jcampbe

There is no political or economical theory that supports your assertions. You are putting together wild speculations combined with fantastical day dreams and calling it a guarantee. It won't work because you can't control costs, you can't recruit personnel and no government can sustain the system.

Government is a zero sum game (in some respects). So, if the government gives people health care, what does the government have to take? For one, they take money. Much more money than private health care if they provide the same level of care. If they provide reduced care (see Canada, Australia, France, Great Britain...) then they can do it for less. The government will also take freedom. They won't allow you to get the treatment you need, rather you'll get the treatment they think you deserve based on some chart. They'll also take the freedom to eat as you wish (see NY and San Francisco). They may even require you to exercise x hours per day.

The point is, there is a huge tradeoff if you allow the government to take over your health care. It is your health care, don't let a bureaucrat decide if you should or shouldn't have access to it.

Ok, so today's limitation on health care is affordability. Do you really want tomorrow's limitation...bureaucracy? Look at what is happening in GB. They are refusing care for breast cancer to women over a certain age because it isn't cost effective. How would you like to get that news? "Well Mr. Birdman, you have cancer and it is curable, but you aren't worth enough to the government to cure."

"See, I don't get that. You say everything the government handles is terrible. Why are you still here? Go move to Canada or something if you think the government is incapable of anything. Or maybe you're forgetting that for the past two decades we've been fighting a ridiculous war in the middle east which has been a constant drain on our economy."

How does the saying go? "Democracy is the worst form of government save every other form of government" Our government may be inept, but at least it is relatively passive in its ineptness. When the government becomes controlling and inept, then we'll see just how f'd up stuff can get. Go to Canada and you'll see what I'm talking about.

"Lets blame it all on the government, no not the big corporations to continually screw everyone else out of their money. Yeah, sure it's the government's fault. They screwed everyone sideways THEY did. No, I'm not saying the government is perfect but I'm sure we don't have the worst record in the world."

Our government doesn't have the worst record in the world. In fact, our government probably has the best record in the world and yet it is still incapable of providing services to the degree that private entities do.

You can blame corporations all you want. It is a popular and easy thing to do. After all, you don't control the corporation and so you aren't to blame. You do have a say in the government though. Do you really want to be to blame when our health care system crumbles at our feet?

"Lets blame it all on the government, not the media. God no, not the media. You ever wonder why they call this the age of apathy? It's a trend with countries that are more rich, people just don't care any more and they're being spoon fed the same bullshit story every day and being told that hope is useless(unless it's hope that there's a god, then it's totally cool, because everything else is bogus). The School Systems aren't failing, they just need time to adapt to the current state of mind the students in this country have adapted."

That has got to be the single lamest argument you can make. If I understand you right, schools have bad results because kids don't want to learn and that is the school's fault because they haven't adapted to that? Did you ever wonder why kids don't see the need to learn any more? Maybe it is because Obama has promised to pay for their gas and utilities and home.

"As for Katrina, I personally blame Bush for appointing that weirdo as the head of FEMA who probably didn't have any experience in that field at all. So yeah, that one was the people's fault for electing Bush."

You can blame Bush all you want, but I was there and I know what the response was like. At night, they had 5 miles of rescue helicopters lined up. During the day, those helicopters flew every minute they could, pulling people off of roof tops. The response to Katrina was astronomical. The problem wasn't the post Katrina response. Nothing could have been better. I saw it with my own eyes.

BTW....did you notice you started out disagreeing with my principle and finished in total agreement? That's right, you agreed that the government is too inept to handle health care by way of admitting that the government can't handle schools, food safety or basic rescue operations.

Oh come on. I threw you a softball. I said everywhere, that means you could have picked any country any where and made the case that this country is the reason we need UHC. You couldn't find one.

But, if you really need one...try Canada.

So what you are saying is that because there are a few hard luck cases out there, we should all be made to suffer under the same crappy health care system? I don't buy that.

If you are so worried about these hard luck cases, why don't you give money to one of the thousands of legitimate charities that are oriented toward health care? Why are you so sure that the government can do a better job?

Well I guess the government has a tremendous track record. I mean, just look at how they handled Katrina....ok...maybe that is a bad example. How about roads...no....another bad example. Well the government does a great job with schools....no....another bad example. Well the government does a great job of regulating financial instutions...no...another bad example. I've got it this time...the government does a great job of protecting us from contaminated food....oh...wait, there was that peanut butter scare, and the spinach scare and the tomato scare and the baby formula scare. Well surely the government keeps our streets safe...oh...no...wait, jails are full so they are letting criminals go. Well, we know this....the government does a great job of protecting our borders....gosh darn it, another bad example.

Sorry boss, I couldn't find anything our government does well. But I'm sure they'll excel at UHC.

"I believe that promoting general welfare is not intended for the federal government strictly due to the use of the term general instead of simply stating "Promoting the welfare of the federal government." Promoting general welfare would involve more than simply making sure the law/regulations we put in place do 'not harm the country.'"

Seriously? Your logic doesn't even remotely support your conclusion.

"You make the rash claim that, "Everywhere Universal Health Care has been tried, it has failed. UHC always becomes expensive, restrictive and lacks innovation." Can you expand upon one example where it has failed and what its failings were?"

If my claim is so rash...why didn't you just post one example of the shining ER on the hill?

Insurance companies aren't doing that. Medicare/caid, schip and other government programs are driving up the cost of health care.

Do you know what happens when you take cost down to a minimum? Demand goes up. If you have a segment of the population getting nearly free product (health care int his case) and the rest paying for the product....guess what happens? Those getting nearly free health care suck up as much of the product as they can and those of use paying for it are forced to pay premium prices for the artificially reduced supply.

1. It will do the opposite of growing the economy. When the government puts price controls on anything (which they have done in the past) you get several negative effects. The first is an artificial rise in demand. In the case of UHC, that means the government will have to ration care through means other than money. The second is you lose production when people that had made a profit off of the product leave because they can't earn a living any more. Finally, UHC would end health insurance. That means the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Nearly doubling our current unemployment.

2. They aren't. Check my post on the opposite side of this page.

3. No it does not. It puts our businesses at an advantage. We just have to get away from this mentality that someone else should pay our bills.

4. If you think that is socialism, than you are either being very disingenuous or you are incredibly ignorant. Do some reading on socialism.

5. Don't buy into those rankings. In France (and other countries) you only get health care if you are deemed worthy. The older you get, the less they will treat you. A 70 year old woman cannot get treatment for Cancer in France, but anyone can get treatment in the US. Does it cost more? Yes, but that has nothing to do with being socialized. It has to do with this mentality that someone else should pay our bills.

6. It can't be done right. The very idea is immoral.

Show me in the Constitution where you will find the power for government to steal money from one person to give to another? I'd love to see it.

Do you actually consider France a great bastian of Health Care?????

Yes, the cost is low...but remember the warm wave (they called it a heat wave, but it barely got over 30 C)...they had hundreds of people die. Why? They couldn't go see a doctor.

The Case Against Universal Health Care

Why UHC is Wrong

Universal Health Care is unconstitutional. As with many of the social programs that we allow to continue in violation of the Constitution; the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the government have no authority to redistribute wealth regardless of the purpose.

Most people believe that the Constitution does in fact give the government the right to impose social programs. They derive this belief from two separate, but similar clauses. The first comes from the Preamble which says; “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It is the phrase “promote the general welfare” that people often quote as the power to create social programs. In actuality, the Preamble does not give any branch the authority to do anything. The reality is, the Preamble is a guideline for the three branches. You could translate the Preamble to like this:

More perfect Union = Better than England

Establish Justice = Establish Justice

Insure domestic Tranquility = Peaceful

Provide for the common defence = one army to defend (i.e. not controlling)

Promote the general Welfare = all laws/regulations should not harm the country

Secure the Blessing of Liberty = Freedom for All

If the government followed those guidelines for every law/regulation they form, they will be on their way to being Constitutional. However, the federal government must use Article 1, Section 8 to derive their powers.

In fact, Article 1, Section 8 is where we find the second common misconception. This is where each power is enumerated to the Congress. The first clause states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”. We see here that a large part of the Preamble is restated but with a few notable differences. The most notable and important difference is to whom the congress can apply these powers.

Pay close attention to the phrase “of the United States.” Throughout the Constitution the founders use very specific terms to mean very specific things. When they wanted rights or rules applied to citizens they used the term citizens. When they wanted rights or rules to apply to anyone they used “the people.” When they wanted rights or rules to apply to States, they used the term States. When they used the term “the United States” they were talking about the federal government.

If you replace the term “of the United States” with its literal meaning you get a more clear understanding of its true meaning: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the Federal Government…”

Just so there is no confusion, you will find in the 10th Amendment that these powers are limited to Article 1, Section 8 by stating: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words: ‘if it ain’t in the Constitution, you can’t do it.’

Why it doesn’t work

Everywhere Universal Health Care has been tried, it has failed. UHC always becomes expensive, restrictive and lacks innovation.

We’ve been told that UHC is cheap. Well, that isn’t the case. UHC is as expensive as the government lets it be. We only have to look here in our own country to see evidence of that. Medicare sets limits to what a doctor can charge for a visit or procedure. Every doctor charges the limit set by Medicare. They have to. If they don’t, Medicare will assume that they have set the bar to high and lower it. Apply this to the entire health care system. If we expand that policy to cover every doctor and every procedure we will have several negative results.

The first is the loss of talented doctors. People that become doctors don’t just do it for the gratification of saving lives. The fact is, they lose every patient sooner or later. Doctors do what they do for the money, especially the good ones. If you take away their ability to demand a fair market price you take away the incentive to be a doctor and we lose good doctors.

Another problem we will encounter is a short coming in available services. We can see this in other countries. Many countries with socialized medicine require patients to wait months or years to see a doctor. In some parts of Canada, the wait to see a doctor for a routine exam is two years. This problem is compounded by the lack of monetary incentive to be a doctor.

Finally, because the government sets the prices, inventors and manufacturers of medical equipment will just fade away. Price controls never work. Further, innovative people will always find a free market where they can excel.

Why we don’t need it

Most people have this idea that if they don’t have health insurance that pays for everything that is even remotely health related that they will go bankrupt and die. That is not the case. Most people just need a type of insurance that is usually referred to as Catastrophic or Major Medical Insurance.

Major Medical covers some very basic health issues. A good generalized definition is “everything that is life threatening or life altering.” In practical terms, that means if you have an expensive problem, you are covered. So you can go to the ER or hospital and pay only the deductible (or deductible plus a percentage depending on the plan). Major Medical plans can also be purchased with a prescription drug rider that will cover most prescriptions you will need.

The health insurance we have all been told we have to have is called Comprehensive (or Premium) Insurance. Comprehensive Insurance covers everything Major Medical covers but also ads routine visits to the doctor. In fact, we all purchase Major Medical Insurance with the Comprehensive Clause added to it. This means that the coverage for ER and hospital stays is identical. The only difference being what you pay for a doctor.

I got quotes from eHealthInsurance.com. I put in a family of four with both parents 30 years old non-smokers and 10 and 5 year old children. One quote was from Humana (Major Medical) and the other from Cigna (comprehensive). The Humana quote was for $196.04 per month, coming out to $2,352.48 per year. The other was from Cigna (comprehensive) and was very affordably priced at $292.00 per month or $3,504 per year.

For a typical year, the family of four would probably have six visits to the doctor. Most doctors charge around $150 for a visit. If the family is on the Humana plan, they will pay $900 out of pocket because they pay for the whole thing. If they are on the Cigna plan, they will pay a $30 deductible per visit plus 20% which comes to $324. When you figure in the added premium, they don’t save money.

There is one big difference though, if someone goes to the hospital and uses more than $10,000 the Humana plan becomes much better. After $10,000 the Humana plan covers 100% of the cost, where as the Cigna plan covers 80%. This gives the person on the plan that we’ve all been told is not good enough a huge cost savings.

What needs to be done

I’m not one to dismiss an idea if I don’t have a better idea of my own. My plan incorporates promoting Major Medical Insurance in conjunction with Health Savings Accounts. Health Savings Accounts are just as they sound, savings accounts specifically for health care. The government allows us (gee, isn’t that nice of them) to put money into a savings account, before income tax is removed, and use it for health care. The catch is, at the end of the year anything that is left in the account becomes property of the government.

My solution is to allow HSAs to roll over from year to year untaxed (unless used for purposes other than health care) and after an individual reaches retirement age the account can be used for any purpose. This will have numerous advantages from free market pressure on visits to the doctor to increased savings rates for the average citizen.

We all know how the free market works and despite what some say, it works very well. When people have control over their money, they use it wisely. It is a precious commodity and they won’t hand over more of it than they have to. Even today, some health care centers are bowing to the pressure of the free market. Urgent care centers (doc in the box as my wife likes to call them) allow uninsured people to visit the doctor for as little as $75. As a patron of our local doc in the box, I can say that the care in these centers is fantastic.

Part of the reason the down turn in 2008 and 2009 has been so severe is the negative savings rate that plagues the nation. With an incentive to save money before it is taxed, people will be more inclined to put their money aside for rainy days than use it to make monthly payments on maxed out credit cards that bought a house full of useless crap. In addition, I’d allow them to put their excess HSA savings in bonds and cds so that they earn a small amount of interest with virtually no chance of loss. If the average family put $100 a month into savings from the time they are 20 to the time they retire, assuming they don’t have more than 2 major medical bills in 40 years, they will have saved close to $1 million (after interest).

I know that we do not need Universal Health Care. It is too burdensome on the tax payer, it provides for poor care and it is solving a problem that just doesn’t exist.