2012 Endorsements: Karl Marx

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 29th, 2012

2012 Election

Because Workers just don’t Spontaneously Join Together into a Functioning Business they need Capitalists

Karl Marx is the father of socialism.  And communism.  He was also the author (along with Friedrich Engels) of the Communist Manifesto.  The 19th century book that said, “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.  The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.  They have a world to win.  WORKINGMEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”  Some people heeded his advice.  Vladimir Ilich Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot, to name a few.  The greatest mass murderers of all time.  No ideology has killed more than communism.  Not even the socialist Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (more commonly known as the Nazi Party) killed more.

According to Marx the history of society has been a class struggle.  Before his time it was the landed aristocracy oppressing the peasants in feudalism.  Then came along capitalism.  Where the new oppressor was the bourgeoisie.  The capitalist.  The employer.  The person that paid others to work.  And kept the profits of their labors.  Basically that means your boss.  Who you may hate while you’re working.  But if business is slow and layoffs are coming you desperately hope it’s someone else and not you.  And should you lose your job you desperately look for someone else who will pay you to work.  Because that’s the only way you know how to feed yourself and buy yourself nice things.  Like a home.  A cup of coffee at Starbucks.  Or a smartphone.  Marx called this oppression.  While most everyone else would call that being happy to have a job.  Because most workers don’t have a clue on how to run a business.  Let alone build one out of nothing.  For workers just don’t spontaneously join together into a functioning business.  They need capitalists.  For without capitalists there would be no jobs for workers.

So who does the bourgeoisie oppress?  The proletarians.  The laborers.  The employees of the bourgeoisie.  The people that actually do the work.  In his day that meant the factory workers.  Who were ruthlessly exploited in sweatshop conditions toiling away at monotonous tasks beneath the dignity of a human being.  The bourgeoisie was turning man into little more than a machine.  That worked until exhausted.  And what did they get for their labors?  Barely enough to survive.  Interestingly, whenever these cruel capitalists turned to actual machines to free these workers from this inhumane labor they cried out against this capitalist greed.  For replacing workers with machines was greedy.  And destroyed jobs.  So on the one hand these jobs oppressed the working class.  But on the other they were the best thing that ever happened to the working class.

Karl Marx summarized his Theory of Communism in One Tenet: The Abolition of Private Property

That’s something else Marx didn’t like.  Change.  The bourgeoisie was always changing things.  Updating their factories.  Installing new machinery.  Forcing the people that did things the old way out of a job.  Much like President Obama blames much of our economic woes on today.  And our high unemployment.  ATMs have put bank tellers out of a job.  Self-serve checkout lanes have put cashiers out of a job.  One man and a trenching machine put hundreds of ditch diggers out of a job.  The electric light put gas lighting workers out of a job.  And gas lighting put kerosene lighting workers out of a job.  And kerosene lighting put whale oil workers out of a job.  And whale oil lighting put candle makers out of a job.  It’s this modernization that Marx doesn’t like.  It disrupts labor.  Making the old worker obsolete.  So unions come in to protect these old jobs.  Allowing people to earn high wages without having advanced skills.  So instead of learning the skills to do the new jobs of the future they can keep doing the jobs of the past.  President Obama talks about bringing back high-paying manufacturing jobs.  Where workers toil away in those monotonous tasks that are beneath the dignity of a human being.  The kind of jobs the parents of college graduates toiled away at to put their kids through college.  So their kids wouldn’t have to do what they did.  Because the new jobs are better than the old jobs.  They’re easier.  Safer.  And offer higher pay.  But the downside is that they take more education and training.  Where some people will be better than others.  Which is unfair to those who aren’t as good.

Of course to help these factory owners pay these old jobs high wages they need to sell their goods at high prices.  Often at higher prices than the market price.  So they have to unlevel the playing field.  Governments pass minimum wage laws.  Union requirements.  And minimize the competition.  Either by restricting other domestic competitors by high entry costs.  Such as licensing fees.  Or by placing tariffs on lower priced foreign imports.  Raising their prices so they don’t cost less than the higher priced domestically produced goods.  Allowing these few factory owners to pay their employees these higher wages.  By forcing the general public to spend more money than they would have without these protections.  And thereby having to make sacrifices in their lives because they have less of their earnings for their own families.  For these reasons Marx called free trade exploitation.  Because free trade made it difficult for unskilled workers to earn high wages.

Marx summarized his theory of communism in one tenet: The abolition of private property.  For it was the bourgeoisie’s accumulation of private property that exploited the working class.  So no one can own anything.  Even laborers.  Because whatever private property the laborers accumulated came from only one place.  From the exploitation of other workers.  And that’s not the only thing Marx wanted to abolish.  He also wanted to abolish the past.  Even though he held on to the jobs of the past.  Marx advocated abolishing tradition, customs, institutions and religion.  Even families.  He wanted to replace education with communist indoctrination.  Much like they did in Nazi Germany.  In the Soviet Union.  In communist China.  North Korea.  Cuba.  Cambodia.  In a socialist/communist society everyone is equally subordinate to the state.  Where there is no private property.  No bourgeoisie.  Just a dictatorship of the proletariat.  A workers’ paradise.  A communist utopia.  Where no one looked anywhere but to the state for all of their needs.

If Karl Marx were Alive Today he would Likely Endorse the Democrat Candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden

So what would it be like in this communist utopia?  This dictatorship of the proletariat?  There would be a heavy progressive tax.  (The US has a progressive tax rate.  And the Democrats want to raise tax rates higher yet at the high end.)  No right to inheritance.  (Democrats want to raise inheritance taxes.)  Confiscation of the property of emigrants.  (The Democrats want to highly tax/seize money invested outside of the United States that is trying to escape that heavy progressive tax.)  A central bank.  (The Federal Reserve is a central bank.)  Centralization of the means of communication into the hands of the state.  (The three television news networks have a Democrat bias.  Most newspapers have a Democrat bias.  And the two areas that don’t, talk radio and the Internet, the Democrats want to regulate.)  Free public education.  That indoctrinates our children.  (Public education tries to turn our children into Democrat voters.  By teaching the unfairness of capitalism.  America’s sins.  And by scaring our children about global warming.  And that only government can protect us from global warming by regulating private industry more.  Generous tuition subsidies help continue this work at our colleges.)

The Democrats further this class struggle, or rather create one, with their endless class warfare.  The top 1% isn’t paying their fair share of taxes.  The Democrats embraced the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Pitting the 1% against the 99%.  The Democrats employ racism.  Tuning any criticism of President Obama into a racist attack.  The Democrats try to scare women by warning them of the Republican war on women.  Saying ‘women should buy their own birth control’ is code for Republicans hate women and will oppress them if elected.  The Democrats constantly divide us.  Putting one group against another.  Trying to keep the people agitated.  And angry.  So they will welcome more government into their lives.  And the abolition of the capitalists’ private property through that heavy progressive tax.  The empowerment of unions.  Both private and public.  The restriction of our liberties through radical egalitarianism.  By punishing achievement.  So no one can rise to a higher level of success.  Or to a higher level of wealth.  So everyone is equally miserable in their workers’ paradise.

So if Karl Max were alive today who would he support in the 2012 election?  The party that includes a lot of Marxist doctrine in it all ready.  Marx would feel at home in the Democrat Party.  In fact it would be hard not to see a bit of communist revolution in it.  Especially with communist Fidel Castro and socialist Hugo Chávez already endorsing the Democrat Party candidates.  So it isn’t much of a leap to say that if Karl Marx were alive today he would likely endorse the Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT106: “You can’t have high paying jobs with generous benefits and low consumer prices.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 24th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

To give Workers High Wages and Generous Benefits a Business has to sell their Goods at High Prices 

The problem with politics is that voters don’t understand economics.  And they demonstrate this by demanding mutually exclusive things all of the time.  Where having one thing makes it impossible to have the other thing.  Like that old saying that goes like this.  You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.   You can have cake.  Or you can eat cake.  But you can’t have cake after eating it.  Because once you eat your cake it is gone.  And there is nothing to have.  These things, then, are mutually exclusive.  You can have one or the other.  But you can’t have both.

Now let’s transfer this train of thought to economics.  And to its most fundamental element.  The demand curve.  Which represents people in the economy.  Consumers.  And the stuff that they buy.  And at what prices they will buy the stuff that they buy.  Let’s take large flat-screen televisions.  The big ones.  Over 60 inches in size.  If they cost the price of a luxury car few consumers will buy them.  But if they only cost the price of a pack of gum consumers will buy them until they have one for every room in their house.  And consumers will buy various amounts at the prices in between.  But in general this one truth holds true.  People will buy more televisions as their prices fall.  And they will buy fewer televisions as their prices rise.  When we show this graphically by plotting how many televisions they sell at various prices we get a demand curve.

Well, you think, why can’t we just sell televisions at the price of a pack of gum?  More people will have televisions.  That’s good.  Because people just love watching television.  And television makers will make more televisions.  Creating more jobs.  And jobs are good.  Everyone says so.  So why not just sell televisions for the price of a pack of gum.  Well, I suppose if we pay the people who make these televisions a wage and benefit package closer to the price of a pack of gum, we could.  But who wants to work for a paycheck that can only buy a pack of gum?  Which brings us back to wanting mutually exclusive things.  To give workers high wages and generous benefits we have to sell goods at high prices.  Which is mutually exclusive to the low prices consumers demand.

Big Oil’s Exxon Mobil was not as profitable as GE and Apple in 2010

Yes, you can’t have low consumer prices and high pay and generous benefits.  Because, per the demand curve, higher prices mean fewer things sold.   And fewer things sold mean lower sales revenue.  And sales revenue pays for everything in a business.  Including wages and benefits.  Which means lower sales revenue means less money available to pay wages and benefits.  And any company that tries to pay high wages and provide generous benefits has to do one of two things.  Have a product they can sell a lot of at high prices.  Or go bankrupt.  Two of the Big Three Detroit automakers tried to do the former and failed.  So they went bankrupt.  And the government bailed them out.

So to pay employees well these companies need to be profitable.  Unlike the Big Three.  And to be profitable you have to have sales revenue large enough AND prices high enough to generate profits.  Profits so large that they can provide high wages and generous benefits.  Unlike the Big Three.  Because they couldn’t sell enough cars at high enough prices to pay those high union wages and generous union benefits.  But some companies have been profitable.  Including one corporation liberal Democrats love to hate.  Exxon Mobil (a member of a group liberal Democrats derisively call Big Oil).  One company that the current liberal Democrat administration loves and partners with in green energy technology.  General Electric.  And one corporation liberal Democrats just love period.  Until Steve Jobs died, at least.  Apple. 

In the fourth quarter of 2010, the profits for Exxon Mobil, GE and Apple were, respectively, $9.25 billion, $4.46 billion and $4.31 billion.  The first thing that jumps out at you is that Big Oil is making twice as much money as the corporations liberal Democrats love.  Which is why they hate them.  And why they love to bitch about high prices at the gas pump.  While at the same time they are rejoicing about those high prices.  Because those high gasoline prices help push their green energy agenda.  But these profit numbers are misleading.  Because they don’t factor in the cost of producing those profits.  And the most common way we do that is by dividing these profits by the sales revenue that generated them.  Giving us net profit margin.  When we do this for Exxon Mobil, GE and Apple we find their net profit margins on those profits were, respectively, 8.79%, 10.8% and 21.2%.  Of the three Big Oil is the least profitable.  And Apple is the most profitable.  In fact, nearly 2.5 times more profitable than Exxon Mobil.  But no one is demanding that the government step in and lower the price of Apple’s products.  Unlike they do with Big Oil.

The Government’s Regulatory and Compliance Costs increase the Price of Gasoline at the Pump

So why is Big Oil less profitable than those other businesses?  Well, for one, you can’t drill for American oil in China.  Like GE and Apple can build products in China.  And by working in the United States Big Oil is subject to massive regulatory and compliance costs.  And government regulates few things more than the oil industry.  The permitting process alone just to drill an exploratory well can take years for approval.  And millions of dollars.  It wasn’t like this when gas was cheap in America.  Before all of this regulation.  In the days when John D. Rockefeller was refining petroleum no one was complaining about high prices.  In fact, his competition complained about his low prices.  Prices they couldn’t match.  Asking for the government to investigate them for antitrust violations.  Which they did.  And busted up Standard Oil.  So they could sell their products at higher prices.  But when you can manufacture goods in China you can escape all of these regulatory and compliance costs.  And governmental insanity of protecting consumers by raising consumer prices.

Some may counter that the net profit percentage isn’t the important number.  But the dollar amount of their profits.  The same people who say we shouldn’t look at the dollar amount rich people pay in taxes.  But what they pay as a percentage of their income.  Which is an example of a double standard.  Determining how much profit is too much by one standard for Big Oil (dollars).  But determining by another standard how much rich people should pay in taxes (percentage).  It doesn’t make good sense.  But it makes good politics.  Especially when you have nothing but class warfare to rely on to win an election.

The attack on Big Oil is also irrational.  For Big Oil can do one thing that even GE and Apple can’t do.  Provide high wages and generous benefits to American workers.  Because American oil deposits can only be extracted in America.  By American workers.  If only government will cease their attack on Big Oil.  And allow people to drive gas guzzlers if they want to.  Let them fill up those tanks.  Increase the demand for gasoline.  If they did and we got rid of the anti-gasoline policies Big Oil will go after that oil and bring it to market to meet that demand.  Making it inexpensive and plentiful just like John D. Rockefeller did.  Before government stepped in to ‘protect’ consumers.  And added so many regulatory and compliance costs that has since jacked up the price at the pump so much that it is eating away an ever larger share of a family’s budget.  And ultimately reducing their standard of living.  Without even getting any high paying jobs with generous benefits in the bargain.  And if you ask me that’s a pretty sad job of protecting consumers.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

A Liberal Opines on things Economic, Confirms why they Suck at Creating Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 16th, 2011

Liberals don’t know Business or Jobs but they have their Big Keynesian Words

If you want to know why liberals are so bad at stimulating economic activity just read Paul Krugman’s Wages and Employment, Again (Wonkish) posted 1/16/2011 on The New York Times.  He pontificates with an erudite air of all-knowing condescension.  He’s smart.  And he wants to make sure you get this.  So he writes with big words and references big demand-side macroeconomic theories that he and his kind accept as undisputed fact.  Despite what the lessons of history say. 

Krugman is a Keynesian.  So, as a Keynesian, he knows nothing about business.  But, like a Keynesian, that doesn’t stop him from opining on the subject of business.

Here’s a fundamental truth (FT) about business.  FT 1:  If you make the cost of doing business high, you will reduce the amount of business a business does.  Here’s another.  FT 2:  If the people are NOT buying whatever they’re selling, this will also reduce the amount of business a business does.  A couple of key things a business needs here.  To have the cost of doing business kept low enough so they can sell at a price that makes them competitive in the market place.  And they need people to have jobs so they can buy their competitively priced goods or services they place into the market place.

Liberals never seem to get either of these points.

High Wages have never Stimulated Economic Activity

Keynesians believe if you give money to people that fixes everything.  When Krugman says:

…I’ve also argued a number of times that cutting wages now would probably make the slump worse, not better.

That’s Keynesian.  You cut wages and the people have less money spend.  So that’s why Keynesians are all about high wages.  Of course, they miss the other side of high wages.  High wages mean fewer jobs.  Because high wages limit the number of employees a business can hire and still sell at prices that are competitive in the market place.

High wages have never stimulated economic activity.  They just raise costs.  This let the Japanese take huge chunks of market share away from the Big Three.  And it’s bankrupting our big blue cities and states that are drowning in debt because of their public sector union contracts.  If Krugman was right, these cities would be booming in economic activity because of those fat public sector pay and benefits.  But they’re not.  The only thing those high wages are doing is bankrupting these cities and states.

Liberals never seem to get this point.  So they trade off economic activity for votes, blissfully unaware of the extent of economic damage they’re doing.  Or they’re aware and they just don’t care.

Easy Money begets Irrational Exuberance which begets Asset Bubbles which begets Recessions

Another favorite of the Keynesians is manipulating interest rates.

…a rise in the real money supply reduces interest rates, leading to a rise in demand.

Read ‘a rise in real money supply‘ as printing money.  The idea here is to make money cheap and plentiful so people will borrow it to buy things.  Like houses.  Like they did during Bill Clinton’s and George W Bush’s presidencies.  And, boy, did they.  Times were good.  Real good.  Only one problem.  Irrational exuberance.

Clinton and Bush thought they found the magical economic elixir.  Home ownership.  So they did everything in their power to extend homeownership.  Even to the people who couldn’t afford it.

Easy money.  Monetary policy that keeps money cheap and plentiful.  To entice people to borrow.  And they were.  Borrowing.  And buying houses.  So much so that they bid up the prices into a huge asset bubble.  Meanwhile, people who couldn’t afford to buy a house were buying houses, too.  The federal government pushed lenders to lend. Or face the consequences.  Be investigated for discriminatory lending.  Or, worse, suffer the public spectacle of having Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton publically calling them racist (a lot of the inner city poor were black).  So they came up with some creative ways to qualify unqualified people for mortgages.  We call them subprime mortgages.  And we know how those came back to bite us in the ass.

The problem with bubbles is that they burst.  And when they do, the life blows out of the economy like the air out of a popped balloon.  Deflationary spirals often follow.  And nasty, horrible and painfully long recessions.

Liberals never seem to get this point, either.  You’d think that they would as it has happened so often.

For Narcissists, it’s not the economy.  It’s their Egos, Stupid.

Krugman’s column really shows the problems with liberals.  They’re a bunch of narcissists.  Who love their superior minds.  They love to hear themselves talk.  And love to read what they write.  They write to impress.  And to stimulate themselves.  If you know what I mean.  Only those in his elite circle can understand what the hell he is writing about.  Not us.  The sloped-brow, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools.  We just work and live in the real world.  Raise our families.  And pay our taxes.

Liberals like to complicate things.  And to try to control the complex.  The economy will work fine on its own.  And when it does we experience some of the greatest economic expansions.   But when they tinker with their Ivy League knowledge, bad things typically happen.  Such as the subprime mortgage crisis.  The Great Recession.  Even the Great Depression.  All of which resulted from liberal tinkering.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #21: “The reason why health insurance is so expensive is because it is not insurance.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2010

YOU CAME IN with a grand ‘to lose’ but have been riding a hot streak.  You’re up 5 grand.  And feeling luckier still.  You came in with a grand, you think, so you can just as well leave with a grand.  So you bet 5 grand.  Cause those cards have been so good to you tonight.  And there it is.  Blackjack!  And just as you’re about to shout to the heavens you see the dealer throw an ace on his down card.  The dealer asks, “Insurance?”   

You don’t want to but you just KNOW what’s under that ace.  All of a sudden you’re not so cavalier about losing 5 grand.  Too many friends have told you the same story.  “I was up 5 grand until that last hand.”   You could cry.  You don’t buy insurance.  Only suckers buy insurance.  That’s what you’ve always said.  But when you’ve got 5 grand on the table, the dealer can’t have anything but blackjack.  You know it.  He knows it.  And your wife knows it even though she’s off playing the slots somewhere.  You pull out $2,500 from your ‘do not touch’ money and buy the insurance.  (Let’s end this on a happy note.  The down card was a queen.  You walk away as if that last hand never happened, $5,000 richer.  Less taxes, of course.)

LIFE’S BEEN GOOD.  You’re making good money.  You have a beautiful wife and 3 great kids.  You just sold that small house and moved into that big house you always wanted for the holidays.  Cost a pretty penny.  But you had $75,000 in equity in the old home.  And cashed in a CD to furnish the new one with some nice new toys.  After all, life has been good.

The mortgage stings a little, but not too much.  You’ll get by.  You got all the big things you’ve wanted.  Now you can settle in and live modestly in your new home.  And you bought insurance up the wazoo.  If there is fire, flood, theft or death, no worries.  Well, there’ll be some worry, but you won’t financially ruin your family.  They’ll keep the house.  And there will be college for the kids.  Because you were responsible.  You protected the greatest investment of your life.  Yes, things have been good.  But not good enough to pay for everything twice.

TRADE EXPLODED IN the 17th century as little wooden ships crossed the oceans.  Storms and rough seas, though, toss around little wooden ships.  A lot of them sank.  With their cargoes.  But they didn’t all sink.  So owners insured their ships and cargoes.  For a nominal fee, they protected their investment.  For those that didn’t sink, the insurance wasn’t much of an added expense.  For those that did sink, it paid to replace the lost ship and cargo. 

YOU’VE ALWAYS WANTED to open a restaurant.  And your dream finally came true.  You saved for years.  You scrimped on vacations.  Didn’t by a new car.  Expensive toys.  No.  Your years of denying yourself the little pleasures in life saved up enough money to buy that restaurant.  To put enough money down to borrow to fit out the kitchen and dining area.  To stock your fridge, freezer and pantry.  You maxed out your credit and sunk your life savings into your dream.  And you’re loving it.  But you don’t want to lose it.  So you have all the insurances.  Fire.  Property.  Workers’ comp.  Liability.  So in case of fire, celebrating students (who trash the town after winning the championship), a strained employee back or an E. coli outbreak (because an employee didn’t wash his hands after using the toilet), you’re protected.  Your business may suffer, as they are wont to do after an E. coli outbreak, but the lawsuits won’t leave you destitute.

BEING IN THE NFL is a dream come true to many athletes.  But it can be a brutal occupation.  Compared to other professional sports, it has a short season.  Why?  Attrition.  Concussions, broken bones, torn ligaments and contusions take their toll.  The short season allows a longer healing period.  And time for surgeries.

Players can make obscene amounts of money.  But they can also suffer a career-ending injury in the first year of a multi-year contract. Great playing potential means great earning potential.  If you stay healthy and play.  Of course, if injured, all gone.  Some players insure against a career-ending injury.  Lloyd’s of London will insure an athlete.  For a price.  It ain’t cheap.  But if it keeps you from losing, say, 20 million in earnings, it could turn out to be quite the bargain.  If you’ve got huge potential.

THE MOST PRECIOUS gift we all have is our life.  So we take care of it.  We watch what we eat, don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t take drugs, don’t speed in our cars or while on our motorcycles, don’t drink and drive, don’t drive around flashing railroad crossing barriers, don’t binge drink, don’t have unprotected sex, don’t play with matches or run with scissors and don’t do that thing where you jump up on a railing with a skateboard and fall, crushing your testicles on the railing and hitting your head on the concrete step.  No, we exercise, go to bed early and eat a lot of bran. 

All right, we probably don’t eat as much bran as we should.  And maybe we do a risky thing or two.  But we understand that those risky things we DO do can cost us.  Could wipe us out financially.  So we buy insurance to protect our life savings in the event of a catastrophic event that could be medically very expensive.

Or do we?

EVERYONE THAT HAS ever bought blackjack insurance didn’t get a winning blackjack hand.  Everyone that has ever bought homeowner’s insurance didn’t get a new home with their policy.  Everyone that has ever bought mariner’s insurance didn’t get a ship and a cargo of goodies with their premium payment.  Everyone that has ever bought business insurance didn’t get a business with their payment.  And an NFL player doesn’t get a dime from Lloyd’s of London until something pretty horrible happens first.  No.  These purchases were ‘just in case’.  Most people will never get anything for their payments (other than peace of mind).  Only those who suffer a loss will.  And those that do will have mitigated their financial losses with the insurance they so wisely purchased.  And they will get on with their lives.

This is insurance.   We use it to protect our wealth.  It takes a lot of time to accrue it.  So when we have it, we tend to protect it.  We do risky things.  And insurance manages that risk.  So we don’t lose everything we have because of a catastrophic event. 

We don’t think like this when it comes to health insurance, though.  We don’t think of health insurance as a way to manage our risk.  We look at it as a free ride.  If we have it, we expect free health care.  We want everything.  But we don’t want to pay for anything.  Free mammograms.  Those blue pills for the old johnson.  Heart valves.  Prenatal care.  Child vaccination.  Etc.

The problem is, these things cost.  A lot.  And if anybody can have them, those who actually pay for insurance have to pay for them.  And they’ll be paying for things they aren’t using.  All those things listed above mean nothing to a young single male.  But he’s helping to pay for that stuff.  Either by his premium contribution.  Or in lost wages.  Because an employer can’t afford such quality health insurance AND high wages.

Health insurance has become nothing more than a wealth transfer.  It’s like a Ponzi scheme.  A large and ‘growing’ group of healthy young people pay into the system and collect few benefits.  The ‘fewer’, older, sicker people pay little into the system but consume the lion’s share of the benefits.  At least in theory.  But like social security, and all Ponzi schemes, the theory doesn’t work in practice.

AMERICA HAS THE best health care in the world.  If you judge by where the affluent go for their health care.  They go to America.  And the best is never cheap.  You get what you pay for.  And if you want the best, expect to pay.  A lot.

All right, we have the best and some of the most expensive health care in the world.  Add to that an aging population.  What do you get?  A shrinking group of people (the young and healthy) paying for a growing group of people (the old and sick).  That means the burden on those paying into the system has to what?  It has to keep getting bigger.

But it can’t.  The young and healthy will just opt out.  Eventually.  When it gets to the point that it’s a car payment or a health insurance payment, what do you think they’ll choose?  Their annual health care expenses for an entire year may not equal one premium payment.  So they’ll say screw that.  And do.  A lot of young do not have health insurance because they choose not.  It’s just too fricking expensive.  And this just shrinks the shrinking group more.  Which increases the amount those with insurance pay.  And so it goes.

AND YOU DON’T fix this problem by nationalizing health care.  That doesn’t address the problem.  You have to tie the cost to the benefit.  People only chose to pay for things they get.  Those receiving the benefit, then, need to pay its cost.  Like we do with every other thing in our lives.  You want a TV you pay for a TV.  You don’t pay for one so your neighbor can have one.  TV prices are very reasonable, too.  They keep coming down.  The quality is fantastic.  And so it would be in health care.

Single payer health care insurance ain’t the answer either.  Because it’s not insurance.  It’s a wealth transfer.  That means it’s political.  It will serve political ends.  Not make good health care.  First of all, they’ll force the young and healthy to pay for insurance under penalty of law.  Or they’ll raise taxes until it hurts.  Then they’ll cut costs.  First by limiting what doctors can earn.  Then they’ll limit the profits the pharmaceuticals can make.  Then the medical device makers will have their turn.  Soon, people won’t want to be doctors any more.  Or make new and life saving drugs.  Or make medical devices.  So when the supply of these things falls, rationing must follow.  And if you really want to cut costs, there’s really only one place to do it.  The really sick and the really old.  These people, after all, consume the lion’s share of health care services. 

We don’t have a health care problem.  People are living longer than ever.  We have a dependency problem.  The current system has made us dependent on others for our health care.  And dependency kills.  It cowers a people.  Takes away their dignity.  Makes them subservient.  People live in fear.  Of what they may lose.  Nationalizing health care will only make us more dependent.  It’s not the answer.  Unless you want to conquer and subjugate a people.  I mean, how many of you have stayed at job you absolutely hated because of the health insurance?  If that ain’t subjugated, I don’t know what is.  As bad as that was, at least you got something for it.  Good health care.  If you think you’re going to get that under a national system, think again.  Or ask those people with a national system that come to this country for better care.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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