What You Get with Free Health Care

[bonnie]

American Thinker

March 28, 2010

What You Get with Free Health Care

By Janice Shaw Crouse

Most of the arguments supporting the health care reform bill just passed by the Democrats in Congress were myths. These myths were exposed as early as 2008 in a book by Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. Her funny little book skewers everything we've heard via the ObamaCare demagoguery. Others since then have been equally devastating to the arguments used to ram through ObamaCare.

In fact, the so-called miracles sold by today's health care hucksters are about as real as those sold by the shysters of old.

However, most Americans see through the political spin, and they are not buying the snake oil. Vision is much clearer outside the Beltway. Further, as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things." This week, four different polls (Quinnnipiac, Bloomberg, CNN, and CBS) show the same result: Less than 40 percent of Americans approve of the health care bill that the president just signed. Numerous states are concerned about the way ObamaCare infringes on individual rights. In addition, there are significant constitutional questions about requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Many state attorneys general are noting that under ObamaCare, Americans will be forced to buy a good or service for the first time.

All of that didn't matter to those determined to see their utopian ideology enacted into legislation. Congressional Democrats, disregarding the will of the people and dressing their action in high-sounding rhetoric, rammed through Congress their unpopular and disastrous plan for "transforming" America into a Cuban, British, Canadian, or French image.

One of the prime arguments used to sell ObamaCare was that it would reverse the financial crisis and save the country a gazillion dollars -- with benefits beginning in its first year. Sadly, somebody's arm got twisted to produce Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures -- nicely timed for the House vote -- to supposedly back up the Democrats' arguments. Nobody seemed to understand that the CBO figures were just estimates. Yet, as they say, the devil is in the details. The CBO details clearly indicate that having the government's role expanded to provide universal coverage will significantly increase costs, as well as premiums and taxes. Worse, the CBO notes that most of the current costs of the U.S. world-class health care are from providing new, cutting-edge treatments and ever-expanding medical technologies. They add, "Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application."

How's that for dispelling the claims that quality will remain high, rationing won't happen, and technology will continue to expand while costs go down? The real-life record of government control is a long way from matching the soaring rhetoric that has dominated the media coverage of the health care debate. Further, in those countries where massive government intervention has replaced free-market enterprise, the reality is far short of the utopian promises and policies that have been spun out so recklessly and misleadingly. Price controls inevitably limit innovation. If that happens to medical research and technological advancement, the results will be disastrous.

Everybody wants affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care; there are proposals on the table for changes that would make significant improvements in those aspects of it in the U.S. These proposals would unleash free-market competition, improve quality, and lower costs for health care in the same way that similar ideas have done for other national industries and businesses. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that American health care is very efficient, with only six percent of the premiums going to administrative costs and fully 86 percent covering the actual costs of care.

But cost control is not the purpose of ObamaCare. ObamaCare is all about redistributing wealth and putting a vast segment of the economy under bureaucratic control -- some estimates of health care spending run as high as 20 percent of the U.S. economy by 2016.

Under ObamaCare, Uncle Sam becomes Santa Claus. But sooner or later, the bills come in, and all those "gifts" turn out to be pretty expensive after all.

Right now, the U.S. has the "world's best cancer survival rates" -- Sally Pipes reported that Americans "have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers," a fact most appreciated by those victims and their families who benefit from the expensive drugs that result from years-long research and clinical trials. Most Americans are personally satisfied with their own private health insurance coverage and appreciate the medical advances that save lives and provide miracle cures. Others, too, depend upon American health care. Tens of thousands of foreigners come to the United States annually for treatments not available or rationed in their home countries.

Most Americans are also aware of and appreciate the fact that government-funded programs already provide for those Americans who are truly poor. Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment to those without insurance. Medicare, Medicaid, and other special programs for children, veterans, and specific population groups provide care for those with special needs. Nobody claims that these government-run programs provide the quality of care that those with private insurance enjoy. In fact, the false promise of something for nothing -- the utopian scheme of everybody having top-quality health care coverage and it not costing anybody any more than they are currently paying -- is the biggest myth of all. Sally Pipes quoted P.J. O'Rourke: "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free."

[Dr. Shane]

Instead of just cutting and pasting articles from other websites, why not just post the link with some highlights that most impressed you about the article? When a member just cuts and pastes an entire article, most others simply don't read any of it.

[karl]

American Thinker

March 28, 2010

What You Get with Free Health Care

The real-life record of government control is a long way from matching the soaring rhetoric that has dominated the media coverage of the health care debate. Further, in those countries where massive government intervention has replaced free-market enterprise, the reality is far short of the utopian promises and policies that have been spun out so recklessly and misleadingly. Price controls inevitably limit innovation. If that happens to medical research and technological advancement, the results will be disastrous.

This is a fact I failed to bring up earlier. And I want to caution CA members in other countries against promoting socialism in the USA. One of the things that keeps health care quality up in your country is our development of new treatments and technology which your socialist systems will not invest in. Once we spend the R&D money and demonstrate their effectiveness, you benefit because your government will be forced to provide you a proven treatment that they would not have invested the money to develop.

There are trickle-down benefits that extend to socialist countries from having somebody actually doing research and development of new treatments and technology.

It's like a friend of mine said when we were on the same committee in the Medical Society many years ago. "I need you guys in private practice to make $115K per year so that Kaiser will pay me $90K. If you make less, I make less."

[lazarus]

Just finished a good book by Dr Andrew Weil MD and he addresses the issue you raise. As a doctor you might appreciate his perspective even if you don't agree with it.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Our-Health-Matters-Transform/dp/1594630666

[karl]

Yes, I have a great deal of respect for Weil in his emphasis on lifestyle and alternative treatments that work.

Unfortunately, he is sadly mistaken in believing that socialized medicine will promote healthy lifestyles. The only thing that will do this is a return to privatization of medical care. Get government out of it. Only in this way can we remove the perverse incentives that lead to improper care and lead to the abdication of personal responsibility for one's health. If you must personally bear the brunt of stupid lifestyle choices will you have the proper incentive to avoid them.

Furthermore, most of us are not going to want a $100 Rx for a cold if we have to pay for it. We will probably not even go to the doctor for minor symptoms if it means money out of our pockets. But if someone else is paying for it, "I want the best." As Weil points out, the most expensive care is not always the best care.

More and more, I have patients seeking care they don't need for minor symptoms just because they want off work (and there is someone else picking up the tab through their insurance.)

I almost never have a cash-paying patient come in for minor symptoms unless there is a relative paying the bill. Wonder why that is?

[lazarus]

His prescription is not just "socialized health care". His approach is more comprehensive than that. He attacks the over-reliance on technology. He's against health care that is for profit. The need for patients to take more responsibility for their care. He address the problems with medical training and the fact that there needs to be more GP's rather than specialists. It's not a polemic, it's very solutions orientated. You might be surprised.

[karl]

His prescription is not just "socialized health care". His approach is more comprehensive than that. He attacks the over-reliance on technology. He's against health care that is for profit. The need for patients to take more responsibility for their care. He address the problems with medical training and the fact that there needs to be more GP's rather than specialists. It's not a polemic, it's very solutions orientated. You might be surprised.

I'm very familiar with his views. He is a socialist of the public health variety. He wants to fix things for society. Our current level of socialism has caused problems, so the cure is more socialism, so we can prevent doctors from delivering health care (actually sick care) for profit. Doctors need a more altruistic motive than getting paid, and if we just brainwash them correctly we can get them to do the right thing for the right amount.

Who decides, Laz? Under Dr. Weil's great plan, who decides what is best for each individual and what is best for each doctor and what is best for the practice of medicine in every locality in the nation??

The government, of course. And the government ALWAYS does things in the best interest of ALL its citizens, right?

How would you like it if we had a government committee deciding what pastors should be taught, how much money they should make, where they should work, and what they can preach? This makes every bit as much sense as having government in charge of the practice of medicine.

You might get a raise, Laz. Care to bet your profession on the gov?

Why not?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

His prescription is not just "socialized health care". His approach is more comprehensive than that. He attacks the over-reliance on technology. He's against health care that is for profit. The need for patients to take more responsibility for their care. He address the problems with medical training and the fact that there needs to be more GP's rather than specialists. It's not a polemic, it's very solutions orientated. You might be surprised.

I'm very familiar with his views. He is a socialist of the public health variety. He wants to fix things for society. Our current level of socialism has caused problems, so the cure is more socialism, so we can prevent doctors from delivering health care (actually sick care) for profit. Doctors need a more altruistic motive than getting paid, and if we just brainwash them correctly we can get them to do the right thing for the right amount.

Who decides, Laz? Under Dr. Weil's great plan, who decides what is best for each individual and what is best for each doctor and what is best for the practice of medicine in every locality in the nation??

The government, of course. And the government ALWAYS does things in the best interest of ALL its citizens, right?

How would you like it if we had a government committee deciding what pastors should be taught, how much money they should make, where they should work, and what they can preach? This makes every bit as much sense as having government in charge of the practice of medicine.

You might get a raise, Laz. Care to bet your profession on the gov?

Why not?

A reasonable Presidential approach to lowering the cost of medical welfare,uh, I mean, health care, would be to pay med students to complete school and their residencies, and establish their practices for use once they've finished. Then establish and cap their salaries at the same pay rate as members of the House of Representatives. Specialists would receive salaries equal to U.S.Senate scale.All medical malpractice suits would be directed to congressional review and then finalized by Presidential signature.Settlements would be paid by the Federal Government from an insurance account funded by donations from the CEO's of the United Auto Workers Union.The best of all worlds?? No more of those greedy doctors working only for profit!!!

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Who decides, Laz? Under Dr. Weil's great plan, who decides what is best for each individual and what is best for each doctor and what is best for the practice of medicine in every locality in the nation??

The government, of course. And the government ALWAYS does things in the best interest of ALL its citizens, right?

How would you like it if we had a government committee deciding what pastors should be taught, how much money they should make, where they should work, and what they can preach? This makes every bit as much sense as having government in charge of the practice of medicine.

A reasonable Presidential approach to lowering the cost of medical welfare,uh, I mean, health care, would be to pay med students to complete school and their residencies, and establish their practices for use once they've finished. Then establish and cap their salaries at the same pay rate as members of the House of Representatives. Specialists would receive salaries equal to U.S.Senate scale.All medical malpractice suits would be directed to congressional review and then finalized by Presidential signature.Settlements would be paid by the Federal Government from an insurance account funded by donations from the CEO's of the United Auto Workers Union.The best of all worlds?? No more of those greedy doctors working only for profit!!!

Sign me up. But I want the Congressional pension and a private jet.