It's a classic story really.
Due to crazy rumors of government run death panels, man goes to passionately protest the new health care legislation.
Man gets into fight with local union members in favor of universal health care.
Man hurts his leg.
Because of some recent economic hardship, man has no health insurance so he must take up a collection with his fellow protesters.
The people who are so unwilling to save 50 million people from high health care costs are more than willing to save one.
We love our irony (see AP story).
When we talk about one person not getting access to health care, it is easy to get behind the movement. When we talk about 50 million, it is much easier to be selfish--in fact we often look for ANY reason to be selfish. Any at all. Even reasons that are untrue. Why should 50 million people get something? What about me?
It is the problem with numbers. Obama needs to focus this debate on the individual level. Forget about broad goals. Put a face to this legislation. Forget the techno-jargon. There are people that truly need help and that point is getting lost in death panels and socialism.
We need a poster child for health care reform. Call it cheap ploy, but it will help people understand what is at stake. Because what is at stake has nothing to do with whether a government bureaucrat is going to euthanize my grandmother.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Limits of Equality
“A society that wishes to be both ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, wants what never was, and never will be.”
—Thomas Jefferson
I am dedicated to the concept of equality in modern society. I have my own vision of what the manifestations of that equality should look like, but most of us would probably agree on the basic principles.
There is, however, something sinister lurking about in American society: the equality of opinion.
Sure, everyone's vote should be counted equally. Sure, everyone should be paid the same for the same work. However, if someone is poorly informed, that opinion should be discounted. Even better, that person should elect to pipe down and retain some dignity.
It's too bad that something as stupid as "keep your government hands off my Medicare" does not stand out these days. It's even worse to think a person like that would not have enough self-respect to keep his mouth shut. Sadly, even the most obtuse detritus is given full merit in a society ruled by gut reactions and gladiatorial debate.
So much for free speech in America.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Death ANDTaxes. . .
Life's little inevitabilities. . . now BOTH are brought to you be your friendly neighborhood government--yippee!
And now to the question of costs. Unfortunately, you are correct that having a public option is very expensive and Medicare costs appear to be on a endless upward trajectory as many of those boomers live well into their eighties and nineties. Being the biggest buyer of health care provides the government with a lot of clout over prices, but ultimately the government still has to come up with the cash. As government becomes a larger part of the market it must force suppliers to be more efficient through regulations and, at the same time, it must make sure that private insurance companies do not pawn off it's sick patrons.
As a buyer, government can regulate, but enforcement can be difficult. As a seller, the government controls the means of production and the costs directly. Maybe Marx's was right, socialized medicine is inevitable. But it's more than inevitable, it is already here. In fact, it's how we provide medical services to all of our serving men and women in the military.
If socialized medicine is bad, why do we insist on giving it to our men and women in uniform?
For one thing, ex-military people tend to have a lot of medical issue so no one is willing to do it at a reasonable price. Therefore, the government must provide the good. Is this some sort of vast socialist conspiracy? No. Not really. The government provides health care to soldiers because it is the right thing to do. And while the market does do a lot of things well, providing health care to our fellow service men and women is not one of them. The government can do the same for the rest of its citizens and at a cheaper cost than being just a big buyer.
The time will come when health care will be a lot like education. Everyone gets the health care equivalent of a high school diploma, but you can still buy a private school experience if you would like. That is, if you don't like waiting in line (By the way, I am in total agreement about your view of lines) .
Will we all die at the hands of the government in this system? Yes. But we will all die eventually. Besides, who would you rather have as an advocate during you last days: a corporate executive or your first grade teacher?
Socialism is for medicine. Capitalism is for Wall Street. Let's get it right people.
And now to the question of costs. Unfortunately, you are correct that having a public option is very expensive and Medicare costs appear to be on a endless upward trajectory as many of those boomers live well into their eighties and nineties. Being the biggest buyer of health care provides the government with a lot of clout over prices, but ultimately the government still has to come up with the cash. As government becomes a larger part of the market it must force suppliers to be more efficient through regulations and, at the same time, it must make sure that private insurance companies do not pawn off it's sick patrons.
As a buyer, government can regulate, but enforcement can be difficult. As a seller, the government controls the means of production and the costs directly. Maybe Marx's was right, socialized medicine is inevitable. But it's more than inevitable, it is already here. In fact, it's how we provide medical services to all of our serving men and women in the military.
If socialized medicine is bad, why do we insist on giving it to our men and women in uniform?
For one thing, ex-military people tend to have a lot of medical issue so no one is willing to do it at a reasonable price. Therefore, the government must provide the good. Is this some sort of vast socialist conspiracy? No. Not really. The government provides health care to soldiers because it is the right thing to do. And while the market does do a lot of things well, providing health care to our fellow service men and women is not one of them. The government can do the same for the rest of its citizens and at a cheaper cost than being just a big buyer.
The time will come when health care will be a lot like education. Everyone gets the health care equivalent of a high school diploma, but you can still buy a private school experience if you would like. That is, if you don't like waiting in line (By the way, I am in total agreement about your view of lines) .
Will we all die at the hands of the government in this system? Yes. But we will all die eventually. Besides, who would you rather have as an advocate during you last days: a corporate executive or your first grade teacher?
Socialism is for medicine. Capitalism is for Wall Street. Let's get it right people.
Too much health?
Yes, it is probably much better for us to tackle some of the individual problems of health care individually before attempting to unfurl master plans. It'll be much more interesting to ready, anyway.
First, I would like to point out that all of the challenges a universal health care system would face are very much present in our current system. Limited resources (beds, doctors, etc.) is a problem in the current system and are often rationed by paper pushers at your local HMO office. One can circumvent the process by paying for better insurance that gives more freedom, but the prices still go up if you choose to visit a relatively scarce expert like a specialist. And Steve Jobs recently reminded us that those with a private jet have a much better chance of finding a short line for that much needed organ transplant.
So let's make one thing clear: abuses and shortcomings of universal health care are really no different than those found in the current system. We're just making money less influential. It's an imperfect system for the masses rather than an ideal system for the few. But in a political system that is supposed to favor the majority, a new health care system should be a foregone conclusion.
But what to do?
Let's start by embracing the concept of government oversight. In the current market system, we hold our medical suppliers accountable through the legal system. If a doctor kills me through neglect (denial of services) or incompetence (faulty product) then my family can sue. Bad doctors are slowly removed from the system through the compilation of malpractice suits. Insurance companies, though much harder to get at, are also subject to these reviews. Government oversight is alive and well, only it takes place after the damage is done. In contrast, a universal health care system could allow for the speedy removal of inattentive or ineffective doctors. Even better, medical decisisons would not be based on the financial choices of the greedy few.
The key thing to realize in all of this is that health care is not the standard widget used in Economics. Health care is a means, not an end. When I purchase a new car, I know what I am getting, what the expectations are, and I can return the car if the promised results don't come to fruition. Health care, on the other hand, is intended to provide health, something it may or may not achieve. In either case, I can hardly "return" the care given to me if it fails to make me feel better. Doctors can't promise that a chronic condition will be cured or mitigated by the prescribed treatment. There are no knowns in the equation, and the all-powerful rational choice is denied to the consumer. Tell me, are there means for the economists to explain transactions in which so little is known by either party about the product exchanged?
Lines are the stuff nightmares are made of, but what's the harm? I don't think that medical services would be distributed on a first-come-first-serve basis, actually. Those seeking medical treatment would be evaluated at the first tier of the system. My itchy buttock would be deemed less crucial than your faulty heart valve, and I'd be in line after you. Presumably, you could visit your doctor 2 days after I did and still make it in line for treatment ahead of me. While my itchy buttock is frustrating, I daresay that I believe you should be ahead of me in line. But that supposes I value my community in a way that many Americans clearly do not.
So lines are precisely the way you address the issue, and to everyone's benefit. Yes, I have to wait for you to get heart surgery, but I also know that I'll be at the front of the line when my illness is life threatening. It's a concept so simple, so steeped in a basic fairness, that children would have implemented it long ago.
Such a system requires substantial resources, something I'm rather concerned about. How are we to fund such an enterprise, Anonymous Economist? Can we continue to assert international dominance and build such a comprehensive health care system at home? Must we keep our beating hearts wed to the market system if we are to survive?
First, I would like to point out that all of the challenges a universal health care system would face are very much present in our current system. Limited resources (beds, doctors, etc.) is a problem in the current system and are often rationed by paper pushers at your local HMO office. One can circumvent the process by paying for better insurance that gives more freedom, but the prices still go up if you choose to visit a relatively scarce expert like a specialist. And Steve Jobs recently reminded us that those with a private jet have a much better chance of finding a short line for that much needed organ transplant.
So let's make one thing clear: abuses and shortcomings of universal health care are really no different than those found in the current system. We're just making money less influential. It's an imperfect system for the masses rather than an ideal system for the few. But in a political system that is supposed to favor the majority, a new health care system should be a foregone conclusion.
But what to do?
Let's start by embracing the concept of government oversight. In the current market system, we hold our medical suppliers accountable through the legal system. If a doctor kills me through neglect (denial of services) or incompetence (faulty product) then my family can sue. Bad doctors are slowly removed from the system through the compilation of malpractice suits. Insurance companies, though much harder to get at, are also subject to these reviews. Government oversight is alive and well, only it takes place after the damage is done. In contrast, a universal health care system could allow for the speedy removal of inattentive or ineffective doctors. Even better, medical decisisons would not be based on the financial choices of the greedy few.
The key thing to realize in all of this is that health care is not the standard widget used in Economics. Health care is a means, not an end. When I purchase a new car, I know what I am getting, what the expectations are, and I can return the car if the promised results don't come to fruition. Health care, on the other hand, is intended to provide health, something it may or may not achieve. In either case, I can hardly "return" the care given to me if it fails to make me feel better. Doctors can't promise that a chronic condition will be cured or mitigated by the prescribed treatment. There are no knowns in the equation, and the all-powerful rational choice is denied to the consumer. Tell me, are there means for the economists to explain transactions in which so little is known by either party about the product exchanged?
Lines are the stuff nightmares are made of, but what's the harm? I don't think that medical services would be distributed on a first-come-first-serve basis, actually. Those seeking medical treatment would be evaluated at the first tier of the system. My itchy buttock would be deemed less crucial than your faulty heart valve, and I'd be in line after you. Presumably, you could visit your doctor 2 days after I did and still make it in line for treatment ahead of me. While my itchy buttock is frustrating, I daresay that I believe you should be ahead of me in line. But that supposes I value my community in a way that many Americans clearly do not.
So lines are precisely the way you address the issue, and to everyone's benefit. Yes, I have to wait for you to get heart surgery, but I also know that I'll be at the front of the line when my illness is life threatening. It's a concept so simple, so steeped in a basic fairness, that children would have implemented it long ago.
Such a system requires substantial resources, something I'm rather concerned about. How are we to fund such an enterprise, Anonymous Economist? Can we continue to assert international dominance and build such a comprehensive health care system at home? Must we keep our beating hearts wed to the market system if we are to survive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)