Frederick the Moderate, I would appreciate an in-depth response to the previous post by Bruce Majors, which reflects much of what I have seen while working in the health care industry.
On Jun 30, 10:44 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > The Real Cost of Health Care Why Health Care Reform Does Not Always Lower > Costs By William Anderson <http://fee.org/author/wanderson/> > Published: 24 June 2009 [image: The Real Cost of Health Care] > > One regular theme in Paul Krugman’s column is universal medical care, and > anyone who opposes him either is evil or simply wants people to be > unhealthy. While he is not fully happy with President Barack Obama’s latest > plan to create a government health insurance option, nonetheless he knows > all central plans lead to government care. > > Knowing the details of this latest plan is not necessary to conclude it is > bad. The reason it is bad is because it operates on the impossible premise > that government can force up real costs of medical care while making it > cheaper and more available. In other words, President Obama and his > supporters are claiming that government can lower costs when it actually is > increasing them. > > Normally, this is known as a fraud, but today it is politics. Let us > understand what is happening and, more important, why it is happening so > that we can better realize just why such fraudulent ideas gain any traction > in the first place. > > For politicians, it is easy. Medical care “costs” too much. Thus, the > government either should establish price controls or simply control all > payments to medical personnel. Krugman and other economists have been > parroting that line for years, and they are correct in that medical care is > more costly than it should be. However, there is a problem in the typical > analysis, and that is this little issue of just what is a cost. > > To the political classes and their court economists, a “cost” is a payment > to individuals and organizations in the medical field. For example, if one > pays $50 for a doctor visit, that is a “cost” to that person. If one pays > $1,000 for a particular test, that is the “cost” to the patient. > > However, that is superficial analysis. For example, Krugman has claimed that > devices like CAT scans and MRIs “drive up” the cost of health care. If that > were true, then it would be the first time in history that a labor-saving > capital device would be responsible for making goods more costly. In both > cases, a patient can quickly and bloodlessly be examined and doctors > generally can gain near-pinpoint evidence of the problem. > > For example, my father had knee surgery in 1966, and he was in the hospital > for a week. The doctor cut a huge incision in his leg, took back a large > flap of skin, and then went to work. It took Dad many months to recover. > > When I had knee surgery in 2003, I came to the hospital in the early morning > and left by noon. Instead of a huge scar, I had two tiny, pinprick marks on > my knee, and I was at work four days later. Within a few weeks, I was hiking > on a nearby mountain. Yet, according to Krugman’s logic, my father’s > operation was a “lower-cost” affair. To an economist, however, my > opportunity costs were much lower. > > To someone like Krugman, the “cost” would be reflected solely in the medical > bill, with the MRI costing one thing and the surgery something else. > Somehow, had we eliminated the MRI, then the whole thing would have cost > less. However, that test had shown the doctor exactly what he needed to do, > which was why he was able to do it quickly, efficiently, and have me working > within a few days. > > The problem is not the presence of medical capital; the problem is that > government has forced the use of resources when they are not needed (either > for doctors to avoid lawsuits or because political authorities are demanding > their use). The so-called “cost crisis” did not come about until after the > passage of Medicare in 1965. > > From that point on, more and more medical decisions have been made by > bureaucrats, which means that medical people must devote more and more > resources to filling out forms and satisfying the government. Apologists for > government insist that such actions somehow lower the cost of healthcare, > but “not so fast, my friend.” When government forces people in the medical > fields to expend resources in areas away from medical care, it makes care > less available and more costly. > William Anderson is an associate professor of economics at Frostburg State > University. He received a doctorate in economics from Auburn University, and > is an adjunct scholar with the Mises Institute and the Mackinac Center. He > has written for *The Freeman* since 1981, and also has had articles in *Reason > Magazine*, Forbes On-line, The Free Market, and a number of refereed > journals. He is on the editorial board of *The American Journal of Economics > and Sociology*, the *Journal of International Business Disciplines*, and the > *Journal of Economic, Social, and Political Studies*. > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I can't stand Nancy Pelosi. I'm not happy with the cap & trade bill. I > > want healthcare legislation and I want single payor. I have lived in > > countries that have much lower standards of living and yet, much > > better healthcare than America. So I'm all for that. > > But like you say, this is a far cry from transparency. > > > On Jun 29, 10:35 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: *Travis* > > > Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 > > > Subject: Pelosi Won't Give Public a Chance to Review Text of Health-Care > > > Bill Before House Votes on It. > > > > Of course not...that would be too democratic for the arrogant bitch! > > > > B > > > >http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=... > > > > Pelosi Won't Give Public a Week to Review Text of Health-Care Bill Before > > > House Votes on It > > > Monday, June 29, 2009 > > > By Marie Magleby and Monica Gabriel > > > > *(CNSNews.com) *- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) will not give > > the > > > public a week to review the final text of a health-care reform bill > > before > > > it is voted on later this year. > > > > Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has also declined to commit > > to > > > giving the public a week to read and consider the final health-care bill. > > > > At her press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi was asked whether the > > health-care > > > bill would be handled differently than the stimulus bill, which came up > > in > > > February. The 1,071-page final text of that bill was posted on the House > > > Appropriations Committee’s Web site late on a Thursday night and then > > voted > > > on the next day. > > > > “When the stimulus bill came out earlier this year, members and citizens > > had > > > less than two days to review the final version that came out of the > > > conference committee before it was voted on,” CNSNews.com asked Pelosi on > > > Thursday. “Will you commit to giving Americans at least a week to review > > the > > > full conference version of the health care bill before it is voted on? > > And > > > also will you commit to submitting the final version to the CBO > > > [Congressional Budget Office] so that they can report the cost to the > > > public?” > > > > Pelosi would not commit to giving the public a week to review the bill, > > and > > > did not respond to the question of having the CBO report on the cost of > > the > > > final bill. > > > > “Well, we will abide by the regular order. You heard the question,” she > > > said. “It was about having the health care bill out there a week in > > advance. > > > We will have the regular order in terms of the appropriate amount of > > time, > > > 48 hours in advance for amendments before you file the bill, another day > > > before you can take up the bill. > > > > “But this bill is something that has been unfolding before the American > > > people for a long time now. The areas of controversy are well known,” > > said > > > Pelosi. > > > > “The issue of a public option is probably the most significant debate > > that > > > we will have in the House on the legislation, as I see it now. But the > > bill > > > will come forth under the regular order, and that's why the three > > chairmen > > > put out the draft now,” she said. “They put out some principles earlier > > on. > > > The President put out his principles. We had a month before the Memorial > > Day > > > break for everyone to see what was happening there to take ideas from our > > > members. > > > > “So it was in the public domain, but not as a bill,” said Pelosi, > > continuing > > > to respond to the question of whether she would give the public a week to > > > review the final bill. “Now they have put out this draft which has been > > well > > > received, and I'm very proud of the work. It's a well managed approach to > > > how we go forward. And when we are ready with a draft then we will put > > that > > > forth, but as I say, it will be under the regular order.” > > > > The three House committees working on the health-care plan have released > > > what they call a “discussion draft” of the legislation. It is 850 pages > > > long. > > > > The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has produced > > its > > > own 615-page draft that is missing key sections, including the section > > that > > > would explain the “public option”—or government-run health insurance > > > organization. > > > > After the House and Senate actually pass bills, the two versions of the > > > legislation will go to a House-Senate conference committee where they > > will > > > be reconciled and where entirely new provisions can be added. The final > > > version of the bill that emerges from this conference committee will be > > > voted on by both houses, and if passed, sent to the president for his > > > signature before it can become law. > > > > This final bill is likely to be well over 1,000 pages long and will > > include > > > mandates and regulations that could permanently transform the U.S. health > > > care system. > > > > Like Pelosi, Senate > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
