ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, October 21, 2005

Hillary! Supporter says Big Business Give-Away is a great idea

Jami at Hillary!Now! saw this post about GM looking for the Feds to take over their healthcare obligations and she rips out a Deaniac "Yeeeeaaaaaarrrrrggggghhh!!!" (Oh, and why is it that Hillary! always has to have exclamation marks?)

Big Business is about to get behind national health care - and the Democrats are the only ones who will give it to them.

Just wait. Companies can't afford the alternative.

Yep, that's right... The Democratic Party is the friend of Big Business.

Of course, Big Business reluctantly got into sponsoring health care plans in the first place. And now that insurance covers not only catastrophic care, but regular checkups, prescription drugs for everything from cholesterol to erectile dysfunction, the forces of the free market are completely neutered - resulting in (surprise!) increased costs for healthcare.

I commented on her blog... nice girl. Just don't think she's had Econ 101 yet (as with most Lefties).
Yes, Big Business wants nationalized healthcare, because right now healthcare plans are a hindrance to a flexible and mobile labor market. Not only must a company offer competing salaries, they must also compete on the fringe benefits such as healthcare. Oh, and companies like GM are being crushed by the huge increases in healthcare costs.

Ironically, employer-managed healthcare is a throwback to the New Deal and WWII. Ideally, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSAs) would replace the existing systems, with healthy people investing tax free in order to pay for their future healthcare needs. I know that if I had paid my healthcare premiums from when I was 18 through 32 to an HSA, I would not need a plan provided through my employer since I consumed $0 in healthcare expenses during that time. All I would have to pay for is catastrophic health insurance, which is part of a standard HSA plan. In addition to this benefit, I would be more likely to change jobs or careers, resulting in greater economic efficiencies.

Now that I have 2 children and am a bit older, it's almost impossible for me to reap the benefits of an HSA, since my consumption of healthcare services is now on the upward trend. However, had I been saving those premiums (plus my employers costs and annual contributions to the fund, I'd be set... And I'd own the assets in the HSA, meaning that I could switch employers without worrying about the new employer's healthcare plan.

It's interesting that the Dems are willing to subsidize Big Business by removing one of their largest expenditures. At least, until you realize that corporate contributions fill the coffers of the DNC (and Hillary!PAC) as well.

Of course, complaints about the increased costs of healthcare are seen by the statist Left as a cry for a government takeover of the industry. Unfortunately, as the costs for a product or service are further removed from the consumer of the product or service, it becomes more difficult to manage the costs. The primary reason that healthcare costs are increasing rapidly is because individual consumers do not see the true costs (only their co-pays, which most people can tell you immediately). Thus, there is no inhibition to excessively consume healthcare services... which is a clear disruption of free market forces. Single Payer healthcare doesn't work over the long-term... see Canada, Germany, etc, etc... the primary issue in the Canadian political campaign in 2004 was about the length of wait times in the Canadian healthcare system.

Let me ask you this... Would you want Tom DeLay in charge of your healthcare system? Well, I have the same reaction to the thought of Nancy Pelosi being involved in my healthcare decisions.

St Wendeler

But hey... if you want nationalized healthcare, let's do it. I'll start making my daily visits to the local clinic for every ache & pain I've got... as John 'Bluto' Blutarsky from Animal House would say, "See a Doctor - Don't cost nuthin!"

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
Gustav said...

And now that insurance covers not only catastrophic care, but regular checkups, prescription drugs for everything from cholesterol to erectile dysfunction

You're right. Only rich folks ought to be treated for erectile dysfunction.

Are you actually suggesting that insurance companies start offering less? Not a good way to operate in a competitive market, I'd say.

With a nationalized health-care safety net system, American businesses dependent on low-skilled workers won't have to worry about offering health-care to compete in the job market, and citizens will be able to go in and get those "regular checkups", since while sometimes an ache or a pain turns out to be minor, it can also turn out to be very serious. Nipping a disease in the bud, or better yet, preventing it, is much less costly than treating that disease when the patient can no longer stand not to go to the hospital. Which is what US taxpayers'dollars pay for now.

And then there's this point about people taking advantage of a national health-care system just because it's free. I can tell you living in a country with nationalized health care, that it's simply not true. But stranger yet, under many private insurance programs there are several services for which patients don't have to pay a dime - do patients not all become hypochondriacs because it's private, and not public? Strange logic.