Even with the Bribes Chinese Health Care is Better since Privatization

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

China has recently privatized their health care system.  Sort of.  They have private health care providers and a state health insurance that helps pay for it with a small patient ‘co-pay’.  Quality of care did increase.  But health care providers don’t get paid a lot in China.  And turn to other means of compensation that is not without its problems (see ‘Guardian angels’ to protect Chinese doctors from patients by Malcolm Moore posted 4/9/2014 on The Telegraph).

Hospitals in Beijing will recruit 1,500 “guardian angels” to protect their doctors from violent attacks by patients.

In recent years, angry patients have killed a number of Chinese doctors, often citing frustration at how they have been handled by the healthcare system…

Doctors and nurses in hospitals are violently attacked every two weeks on average, the state media said, by patients angry at long waiting times, high medical bills and haughty or uncaring doctors…

The government has promised to root out corruption in the healthcare system, and the Health Ministry said in February it would target patients who bribe doctors for better treatment.

Yes, bribes.  Or hongbao, as it’s called in China.  If you want some decent care in a Chinese hospital you have to slide an envelope with money in it to your health care provider.  Otherwise you’ll only get what the state health insurance will buy you.  Long waiting times, high medical bills (for what the state insurance doesn’t cover—a high deductible, if you will) and haughty or uncaring doctors.  Which tells you how bad the health care system must have been before they privatized it.  For it’s a lot better now than it used to be.

So China made their health care better by privatizing it (although it is still so bad that angry patients who paid good bribes for their loved one’s care are assaulting their doctors and nurses every two weeks on average).  While the United States is going the other way.  Towards more state control.  Pity the Obama administration can’t be more like China when it comes to health care.  And try to improve the quality of health care instead of making it worse.  Which they will likely do as their cost saving measure is simply to pay health care providers less.  Which will likely discourage doctors from entering the system.  Or remaining in the system.  Leading to longer waiting times.  And, perhaps, bribes.  At least from those who want good care for their loved ones.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Health Care Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2014

Economics 101

Because Obamacare Insurance pays for everything Under the Sun it is anything but Insurance

Do you know what the problem is with health care?  Insurance plans that give away free flu shots.  Not that flu shots are bad.  They’re not.  And it’s a good thing for everyone to get one every year at the onset of the flu season.  For it does seem to limit the spread of the flu virus.  It’s because we get a flu shot every year is why insurance shouldn’t pay for it.  Because we know about this expense.  And we can budget for it.  Just like we can budget for our monthly cellular bill.  Which is in most cases more than ten times the cost of one annual flu shot.

When Lloyds of London started selling marine insurance at that coffee shop they were selling insurance.  Not welfare.  Losing a ship at sea caused a huge financial loss.  And shippers wanted to mitigate that risk.  So every shipper paid a SMALL premium to protect against a LARGE loss.  A POTENTIAL sinking and loss of cargo.  Not every ship sank, though.  In fact, most ships did not.  Which is why that little bit from everyone was able to pay the financial loss of the few shippers that lost their ship and cargo.  But that’s all that Lloyd’s of London paid for.  They didn’t pay a dime to shippers whose ships didn’t sink.  No, those shippers paid every cent they incurred (crew, food, rum, etc.) to ship things across those perilous oceans.  Because they could expect those costs.  And they could budget for them.

This is how insurance works.  Which isn’t how our current health insurance system works.  No.  Today people don’t want to pay for anything out-of-pocket.  Not the unexpected catastrophic costs.  Or the EXPECTED small costs that everyone can budget for in their personal lives.  Like an annual flu shot.  Childhood vaccinations.  Annual checkups.  Childbirth.  Etc.  Even the unexpected things that aren’t that expensive.  Like the stitches required when a child falls off of a bike.  Things that would cost less than someone’s monthly cellular bill.  Or things that people can plan and save for.  Like a house.  A car.  Or a child.  Which is why Obamacare insurance is not insurance.  It pays for way too many expected costs that we can budget for.  And because it does it only increases the cost of our health insurance policies.  Which are now anything but insurance.

Free Market Forces and Insurance for Catastrophic Costs will Fix any Problems in our Health Care System

When we pay these things out-of-pocket there are market forces in play.  For a doctor is not going to charge someone they’ve been seeing for years as much as he will charge a faceless insurance company.  Even today some doctors will waive some fees to help some of their long-time patients during a time of financial hardship.  Because there is a relationship between doctor and patient.  And they want to help.  Which is why they sometimes overcharge insurance companies to recover costs they can’t recover in full from other patients.  (Which is why insurance companies are vigilant in denying overbillings).  Especially those things government pays for.  Medicaid.  And Medicare.  Which the government discounts.  Leaving health care providers little choice but to overbill others to pay for what the government does not.

When we pay out-of-pocket doctors can’t charge as much.  Because they need patients.  If they charge too much their patients may find another good doctor that charges a little less.  Perhaps a younger one trying to establish a practice.  These are market forces.  Just like there are everywhere else in the economy.  Even a cancer patient requiring an expensive miracle drug benefits from market forces.  If there was true insurance in our health care system, that is.  Cancer is an unexpected and catastrophic cost.  But not everyone gets cancer.  Just as every ship does not sink.  Everyone would pay a small fee to insure against a financial loss that can result from cancer.  Where that little bit from everyone buying a catastrophic health insurance policy was able to pay the financial loss of the unfortunate few that require cancer treatment.  Even one including a costly miracle drug.  Because only a few from a large pool would incur these financial losses insurers would compete against other insurers for this business.  Just like they do to insure houses.  And ships crossing perilous oceans.

Health care would work better in the free market.  It doesn’t today because government changed that.  Starting with FDR putting a ceiling on wages.  Which forced employers to offer generous benefits to get the best workers to work for them when they couldn’t offer them more pay.  This was the beginning.  Now the health insurance industry is so bastardized that it doesn’t even resemble insurance anymore.  It’s just a massive cost transfer from one group of people to another.  Instead of a pooling of money to insure against financial risk.  For the few unexpected and catastrophic costs we cannot afford or budget for to pay out-of-pocket.

Because our Health Care System is the Most Expensive in the World it is the Best in the World

The American health care system is the finest in the world.  When you have a serious health care issue and you have the wherewithal there’s only one place you’re going for your medical care.  The United States.  And the best costs.  And it’s because it is so costly that people enter into the health care industry to do wonderful things.  Such as pharmaceutical companies.  Who many rail against for charging so much for the miracle drugs only they produce.  It’s a free country.  Anyone could have created that miracle drug.  All they had to do was to spend a boatload of money for years on other drugs that were losers.  Until they finally found one that wasn’t a loser.  That’s all you had to do.  Yet few do it.  Why?

Because creating miracle drugs is an extremely expensive and often futile endeavor.  Which is why we award patents to the few who do.  Which is the only reason they pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development and pay massive liability insurance premiums for taking a huge risk to put a drug onto the market that may harm or kill people.  They do this on the CHANCE that they may develop at least one successful drug that will pay for all of the costs incurred to develop this one drug, the costs for the countless drugs that failed AND provide a profit for their investors.  Who took a huge risk in paying their employees over the many years it took to come up with at least one drug that wasn’t a loser.  Their investors do this only because of the CHANCE that this pharmaceutical will develop that miracle drug that everyone wants.  But most don’t.  And investors just lose their investment.  But it’s the only way miracle drugs become available to us.  Because of rich investors who were willing to risk losing huge amounts of money.

This is what the profit incentive gives us.  The best health care system in the world.  Why the countries based on free market capitalism have the finest health care systems in the world.  And why North Korea, Cuba, the former East Germany, the former Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc., have never given us miracle drugs.  There never was an economic incentive throughout the economy to do so.  Like there is in countries with free market capitalism.  Where everyone at every level pursues profits that result overall in a pharmaceutical industry that produces these miracle drugs.

There is an expression that says you get what you pay for.  Our health care system is the most expensive in the world.  And because it is it is the best in the world.  Trying to inhibit the profit incentive for research and development and forcing medical providers to work for less (steeper Medicaid, Medicare and now Obamacare discounts) will change that.  Because you do get what you pay for.  And those who live/have lived in North Korea, Cuba, the former East Germany, the former Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc., can attest to.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Medicaid, Medicare and Frivolous Lawsuits make the Best Health Care System in the World more Expensive

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

The American left loves Canada.  In particular their single-payer health care system.  This is what they wanted in the US.  Not Obamacare.  But they settled for Obamacare.  Until they get what Canada has one day.  Because it’s better.  At least, according to a chart.  That shows how wonderful Canadian health care is and how horrible American health care is (see The U.S. Health Care System Is Terrible, In 1 Enraging Chart by Mark Gongloff posted 11/22/2013 on the Huffington Post).

Yes, among this group of big countries, the U.S. spends far and away more on health care than any other. And yet it has among the lowest life expectancies of any developed country. People live longer in pretty much every country in Europe, including Greece, where the economy has been wracked by austerity for years…

Why is our system so terrible? Largely because it is built for profit. Unlike many other countries, the government has no role in either providing care or setting prices, and so prices skyrocket. It’s also too complex, which is one reason the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature reform law, has gotten off to such a bad start.

The health care law is supposed to help with the cost problem somewhat. But it is built on the existing privatized system, which means it will probably not make a significant difference. A public option, also known as a “single payer” plan, would help. But that still seems like a pipe dream — although maybe Obamacare’s clumsy rollout will bring it closer to reality.

First of all it should be noted that Canada has one of the finest private health care networks in the world.  Outside of their single-payer system.  Which is something they share with all nations that have some form of national health care.  A private health care network for those who want and can pay for it.  And why is Canada’s private health care network the best in the world?  Perhaps you can guess why when you hear the name of it.  The Untied States health care system.  Just south of the border.

That’s right, for those with the means don’t wait in line for less than the best of health care.  They spend their own money to go to the front of the line to get the best health care available.  In the United States.  Often administered by Canadians.  Because the US pays the best doctors and nurses more than they can get in Canada.  So Canadian doctors and nurses, too, travel south across the border.

The US is one of the only countries where their poor suffer from obesity.  Because of generous food assistance programs.  Also, because we are a for-profit nation our food industry has figured out to give us more food for less.  Our beverage sizes have gotten so big giving us so much value for the money that Mayor Bloomberg tried to limit the size of beverages in New York.  And all American restaurants give us free refills.  Because they can.  While some European countries will charge extra for a package of ketchup.  All of this more food for less has led to our obesity problem.  Giving Americans heart disease and diabetes.  Shortening life expectancies.

US doctors are dropping out of Medicaid.  And Medicare.  More so now that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is rolling out.  Why?  Because the government pays for these nonprofit programs.  And they are constantly trying to reduce their reimbursements.  Because the aging population is straining the Medicaid and Medicare programs.  And the government has addressed this problem by ‘discounting’ Medicaid and Medicare billings.  For years doctors and hospitals have tried to recover these shortfalls by charging more.  Especially insurance companies.  Greatly increasing the cost of health care and health insurance.  But the discounting grew so great that many health care providers just dropped these programs.  Because they couldn’t pay their people, their lab costs, their overhead, etc.  Especially since Obamacare has taken money from Medicare.  And ‘forced’ states to expand their Medicaid rolls.  But these discounted reimbursements aren’t the only thing raising health care costs.

While most of Europe has loser-pay laws to curtail frivolous lawsuits the United States doesn’t.  Because of the trial lawyers.  Who get quite wealthy suing doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals.  Exploding the cost of malpractice and liability insurance.  Which increase the cost of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals.  Forcing them to raise their prices to recover these costs.  Making American health care more costly.

These are the reasons why the US spends more per capita on health care than all other nations.  Because they have the best health care system in the world.  And the best costs more.  While the government forcing health care providers to work below costs (Medicare and Medicaid) and the cost of frivolous lawsuits raise these costs even more.

The American health-care system is not terrible.  Single-payer systems are.  Because they all have a private health care network.  Which they wouldn’t have if single-payer systems were the best systems.  Just ask the Canadians who use their private network.  The US health care system.  Who will probably be the second greatest losers under the Affordable Care Act.  After the Americans.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT194: “People who bitch about losing their health insurance and doctors don’t think the health care system is broken.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 1st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The United States has the Best Health Care System in the World

The left says that the United States is the only advanced economy that doesn’t have national health care.  As if that is a bad thing.  Which is a false assumption.  Because Canada, the United Kingdom and North Korea all have national health care.  But if you have a serious health problem where do you want to go?  Canada?  The United Kingdom?  North Korea?  Or the United States?

Unless you’re lying to yourself you said the United States.  Because the United States has the best health care system in the world.  If you have the means you travel to the US for the best in medical care.  Which is what a lot of Canadians do.  Thanks to that great private network just south of the border.  The US health care system.  For no one suffering from a serious health problem ever said, “Damn, I wish it wasn’t so difficult to get to North Korea so I can get some of their national health care.”

There is a progression from good to bad.  At the good end is the United States health care system.  Then Canada because it is the private sector delivering health care services paid for by a single-payer.  The government.  And, of course, their access to the US health care system.  Then the United Kingdom which is national health care provided by the government.  Unless you’re rich and can afford the private system available to those with the means.  Then North Korea.  Where there is no private sector alternative.  Only the state-run national health care system.  And the quality of their health care is as horrible as life is in North Korea.

Those who say we should have National Health Care because Everyone Else has it are either Ignorant or Devious

So the more private sector in health care the better health care is.  The less private sector in health care the worse it is.  North Korea is the worst because it has no private sector at all.  While America is the best.  Because it has the most private sector.  With the worst health care in America being the small amount of state-run health care.  The VA and Medicaid.  Medicare is a little better but it’s more like the Canadian health care system.  The government pays the private sector for its Medicare services.  And the best health care is that enjoyed by unions and government workers—pure private sector health care.

This is why NOT having national health care is NOT a bad thing.  Because NOT having national health care has allowed the United States to have the best health care system in the world.  So those who keep saying we should have national health care because everyone else has it are either ignorant or devious.  Either way we shouldn’t be listening to them.

It’s the left that wants national health care.  Liberal Democrats.  It’s not the right.  Conservatives.  And what do we know about liberals and conservatives?  They have opposing views of the government’s role in our lives.  Liberals feel the more the better.  Because they love having power over others.  While conservatives want what the Founding Fathers wanted.  Limited government.  Where the people have the power.  In a government of the people, by the people, for the people.  Just as Abraham Lincoln said in his address at Gettysburg. 

The Left wants National Health Care because it makes Government more Important in our Lives

If we return to the ‘ignorant or devious’ question the answer is now clear.  Health care is approximately one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  If the government controls that it will be the largest expansion of government into our lives.  Making all people dependent on government.  So instead of scaring only Social Security, Medicare and food stamp recipients with a government shutdown the government can frighten everyone.  Imagine the next time the government wants to raise the debt limit.  It’s not the White House tours or the World War II Memorial that they will close because of the sequester/government shutdown.  It will be our health care system. 

This is why they want national health care.  Because it makes government more important in our lives.  And people will see how much we need government.  This is want they want.  They want this so bad they will be devious and lie to us.  By first telling us that our health care system—the best health care system in the world—is broken.  And then to sell the Affordable Care Act they told us that if we liked our health insurance we could keep our health insurance.  And that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor.  Even though they wrote the Affordable Care Act to make sure we lost our health insurance and our doctors.

Because of Obamacare businesses stopped hiring full-time people.  And pushed full-time people to part-time.  Our health insurance premiums are rising.  As are our deductibles.  Making health insurance unaffordable for those who don’t have employer-provided health insurance.  As well as making some low-cost plans illegal under Obamacare.  Causing a lot of people to get letters from their insurers in the mail telling them they are cancelling their health insurance.  As people complain that President Obama lied to them he and his fellow Democrats say these people are actually lucky.  Because they had ‘crap’ policies.  Which was further proof that our health care system is broken.  They say this despite the strongest of evidence proving otherwise.  For people who bitch about losing their health insurance and doctors don’t think the health care system is broken.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Swedes reintroduce the Profit Incentive into the Health Care Equation to fix their National Health Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 19th, 2013

Week in Review

Obamacare will transform American health care into a more top-down national health care system.  Because the American left always wanted national health care.  For the power over the economy it will give them.  Not so much for the quality of health care.  For the quality of national health care has not been historically as good as the quality of private health care.  But the left doesn’t care.  Because it’s not about the quality of health care.  It’s about having power over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

But they tell us it’s about providing high-quality health care to everyone.  Not just for the rich people who can afford it.  Which they can do if they take out the profit incentive from the health care equation.  For that’s what is driving up health care costs.  Greedy doctors and hospitals.  Who are profiting on sick people.  Which is just immoral to those on the left.  No.  The only way to fix health care is by removing the profit incentive from the health care equation.  Like they’ve done in Sweden.  The model of socialism the left so wants to see in the United States (see A hospital case posted 5/18/2013 on The Economist).

SAINT GORAN’S hospital is one of the glories of the Swedish welfare state. It is also a laboratory for applying business principles to the public sector. The hospital is run by a private company, Capio, which in turn is run by a consortium of private-equity funds, including Nordic Capital and Apax Partners. The doctors and nurses are Capio employees, answerable to a boss and a board…

Welcome to health care in post-ideological Sweden. From the patient’s point of view, St Goran’s is no different from any other public hospital. Treatment is free, after a nominal charge which is universal in Sweden…

Staff used to waste precious time looking for defibrillator machines and the like. Then someone suggested marking a spot on the floor with yellow tape and insisting that the machines were always kept there…

St Goran’s is the medical equivalent of a budget airline. There are four to six patients to a room. The decor is institutional. Everything is done to “maximise throughput”. The aim is to give taxpayers value for money. Hospitals should not be in the hotel business, the argument goes…

Spreading efficiency will not be easy, however. Europeans instinctively recoil from private companies making money from health care. British placards protest against modest reforms with pictures of fat cats helping the health minister to disembowel a patient labelled “NHS” (National Health Service). Even in Sweden, the mood has grown more hostile since some private-equity companies were embroiled in scandals at nursing homes…

Private health-care companies have several advantages over public organisations. They have more incentive to make services more efficient, since they typically keep some of the savings. They are better at persuading their employees to adopt new ideas. And they are better at spreading new ideas across borders. Europe should be proud of its public-health services. But if it wants them still to be affordable in the future, it should allow more private companies into the mix.

Hmmm.  The model socialism that the left so admires is using the profit incentive to fix their national health care.  Which means it must have been broken.  Just to show the differences in the way bureaucrats and ‘for profit’ people think consider the tape ‘X’ on the floor to mark the spot where a defibrillator should be stored.  The centralized authority couldn’t make that happen.  The top-down bureaucracy couldn’t figure a way to make people spend less time looking for a defibrillator.  Just something else to look forward to as Obamacare begins to reorganize American health care from the top down.

Maximizing throughput?  That’s a business term.  An alien concept to those in government.  And to their friends in labor unions.  Which will descend on the health care system under Obamacare.  Who will represent health care workers.  Not patients.  And their answer to everything will be more people working fewer hours.  Which will increase the cost of health care.  Just as it increased costs in American manufacturing.  Chasing it out of the country.  So there will be no maximizing throughput under a government/union controlled health care system.  Just more of what the Swedes are trying to get away from by reintroducing the profit incentive into the health care equation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

One Passenger Airline charging by the Passenger’s Weight may offer new Funding Idea for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 7th, 2013

Week in Review

When the price of oil soars it doesn’t affect the railroads that much.  Because fuel costs are not their greatest cost.  Maintaining that massive infrastructure is.  For wherever a train travels there has to be track.  It’s different for the airlines.  The only infrastructure they have is at the airports.  And the traffic control centers that keep order in the sky.  Once a plane is off the ground it doesn’t need anything but fuel in its tanks to go somewhere.  And because the flying infrastructure is so much less than the railroad infrastructure fuel costs are a much larger cost.  In fact, it’s their greatest cost of flying.  So when fuel costs rise ticket prices rise along with them.  And they start charging more bag fees.  As well as any other fee they can charge you to offset these soaring fuel costs.

Boeing made their 787, the Dreamliner, exceptionally light.  To reduce flying costs.  They used a lot of composite materials.  Two large engines because they’re lighter than 4 smaller engines.  They even used a new lithium-ion battery system to start up their auxiliary power unit.  And made it fly-by-wire to eliminate the hydraulic system that normally operates the control surfaces.  They did all of these things to fight the biggest enemy they have in flying.  Weight.  For the greater the weight the more fuel they burn.  And the less profitable they are.

Freight airlines charge their customers by the weight of the freight they wish to ship.  Because there is a direct correlation between the weight of their freight and the amount of fuel they have to burn to carry that freight.  In fact, all shippers charge by the weight.  Because in transportation weight is everything.  But there is one mode of transportation that we don’t charge by the weight.  Passenger air travel.  Until now, that is (see A tax on overweight airline passengers: a brutal airline policy by Robin Abcarian posted 4/3/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

When teensy-weensy Samoa Airlines debuted its pay-by-the-kilo policy in January, I doubt it expected to set off an international controversy about fat discrimination.

But that’s what happened when news seeped out this week after the airline’s chief executive, Chris Langton, told ABC News radio in Australia that the system is not only fair but destined to catch on.

“Doesn’t matter whether you’re carrying freight or people,” explained Langton. “We’ve amalgamated the two and worked out a figure per kilo.”

Samoa Air, he added, has always weighed the human and non-human cargo it carries. “As any airline operator knows, they don’t run on seats, they run on weight,” said Langton. “There’s no doubt in my mind this is the concept of the future because anybody who travels has felt they’ve paid for half the passenger that’s sitting next to them…”

“Samoa Air, Introducing a world first: ‘Pay only for what you weigh’! We at Samoa Air are keeping airfares fair, by charging our passengers only for what they weigh. You are the master of your Air’fair’, you decide how much (or little) your ticket will cost. No more exorbitant excess baggage fees, or being charged for baggage you may not carry. Your weight plus your baggage items, is what you pay for. Simple. The Sky’s the Limit..!”

One bright note to this policy: Families with small children, who often feel persecuted when they travel, stand to benefit most from this policy. Since Samoa no longer charges by the seat, it will cost them a lot less to fly than it did before.

The appeal of this policy depends on your perspective.  If you’re of average weight sitting next to someone spilling over their seat into yours it may bother you knowing that you each paid the same price for a seat and resent the person encroaching on your seat.  But if you paid per the weight you bring onto the airplane then that person paid for the right to spill over into your seat.  Which they no doubt will do without worrying about how you feel.  As they paid more for their ticket than you paid for yours.  So the person who weighs less will get a discount to suffer the encroachment.  While the person who weighs more will have to pay a premium for the privilege to encroach.

Under the current system the people who weigh less subsidize the ticket prices of those who weigh more.  It’s not fair.  But it does save people the embarrassment of getting onto a scale when purchasing a ticket.  So should all airlines charge like all other modes of transportation?  Or should they continue to subsidize the obese?  Should we be fair?  Or should we be kind?

Chances are that government would step in and prevent airlines from charging by the weight.  Calling it a hate crime.  Even while they are waging a war on the obese themselves. Telling us what size soda we can buy.  And regulating many other aspects of our lives.  Especially now with Obamacare.  Because the obese are burdening our health care system with their health problems the government now has the right to regulate our lives.  And they have no problem calling us fat and obese.  But a private airline starts charging by the weight of the passenger?  Just don’t see how the government will allow that.  For it’s one thing for them to bully us.  But they won’t let these private businesses hurt people’s feelings by being fair.  So the people who are not overweight will continue to subsidize the flying cost of those who are overweight.

Until the government determines obese people are causing an unfair burden on society.  The obese have more health issues.  Which will consume more limited health care resources.  Also, flying these heavier people around will burn more fuel.  Putting more carbon emissions into the air.  Causing more breathing problems for everyone else.  As well as killing the planet with more global warming.  So while the airlines may not want to weigh people when selling them a ticket because of the potential backlash, the government won’t have a problem.  To cut the high cost of health care and to save the planet from global warming caused by carbon emissions they may even introduce a ‘fat’ tax.  Like any other sin tax.  To encourage people to choose to be healthier.  And to punish those who choose not to.  If they can force us to buy health insurance what can stop them from accessing a ‘fat’ tax?  Especially when they do have the right to tax us.

This is where national health care can take us.  When they begin paying the bill for health care they will have the right to do almost anything if they can identify it as a heath care issue.  Because it’s in the national interest.  They’ve painted bulls-eyes on the backs of smokers.  And drinkers.  With tobacco and alcohol taxes.  And you know they would love to tax us for being fat.  Perhaps even having our doctors file our weight with the IRS.  So they can bump our tax rates based on how obese we are.  If the tax dollars pay for health care they will say they have that right.  As the obese consume an unfair amount of those limited tax dollars.  Anything is possible with an out of control growing federal government faced with trillion dollar deficits.  Especially when they can call it a health care issue.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Rich Doctors say Tax Them More to Help Fund the Canadian ‘Obamacare’ System that Makes them Rich

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2012

Week in Review

People distrust rich people.  That’s why they want to tax them more.  Because they have more than enough money.  No matter what they say about earning their money or how they invest their wealth to create jobs.  People don’t want to hear any of this.  For they ‘know’ that these rich fat cats are lying just to keep from having to ‘share’ their wealth.  But whenever a rich guy says ‘tax us rich people more’ everyone hangs on to their every last word.  For if they are talking about raising taxes on the rich then these are not your typical rich.  They’re the good kind.  Like these doctors in Canada (see Tax us more, doctors urge (Are the lawyers listening?) by Michael Babad posted 3/22/2012 on The Globe and Mail).

A group of doctors is taking a page from Warren Buffett’s tax-the-rich call, urging the Canadian and Ontario governments to tax higher-income earners more…

Doctors for Fair Taxation plan to announce their scheme in Toronto this afternoon, calling for additional taxes on people earning more than $100,000. You’d be hit with an additional 1 per cent if you earn between $100,000 and $170,000, 2 per cent if you earn up to $640,000, and 3 per cent for up to $1.85-million. Above that it would be 6 per cent.

“We feel that this is a moral argument,” Dr. Michael Rachlis, who founded the group that so far boasts more than 50 physicians, told The Canadian Press.

“We cannot talk about throwing people out of work and cutting needed programs for people,” said Dr. Rachlis, an associate professor at the University of Toronto.

Wow.  Sounds very selfless, doesn’t it?  These rich guys asking to be taxed more to help their country?  At least on the surface it does.  But the question that begs to be asked is what are they spending so much money on that they have to raise taxes?  And when you learn what that is it puts these doctors into a different light.

Here’s an article from 2010.  About two years ago.  Talking about a budget crisis.  Where spending is out of control.  Spending that the Canadians just can’t sustain.  And where is this out of control spending?  Why, it just happens to be in the industry that pays these doctors.  Canada’s single-payer health care system.  Talk about coincidences.  These doctors asking rich people everywhere to help pay the nation’s bills.  Where the biggest bill is the one that pays these doctors (see Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model by Claire Sibonney posted 3/31/2010 on Reuters).

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

Proponents of national health care in America blame the private health insurers, the pharmaceuticals and the hospitals for out of control health care costs.  What they say we need is a system like Canada.  Where they put people before profits.  And yet here they are.  The Canadians.  With a health care system suffering from out of control costs.  Which they are trying to fix with higher taxes.  Additional fees.  Even a little Americanization (that is, privatization).  Makes you wonder why we’re going forward with Obamacare while the Canadians are finding that type of a system is unsustainable.  Especially when our retiring baby boomers outnumber their retiring baby boomers. 

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

Wow.  Look at that.  Almost half of provincial budgets pay for the ‘free’ health care of Canadians.  Which is causing budget deficits at the provincial level.  And at the national level.  Well, up until 2013, that is.  When the national government is going to address their budget deficits by cutting their health care payments to the provinces.  Increasing the provincial budget deficits in the process.  Leaving the provincial governments to tax and spend more.  Or ration care and cut spending more.  Including doctor pay.  Could this have anything to do with those selfless physicians asking that their government tax the rich more?  Perhaps.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

“Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There’s going to be a finer look at what we’re paying for and, more importantly, what we’re getting for it,” he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked…

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

So the power of government inserted into the health care system has done nothing to lower the cost of medical procedures in Canada.  Makes you scratch your head, doesn’t it?  Because the proponents of Obamacare say that’s exactly what the power of government can do.  But in practice it has failed to do what these theorists say it can do.  Cut costs.  Through bureaucratic management.  And ‘turning of the screws’ on the medical device and drug manufacturers.  Despite this very practice NOT working in Canada.  Which means that the proponents of Obamacare think the Canadian bureaucrats simply aren’t smart enough to make their health care system work efficiently.  That the system of government-managed health care is a flawed system when it comes to costs and efficiency.  Or that government-managed health care is not about costs or efficiency.  But about the bureaucracy itself.  The control and power it offers the politicians.  And the votes it can buy them.

“Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them,” said U of T’s Golden. “We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now.”

Scotia Capital’s Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. “(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it’s costing,” she said.

Wait a minute.  To fix the government-managed system they need to make the patients aware of the costs so they can choose wisely?  There’s a name for such a system.  We call it capitalism.  The very thing missing from government-managed health care.  And the very reason why government-managed systems (the Canadian health care system, the American Medicare/Medicaid programs, the UK’s National Health Service, etc.) fail to control costs.  And why Obamacare will fail to control costs.  Because they exclude the one thing that controls costs best from government-managed systems.  Capitalism.  Where people make spending decisions based on cost.  Which will never happen when someone other than the patient pays for the costs for the medical services a patient receives.  For no one ever asks ‘how much’ when they’re not paying the bill.

So when a rich doctor says to tax the rich more is this selfless?  Or selfish?  You decide.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Ontario Turns to Rationing to Combat Rising Costs in their Health Care System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 28th, 2012

Week in Review

When you go to a national health system you give up on market forces.  There is no competition to keep prices competitive and affordable.  Because there is a single payer.  The government.  That pays for health care with taxes.  Which are finite.  And as health care costs rise they consume more of these finite taxes.  Until they reach a point that either that finite amount of taxes must be increased.  Or you ration health care services (see Ontario to cut health services covered by medicare by the The Canadian Press posted 1/25/2012 on CBC News).

Ontario will reduce the number of health services covered by medicare as the Liberal government looks to cut costs and trim a $16-billion deficit.

Health Minister Deb Matthews says the government is reviewing all health services to see if evidence shows they improve patient outcomes, and if not, they could be delisted from OHIP…

Matthews will outline a plan next week with several initiatives that she says will both improve patient care and address Ontario’s fiscal reality.

Of course these are mutually exclusive goals.  You cannot improve care by providing less care.  What you get instead is rationing.  Less care for the same level of taxes.  To offset the increase of health care costs.  Caused by the exclusion of market forces from a national health care system.

The inevitable decline of health care typical in all nationally provided systems.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The International Fight against Universal Health Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 16th, 2011

The Most Effective Cost Control Mechanism is Market Forces

They keep saying that they’re not trying to nationalize our health care.  In fact, Obama promised that if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor with the new Obamacare.  Of course, that decision won’t be entirely yours.  For your doctor may choose to drop you.  And if they keeping cutting Medicare doctor reimbursements, doctors will finally say enough is enough.  I’m outta here.  No more Medicare patients.  Which could force you to find another doctor.  Even though Obama promised that wouldn’t happen.

There’s a lot of talk about controlling costs in Medicare.  And there’s only one way to that with the current system.  You pay doctors less.  Which they are always trying to do.  Is that fair?  Put yourself in their position.  Would you keep seeing patients?  After doing what so few other people do (go to college, medical school, serve an internship and a residency after racking up huge student loan debt that has to be paid back at the same time you have to pay ever rising medical malpractice insurance premiums leaving you with little money to enjoy the first decade or so of your new medical career)?  Because some government bureaucrat says you’ve earned enough money?  All the while no government restrictions are placed on public sector pay and benefits?  To add the ultimate insult to injury, a lot of those same bureaucrats telling doctors that they’ve earned enough money and should be happy with what the government deems is appropriate will no doubt make more than the doctor.  With far less training.  And far less responsibility.  Which just ain’t right.

They like to blame the doctors for the runaway costs.  But they’re not the lone scapegoat.  They also blame the pharmaceutical companies.  The hospitals.  And, of course, the great ‘big bad’ in the health care industry, the insurance companies.  Whose costs keep going up.  Greater than the rate of inflation.  So the runaway costs in the health care system must be their fault.  Because they’re greedy.  It can’t have anything to do with the system we force them into.  Where third party payments shut out all market forces (the person receiving the service isn’t paying the bill), thus eliminating the only effective cost control mechanism.  And introduces government.  Making health care a public good.  Where non-health care government bureaucrats determine fair pricing, supply and demand.  And you know where that will lead to.  To the here and now.

Labour fights against Market Forces for the NHS in the UK

Government bureaucrats don’t like privatization.  Or market forces.  They’d rather manage things.  Because they’re smarter.  Narcissistic.   And they covet that money and power.  They want all those tax dollars funding health care to go through their fingers.  And having people dependent on them for their health care makes that a whole lot easier.  So when conservatives try to introduce effective cost mechanisms, liberals push back.  In the US.  In Canada.  And in the UK (see NHS bill to ‘substantively’ change, says Oliver Letwin posted 4/16/2011 on the BBC).

Labour wants the plans for the NHS in England, which encourage more private sector competition, to be scrapped.

Under the shake-up, GPs are also to be given control of much of the NHS budget.

To cut costs, reduce wait times and improve quality of the NHS, the UK is trying to decentralize the NHS.  Give more decision-making authority to the general practitioners (GPs) in the local communities.  Letting the local health care providers in the communities they serve determine how to best spend the NHS money.  Which, of course, is anathema to Big Government liberals.  Such as Labour in the UK.

Liberals fight against Market Forces for the CHA in Canada

Wherever you find national health care, you’ll find bitter partisan debate over the money paying for that health care.  Except in Cuba.  Or North Korea.  Luckily, for them, there are no opposition parties.  And no one complains about anything.  For they know better.  But Canada has a national funded health care system.  And opposition parties.  Which can get pretty nasty when they’re trailing in the polls (see Liberals drop gloves with attack ad on Harper’s ‘secret’ health agenda by John Ibbitson posted 4/16/2011 in The Globe and Mail).

Conservatives are reacting with fury to a Liberal attack ad that accuses them of harbouring a secret agenda to cut health care funding if they obtain a majority government.

“The Liberal ad uses some of the dirtiest tricks in the book — including twisting words out of context and deliberately altering dates to make old words appear recent,” Tory campaign manager Jenni Byrne wrote to party supporters in reaction to the new attack ad.

In America, the go-to strategy is to threaten Medicare.  In the UK it’s the NHS.  In Canada, it’s the Canada Health Act (CHA).  The reason is, of course, the sheer size of this budget item.  If you’re trying to cut a budget deficit, that’s where you do it.  Cuts elsewhere just won’t be big enough to matter.  And everyone knows it.

If Mr. Harper is given “absolute power,” the ad warns, he plans to cut $11-billion from the federal budget. “Where would Harper’s cuts leave your family’s health?” the narrator asks.

“The stakes are too high. Vote Liberal.”

So you threaten certain death for you and your family should the opposition get elected.  While all the time promising yourself to cut the deficit.  Which, of course, you won’t.  For it will require cuts in health care funding.  And you’re not going to do that.  For there will be another election.  Eventually.  Sure, it makes you a hypocrite.  But a hypocrite with a job.

The Conservatives do plan to cut government spending as part of their own plan to balance the budget, but they promise to do so without reducing transfers to provinces, including health transfers.

It is true that the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien cut funding for health care in the 1990s as part of its efforts to eliminate the federal deficit. Once the budget was balanced, the Paul Martin government signed a ten-year accord to increase funding by six per cent a year. The Conservatives, when they came to power, honoured that commitment, and pledge to continue the arrangement, as does Mr. Ignatieff.

Anyone living near the Canadian-US border only knows too well the consequences of painful health care cuts.  When doctors and nurses get pay cuts, they scoot across the border for higher paying jobs in the US.  Which makes Canadians’ long waits for health care even longer.  This is the ultimate consequence of national health care.  Cost problems you solve by rationing services.  Whether in the UK.  Canada.  Or the USA.

Massachusetts:  Blueprint for Obamacare

We have Obamacare now.  Maybe.  We’ll see.  There’s a popular movement to repeal it.  After it was snuck through Congress.  By the time people learned what was in it (long after Congress voted it into law), the majority of the population didn’t want it.  It’s a big reason why the Republicans won back the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections.  For the people felt betrayed by their representatives.  So they fired a bunch of them.  Except Nancy Pelosi.  Who the good people of San Francisco reelected with like 80% of the vote even though her national approval numbers as Speaker of the House were closer to 10%.  Which makes it clear that the San Francisco district she represents is an anomaly in the American fabric.  Where the people think against the national grain, so to speak.  But I digress.

Anyway, before Obamacare there was Massachusetts.  And their little experiment in universal health care.  Which now covers every man, woman and child.  Well, almost.  Only 98% are covered.  That other 2% are the state’s Republicans.  I’m kidding, of course.  I don’t know who that 2% is.  Except that they must be the most unlucky sons of bitches ever to live in Massachusetts.  To live in a state where everyone gets free health care and they still get bupkis.  Imagine how that would make you feel.

But even there, in that universal health care utopia, they have a problem.    They gave health care to everyone (except that unlucky 2%, the poor bastards) but they never figured out how to pay for it (see Massachusetts, pioneer of universal health care, now may try new approach to costs by Amy Goldstein posted 4/15/2011 on The Washington Post).

Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D) is trying to “shove,” as he put it, the health-care system here into a new era of cost control. He is proposing a new way of paying for care that would try to propel changes in the way it is delivered. It would give lump payments to teams of doctors responsible for almost all the care of a group of patients, with bonuses for saving money and dispensing high-caliber services that keep people healthy.

Interesting.  Sort of going the route of the GPs in the UK.  Decentralizing the health care system.  After they just centralized it.

Massachusetts in 2006 created a health insurance exchange, a requirement that most residents carry coverage and subsidies to help them pay for it — central elements now in the federal law. As a result, 98 percent of the residents here are now insured, the highest rate in the nation. But the state’s first round of health-care changes devoted far less attention to medical costs.

“We did access first,” said state Senate President Therese Murray (D). “Now we have to figure out how we afford that.”

Oops.  No doubt during the debate for universal care the opponents said something like, “Are you out of your minds?  You have any idea what something like that will cost?”  Which, of course, the proponents replied, “Don’t worry about it.  We have a plan.”  And that plan was apparently to get the law passed first then figure out how to pay for it.

Fee-for-service medicine “is a primary contributor to escalating costs and pervasive problems of uneven quality,” the commission unanimously concluded in 2009.

Despite the consensus, huge questions loom: Who should be part of the new medical teams? How would the idea work for most doctors who practice alone or in small groups? How much clout should the state wield to blunt the ability of powerful local health systems to drive up costs? And, importantly, how heavy a hand should the government use to compel change?

Fee for service is NOT the problem.  It’s never the problem.  If I want to hire a contractor to build a deck in my backyard, I’ll ask some contractors to quote their fee to build a deck.  If the prices are $15,000, $10,000 and $5,000 for identical services, guess who I’m going to hire.  Now, for the sake of argument, let’s say that each of these prices are fair prices for each of these contractors because of their cost structure (e.g., one may have his office on the beach and pays ten times as much in property tax as the others and therefore has to charge more). 

Now in a system where the government steps in to make prices fair, let’s see what happens.  Say a bureaucrat gets three quotes and determines the fair price is $10,000 (the average of the three).  So the contractor who quoted $15,000 now has to build decks at $10,000 and lose money, eventually going out of business.  The contractor that quoted $5,000 will get rich making over a 100% profit on each deck.  And me?  I’ll end up paying twice as much as I had to for the deck.  This is what happens when you don’t let the market set prices.  You get a mess.

In the pressure-cooker of medical costs in the United States, Massachusetts offers a particularly vivid example. The spending per person on health care is 15 percent higher than the national average — even taking into account the comparatively high wages here and outsize role of medical research and training. The move to near-universal coverage, state figures show, accounts for a sliver of recent increases in insurance premiums, which have soared above inflation. The main reason has been a rapid escalation in prices.

“The growth is outstripping every single measure of society’s ability to keep up,” said Glen Shor, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which runs the insurance exchange.

So much for the theory of an insurance exchange being the panacea Obama claimed it would be.  For whenever has a bureaucracy been cost efficient?  Never.  It’s impossible.  You can’t manage an economy and do better than market forces.  It’s never happened yet in human history.  So why do some people (i.e., Big Government liberals) still think they can do a better job?  Oh, but we must remove filthy, nasty profits from health care.  This ‘public good’ deserves better.  It deserves the tender love of a caring government bureaucracy.  Not some evil corporation trying to maximize profits.  Of course, look at what happens when these corporations do just that.  Stuff we like and want to buy is plentiful and inexpensive.  But God forbid if we do that to health care.

Some doctors are embracing the new way of working. David C. Pickul is the medical director of the physicians group affiliated with Lowell General Hospital, in an economically bruised community about 30 miles northwest of Boston. The group is in the third year of a five-year “alternative quality” contract with Blue Cross involving a hub of 70 primary care doctors and a looser group of 200 specialists who are responsible for 20,000 HMO patients. The team now has a financial incentive, Pickul said, to track down patients when it is time for their mammograms or for eye exams for those with diabetes. Under Blue Cross’s quality rating, Lowell has soared the past two years.

Blue Cross is not alone. At Partners HealthCare, the famous Boston-based medical system that dominates health care here, Massachusetts General Hospital has been conducting a Medicare experiment in which nurses are assigned to coordinate care for about 2,500 older patients with multiple ailments. The experiment, which began five years ago, so far has reduced hospital re-admissions by one-fifth and cut medical spending by 7 percent.

“Frankly, the market has already . . . responded,” said Gary Gottlieb, Partners’ president and chief executive. “There is enough momentum for us to do this without instrumental regulation” by the state.

The governor and some other officials disagree. The need to lower costs, they say, is urgent enough that the government should step in, and they have been laying groundwork.

Financial incentive?  Isn’t that another word for profit?  And this pursuit of profits has done what?  Improved patient quality?  Reduced hospital readmissions by one-fifth?  And cut medical spending by 7 percent?  Amazing what will happen when you let the market respond.  What a success story.  But they want to do what?  Step in?  To lower costs?  After the market lowered costs already by 7 percent?  You got to be kidding me.  Whatever happened to if it ain’t broke don’t fix it?

And Alice Coombs, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, is especially concerned about physicians who work alone or in small groups, older physicians who might choose to retire rather than switch or new doctors who might leave for other states.

And how do you solve that problem?  With compulsory medical service.  Which universal health care coverage gives you.  If you worry about doctors opting out of a new cost-contained system, you make it impossible to opt out.  You simply nationalize health care.  Letting the doctors know, yeah, they may be miserable and unhappy with the new system, but you’ll be just as miserable and unhappy where ever you go.  So why move out of state?  For any where you go, we’ll be there.  Understand?  So just keep curing the people and stop your bitching. 

Sure will make all that medical school, internship and residency worth it, won’t it?

The Song Remains the Same

Liberals everywhere want to expand the size of government.  And a national health care is the holy grail of government expansion.  But everywhere it’s tried the same thing happens.  Cost and wait times increase.  Quality decreases.  And services are rationed.  Most people (especially liberals) want to blame the greed of those who work in health care.  So they come up with new ways to manage and control costs.  Which inevitably adds yet more layers of bureaucracy.  Which benefits liberal governments.  At the expense of the taxpayer.  And patients’ health.

But nothing they try works.  Costs keep going up.  For good reason.  Because the problem is not the greed of the health care people.  It’s the health care system.  There are no market forces in it.  Which is the most efficient cost control mechanism.  Of course, admitting this is an admission that Big Government has failed.  And liberals can’t have that.  So they fight.  Demonize.  And scapegoat. And try to scare the bejesus out of everyone by saying conservatives want to cut health care funding so they can kill your family.

Whatever the name, whatever the country, the song remains the same.  Conservatives will try to cut deficits by reforming the biggest budget item.  And liberals will fight them every step of the way.  Ultimately giving us a health care system with greater costs, longer wait times, lower quality and rationed care.  As demonstrated everywhere in countries with a national health care system.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries