Now that the government seems destined to take over health care, albeit in 4 years even though we will be paying for it next year, I guess I now have the incentive to get back into shape. Afterall, the last thing I want to be is dependent on a health care system that has bureaucrats like B Hussein, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi in control of my life.
We should all be very scared that the will of majority has been completely ignored and that a select group of Congressmen have hijacked government. While I am confident that November will see the Democrat-controlled House end, the damage is done.
So what will B Hussein do to the American people next? My guess is hire more of the unemployed to work for the government at 150% of the prevailing private sector wage and benefits. So who will be the last to actually create economic value in this country? We may know soon enough.
Off to the gym.....
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fix It Later..I Doubt It.
From Megan McArdle's blog at the Atlantic:
I agree with her completely. No politician will fix this thing on either side.
But this I am confident of: they're not going to "pass this bill and then fix it," and the people saying that this should be the priority of people who are against the bill--including people like Rep. Lynch--seems borderline delusional. You think the Democrats are going to take up health care again this term? Given that they look more likely than not to lose the House, you think Democrats are going to take it up again before these laws go into effect?
Those like my colleague Andrew, who want Republicans to turn to the task of improving this monstrous bill--how is that going to happen? The "fixes" are all the unpopular stuff: the taxes, the spending cuts. You think that now that Democrats got to hand out the goodies, Republicans are going to be the nasty folks who volunteer to hand around the bill for a law they didn't even want to pass?
Every time I hear comments on this sort of thing, I want to say, "And what other things have you been wondering during your visit to our planet?" I am not perfectly confident about much in regards to this bill. Maybe I'm wrong and politicians won't step in to stop the unpopular stuff already in the bill from happening. Maybe they'll actually bend the curve. Maybe this won't impact innovation (I don't see how that could possibly be, but whatevs, maybe my imagination is limited).
But there is one thing of which I am nearly perfectly certain: If we pass this thing, no American politician, left or right, is going to cut any of these programs, or raise the broad-based taxes necessary to pay for them, without any compensating goodies to offer the public . . . until the crisis is almost upon us. I can think of no situation, other than impending crisis, in which such a thing has been done--and usually, as with Social Security, they have done just little enough to kick the problem down the road. The idea that you pass a program of dubious sustainability because you can always make it sustainable later, seems borderline insane. I can't think of a single major entitlement that has become more sustainable over time. Why is this one supposed to be different?
I agree with her completely. No politician will fix this thing on either side.
Letter to the Editor
Second submission this week to the Wichita Eagle...
Dear Editor,
Much has been made of the recent health care debate. Among those advocating more government involvement in health care are people that claim that a country as great as ours should provide health care for all its citizens.
The point these people are missing is what got America to this point? Was it bigger government and state controlled enterprise that made us great? It most certainly was not. It was the Founders’ ideals of small government and individual freedom and accountability that got us to the pinnacle of history’s standard of living.
German economist Adolph Wagner theorized over 100 years ago that once countries reach a certain level of prosperity the populace will eventually vote themselves ever more benefits accompanied by growth in government. As government grows and more citizens find themselves dependent on those social services, one can only imagine a decline in the overall level of our prosperity as fewer people are actually producing the goods and services that created history’s most prosperous society.
Dear Editor,
Much has been made of the recent health care debate. Among those advocating more government involvement in health care are people that claim that a country as great as ours should provide health care for all its citizens.
The point these people are missing is what got America to this point? Was it bigger government and state controlled enterprise that made us great? It most certainly was not. It was the Founders’ ideals of small government and individual freedom and accountability that got us to the pinnacle of history’s standard of living.
German economist Adolph Wagner theorized over 100 years ago that once countries reach a certain level of prosperity the populace will eventually vote themselves ever more benefits accompanied by growth in government. As government grows and more citizens find themselves dependent on those social services, one can only imagine a decline in the overall level of our prosperity as fewer people are actually producing the goods and services that created history’s most prosperous society.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
New Editorial for the Eagle
Still trying to decide whether or not to send it to them....
Dear Eagle Editorial Staff,
It appears that health care reform is not going to go away in Washington. There are many considerations to be made on both sides of the issue. However, one thing is known for certain and that is health care consumes a significant portion of US GDP.
Health care is expensive today because most individuals have no incentive to hold costs down. Employers or insurance companies pay most of the costs. Nothing in the current legislation addresses this problem. Bureaucrats want to control escalating costs by capping what insurances premiums are, not what health care actually costs.
Health insurance has become a means to health care payment rather than protection from catastrophic loss. If the US is to tackle these escalating costs, Health Insurance must return to be just that, insurance. High-deductible plans with Health Savings Accounts are fantastic alternative for people to have coverage and still be accountable for cost. These are all available today with no more legislation or interference. They just need to be encouraged and put into practice.
I also know that another certainty is that Congress will get health care wrong. The Washington Times reports recently that Congress expected Medicare to cost $12 billion by 1990 when they made their projections in 1967. Unfortunately they were wrong as Medicare cost $98 billion 23 years later. They missed their projections by 800% and regrettably the US Government has not improved their forecasting in recent years with Medicare and SCHIP following similar miscalculations. Can citizens of this country really afford to have the government to miss projections by this wide margin again? We are now looking at trillion dollar miscalculations.
Under proposed legislation, insurance companies will be forced to insure people that normally would not be insured and cover conditions they would not normally cover. Furthermore, they will be forced to hold premiums down while taking more risk. This is bound to drive many, if not all of them, out of business. After all, healthy people will still not buy insurance and will wait until they are sick to buy coverage. The insurance companies cannot deny them under new rules. How is this different than a driver buying auto insurance after he wrecks his car and expecting full coverage? It is not a sustainable business model.
The competitive market for quality health care is starting to show signs of life. Retail clinics are appearing in malls and shopping centers. These clinics give consumers an affordable alternative to the doctor’s office. Many pharmacies now have $4 generic prescriptions, driving drug costs down. Quality care is also being marketed in foreign countries where surgeries can be done at a fraction of the price one would expect to pay in a US hospital. These are all market-based solutions that need to be encouraged, not sacrificed to special interest groups representing corporations and health care professionals. Cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery are all very good examples of how market forces can lower the cost and raise the quality of care in this very way.
I do not believe anyone, on either side of the issue, wants to deny anyone access to quality health care. Ironically, the proposals being circulated today may just do that very thing. Let’s let the markets work and hold down costs through competition in health care, not insurance. Let’s also get health insurance back to actually being insurance. Make individuals accountable for costs and let markets work through a market-based system of affordable, high-deductible health insurance and Health Savings Accounts. This alone will determine what the right portion of GDP health care should consume. These small changes can save all of us from rising costs, further government interference and additional misguided projections from Washington.
-Doug
Dear Eagle Editorial Staff,
It appears that health care reform is not going to go away in Washington. There are many considerations to be made on both sides of the issue. However, one thing is known for certain and that is health care consumes a significant portion of US GDP.
Health care is expensive today because most individuals have no incentive to hold costs down. Employers or insurance companies pay most of the costs. Nothing in the current legislation addresses this problem. Bureaucrats want to control escalating costs by capping what insurances premiums are, not what health care actually costs.
Health insurance has become a means to health care payment rather than protection from catastrophic loss. If the US is to tackle these escalating costs, Health Insurance must return to be just that, insurance. High-deductible plans with Health Savings Accounts are fantastic alternative for people to have coverage and still be accountable for cost. These are all available today with no more legislation or interference. They just need to be encouraged and put into practice.
I also know that another certainty is that Congress will get health care wrong. The Washington Times reports recently that Congress expected Medicare to cost $12 billion by 1990 when they made their projections in 1967. Unfortunately they were wrong as Medicare cost $98 billion 23 years later. They missed their projections by 800% and regrettably the US Government has not improved their forecasting in recent years with Medicare and SCHIP following similar miscalculations. Can citizens of this country really afford to have the government to miss projections by this wide margin again? We are now looking at trillion dollar miscalculations.
Under proposed legislation, insurance companies will be forced to insure people that normally would not be insured and cover conditions they would not normally cover. Furthermore, they will be forced to hold premiums down while taking more risk. This is bound to drive many, if not all of them, out of business. After all, healthy people will still not buy insurance and will wait until they are sick to buy coverage. The insurance companies cannot deny them under new rules. How is this different than a driver buying auto insurance after he wrecks his car and expecting full coverage? It is not a sustainable business model.
The competitive market for quality health care is starting to show signs of life. Retail clinics are appearing in malls and shopping centers. These clinics give consumers an affordable alternative to the doctor’s office. Many pharmacies now have $4 generic prescriptions, driving drug costs down. Quality care is also being marketed in foreign countries where surgeries can be done at a fraction of the price one would expect to pay in a US hospital. These are all market-based solutions that need to be encouraged, not sacrificed to special interest groups representing corporations and health care professionals. Cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery are all very good examples of how market forces can lower the cost and raise the quality of care in this very way.
I do not believe anyone, on either side of the issue, wants to deny anyone access to quality health care. Ironically, the proposals being circulated today may just do that very thing. Let’s let the markets work and hold down costs through competition in health care, not insurance. Let’s also get health insurance back to actually being insurance. Make individuals accountable for costs and let markets work through a market-based system of affordable, high-deductible health insurance and Health Savings Accounts. This alone will determine what the right portion of GDP health care should consume. These small changes can save all of us from rising costs, further government interference and additional misguided projections from Washington.
-Doug
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
