Tag Archives: health care

Obamacare Continued

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

The Obamacare saga continues, with The New York Times reporting that many states lack the authority to enforce key provisions of the Health Care Reform Law. Michigan is one of those states.
When it comes to enforcing the new standards the States are expected to play the primary role – if they don’t the federal government will step in. What can states do if they do not currently have the power to enforce the health care law’s provisions? They could count on the goodwill of the insurance companies, rely on “persuasion” or general laws currently in place banning unfair practices. The other option? Make some more laws! Another increase in government power – exactly what we need.

Intentions still don’t equal outcomes

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Anthony Johnson, in his recent letter, writes of his family’s inability to pay for a checkup at the doctor (“Dire need for health care reform,” May 6).  After describing his family’s situation, he urges readers to spread the word in support of the most recent health care reform.

There are several people who, by no fault of their own, find themselves in similar difficult situations.  As individuals living in American civil society, we have continuously attempted to alleviate the suffering of fellow citizens in their respective times of need. 

In Anthony Johnson’s case, the debate is not between providing aid and not providing aid, but rather, choosing the most effective method of providing aid to his family.  Health care reform is one option.  Another option seldom discussed is reducing the number of costly government interventions in the health care industry that have unintentionally undermined the voluntary efforts of charity hospitals and other charity organizations.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is important to note that people on all sides of the argument have every intention of helping the poor.  The disagreements arise over the projected outcomes from various public policies.  Unfortunately for those stuck in difficult situations, several fellow Americans continue to equate intentions with outcomes.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Basic Data on Medical Costs

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

CPI – All Urban Consumers: Medical Care Costs (Click to enlarge graph)

Source: From BLS at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu (Check the two medical care boxes and then click retrieve data)

Next, compare this graph with the following timeline provided by PBS, which shows any significant changes in government policy that have traceable effects on the medical care industry: http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

Finally, draw your own conclusion.

Enjoy!

Equally Unequal

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Dr. Valeriy Ginzburg states in a recent letter that “the bills adopted by the Senate and the House probably represent the most fair way of covering the uninsured while spreading the costs in an equitable fashion.” (“Health care reform imperative,” February 5).

I respectively disagree.

If the bills adopted by the Senate and the House truly spread costs across society fairly, the respective number of pages for these bills would not surpass 10 pages. In other words, it would be simple to total all health care costs and divide them equally amongst the members of society. It is precisely because these bills favor particular classes of people over others that these bills are well over 1000 pages of elusive legal jargon.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Bought and paid for?

Posted on by razma766
2

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Dustin Anderson, a friend of mine, just submitted an excellent letter to the Midland Daily News:

To the editor:

    In a recent letter Susan Gessford stated, “If you are not bought and paid for by the insurance companies, you will agree with this and fight with me” (The only way, Sept. 29) in referencing the apparent need for single payer health care.

    I do not support single payer health care, so therefore I am bought and paid for by insurance industry? This is news to me. But by this logic it would appear that I am bought and paid for by the agriculture industry as I do not support a single payer meals program. I am bought and paid for by the apparel companies because I do not support a single payer clothing program. I surely must be bought and paid for by the home builders association since I do not support a single payer home program.

    In this debate, let us please stop with the ad hominems. Like any other good or service health care reacts to supply and demand. How is the demand for health care insurance any different?

    Instead what politicians have done is institute policies that have altered the supply and demand structure of this industry and have put into place barriers of entry that disallow people to come in and give care for cheaper (across state lines for example). If we wish to make health care cheaper, further distortions of supply and demand and creating a monopoly (read, further barriers to entry) is not the way toward real reform and cheaper health care.

DUSTIN ANDERSON

Health Care

Posted on by imhoffer
1

Letter to the Editor by Don Boudreaux

Health Care and the Value of Life
17 June 2009

News Editor, WWL Radio
New Orleans, LA

Dear Sir or Madam:

A listener called in today during the one o’clock hour to assert that “health care isn’t like other services” – and so it can’t be supplied reliably on the market because people are willing to “incur any cost to save their lives.”

First, if this assertion is true, it’s unclear how matters would be improved by socializing the payment of medical expenses. Second, everyday experience shows that this assertion, in fact, is false. If people really are desperate to save their lives at all costs, then everyone would exercise regularly, eat only healthy foods, and completely avoid rock climbing, horseback riding, snow skiing, and tanning booths. No one would smoke, drink to excess, or have unsafe sex. Women would never get pregnant, as there’s still some positive chance of dying while giving birth.

Unless and until people stop behaving in ways that reduce their life-expectancies, it’s mistaken to believe that each of us is committed to living longer at all costs.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

Spooky Logic

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

In a recent letter, Carol Buller states that “[p]remiums for individuals as well as out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments are often significantly higher than those of people who get insurance through group plans. This is not equal-opportunity insurance” (Make affordable care a reality, September 29).

If receiving a discount on bulk purchases of insurance is considered a violation of equal-opportunity insurance, I may be in trouble! I recently purchased candy in bulk for this upcoming Halloween season at a significantly lower per unit cost than the kid who purchased a single candy bar in the next checkout lane. I am clearly in violation of equal-opportunity candy!

Kurt Bouwhuis

Health Care Nonsense

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Carolyn Lutz recently stated in her letter on health care that “[a]ccess to appropriate care for everyone makes good sense. We all have a better chance of staying healthy if others in our community are kept as healthy as possible” (“Opportunity to be a leader,” September 20).

A potential improvement in health does not justify government in forcing individuals to devote more time or resources to health. If this logic were consistent, it would also be viable to enact a government mandate requiring everyone to eat healthy, exercise, and stop smoking.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Is Health Care a Human Right?

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern.

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Is Health Care a Human Right?

The revival of the idea of government run health care in the United States has once again ignited a debate over whether or not humans have a right to health care. In order to validate health care as a human right, it is necessary to understand the difference between negative rights and positive rights.

Negative rights are those which pertain to freedom from the uninvited interventions of others. Respect for negative rights require the inaction of the individuals around you, or put another way, require individuals to refrain from pushing other persons around. Examples of negative rights include property rights and the right to your own life.

Positive rights, on the other hand, require actions from other persons. Respect
for positive rights require an authority to force individuals (usually through taxes) to give up a portion of their property or lives in order to serve other persons. If positive rights are valid, no individual would be justified in refusing to service
the positive rights of others, nor would they be justified in opting out of their own positive rights. An example of a positive right is health care.

Unfortunately, if negative rights are valid, positive rights cannot be. If you truly have the right to your own life and your own property, there is no authority that can justly require you to sacrifice your own property or alter your own life goals in order to fulfill the rights of others.

The declaration of health care as a human right will result in further violations of every individual tax payer’s property rights by requiring the sacrifice of larger portions of income (property).

If nothing else, remember that an increase in positive rights will result in a loss of negative rights.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Source: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-perils-of-positive-rights/

Thievery Masquerading as Benevolence

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

In Anne Mowery’s letter on balanced reporting, she states “…I cannot, as a decent person, turn my back on those who have lost their jobs or have a pre-existing condition that prevents them from getting insurance at a reasonable rate, or denies them coverage.” (“Give us balance,” Sept. 1).

As I read this statement, I was inspired by what I felt was Anne’s heartfelt proposal to help these people in need with her own time and resources.

My sense of inspiration quickly diminished as I read the very next sentence: “I find it troublesome when you run all of your guest writers’columns slamming Obama and those who would try to help the people who need help in these tough economic times.”  Although I share Anne’s desire for balanced reporting, I oppose her and Obama’s approach to helping people.

It is inspirational to see individuals spend their own time and resources helping people in need.  It is upsetting to see individuals spend their own time and resources lobbying for the confiscation of other people’s money to fulfill the same end.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Profit is BAD – Sharing is GOOD

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here is a video I found on Michigan Liberal this morning that is rather interesting.  Although I enjoyed the graphics and short duration, it is a bit misleading and completely leaves out the notion of unintended consequences or the effects of current government regulations on our health care industry.  Aside from disregarding the complex web of government regulations that shape the industry we have today, the clip assures us that eliminating profits is a good idea.

The creator of this short clip suggests that profit is an added expense that could be used to provide more people with health care.  It seems plausible, but what purpose does profit serve? Aside from encouraging entrepreneurship and risk taking, it tells producers what people want. For example, suppose I am a the CEO of a medical insurance company with low deductibles. Additionally, suppose a new competitor enters the market and offers a high deductible insurance at a lower cost. Some consumers will likely choose to buy less of my insurance and more of the other insurance. These consumer choices become translated into a loss my insurance company and a profit for the new competitor. This economic activity is dynamic and guides the production of goods and the elimination of others.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to eliminate profits without eliminating the vital role it plays in conveying information between producers and consumers.

In the clip, Medicare is said to be a model program – The problem is, the future obligations are trillions of dollars in the red.

The “rationing” by private insurance companies could easily be reduced by competition (that is currently being restricted by government regulation).  If a company chooses to ration too much, a consumer could easily choose another company.  If government chooses to ration, consumers will have no choice but to stick with the government monopoly.

As a funny side note, the clip tells us to imagine what the world would be like with private fire insurance.  It is quite an easy world to imagine here in the United States because we have private fire insurance.  We do, however, have public fire protection.

Health Care – In a Nutshell

Posted on by razma766
Reply

nutshell

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

I initially found this post at Cafe Hayek.  Do not miss this superb article from the Atlantic by David Goldhill.  Here is an excerpt:

Indeed, I suspect that our collective search for villains—for someone to blame—has distracted us and our political leaders from addressing the fundamental causes of our nation’s health-care crisis. All of the actors in health care—from doctors to insurers to pharmaceutical companies—work in a heavily regulated, massively subsidized industry full of structural distortions. They all want to serve patients well. But they also all behave rationally in response to the economic incentives those distortions create. Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results. Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity, and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality. That result in a generational pyramid scheme rather than sustainable financing. And that—most important—remove consumers from our irreplaceable role as the ultimate ensurer