Topic: Health Care
Socialized Medicine, By Any Other Name Obama's "public option" will ensure socialized medicine in our timeby R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The disconnect between what President Obama is saying he hopes to do about health insurance, and the reality of what will actually happen to our health care, could not be more profoundly misleading.
In plain English: the president is either knowingly deceiving American taxpayers about the inevitability of socialized medicine should his "public option" plan ever be signed into law, or he and his top advisers are unfamiliar with in's and out's of how numbers are added and subtracted on a balance sheet.
If you hear otherwise, the person spreading such nonsense either does not understand what is going on, or it is Joe Biden with whom you are speaking. If it is Joe Biden, tell him to tell President Obama to please refrainfrom socializing America's health care.
To start, let me quickly summarize what the Obama "public option" plan entails.
Basically, the president wants to use federal resources to offer an insurance plan to "compete" with the ones private insurance companies offer. Obama, exposing even his teleprompter's recognition that Americans still are uncomfortable with the idea of the same people who run their DMV and oversaw FEMA taking charge of their health care, continues to promote his idea in distinctly free market vernacular.
As if this public option was in anyway in keeping with the competitive characteristics of a capitalist economy. We're led to envision the public option as just one choice out of many others, and more than this: that it will actually help facilitate competition in the health insurance marketplace with the inference being lower costs and better care for everyone.
He might as well have promised to bring Michael Jackson back from the grave.
No one is arguing with the notion that our health care system is in drastic need of reform, or "change", if you are so inclined. But the reform required, the single most important, fundamental change needed, is a sweeping dislodgment of the federal government's firm chokehold around the throat of the health care and insurance industry.
This fact, the need for the government to phase out their financial involvement, as you might have guessed, poses a serious tension between what is truly needed and what is misguidedly being proposed.
Money, in one way or another, is at the heart of our health care and insurance problems. Tax dollars, insurance premiums, the significant costs of medical procedures, fraud, waste, exploitation, and subsidized care for the uninsured (both legal citizens and illegal aliens) are all contributing factors to a system that has led to the mounting frustrations Americans are feeling about health care. Private citizens are upset about the high costs. Public lawmakers in Washington D.C. are upset that more of the system, with all of its increased tax dollars and bureaucratic control, isn't already under their supervision.
Currently our federal government spends more on health care, via programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, than on any other single expenditure. More than national defense, more than education, more than anything else and the disparity between health care costs and all other expenditures increases every year.
Notably, at least $60 billion, roughly 10% of what our government spends on health care each year, is lost to fraud and waste. In 2006, the state of New York alone suffered losses of more than $4.4 billion to fraud and waste. A primary cause for such rampant fraud is that the government-run bureaucracies have little personal incentive, a minimal vested interest, in keeping better records and vigorously following up on abnormal claims.
Fraud can never be completely eliminated from any system of anything, but you can bet your "Obama-Biden" Nalgene carabiner that private insurance companies would not settle for such staggering losses due to incompetence or laziness. Heads would roll, or the company would go under.
But not so with Uncle Sam footing the bill. The federal government is a black-hole of spending, funded by other people's money and promised away by "experts" in health care such as lawyers with names like Barney Frank and Harry Reid. The federal government can outspend, under-cut, and thoroughly confuse the price signals of a normal, functioning market better than any other entity.
President Obama is claiming to be merely offering nothing more than another insurance "option" to cover people who either currently can't afford a plan or want some relief from their current costly one. That sounds nice, right? Who is against "choice" or "options"?
One thing that is conveniently never divulged is that only about 10% of Americans don't have insurance. Everyone can get care, including illegal immigrants. Certainly the fact anyone can walk in to an emergency room and get care is one of the most significant contributing factors to the rising overall costs in health care, and needs serious consideration and examination. But of that uninsured 10%, the majority is comprised of those who willfully choose to not buy health insurance.
Such as young morons who think they'll live forever, and that their money would be better spent on extreme sports and Red Bulls.
Making health insurance compulsory like car insurance might seem to be an entirely easier and more sensible option if, as the president purports, making certain that people were insured is his only concern. But even then the results are less than thrilling.
Of course insurance isn't his only or even primary concern. Money is the issue. Money is spent on care. Health insurance is being used by Democrats as the front-man for control of the health care system, which in turn leads to money. Your money. Do the math, people. The discussion of "insuring national health" is largely a meaningless and misleading one. The issue is centrally a question of: "Who is going to pay for care?"
Now I would never dare impugn the motives of a compassionate liberal Democrat in congress. Might I simply suggest that it seems entirely expedient that a party and ideology which hold "government control over anything we can get our hands on" as a core value would propose more government interventionas a solution to a problem largely created by government intervention. I'm just saying.
Are insurance companies innocent bystanders in the car-wreck that is health care? Certainly not. Is there corruption and ethically questionable decision-making in the private sector of health care? Absolutely. But the driver behind the wheel of that crashed car is Big Brother, who should have been at home doing his constitutionally appointed job of enforcing laws to curtail corruption in the private sector.
In placed where the government has offered a public insurance option, employers have instantly dropped their employees' coverage and the government de facto becomes the overseer of the people's health care. This is unavoidable and, "surprisingly", happens more rapidly than the governments involved were ready for. Obama's promise that "most" Americans will be able to keep their current health insurance plan is preposterous. No sane business will pay for something that Nancy Pelosi offers to cover for "free".
This means that the bureaucratic quagmire in Washington, the one conservatives are trying to warn against in the matter of health care and liberals are insisting has no desire to run health care, will indeed run health care. Whether Democrats know their plan will lead to socialized medicine, the type Canadians drive to the United States to compensate for, or they are oblivious to the mountain of evidence (and common sense) pointing to the inevitability of socialized medicine should their own plan be implemented, the result is the same. This reality of socialized medicine via Obama's "public option" plan must be understood and debated in the public square.
There is so much more to discuss regarding the health care issue. I will be writing a series of columns on the topic in coming weeks. Please understand that this piece today is in no way to be understood as a comprehensive, end-all summation of the matter. All that matters, for now, is that you, the American taxpayer, clearly understand that the president's current "public option" plan will without a doubt bring about the same type of government-run health care seen in Canada, Great Britain, and the like.
The federal annexation of health care forever and fundamentally changes the relationship between a citizen and their government. Barring another revolution to depose elitist control in foreign power-centers, crossing the collectivist socialized medicine line that Western Europe nations already have is as close to a "point of no return" decision that a nation can make.
We're all going to die. The question on the table for members of this freest society in human history is how will we choose to live?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 24 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of R.J. Moeller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. R.J. Moeller is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"Making health insurance compulsory like car insurance would seem to be an entirely easier and more sensible option if, as the president purports, making certain that people were insured is his only concern."
Hi RJ,
How is your quote above is any way connected to the rest of your "logic" in the article. Wasn't the point that you wanted to see governement "out" of health care?
Requiring people to "buy" health care insurance under penalty of law [force] is fascist corporatism. Precisely why the insurance companies call for it.
The use of insurance to purchase something everyone needs in their life on a consistent basis is a firm indicator there is no competing market present. Do we need to buy insurance to purchase food?
If there was competition within the health care industry, we would only need insurance for 'catastophic' occurrences, such as an illness that requires extensive care, not for a check up, such as we buy in case a fire burns down our house. We don't need insurance to fix leaky faucets.
The health care system is a study in monopolies and needs dismantled. The plans that are in debate right now are simply to "appease" the population and continue the blatant subsidy of the industry.
"Making health insurance compulsory like car insurance would seem to be an entirely easier and more sensible option..."
I think you are making an analogy built on a false premise. The constitution does not give you the right to drive, it gives you the right to life. So, if you don't wanna buy car insurance without breaking the law you can take the bus, subway or carpool. When the government forces me to buy health insurance under penalty of law, I have no other alternative (viable anyways).
I must also agree that you contradict the values of limited government and free trade with that compulsory insurance suggestion. If cost is your main concern, a perfectly fine one I might add as well as one shared by millions of other conservatives, then any kind of mandate the government hands us will mean a rise in premiums and inevitably a loss of private care.
The proper solution is to repeal HMO legislation as well as drastically curb Medicare and Medicaid, eliminate deductions for HSA's, and allow interstate competition. Instantly, these "coops" and "exchanges" Obama speaks so fondly of would sprout up on their own.
The perverse incentive subsidy would dry up, and customers would see the need to save and shop around for the best price.
Of course, implementing this policy requires a decidedly strong counter-push in the opposite direction of current policy, and so it will not happen as long as the Democrats and Republicans debate the merits of this fascist plan on their own terms.
Republican Senator's worry that a public plan would put the private insurance companies out of business. That says volumes about who they consider to be their main constituents ...and it's not you and me.
But beyond that let's look at their argument. They contend that if offered the choice, Americans would abandon their outrageously expensive private plans in favor of a public plan. The implication is that the government would offer an attractive alternative at a cheaper cost. That is a real argument. Most American really have a bad image of the insurance industry. In a Harris Poll in 2007 the question was asked "Which of these industries do you think are generally honest and trustworthy – so that you normally believe a statement by a company in that industry?". The insurance industry scored a low 7% among various industries. ..almost as low as the oil industry
When pollsters asked "When you think of the rising costs of health care, who do you think is most responsible? 41% of respondents blamed the insurance industry.
So Republican legislators really have a point. Americans mistrust the insurance industry and blame it for rising health care costs. A good reason why many Americans, if given the choice between government and private will abandon their private insurance...despite gloom and doom stories about long waits and government bureaucracy.
Insurance companies and their Republican legislators are right to be worried. The bilking of the American public by the insurance industry is coming to an end.
"They contend that if offered the choice, Americans would abandon their outrageously expensive private plans in favor of a public plan. The implication is that the government would offer an attractive alternative at a cheaper cost."
Cheaper cost is yet to be decided and from the numbers I am seeing highly unlikely. But since Americans will have to pay for it whether they want to or not, it doesn't make much sense to pay for two plans but only get the benefits of one. Therefor the public option will be favored only because many people can't afford another massive tax on their payroll check as well as the cost of their current plan even if their current plan is significantly better.
Also, the past has shown, once the public option is introduced, employers dump their employee benefits since their employees can always be swallowed by the public option as a way to trim costs. Being part of the top tier of income earners, business' small and large will have to cut costs in order to pay the extra 5% AGI tax.
So its not really being offered a choice, your are basically penalized if you don't.
The healthcare reform bill released by the House Of Representatives is an excellent bill as I understand it. It is carefully written, and thoughtfully constructed, informed, prudent and wise. This bill will save trillions of dollars, and millions of your lives.
This is the type of bill that all Americans can feel good about. And this is the type of bill that has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of healthcare for all Americans. Rich, middle class and poor a like. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and all other party affiliations. This bill has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of life of every American.
The house healthcare bill should be viewed as the minimum GOLD STANDARD by which all other proposed healthcare legislation should be judged. All supporters of true high quality healthcare reform should now place all your support behind this healthcare reform bill released by the United States House Of Representatives, as the minimum Gold standard for healthcare reform in America.
You should all now support this bill with all your might, and all of your unrelenting tenacity. This healthcare bill is a VERY, VERY GOOD! bill for all of the American people. Fight tooth, and nail for every bit of this bill if you have too. Be aggressive, creative, and relentless for this bill.
AND FIGHT!! like your life and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. BECAUSE IT DOES!
Let's examine your argument and see how it stacks up to logic.
"Republican Senator's worry that a public plan would put the private insurance companies out of business. That says volumes about who they consider to be their main constituents ...and it's not you and me."
Folks, right off the bat, we have a non-sequiter. This is a particularly huge fallacy and is usually easily avoided by spending a few minutes being more analytical and less dogmatic.
Just because A is true does not make B true also. Similarly, just because Republicans oppose socialized medicine does not mean they've sold their souls to the corporations. That's like saying since Democrats receive more than 90% of their donations from public unions and celebrities means they stick up for those groups more - oh wait, you may be onto something here...
So please, when you want to engage someone in a policy debate, speaking from "gut" observations such as those alone is a poor way to start. Reading the article might also answer points that you ignored in your reply.
You were right to point out that my comment you quoted is not in keeping with the logic of the rest of my column. That is because I forgot to add a link to the column from the WSJ that bashes that idea into the ground. I am with you on this, and apologize for the confusion. I completely agree that the government should stay out and that Mitt Romney's plan, as well-intentioned as it might have been, was a bad one in MA.
I appreciate your comments, and agree that there is good reason why many are leery of the insurance companies, but this to me points towards reform, not overhaul. Part of the issue here is that Americans have been brainwashed to think that anyone working for a profit is a bad thing. But more than this, people have also looked past the fact that when a company is corrupt or exploitative, it is in some ways (and to certain degrees) the government's job to regulate the system and bring to justice anyone who is breaking the laws. But what happens when the government runs the show and is, like all human institutions and programs, corrupt? We have governments to protect us from each other, but who protects us from government when government is running everything? They can offer a "cheaper" plan because its not their money, its ours. That's not real competition, and it is the politicization of health care...something that, as I said, will forever change the relationship between once-free citizens and their now over-bearing, Nanny State government.
On an even more basic and practical level...how is it, with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security in danger of bankrupting the nation on their own, that we think spending more and giving more control to our government will "fix" anything for anyone? It makes no sense. There is no rationale defense for that position. It sounds nice. It feels good. It plays well with the media and on tear-jerking commericals from the AARP, but none of that makes it a viable or sustainable or reasonable choice.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts, and feel free to shoot some of my points down if you are so inclined. I want reform, I don't want Obamacare.
I am sensing you have felt, rather than thought, this thing through. Your enthusiasm for this ridiculous and economically-crippling piece of legislation is well noted, but completely incorrect and misguided. I couldn't disagree more with you. In fact, I wrote an entire column (see: above) on why it is I do disagree with the current plan.
How will we pay for this? Will rationing health care via government-controlled panels and councils and boards be better than our current system? What do we do with the nearly 20% of the currently uninsured who are illegally in this country and causing a huge strain on our economy and health care systems? What about tort reform, a simple, obvious, quick way to get the ball rolling to reform the health care industry and something the president (former lawyer) has said he won't support? How are we to take these people seriously when they wont go for something as sensible as that?
How have you read this bill you are asking us to fight for when no one else, including the people who are working on it, has? Are you not in the least bit concerned with the irresponsible way in which Pelosi is pushing these major bills through without giving congress and the American people time to read through them?
Is anyone else feeling like they are taking crazy pills?
Such as young morons who think they'll live forever, and that their money would be better spent on extreme sports and Red Bulls.
Making health insurance compulsory like car insurance might seem to be an entirely easier and more sensible option if, as the president purports, making certain that people were insured is his only concern.
Shame on you. How is FORCING people to buy a product consistent with the principles of liberty and limited government?
Only 'morons' make choices that you don't agree with, and so their liberty is not really a priority. The fact is, many people choose not to buy insurance. It's called managing risk, and many are very successful with it, saving huge sums of money in their youth by choosing not to buy health insurance. Moreover, their is a large percentage of wealthy people who also choose not to buy health insurance because they can afford to pay out of pocket for even the most expensive care. At the end of the day, these wise consumers end up saving tens of thousands of dollars that would have ended up in the hands of insurance companies.
I did not have health insurance for 10 years and saved over forty thousand dollars which I used as a down payment on my home (which I could not have afforded otherwise). I have been to the emergency room one time in ten years AND paid for it out of pocket (not everyone who doesn't buy insurance is a 'free rider'). Comparing my freedom and personal sovereignty to a car is insulting and ignorant.
I am a young moron and know of what I speak. Also, the numbers back me up on the fact that a majority of the uninsured are younger people who are choosing not to be insured but whom the rest of us have to foot the bill when they get seriously injured or sick.
And you obviously didn't read the link I have there which explains that the MA plan to force people to get insurance like auto insurance IS NOT WORKING.
Thanks for calling me ignorant though. I suppose not actually reading the article you make such bold and sweeping claims about isn't worthy of such a similar label.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
