health sees a chance to cartelize its respective sectors of the industry, driving out its smaller competitors and gaining government subsidies and guarantees, much as big financial companies are doing in the wake of the government-created financial crisis. Second, with government almost certainly going to conscript everyone into the government-run system through an individual mandate of some sort, big health-care firms calculate they can more than make up in volume what they may have to forfeit when they lose the right to charge a market-determined price -- a complete delusion and misconception when rationing kicks in to hold down costs, but a big-business fantasy nonetheless.
When Chip Kahn lobbied for big health insurance companies in the 1990s, Big Health financed the opposition to government-run health care. Today, big insurance companies are stoking the boilers of the ObamaCare Express.
If the politicians are to be prevented from nationalizing health care and giving it to the government to run, a grass-roots rebellion will be required to tear up the tracks and sidetrack the ObamaCare Express. American still has the best system of medical care in the world. What is failing is the perversely regulated public/private business model through which it is delivered. In conspiring to "fix" the failed business model with a grandiose government scheme, Big Gov and Big Health are getting ready to wreck the best system of medical care in the world.
There is no magic bullet to fix the health-care business model, and trying to find one will enslave doctors and kill patients. What is required is eliminating the many government policies that corrupt and despoil the system. Indeed, the best we could do, and the best we could hope for, is a little old fashioned tinkering that preserves what's best about America's health-care system, expands patient choice to improve upon its best elements and addresses the real problems, which doesn't require the fascist schemes Big Gov and Big Health have in mind.
But before any of this is possible, it is first necessary to derail the ObamaCare Express.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Pecos Pete| 4.6.09 @ 6:54AM
Mr. Hunter, you could have also mentioned that business managers also support "ObamaCare" in that businesses' share of cost for health insurance will be shifted to the government. Short sighted, but anything for short-term cost reduction for short-term profit growth.
johnmayer| 4.6.09 @ 7:02AM
Are you uninsured in America? You should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California
Lu Dumak| 4.6.09 @ 9:26AM
Free health care? In Great Britian, the tax for FREE health care is 11%. Those who can afford to purchase Private health care insurance pay extra. Those that can afford it travel to other countries for surgery to avoid long waits for surgerys.
Bob| 4.6.09 @ 9:35AM
Of course people like their health care. We are spending 16% of our GDP on it. It is short sighted not to understand the economic impact of the current cost. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving this country for years. We compete against countries who spend 8% for their health care. That is why even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- almost all Republicans -- now support Obama's plan. I believe there are conservative solutions to this problem, but people like Hunter just complain instead of coming forth with a plan to make us competitive again.
Big J| 4.6.09 @ 9:35AM
"Quick! Spend as much money as you can possibly conceive. Then, take over any private industry we can get our hands on. Lay down our weapons, do a little Trash Talk Tango across Europe, then we'll come back and take over the health care system. Not enough time in the first 100 days, but soon enough we'll get the guns and squash free speech.
Posthumously, and with empty clips, my fellow Americans.
Denver Todd| 4.6.09 @ 10:07AM
I've always thought that we should eliminate employer-sponsored healthcare and make all insurance companies compete for customers on the open market. I have yet to find anyone who agrees with me.
Bob| 4.6.09 @ 10:45AM
Denver -- employer sponsored healthcare is really a form of socialized medicine. It forces you to take the coverage because companies will not give you that money in your salary. Therefore, it is very cost effective for you.
This lowers the cost of insurance because it includes a large number of healthy people in the group coverage. If you eliminate employer sponsored healthcare, then many of the healthy people would not buy insurance thus raising the cost of insurance for everyone else. In the insurance industry, this is called "adverse selection". Furthermore, it will end up raising taxes as those not covered will go to emergency facilities -- the least cost effective of all medical care. If you were forced to buy health insurance, as you are for auto insurance, then your system would work.
Bill| 4.6.09 @ 11:33AM
I think we need to hear from the doctors and others in the medical profession on this topic. Looking around the pond at the level of health care that the governments run is not encouraging. Why would this countrty want to be like the other countries. The fact that those who can afford to come to this country for medical care should speak volumes. The medical profession needs to take a lead in this issue and protect what is right for this country. A medical strike for all not emergency issues may start to send a message.
Bram| 4.6.09 @ 2:56PM
Denver Todd - I'm with you. A tax-free stipend from my employer to buy insurance would be nice. But let the people shop.
PolishKnight| 4.6.09 @ 3:49PM
Whenever comparisons are made between the total GDP percentage cost of healthcare in the USA versus socialized medicine countries, they fail to mention that they're comparing apples to oranges with the taxpayers footing the bill for illegal immigrants and exceptional healthcare options for aging senior citizens. In addition, even supporters for the Canadian and European socialist models acknowledge that they are profiting from special rates on drugs from the USA where most development now takes place.
PolishKnight| 4.6.09 @ 3:51PM
Denver, I'll break your perfect record. I agree with you and so does my wife. We'd both love to see us get the money from our employers in higher salaries and then be able to invest it in a private, open plan that would stay with us from employer to employer. One of the unintentional consequences of the employer-bound "socialized" medicine as Bob puts it is that it discourages employers from opening new positions and encourages them to hire part-timers.
Bob| 4.6.09 @ 4:38PM
Polish -- the problem is that you'll pay more and have less coverage with an individual policy. When a company provides group insurance, they provide coverage of a full range of employees from very healthy to somewhat sick. You almost never have a large group of very sick people in any large company. Therefore, the group rates are low.
When you have individual coverages, you have adverse selection working against you. In other words, those people who believe they are more apt to use the insurance will buy it. Healthy individuals will get minimal coverage. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone. Competitiveness will not change the actuarial calculations. Those that underprice policies will go out of business.
So, in theory, it would be great if there was a market for health insurance, once you actually get to costs and coverages, it will be far more costly. Furthermore, it is in the employer's interest to keep you healthy.
MD in NC| 4.6.09 @ 7:08PM
Bob, I thought the flight to ship jobs overseas was because manufacturers have to pay the Indians and Chinese and others only $2 per day for their labor. I didn't know it was over health insurance. We have a lot of problems in our "system" but I have NO confidence that healthcare run like the DMV will be an improvement. After some recent encounters with my local building inspectors and stormwater runoff people (all useful and necessary rules but what a bureaucratic mess), I have even lower expectations of how it will be when the government takes over.
Bob| 4.7.09 @ 9:36AM
MD, there are salary trade-offs. I've made these outsourcing calculations myself over the years. We are more productive in the U.S. and that offsets some of the salary differences. However, fringe benefits in the form of health care -- the largest fringe expense, makes a huge difference in the calculation. In the businesses I ran, it took 50-100% more people in India to do the job than in the U.S. Furthermore, the error rates due to both distance and language issues was higher. Lowering healthcare costs will make a huge difference in job creation. For larger capital goods, the cost of shipping to the U.S. is both large and uses a lot of working capital. That's why foreign auto manufacturers locate plants here.
mentalpestilence| 4.7.09 @ 2:25PM
As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development stated in their recent report Health Care Reform in the United States, "it is difficult to judge whether the high level of health expenditures in the United States mainly reflects a high volume of health care services or high relative prices for health care." Alright, lets hypothesize for a moment: maybe all the smog and fast food is giving us health problems and we see the doctor much more often than other countries? The answer is frankly we do not! Donald Barr, M.D. points out in his book An Introduction to U.S. Health Policy that "people in the U.S. go to the doctor 28% less often than people in Canada and are admitted to the hospital 9% less often than Canadians."
Are you as nonplussed as I am? Lets recap as I am in disbelief: Canadians spend less money per person for their health coverage, the go to see the doctor more often and they are admitted to hospitals more frequently, yet we spend more and have 46 million uninsured. Unbelievable, truly unbelievable.
If we aren't using health care services as often than we may quite possibly be paying more per service rendered. Dr. Barr notes that "resources such as laboratory tests, medications, and supplies used in providing care in physicians' offices cost 30% more in the United States than comparable resources in Canada." He also points out that U.S. physicians charge more than two and a half times more for services rendered to their patients.
www.mentalpestilence.com
Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:02PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie