This is going back about 10 or 15 years to the time of Hilary Clinton's failed attempts at nationalizing the US health care system.
At the time, a friend of mine and I decided to attend a Town Meeting on socialized health care scheduled by a US Representative from a district in the city of Chicago. Can't remember the rep's name (she was that memorable), and she's not in office anymore. I think she was gerrymandered out.
Anyway, it was an open meeting. The public was invited to give their views on socializing the health care industry. So my friend and I decided to go and maybe hear some interesting proposals and/or ask some thoughtful questions.
Maybe about 100 people showed up. They were mostly ordinary citizens, maybe a couple local ward bosses, who knows? We all sat down in a kind of stadium-type setting in a school auditorium.
So the US Rep got up to introduce herself and to begin the discussion. She said quite plainly, "We aren't here to discuss IF we're going to have universal health care. We're here to discuss HOW to make it happen."
My friend and I left. What's the point? The Rep didn't want to hear any point of view but her own. She wanted applause, not a discussion; a fan club, not free citizens with minds of their own.
Had a major flashback on this whole event today, listening to Barack Obama addressing his Health Care Summit or Preaching to the Choir event in Washington DC.
He said basically that all voices will be heard, all suggestions considered... except the status quo.
OK. So then I started wondering, Well who the heck is at this meeting? I called the Cato Institute, which is a highly-respected free market think tank. They weren't even invited.
I was going to call the American Enterprise Institute -- also leaning toward free markets and capitalism -- and The Heritage Foundation, which is conservative. Before I did, though, I found a list of the people who are attending the conference. It was on the CBS News web site today, but they've since taken it down. Don't know why. (I cut and pasted the list, though. It's too long to post here, but anyone who wants a copy, I'll happily email it to them if they make a request through the "Comments.")
Anyway, they're all 1.) Politicians, mostly Democrats; 2.) Union people; 3.) Community organizers; 4.) Some people from insurance companies; 5.) Even fewer people from business and commercial organizations. They were also assigned to attend various break-out sessions, which means they're divided up and segregated, each to focus on their own topic. Gee, that sounds so free and easy, doesn't it? So open to all sides.
The Voice of the People at this conference is apparently represented by the community organizers, largely the "We Demand Our Fair Share" crowd, groups who regard themselves as victims of one kind or another. Probably Obama's most loyal constituency, since this is his own professional background.
Hmmmm.... Wonder what kind of solutions they'll come up with. Maybe... Socializing the health care industry? Do ya think?
But who's going to pay for it? Surely not the small minority of business people who were attending or the three or four Republicans. They can't afford it all by themselves.
But here's a better question: Why do people think socialized health care is a good idea?
Obama himself says that people can still keep their private policies and that businesses and labor unions can still provide group policies.
Think they will? When health care is "FREE"? Medicare was only supposed to cover the elderly who didn't have health care coverage in their pension plans, or who couldn't afford private policies. That was in 1964. Do you know any person over 65 years of age nowadays who isn't registered for Medicare? Know of any insurance companies that will insure anyone 65+, except at truly exhorbitant rates, which means private insurance for seniors is available only to the very, very rich.
How stupid does Obama et. al. think we are? (Well, I think that's pretty obvious. He assumes our IQs are roughly equal to those of cinder blocks.)
And why would anyone want socialized medicine?
In Chicago, there's Cook County Hospital, which is "FREE" for the indigent, etc. When I was in college, a fellow student who had no insurance went down to County for one thing or another. She reported what she learned from the experience: "You really have to get to the Emergency Room by about 3:30 in the morning if you want to see a doctor that day."
That's in the Emergency Room. We can only wonder how long the wait is for non-emergency care. Bring a sandwich, and a pillow and blanket.
And Cook County as a whole is nearly bankrupt... hangin' on by a slim financial thread and, I'm sure, right now drooling with anticipation of getting its Fair Share from the Stimulus Package.
I'm told of a friend of a friend in Canada who needs surgery. Canada has socialized health care. His operation has been scheduled for nine months hence, the earliest slot available. And he tells me that in Canada, most of the hospitals aren't even open year-round, rather only a few months out of the year. And that Windsor, Ontario, has an arrangement with Detroit, Michigan, whereby Windsor sends it pregnant mums to the USA for routine prenatal care. Detroit health care providers are re-imbursed, but this is all because Ontario can't handle the patient load and, unfortunately, babies won't wait any longer than nine months to be born.
Anyone remember the Brain Drain? This was during the 1960s and 1970s when European nations were getting their nationalized health care programs going. A good many of their doctors -- and many of their best -- came to the USA. Europe resented the hell out of the USA for that. I've been told that many of those doctors who didn't want to abandon their homelands for freedom to practice medicine, opted instead to take teaching positions, or they left the medical profession all together.
If the USA socializes its health care industry, where will the doctors go? Or maybe they won't be so willing to spend 12 or 16 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on an education. Maybe they'll just all become cab drivers or something. Or join the UAW or SEIU.
Yeah. Socialized health care is so inspiring, isn't it?
As far as controlling health care costs.... Well, look at the charts and graphs on nationwide health care costs from the 1960s. They were kind of level and flat, maybe a slow upward creep, until 1965 -- when Medicare went into operation. Then the costs shoot straight up like a rocket.
Did the over-65 crowd, suddenly fall ill all together? No. But now health care was "FREE" for them. And the government has had to back down on that significantly. Now seniors have to pay some of the costs for the services they receive, and they're strongly advised to buy "supplemental" insurance to plug in the holes that Medicare can no longer accommodate.
And while you're at those government web sites checking out Medicare costs, you might also want to take a look at GDP and the federal budget. "FREE" government-supported health care consumes about 70% of the federal budget... Even though it only covers certain segments of the population, and only partially covers their expenses.
In addition, in the days when Medicare was chugging along at full tilt, many states, including Illinois, established Medicaid programs for welfare families and indigents, etc. The costs became so outa-control the federal government just had to step in to "cap" the costs. For example, suppose you need an X-ray. The hospital's actual cost for doing the X-ray might be $100, which includes the cost for running the machine, the cost of a technician's labor, the use of the room and lead vests, etc.
OK. So the feds decided to pay $80 for an X-ray. After all, those greedy money-grubbing hospitals were probably exaggerating everything just to make money, right?
No. Not really. The hospitals really do have to pay for their machines and equipment, and they really do have to pay technicians. So, if they were forced to take $80 for doing an X-ray for a Medicare/Medicaid patient, they were losing $20 on every procedure.
Where do they get the money to make up for that? Ask the technicians to take a cut in pay? Pencil-sketch "guesstimates" of the patient's insides instead of using machines?
They do cost-shifting. That is, they charge patients with private insurance $120 for an X-ray to compensate for their losses and cover their costs. And the ultimate consequence of the federal caps was that about a dozen inner-city hospitals in Chicago completely shut down. They served largely a Medicare/Medicaid clientele and didn't have enough patients with private insurance to gouge in order to make ends meet. Those hospitals are just gone.
Another sorry consequence: The costs for private insurance carriers ballooned up, but who cares? Corporations pay for that, right? Or rich people. Who gives a damn what happens to them? They don't count. They aren't victims.
So, think about this: Socializing the entire health care industry -- making health care "FREE" for a large segment of the US population -- will tend to put private insurance pretty much out of business. Who's going to pay for Medicare/Medicaid then?
Do you feel a MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR tax increase coming on? Or, what the heck, maybe Communist China will kick in another few billion to keep the USA viable. Whaddaya think?
However, we aren't entirely without alternatives. Yet another friend of mine needed surgery. She asked her doctor about costs. He said the procedure usually ran about $8,000 to $10,000. Being a savvy free-market person, she asked the doctor, "What if I pay you cash instead going through the insurance company?"
She got the surgery for $4,000, and the doctor threw in a few little freebies, too. He said it was worth it, to save him the paper work and the wait for payment from an insurance company.
But Obama's health care conference doesn't really include many voices from the free market. Apparently he doesn't want the free market to handle it. By definition, the free market can't be bullied and controlled, sliced, diced, or "capped", and it can't compel highly-qualified professionals to work for minimum wage. We certainly can't allow that sort of thing in a free country, can we? I mean, where would it end? Efficiency? Low-costs? Universal accessibility? Quality care for the truly indigent through private charity? What a freakin' nightmare!
No, Obama's right... The shut-up-and-pay-only-I-know-what's-good-for-you Democrat Process works much better for everyone. Right? (Say "yes" right now to avoid a confrontation with Nancy Pelosi.)
No comments:
Post a Comment