Uncle Sam, Sugar Daddy
18th July 2011
…just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?
When Medicare began in 1966, it cost $3 billion; congressional estimates were that, by 1990, it would cost about $12 billion, allowing for inflation. The actual figure turned out to be $107 billion. Today, Medicare’s future unfunded obligations total at least $36 trillion. Other estimates run even higher.
July 18th, 2011 at 16:42
Lost in all of this, of course, is the root problem, which is the rocketing cost of health care.
If health care costs had only risen at the rate of inflation, we’d be fine. Instead, they increase by double digits each year regardless of inflation, or the economic downturn, or any other factor.
My solution: Death panels coupled with mandatory euthenasia at age 75.
It’s the only economically viable solution.
July 19th, 2011 at 08:57
Lost in all of this, of course, is any rational examination of why the ‘cost of health care’ is ‘rocketing’.
Candidate: People aren’t paying for their own health care. The government or their employers are paying for it. Guess what? If it’s free, the demand goes up. Guess what? If the demand goes up and the supply remains the same, the price goes up. Funny how that works.
A nasty side effect is that doctors are ordering a lot of tests and procedures that are arguably not needed. Why? To keep from getting sued, mostly. You want to talk about ‘rocketing cost of health care’, let’s mention the rocketing cost of malpractice insurance (which, ultimately, the people paying for the health care also pay for). Why is malpractice insurance ‘rocketing’? Because doctors keep getting sued, often for bullshit reasons. (Juries don’t mind whacking doctors with outrageous verdicts; after all, the insurance company is paying! Free money!) And who is suing the doctors? Trial lawyers. And who do trial lawyers give their campaign contributions to? Democrats! One hand washes the other.
July 19th, 2011 at 09:12
Doesn’t matter.
Death panels with mandatory euthenasia is still the only viable economic solution.
If we haven’t gotten there yet, we will eventually.
July 19th, 2011 at 09:44
Also, I’m curious why you haven’t approached the problem from an economic viewpoint, i.e., invoking the Invisible Hand and The Marketplace.
Costs are soaring because of high demand and restricted supply, according to the classical model. Since we can’t really lower demand–everybody gets sick–we should attack the “problem” by increasing supply. In short, we need more doctors. (Competition brings down price, etc., etc.)
An examination of medical school admissions reveals that many more candidates qualify for admission than are admitted. Many medical schools maintain a staff:student ration of 1:1 or 1:2; the ratio could easily be expanded to 1:5 or 1:6 without, I suspect, any delitorious effect on the quality of the education. Why don’t they?
The culprit? The AMA, the accrediting body for medical schools. In short, a doctor’s union, which effectively restricts the number of admissions and keeps supply low, thereby keeping the price of care high (the DeBeers model, if you will). Given your penchant for bashing unions, I’m surprised you haven’t targeted them, yet. But no matter.
Another factor related to medical schools is the astronomical cost of education. When a doctor graduates with $300K in student loans, he/she has to charge high fees and/or move to larger metropolitan areas where high fees can be supported. This falls under the topic of education reform rather than health care reform, but the two are related.
You also forget to mention that many more tests and procedures are ordered than necessary because doctors own the testing facilities and are essentially paid “piece rate” by insurance companies, creating an economic incentive to order and perform unnecessary things.
However, all that aside, we WILL eventually have to resort to Death Panels and/or euthenasia. We can do so under the current model (the rich live, the poor die) or under some other model, but we cannot continue to sustain an increasingly aging (and thus more expensive) population under the current system.
July 19th, 2011 at 11:08
TLDR (responses)
Medicare only pays some percentage of the ‘normal’ cost for a procedure. If a doctor wants to make his normal income, he has to raise the ‘normal’ price by some factor in order to get paid a reasonable amount by the gov’t. Because of the sheer number of people involved, Medicare becomes huge driver for price increases.
July 19th, 2011 at 11:42
Since Medicare is composed primarily of old people, and that demographic keeps climbing, so will the cost.
Mandatory euthenasia @ age 75. Problem solved.
July 19th, 2011 at 12:12
The Republicans will never support euthenasia. The last thing they want is large numbers of dead people swelling the ranks of Democratic voters.
Being brain-dead is not a prerequisite for being a liberal, but it does help.
July 19th, 2011 at 14:47
Registering dead Democrats would only apply to Chicago, and what Republican wants Chicago?
The Republicans can still save the day by requiring a 3-page essay on the Fedaralist Papers as a pre-requisite for voting registration. They’ve done it before.
Besides, Republicans operate under the Whose Ox Is Being Gored principle; if it’s not THEIR Grandmother in trouble, there’s no problem. So we’ll fall back to the “rich live, poor die” position.
Either way, health care rationing–which is already with us–will be the order of the day.
Don’t you just love oligarchies? I thought so.
July 21st, 2011 at 18:29
“Registering dead Democrats would only apply to Chicago, and what Republican wants Chicago?”
The ones in Southern Illinois. No seriously.