Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part II

    By Thomas Sowell
    Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

    Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quan y and quality, in the rush to "bring down the cost of medical care."

    There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quan y or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

    In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.

    Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already-- and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a "duty to die."

    A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby "bring down the cost of medical care." A stranger's death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.

    At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a "duty to die" so that younger people can live it up is obscene.

    You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain's government-run medical system. You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.

    But reducing these things is not "bringing down the cost of medical care." It is simply refusing to pay those costs-- and taking the consequences.

    For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.

    Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things-- namely, "health care" and "medical care." Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don't do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.

    Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.

    If we are serious about medical care-- and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death-- then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.

    If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.

    The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world-- and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.

    We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change-- for the worse-- if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.

    Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

    Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ii__98985.html at November 05, 2009 - 09:26:48 AM CST

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Post Count
    1,476
    The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part II

    By Thomas Sowell
    Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

    Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quan y and quality, in the rush to "bring down the cost of medical care."

    There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quan y or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

    In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.

    Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already-- and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a "duty to die."

    A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby "bring down the cost of medical care." A stranger's death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.

    At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a "duty to die" so that younger people can live it up is obscene.

    You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain's government-run medical system. You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.

    But reducing these things is not "bringing down the cost of medical care." It is simply refusing to pay those costs-- and taking the consequences.

    For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.

    Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things-- namely, "health care" and "medical care." Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don't do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.

    Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.

    If we are serious about medical care-- and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death-- then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.

    If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.

    The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world-- and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.

    We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change-- for the worse-- if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.

    Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

    Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ii__98985.html at November 05, 2009 - 09:26:48 AM CST
    Too much common sense before, the first bowl of weed in the morning.

  3. #3
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,815
    Short on details, long on emotive prose.

    The article needn't have been so long. Sowell only makes two points in it: rationing and death panel.

    In so doing, he strikes the dirge of fear, the only tune the principled opposition knows these days. The GOP is as hysterical and shrill as the Dems were under Bush. Nice work, guys.

  4. #4
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    Short on details, long on emotive prose.

    The article needn't have been so long. Sowell only makes two points in it: rationing and death panel.

    In so doing, he strikes the dirge of fear, the only tune the principled opposition knows these days. The GOP is as hysterical and shrill as the Dems were under Bush. Nice work, guys.
    Is there anything wrong with saying that there will be death panels? Is it lying?

  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "Is it lying"

    yes. It totally dishonest scare-mongering, like "mushroom clouds" from Saddam.

    there's plenty of death/disease/ -you-sickie now with for-profit insurance companies.

  6. #6
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    there's plenty of death/disease/ -you-sickie now with for-profit insurance companies.
    And putting government in control changes this how?

  7. #7
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,815
    Is there anything wrong with saying that there will be death panels? Is it lying?
    Not necessarily, but Sowell's suggestion that government bureaucrats will decide whether your granny lives or dies is fear-fapping and clearly misleading.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "putting government in control"

    changes nothing, as govt is already in control for 10s of millions under Medicare and Medicaid. All polls show users of Medicare/medicaid are happier than users of for-profit insurance.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Post Count
    1,476
    "Is it lying"

    yes. It totally dishonest scare-mongering, like "mushroom clouds" from Saddam.

    there's plenty of death/disease/ -you-sickie now with for-profit insurance companies.
    Yeah that fear mongering is fo shizzel. Like quadrupeling the national debt, and shoving legislation that nobody reads through congress to prevent WORLD WIDE collapse, or economic strong arming to prevent the all life from being destroyed by global warming.Or images or corpse strewn streets of the medically uninsured.

  10. #10
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    "putting government in control"

    changes nothing, as govt is already in control for 10s of millions under Medicare and Medicaid. All polls show users of Medicare/medicaid are happier than users of for-profit insurance.
    Of course they're happier. It's their turn to cash in on the ponzi scheme and the odds of them dying before it all falls apart are in their favor.

  11. #11
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    Short on details, long on emotive prose.
    I am biased because I like his style. I think from the basics we should be reminded why this is so bad to our culture and economy. Also "long of emotive prose" would be more on the other side. Obama and the Pelosi have been selling this social betterment. The Conservatives are the ones wanting to look at the numbers, while being called heartless, racist, and political the whole way.

  12. #12
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,815
    The Conservatives are the ones wanting to look at the numbers, while being called heartless, racist, and political the whole way.
    This article does the exact opposite.

  13. #13
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "this is so bad to our culture and economy"

    but for-profit insurance, BigPharma, and greedy doctors and hospitals are so good for our culture and economy.

  14. #14
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    "this is so bad to our culture and economy"

    but for-profit insurance, BigPharma, and greedy doctors and hospitals are so good for our culture and economy.
    Yes they are. What business is it of yours when others are making a profit?

  15. #15
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Post Count
    2,539
    Short on details, long on emotive prose.
    Interesting.

  16. #16
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Sowell is a liar. He's now officially as bad as any other liar in this debate.

  17. #17
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Post Count
    1,476
    Yes they are. What business is it of yours when others are making a profit?
    None but when they start buying congressmen, and directing policy,through said congressmen, well then it's time for the orange jumpsuits to get pulled out., But there's one law for the poor and no law for the rich.

  18. #18
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    "putting government in control"

    changes nothing, as govt is already in control for 10s of millions under Medicare and Medicaid. All polls show users of Medicare/medicaid are happier than users of for-profit insurance.
    Of course they are happy. They aren't paying for it.

  19. #19
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    Sowell is a liar. He's now officially as bad as any other liar in this debate.
    Anything specific he lied about?

  20. #20
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Anything specific he lied about?
    Death panels.

  21. #21
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    Here are some great Sowell quotes.

    The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best.

    What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.

    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.
    The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

  22. #22
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else’s opinion.

    Mystical references to “society” and its programs to “help” may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats.

  23. #23
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else’s opinion.

    Mystical references to “society” and its programs to “help” may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats.

  24. #24
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    What did he say that was a lie exactly?

  25. #25
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    What did he say that was a lie exactly?
    That there will be death panels.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •