Re: NEWSFLASH: 9.2 MILLION in the USofA already have government-run single-payer -- it works fine and is solvent


"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <old_redneck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f3afaa01-cba3-492e-92a7-9b16e5d24970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Single-payer guvmint-run health insurance works -- and the program is
solvent.

But that's all irrelevant -- Glenn Beck has medical insurance and
that's all that matters.


Is that so? Okay, let me see if you can tell me what is wrong with my analysis about a third party payment system.

For about thirty years now, I have been making the argument that this third party payment system for healthcare is simply not going to work (unless some miracle happens), and besides, it creates some serious other problems. So far, I have been unable to get anyone with a national audience to pick up on my cause. Over the years, that I have made these arguments, I have not heard one economist say I am wrong. For that matter, I have not heard anyone give me a convincing argument that I am wrong. And I have made every effort to ask the same basic question whenever I see or can email an economist or anyone else who is willing to seriously debate the subject matter.

So, here goes. A long time ago, I had no trouble with the idea of someone else paying for our medical bills. I even recall reading a Heritage Foundation report, that was making the argument that the Federal Government healthcare program was a great idea. But about the same time, I heard a Canadian economist make the argument that you cannot possibly effectively control prices, when the user of the service was not the one paying for the service. That made sense to me. I then went back and re-read the Heritage report. And ever since then, I realized that the very design of the system was what was the problem. While the inflation rate of the Federal healthcare program was lower, it was still above the overall inflation rate of the country. From an economist point of view, when the person who is using the service is not the one making the rationing decision you cannot effectively control prices. The person will make that rationing decision when they have to pay for the service out of their own pocket. But when they do not have to pay for it with their own money, they do not really care what the cost of that service is, and they will use the service regardless of the cost of that service. When that happens, you cannot possible effectively control prices. And it is price inflation that is at the core of the problem. It means that what cost $1 today, will cost more than $1 dollar for the same procedure tomorrow. When prices rise, and someone is paying for that service, they have to figure out how to pay for that increase. But like taxes, no one really wants to raise the revenue that is necessary to offset that increase in cost. But if you did raise the revenue needed to cover the cost, this is akin to throwing money down a toilet, because you will continually have to raise money to pay for that increase in cost. But like taxes, no one really wants to continue to figure out how to pay for that increase in cost. So, they resort to some form of rationing. But rationing, like price controls (that any economist would say does not work), does not address the reason prices are rising, so you have accomplished nothing in the long run. And over time, you have to impose more and more rationing, which means that someone is going to get screwed. They will find that the person paying the bill, does not want to pay the bill, and unless they are willing to pay the bill by themselves, or find some charitable organization who is willing to pay the bill, they are *** out of luck. One more thing to consider. Between 80 to 90% of total healthcare spending is spent on those who will live two years or less. So, the elephant in the room, is that part of the cost of this healthcare system we have invented. When you hear about how someone has come up with a way to make the program work, just keep in mind that 90% figure. Ask yourself, how does the idea address 90% of the total cost of the system. Another thing to think about is, when someone is proposing a “fix” are they talking about fixing the fixed cost part of the system or the variable cost element of the system. If they are talking about the fixed cost part of the system, that is not going to solve the problem with cost in the long run, because the long term problem is in the variable cost element of the system.

Now on to the subject of rationing. First of all we need to define what that means in the context of healthcare. Rationing is when you decide not to see a doctor because you don’t want to spend the money. Rationing also applies to when the person pays the bill says I will not pay the bill. In that case they are making a rationing decision for you.

Now for some of the other affects of this system. Milton Freidman a long time ago had a program called Freedom to Choose. In one of his segments he told us what he thought was wrong with welfare programs. He made the analogy of a parent and the child. His argument was that the welfare recipient is the child, and the government and their workers were the parent. In order for the child to get what it wants, it has to satisfy the demands of the parent. Well, that same analogy applies to those who depend on someone else to pay for their healthcare needs. The payer of the service, decides when they will pay and when they will not pay. The one who wants the service, is totally dependent on the person who is paying the bill. So, the question is, do you want to be treated like an adult, or do you want to be treated like a child.


But other than the fact that the system simply is unsustainable (sounds like a comment one could make about the Federal Governments entitlement programs doesn’t it), it also results in some very bad other things that the government will use to justify their actions. Because they are the ones paying for the bills, they will and have infringed on our freedoms. They will use the excuse that the cost is too high, to tell us for example what we can eat (New York Cities example of restriction fast food restaurants come to mind), but there are countless examples of that happening. So, anyone who supports such a system, also supports the government from eating

away at our individual freedoms, because it is a fact that the more you depend on someone else, the less freedom you have.

Also, when you hear the government says that they are trying to control you life, by telling you what you can and cannot do, or by restricting what you can or cannot do, because it will save money, don’t believe it. For instance, while it is true that if you change your life style, it will prevent you from dying from certain ailments, that does not mean you will not die from some ailment. So, while it is true that if you change your lifestyle or are forced by government to change your lifestyle, you will reduce the likelihood of dying from certain causes, it only means you will die from something else. For instance, if you adopt a certain lifestyle you can possibly not die from say a heart attack, but that only means you will die from something else. And that something else may cost the system a whole lot more money, then if you died from say a heart failure.

So, I urge you to consider my arguments, and if you agree with them, pick up my cause. It gets very lonely at times, when I don’t feel anyone is listening to me. I sometimes feel like Don Quixote, chasing windmills.

So, what is the solution? Well, the solution is to return the rationing decision back to the user of the service, where it belongs. How you actually do that, I am not smart enough to now how.

.

Loading