Appenzell
Switzerland
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
The Daily Bell Newswire - It's FREE!    


Guest Editorial

An Unhealthy Health Plan

Sunday, August 09, 2009 - by  John Browne


John Browne

The President's new health plan has garnered much criticism this week, as has his handling of the economy. Until relatively recently, America had an economy, currency and health system that was the envy of the world. Today, the economy and currency look sick. There is an urgent need to curb entitlement spending and boost infrastructure spending to lift the economy and strengthen the currency. But the President appears intent upon a course that will boost entitlement spending at the expense of investment in infrastructure. Much of it will be spent on a massive Government health plan which threatens the physical health of Americans. In America, there is an old saying that ‘while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer'. The proposed health plan threatens to make the sick sicker.

It is generally accepted that a solid infrastructure is an essential ingredient of a modern, economically successful economy. It also is accepted that America's infrastructure is in a state of advanced decay, needing $1 trillion to restore it to health. Some economists assert that for each trillion dollars spent on infrastructure, some 3.5 million real, wealth-generating jobs are created.

Therefore, if the Government were to spend $1 trillion on bringing U.S. infrastructure up to standard and a further $1 trillion on improving it, would cerate some 7 million jobs. This would restore both full employment and the economy.

Faced with this opportunity, it is amazing that the President appears intent upon perusing a debt financed, multi trillion spend on entitlements such as education and health. While jobs will be created, they will be wealth consuming and a drag on the economy. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the massive spend on nationalized health actually will decrease the standard of health care in America, not raise it. How can this be?

In 1993, P.J. O'Rourke in addressing the Cato institute said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait till its free." The experience of Great Britain, Canada and Massachusetts provides stark evidence of the truth of this statement.

Democrat Representative Barney Frank claims that Obama's new health program will be financed by defense cuts and tax increases. But he hesitates to mention that when, in the mid 1960's, the Government came to Congress to finance Medicare, they gave cost projections of $10 billion over 25 years. The actual costs proved to be over ten times that estimate at $107 billion over 25 years.

In view of this evidence how can Obama expect people to believe that his new health plan will "save money"? The truth is that it is likely to emerge as an unprecedented economic drain on all Americans.

America already has the world's best health system. Why change it?

Admittedly, there is the serious problem of some 5 percent of Americans who wish to have medical insurance but are unable to pay for it. Surely, short of an uneconomic nationalized health system, a combination of refundable tax credits and tax deductions could be designed to cover this coverage gap.

As President Reagan remarked: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Anyone seeing FEMA's antics following Hurricane Katrina will shudder to think of a Government interloper coming between them and their doctor.

With deep, tax financed pockets, any Government sponsored health insurance plan soon will undersell the private, for-profit plans. Naturally, people will migrate to the cheaper Government plan, bankrupting the private sector and eventually leaving the Government as the only option.

Armed with this state monopoly power, the Government then will be empowered to dictate, not just negotiate, both the price of drugs and procedures. The best medical parishioners will move to profitable free markets abroad, followed by key divisions of the major drug companies. Just as in Canada and the UK, the standard of health care will fall dramatically with breakdowns and massive consumer frustration as waiting lists lengthen dramatically and the standard of care diminishes. The end result will be a rapid rise in unnecessary deaths. Indeed, the Obama plan envisages already a major increase in euthanasia counseling!

These are somewhat inconvenient truths. If Congress and Americans were generally aware of them, Obama's health plan would die. Is that why is he pressing ahead so fast? Does he have a hidden political agenda, geared more to social engineering more than to the health of either the U.S. economy or its citizens? Is he trying to replace Medicare solely to eliminate the Government's massive debts to all those Americans who for many years have paid into Medicare?

America is at a crossroads. Somehow, the economy must be restructured to ensure that we, as a Nation, consume less than we produce. Spending on entitlements must be reduced as a proportion of Gross National Product and investment in production increased.

If the Administration spends wisely, rather than politically, it could restore both the American economy and the American people to health. If not, Americans will feel far worse.

Post Feedback

We look forward to hearing your feedback and will respond to you as promptly as possible. Unless you specifically request otherwise, we reserve the right to publish your comments on the Daily Bell website. Please note, harassment, vulgarity and personal attacks are not welcomed.






View Feedback

Posted by Jukka on 11/6/2009 6:25:40 AM

Your recipe for fixing the economy is to use 2 trillion dollars to build bridges and roads etc? :) Anyway, the problem with your health care system is not that some people can't afford insurance (although that sucks too).

It's that whenever an insured person gets any kind of treatment, it comes out of the insurance company's bottom line, and as a profit-making business, they want to avoid that.

Who invented the term "pre-existing condition"? That's right, the American insurance companies did, in an effort to maximize their profits (at your health's expense).

What you need is access to treatment, and now there's a middle man standing between you and your treatment, and the middle man doesn't really care about your health.

There are lots of different ways to do health care. I'd recommend taking a look at Germany's model for example, which I hear is really great. My friend lives in Germany. He got into a skiing accident, and ended up having his leg cut shorter and eventually extended back.

He says the level of treatment there has been excellent, and that he's lucky he didn't have to go through this in Finland (where we're both from).

In Finland, we've got public health care that's relatively cheap, and private health centers too. People usually go to the private ones if they can, because they're generally better and you don't have to wait. If you've got a normal office-job, your workplace will pay for private care for you. If you're unemployed, you get public health care, which will get the job done too. But yes, things are better in Germany.

Then there's for example South-Korea, where I heard (from a Korean) that you pay around 50 euros per month for insurance, and then can just pop into any hospital/health center any time for around 2 euros a visit, and get whatever you need.

I actually visited a Korean hospital during my trip there, and the arrangement seemed to be pretty good. There was like a reception area with a bunch of doctors, who would see if they could just take care of a patient right there, or if they should send him along to someone else.

In the Korean hospital, I thought I had the end of a q-tip in my ear, and got to meet an ear-specialist after waiting for 30-45 minutes (and being apologized to for the wait). All in all, it was a pretty good experience.

The point is that health care can be successfully and efficiently arranged in many different ways, and that the system certainly doesn't have to rest on various levels of business entities.

Other countries aren't familiar with the concept of a pre-existing condition.

( By the way, I think it's better if this comment doesn't get published, because it contains some personal information )


Best Wishes,
Jukka


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the feedback.

Post Feedback

We look forward to hearing your feedback and will respond to you as promptly as possible. Unless you specifically request otherwise, we reserve the right to publish your comments on the Daily Bell website. Please note, harassment, vulgarity and personal attacks are not welcomed.








[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

News & Analysis
03/11/10 The Desperation of Quantitative Easing
03/11/10 One U.S. Soldier's Struggle to Reintegrate
03/10/10 Gold is Toppy, Buy More?
03/10/10 Internet Icon Marc Andreessen: Burn Old Media Model
03/09/10 More Sovereign Defaults Loom?
03/09/10 George Soros - Secret Austrian Economist?
Guest Editorials
03/10/10 Is Quality Health Care a Fundamental Right? by Dr. Tibor Machan
03/08/10 Big Lie Theory Flourishes, by Dr. Tibor Machan
03/06/10 Tales of "Strong Reforms" in Iqaluit - or Possibly Just a Hoax, by Frank R. Suess

Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire

It's FREE!
Timely email notification of...
  • Breaking News
  • Feature Interviews
  • Guest Editorials
  • White Papers
  • eBooks & Shorts
  • Special FREE offers
...and much much more!
Exclusive Interviews
03/07/10 Charles Payne on Business Broadcasting, Stock Picking Strategies and the Promise of Global Investing
02/28/10 Jim Rogers on China Opportunities, the Gold Standard and the Development of his Free-Market Financial Philosophy
02/21/10 Lew Rockwell on von Mises, Ron Paul, Free-Markets and the Future of Freedom
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Swiss Confidential website. To unsubscribe from the Daily Bell, click here.