Medical Care is a Successful and Growing Industry, not a Liability

By Wesley Clark, MD


The people of the United States find themselves in the midst of a severe recession, with unemployment higher than it has been in many years, housing prices cratering, retirement plans collapsing, and their lifestyles constricting.


The financial industry collapsed. We had to come to the rescue, pouring our own futures into saving the banks, brokerages, and insurance companies from their own greedy foolishness. The stagnant American automobile industry was imploding, and the people had to bail them out too, further mortgaging the future of their children.


Our politicians responded to this catastrophe by spending our future for us, and then by voting a $787 billion dollar "stimulus" bill that has so far produced no discernible improvement, but has flung pork into every corner of the nation, while funding their community organizer and special-interest groups. The government -- the State -- now effectively owns several giant banks, investment bankers, AIG, and two out the three domestic auto companies that were failing dismally.


There is still an industry that is growing and successful, that produces 17% of the Gross Domestic Product, and that employs over 10% of all American workers. The medical industry incorporates more than 820,000 businesses: hospitals, physician's offices, dentist's offices, home healthcare services, kidney dialysis centers, medical laboratories, X-Ray imaging centers, radiotherapy facilities, mental hospitals, physical therapy centers, nursing homes, outpatient surgical centers, dental laboratories, rehabilitation facilities and ambulance services with combined annual revenue of over $1 trillion. It immediately plows most its growing income right back into the economy for wages, and directs additional business to satellite industries such as pharmaceuticals, drugstores, and insurance companies. It even produces billions of dollars in revenues for the medical malpractice trial lawyers. Americans medical care costs more than government programs elsewhere, but it provides better care and better results, the best in the world. American patients, even the destitute, do not give birth in hallways, or wait months for essential diagnostic tests and treatments.


Suddenly, it seems that brisk industrial growth, creation of new technologies, expansion of employment, healing of once-fatal illnesses, prolongation of life, and prevention of pain are not even success, but a just terrible fiscal burden that our overlords deeply resent. They want that money to spend elsewhere, for monuments to their narcissistic prowess.


In the medical industry, decades of federal (and state) meddling have unbalanced the supply-demand basis of the free market, while the government has grossly distorted the efficiency of the market by cost-shifting its own obligations onto private-sector buyers. The premiums that you or your employer pay are partly a concealed tax, to support government programs that fix prices below cost, so that others will have to pay.


Now we are suddenly being told that that there is another "crisis!" The government must quickly destroy our healthcare system, in order to save it. Quick, grab $500 billion out of Medicare before those who receive it even notice that their lives are part of the costs. We can spend it on new government agencies, thousands more government employees, and name it all for a famous liberal politician.


Over 80% of us are happy with our medical care, comfortable with the physicians of our choice, yet we are told that the success of this enormous industry costs too much. How is it that growing the revenues and the success of the automobile industry is essential and wonderful, while the success of the healthcare industry is a social evil that must be rectified? To rectify the terrible burden of good healthcare, to control its rising costs, we are further told that we must increase those costsby an additional one trillion dollars! What is wrong with this picture?


Without any new legislation, most of us are very satisfied with our own medical care. Everybody over 65 has excellent healthcare coverage, for which many beneficiaries pay much less than they cost. Every child under age 18 has guaranteed healthcare coverage too. And every citizen below the poverty level has access to good basic medical care through the Medicaid program. Most of those who do not have health insurance have chosen not to have it, even if unwisely, and are implicitly choosing to self-insure their own risks. Even illegal aliens have ready access to free emergency medical care and obstetric care, usually far better than they would enjoy in their own countries.


Certainly there are aspects of the present medical care process that need to be improved, individual hardships that require creative changes, fraud and waste that must be eliminated. Shall we permit a successful, growing and productive industry to be destroyed, to be replaced with dozens of new bureaucratic agencies? Bureaucrats and committees will then choose the care to be made available to you, and there will be no appeal. Regulators will create a maze of new rules, thousands of pages of regulations, complicated forms, and red tape, for doctors and patients alike. Long lines, impersonal cattle-car service, rationing, waiting lists, and increased costs are the inevitable result (think DMV, Post Office, $500 toilet seats).


We must not allow those who are striving to gain power and control over us -- those who believe they know what is best for free men better than we do ourselves -- to destroy a productive industry and replace it with another tax drain, a giant new pork-package. This is a time to defend and preserve the prosperity that remains in our economy, not a time for political meddling and more grasping for power. There is no problem so bad, that Congress cannot make it worse.

American Thinker: Medical Care is a Successful and Growing Industry, not a Liability (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/medical_care_is_a_successful_a.html)

Why would we deliberately kill the one area of our economy that is still PRODUCING, still making a profit, and still creating jobs?

Can anyone give me a good economic reason to mess up the one sector of the economy that actually WORKS?

Can anyone justify killing the 17% of our economy that is working in order to "help" the 3% of our population that is long-term uninsured through no fault of their own, when we have OTHER ways of helping them that WON'T kill the entire health care sector?

Cany anyone justify messing with the sector of the economy that employs 10% of our population (and growing) in order to fix the 3% of the population that is uninsured?

Given the 9.5% unemployment rate announced today, can anyone justify killing more jobs in the health care sector by nationalizing it?

Is there any justification for nationalizing health care that makes mathematical or economic sense?

Elliot

Is there any justification for nationalizing health care that makes mathematical or economic sense?Hello El:

Sure. We spend TWICE what any nation does on health care, and get HALF as much.

I don't know how you do it, but you seem to ignore or forget certain stuff... Maybe you don't want to see it. We're not passing health care for the people who are happy with what they've got. Nothing will change for them. We're passing it for the people who AREN'T happy with what they've got - BECAUSE THEY DON'T GOT SQUAT!! There's 47 MILLION of 'em. I don't know how your forget about them. I suppose because it's inconvenient. But, I'm going to remind you.

We could WIPE out the for profit insurance companies and have MORE than enough money to cover EVERYBODY and give them MORE medical service than they're getting today... That's makes a lot of good mathematical and economic sense.

Besides, I heard the Democrats have section that would knock off ALL Republicans... That'll be GOOD.

excon

Hello El:

Sure. We spend TWICE what any nation does on health care, and get HALF as much.

Your proof please?

I can see the argument that we spend twice as much... if you don't consider taxes in those other countries.

But where do you get the "fact" that we get half as much.

You made a statement. I want your proof.


I don't know how you do it, but you seem to ignore or forget certain stuff... Maybe you don't want to see it. We're not passing health care for the people who are happy with what they've got. Nothing will change for them. We're passing it for the people who AREN'T happy with what they've got - BECAUSE THEY DON'T GOT SQUAT!! There's 47 MILLION of 'em. I don't know how your forget about them. I suppose because it's inconvenient. But, I'm going to remind you.

12 million of them are illegal aliens.
12 million are people who are "uninsured" for a period of less than 4 months.
10 million are people who earn $75k a year or more and COULD afford their own health insurance, but just don't want to pay for it.

That leaves 10-12 million uninsured. Not 47 million.

Again, you don't know the facts, but talk like you do.

That's OK. I'm here to fill in the blanks for you.



We could WIPE out the for profit insurance companies and have MORE than enough money to cover EVERYBODY and give them MORE medical service than they're getting today... That's makes a lot of good mathematical and economic sense.

Let's do that math... again, since I've done it for you before.

If you add 47 million more people (15%) to the pool of insured,

Increase health care costs to the levels that the government is paying (35% higher than the private market),

And triple the administrative costs of health care (300% higher, per the Congressional Budget Office),

Your health care expenses are going to go UP by more than you will get from adding the 3% profit of insurance companies.

You can't increase the expenditures of the health care system by over 350% and expect that a 3% increase in cash flow is going to cover it.

But you think we can.




Besides, I heard the Democrats have section that would knock off ALL Republicans... That'll be GOOD.

Excon

Nah... they're just going to knock off old folks... which means you're going to get nailed before I do.

Elliot

Lets face it, Congress refuses to address the real crux of the problem with our current health care system. Lawyers! Until Congress gets up enough guts to take on the Bar association and that bunch of ambulance chasers there is no chance in H that health care reform will be any more than another cash for clunkers failure!
EC, please cite one, just ONE program that the federal government, or ANY government agency has ever been able to run cheaper or more efficient than a private for profit sector business?

You made a statement. I want your proof.

12 million of them are illegal aliens.
12 million are people who are "uninsured" for a period of less than 4 months.
10 million are people who earn $75k a year or more and COULD afford their own health insurance, but just don't want to pay for it.

That leaves 10-12 million uninsured. Not 47 million.Hello again, El:

Proof? I got proof. By the way, it's not your math that needs correcting... It's your ENGLISH. I don't think you understand what YOU wrote. Let me help you out.

12 million, even if they're uninsured for 4 months, are nonetheless - UNINSURED!
12 million people who could buy insurance, but don't, are nonetheless - UNINSURED!
12 million people who you agree are uninsured, are UNINSURED!

That's 36 million uninsured people using YOUR numbers, after your English was corrected. I'll live with that number. Thanks for supplying them.

excon

EC, please cite one, just ONE program that the federal government, or ANY government agency has ever been able to run cheaper or more efficient than a private for profit sector business?Hello 450:

Uhhh, the fire department...

excon

Our fire dept is volunteer . I guess if providers did it for nothing it would be cheaper too.

Hello again, El:

Proof? I got proof. By the way, it's not your math that needs correcting... It's your ENGLISH. I don't think you understand what YOU wrote. Let me help you out.

12 million, even if they're uninsured for 4 months, are nonetheless - UNINSURED!

But we don't have to nationalize health care to do it.



12 million people who could buy insurance, but don't, are nonetheless - UNINSURED!

But we should not be paying for them with our tax dollars. We shouldn't be nationalizing health care for them.



12 million people who you agree are uninsured, are UNINSURED!

Yep. Give them vouchers to buy their own insurance and be done with it.

There. You've just solved the health care crisis without nationalizing the entire system.


That's 36 million uninsured people using YOUR numbers, after your English was corrected. I'll live with that number. Thanks for supplying them.

My English was fine. I wrote exactly what I meant.

And that is 36 million for whom we do not have to pay out of our tax dollars.

12 million of them can pay for themselves now. They don't need the government (meaning us) to pay for them.

12 million will be paying for themselves within 4 months. They need a temporary fix, not a permanent change to the health care system.

And we can cover the rest via a voucher system.

Even if you include all 47 million in the voucher system, which by now even you acknowledge is BS (I notice that you've dropped the 12 million illegal aliens), there's STILL no reason to nationalize the entire health care system to do it. We could give them ALL vouchers to buy private health insurance and it would STILL be cheaper than nationalizing health care.

The CBO has estimated the cost of nationalizing health care to be $2.3 trillion per year. (That's an underestimate, but let's use that figure just for $h!ts and giggles.)

If we give every one of those 47 million people $1500 per month in the form of a voucher, the annual cost would be $846 billion, or roughly 37% of the cost of nationalizing health care.

There is still no mathematical or economic justification for nationalizing health care, destroying 17% of our economy and ruining 10% of our jobs.

Elliot

Hello 450:

Uhhh, the fire department...

excon

Actually... no.

Most of the fire departments across the country are volunteer. And it has been shown that volunteer fire departments actually run cheaper and more efficiently than professional fire departments because they have to do just as much on a smaller budget without government financing.

Same for volunteer EMS squads.

Try again.

Elliot

Seems to me you are arguing about a marketing problem, how health insurers can get access to the foregone premiums of those 47 Million and let's face it that is a huge market by any standard, so what have they done, they have convinced someone who shall remain nameless that there is a crisis of care, when in fact there is a crisis of caring, those people are not caring for themselves in the way the industry mandates.

I think I'll give you a cheap and more productive solution to this crisis and many others, ban or otherwise corral the political lobbists, and the pharaceutical salesmen who waste medico's time informing them of the benefits of the latest drug and the ambulance chasing lawyers by capping the damages in malpractice suits. You might suddenly find medical insurance is affordable and if not you can always nationalise the insurers the way you nationalised the bankers and the auto industry and AIG

What I would like to know is just why are there so many health industry jobs being advertised here in Ohio where there aren't many jobs. Physical therapist, medical biller, etc, etc. are now the only ads on the net job wise that are constantly being run.

Somehow the local hospital in a city of 25,000 found more money somewhere to go on a building spree doubling the size of the hospital.

The small county airport near where I live was "closed" about a year ago and had the flying school relocate to the county below us. You can fly into this small airfield but you can't buy fuel anymore. Well, guess what? About a month ago there was a "grand opening" at this little airport of a new helicopter life flite service that estimated they would be running at least 100 "missions" a month out of their new home at the airport. Being almost on top of this little airfield I've only heard a handful of "missions" in a month's time.

If everyone up here in Ohio is on unemployment just who the blazes do they think is going to pay for all this brand new, unnecessary "medical care"? I'm still trying to figure out that 64 million dollar question. Maybe someone here can enlighten me.

What I would like to know is just why are there so many health industry jobs being advertised here in Ohio where there aren't many jobs. Physical therapist, medical biller, etc, etc. are now the only ads on the net job wise that are constantly being run.

Somehow the local hospital in a city of 25,000 found more money somewhere to go on a building spree doubling the size of the hospital.

The small county airport near where I live was "closed" about a year ago and had the flying school relocate to the county below us. You can fly into this small airfield but you can't buy fuel anymore. Well, guess what? About a month ago there was a "grand opening" at this little airport of a new helicopter life flite service that estimated they would be running at least 100 "missions" a month out of their new home at the airport. Being almost on top of this little airfield I've only heard a handful of "missions" in a month's time.

If everyone up here in Ohio is on unemployment just who the blazes do they think is going to pay for all this brand new, unnecessary "medical care"? I'm still trying to figure out that 64 million dollar question. Maybe someone here can enlighten me.

I'm not sure I understand your position, twink.

Are you upset that the medical industry is increasing jobs?

Or are you upset that no other industry is able to do the same?

The increase in jobs in the medical industry is because of increased demand as baby boomers age and become less healthy and need more care. It is neither "unnecessary" nor "brand new".

As for why other industries are unable to create new jobs, that has to do with the lack of "stimulus" in the Obama "Stimulus Bill", and the inflation caused therein. We are suffering a recession, and the President did the exact opposite of what he should have done to stimulate the economy... he took money out of the hands of the people and instead used it to spend on government programs that are incapable of stimulating an economy.

The reason that health care is not acting like the rest of the economy is because the increase in demand for health care by baby boomers is acting as an economic stimulus that is currently non-existent in the rest of the economy.

The "why" of all of this is easy to explain.

The question is what we're going to do about it.

And killing the one part of the economy that is actually still productive in this recession is NOT what we oughta be doing about it.

Elliot

Can the Federal Government run this program fairly?

CAn it be affordable for everyone?

Will every Senator and Congressman join it?

Federal Government has never saved a single penny on any program they started.

When they run out of funds they just raise taxes again, which is a never ending cycle.

How much is enough for them 52 % 62 % 72% it not just income tax,

The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago


Ronald Regan on Social Medicine

Ronald_Reagan_On_the_Evils_of_Socialized_Medicine. wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxV_gqsrlCg

Can the Federal Government run this program fairly?

CAn it be affordable for everyone?

Will every Senator and Congressman join it?

Federal Government has never saved a single penny on any program they started.

When they run out of funds they just raise taxes again, which is a never ending cycle.

How much is enough for them 52 % 62 % 72% it not just income tax,

The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago


Ronald Regan on Social Medicine

Ronald_Reagan_On_the_Evils_of_Socialized_Medicine. wmv
YouTube - Ronald_Reagan_On_the_Evils_of_Socialized_Medicine. wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxV_gqsrlCg)

There is only one solution to all of this. Repeal the lot and implement a broad based consumption tax. As the most materialistic society in the known universe the US will solve all of its fiscal problems immediately. Just think, no more tax evasion, no more tax returns, no tax collecting hierarchy (no that's going to far) and you will literally spend yourselves into budget surplus, but you extend this to a user pays license system, Oh I forgot you already have that innovation and you have covered off all the exits. Remember don't tax them to enter, tax them when they leave as contribution to your future prosperity. Taxation is prosperity, taxation is theft. The trick is to shear the sheep with as little bleating as possible, we Australians understand this because we raise sheep. The US has missed it because you raise cattle

I'd sign on to a consumption tax if that was the only tax on the table.

A consumption tax sounds like a good idea, would like to know some specifics about what and how things would be taxed and collected.

A consumption tax sounds like a good idea, would like to know some specifics about what and how things would be taxed and collected.

Oh, it's quite simple this is why tax collectors don't like it. Business charges the tax on everything you buy, you can exempt food or include it and have a lower tax rate, and sends the money to the government. The best method is to have the tax rate low enough (less than 10%) so you don't have complications of rebates and all that collection nonsense, just take the percentage off the top of everything. In the bargain you do away with all the sales taxes and other add on taxes and you lower the personal tax rate or eliminate it for most individuals. Everyone pays the same tax rate, no exemptions, no deductions, no complications, no evasion. The government redistributes part of what is collected to the State Governments to do their thing.

People said it can't work but when we implemented it within a couple of years the government was lowering personal and corporate tax rates because they had left them in place, now a high income person is someone on over $150,000 a year where it was $60,000 before, and the growth in tax collected was unexpected, they collected heaps more than they predicted and the budget went into surplus and they repaid the internal national debt, at the same time the unemployment rate lowered and inflation was under control, completely unexpected. What I have done is extended the idea even further, it is possible to eliminate income tax, it really isn't such a giant step

Do you have provisions to deal with getting around the tax by bartering ?

I like it otherwise . Gets rid of most of the tax accountants and attorneys. Guess they'd need to find other work .

Do you have provisions to deal with getting around the tax by bartering ?

I like it otherwise . Gets rid of most of the tax accountants and attorneys. Guess they'd need to find other work .

Bartering transactions attract the tax

Still plenty of work for accountants but the lawyers get the shaft

Actually, the Obama administration is in favor of a consumption tax.

Problem is that they want it IN ADDITION to all the other taxes.

I'd be in favor of a consumption tax too, if we did away with other taxes. I'm not sure that 10% would be enough to cover our needs... I'm thinking closer to 13%.

This is, in essence, what the Fair Tax supporters are trying to push. I say go with it.

The problem with consumption tax is that is it a direct tax forbidden by the constitution.

The problem with consumption tax is that is it a direct tax forbidden by the constitution.

In what way is it a "direct tax" and how is it forbidden by the Constitution?

A consumption tax is a tax on the product, not on the person. If anything an INCOME TAX is a direct tax on the person. A consumption tax is not.

And where in the Constitution is a consumption tax prohibited?

Elliot

Interesting point... worth further examination

Article 1, Section 9, Clauses 4 and 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

"Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."


I'll have to check with a Constitutional expert about if a national sales tax falls into these clauses.

However I'd gladly trade an amendment for it if the 16th Amendment was repealed .

The problem with consumption tax is that is it a direct tax forbidden by the constitution.

You should read your Constitution direct taxes are allowed, Article 1, but must be distributed to the states. I know it is unpalitable for your Government to share power with your state legislatures because they would lose much of their pork barreling ability.

How would this be illegal when you already have sales taxes and excises. You pay income taxes under the 16th Amendment so obviously it is possible to amend the Constitution to apply a fairer tax.

Hello again, El:

Well, after the presidents speech, I'll bet the insurance industry will jump on board the public option.. If they're going to be regulated to the degree that they're going to have to accept people with preexisting conditions, and they can't cap awards any more, and they can't drop coverage in the middle of an illness, and they can't bankrupt people with out of pocket expenses any more, I'll bet they'll be GLAD to have a government company to take on those people.

After all, if you had to insure sick people, you couldn't make any money. Now, it looks like they're going to have to start doing that - or pass the buck..

excon

Hello again, El:

Well, after the presidents speech, I'll bet the insurance industry will jump on board the public option.. If they're going to be regulated to the degree that they're going to have to accept people with preexisting conditions, and they can't cap awards any more, and they can't bankrupt people with out of pocket expenses, I'll bet they'll be GLAD to have a government company to take on those people.

After all, if you had to insure sick people, you couldn't make any money. Now, it looks like they're going to have to start doing that - or pass the buck..

excon

Yes works for me

They are already regulated to the point that it makes a mockery of the concept of a "private " company. What part of their services is not so over regulated already that competition isn't already squeezed out of the equation?

The President claims that in some States almost all of the services are provided by single insurance companies. Well how did that happen ? Because of State and Federal mandates already in place that make it impossible for the smaller providers to compete . It is government that is responsible for the current system not the insurance providers.

If the President gets his way you will be well on your way to your desired single payer system.

Hello again, El:

Well, after the presidents speech, I'll bet the insurance industry will jump on board the public option.. If they're going to be regulated to the degree that they're going to have to accept people with preexisting conditions, and they can't cap awards any more, and they can't bankrupt people with out of pocket expenses, I'll bet they'll be GLAD to have a government company to take on those people.

The other obvious solution that you are trying hard to ignore is to scrap any plans to further regulate one of the most over-regulated industries in the world, and let insurance companies enter into contracts with customers that are dictated by the free market and not government fiat.


After all, if you had to insure sick people, you couldn't make any money. Now, it looks like they're going to have to start doing that - or pass the buck..

Excon

So... if insurance companies can't stay in the black without limiting the services that they provide to patients with pre-existing conditions, what makes you think that the government will be able to? Is it because the government is so much more efficient than insurance companies? Or is it because they are going to cap something? Or is it because they don't care whether they lose money or not because they can alwayse take more of it from us?

Elliot