I believe we have to do whatever we can to stop the threat posed by Obamacare to our health-care system, our economic well being, and our freedom. If you agree, here's something that's easy to do:
Just fill in the required information to send e-mails to members of Congress asking them to vote against Obamacare. It'll take you less than 5 minutes. You can simply send the text provided or edit it as desired. I hope you'll also forward this link to others who might be interested.
One of the people I sent it to was J.E. Hill, a writer for The Skeptical Review. He responded as follows:
Yeah, right. Let's keep having insurance companies come between us and our doctors, turn us down for insurance when we need it the most, and keep on making billions while thousands of Americans die each year from not having adequate health care.
My response:
Thanks for getting back to me on this important issue. You're right that we have extremely serious problems with health care in this country. However, that's not the fault of the free market. Is it merely a coincidence that our health-care industry is simultaneously the most heavily-regulated/subsidized, as well as the most dysfunctional? Can you think of any other US industries in which costs have been consistently increasing at a rate way beyond overall inflation, while the quality of the products delivered to consumers continues to decline? The only example I can think of is higher education, which also suffers from heavy government involvement and subsidization. A lot of people complain about gasoline prices, but corrected for the overall inflation rate, they've been relatively stable over the years:
Here's an Atlantic article that provides one of the best explanations I've seen of what's gone wrong with the health-care sector:
The only viable solution to these problems is massive deregulation and elimination of subsidies. Expansion of government regulation and subsidization will only serve to further increase costs and/or reduce the quality and quantity of available care. If you don't believe that, read a few of these articles about what's going on in Canada:
Hill's response:
I really don't care to read your "best explanations" as you would not want to read mine. This is a common sense issue. Except for Medicare, the government has maintained a hands-off attitude toward health care, and Medicare is one of the most successful programs ever...just ask any senior.
There is no "free market" in this country. There is no reputable economist that would assert that we have a "free market." This is a chimera used by the right to keep the ignorant thinking they are getting a really great deal all the while being taken to the cleaners.
You cannot have a free market with a central bank; you cannot have a free market when the government supports certain corporations through tax breaks or cash incentives (corporate welfare); you cannot have a free market by giving corporations subsidies. You cannot have a free market with anti-trust laws and government regulations.
Of course we all know what can happen without the last one.
Without a strong central bank, anti-trust laws, and regulations, unbridled capitalism would resemble the capitalism of the turn of the century. The Great Depression was not caused by the central bank, but lack of regulations and checks and balances in the "free-for-all" market economy created by speculators. Sound familiar?
I don't mind capitalism. But capitalism without limits or ethics or a moral guidance spawns unbridled greed.
Healthcare in this country is unbridled greed. If there is one thing about the present proposal that bothers me it's that it does not go far enough for universal care or tax the wealthy enough to pay for it.
Oh, you wanted one more US industry in which costs have been consistently increasing at a rate way beyond overall inflation, while the quality of the products delivered to consumers continues to decline...exclusive of the defense contractors, how about the airline industry?
The issue here is quite simply private corporations have been entrusted to provide our healthcare and do a terrible job of it and make billions in profit doing it.
I think you complain too much about people trying to do something to improve our system and make it more competitive.
My response:
> I really don't care to read your "best explanations" as you would not want to read mine.
OK, how about this: I'll read yours if you'll read mine. Or, better yet, I'll read yours even if you don't read mine. Can you send me a link to it?
> This is a common sense issue.
I'm not the first to point out that common sense is not all that common.
> Except for Medicare, the government has maintained a hands-off attitude toward heath care, and Medicare is one of the most successful programs ever...just ask any senior.
The claim that Medicare is the only area of government involvement in health care is completely unsupportable. What about Medicaid? What about the FDA? What about the reams of regulations that must be adhered to by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies? The government is heavily involved in regulating and/or subsidizing virtually all aspects of medicine, from drugs to insurance. As for Medicare, to say that it is "...one of the most successful programs ever..." is analogous to claiming that Bernie Madoff had one of the most successful investment strategies ever. The only difference between Medicare and what Madoff did is that Medicare is a Ponzi scheme of a size Madoff could only have dreamed of. As Goldhill points out in that Atlantic article:
"In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1 percent of total government spending; now that figure is 20 percent, and quickly rising."
"In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coincidence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after."
> There is no "free market" in this country. There is no reputable economist that would assert that we have a "free market." This is a chimera used by the right to keep the ignorant thinking they are getting a really great deal all the while being taken to the cleaners.
It's true that there is no purely free market in this country (or anywhere else). However, it is also true that there are industries in which the market is relatively much freer of government interference than in other industries. And it is no coincidence that it is the industries in which the government interferes the most that are the most dysfunctional.
> You cannot have a free market with a central bank; you cannot have a free market when the government supports certain corporations through tax breaks or cash incentives (corporate welfare); you cannot have a free market by giving corporations subsidies. You cannot have a free market with anti-trust laws and government regulations.
I completely agree with you on those points. The question is, which works better: a freer market or a more regulated market? Another good question is: what kinds of regulations are beneficial and what kinds are harmful?
> Of course we all know what can happen without the last one.
Or think we know. Opinions vary widely on the effects, intended and otherwise, of various government regulations. I'm not against all regulations, BTW. A rational regulatory framework is necessary to provide a coherent structure within which a free-market system can operate efficiently.
> Without a strong central bank, anti-trust laws, and regulations, unbridled capitalism would resemble the capitalism of the turn of the century. The Great Depression was not caused by the central bank, but lack of regulations and checks and balances in the "free-for-all" market economy created by speculators. Sound familiar?
Though I'm personally opposed to anti-trust laws, I don't have a problem with a central bank and a reasonable level of economic regulation. But health-care regulations have gone way beyond what is reasonable and common-sense. They're destroying the quality of our health care while rapidly bankrupting the country. Rather than being a helpful bridle to guide the horse of capitalism, our current regulatory environment is more like an injection of mind-and-DNA-altering drugs that has turned the horse into an uncontrollable raging monster.
As for the Great Depression, the government foolishly tried to regulate and spend its way back to prosperity. It didn't work any better than the Bush/Obama bail-outs and stimulus money have worked to end our current economic downturn.
> I don't mind capitalism. But capitalism without limits or ethics or a moral guidance spawns unbridled greed.
I agree with you. I suppose our disagreement is on which forms of regulation are beneficial and which are destructive.
> Healthcare in this country is unbridled greed. If there is one thing about the present proposal that bothers me it that it does not go far enough for universal care or tax the wealthy enough to pay for it.
The problem is not unbridled greed. The problem is that people's natural greed (i.e., rational self interest) is actually heavily bridled in such a manner as to cause severe and destructive distortions of the market. If our health-care problems were due to mere greed, then why is it that other less-regulated industries aren't experiencing analogous problems? Is the oil industry less greedy than the health care industry? What about the consumer electronics industry, the food industry, the automobile industry, or the veterinary-care industry? Why is greed only a destructive force in health care?
> Oh, you wanted one more US industry in which costs have been consistently increasing at a rate way beyond overall inflation, while the quality of the products delivered to consumers continues to decline...exclusive of the defense contractors, how about the airline industry?
Do you have any statistics to back up your claim about the airlines? It's true that quality has declined in the airline industry, but I don't think the cost of airline tickets has gone up on average at a rate beyond overall inflation. In fact, prices seem to be quite low if you shop around and plan your trip in advance. They certainly haven't gone up at the completely insane rates we've seen in the health-care sector. As for quality, that has declined in response to consumer demand. Most people would rather put up with less leg room and no food than pay extra airfare. They just want to get from point A to point B as quickly and cheaply as possible. And the airlines do a remarkably good job of providing what their consumers want. As for the defense industry, do you have evidence that costs have risen at a rate significantly beyond overall inflation or that product quality has deteriorated? I've actually worked for years for a company that does some defense-related consulting. The hourly rates we charge the government have not gone up at a rate significantly different than inflation. But our product is almost exclusively labor (for engineering and R&D). Perhaps the situation for defense contractors who produce hardware is different.
> The issue here is quite simply private corporations have been entrusted to provide our health care and do a terrible job of it and make billions in profit doing it.
They have done a terrible job. The question is why have those corporations done such a terrible job when corporations in virtually every other industry do such a great job? The answer has to do with the perverse incentives and other distortions of the market caused by excessive government interference in the health-care market.
> I think you complain too much about people trying to do something to improve our system and make it more competitive.
I only complain about people who are trying to change our system in ways that will make it worse. ;-)
I'm really enjoying this discussion! Thanks for your responses.
No comments:
Post a Comment