Making Health Care Worse

[spursncowboys]

Making Health Care Worse

By Thomas Sowell (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowell/)
What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?
Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.

#toolbox #alert .title { text-transform: uppercase; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; } http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/icon_alert.gif Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Thomas Sowell RealClearPolitics Health care

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.
If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.
What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?
Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.
However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."
But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.
Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.
Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.
This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.
Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.
In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.
But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.
All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/07/the_costs_of_medical_care_part_iv__98984.html at November 07, 2009 - 09:46:44 PM CST

[DMX7]

God, I hate when elites try to control my life. :rolleyes

[SpurNation]

If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation


It's never been promised to reduce cost. It's been promised all will have coverage available to them. And even that promise doesn't mean all will receive the government plan. All that's promised is it will be available to all. And that's not a lie since possible coverage even without a government plan is available to all anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm astounded at how Sowell has devolved into a lying, strawman building demagogue.

He's now an average SpursTalk poster with a thesaurus.

[spursncowboys]

I'm astounded at how Sowell has devolved into a lying, strawman building demagogue.

He's now an average SpursTalk poster with a thesaurus.
But Paul Krugman is still a respectable economist?

[spursncowboys]

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse?

What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?


Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you.

it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.

All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.

[boutons_deux]

"Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?"

Flesh out the straw man with what must be 1000s of examples from Medicate/Medicaid/VA health care decisions?

nah, just unending scare-mongering and robotic "hate everythng government" (but total silence about self-diseased, irresponsible Americans voluntarily submitting themselves to the greedy profit-care system ).

[boutons_deux]

"What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States?"

Self-indicting question, indicating this asshole is not serious.

[exstatic]

What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable.

Uh, we're there already. Every year, my premium either goes up 10% or I take a hit in coverage. This year our plans at work went from 80/20 to 70/30 insurance/member coverage. Do you know how much that is for a major hospitalization?

Every retired and active duty Military member and dependent is already on a government single payer HC system: Tricare. I even asked a retired CMSgt (particularly anti-Obama) at work how he like his Tricare. I then pointed out to him that he was on single payer government HC. He really didn't have a response. Medicare recipients seem to love their single payer government HC, too.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Making Health Care Worse

By Thomas Sowell (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowell/)
What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?
Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.

#toolbox #alert .title { text-transform: uppercase; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; } http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/icon_alert.gif Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Thomas Sowell RealClearPolitics Health care

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.
If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.
What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?
Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.
However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."
But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.
Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.
Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.
This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.
Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.
In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.
But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.
All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/07/the_costs_of_medical_care_part_iv__98984.html at November 07, 2009 - 09:46:44 PM CST

how long do they need to read the bill?

[hope4dopes]

how long do they need to read the bill?
“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

. . . In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said





That's when the bill was only a thousand pages now it's two thousnd.

[hope4dopes]

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”



Now it's 2 thousand

[ChumpDumper]

Which members of congress read every bill in its entirety? Let me know if any member has even made that claim.

[spursncowboys]

Which members of congress read every bill in its entirety? Let me know if any member has even made that claim.

That seems like a problem to me. We don't have to make it that long. These guys can make a law that they have to use common english, or shorten bills language. They can make a law to make all bills short and sweet. They make it long because they know the average person doesn't have time to read it themselves. So then the average person has to go by talking heads to find out what is in it. It's ridiculous.

[ChumpDumper]

That seems like a problem to me. We don't have to make it that long. These guys can make a law that they have to use common english, or shorten bills language. They can make a law to make all bills short and sweet. They make it long because they know the average person doesn't have time to read it themselves. So then the average person has to go by talking heads to find out what is in it. It's ridiculous.Well, why is everyone so incensed this time around? I believe many bills are quote large and I don't know of anyone who reads entire bills of any length.

Do you?

I think it's a throwaway, bumper sticker argument. Let's talk about what you know to actually be in the bill.

[spursncowboys]

Well, why is everyone so incensed this time around? I believe many bills are quote large and I don't know of anyone who reads entire bills of any length.

Do you?

I think it's a throwaway, bumper sticker argument. Let's talk about what you know to actually be in the bill.

So are bills too big to read a problem?

[ChumpDumper]

So are bills too big to read a problem?Have you read shorter ones in their entirety?

[spursncowboys]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org//wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Government-Motors-1.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

What does that have to do with the length of the health care bill and whether you have ever read any bills?

[spursncowboys]

What does that have to do with the length of the health care bill and whether you have ever read any bills?
It is bad form to answer a question with a question.

[ChumpDumper]

It is bad form to answer a question with a question.So you should have answered my question first.

I can't help but notice you are still avoiding it.

It is also bad form to try to change the subject when you are uncomfortable answering a question with an off-topic cartoon.

[Wild Cobra]

It is bad form to answer a question with a question.
Please.

Don't tell me you expect anything tangible from that troll.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org//wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Government-Motors-1.jpg

It is Board conservative policy to not post twatty comic strips like Random Douche, and fellow progressive turtleneck wearing Cry Havoc.

[spursncowboys]

Well, why is everyone so incensed this time around? I believe many bills are quote large and I don't know of anyone who reads entire bills of any length. I agree and think this needs to be fixed. I think the idea that we just have to accept that laws are worded, created and processed without our understanding is ridiculous. We both do not know people who read the entire bill of anything, but I bet we do know people who are disgusted by the things that are paid for from a bill, and we don't find out about it until a book or investigative reporter does something on it.




I think it's a throwaway, bumper sticker argument. Let's talk about what you know to actually be in the bill.
That is the thing. WHen the 2k pg bill(b4 they added 900 pages) came out, we all agreed that we wouldn't say anything about it until analyzers whom we trusted their opinion would bring up. Had it been written shorter and more understandable I imagine we would read it. Pelosi could put it on the internet for 72 hours (even though she didn't) and we still wouldn't read it because there is no way people with jobs, families and a life(posting on ST) have that kind of time( I believe the parties do this on purpose). So we cannot talk about what is in the bill as effectively because we do not know what is in the bill. I think the highway bill to create the highway system was 20 something pages. Why can't we do that. A metaphor for this would be right now we are in Windows, and we need to be open source.

[spursncowboys]

Please.

Don't tell me you expect anything tangible from that troll.
I was watching hook when the son yelled bad form at hook.

[ChumpDumper]

Pelosi could put it on the internet for 72 hours (even though she didn't)It's there. Couldn't tell you how long it's been up. The date on the document is 10/30.

I don't think you would read it in any case. Your avoidance of the question tells me you have never read an entire bill of any length.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao
I agree and think this needs to be fixed. I think the idea that we just have to accept that laws are worded, created and processed without our understanding is ridiculous. We both do not know people who read the entire bill of anything, but I bet we do know people who are disgusted by the things that are paid for from a bill, and we don't find out about it until a book or investigative reporter does something on it.




That is the thing. WHen the 2k pg bill(b4 they added 900 pages) came out, we all agreed that we wouldn't say anything about it until analyzers whom we trusted their opinion would bring up. Had it been written shorter and more understandable I imagine we would read it. Pelosi could put it on the internet for 72 hours (even though she didn't) and we still wouldn't read it because there is no way people with jobs, families and a life(posting on ST) have that kind of time( I believe the parties do this on purpose). So we cannot talk about what is in the bill as effectively because we do not know what is in the bill. I think the highway bill to create the highway system was 20 something pages. Why can't we do that. A metaphor for this would be right now we are in Windows, and we need to be open source.

so the bitching your side was doing complaining about not having enough time to read the bill they were just being hypocrites.... now you say, no one reads them anyway...:lmao

[jack sommerset]

We don't have the money to pay for this. It really is sad. Hopefully 2010-2012 we can reverse whatever these idiots fuck up.

[spursncowboys]

It's there. Couldn't tell you how long it's been up. The date on the document is 10/30.

I don't think you would read it in any case. Your avoidance of the question tells me you have never read an entire bill of any length.
No I answered the question you asked. Now I am waiting for you to answer my question.

[spursncowboys]

:lmao

so the bitching your side was doing complaining about not having enough time to read the bill they were just being hypocrites.... now you say, no one reads them anyway...:lmao
Look up cognition. Don't even read my posts troll. I challenge you to read 2000 pages of anything in 72 hours.

[spursncowboys]

It's there. Couldn't tell you how long it's been up. The date on the document is 10/30.

I don't think you would read it in any case. Your avoidance of the question tells me you have never read an entire bill of any length.
Do you have a link? I doubt it was the final bill. The original 2000 pages was a draft.

[ChumpDumper]

No I answered the question you asked. Now I am waiting for you to answer my question.Couldn't say. I'm sure there are myriad legal issues that have to be addressed in bills like the health care one. No one likes legalese, but there is reason to be precise. My main issue is that no one, including Sowell, is even debating anything in the bill anymore. It seems the opposition doesn't really care to know what is in the bill and would rather spend their time building straw men and complaining that reading is stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you have a link? I doubt it was the final bill. The original 2000 pages was a draft.http://www.rules.house.gov/

[George Gervin's Afro]

Look up cognition. Don't even read my posts troll. I challenge you to read 2000 pages of anything in 72 hours.

the bill has been out longer than 72 hours hypocrite... You litter this board with your ingorance and pettiness. I'll keep reminding you what a hypocrite you are..

[baseline bum]

:lmao

so the bitching your side was doing complaining about not having enough time to read the bill they were just being hypocrites.... now you say, no one reads them anyway...:lmao

You're asking spursncowboys to read a bill when he doesn't even read the articles he copies and pastes here? :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you have a link? I doubt it was the final bill. The original 2000 pages was a draft.

hey dummy have you started reading the bill yet?

[spursncowboys]

the bill has been out longer than 72 hours hypocrite... You litter this board with your ingorance and pettiness. I'll keep reminding you what a hypocrite you are..
In doing so, you remind us all how stupid you are.

[exstatic]

In doing so, you remind us all how stupid you are.

You don't have to.

[Wild Cobra]

Look up cognition. Don't even read my posts troll. I challenge you to read 2000 pages of anything in 72 hours.Especially when you have to reference other material to see what is being changed, added, or deleted.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Especially when you have to reference other material to see what is being changed, added, or deleted.

So you guys aren't going to read it?

[spursncowboys]

So you guys aren't going to read it?
Must be nice to live with your mom and not have a job.

[spursncowboys]

You don't have to.
:idiot

[coyotes_geek]

So you guys aren't going to read it?

How much of the bill have you read?

[ChumpDumper]

No one here is going to read it even if it was 200 pages.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No one here is going to read it even if it was 200 pages.

But the lack of transperancy is overwhelming!

[spursncowboys]

But the lack of transperancy is overwhelming!
Main Entry: trans·par·ent
Pronunciation: \tran(t)s-ˈper-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin transparent-, transparens, present participle of transparēre to show through, from Latin trans- + parēre to show oneself
Date: 15th century
1 a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pellucid) (2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light) b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diaphanous)
2 a : free from pretense or deceit : frank (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frank) b : easily detected or seen through : obvious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obvious) c : readily understood d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
synonyms see clear (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clear)
— trans·par·ent·ly adverb
— trans·par·ent·ness noun

[George Gervin's Afro]

Main Entry: trans·par·ent
Pronunciation: \tran(t)s-ˈper-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin transparent-, transparens, present participle of transparēre to show through, from Latin trans- + parēre to show oneself
Date: 15th century
1 a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pellucid) (2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light) b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diaphanous)
2 a : free from pretense or deceit : frank (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frank) b : easily detected or seen through : obvious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obvious) c : readily understood d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
synonyms see clear (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clear)
— trans·par·ent·ly adverb
— trans·par·ent·ness noun

so you being a dumbass makes the bill not trasnparent? If you can't read the language it's not Congress' fault.