Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

We Don't Have Free Market Health Care

by Da King on September 10, 2009

in Democrats,GOP,health care,Uncategorized,White House administration

One thing I've never been able to understand in the health care reform debate is why the Republican idea to allow health insurance companies to compete on a nationwide basis isn't incorporated into the health care reform bill(s). President Obama stresses competition as the primary reason for the public option, but every thinking person knows the private sector can't compete with the federal government. If we want competition in a free market, competition must be between those IN THE FREE MARKET. The government isn't part of that.

The reason we don't have a functioning free market in health care is due to the government itself. Ann Coulter's recent column explains it pretty well:

The only reason you can't keep — or often obtain — health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services — i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby — which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

(Note to liberals – Just because it's Coulter saying it doesn't mean it's not true. What I quoted here is ALL true.)

The government has intruded into health care time and again, forcing costs up every step of the way. We have a tightly controlled and mandated health care market, and then the same government agents who created this environment complain about a lack of competition and high prices, when they WON'T ALLOW TRUE FREE MARKET COMPETITION.

The Republicans don't have many good ideas about health care reform, but they have a few. National free market health insurance competition is a good one. So is allowing individuals to make their health care insurance 100% tax deductible. So is tort reform. If President Obama wants the bipartisan bill that he says he does, why aren't any of these things included ?

What we are heading for now is one of two worlds, either 1) a health care reform bill with a public option that will destroy the private insurance industry, resulting in a government insurance monopoly, or 2) a health care reform bill without a public option, and with no cost controls in place for private insurers. This would be a huge giveaway to the insurance companies.

Neither of these options is acceptable, and in both cases, the government will be FORCING people to buy health insurance. Some choice.

The government should go back to the drawing board. There's no reason a real bipartisan bill cannot be produced that bends down the health care cost curve and gives us a free market as well. What the government should do is oversee the free market, not trample all over it. We should have a bill that doesn't allow insurers to eliminate pre-existing conditions, that doesn't allow insurers to drop or deny coverage, and that doesn't allow insurers to profit excessively, but as free citizens in a free country, we should have the right to get the health insurance coverage that WE want, not what the government dictates for us.

  • roysoldboy

    Great post, King. Of course, there is too much truth in it for left leaners. They trip over truth, you know, so you can expect some replies from them as they fall down.

    The speech last night proved that our President is something else on air with his teleprompter running. Not too much seriously thought out truth there unless you count calling public option the only option for Congress to take.

    I think he reiterated the fact that the Dems won't accept anything from Republicans in fear of doing something right, for a change.

    He constantly talks about no competition among insurance companies and even went so far as to use the most terrible example of just that when he called attention to only one company being allowed to do business in Alabama. I wonder if those people even understand what competition really is.

  • jlpaine

    King,
    Coulter might be saying something sensible…but it's hard to believe. And IF you are trying to do more than stroke those who already agree with you – you might want to find other sources that are saying the same thing… Cause she's a bomb throwing wingnut LOON! Just as ideologically bent as your worst nightmare 'socialist' (you pick em).

    MOST active Republicans have little creditbility on this issue King…Where was the party in the last 10 years, (except for W's MID-TERM, vote pandering, Medicare RX give away)?

    The GOP had it ALL…and they pissed it all away…now they wanna play 'keep the ball away'
    via Fear & Loathing and stirring up low information voters with 1/2 truths and misinformation…
    I can't believe Karl Rove/Dick Cheney/Sarah Palin can even show their faces…much less be hard to speak…
    And I can't stand the Democrats! Can't stand em!

    I want my party back. But it ain't gonna happen unless the GOP gets pounded at least once more…

  • walter
  • roysoldboy

    As a long-time Medicare recipient (nearly 12 years) let me tell you that I saw what you see in that Medicare Advantage thing what you are talking about. Do you know who pushes that thing the hardest? I say it is AARP, which I no longer belong to because they have become an insurance company and do what will make them the most. Medicare Advantage just happens to be one of those things.

    Whoops, the old fart Republican has just said a nasty about a really strong Obama supporter.

  • walter
  • Da King

    jlpaine,
    Your attitude is part of the problem. This isn't Republicans vs. Democrats, or at least it shouldn't be. It's OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. We shouldn't screw it up over misguided ideas of partisanship. We should take the best from both camps to solve the problem. Obama has only taken ideas from HIS camp, contrary to the words he spoke last night. I hope that changes, but I ain't holding my breath.

    I agree that Coulter is a bomb-thrower, and I figured I'd get some reactions like yours when I used her as a source, but what she said about government interference in the health care markets is dead on the money. How can we call this free market health care when the states restrict coverage so much that only a few insurers dominate so many states, and there is no nationwide insurance competition ? That's the opposite of a free market. That's a tightly controlled market, controlled by the government. That's one of the problems we have.

    For the record, I pretty much hate the Democrats AND the Republicans, but that's all we've got right now.

    As for my ideology, I'll only say, the role of the government in this country is to oversee and foster free market competition, not to tyrannically eliminate it. Wherever that puts me on the ideology scale, so be it.

  • Da King

    walter,
    Why is it a surprise that Medicare Advantage programs cost more ? They COVER more than traditional Medicare does. Of course they cost more, but less than the patient would pay without that service. I went through this with my mother the last couple years of her life. Medicare Advantage saved her a lot of money.

  • Andrea

    Why cant the private sector compete against a government run program ? We have the US post office vrs Fedx and UPS. The government plan will not be subsidized. I am sorry but I cant even read Ann Coulter , to quote her is like insane . As if she some expert on anything. You can't have bi partisan ship when the conservatives do not want any government involvement. But the biggest weakness of private industry is unfairness. The business model of private insurance is to collect premiums from healthy people and reject those likely to get sick or, if they start out healthy and then get sick, to find a way to cancel their coverage or some way to get out of paying.
    If you feel the private industry is superior to Government in providing health care then why do you feel the government program will succeed and they will fail? Republicans have also said time and time again, that the private sector can do things cheaper than the US Government. Now, they say that having a public option will put private health insurance providers out of business. It seems they contradict themselves? Are you admitting the the private sector is just out for big profits ? If they are so much better then why cant they compete?

  • walter

    again, let me repost the line from the story……"Though it was originally envisioned as a potential way to save the Medicare program money, the government pays on average 13 percent more to care for a Medicare Advantage enrollee than it would if that person were in traditional Medicare."

    If medicare advantage was sold as a way for medicare to save money it has proven to be a failure.

  • walter

    Coulter sez…."If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

    if that was in Obamacare the first person complaining about states rights would be……..Coulter

  • The Reverend

    "…that doesn't allow insurers to profit excessively…"

    That's certainly not a conservative claim. Are you calling for price controls for health insurance companies? How would you guarantee that health care insurers weren't profitting "excessively?"

    And your claim that states which regulate insurance are somehow impeding fair competition is not exactly correct. The freaking insurance companies are the ones who lobbied to protect state insurance monopolies from inter-state competition. And some health care insurance is sold nationally.
    What you're saying needs to be done….but that's not going to bring prices down. It will result in the consolidation of the industry into the hands of fewer and fewer big players. That's how it always works in the U.S.

  • throgue

    I've never been able to understand the controversy over what is called Medicare advantage. I've had it for several years. It costs me nothing, has very low co-pays and RX coverage. It's the same PPO Co. I was with when employed. No question it costs the Gov. more, on it's face, but if all had it instead of straight Medicare the entire Medicare beaurocrocy could be eliminated along with the multi-billion $ drug program. I have no proof but suspect it would be cheaper in the long run.

  • walter

    from the GAO report….." the government pays on average 13 percent more to care for a Medicare Advantage enrollee than it would if that person were in traditional Medicare."

    It costs nothing, has very low co-pays and Rx coverage……why do you think that is?

  • roysoldboy

    Rev says: "What you're saying needs to be done….but that's not going to bring prices down. It will result in the consolidation of the industry into the hands of fewer and fewer big players. That's how it always works in the U.S."

    I think that what you say may be true but why hurry the result with a public option that will surely make only one company (US government) the "insurer". Get real, Rev, the main part of this health care insurance program is to get all the "insurance" into the hands of the federal government. I wish I could see something else as the main desired result of the Democrats but their refusal to even discuss anything else convinces me that that is where they intend to go.

  • roysoldboy

    Andrea, I know that Our Glorious Leader tried to compare the USPS with the UPS and Fed Ex but it is so unfair. The USPS delivered 6 days a week until it was no longer affordable. Even now they are trying special things to get more package delivery, still at 6 days per week, but no matter how we look at it they have to do their main duty which is to deliver "the mail" made up of all that trash that I get daily while those they compete with don't do that. That comparison sounded so good with a smile in The Leader's voice that day and you keep repeating it but to me the comparing of kiwi fruit to cantaloupes is not really anything but convincing supporters that your speech writers are so witty.

    Anyone with a functioning mind would see that tax money WILL be used to pay for mistakes in the public option while the insurance companies cannot tax or print money. Socialized medicine is the ultimate goal and I don't think we will like that as well as some people think we will.

  • The Reverend

    I think the most obvious parallel is 401K's and IRA's. Everyone is guaranteed Social Security, but the U.S. economy also has a very robust private retirement savings program.

    To those who would argue that health care reform is all about a single payer, government run conspiracy. …let me remind you that the legislation won't begin for 4 more years and then will only have 5%, at best, of Americans enrolled in a government sponsored insurance plan.

    Hardly a takeover.

  • Knozzmoeking

    "To those who would argue that health care reform is all about a single payer, government run conspiracy. …let me remind you that the legislation won't begin for 4 more years and then will only have 5%, at best, of Americans enrolled in a government sponsored insurance plan.

    Hardly a takeover"

    Of course it isn't an immediate takeover. But if HR3200 passes in its current form, many companies will be looking at the possibility of dropping coverage for their employees. If I'm a CEO of a company that has a payroll of $200 million and I pay 12 to 15 % of that for employee health insurance, what will make me want keep that coverage if I can pay a tax of 8% instead. Let me see, save between $8 million and $14 million per year, probably lay off my HR staff and you think there won't be more new mandated participants in the government run option?

  • The Reverend

    And the problem with that is?

  • roysoldboy

    Come on, Rev, I know you love all the socialism you can get but why not just go straight to single payer instead of slipping into it through the back door. This thing is obviously constructed to do just that, and you know it. You also know that single payer makes the government the controller of the whole system. Is that not socialized medicine where they call all the shots? Sure it is and then we have the very rationing that all those European countries have.

  • roysoldboy

    Knozzmoeking,

    It is very hard to get these left leaners to admit that only fools among businesses will not drop their programs for their workers, pay the fine of 8% and end up making all kinds of money. Now according to the Glorious Leader then those workers have a choice of government option or private insurance and, again, only fools think the government kind won't be cheaper, at least until the private companies are driven out of business.

    I spent 28 years of my life trying to teach high school kids about things they didn't really care about like American History. Often I just said to them that the reason I was facing the wall while talking was that I got more response from the wall than from them. That is the same game we are playing here. Talking to a fence post gets about the same response, also.

  • Andrea

    Be terrible to be like those European countries that never have to worry that if they loose their jobs they be without health care or to never worry if get some condition you might loose coverage or to never have to worry your premiums will be increased. Be terrible to be ranked the best in health care by indepandant groups. Be terrible to be like Switzerland and get to choose from about 60 plans .
    Urban Institute released a report analyzing studies that have compared the clinical effectiveness and quality of care in the United States with the care dispensed in other advanced nations. The analysts found no support for the claim routinely made by politicians that American health care is the best in the world and no hard evidence of any particular area in which American health care is truly exceptional so be terrible to trade with the Europeans , and maybe get better care at cheaper price. We love spending more getting less.

  • Andrea

    Why change anything we got the 37 th best health care in the world ..hey we are just above Kuwait ain't that something ?

  • roysoldboy

    Andrea, letting the government provide all health care is NOT going to make ours better. When you look at the price of so many diagnostic tools you have to see that distance and numbers will cause many Americans to be underserved in that respect. As an example, let me hold out the kind of MRI service we in our heavily underpopulated country have available. 5 years ago I had to drive 55 miles to get an MRI and it was located in a movable truck and had come about 55 miles to get to the hospital I went to. Today that same vehicle travels to our little, in population, county on a weekly basis. Yes, have that service in our whole part of the state where there are so few people.

    Yes, it does cost to provide that vehicle and equipment and we get to pay for it. However, I am pretty sure that no group of bureaucrats worked to get that done. I think it was hospitals in the area who got it going. I am sure that no group of bureaucrats would ever provide that kind of service for us out here in the sticks.

    You are kidding yourself about being like the socialist nations of Europe in medical care. You mention something about choosing from 60 companies. Was that in Switzerland? I can't believe that much money can be made with their population and size by 60 businesses dividing the business.

    Do you know why people have so few choices of companies in the US? I think not but the President, your man, tried to explain that part the other night. He pointed out that only one company is allowed to do business in Alabama. Any fool should be able to see that government is the very reason there are 1300 health insurance companies in the US and Alabama has one, approved by the state, and California allows a whole 6 of them to operate there. How veiled is the sight of you left leaners when you are constantly told about this situation and just can't see it.

    Republicans keep saying let them all compete nationwide instead of forcing only certain ones to do business in each state. Competition is the very essence of capitalism, and yet, our states won't allow it in health care. You are constantly told, by people like da King, that you buy car insurance, life insurance, and on and on from people competing nationwide but states don't allow that kind of competition. Get government out of health care, not deeper into it, and try for a time to see what happens. Surely there will be real competition. No other businesses are as restricted in where they can do business by states, like health insurance. WE NEED health insurance reform and then lets see how much that kind of thing is hurting.

    May I also suggest that there are only about 6 million people who legally and morally need the aid of government. SCHIP wipes out so many of that 46 million. How many of that group are able to get Medicaid if they would apply? How many of them are illegal aliens which Dems seem willing to hold off on the new bill, after the Wilson shout out? Yep, it gets down to 6 million and that shouldn't cause a big deficit to provide. Too much crap in the undebated bills that are available right now.

  • roysoldboy

    ***The only reason you can't keep — or often obtain — health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.***

    King, do you ever wonder how much longer these people are going to skip just what Coulter said in this sentence. Maybe you should find a way to explain what she meant. I think that they refuse to see that states have governments, too, and that it is their intrusion that keeps competition stifled. It is so sad that THEY refuse to see this point. I wonder if it is because the words came from the keyboard of that hated woman, Ann Coulter. I think it is.

  • averagejoe5

    Good posts RoysOB You are right on.

    In my opinion: "The 37th best healthcare in the world." It's funny how Saudi Kings and other important world leaders come to Cleveland Clinic or Cancer Centers of America and spend millions for their stay here. Why don't they go to Switzerland or Denmark or those closer to the top? Because the WHO is fulla' sh*t.

  • larry d.

    The WHO stats are so bogus they stopped publishing them in 2002, in shame.

  • Da King

    Roy,
    They see the name Coulter attached and they stop listening. That's THEIR problem. What Coulter said is true. As you also stated, it is state governments that limit health insurance competition, and then our government complains that we don't have enough competition, so we need a government takeover (public option). Unreal, and most people see right through it, even if some of our friends here don't. We can only lead them to water, we can't make them drink.

    And didn't Obama agree that McCain was right about this in Obama's last speech ? Maybe I should point out that Obama said it, and then our friends might agree.

  • roysoldboy

    They see what they want to see and it sure isn't that those words came from Our Glorious Leader. You can push and pull them to water but you just can't make them drink it.

  • The Reverend

    Go read this….http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×6523685

    …and then throw out the "sell-across-state-lines-is-the-answer" nonsense.

    The mega-insurers are already in every state.

    Insurance companies contribute nothing of value to health care consumers. Insurance companies are parasitical by nature. They make money by using other people's money and they deny as many claims as possible in order to make even more profit.

    We don't need any health insurance companies. They are one of the main reasons why the U.S. is ranked so low in the world when it comes to overall national health care.

  • walter

    speaking of insurance companies here's Counterpunch's take

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09142009.html

  • Da King

    Rev, your link didn't work.

  • Da King

    walter,
    I agree with counterpunch's take that the primary CHANGE associated with Obama's health care reform will be that he forces Americans to buy health insurance or be fined. I do not agree that the private sector has to be shut out of health insurance. We can make many reforms to bend down the cost curve of the health insurance companies. Unfortunately, those changes are not in the health care reform bills.

    Why would we want to hand health insurance off to the federal government, when the federal government is already $12 trillion in debt (soon to be over $20 trillion in debt) ? Why would we want to add another enormous liability on top of the federal government's already enormous unsustainable liabilities ? There has to be a better way.

  • walter
  • walter

    as far as forcing Americans to buy health insurance this from the story…."It was left to Rep. Dennis Kucinich to point out that the health care bill ponies up 30 million more customers for the private insurance companies. " For a pro-insurance guy you should be jumping for joy.

    King sez….."We can make many reforms to bend down the cost curve of the health insurance companies. " I'm all ears

  • walter
  • Da King

    "a pro-insurance guy ?" Where do you come up with this stuff ? I'm a pro-free market guy, and you should be too, because the alternative is government tyranny.

  • walter

    OK…….For a pro-free market guy you should be jumping for joy.

    how's that?

    from free marketeer King…."We can make many reforms to bend down the cost curve of the health insurance companies." Yes, it's called a public option

  • Da King

    There's nothing free market about the government FORCING us to buy health care insurance or pay a hefty penalty, walter. That's the Democrat way, not mine. In a free market, consumers make voluntary choices. There's nothing for me to be jumping for joy about.

    Real national insurance competition, tort reform, more flexibility in insurance coverage (catastrophic only coverage), a windfall profits tax on insurance companies that exploit consumers, computerized medical records, elimination of Medicare fraud…these are a few ways to bring costs down without the government taking over (public option). We manage to make the market work in almost every other area of this country. There's no reason it can't work for health insurance. The problem is, we don't have free market health care in this country. When we did have it, medical costs were much lower.

  • walter

    larry sez the WHO stats are bogus…….this from counterpunch

    http://www.counterpunch.org/green09162009.html

  • The Reverend

    " We manage to make the market work in almost every other area of this country."

    Oil market? AIG-like insurance market? Banksters?

    Yeah, the market "worked" alright.

  • Da King

    Stop being a commie, Rev. The oil industry works pretty well. A gallon of milk costs as much as a gallon of oil.

    And it was the GOVERNMENT who screwed up the banking industry, for politicial reasons. Nobody else. I should know, I was in the banking industry for decades. I witnessed it all firsthand. Of course, you are free to believe everything that lying sack of crap Keith Olbermoron says. It's a free country. We are allowed to listen to idiots.

  • larry d.

    Thanks for a link, walt. A good example why the stats thrown around are bogus:

    "It is worth noting, in respect of the infant mortality numbers just cited, that the WHO annual report also tracks the percentage of births attended by skilled health personnel. While the number for attended U.S. births is high, at 99%, there are 46 countries that have 100% of births attended."

    The author and ObamaCare lemmings will say we're doing worse than 46 countries in regard to this statistic. But do you truly believe every birth in 46 countries is attended by a physician? Every single one, in 46 different countries?

    Or is it far more likely that those are simply the only births that get reported by those countries? They probably have a centralized system that reports to the WHO, but doesn't count the babies born at home because they never see those babies, who probably die at a higher rate. If these countries are not reporting all births, it also props up their infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates. And the WHO doesn't care, because they'd like to see large centralized government healthcare systems everywhere. It's all bogus.

  • Da King

    One of the reasons for the high infant mortality rate (IMR) in the U.S. is due to the fact that we have such advanced medical technology. We can push the boundaries on survivable premature births beyond what most other countries can do. Those 6 month old preemies may not ultimately survive for too long, but we still try. In other countries, those babies would die and never be reported as a live birth, while in the U.S. they are counted, and are thus added to the IMR.

    http://baby.families.com/blog/why-the-us-infant-mortality-rate-is-so-high

  • walter

    this from Crooks and Liars…….

    Insurers' Anti-Trust Exemption
    By dday Friday Sep 18, 2009 10:00am John Conyers and some allies on the House Judiciary Committee have come up with a fabulous way to get the insurance industry in line – by threatening to remove their anti-trust exemption.

    Many people don't know that the insurance industry, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, has a broad anti-trust exemption that facilitates regional monopolies. The Act allows states to regulate the insurance business instead of the federal government, but also allows that, as long as the state regulates the industry, federal anti-trust laws would not apply.

    As a result of this exemption, states have seen markets for health insurance where one or two companies predominate. In the state of Maine, Wellpoint controls 71% of the market. In North Dakota, Blue Cross controls 90%. Using the Herfindahl/Hirschman Index, a metric for market concentration, a 2007 study by the AMA found almost every health insurance market in the United States is highly concentrated.

  • walter

    from Kings link……"One reason as to why so many babies are dying is that doctors are saving more premature babies with advanced technologies."

    is that supposed to make some kind of sense?

  • larry d.

    Of course it makes sense, walt. Try to think and read it again.

    As for the anti-trust bit, I believe republicans have been pushing to get rid of all that and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines for some time now.

  • Da King

    walter,
    Conyers and some Dems finally got something right. Hurrah ! Let's light a candle. I'm all for it, thus the title of this post.

  • walter

    larry….sure, the republicans tried and failed……so what else is new.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-618

  • larry d.

    What's your point, walt? That the dems who shot them down were wrong? What else is new?

  • walter

    dems shot them down? It was a dem that was the sponser of S. 618 and it's the dems that are trying to remove their anti-trust exemption.

    S. 618 never left the Senate Judiciary Committee. There were 9 republicans and 10 democrats. The insurance industry opposed S.618 and paid the republicans a total of $816,120 to defeat it.

    what else is new indeed

  • walter
  • larry d.

    What panels are those, walt? I read the link and it didn't mention any death panels except in the headline.

  • larry d.

    Patrick Leahy and his minions killed it because they thought it would benefit blacks, walt.

  • Da King

    Aren't uninsured people still allowed to go to the doctor ? I'm pretty sure they are.

    The issue is payment, not insurance.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).