First there was the Death Star menacing humanity. Now, there is “the Death Panel.” Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama’s health plan “downright evil” on her Facebook page and warned American of Obama’s “death panel” that will hold the power of life or death over average Americans. Indeed, the Obama Death Panel appears to have their sights on little Trig. Presumably, the chair will be Palpatine (aka Darth Sidious), the Dark Lord of the Sith.
Palin states in her first statement after quitting her job as governor that “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care . . .Such a system is downright evil.”
The following footage from one of the patient reviews of the Death Panel has been located:
The real news here is the disclosure that Palin’s page has 700,000 readers, making it the most popular comics page in the world.
For the full story, click here.
Oops! I meant to say ‘…a dispassionate observer WOULDN’T agree with you. My bad.
IS,
The fact is that not all arguments are equal. It is up to each person to read our respective arguments, do any research that they see fit and make up their own mind. Ask yourself if an unbiased person read this thread whose arguments would be more persuasive? I happen to think that the quality of the arguments on my side of the conversation is superior. You may think that your arguments are better, but I believe that a dispassionate observer would agree with you (hypothetically, since at this point I don’t believe that there are likely to be observers of any sort on this thread). Since we are posting on a law professor’s blog, let me put it like this: we have attacked all of the arguments that you’ve put forth, called into question the credibility of the experts you’ve used to support your case and for the most part you haven’t even attempted to refute the arguments we’ve made with anything more than blank assertions that you are correct. Which way do you think the judge would decide? If professor Turley asked one of his law classes which side had done a better job making their case what do you think they would say?
p.s. I would look at the source of any information that you used to support your argument and give it weight according to its credibility. In the past, others have pointed out legitimate reasons to question the credibility of your sources and I have no reason to believe that will change, but feel free to give it a shot.
IS,
My pleasure, anytime I can be helpful.
Actually GWLSM:
I have those books in my library.
And I know about the depression. My grandmother did as yours did and raised my mother and my uncle as a single mother. She saved tinfoil and used to let paper towels dry and use them until they fell apart to her dying day. And my granfather would not touch hotdogs and beans for 35 years and had a few other quirks from that time.
My interest is to understand the causes of the depression and the mistakes both administrations made that increased it’s length and severity.
Our current generation will fold if it happens again.
IS writes: I am in good company, namely Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F. A. Hayek and others.
So yes, I guess I am really that “stupid”.
You can go to the Ludwig Von Mises website and view some of his and Hayek’s works for free.
yup. you really are that stupid. the internet scholar, that’s you. cruise a website here, a website there and voila ! savant is born.
do this: find someone who lived through the depression. ask them.
i assume you have parents…. grandparents….. know someone from the country club who does….
but that said, not every family in america was affected by the depression. my best friend’s family never noticed the depression. they had homes in several places, servants, were driven around by chauffeurs. they made money during the depression.
my grandmother worked three jobs. she was a bookkeeper who was hired by a jew hater who thought she was christian because she had blue eyes and blond hair and dimples and because the last name was changed at Ellis Island. my father and his family lived in a tenement.
they didn’t always have eat or food.
when the programs began my grandfather got a job as a sign painter. a government job that paid pretty well allowing the family to move into a slightly nicer place.
GWLSM:
I am in good company, namely Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F. A. Hayek and others.
So yes, I guess I am really that “stupid”.
You can go to the Ludwig Von Mises website and view some of his and Hayek’s works for free.
IS writes: How do you know that the New Deal did not prolong the depression and make it worse? What evidence can you show me to back up the assertion that government spending did indeed shorten the depression? How much did the CCC help, how many people did it put to work? How much did it pay? What was the overall cost and benefit of the program? How much of the money actually went to people doing the work and how much for administration?
I’m not nearly as subtle as Vince so I will just say this…. are you really this stupid or do you just write these things to get a reaction?
Slarti:
The 3 reasons are suppositions based on observation of political systems. I have no “hard” facts to support this “opinion”.
If you have a dog and observe the dogs behaviour you can make reasonable assertions about dogs.
They like to chase cats and squirrels.
Male dogs lift their legs to take a leak.
They sniff each others butts.
They bark.
I do have a male dog that does not lift his leg to take a leak. So I will admit that not all observations are universal. But generally a dog will do what is in it’s nature.
And maybe you can answer a question at this point, if I presented an article on Political Organizations and Individual Behaviours within Organizations that backed up my assertions based on my personal observation would you then believe my argument?
Based on what I have seen here, you would then bring to bare an article saying the exact opposite. And we would be at parity. Each believing the other’s views to be wrong. Am I missing something?
I got to thinking about you telling me my arguments suck, and I agree some do but and here I will go back to the Great Depression, we each have a valid claim backed by “experts” about the nature and cause of the depression. How do you then “argue” and what logic is possible when our views are diametrically opposed and held with equal belief based on our personal investigations into primary causes?
Mike Spindell:
Thank you for the feed back, you are right I am like that.
IS,
You said: “So what costs are being born by private consumers that are supporting/subsidizing government health care programs? What will happen to government health care costs once this private sector “subsidy” is no longer available?” This is a hypothetical effect (until you provide evidence for it) that is certainly a reasonable topic of discussion, but if you follow the money, you see that quite a bit of it goes to insurance executives and shareholders – converting to national health care (like the VA) would totally eliminate that as well as the majority of jobs in the health insurance industry. That’s a lot of savings to offset additional costs in big pharma R&D (and believe me, I understand the costs involved in drug research – I could make a fortune doing in silico drug testing for a pharmaceutical company).
As for your skepticism about medicare’s overhead, you give three reasons for you distrust, none of which you present any evidence or argument for. As has been stated above insurance companies put overhead at 6% public vs. 16% private (I’ve seen independent sources that put medicare at 6-7% as well) so even assuming that insurance company’s overhead is 16% rather than 30% (which I am skeptical about) you’re still arguing to stick with a system that cost twice as much. Do you not understand where all of our self-interest lies or do you just own stock in an insurance company?
Slarti:
I certainly understand the dichotomy of seniors and have thought it was rather strange for them to be arguing against something they already have. Basically changing nothing as far as I can tell.
My assertion is that much like France having the US consumers subsidize their medications (see above) US consumers are also subsidizing Medicare/Medicaid/VA/Govt Employees through higher medical costs in the private sector. Medication, equipment and procedures. Much like a hospital having to charge paying customers more for indigents that pay nothing.
So what costs are being born by private consumers that are supporting/subsidizing government health care programs? What will happen to government health care costs once this private sector “subsidy” is no longer available?
That is one of the reasons I believe the 3% admin costs of medicare is not correct. There are other reasons that lead me to believe that the 3% number is not correct:
1. pressure from political leaders
2. off book expenses
3. sharing of costs that overlap with other agencies.
that type of thing.
I certainly agree that we need reform just not from the government.
IS,
You said: “How do you know that the New Deal did not prolong the depression and make it worse? What evidence can you show me to back up the assertion that government spending did indeed shorten the depression? How much did the CCC help, how many people did it put to work? How much did it pay? What was the overall cost and benefit of the program? How much of the money actually went to people doing the work and how much for administration?” I don’t know that the new deal didn’t prolong the depression, but there are two facts that are persuasive arguments against that theory to me. First, in 1937 the new deal spending was substantially cut back over deficit concerns which led to a resurgence of unemployment and second, the depression ended after a year of ramped up military spending. I’m sure you can find out about the CCC if you look, but it’s reasonable to assume that as far as government spending goes, the CCC would have an economic multiplier somewhere between food stamps (the highest multiplier) and tax cuts (the lowest multiplier). For various reasons that I leave as an exercise to you, it is most likely closer to food stamps than tax cuts. In addition, the CCC served as a lifeline to many people who otherwise would have been unemployed – a huge social benefit.
You said: “Is it legitimate to compare current government run health care with government health care under a single payer solution?” It is important that we compare apples to apples: Medicare is government-run single payer insurance (think Canada) and the VA is government-run socialized medicine (think England). So these are the best models we have of how the government would run those types of programs. As I have said before, both programs are better in terms of satisfaction and outcome than private insurance. We see people in town halls decrying government intervention with one breath and warning not to touch their medicare with the next – are you truly unaware of how this is cognitive dissonance? Your brother’s anecdotal evidence is fine, but ask yourself this: If conservatives could show statistics demonstrating that Medicare and the VA cost more, had worse outcomes, and lower satisfaction than private insurance, don’t you think that they would do that? Those of us for health care reform can show evidence of the opposite while the other side makes up lies about ‘death panels’, who has more credibility?
(sound of applause)
“The point I was making is that for every “fact” you put forth there is a countervailing “fact” that some other entity puts forth. The only way we can clearly see the net result of spending by medicare is to take into account all of the costs associated with the program. Your assertion does not do that and is just a “factoid” all alone in the world with no context.”
There you go again IS, ignoring the facts that are difficult for you to answer and obfuscating whenever possible. You equate your unproven, or partisan talking points with facts. So the discussion becomes “political” in nature and merely a matter of taking sides. If I say the moon is made of rocks (fact) and you say it’s made of green cheese (fiction) they are not equivalent in terms of debate. You don’t seem to get that, or you are such a cynic in general that the only thing you trust is your bank account.
You ignore the fact that I directly quoted your source on Medicare and even using their “facts” which they claim do take into account all of the associated program costs, the admin costs of the private insurers is three times Medicare’s. This is the essence of your disingenuousness in that you don’t address that which weakens the points you are making.
“And as far as being lazy, I figured you would look up the origination of the report. I figured you probably needed something to do since you are retired.”
I have plenty to do since my retirement, caused by a severe disability, because I have lived a full life, not one in the pursuit of the buck. Your figuring I’d look up its’ origination though is another case of begging the question. You used the Health Insurance Industry’s chief lobbying arm to refute my point about the admin costs, but when called on it simply try to slip past with a semi-disparaging comment. Your aswer, judging from past performance is that this is one partisan side versus another and in your cynicism you see that as true. What you lack the capacity for is to question your own assumptions and that is your hubris. You put that on me but you see I have a long history of writing here that shows I am always open to questioning my own assumptions.
“I have no employees only partners, I find the level and quantity of work rises significantly when profits are shared by all. Granted I do own 52% of the business but the other 48% of the profits are equally distributed among the partners and in my view the receptionist and secretaries are important so they get equal shares as well.”
Wow you are a Prince of a guy. No employees, only partners. IS
really, with 52% you own the business, you’re the boss and no doubt your “partners” spend parts of the day with you bloviating your self serving premises and nodding their heads with approval. You’re the type of guy I’d watch around my Country Club
who would subtly refer to his wealth and would make unsupported
statements about those people who didn’t want to work wasting his tax money. One particular example of this is a guy who inherited all his money from a major US Corporation and basically never worked. Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush, George Steinbrenner and most probably you, your side is represented by a bunch of people born on third base who thought they hit a triple.
For someone with supposedly a rigorous scientific/mathematical background you either don’t understand the rudiments of simple logic, or simply prefer to b*lls**t since the sound of your own voice, or your imagined written arguments fit so well into your self inflated notion of yourself and the self centered way you live your life.
Finally, it is interesting that you reference my first post and not the one following which took your arguments down point by point. Here’s my theory about you, updated with new information.
This is play for you. Agitate those “lefties” so you don’t even bother to try hard and just pull stuff out of your ass. After all it works at the office, works at the Club and probably is a hit at the Rotary. Since you are such a self involved person you don’t notice the looks some people are really giving you in all those places which are probably “Boy that’s one smug bastard who thinks a lot of himself, but is merely a blowhard.” Your friends of course share equal social status and probably are just as shallow, so they think you’re a real smart guy, since your bank account proves it and anyway after a few drinks who cares.
Now Mike A took you apart, but he does it in a more gentlemanly way that I prefer, as did Slarti and GWLSM. We’ve all taken you apart, but like a smug slug you just ignore the fact that your arguments have been refuted by those two nasty words: Facts and logic. As to me normally I am a gentleman, but when I come up against someone who argues in a dishonest manner, then to me they are not being gentlemanly or genuine in the first place. What guys like you don’t get is that these are not political issues, it is the age old debate between those who feel themselves entitled and those who realize that there are others that share the world with them.
Finally, as someone with a life threatening disability and who has had the luck to have had a Cadillac Health Plan at minimal cost for his whole working life, this is an issue near and dear to my heart. Literally millions have been spent to keep me alive and my health plan has no lifetime cap. Without health care I would have been dead before forty leaving a young wife and children behind and poor. When I became eligible for Medicare, my first instinct was well I got a great health plan, how will this affect it? It did affect it, it made my health coverage even better.
Where I’ve had to go into debt in health care is to pay thousands for one of my children who was no longer eligible
to be covered by my policy. Luckily I could do it and help to make her well. I’m one of those stupid people in life though, IS, because I think about all the people who are sick themselves, with sick spouses or sick children, who won’t have the help, or will be denied coverage by the Health Insurer, stalling the approval until they die. It’s known as empathy and compassion for my fellow human beings, but to someone like you it is seen as weak sentimentality. Your mantra is “I got me mine” and from my perspective it’s a hollow way to be and consequently I disrespect you.
Slarti:
How do you know that the New Deal did not prolong the depression and make it worse? What evidence can you show me to back up the assertion that government spending did indeed shorten the depression? How much did the CCC help, how many people did it put to work? How much did it pay? What was the overall cost and benefit of the program? How much of the money actually went to people doing the work and how much for administration?
I have read a couple of books one by Von Mises and one by Rothbard that argue the case that New Deal spending (and Hoover’s intervention) actually prolonged and deepened the recession turning it into a depression. Their argument stems from Federal Reserve control of the money supply and stimulus spending.
I don’t know if you know this, but there was a very large depression after the civil war and was very deep but of short duration. There was no stimulus or federal reserve then and that “depression” lasted 6-9 months if I remember correctly.
So we have 2 depressions one of almost 14 years and another of less than a year both deep and severe. In one we have no government involvement and it lasts almost a year, the other lasts almost 14 years and has much government involvement. Is there a connection, maybe, maybe not.
If you are interested I will look through my library and find the title of those 2 books so you can read them for yourself.
Now as far as understanding, do you mean the ideas or the methodology? I certainly understand the ideas and I am getting used to the methodology. It is actually quite interesting.
I have a brother that was in the Marine (my ass rides in navy equipment) Corps and have spoken to both him and his wife about the care they received. Both said it was ok but nothing to write home about. He was an officer so I will assume he was treated with more respect than an enlisted man. My wife and I have a policy through Blue Cross and Blue Shield and it is very good to us (we have some major health issues in our family). If my brother is to be believed our health care is better than his. Granted this is a limited sample but does answer your assertion that VA care is good, from his experience it is “adequate”.
As far as government health care is concerned it is being paid for by taxpayers and is probably gold plated. Who runs it? And how is it set up? What doctors can be used, is it an HMO, PPO or just whatever doctor you want? Are health savings accounts attached to it? How much effort does it take to see a specialist? Is it for profit or non-profit, what type of tax liabilities does it have? Does it have to follow government mandated insurance regulations that the rest of the industry must follow? In short what environment does it operate under and what regulations does it have to follow? In essence is the comparison with the private sector legitimate?
Is it legitimate to compare current government run health care with government health care under a single payer solution? As I mentioned above in a post to Mike Appleton the French appear to be receiving subsidies from the US for drugs they give to their patients for free.
IS,
You keep repeating that government can’t do health care right, but how do you explain the fact the the people with government run health care are the people that are happiest with their health care and have the best outcome. Aside from Dick Armey no one is trying to get out of medicare and people are even happier and do better with the VA. Why do you keep insisting that the government can’t do something that it is already doing? Does this seem reasonable to you?
Mike S and Mike A,
You guys rock!
GWLSM,
Congrats on your squeeze’s new job! I, too, am part of a grant which is requesting stimulus funds (without which, I may be unemployed after the first of the year) – keep your fingers crossed for me.
IS,
Okay, on the off chance that you might actually try to understand this, I’m going to explain it to you again.
You said: “I believe, if I am not mistaken, war bonds were sold to finance the war. People had a vested interest in stopping Hitler and Tojo and financed that endeavor.” This is not relevant in any way to the discussion at hand – where the money was borrowed from did not effect how it was spent or the result of that spending.
You said: “And further more it was production of those tanks and planes and ships that got things moving again (the info I have seen pegs 1943 as the year the depression finally ended, a full 2 years after Pearl Harbor). Not the make work jobs of the CCC. Although I will admit that the dam projects probably did help.” We can’t know what would have happened without the new deal, but in all likelihood the depression would have been much worse. There is no way to get a country out of a recession instantly – it takes time. Your statement that the depression ended in 1943 actually supports my point – it took a year of wartime spending (plus the better part of a decade of the new deal) to finally pull us all of the way out of the great depression. If the new deal hadn’t happened, it might have just taken the war spending longer to pull the country out of the depression or we may have reached a tipping point and had our economy collapse or our industrial capacity may have been weakened to the point where we couldn’t have turned the tide in WWII. And people get paid real wages even for make-work jobs. I’m sure that many people owe their survival through those years to CCC et al.
You said: “I think the flaw in your assertion that dropping tanks into the ocean would have had the same effect is that people would not have bought bonds to pay for that and so eventually we would run out of money and waste raw materials. As it was we wasted enough but those tanks and planes and ships (at least a certain portion) became toasters and automobiles. And in their production jobs were created.” Well, keep trying to think, you’ll get better at it eventually. However, in this case your thinking is once again going astray – again, the method of funding the spending is not relevant to my argument: When the government orders bunches of jeeps, tanks, battleships, aircraft carriers and 100,000 planes, that is economic activity that generates millions of jobs (plus the direct jobs of the soldiers themselves). For all practical purposes, a tank destroyed in battle is the same a tank dropped in the ocean in the sense of wasting resources and the economic activity generated by ordering the tank ends when it rolls off the assembly line. Jobs were created building tanks and planes and battleships and aircraft carriers and planes and munitions and … At the end of the war we found ourselves with a large industrial capacity and got a big boost in our workforce while large parts of the world had been devastated by war – this was very good for us economically.
You said: “The current stimulus, by most accounts, is not having the desired effect, not because of lack of money but because production and not spending is how you get out of a depression. At some point people will need new cars and new ovens and new roofs and new carpet and we will come out of it. But spending on roads is not going to do it. And how are you going to sustain that spending? Eventually it will run out. If people aren’t working there are no tax revenues (currently down) and no tax revenues means no stimulus, unless of course you print money and then you end up with high inflation and the Chinese holding your future.” As in the great depression, we can’t know what would have happened if it were not for the stimulus package – it has certainly helped to soften the recession and I believe that it is a part of the reason things are beginning to turn around. Additionally, the stimulus is a multi-year spending bill – how much money has been spent so far? I would guess that more than half of the stimulus funds remain to be spent, which will effectively give the economy a push out of the recession. The point of the stimulus is to create demand in the short term, preserving the production capacity of the economy until consumer demand picks up again (and preserving peoples jobs at the same time). The advantage of doing this by building roads is that in the end you achieved your goal and you have a road (or a high-speed rail corridor (from Disneyland to Vegas!) or a bridge or a smart electrical grid or …). The Chinese already hold our future (and therefore it is not in their interest for the value of our debt that the hold to drop) in their hands. You are worrying about how much blood is in the blood bank while we are bleeding to death and that’s just stupid – once the recession is ended we will need to make some hard decisions to reduce the deficit. The last time the budget was balanced was under a democratic administration and I’m confident the next time will be as well (that’s what I’d like to see out of President Obama’s second term).
You said: “We shall see the outcome and I hope for all our sakes you are right. My being right would be a hollow victory. But I prepare for the worst and hope for the best.” Well then, you can rest easy as I assure you that you wont be achieving your hollow victory.
Can you really not see the difference in the quality of your arguments and the quality of the arguments raised against you? (I’m just referring to other people’s arguments, not my own, the other posters here will have to decide if they think that you or I have the superior arguments) Mike A and Mike S consistently and thoroughly attack all of your points directly and your replies are vaguely related to a point or two and frequently miss the point altogether. I understand that you are one person who’s ideas are being attacked by many, but that only accounts for quantity not quality (and, in my opinion, you are seriously lacking in quality). I keep hoping that at some point you will have an epiphany and understand the things we’ve been trying to explain to you – understanding things is cool, keep trying and you’ll get there eventually.
Mike A writes: IS, I have problems with many of your arguments for several reasons. First, you use narrowly selected data to support much broader conclusions than are warranted. Second, you advance statements which are true, but which do not prove the point for which they are offered. Third, you trivialize the arguments of others by gratuitous attacks on their motives and good faith. By way of example:
YOu go !
Mike Appleton:
First of all I was called all manor of names as I have stated before and tried to give as “good” as I got. As much of a gentleman as you are, I am sure you understand.
My education was belittled and so the response.
I regret my statements concerning you as I sincerely admire your rhetorical abilities.
$1,200 is rather steep for 2 people but that could be age related. Obviously if you are over 50 or you smoke and drink rates are going to be higher than if you are 28 and dont smoke and drink or skydive.
I am not saying that our health care system is not in need of reform, I think most people believe that. There is no portability, people are using resources using emergency rooms for primary care and so forth. I just dont believe a single payer government run plan is going to provide any better service and in my opinion it is going to cost considerably more than it does now based on governments track record. It will also, in my view, give government an entre into our private lives.
I believe, and this is my opinion, once government enters into the health care business they will have carte blanch, and logically so, to dictate what we eat, how much we eat, whether we can smoke or drink, how much we excersize, what types of risky behaviour we can engage in, etc. I know that private insurance does the same, but in my mind the difference is I have a choice of carriers. Government will have no competition and so I am stuck.
The reason I say government will have no competiton is because once a national system is enacted many people and businesses are going to purchase the governemnt plan for portibility and possibly cost saving to business (the jusry is not yet in on that), thus eventually eliminating private sector companies. I believe 2 things will happen once government is the sole source.
First it is going to cause a dislocation of workers, which may end up being a good thing. In Canada we noticed a good many small specialty shops, they even had one that sold only buttons. I attribute this to having portability and so people are free to persue their dreams. But in my mind the down side is that companies are going to have to pay more for labor, hopefully reduced health care costs will take care of that and the net result will be parity. The other thing we noticed and our Canadian friend has commented on, is the lack of vibrancy in their economy. She loves coming to the states because of shopping opportunities not available in Canada. I attribute this to a high income tax rate, although it could just be our Northern neighbors like to play more than work.
The second thing I believe will happen is an increase in taxes to pay for this program. Taxes are money not spent on capital goods which are necessary for future growth. Which is what I am saying above.
Anyway I am all for reform and think it necessary but I am fearful of government ownership and management.
One thing I have always wondered about and maybe PattyC as a doctor can shed some light, is why dont hospitals set up primary care facilities to treat people that come for the flu or other minor ailements who do not have healthcare insurance?
One interesting fact I uncovered about Frances’ health care system:
“In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.’s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.”
If I can read between the lines we, as Americans, are subsidysing French medicine. I wonder what other countries this is going on in? So, and I hate to say it, maybe Mike Spindell has a point. If we are nationalized France and other countries would have to pay their fair share.
Hopefully health care will be reformed in a manor that does the most good for a reasonable cost.
IS, I have problems with many of your arguments for several reasons. First, you use narrowly selected data to support much broader conclusions than are warranted. Second, you advance statements which are true, but which do not prove the point for which they are offered. Third, you trivialize the arguments of others by gratuitous attacks on their motives and good faith. By way of example:
1. You cite statistics from a study on the incidence of cancer. Those statistics (and we can assume their truthfulness for my purposes) establish that most people do not contract cancer. I believe that is something we already knew, but you then leap to the conclusion that since most people do not contract cancer, “the majority of people do not get severely ill during their lives.” That conclusion can only be true if one limits the class of the “severely ill” to those persons who contract cancer, a demonstrably false premise. Indeed, from a purely anecdotal standpoint, a review of the obituaries in your local newspaper over a period of, say, thirty days would probably convince you that most of the reported deaths were related to one or another serious illness. A quick google search produced the following statement: “75% of healthy individuals over age 40 will become critically ill at some time in the future.” That quote comes from the website of the Western & Southern Life Insurance Company, citing to the “2007 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update” from the American Heart Association and “2007 Cancer Facts and Figures” published by the American Cancer Society. As we know, insurance companies don’t lie. Besides, the 75% figure is certainly more in line with our experiences when we look back over the deaths of those we have known in our lifetimes.
2. Citing England as an example (but without statistics), you state that “rationing of health care is the only possible outcome from a nationalized plan.” Without getting into the specifics of what a “nationalized plan” is, the intended implication of your argument is that we can only avoid the rationing of health care if we keep the government out of it. This argument is false because health care is already rationed by the insurance industry. Now I know that very few people have actually read their policies, but I have been so frustrated over the “death panels” nonsense on the right that I actually sat down and read my own policy the other night (I know; I have no life). My policy, although not a Cadillac plan, is through a very large insurer endorsed by the Florida Bar. It is also quite expensive, approximately $1,200.00 a month for two people. My benefits under the policy are rationed in a number of ways. First, I have a $3,500.00 deductible. If I have not met the deductible and need to see a physician, I must have the cash available to do so. Many people put off doctor visits for that very reason, sometimes to their detriment. Second, there is a lifetime benefit limit of $3,000,000.00. I honestly don’t know if I will ever reach that limit, but I certainly hope not. Third, benefits are reduced if I utilize the services of a “non-preferred provider” (i.e., someone who doesn’t have a managed care contract with the insurer). Fourth, prescription drugs are divided into tiers, with more favorable reimbursement for generics and the most common medications (the compilation of the tiers is by the insurance company). Fifth, the policy only covers “reasonable and customary charges.” Most people are familiar with that sort of clause. What is “reasonable and customary” is determined solely by the insurance company. As you might expect, the policy contains definitions of everything from “acute rehabilitation” to “terminal illness.”
Sixth, and most importantly to the issue of rationing of health care, the policy only covers treatments, tests, procedures and confinements deemed “medically necessary,” concerning which the policy states, “This determination will be made by us based on our consultation with an appropriate medical professional.” The words “us” and “we” are italicized to avoid the possibility that one might foolishly conclude that these decisions are being made by one’s own physician. Following the insertion of additional restrictive language, the provision concludes with the following: “The fact that any particular doctor may prescribe, order, recommend, or approve a treatment, test procedure, or confinement does not, of itself, make the treatment, test, procedure or confinement medically necessary.” This is the insurance equivalent of a presidential signing statement. In sum, the “rationing of health care” argument is wholly bogus.
3. With regard to my contention that you inappropriately trivialize the arguments of others, I can only point to some of your responses to Mike S., Gyges, Slartibartfast and others. Demeaning another’s educational qualifications or launching into diatribes against “liberal” professors who indoctrinate (something I never experienced in college or law school) or comparing the intellectual rigor required for success in mathematics and success in the social sciences is meaningless and a silly form of academic snobbery.
Finally, I will track down Folsom’s book and appreciate the reference. But I believe that strong arguments can be made that monopolization was facilitated by both the government and by the judicial system, in particular through the latter’s development of doctrines limiting the common law tort liability of emerging industries during the 1800s, but that is for another day.