Financial Vagabond

22 Jul, 2009

Socialized Heathcare… Do we want this?

Posted by: gauntlett In: Economy|Health Care|Obama

First Step: Watch this video on Canadian Healthcare

Did you watch the video?  I would embed it so you can watch it here, but it seems that due to technological limitations (or decisions) that isn’t going to happen.  And no I’ve decided against figuring out how to circumvent such actions.  So, click the link already.  It is only 20 minutes out of your life to watch a humorous yet somewhat painful video on the realization of socialized health care.  Don’t believe me then click the link.

Obama Plan: How do we pay for it?

You may be wondering what my take on the Obama plan is.  Well, firstly I want to know how we are going to pay for it.  Really, Social Security is going in the red, and so is Medicare.  Last I check in the red means that it isn’t profitable, and also means that there is no money to fund it.  Tax reciepts are down significantly, not to mention State Tax receipts.

So, the “income” that the Federal Governement receives is down.  Remember that the government doesn’t actually make or produce anything and is soley funded by us the taxpayer.  So, to pay for this we are going to go further in the red.  We already have a trillion plus deficit for 2009, which means borrowing or printing substantial sums of money.

While Univeral Health Care sounds wonderful, but again to pay for it we have to get the money from somewhere.  That somewhere is from the “rich”.  Maybe you feel entitled to health care, maybe not.  Essentially what is going to happen is that money will be siphoned from those with high incomes to subsidize the plans.  This is a blatant transfer of wealth, which is what the government does.

At what point do high income earners decide that enough is enough and decide to earn less?  If I were taxed at say 60%, which means I get to keep 40% of my income my incentive to earn more declines.

Rationing: Supply and Demand

Here is where socialized health care gets interesting.  Let’s say there is $100 billion dollars allocated to public health care per year.  For the moment don’t worry about the exact sums of money as this is an example.

With that $100b services can be provided up to that point.  Once that point is reached or even if we start to near that point where if anything else is spent then the program is in the red.  How might the administrators prevent that from happening?

1) You have to wait in line for your turn… these lines could get really long

2) Deny you service… bummer looks like you don’t get that MRI

3) Rationing, where there is a limited number of services available

So, in a perfect world we would all be healthy, and have 100% health care.  As much as I’d like that to be a reality we have to be realistic.  The only thing we get for free is the air we breath.  Anything else requires work, which then can be exchanged for a good or service.  I’m not saying our present system is perfect, by no means, but I don’t think this is the way.

Sphere: Related Content

  • surferdude123
    the plan is not a Canadian system, it is to create competition by offering another plan (without profit motives) for people to consider. they would have the option to keep current HI plan or the govt one. the expectation is that it will drives proces down (good thing. competition does this). how it is funded to kick off, will it drive prices down, will most of the 47million be insured are all great questions. do not by the myth that this is socialized medicine.
  • Ryan
    The Canadian system does have an inherent "rationing" to it -- the legislature ultimately gets to decide what level of care will be provided to citizens.

    I like the UK model -- the state guarantees a certain standard of care that works for most people in most cases. Unlike in Canada where all doctors must work for the state health care system and where a doctor can not be in private practice, in the UK there are private doctors and private insurance. So you can buy supplementary insurance to get a higher standard of care than what the UK state insurance provides.

    In fact we already have this system in the USA -- if you're over 65, that is. Medicare provides a certain standard of care as determined by the legislature (in conjunction with doctors, etc.) and if you want "more" or "better" care (e.g. a private room at the hospital instead of a shared room) you can buy supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket to cover that extra level of care.

    What Medicare and any state-run health plan for people of all ages in the USA could benefit from is a realignment of incentives. Right now doctors who serve Medicare patients are incentivized to do more -- more tests, more procedures, etc. -- since they get paid based upon volume and not on results. Any state run health care should change that incentive to encourage doctors to provide the best results for a patient, not the highest volume of care. A few private hospitals have begun doing this (Mayo Clinic for example) and some HMO's who own the whole system (hospitals, doctors on payroll, etc.) like Kaiser Permanente do this.

    In the UK, general practice doctors get incentives to get their patients to stop smoking, lower their blood pressure and cholesterol, etc., resulting in a healthier population that is cheaper to care for. Here in the USA we often just eat our burgers, get obese, get diabetes, and then go on a lifetime of drugs and insulin, for example, rather than stopping the problem at the root cause.

    As a small business owner, I'm all for an affordable health care system that my employees could use. Right now it is very hard and expensive to compete with large companies in terms of the benefits that I can offer.
blog comments powered by Disqus

  • kerz: haeh heh! excellent. too late though! and it is a canard to pretend the republicans are deeply concerned. the rot is bipartisan.
  • kerz: Like your comment. 2 sources of income: taxes and "quant easing" HA HA. so true.Imagine, a 3rd world country is liberalizing, while US having
  • kerz: haeh heh! excellent. too late though! and it is a canard to pretend the republicans are deeply concerned. the rot is bipartisan.

About

The name is Trevor Gauntlett... I tend to like to question everything and don't like to take things at face value. There is always an alternative story to everything. My focus is the economy and finance with a desire for personal liberties and rights.

What I'm Doing...

  • Iphone 3Gs shipping directly from Shenzhen, China. 2009-06-15
  • Is in Taipei, Taiwan! 2009-04-19
  • $2 Trillion Dollar deficit? WTF??? well I'm not suprised, but really come on guys and gals have you ever looked at history 2009-03-20
  • More updates...

Posting tweet...

Powered by Twitter Tools

Subscribe