A Cynical Look On Competition: Government Style! Part 1

Ahh, time to pass a few more bills through congress before anyone gets a chance to read them.
Actually, this is admittedly part of the strategy being used to pass the new Health Care Bill. The new Health Care bill is "on schedule" to be voted upon during this session of congress. Liberal legislators fear that if it does not pass before Congress goes out of session, the bill may become unpopular.
Hmm, interesting
Perhaps because people will figure out what's actually in the bill?
No, I suppose that wouldn't be good for the bill's popularity.

Evidently, Obama's plan is good because it creates competition. At least, according to advocates of the bill.
"Ahh yes, competition! Now we have the free market cornered! We'll beat them at their own game and prove that capitalism doesn't work!"
Unlike corporation, the government doesn't actually have to play by the rules.
You see, Corporations actually have to make a PROFIT. To say the government is competing when it is allowed to break the only primary rule is just plain stupid.
It's like a race in the ocean between a Tuna fish and a Human, where the finish line is 2000 feet under water. The fish can go down into debt as much as it wants, but the Human is stuck with the lungs of bankruptcy.
On top of that, the Health Care bill unleashes a plethora of new taxes against insurance companies. It's as if the fish get's to break the man's legs before the race starts.
It's not really hard to see who the "winner" of this competition will be. When all is said and done though, the man may have broken legs, and the tuna might swim better, but whom do you trust more to treat your flu.

A Cynical Look on Universal Healthcare Part 4

Now I'm sure that there are still people unaware of how Universal Health Care can negatively impact them. They may be unaffected, through some strange coincidence, by the problems already outlined. No one, however, is unaffected by the cost of health care.

In a socialistic health care system, those who go to the doctor less are more heavily penalized, proportionally, than those who go to the doctor more. In a socialistic health care system with progressive taxes the rich are heavily penalized for having money, unless they go to the doctor, at current American tax rates, 36% more than those who live on the streets. Obviously, those living on the streets have more medical issues than those who can afford balanced diets and preventive medicines. Thus the rich, as a whole, would be paying a much larger fee per doctor or hospital visit than those who literally do nothing. (Who actually profit from visiting the doctor, for health care is worth more than nothing, and they would pay nothing to get it.)

The rich deserve to pay more, you may say. If that is your thought, I obviously cannot dissuade you from it. However, the rich also tend to desire their money's worth from what they spend money on. Alienating the people providing the money that allows programs to run may not be a good idea. Remember, you can add a lot of weight to the rich man's back, but one straw too many and he's gone forever.

However, the rich alone cannot provide enough money for everyone. Especially with the super rich simply hiring more lawyers, and finding more loopholes to stash their vast incomes away in. Thus, everyone pays more to the government for their health care regardless of how often they use it. Make it through a full year without any illnesses? Good for you, you pay the same as Sniffly Bobby, the coworker who was sick 167 days this past year. If you find that fair, I would love to hear your explanation in the comments.

Related Reading:
Article: Paying The Price For Drugs In Europe
Article: Entitlement programs eating up U.S. budget

Economic Implications of Health Care:
A Free Market for Health Care
Nationalized Health Care Will Cut Costs? It Just ain't so!

A Cynical Look on Universal Healthcare Part 3

Ahh, Veterans Day: the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I. Which was followed by the ridiculous terms of loss given to Germany that, ironically, caused World War II.






Anyway, today we continue on to the third section of our gigantic bit on Universal Health Care (UHC). If all of the problems we already discussed were not enough to sway you from the support of UHC, there are still more you need to know.

Universal Health Care causes scarcity in health equipment. In fact, compared to Canada, the US has more than twice as many open heart surgery centers per million people, more than three times as many MRI units per million people, more than four times as many Lithotripsy units per million people, almost twice as many CT scanning centers per million people, and more than twice as many cardiac catheterization centers per million people.

Why is this? Well, there is no competition in the health care market. Why would your firm spend extra money to get some of this technology when either way you have a full list of patients? Well, you wouldn't! These machines are very expensive, so there is no incentive to buy them.

In America, you can find this type of technology fairly readily as it stands. When one purchases this equipment in the United States, most can expect to make the money they spend back by charging for the equipment's use. This creates an economically feasible reason to actually obtain this equipment from the standpoint of a health specialist. However, if we moved to a Universal Health Care system, we can expect to have the same problems with scarcity that we see in other countries that have already adopted this system.

A Cynical Look on Universal Healthcare Part 2

Universal Health Care (UHC), or socialized health care, some may say, is viable. They could point to countries like Canada and Sweden. I, however, must say that it isn't viable at all. I'm going to use countries like Canada and Sweden, mostly Canada, to disprove the myth that UHC can work.

Yes, I realize that it is possible to opt out of public care. My post is on public care, however, because that is what is recognized as UHC.

In both those countries the wait for medical procedures is far too long for real emergency surgeries, like removing a potentially deadly brain tumor. This wait is prohibitive because UHC guarantees health care to everyone. Since the health care guarantee is there, people can go to doctors for everything from a stubbed toe to a runny nose. Obviously all this essentially meaningless work for the doctors ensures a longer wait for those who actually have problems. Waiting for a potentially deadly illness to be diagnosed because Timmy has a runny nose is something that nobody desires, but UHC promotes.

Canadian health care has a fundamental, to steal Barack Obama's favorite word, problem. Everyone gets health care. That, you may say, is a good thing. It's not. If everyone gets health care, then there must be enough supply to satisfy everyone. There is the problem. The demand is infinite, while the supply is not. Therefore there are dangerous waits, sub-optimal access, and an overarching lack of competition, which causes lack of development. While Canadians enjoy care, they get to wait for it.

Canadians also do not have access to the best doctors in the world in their health care system. The system inherently encourages the best doctors, surgeons, nurses, janitors, and everyone with any possibility to make more money elsewhere, to leave. Therefore, Canadians enjoy mediocre health care with long waits. Do the the fact that a system which forces some people to wait over a year for surgeries, has understaffed emergency rooms leaving patients lying on gurneys, and has doctors and patients opting out of it. It's easy to cynically conclude that Canada does not, in fact, have a great health care system.

A Cynical Look on Universal Healthcare Part 1

Universal Health Care: a topic on the tongues of every politician. Without careful analysis, it seems like a good idea. After all, countries that have socialized Health Care seem to have a longer average life span.
However, there are many issues that arise with socialized Health Care, taxes aside, though taxes and Healthcare will be covered at a later date.
For one, most countries that currently use these systems rely on American's current competitive environment to supply them with the health care technology they need at a feasible price. Sweden, for example, relies very heavily upon the American competitive health care system.

"Where does the health care technology come from that the Swedish hospitals use? Where do the drugs and the medicines come from? Well all of it is, really, invented in the American competitive health care system."
- Johan Norberg, Swedish author of In Defense of Global Capitalism in an interview with Reason.tv
He goes on to beg America not to implement any sort of socialized health care system.

The issue of countries with socialized health care relying on the U.S. is further detailed in this article: Will Socialized Health Care in the US Kill Canadians?

Socialized Health Care guarantees health care providers that meet a certain criteria an inflow of customers. Because there is no competition, providers have no reason to develop better health care technology. The lack of competition also reduces the quality of the the health care. If you had to have your brain operated on, would you pay more for someone who has never done an operation? Or would you pay more for the best neurosurgeon in the country? Under socialized health care you don't get a choice, and the best neurosurgeon will never be available because the pay does not meet his costs.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, was also against socialized health care. He even predicted it before his time. "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Unfortunately nowadays, a lot more than health care meets this category.



Because universal health care vs private health care is such a large topic, I will continue this blog post on a later date.