The Contradictions of the Healthcare debate

I am certainly no healthcare expert, nor am I a noted economist (or even an ignored economist), so I don’t feel adequate to delve into the nitty gritty of the current House bill. However, it doesn’t take an expert to observe that over the course of the debate about health care from the current administration, there have been numerous contradictions, both in terms of logic and fact. Many of these get short shrift in the 30 second analysis we get from the media.

 One of the first logical contradictions one notes has to do with the ‘Healthcare System wastes 800 billion dollars’ vs. ‘Insurers regularly deny care’ claims. On one hand we presented with a picture of stingy health insurers, who routinely deny care in order to line the pockets of their greedy CEO’s. Meant to elicit support for healthcare legislation by generating hatred for the imaginary rich, this is standard class warfare language.

 Yet, on the other hand we are presented with a recent study, much touted by government healthcare advocates, that our current healthcare system wastes up to ‘$800 hundred billion a year’ (which coincidently at the time was exactly the same as the cost of the healthcare legislation). This waste was said to be the result of a a number of conditions, including unnecessary procedures and inefficiencies in paperwork. It would follow if the healthcare legislation could fix these cost overruns, it would practically pay for itself.

 But it only takes a minute to realize the unlikelihood that both of these arguments are generally true. If health insurers really are money-grubbing dictators trying to squeeze every last cent out of the health system, then why are they completely ignoring the waste of 800 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they shut down those extra procedures and eliminate the paper work? That’s a lot of cash for those penny pinchers to ignore. Perhaps fixing such problems isn’t so straight forward. Indeed, the government already insures nearly half our population through Medicare and Medicaid – and it has shown no propensity to contain such costs.

 In fact, another assumption of the health reform bill is that congress will cut billions of dollars in Medicare programs in the near future. That’s great; but why haven’t they started until now? A lot of the fraud and waste is the product of the Medicare system, which is after all a government run public health insurance option – why should the electorate trust that the broader public option will create efficiencies when we already have a budget busting example of a government run program that has been anything but efficient, by the Democrats own admission?

 And finally, we come to the discussion about the public option. Perhaps the most controversial part of the current House bill, the public option will provide a government funded healthcare option, much like Medicare, for those who currently have no health insurance.

 The primary argument for this option has to do with the fact that a certain number of people in our country –either 60, 40, or 30 million people depending on the day and who is counting – don’t currently have insurance. The public option would provide for those folks who either due to lack of funds, or some pre-existing condition, have been denied private healthcare. So far so good; it’s hard to deny that basic healthcare should be more accessible.

 But the second argument is that a public option will provide ‘competition’ for the private insurers, causing them to bring down costs, and become more efficient. The problem with this though is that it is never explained how it is that insuring folks already deemed ‘uninsurable’ by the private industry will create ‘competition’; competition after all only occurs when two entities vie for a single market. Those who can’t afford insurance and those who can are in fact two different markets – so insurance companies will have no incentive to bring down costs, since they aren’t losing out by maintaining their current practices.

 The only way such a situation would be competitive is if the government were to structure the public option so that it was available to those who already had insurance, giving individuals and employers incentives to drop private insurance and adopt the ‘competitive’ (and publicly funded) public option.

 If this happened on a wide scale (and why wouldn’t it?) it would inevitably move us toward a government run, publicly funded, single payer healthcare system in our country, much like the socialized systems seen elsewhere – but I am sure that isn’t the intention behind all this at all, is it?

Another brick in the wall

I have pretty vivid memories of the Berlin Wall falling; in large part because it was the last thing I ever expected to see in my lifetime. I spent a significant part of my college years as a bit of an activist, at first on the left, and later on the right. Like a lot of people my age I felt the fear, sometimes expressed, but more often than not, that the long cold conflict we had with the Soviet Union would burst into hot war, replete with world ending bombs. That was why Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall!” was at the same time frightening and exhilarating – it framed freedom as a gift so precious that not even the threat of annihilation could deny it. Nonetheless, I never expected to see that yearning fulfilled in my lifetime.

 Perhaps that was what made the recent 20^th anniversary celebration a rather disappointing affair. Unlike the still vivid memories of my youth the recent remarks of our President made no mention of Reagan – no mention of Thatcher, or Pope John Paul, or Lech Walesa. No mention of the Soviets or communism. He does however oddly make mention of himself as an icon of freedom:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it,”

 As President of the United States, Obama is free to set his schedule and agenda as he sees fit. If he wants he wants to personally appear to lobby to have the Olympics in Chicago and then skip out on the celebration of the one of the greatest advances of freedom in the 20^th century, that is his prerogative; however, his office doesn’t give him the liberty to re-write history, and his failure to make note of the true champions of freedom constitutes an abrogation of duty.

Life in the balance in South Dakota

Interesting news from South Dakota concerning the recent strict anti-abortion law passed in the state legislature. Opponents of the law have managed to gather the required number of signatures to place the law on the Nov. 7th ballot, allowing SD citizens the option to vote keep the law as is or have it removed from the books.

There appear to be three possible outcomes to this effort; the first being that the opponents win the day in South Dakota and the legal barriers to abortions are removed (again). In that case, they have undermined a regular argument they have made, namely that the courts must act to preserve a women's right to abort because democratic processes aren't sufficient protectors of essential rights.

The second outcome might be that the law holds up, in which case the oft repeated idea that Roe v. Wade is a 'popular' ruling will be dealt a blow.

Of course, in the case of a loss, an appeal to the Court is likely. But this is a rather circuitous route to take; normally abortion rights groups run directly to the local judge; why attempt a democratic solution first?

I suspect this is because abortion rights advocates are afraid that the tide has turned on the court; a series of appeals is more likely than ever to end with an erosion of legal support for Roe. In that case, a number of states may move to enact such laws.

Overall this seems to be a lose-lose-lose proposition for the pro-abortion bunch; they must now utilize the democratic process they have so far disdained, and in doing so, undermine their primary venue for advancing their cause – liberal pro-abortion courts.

Of course, in the interim, the greatest loss continues to be the lives of the unborn.

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed

It's been a busy week at home, so my posts have been few and far between, but I thought I would offer something light on a Friday.

I try to keep this blog fairly non-partisan (admittedly, a task virtually impossible for me) but I am not above political humor. Indeed, I consider good humor in most forms is an essential ingredient in life. On that note, I offer the latest from Scrappleface, a political humor site, on our President's 'difficult' week:

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed

Revolt in Kentucky

There was a minor revolt recently in Russell Springs Kentucky, at the Russell County High School. A group of about 200 hundred students stood and began to recite the Lord's Prayer during the opening remarks by the Principal; this despite an order by the judge banning prayer at the event. The revolt continued with remarks by senior Megan Chapman, who gave credit to God for her success in life.

Surveying a discussion group about this event revealed a number of typical responses. Those against cited fears of ostracizing the non-religious, while those for brought up the need to defend religious liberties.

One commenter put it this way:

this is the reason we don't support prayer as an institutional feature, because it marginalizes people. and there the kids go, marginalizing people.

to sum, they weren't standing up for their rights because those rights were never in danger. they're creating an in-group/out-group atmosphere, and that's… well, "mean of them" is the most negative term i can use on this forum, but i assure you, i don't like this at all.

One wonders if the same commentator would be equally offended by recent commencement addresses by Jodie Foster or Thomas Wolfe, comments certain to 'margenalize' a number of listeners.

Both views I think somewhat miss the mark; I don't think what is at issue here is as much religious concern as much as it is a cultural one. Students, parents, and administrators of a southern Kentucky high school are apt to be be more religious than say those at the University of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the article quotes a resident of the town, saying, "In our little town, we've always had that prayer at commencement…Why not? That's part of our everyday life." I think the students weren't attempting to impose a particular religious belief on anyone as much as they were attempting to keep a belief system, albeit a secular statist one, from being imposed on them.

In the founding of this country our forefathers gave great leeway to the individual states to determine their own courses of action, provided they follow certain limited provisions of our Federal Constitution. There is no indication they intended to impose a monolithic secular culture on the nation, and no reason Federal judges should be attempting to impose one on the citizens of Russell Springs.

Esos monos tontos

I am not sure where to file this one, but I think it highlights the absurdity of modern scientific/evolutionary thinking:

Socialists: Give apes human rights

The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.

Personally, I am not sure what the Socialists in Spain hope to gain by this; I have seen King Kong, and he definitely doesn't vote Socialist.