[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] Funkentelecky's Blog
‘45 Million Americans’Who Are Those Guys?, Part 3
SFC USA, (RET)
Last comment by sebekm 5 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

"President Barack Obama says that he can pay for his goal to provide health care insurance for every American without it. Why isn't that good enough for you?"

Elder: Yes, the President says that he can "pay for" his goal of providing health insurance for every American without it. Care to bet on that?

When government proposes a program, the ultimate price tag inevitably exceeds projections. In "Why Government Doesn't Work," libertarian Harry Browne wrote: "Most older people now find it harder to get adequate medical service. Naturally, the government points to the higher costs and shortages as proof that the elderly would be lost without Medicare — and that government should be even more deeply involved. When Medicare was set up in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1990 to be $3 billion — which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion — eight times as much."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.


Congress, from the outset, placed Medicare on autopilot because of a growing, aging and longer-living elderly population. Congress, from time to time, attempts to "rein in" increased costs by imposing fixed reimbursement schedules. This simply creates an incentive on the part of doctors and hospitals to schedule a lot of unnecessary tests or to "pingpong" patients from specialist to specialist in order to evade the artificial limits. This also forces doctors and hospitals to charge more from private carriers to offset the low reimbursement rates provided by Medicare.

Everybody gets hurt — the elderly because the medical profession becomes less efficient, innovative and cost-effective, and the non-elderly because practitioners charge them more to offset the lower reimbursement rates provided by the government.

"We need to require all employers to provide health insurance."

Elder: We end up paying more, not less. During World War II, Congress imposed wage freezes. Business people who wished to attract employees had little recourse but to offer non-cash benefits. The government, recognizing business people's "plight," allowed business to deduct the cost of health insurance as a business expense. This put, for the first time, something between doctor and patient, distorting the traditional fee-for-service system, used so successfully up until then. It also created the incentive to get your medical care through your employer rather than pay for it directly.

I once lived in a large apartment complex that included utilities paid by the landlord. During hot summer months or cold winter months in my previous apartment — where I paid for utilities — I turned the thermostat off when I left the apartment and put on the heat or air when I returned. Once I moved into the "utilities-included" apartment, I left my heat and air on all day, thus ensuring a perfect climate when I came home — sometimes as long as 12 hours later.

Now, I knew that somehow I paid, but the cost would be distributed over all the tenants in the building. So the conscientious tenant who cut off his or her air subsidized my carefree use of utilities. Eventually, we all pay, but the effect becomes gradual and diffused over a number of people who have little incentive to "conserve."

This applies to employer-provided insurance. Employees have less incentive to refrain from seeing doctors for minor reasons, less incentive to watch and manage their own health, and no incentive to cost compare among competing insurers and health care providers.

"I'm a supporter of free markets and competition, but that doesn't apply to medicine. Improved technology and research costs just drive the price of medicine up." Elder: New technology — in most any field — initially costs a lot. Consider the cost years ago of computers and calculators versus what we pay today for equipment and applications far faster, easier and more powerful. Remember the price of calculators 30 years ago? Today they are so cheap some outlets give them away as gifts — loss leaders to get you into the store.

Government-imposed rationing sacrifices quality and innovation while imposing long wait times. But you cannot control costs without removing the incentive to improve and innovate. How many medical-care breakthroughs occur in Canada? How many new drugs to improve patient outcome come from Canada? Without the profit incentive, you get fewer entrepreneurs and fewer investment dollars because you've diminished the likelihood of reward.

Want efficiency? A friend of mine who serves on the board of a hospital in Ontario recently wrote: "We have actually had to send money back to the government because the surgeries — scheduled months earlier — didn't occur because patients went to the U.S. for treatment instead. Funding is specific to some procedures, and if not used, the money is sent back. Right now we are losing the surgery money because we have a bed shortage for folks who can't return home because of the level of care they need, but there are no facilities for them to transfer to. Why, you ask? Government regulations make it next to impossible for private people to make a profit. And so the vicious circle continues."

Welcome to ObamaCare.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder070209.php3



Latest Activity: Nov 15, 2013 at 6:44 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by Funkentelecky
Send Funkentelecky a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (167) times.

sebekm commented on Sunday, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:05 PM

The funding for ObamaCare has always been a bit of "voodoo economics." Part of the initial discussion which has gotten buried in all the hubris about constitutionality and the rollout is where the money is coming from to pay for the program. As best I can tell, the expectation was that it would come from Medicare, increased participation (thus increased premiums), and increased premiums. (Yes - I intended that apparent redundancy.)

They were never going to fund it out of "thin air," and part of the reason Pelosi infamously stated that they "had to pass it to know what's in it" was to obfuscate where the funding was coming from. In simple terms, the program is a BUDGET BUSTER. (This presumes they have a budget to begin with.) This is one of the FATAL FLAWS of the program - among others. The projections the Dems made were "best case" scenarios (which NEVER happen), and the real money crunch will come down the road. People are whining today about cancelled policies, limited doctor networks, and increased premiums, but just wait for about 7-10 when the REAL money crunch hits.

If the Republicans get in control (or even if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016), they might fix this. But if it continues going the way it is our financial woes will be still with us - and even greater - 8 years from now.

sebekm commented on Sunday, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:07 PM

...just wait for about 7-10 years, that is....


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Funkentelecky
 
The 77 Percent Lie -- and Why Obama Keeps Telling
April 13, 2014
The 77 Percent Lie -- and Why Obama Keeps Telling It A quick way to kill debate is to accuse your political adversary of “lying.” Still, it’s hard to figure out what else propels President Barack Obama to falsely assert, yet again, that employers rip off female employees by paying ...
Read More »
 
Ben Carson for President!
April 03, 2014
Concerned Patriot, As someone interested in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, you will certainly want to know all you can about Dr. Ben Carson and where he stands on the critical issues facing our nation. That’s what you will find out when you read his bestselling book, America ...
Read More »
 
Obamacare: Abuse of Power Endangers Nations Health
March 27, 2014
When liberal pro-Obama scholars question the legality of President Barack Obama’s actions to implement Obamacare, the issue of illegal presidential use of power moves from partisan to frightening. George Washington Law School's Jonathan Turley is the second most quoted law professor in the nation and a two-time Obama voter. He ...
Read More »
 
Malcolm X Called Them "Chumps"
March 26, 2014
When blacks gave 80 percent of their vote to the Democratic Party in 1964, black activist Malcolm X called them "political chumps." White voters, X said, “are so evenly divided that every time they vote, the race is so close they have to go back and count the votes all ...
Read More »
 
White People & The Curse of Racism
March 20, 2014
What do you think about Alphozo Rachel's take in regards to white people and racism? Check out this clip from ZONATION; it's much more informative than POLITICS NATION! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eymqa5hF7Xg
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology