A View From The Press Box

For the sake all of us "Baby Boomers" who are now in the throes of the aging process, we all should be hoping that a politician of any party realizes the importance of a viable, accessible, well-staffed health system.

With statistics indicating longer life spans accompanied by dwindling pension plans, we might all end up thanking someone for the foresight of a universal health plan in some shape or form.

SAM RESPONDS:
Indeed. Once again the saying holds true--that the danger used to be dying too young, while now the concern is living too long!

If I wanted to read a liberal blog promoting Hillary Clinton, I would read the N.Y. Times (or any number of other print media).

Nothing scares me more than to see a broad push for government involvement in healthcare. Sure the current system is not perfect; that's because no one sees how much their healthcare costs.

Sam, you are actually advocating that government raise taxes to pay for universal healthcare, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that lower taxes spur economic growth (every time taxes are cut, Ttreasury receipts increase) and government is completely incompetent at efficiently running anything (think FEMA and Hurricane Katrina).

Why in God's name would we want to obligate the government to spend more money? The tax burden universal healthcare would impose would be the end of the USA's economic world dominance until both it and other socialist programs have been shut down.

Why do we have to revisit socialism every 10 years? Is world history not enough to show that capitalism, the key to a working democracy, is the best way for a country to be run--think USSR, Germany (East vs. West), 1970s' Britain (before Thatcher), present day Europe, etc., etc., etc.

The only time socialism has worked is when it is coupled with capitalism--as in China. I'll tell you in 25 years how long that has lasted.

And finally, the biggest problem our country currently faces is trying to pay for the current socialist programs we have in place--Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. We are going broke now in the only legal Ponzi scheme, and you want to INCREASE obligatory government spending?

I'm leaving you with two quotes from Ronald Reagan:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
--Ronald Reagan

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
--Ronald Reagan

SAM RESPONDS:
This time around, Hillary is bending over backwards to incorporate private carriers among the choices her reform plan would offer. I do not believe she is going back down the road of single-payer again...

Also, I would hate to think what America would have been like without Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Perhaps like sections of India, with desperately poor people from all age groups living in the streets. All three have very successfully eradicated poverty in the U.S., and allowed people to have access to decent healthcare while retaining their dignity.

This doesn't mean the private sector is frozen out. We have excess coverage to complement Medicare, and a plethora of retirement products to supplement Social Security. But at least we offer a safety net so people have a foundation to stand on.

The U.S. tax system is one of the lightest in the world. (Actually, the price we pay for gasoline is about the lowest among the Western countries as well, yet we never stop whining about that, either.)

JARED GETS THE LAST WORD:
As you so adequately pointed out, Social Security and Medicare are not sufficient to satisfy our needs without the private markets to round them out.

While having some sort of safety net has without question been good for Americans, founding that safety net on unsound financial principles will only lead to higher taxes and slower economic growth down the road.

We can keep sticking the government with bills we don't want to pay, but it will eventually catch up to us. The reason our country has been so dominant economically has a lot to do with the fact that our tax revenue is around 27% of Gross Domestic Product. Raising taxes to pay for benefits will only lead to slower economic growth.

Just like turning in small claims to an insurance company, benefits from the government cost more than what we get back. How much does a $1 benefit from the government cost: $1.50 or $2.00? We call this $2 when encouraging our clients not to turn in small claims.

Any time we allow our government to give us benefits we give up some of our freedom. How long will it be before we are 'taxing' obese people to help pay for their higher healthcare costs? What about having a surcharge for smokers?

As soon as I accept benefits from the government, the government has the right to tell me what I can and can't do. It is for the greater good that I weight between 150-220 pounds. Otherwise, I'm costing the government more money.

And finally, we have to 'trust' Hillary that she has properly calculated the cost of universal healthcare (I would add at least 20% to her estimate), that she is not pushing for a single-payer system, and that she knows better than everyone else involved on how to run the system.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Wow! Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are "socialism"? Last time I checked, private health care providers deliver the services paid for by Medicare and Medicaid. That's not socialism; it's government-provided insurance, which is not the same thing.

If the private insurers had been providing coverage for the poor and elderly, no one would ever have asked for these programs.

Actually, we have an example of socialized medicine in this country--it's called the Veterans Administration, whose facilities are owned and operated by the federal government, and whose caregivers are government employees.

The scandalous conditions at Walter Reed notwithstanding, the VA has a good reputation for its care of our veterans. Would Jared really want to see that system privatized?

I lose patience with those who warn about the supposed dangers of universal health insurance and who tout the advantages of the "free" market. We have the free market now, and it's failing nearly 50 million Americans completely and many more at least partially.

The study of economics tells us that free markets will ultimately produce efficient outcomes. However, "efficient" doesn't necessarily equate to "positive" results for those who need health care.

The current system may well be more efficient than one where the government has an increased role, but our goal should be to provide for the common good, and that means finding some way to give everyone access to affordable health insurance.

Ideally, the free market would accomplish this, but it hasn't yet and I doubt it ever will. It's time to try something new.

Never one to promote government interference in private industry,I still see the advantages of a health system that benefits everyone--not only those fortunate enough to be able to pay a significant premium.

As a Canadian who benefits from such a system, I fail to comprehend the adversity to same.

Taxes are being spent on a whole lot of less wothwhile pork barrel projects annually.

While I agree that government programs can and should be run more efficiently, surely a "leading economic power" can meet the needs of all its citizens. I don't think that's socialism--just common sense.

Just as a followup to Tim Dodge's comment, Walter Reed is NOT a VA facility--it is run by the U.S. Army rather than the Veteran's Administration.

However, I fully agree with Tim's points on the VA. Having used the VA for many years, they are effective, generally efficient and render great care to most of the people I know or who have had contact with.

Yes, there are some who complain, but then again, there are those who complain about the Mayo Clinic as well.

I agree this proves the government can run a healthcare system, but will they? One test for the VA will be the adding of the Priority 8 veterans into the system, and see how they handle the estimated hundred-million vets who will then have access to the VA if they so choose to pay a portion of their healthcare.

That should give some idea of how a government-run system will bog down as millions are added to the rolls. However, many expect most of the Priority 8 vets not to bother to use the VA if they already have private health coverage, so the effects could end up being minimal. Time and the economy will tell.

Unfortunately, pork barrel politics can, and will, get in the way of a successful system, and all the maneuvering for who gets what and where will create the fatal demise of not only the system, but also many of the patients along the way.

Politicians have a way of talking a great game before elections, but can't get the goods on the table in a palatable manner afterwards.

Just my opinion, but Hillary couldn't even successfully deal with Bill, so how can she handle anything else that has to do with truth and sincerity?

SAM RESPONDS:
Who says Hillary couldn't "deal successfully" with Bill? In a troubled marriage, some people choose to stay and fight to maintain the union--isn't that what "family values" are all about?

Also, it's impossible to pass judgment on another's marital situation. Perhaps there was some "understanding"--even an "open" marriage.

In any case, I can't see judging any politician by how they handle their marriage or kids--hardly anyone would get elected if they had to meet those stringent standards.

Sam, does this not mean the life-health side of our industry becomes life only?

I don't know of a single person over 65 who likes the way Medicare is handled. Will there still be supplemental policies sold by private industry?

Let's hope we can still have creative, market-driven incentives and innovations delivered by the private sector as well.

SAM RESPONDS:

Excellent point, Bill! One of the reasons I spend so much time on this subject, despite being a "p-c" guy, is that any universal health plan, I would think, would take out the medical portions of workers' comp and auto insurance. Would all of you folks out there agree??? (Might be good fodder for another blog entry!)

As for supplemental coverage, I would say, why not? If you can afford more than the basic minimum, go for it.

However, I believe that in Canada (and please correct me if I am wrong), such supplemental coverage is not permitted...

You have good points, Sam. Perhaps I expect much more from a politician than they expect of me. All they want is my money and my vote.

I expect high morals, veracity, honest public service and openness in their dealings with their constituency and others.

Guess I should be headed to Disneyland with those ideals!!!

In response to Tim's comments:

Any time you hit the government with the final bill on any service provided and leave out the consideration of profit/insurability/competition, then we take the market forces out of play that can force private enterprise to become more profitable, competitive and efficient. That is not capitalism. You are using the government to provide benefits. What is it?

I will say without hesitation that our nation's military is the overwhelming exception to the government's typical inefficiency and lack of ability to manage bureaucracy, though some would disagree with me.

And finally, we don't have the free market now.

We have a system where no one has really sees what they are charged for medical services (unless they are in the insurance industry and pay attention). In our system the individual receiving the service goes where his insurance will pay, regardless of the skill of the provider or the ability of the doctors to heal.

But this discussion is not solving the problems of the cost of medical care and the fact that some people don't have it.

Adding an infinitely large tax burden to the government may solve the problem, but the inherit inefficiency in the government will lead to bigger problems later on.

Here are the specific issues:

1. Why is medical care so expensive? What can we do to lower medical costs?

2. How can we cover the uninsured without assuming unlimited government obligatory spending?

3. Which uninsured should the government provide for? (Keep in mind the number of illegal immigrants included in the number of uninsured. Is it our government's responsibility to provide healthcare for citizens of another country?)

And Marc, in a parting shot, if Canada's healthcare is so great, why do Canadians come to the U.S. for healthcare?

We are getting distracted by those politicians who want more tax money to spend and not addressing the root problems of the healthcare issue.

I only want to throw in two-cents worth on this.

1) When I first heard Hillary's "plan," the most striking part was that the sick should not have to pay more than anyone else. Does this make sense to anybody?

To use a P&C example, I don't think I should pay the same homeowners rate for my $140,000 home in Missouri as Senator Lott pays for his multi-million dollar "summer place" on the Mississippi coast.

2) For the person who asked why "medical care is so expensive," I ask the question I have never heard anyone else ask: Why is there regulation on insurance, tort reform, HIPPA and a multitude of other areas, but no one has ever regulated the amount doctors and caregivers can charge for their services?

I find it a little ridiculous that it costs me $250 just to walk into my doctor's lobby, and then shoots to $500 if I actually get to talk with him personally for three minutes.

There's my two-cents worth.

I think the problem with health care in this country is the involvement of the insurance industry. It just doesn't make any sense to have private companies that are motivated not to pay for health services.

Doctors are drowning in administration, both in terms of malpractice, but also in having to file claims with insurance companies.

There was an article about Quakers in Pennsylvania--they pay cash and negotiate up front on prices from hospitals, and what they pay for services is A LOT LESS than what my insurance company pays for the same service.

Someone answer the why of that, and how creating a nationalized health care system similar to Social Security wouldn't potentially create efficiencies.

Granted, I think there is a potential role for health insurance companies in terms of bidding for work and leveraging their expertise, but let's stop calling it insurance. To me, insurance is something you hope you never have to collect on.