Posted by
Philip Mella on Monday, June 29, 2009 3:49:09 PM
Most of us aren't perplexed when confronted with the linear relationship between competition and the cost of goods and services. To the extent you increase the former you experience reductions in the latter. De-regulate the airline industry, which we did many years ago, and we all enjoy the cheap fares, which means more vacations with family and lower costs for business travel. In contrast, the auto industry, which breathes heavily under the stress of labor unions (which features an average of $750 in steel per car and $1700 in health care expenses), and you see pandemic failure.
In light of the numerous examples that are obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ, why would we assume that eliminating competition from health care would benefit the consumer? The problem, as I've argued in prior columns, is not the absence of competition, it's over-utilization due to the chasm between the consumer and the entity that pays for care. For a dead-letter remedy, we turn to Katrina Vanden Heuvel, writing in The Nation, who argues for a new definition of bipartisanship, the kind that's been working so well in Iran.
When you peruse her piece you'll notice the implicit disdain for competition, not only in health care, but in the arena of ideas. When the left descends onto the battlefield of ideas, which is rare these days, it does so with its faithful phalanx of mainstream media shills at its side. However, there are occasions, such as the left's plan for the government to ingest the health care delivery system--that's 17 percent of our economy--that the citizens perk up and take notice. Indeed, when people read that the government's plan for a single payor system (or, 'public option'--it's a difference without a distinction, since the two roads lead to the same fiscal mortuary), and that its authors plan to insure everyone without increasing taxes on average wage earners, it just sounds too good to be true.
If you have an interest in learning more about our health care system, its history, costs, complexities, and the inherent value of a reform model based on competition, I commend to you a highly readable book that you can get delivered to your door for under $10. It's Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free it, by Michael F. Cannon.
But back to this Machiavellian column. The author notes that Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, said that bipartisanship is possible without Republican votes, quoting him as follows:
"There will be ideas from both parties, and individuals from both parties, in the final product," he said. "Whether the Republicans decide to vote for things they promoted will be up to them."
If you detect a rhetorical slight of hand in that line, you're onto their game. The plan will be to institute an ingeniously artful selection process, choosing those uniquely palatable ideas from choice Republicans in the Olympia Snow-Susan Collins vein, incorporate them into the left's oeuvre, run it up the flagpole and excoriate anyone who has the temerity to call it partisan.
It's painfully clear that the left isn't interested in the most efficient, least costly solution, they want it "controlled":
"I would prefer, as would my colleagues at The Nation, to see Congress respond to this country's healthcare crisis by scrapping a failed-for-profit system and replacing it with a comprehensive national health insurance program."
It would be a sign that our media had stirred from their self-imposed slumber if they'd ask these socialists to name one federal program that delivers superb services at a market-competitive cost---just one. As we all know, it doesn't exist, and they know it as well. But the thoughtful stewardship of your tax dollar--as well as those of your grand-children--is clearly not paramount in their thinking. In a rare but illustrative glimpse into the left's soul, we have this closing gem from the author:
"...the cost debate is forcing to the fore much-needed consideration of changes to our dysfunctional and unjust tax structure that will enable us to pay for these healthcare reforms." [Emphasis added.] I've quoted the tax figures before, so I'll only note that the top 1 percent of income earners pays 40 percent of federal income taxes, and, middle and lower-income earners under former President Bush paid significantly less in federal taxes than they did under President Clinton.
The simplest solution to our health care conundrum is to provide portable/refundable tax credits, eliminate coverage for routine care (we don't have care insurance for oil changes and tune-ups), rescind the prohibition of cross-state purchasing of insurance, and eliminate employer sponsored coverage, which means each of us shops for that best fits our needs.
Watch the utilization--and costs--plummet.