Free Market Capitalism is the Best Way to keep Workers from Bathing in the Milk we Buy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

Competition makes everything better.  If there was only one restaurant in town they could serve pretty bad food.  Because if the people don’t have time to cook for themselves where else are they going to go?  This restaurant could use ingredients past their ‘use by’ dates.  Meats discounted by stores because they passed their shelf life date.  They could use canned goods they heat up in a microwave.  Using the cheapest ingredients that can be cooked the least amount of time by the fewest people.  To keep costs down.  It can work.  Until there is competition.

If a restaurant opened next door that cooked only with fresh ingredients and did not use a microwave oven their food is going to taste a lot better.  And people will stop going to that other restaurant to enjoy the better quality next door.  This is why competition makes everything better.  Because people choose what’s best for them.  And if a business continually strives to exceed a customer’s expectations their customers will keep coming back.  If they don’t people will just take their business elsewhere.  And businesses will run tight ships.  To make sure no one brings harm to their brand.  Because if they didn’t something like this could happen (see Russian dairy plant closed after workers bathe in the milk by Sergei L. Loiko posted 3/28/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

A Siberian dairy plant was temporarily closed Friday after its workers had been found bathing in milk, a Russian consumer oversight agency reported.

Trade House Cheeses, a dairy producer in Omsk, about 1,600 miles east of Moscow, was closed for 90 days by regional authorities for an urgent inspection after complaints resulting from photographs and a video posted by one of its employees on a Russian social network.

In the photographs and video clips posted on New Year’s Eve by worker Artyom Romanov, a group of undressed employees relax in a container of milk as part of their celebration. While still partly undressed, they then demonstrate cheese making in a clownish manner…

After the video appeared on NTV, a federal television network, many residents of Omsk refused to buy products made at the plant, an NTV report said this week…

“For five years Russia has been languishing in a so-called experiment of practically exercising no control over consumer production after a law was introduced limiting inspections of such facilities to only once every three years,” said Yanin, the board chairman of the Russian Confederation of Consumer Societies, a Moscow-based group…

The average salary of a sanitary inspector is equal to $500 a month, but instead of raising that, the government decided to try to prevent the inspectors from taking bribes by in effect seriously curbing their ability to control production norms and practices, Yanin said.

Of course, this is the wrong conclusion to draw from this. The problem isn’t lax inspections by underpaid inspectors.  The proper conclusion is in a previous paragraph.  That conclusion is why we don’t have these problems in the United States.  Or if we do they are very rare.  The same goes for other capitalistic societies based on free markets.  Unlike the communism they once had in Russia.  Or the crony capitalism they now have in Russia.  Because communism and crony capitalism are corrupt systems.  Government establishes and maintains monopolies.  Either by force under communism.  Or by bribes and kickbacks under crony capitalism.  Which, of course, eliminates competition.  And THIS is the problem here.  As the residents of Omsk identify.  Who refused to buy an inferior product.

You could get rid of all the inspectors in the United States and this problem would not be any more prevalent than it is now.  Why?  Because of competition.  Especially in the age of social media.  For business have lost sales for just appearing to think ‘incorrectly’ on social issues.  Just imagine what would happen if a video like this came from an American dairy.  The backlash would be the worst conceivable.  And this would happen before any government action.  That backlash would spread to every store throughout the nation.  Nay, to every capitalistic country based on free markets in the world where that brand sells its products.  People would pause as they reached for a product from this dairy on their supermarket shelf.  And move to the left or to the right.  And pick up a product from another dairy.

This is what keeps American dairies clean.  And every other established brand.  For with competition consumers can reach for another product on the shelf.  And once they do because they lost faith in a brand for any reason (such as cleanliness) it could take a very long time for that brand to reestablish the trust of the consumer.  Costing it billions in lost revenue.  This is why food businesses are cleaner in capitalistic countries based on free markets.  Because of competition and profit.  The two best protectors a consumer can have.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #56: “It’s competition in the private sector that makes life better. Not government regulation.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 8th, 2011

Government caused the Greatest Recession since the Great Depression

You hear it all the time from the Left.  If it wasn’t for all those government regulations those on the Right bitch about we wouldn’t have safe food, safe medication, safe transportation, safe merchandise, fair prices, a clean environment, quality education, etc.  It’s rather amazing to hear people in government say this.  And people on the Left say this.  Because people are people.  And people regulate people.  So why are some people better than other people?  Just because they say they are?  I find that a bit specious.

Government caused the greatest recession since the Great Depression.  It was their economic policies that put people into houses they couldn’t afford.  It was Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that enabled the approval of very risky mortgages by buying them from the lenders.  It was the GSEs that had Wall Street create vehicles to sell these risky mortgages as high yield, low risk investments (i.e., derivatives).  It was Congress that refused to stop this risky behavior of the GSEs because Congress members were getting sweetheart mortgage deals and campaign contributions.  And it was Congress that bailed out the GSEs with our tax dollars after their dirty politics crashed the economy.  If you go down the chain of events you see one constant behind every step in the process that gave us the Great Recession.  Government, government, government.  And yet we are to trust government people every time over the private sector people.

If you remove government from the mortgage picture, though, it’s a different story.  Instead of discrimination it was just poor credit and insufficient earnings that denied mortgages for some blacks, Hispanics, single mothers, etc.  And these people wouldn’t have been in houses they couldn’t afford.  Lenders would have had far fewer risky mortgages on their books.  The GSEs would have bought far fewer risky mortgages.   Wall Street wouldn’t have spread the subprime mortgage contagion worldwide by selling boatloads of their complex derivatives.  There would have been no Great Recession.  There would be no double digit unemployment (U6 – a truer unemployment rate than the ‘official’ U3) today.  And all of this by just removing government from the beginning of this process.  And yet we are to trust government people every time over the private sector people.

A Business must please the Consumer to Survive

Let’s look at another example.  Let’s take food.  The Left say that if it wasn’t government regulation our food would be unsafe.  So let’s imagine a world where there is no government regulation.  And only two meat packing plants.  A devious, archetypical corporate villain (as the Left believes runs all corporations) runs one plant.  Let’s call him Mr. Devious.  A true free market capitalist runs the other.  Mr. Devious reinvests no money into the plant.  Doesn’t even clean it.  Has a rat infestation.  Uses rat poison to control the rat infestation.  Doesn’t care.  And sends out tainted meat that kills hundreds of people.  The true free market capitalist keeps reinvesting in his plant.  Keeps it clean.  Has no rat infestation.  And strives to put out the best quality product.  It’s not tainted and people eat it without dying.

Now suppose you’re putting together your shopping list.  You have meat on your list.  And on the television news is a story about still more deaths that are traced back to Mr. Devious’ plant.  Now, in our imaginary world, there is no government.  No government inspectors to step in to inspect Mr. Devious’ plant.  He broke no law and did not fail to maintain any regulatory standards.  No one files any legal actions against Mr. Devious because he broke no law.  Now tell me, where are you going to go to buy your meat?  Well, if you’re sane, you’re going to make damn sure the meat you buy didn’t come from Mr. Devious’ plant. 

Even in a world that has no government regulation, a Mr. Devious cannot exist.  Because there’s competition.  And the last thing a true free market capitalist wants is bad publicity.  If consumers have an unfavorable view of your company they’ll shop elsewhere.  And if you’re killing people with the food you sell, you couldn’t make a more unfavorable view of your company in the eyes of consumers.  So they won’t be buying what you’re selling.  Ever.  But guess where they will be buying from?  That’s right.  The business that puts out the best quality.  And the best price, of course.  In other words, the one that best pleases the consumer.

Competition Makes Everything Better

Hey, you’re thinking, that makes sense.  So maybe the big corporate giants care about us.  If only for their greed.  Well, greed is a powerful motivator.  You see, a profit is an incentive to do good.  And pleasing consumers it the key to profitability.  So you do everything within your power to please as many consumers as possible.  Before another business pleases them better.  We call this tug of war in the market place competition.  And you win this game by pleasing consumers better than your competitors do.  Because competition makes everything better.

Now think about the things you hate to do.  Deal with the cable company.  A utility.  Getting your driver’s license renewed.  Getting a building permit.  Getting your tax assessment reduced because your house isn’t worth as much as your city says it is.  Filling out your income taxes.  Going through airport security.  Etc.  And what do all of these things have in common?  Little to no competition (although cable companies have competition today but making a change is a pain in the you know what).  There is little need to please consumers.  And it shows.  Customer service isn’t the greatest.  And the processes are often long, complex and exasperating.  Why?  Because they can be.  Where else are we going to go?

These things also have another thing in common.  Government heavily regulates them.  Or they’re simply government itself.  Government people.  Those people we are always to side with over the private sector.  And many of us do.  Despite our not liking to do any of the things we have to do with them.

Competition can even Clean the Environment

Okay, but what about the environment?  There’s no profit in spending more money to keep the environment clean.  Surely that’s something only government regulation can do.  Well, let me ask you something.  Where are you more likely to litter?  In your backyard?  Or in the National Mall after a rally?  The National Mall, yes?  Because we take care of what we own. 

Yes, there have been polluters in the past.  And, yes, government regulations have cleaned them up.  But back when they were polluting, few cared.  Because it was normal.  I mean, once upon a time, human feces used to cover our sidewalks and streets.  And that was normal.  It isn’t anymore.  So we don’t do it anymore.  This is more a process of civilization.  A company today that leeches toxic chemicals into the ground water that kills people who drink well water is going to get a lot of bad PR (public relations, i.e., favorable publicity).  And we know what bad PR does to private companies.  So they are going to try everything in their power to not leech toxic chemicals into the ground water so they can avoid the bad PR.  Before we knew the affect of some of these chemicals, though, some companies did unknowingly kill people.  Now that we know better, they handle their chemicals differently.  In a way that will help to keep consumers as customers.  Not push them away.

BP and Exxon both suffered in the eyes of the consumer after their spills.  And a lot of consumers refused to buy their gasoline anymore.  Not only that, the BP spill shut down all offshore oil drilling in US waters.   At great cost millions of dollars of equipment had to be shipped elsewhere where they could drill.  They would have made more profits without the spill and the bad PR.  So they have a very strong incentive to prevent these environmental disasters from happening.  And considering the amount of oil they pump up from these offshore wells, their environmental record is pretty good.

Companies even look at the little things that add up.  McDonalds used to sell their hamburgers in hard, foam cartons.  They don’t anymore.  Because they felt they could please more consumers by being more environmentally friendly.  Starbucks sells their hot coffee in paper cups to be environmentally friendly.  And the sleeves they use so you can hold those hot cups of coffee contain recycled material.  You can still use foam cups by law.  But they choose not to.  To please their consumers.  So they can keep them as customers.  And be more profitable.

Without Competition Little Changes

Corporations survive on profits.  Maintaining profitability means pleasing consumers.  When something bad happens they have a powerful incentive to act fast.  Before the problem spirals out of control causing bad PR.  Making consumers go elsewhere.  They will act faster than any government bureaucracy in identifying and correcting the problem.  To limit their damages.  Because the more damage they cause the harder it will be to regain the consumers’ confidence.  And lost consumer confidence equals fewer profits in the private sector.

It’s a little different with government.  Without competition little changes.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still here.  They may go away but there is talk about replacing them with something similar.  To make sure the same housing policies that caused the Great Recession will continue.  To make sure that some people who can’t afford a house can buy a house.  And if it all blows up again, they will just pass the cost onto the taxpayers.  Again.

And yet we are to trust government people every time over the private sector people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Calls for Dems and GOP to Cooperate, Wants to Keep Governing against the Will of the People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 1st, 2011

Liberals Always Call for Bipartisanship when they Lose Elections

When Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats won in the 2006 midterm elections, it was the end of conservatism.  They said so.  When Obama won in 2008, he advised those across the aisle that elections have consequences (see The roots of Obama’s demise by Marc A. Thiessen posted 10/25/2010 on The Washington Post). 

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won.” Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

When the far left lies and tricks voters to elect them, they confuse that for a mandate.  When the truth of their policies comes out, though, they lose subsequent elections.  Then demand that Republicans work with them.  For the best interests of the American people.  Unlike Nancy Pelosi.  Or President Obama.

When liberal Democrats have the majority in Congress, bipartisanship means that Republicans should accept being the Democrats’ bitch.  When they’re out of power, it means something completely different.  That Republicans shouldn’t govern like Democrats.  Governing roughshod all over the opposition party.  Why?  “Because,” they say.  Pouting.  (They really don’t have anything better.  They just HATE not having power.)

It was Always about Growing Government, not Improving the Economy

And as the new year begins, President Obama is giving us a Bill Clinton wag of the finger (figuratively), telling us to play nice.  Which is what bullies typically do when they lost their power to bully (see Obama: Dems, GOP must cooperate in new year by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! News).

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said Saturday that lawmakers must return to Washington next week prepared to make serious decisions about how to grow the economy in the short run and stay competitive in the future.

“I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through,” Obama said. “And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.”

Not quite the ‘thanks but no thanks’ he told the Republicans 3 days after his inauguration.  And all that talk about jobs being job one?  And that laser like focus on jobs?  It was all bull [deleted expletive].  Unemployment went up after his stimulus plan to keep unemployment under 8%.  It’s still flirting with 10% some 2 years later.  But the size of government spending exploded.  Which is what the Left wants.  It’s what they always want.  So they got what they wanted.  The only problem is that some of their supporters believed they were trying to improve the economy.

The Public Sector’s Message to the Taxpayers:  Let Them Eat Cake

The liberal left comprises approximately 20% of the population.  That’s why it’s hard for them to win elections.  Especially after they’ve exploded government spending following an election win.  And that spending is bankrupting the country.  Our states.  And our cities.

A big chunk of that spending goes to support the public sector.  Public sector unions have made public sector jobs very cushy.  No one in the private sector comes close to their wage and benefit packages.  And no one in the private sector enjoys job security like they have in the public sector.  Until now.  In Wisconsin, the Republicans are in power.  And the public sector is getting nervous (see Wisconsin State Workers Fret, as G.O.P. Takes Over by Monica Davey posted 1/1/2011 on The New York Times)

But it’s just not in Wisconsin.  Public sector unions are nervous wherever Republicans have ascended to power.  Because they worry that the good times may come to an end.  And they may have to live like the rest of us.  Some are even predicting that we may see a little European rioting here in the United States (see Topic A: What will be 2011’s biggest political surprise? by Ed Rogers posted 1/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The biggest political surprise in 2011 may come in the form of the shock produced by public-sector labor strikes and demonstrations that could stray into civil disorder as state and local governments cut budgets. Government workers could be laid off by the thousands, and millions of the beneficiaries of government-supplied salaries, pensions and benefits could see reductions in pay and program allowances they have been told to expect.

The same kind of protests that have rocked Paris, London and Rome could erupt in California, New York and Illinois.

When European Socialism cuts back on pensions, college tuition assistance, health care, etc., the beneficiaries of European Socialism burn cities.  And this anarchy may be coming to a city near you.

The schism between the governed and those governing could become greater than ever as the government tries to protect itself for its own sake and not for the public good. The millions of Americans who have lost jobs or face increasing economic uncertainty resent the relative posterity and security that government now provides for itself. President Obama will say he is for more “stimulus,” but even the money-making printing presses in Washington are at their limits.

It’s a master-slave mentality.  The masters are the public sector.  The slaves are the taxpayers.  And the masters have lost touch with reality.  They laugh at the poor suffering masses struggling to pay their taxes.  When advised of the taxpayer’s plight what do they say?  “Let them eat cake.”  (A reference to what Marie Antoinette reportedly said during the French Revolution.  While the upper classes had food, the lower classes were to be satisfied with oven scrapings.)

Pennsylvania Liquor Stores a Microcosm of Public Sectors Everywhere

Of course, the poor, suffering taxpayers would probably not be in such a foul mood if it wasn’t for the value they were getting for those high taxes.  That public sector sucks.  As any enterprise without competition does.  Why give a damn about what you’re doing if you’re the only caterer in town?

In Pennsylvania, you can only buy wine and liquor in a government store.  And the service stinks to high heaven.  The good people of Pennsylvania want to privatize their booze.  But the public sector union oppose privatization (see A Push to Privatize Pennsylvania Liquor Stores by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 12/31/2010 on The New York Times).

Like prisoners in the gulag, consumers here can only fantasize about buying their wine and liquor in a competitive free market. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has run the liquor stores for eight decades, a relic of the post-Prohibition era, when government thought controlling the sale of alcohol would limit consumption.

The legislature has consistently dismissed talk of privatizing the system, mainly because of opposition from the union representing the store workers and from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and conservative teetotalers, all influential in the state.

And what’s the recourse for an angry people?

“This is insane!” said Bill Conrad, 68, a retired electrical engineer. “People are going to New York and Jersey” to buy alcohol.

And there it is.  Competition makes everything better.  Should you be lucky enough to live close to the state border.  Where I live, I can go to most any party store, some drugstores, even some supermarkets.  And you know what?  I can go to anyone and buy whatever I want whenever I want.  Private stores have competition so they have an incentive to keep their shelves stocked.  And their doors open for customers.

If you want to get an idea about how Obamacare will be, you can look at the liquor stores in Pennsylvania.  That’s what happens when the governments tries to run anything.

The Taxpayers Message to the Public Sector Employees:  Get a Job

The Democrats took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  The people have rejected their Big Government liberal agenda.  And they know it.  So they’re now trying to shame the Republicans into working with them to keep their Big Government dreams alive.  It’s either that or they have to figure out a way to get rid of those pesky elections.

But the public sector is bankrupting the country.  And the people paying the taxes to support that public sector are saying enough is enough.  They don’t like making sacrifices in their own life so others in government can live a better life.  Especially when they have to settle for such rotten service from the public sector they’re paying more and more to fund.

Their message to these pampered public sector employees?  The same parents have been telling their kids for ages.  Get a job.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Health Care and the Deficit: Government Bureaucracy vs. Market Forces

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 12th, 2010

Birth Control and Abortion Bankrupting our Nation

Health care is expensive.  When it comes to the federal budget, nothing costs more.  And its cost will only increase (see Health Care and the Deficit editorial published 12/11/2010 on The New York Times).

This year, Medicare, Medicaid and a related children’s health insurance program will account for more than 20 percent of all federal spending — higher than Social Security or defense. Unless there are big changes, by 2035 federal health care spending — driven by rising medical costs and an aging population — is projected to account for almost 40 percent of the budget.

Politicians are whores who steal from the American people.  Earmarks, kickbacks, patronage, fat pay and benefit packages, uber generous pensions, whatever.  The bottom line is that they’re screwing us while they live a far better life than we ever will.  And as bad as their screwing of us is, their screwing of us ain’t the worse of it.  It’s the entitlement spending that’s gonna bankrupt us.  Especially healthcare spending for old people.

Thanks to birth control and abortion, the American people shrunk their family size starting with the boomer generation.  Instead of 10 kids in a family we started to have only 2 or 3 kids.  And it is this reduction in family size that will ultimately bankrupt our nation.

Cutting Medicare Because Nothing else is Big Enough to Cut

Thanks to birth control and abortion, we have an aging population.  The kids of families with 10+ kids are aging and reaching retirement.  But the kids of families with 2-3 kids are paying their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  More people are collecting benefits than are paying taxes to fund those benefits.  BIG problem.

When FDR implemented the great Ponzi scheme, Social Security, a bunch of people were supporting each beneficiary.  As the population ages, fewer and fewer people are supporting each beneficiary.  So they have to keep raising taxes on each individual.  But there is a limit.  Eventually, an individual will have to pay more in taxes to support a retiree than they spend on their own family.  And few people will whistle a happy tune when more of their hard-earned pay goes to someone else instead of their own family. 

If we’re not having more babies, then we gotta cut costs.  There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it.  So they’re talking about cutting costs.  By making us pay more for our benefits.

The White House commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, proposes to wring nearly $400 billion from health care spending between 2012 and 2020, of which the biggest single element — $110 billion — would come from increased cost-sharing by Medicare beneficiaries. The second commission, an independent panel headed by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, seeks to save $137 billion from Medicare cost-sharing.

So even though Obama denied it over and over again, they’re going to cut Medicare.  Why?  It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  To make any significant cost savings you gotta cut something big.  And few things are bigger than Medicare.

Taxing our Health Care Benefits

They’ll cut Medicare.  And raise taxes.

The Domenici-Rivlin panel, the more aggressive on health care, would also phase out the exclusion that exempts workers from paying taxes for employer-subsidized insurance, a benefit that also encourages excessive use of medical care. The long-term gain in tax revenue could be huge — more than $3 trillion between 2012 and 2030 and almost $10 trillion by 2040.

Few people don’t realize how much their employer pays for their health insurance.  They will now.  Though they won’t be getting a big pay raise, they will pay taxes as if they had.  That’s right, they will tax the total cost of your health care benefits as taxable income.  Even if you never see a doctor.

Wither on the Vine

You know things are bad when they propose something their enemy once proposed.

The Domenici-Rivlin panel has a far-reaching proposal to give Medicare enrollees vouchers to buy coverage from Medicare or a competing private plan offered on a Medicare exchange. The voucher would increase in value at roughly half the likely rate of medical inflation. If the cost of coverage rose faster than that, the beneficiary would have to pay an extra premium to cover the difference or seek a cheaper plan.

Sound familiar?  Newt Gingrich proposed this.  Back in the 1990s.  He said that as more people voluntarily enrolled in private insurance Medicare would wither on the vine.  Of course, the political opposition said Gingrich was just trying to kill senior citizens.  So his proposal was defeated.  And here we are.  Same problem.  Only more costly to solve now.

Competition Makes Everything Better

The big problem with health care is that there is no competition.  No market forces.

The commission believes that competition on the exchanges will cause insurance plans to find ways to lower premiums. It also believes beneficiaries will restrain their own spending. The panel projects savings from premium support and its near-term cuts and cost-shifting could be huge — more than $2 trillion through 2030 and more than $7 trillion through 2040.

Competition makes everything better.  And there’d be more competition now.  If the government didn’t forbid it.  For it is the government that forbids insurance companies from competing across state lines.

Can you Say Death Panels?

A spending cap is just another way to say rationing. 

The health care reform law already seeks to cap the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary to roughly half the rate it has been increasing in recent decades. It empowers a new board to find savings should the target be breached, subject to Congressional veto. The Bowles-Simpson commission would expand that approach by placing a cap on total federal spending for health care — not just Medicare and Medicaid but the subsidies on new exchanges and tax exemptions. But the commission punts on what to do should the growth cap be exceeded, as many experts deem likely.

This board will have the power of life and death.  They will say who will live.  And who will die.  They can deny it but that’s what rationing is.  We have enough healthcare services for one person today.  Who will get it?  The 39 year old factory worker who has many taxpaying years left (so the government can recoup its ‘investment’)?  Or the old retired guy?  Hmm.   The old retired pain in the ass who won’t hurry up and die?  Or the young guy that we can squeeze more taxes out of for another 20 years or so?

Cut Out the Middle Man

They have big hopes for Obamacare.

The best way to lower health care spending is to reform the dysfunctional health care system whose costs seem unrelated to the quality of care delivered. The reform law makes a good start, sponsoring research to determine which treatments are effective and which are not, starting pilot projects to change the way care is delivered and paid for, and setting up new organizations to rush successful approaches into wide use in Medicare and ultimately the private sector.

The problem with health care is that we approach it from a cost standpoint rather than a quality of care standpoint.  No law or board will change that.  Real competition would.  Such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.

One thing not mentioned by the New York Times is tort reform.  If we keep the jackals off of the doctors, they can spend more time administering health care instead of enriching ambulance chasers.

Perhaps the greatest cost control measure we can take is to cut out the middle man.  Have people pay for the services they receive.  Health care insurance is supposed to be insurance.  Not welfare.  It is to protect us from unexpected catastrophic medical expenses.  Like cancer.  Not to pay for a doctor appointment because we have the sniffles.

We Need more Market Forces.  Not more Government.

Increasing the size of a bureaucracy never made anything more efficient.  Price caps never made anything more plentiful.  And having someone else pay your bills never gives you the best quality.  That’s why we say beggars can’t be choosy.  Because we give beggars crap.

To fix our health care insurance woes we need to introduce market forces.  Not more government.  Medical savings accounts and tort reform would go a long way in fixing our problems.  As will competition across state lines.  And, of course, repealing Obamacare.

And we need to pay for our health care services.  For when we pay we seek the best value for our money.  Because we give a damn.  Unlike a disinterested government bureaucrat.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,