This post is a continuation of my last post, in which I debate with someone the issues of universal healthcare, worthiness, free markets, taxation, smart economic growth, problems with healthcare insurance today, and more. As always, I welcome your feedback.
In this round of the debate, he began by referencing the following statement I made in a previous post: “The best kind of Capitalism fosters 'smart economic growth' through the right combination of small company entrepreneurial (technological) innovation and big- firm market capabilities, without restrictions on free trade, brings about a higher standard of living for just about everyone in that country.”
He then said: This is essentially what I have been espousing, with the state keeping the corporations from manipulating a free market, and leaving the rest alone. Incentives for productive entrepreneurship being profit, and the disincentive for unproductive entrepreneurship being hunger, no further incentive is required.
Next, he pointed to a reference I made in my previous post to France Lappe’s book, “Democracy’s Edge,” and he said ...
I would flatly disagree with Ms. Lappe, arguing that free markets are NOT the product of democratic gov’t, but that only a democratic gov’t will ALLOW free markets. The apparent battle between the free market and the gov’t issuing from the gov’t failing to keep the welfare of the people their priority by interfering with the free market, and allowing the corporation to interfere.
‘If our government begins to spend money wisely and without corruption; if it implements policies to control waste, inefficiency, fraud, greed etc’ will be a point we disagree on, as I have no confidence this or any other gov’t is capable of doing so. None has so far. Gov’t is inherently evil, as it attracts those who desire power over others, however altruistc, or not, their motive.
Those who find themselves in a poor economic situation, through no fault of their own, should be taken care of through charity. That’s the problem with entitlements, the recipient is “entitled” to the benefit, automatically deserving, while with charity, if the recipient is of no inclination to improve their lot, is ungrateful, or is deemed unworthy for some other antisocial reason, the charity may stop. The advantage to the donor of charity is that it promotes an individual’s humanity, and their sense of community. Something the IRS does not. We are a charitable people, and the gov’t has taken advantage of it. We need a drastic REDUCTION in taxes. The gov’t has stolen our humanity and used it to buy votes.
I am convinced that most of the blame for our current health care problem lies with industry providers. Their inefficiency, incompetency, and exaggerated opinion of the value of their service, has put their pricing well above what the market will bear. Add to this funds spent on research (much of them by the gov’t) to develop methods/ equipment/etc. that we as a people can’t afford. In a free market, prices automatically level at what the market will bear. The health care industry has exceeded that level. There will be a correction, one way or another. If the gov’t gets involved, they will dictate fees and services, and we will get $1 of service for $2 in taxes, that will cost $3 to deliver. In other words, much like what we have now, only instead of not being able to afford health insurance, we will be taxed for it, whether we can afford it or not.
And then I replied ...
Where we agree on the following:
1. The benefits of smart economic growth 2. The state keeping the corporations from manipulating the market 3. Our Gov’t having an inherently negative side because it attracts those who desire power over others with less than altruistic motives. 4. The need for a drastic reduction in taxes (and I’d add: on the middle class especially) 5. The Alexander Tyler quote 6. Stopping those who can afford to pay at least a portion of their healthcare, but who manipulate the system to receive free care through taxpayer handouts.
Where we disagree:
1. Since we agree that government is needed to keep corporations from manipulating the market, and since we agree that our gov’t fails to do (and actually encourages corporate manipulation), then we don’t have a free market; instead, we have a corporate controlled market that has emerged due, in part, to lack of good gov’t policies and the existence of bad ones.
2. I do not blame any group—not the healthcare providers, patient, insurers, employers, big pharma, labs, medical device makers, nor researchers—for the current healthcare crisis. Yes, we do agree that there is plenty of greed, incompetence, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, ignorance, inertia, corruption, etc., but these human shortcomings are manifested by virtue of our badly broken healthcare system. But I see it as a system’s problem that actually rewards poor performance (e.g., fix it and fix it again when it breaks), despicable processes (e.g., insurance practices exposed in the movie SICKO), as well as excessive pricing and other ways to “play the system.” I contend that we need gov’t controls to fix the system because no one else will do it, but I don’t trust our current gov’t to do it either!
My hope is that we will develop a healthcare strategy that will change this by making gov’t responsible to the people. I don’t see the need for tax increase to accomplish this, but I don’t have the numbers to support this claim.
He responded ...
Our first disagreement isn’t one. We appear to agree that our current criminal electorate, acting outside the boundaries of the Constitution, and failing to act inside those boundaries, has created the problem by interfering in the operation of a free market.
Our second disagreement remains, as I see no possibility of one of the agencies largely responsible for the problem, successfully solving it. I suspect that soon (2-4 years) we will have some form of UHC [Universal Health Care]. I doubt it will be fiscally sound (Medicare, social security), or will provide care of any quality (Veteran’s Administration).
I have no confidence in a man who “believes” the Cuban gov’t, or ours for that matter. Mr. Moore does not believe any of what he “exposes”. He has merely found a lucrative market for his fictitiously manipulated “research” among those of liberal/socialist persuasion.
The only way we can SUCCESSFULLY solve the problem is to find a way to force the gov’t to act responsibly, and within the boundary of the Constitution, by “promoting the general welfare” not financing it. A tall order indeed
To that, I responded ...
OK, you don't trust Michael Moore. So here are problems with the current healthcare economic models, as related to insurance, which create a chaotic system and encourage destructive practices (with references from this page of our Wellness Wiki):
Cost-shifting — Charging higher prices (above cost) to one group of patients in order to offset lower prices (below cost) to another group of patients based on their insurance coverage.
Price discrimination — Charging different patients different prices for identical healthcare goods or services irrespective of cost.
Cherry-picking — Choosing to provide insurance coverage to the young and healthy, and treatment to the most profitable patients, while not providing the same level of coverage and care to others.
Retroactive coverage cancellation — Payers cancel coverage retroactively for people who need expensive care in order to escape its obligations to members who become seriously sick.
A more sane payment system would encourage continuous quality improvement, while controlling costs and insuring everyone through shared risk. It would recognize the responsibility of all stakeholders in creating a sustainable healthcare system that brings greater wellness to all in an effective and affordable way.
Methods having been proposed include pricing transparency, informing consumers of the value of care providers render in terms of performance and cost, and pay-for-performance. There are serious issues with each of these proposals, but they may contribute to the development of a better payment system. In addition, it may be useful to give consumers incentives for maintaining healthy lifestyles and complying with sound medical advice.
Anyway, I happen to agree in part with your final point: The only way we can solve the problem SUCCESSFULLY is to find a way to force the gov’t to act responsibly, and within the boundary of the Constitution, by “promoting the general welfare” not financing it. A tall order indeed.
The disagreement, or should I say confusion, with that strategy is that, even if our gov't is forced to act responsibly, it has to spend considerable sums to promote general welfare through writing and policing the implementation of radical new policies that foster the delivery of high-value care, as well as supplementing coverage for those who simply cannot afford it. In other words, I just don't know how anything can be accomplished without the wise expenditure of tax monies. Do you?
He responded ...
No, nor do I expect the wise expenditure of tax revenue, it is seldom done.
A few things not adequately addressed that would require relatively little revenue:
The monopoly of healthcare by the AMA through the FDA.
The ineptitude of the FDA. That is, the FDA should not approve alternative health care practices not endorsed by the AMA. That which is not approved, or endorsed, will not be insured, and, in fact, may be criminally prosecuted.
Policing/regulation of the insurance companies (corporations).
Policing/regulation of the provider companies (corporations).
Eliminate gov't sponsored research, except in the most dire national situation.
More gov't control of medical licensing. (doctors mostly police themselves).
Criminal charges and sentences for fraud/theft equitable to any other common robbery. The only difference between “white collar” and “blue collar” crime is how it is dealt with. Theft of your life savings through fraud is just as violent as a mugging.
Elimination of regulation defining what groups are eligible to negotiate with insurance and/or care providers. Most states currently have strict regulation, which is obviously a protection of the insurance/provider companies.
Here is an idea that just popped into my head. Reduce the tax bill of all individuals by the amount they spend on their own, or their family’s, non-elective health care. I’ll have to think about that.