The Best Things In Life Are Expensive
Steve Chapman on Obamacare at reason:
Critics have noted many flaws in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul: It's too expensive, too intrusive, too coercive, and too complex. But one central defect that accounts for much of the other mischief: the pretense that making us all better off is a miraculous, cost-free bonanza.The 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat foresaw schemes like this when he wrote, "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." That illusion lies at the heart of the new program.
The president has gone to great lengths not to disguise this element but to celebrate it. He said early in the debate that the additional cost of the program could be paid with taxes on the rich. He vowed to oppose anything "that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families"--which he plainly regards as the moral equivalent of drowning puppies.
But why shouldn't middle-class families bear the cost of a largely middle-class entitlement? When a typical family buys a new car, it doesn't expect someone else to make the payments. If health care reform showers so many blessings on ordinary Americans, ordinary Americans ought to be more than willing to pay the bill. If they are unwilling, maybe some rethinking is in order.
The Easter Bunny approach is not unknown among Republicans, either. They too like to hand out tasty treats. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in November the GOP would keep some parts of the health care reform, like requiring insurers to take applicants without regard to pre-existing conditions and to let parents keep children on their policies up to age 26. But those provisions are popular partly because their actual cost is invisible.
The general flaw also makes for particular flaws. One of those is the requirement that health insurance companies cover some 45 preventive care services at zero cost to patients--everything from depression screening to diet counseling.
Zero cost to patients -- big fees to other people: those paying taxes and those whose grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on will be working as servants for the Chinese in lieu of having the money to pay off the vast debt their predecessors incurred.
Zero cost to patients -- big fees to other people:
Also to the health insurance companies and medical professionals. Why should hospitals and/or doctors take a loss on providing services to individuals.
I'm not talking about the $5 for two Tylenol bit. I'm talking about you have had major surgery and need three days to recover in the ICU before you can even be considered to get out the door. You have three shifts of nurses and staff. The lights, the equipment, the medications, food, water, etc. The insurance wants to pay a $100 a day for the bed.
We have had several insurance companies end coverage, temporarily or permanently, in local hospitals because both sides couldn't come up with a contract for reimbursement.
The same things with doctors -- they are small businessmen. Why are more and more not taking Medicare/Medicaid? Because they can't make a profit.
Jim P. at January 22, 2011 7:31 AM
Health Insurance Thirst Mandate
=== ===
Excerpt:
His Benevolence: I have decided to banish thirst from the land. All health insurance will henceforth include unlimited purchases of refreshing drink, like Coke, Pepsi, and 7-Up. The peasants will slake their thirst and be reimbursed by the insurance companies. No co-pay.
Advisor: Your name will be legend. But Sire, will you be paying for this bounty?
His Benevolence: The insurance companies will pay.
Advisor: Sire, the peasants will have to pay the insurance companies.
=== ===
Andrew_M_Garland at January 22, 2011 12:42 PM
Somehow I cannot believe that John Kerry and Warren Buffet (the real rich, not some doctor couple that grosses 500K) are going to pay for my health insurance.
MarkD at January 22, 2011 6:15 PM
What drugs are you taking? And can I have some?
The reason that Kerry, Buffet, etc. don't pay taxes at the rate that you and I do is that they are incorporated.
The same as most multi-generational large farms, and many other corporations. They incorporate as Mom & Dad have a stake of 85%. The three kids have a 5% stake each. The incorporation rules say that if the Dad dies, Mom gets his portion. When Mom dies the rest of the corporate "stock" goes to the other shareholders.
Because they are getting shares in a corporation, of which they are board members, not the cash it isn't taxable.
Why do you think the repeal/change of the Alternative Minimum Tax have died a silent death?
Jim P. at January 22, 2011 8:25 PM
Jim P,
My point is simply income does not equal wealth. Kerry and Buffet are wealthy. They have a lot of money and property. Those with high gross incomes are not necessarily wealthy. They may have incurred a lot of expenses (two tuitions for medical school in my example) getting there. When the bills and taxes are paid, there may not be a lot left over.
The public is easily manipulated by demagogues.
I am not a doctor, nor related to one.
MarkD at January 24, 2011 10:55 AM
Leave a comment