Today, the big news in the media was the “non-partisan” Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) preliminary report. This report suggested that the Democrats’ socialized medicine proposal would reduce the national deficit. For the moment, let’s forget that the CBO did not grade the actual bill because the actual bill had not been released. Also, let’s forget that this optimistic estimation of the bill’s costs was almost certainly wrong. For the moment, let’s simply consider the failed logic behind such a dumb selling point.
ANY proposal involving cuts to spending (i.e., to Medicare), combined with tax increases, would reduce the deficit. For crying out loud, what a non-story! Even if the socialized healthcare takeover did reduce the deficit (which it won’t), we could reduce the deficit even more by cutting those same costs, jacking up those same taxes, and NOT crippling the medical industry.
Think about the problematic logic this way: If Uncle Sam suddenly seized 100% of every citizen’s assets, would that increase or decrease the budget deficit? Despite the improved budget, would the country be better off?
To put things simply, even if the government were made financially better off by this bill (which it won’t be), the people will be worse off. The people will be forced to buy insurance they didn’t choose while subsidizing all the leeches in society who themselves are also forced to “buy” insurance they didn’t choose. And aside from the usual government waste, the taxpayers will be forced to fund the slaughter of unborn babies. (And if I took the least bit of effort, I could probably list several other troubling issues with this legislation, but suffice it to say all the different, conflicting hidden bills and amendments have confused the heck out of me.) So whether Uncle Sam is better off or not under this socialist scheme, American society will verge on collapse. Think about that, non-partisan CBO!
I’m going to play “devil’s advocate” again…
I was ready to disagree with the initial assertions until I realized the word being used is “deficit” instead of the word “debt.” This country needs to do MORE than decrease the amount that we OVERSPEND in a fiscal year. Let’s keep in mind that, like in any household, ANY “deficit” that is greater than 0 is counterproductive when it comes to decreasing debt which SHOULD be the goal.
I keep hearing that the health-care reform will NOT use tax dollars to fund abortions. Since it is impossible to find something that isn’t there, I’d like someone to point out where the bill allocates taxes to be used for abortion or simply stop making the claim. We know media distort the truth often so lets look at the source. It’s amazing how quickly we forget what schools taught us about referencing reliable sources.
Keep in mind that subsidizing health-care costs is the way insurance works anyway. My question is how much will a citizen need to be considered covered? How much will insurance policies theoretically drop in price because more people are in it?
IMHO I think the cost of health-care needs to be MORE visible to the average American. The way our health care works is that most of the costs are hidden from those that benefit and therefore the price charged is inflated enormously above the actual cost. This has resulted in health care being so expensive. Since nearly no one pays out-of-pocket the supply demand curve is shifted, maximizing the costs of health-care.
Perhaps if there were no insurance companies individuals would be more conscious of not only their health spending but also their health knowing that it is not worth it to live an unhealthy lifestyle as we Americans are known to live. Lets face it many if not most American’s put their health in the hands of the health INDUSTRY and and the cost of their health in the hands of insurance INDUSTRY. One problem, industries are out to maximize profits not health.
Profits are used for tools for food, tools for building, food, and everything known to man. Profits = good. I’m rather tired of hearing “profit” used in a bad way.
Now that may seem unrelated to my next comment but it’s not. Government has costs. No matter what. Socialist programs etc. Socialist programs allow for no profit. AKA. additional tools for building, expansion, food, techonology which could benefit health, etc. Also: You have no clue the way insurance works. It pools risk, but it also invests and uses it’s profits for it’s products and to bring down premiums. You might be pessimistic enough to think otherwise, however I’m in insurance. There is an expense ratio, which is FAR lower than a government could EVER make it. The reason? They use profits from INVESTMENT and other methods outside of premium. Government has EXPENSES and costs built from PUBLIC dollars, which come from PRIVATE dollar taxes. Do you understand why that doesn’t work? I really don’t have to explain it further other than the insurance company could earn nearly tripple profits and still pay out more than government. Period. It’s a bad idea to have the government handle it. Washington state is monopolistic for workers compensation. This means the government already does not allow insurance from private companies. Guess what happens? I’ll give you a hint: 30% of claims are paid out roughtly, and the premiums are about FOUR HUNDRED percent higher.
Government ran healthcare, socialized healthcare, will never, and can never work.
If you are naive enough to try and pencil out “what ifs” then look at “what is” with medicare, vs privitzied medicare alternates and the pay out rate. Look at social security, when compared to insurance coverages which do the same thing. You might pay out longer with insurance, but you get your money back ten fold. Let’s just say someone like me has alzheimers in the family. Social securty kicks you out of assisted living one you “plateau”. This means you lose benefits in less than 12 months in most real world cases. The cost of alzheimer’s care is EXTREME. The government CANNOT take care of it. However, I could go over exactly how you would have money left over for your kids if you went the private route, you’d be taken care of, the insurance company would have profits (aka money for employees, to be dispersed to everyone else in the world) and the economy would actaully grow without any possibility of public deficits. There is NO reason to put government into healthcare. None.
Industries are out to maximize profits by selling health to people who are seeking to maximize health per dollar. So in the end, health gets maximized. It’s wrong to say that insurance subsidizes anyone. Health insurance, in the absence of government coercion, is merely a contract to spread risk around. That’s why it’s wrong to force companies to sell “insurance” to people who are already ill. If you were actually to sell insurance to someone already sick, it should cost the same as the person would spend getting treated by a doctor. But of course, once the government gets involved it winds up costing the sick deadbeat less than that. Hence the term “subsidy.”
Numerous House Democrats are planning to vote against the bill because it funds abortions.
Your point about deficits is a good and concise one, although my post would actually work even if the CBO had used the term “debt.” That’s because my two points were that 1) helping the budget a little isn’t the same as helping it completely, the way it should be helped, and that 2) helping the congressional budget isn’t the same as helping the American people.
.-= Drew´s last blog ..Handguns for all! =-.
I don’t agree with your first paragraph because the model is not INDUSTRY to individual, it is INDUSTRY to individual to INDUSTRY.
Health care prices vary from hospital to hospital when it should be fixed. Doctor’s salaries are padded to hide malpractice insurance costs, another hidden yet artificial cost (my wife is one year away from her D.O. degree). Similar costs are included in the prices of medicine and products used in and outside of the hospital. The health industries (hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals, etc), in addition to the hidden costs, (necessarily) lay profit on top of the price tag.
Of course, if individuals paid the price tag I would agree that they would try to minimize the cost of their health. However, individuals instead buy insurance to guarantee they can inexpensively pay for expensive health coverage. The reason why it works is because the average “healthy” persons health costs is exceeded dramatically by BOTH the amount the individual actually pays (which is typically also hidden as it is NOT included in the individual take salary) and the the amount of coverage promised. Once again, profit (necessarily) is laid on top on the insurance company’s actual costs.
Not to mention that doctors and patients often order unnecessary drugs, procedures, etc that probably would not be ordered if the costs weren’t hidden from them.
Long story short, this is a model that encourages all the players involved to allow and sometimes ignore the soaring costs although every player is looking for a great deal (or profit).
Subsidize is probably the wrong word, so I retract.
Numerous House Democrats [say they] are planning to vote against the bill because [they say] it funds abortions. I can agree with that statement as fact. However, I’m still looking for a direct reference to the bill which is supposed to be publicly available.
I see your major point regarding the deficit. However, the CBO could not substitute the word “debt” because “debt” is not decreased unless inflows exceed outflows. The “deficit” can be lowered without this condition.
We truly stand on a precipice tonight. The progressives have the votes. The CBO numbers are a mirage. Like computers, they simply spit out info based on the input they receive. The truth is that the medicare cuts to Doctors and hospitals alone will put the bill in the red.
All the talk about the numbers are a veil for the real issue: a massive increase in government control over our individual lives, and an equally massive decrease in individual freedom.
.-= Mark´s last blog ..Tea Party Misbehavior =-.
The bill is already in the red.
Let us pray….
…for wisdom in government and peace to counteract fear.