You’ve probably heard the reports about the dire state of healthcare in the United States. The World Health Organization, the health arm of the United Nations, ranks the US healthcare system number 37th in the world. Then why is it that when the European Royalty and oil shieks get sick they come to the US, not Morocco, Cyprus and Greece, which all ranked higher than the US. Oh, maybe it’s because….they want to live.
To understand this paradox take a look at how the WHO calculates the ratings. The US ranks number one in “responsiveness to patient needs and to choices of the individual patient.” That ranking accounts for 12.5% of the overall ranking. After all, who cares about patients’ needs and choices?
The two most heavily weighted factors are: one, if the system is government run and, two, equality of treatment.
The other statistic that is used to discredit our system is life expectancy. We are told that Europeans, with their government controlled health systems, have a greater life expectancy than Americans. True, they do, by 7/10ths of a year on average.
But, our average gets pulled down considerably when a couple of 20 yr. olds die in a drug-related drive-by? Or when a car full of drunk teenagers crash into a semi? European has a much lower homicide rate than we do. Also, because of their lower standard of living and tougher licensing laws, they have fewer young drivers than we do. When you adjust for violent deaths and car accidents, the US has a life expectancy equal to Europe’s.
As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Dems roll out the muscle
You’ve no doubt heard the accusations that the townhall protests against ObamaCare are, gasp, organized. This indictment comes from supporters of the President who proudly lists among his prior occupations that of community organizer.
First, the accusation is certainly greatly exaggerated, as anyone viewing video of the protests can see. These people are passionate, spontaneous and carrying homemade signs. Compare that to the little girl at the Obama event who read from a card a slam of the protesters posing as a question. What a coincidence that it turns out her mother is a Democrat activist.
Second, get ready for the real, organized offensive about to be unleashed against these citizen protesters by the labor unions. The Wall Street Journal reported that the AFL-CIO has allocated $15 million for this effort. And “The Service Employees International Union is sending members to more than 400 events this month...”
Busloads of SEIU thugs will be packing townhall meetings across the Country. The pro-ObamaCare Health Care for America Now instructed its organizers to “Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements.” They even have volunteers making mass production, hand made signs to put a patina of authenticity on this organized attempt to limit free speech.
Now we’ll see the bear-knuckled intimidation and bullying that is the Chicago politics that produced Obama & Rahm Emanuel. But this is the era of the ubiquitous video camera and tens of millions will be watching and forming their own conclusions.
First, the accusation is certainly greatly exaggerated, as anyone viewing video of the protests can see. These people are passionate, spontaneous and carrying homemade signs. Compare that to the little girl at the Obama event who read from a card a slam of the protesters posing as a question. What a coincidence that it turns out her mother is a Democrat activist.
Second, get ready for the real, organized offensive about to be unleashed against these citizen protesters by the labor unions. The Wall Street Journal reported that the AFL-CIO has allocated $15 million for this effort. And “The Service Employees International Union is sending members to more than 400 events this month...”
Busloads of SEIU thugs will be packing townhall meetings across the Country. The pro-ObamaCare Health Care for America Now instructed its organizers to “Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements.” They even have volunteers making mass production, hand made signs to put a patina of authenticity on this organized attempt to limit free speech.
Now we’ll see the bear-knuckled intimidation and bullying that is the Chicago politics that produced Obama & Rahm Emanuel. But this is the era of the ubiquitous video camera and tens of millions will be watching and forming their own conclusions.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Rationing
Now that word is out that the House healthcare bill provides that more than half the increased healthcare costs will be achieved by cuts in Medicare, we are hearing a lot about rationing healthcare (HC) for seniors.
I realize that many readers of this blog, like me, are on Medicare or close to it. Nevertheless, I must point out the reality that rationing of HC for seniors is coming regardless (or, as they say in New York, irregardless) of whether this bill becomes law or not. That’s because the system is quickly going broke even before the leading edge of the baby-boom generation reaches age 65.
Don’t get me wrong. I in no way support this bill or any plan to increase government involvement in HC. But remember, Medicare is government-run HC, i.e., socialized medicine. One of the main criticisms of the House plan is that it adds millions more people to a Medicare-style program that is already headed toward bankruptcy.
Put aside HC for the moment. Everything we use or consume is rationed. They are rationed because there is not enough wealth to pay for everybody to have everything. But they are rationed by the free market pricing mechanism, not by government.
No one is entitled to a 10,000 sq.ft. luxury home, though some people have one. We are not entitled, at someone else’s expense, to weekly steak dinners at Morton’s or a week-long ski vacation at a Beaver Creek lodge. So why are we entitled to an $80,000 knee replacement (that’s one knee) at someone else’s expense?
(A doctor friend who recently had both knees replaced told me that the artificial knee joints themselves cost $48,000 each. That’s before the surgeon’s and anesthesiologist’s fees and hospital charges, etc. It’s the same for hips and these are two of the three most common in-patient surgeries.)
But, some say, HC is different. It’s a fundamental right. Nonsense! Food and shelter are more essential, but only the most ardent Marxist would contend that the government should nationalize the food and housing industries.
As a realist I accept the fact that all material things are rationed. But I trust the free market to do a better job than government bureaucrats. Less realistically, I hope that the current revolt will result in getting the government entirely out of the HC field. Fat chance.
I realize that many readers of this blog, like me, are on Medicare or close to it. Nevertheless, I must point out the reality that rationing of HC for seniors is coming regardless (or, as they say in New York, irregardless) of whether this bill becomes law or not. That’s because the system is quickly going broke even before the leading edge of the baby-boom generation reaches age 65.
Don’t get me wrong. I in no way support this bill or any plan to increase government involvement in HC. But remember, Medicare is government-run HC, i.e., socialized medicine. One of the main criticisms of the House plan is that it adds millions more people to a Medicare-style program that is already headed toward bankruptcy.
Put aside HC for the moment. Everything we use or consume is rationed. They are rationed because there is not enough wealth to pay for everybody to have everything. But they are rationed by the free market pricing mechanism, not by government.
No one is entitled to a 10,000 sq.ft. luxury home, though some people have one. We are not entitled, at someone else’s expense, to weekly steak dinners at Morton’s or a week-long ski vacation at a Beaver Creek lodge. So why are we entitled to an $80,000 knee replacement (that’s one knee) at someone else’s expense?
(A doctor friend who recently had both knees replaced told me that the artificial knee joints themselves cost $48,000 each. That’s before the surgeon’s and anesthesiologist’s fees and hospital charges, etc. It’s the same for hips and these are two of the three most common in-patient surgeries.)
But, some say, HC is different. It’s a fundamental right. Nonsense! Food and shelter are more essential, but only the most ardent Marxist would contend that the government should nationalize the food and housing industries.
As a realist I accept the fact that all material things are rationed. But I trust the free market to do a better job than government bureaucrats. Less realistically, I hope that the current revolt will result in getting the government entirely out of the HC field. Fat chance.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Dems: Too Liberal & Bad Timing
In addition to the realization by seniors that much of the cost of ObamaCare was going to be offset by cuts in Medicare, there are two other explanations as to why the Democrat push for the biggest expansion of government in U.S. history is running into so much resistance.
In a 2009 Gallup poll only 21% of Americans self-identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Thirty-five percent describe themselves as “moderate,” and 40% say they are “conservative” or “very conservative.” Nine percent call themselves “very conservative” versus only 5% who say “very liberal.”
Yet, the Democrat agenda is being driven by a President who had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and by the most liberal members of Congress, the old 60s radicals whose seniority has put them in the leadership positions. Not only do the above poll results show that these people are out of step with the majority of Americans, but they’re even too far left for many, if not most, Democrats.
The other explanation for the Dems headwinds is both economic and psychological. LBJ unleashed the last, big dose of socialism, The Great Society in 1965. It included a cornucopia of welfare initiatives topped off with the two biggest budget busters of all, Medicare and Medicaid. But this came at a time when America was bursting with prosperity and confidence. The stock market was at an all-time high and we were marching toward the, dare I say, audacious goal of putting a man on the moon.
Contrast that with the current environment: unemployment headed toward 10%, home equities slashed, 401Ks now 201Ks. This is not exactly the ideal climate in which to launch a huge expansion of government that everyone knows, despite assurances, will result in a massive tax increase and more debt.
In a 2009 Gallup poll only 21% of Americans self-identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Thirty-five percent describe themselves as “moderate,” and 40% say they are “conservative” or “very conservative.” Nine percent call themselves “very conservative” versus only 5% who say “very liberal.”
Yet, the Democrat agenda is being driven by a President who had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and by the most liberal members of Congress, the old 60s radicals whose seniority has put them in the leadership positions. Not only do the above poll results show that these people are out of step with the majority of Americans, but they’re even too far left for many, if not most, Democrats.
The other explanation for the Dems headwinds is both economic and psychological. LBJ unleashed the last, big dose of socialism, The Great Society in 1965. It included a cornucopia of welfare initiatives topped off with the two biggest budget busters of all, Medicare and Medicaid. But this came at a time when America was bursting with prosperity and confidence. The stock market was at an all-time high and we were marching toward the, dare I say, audacious goal of putting a man on the moon.
Contrast that with the current environment: unemployment headed toward 10%, home equities slashed, 401Ks now 201Ks. This is not exactly the ideal climate in which to launch a huge expansion of government that everyone knows, despite assurances, will result in a massive tax increase and more debt.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Dems Failure Could Help Them
Politics is so unpredictable. Obama’s two biggest initiatives were Cap and Trade and Healthcare. Cap and Trade hit the skids when people figured out that it was just a big, new tax on just about everything they buy.
Now Obamacare is on life supports and, as one of my favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer predicts, will end up being not much more than a health insurance bill. Krauthammer attributes this result entirely to the revelations by the Congressional Budget Office of what this monster would cost us going forward.
I agree that the CBO input was a major factor, but I think there was another influence at work, the public’s growing awareness that half of the promised savings would come from cuts in Medicare. Most Americans are either on Medicare, approaching the eligibility age or have parents on it. Even without the CBO reports, this alone was enough to torpedo the planned government takeover.
The irony is that Democrats are likely to benefit from these two failures. First, as Krauthammer says, Obama will hail his emasculated health bill as a great accomplishment, a rescue from certain disaster. Moreover, these two initiatives together would have constituted a huge drag on any nascent economic recovery. With those dual threats now diminished, the prospects for a more robust recovery are enhanced.
And, the stock market being a forward-looking mechanism, this more optimistic economic outlook bodes well for a more robust market performance in the months just ahead. If the inflation ogre stays at bay until autumn 2010, the Dems stand a very good chance of maintaining their Congressional majorities. As for the effect on Obama’s fortunes in 2012, a lot can, and will, happen between now and then.
Now Obamacare is on life supports and, as one of my favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer predicts, will end up being not much more than a health insurance bill. Krauthammer attributes this result entirely to the revelations by the Congressional Budget Office of what this monster would cost us going forward.
I agree that the CBO input was a major factor, but I think there was another influence at work, the public’s growing awareness that half of the promised savings would come from cuts in Medicare. Most Americans are either on Medicare, approaching the eligibility age or have parents on it. Even without the CBO reports, this alone was enough to torpedo the planned government takeover.
The irony is that Democrats are likely to benefit from these two failures. First, as Krauthammer says, Obama will hail his emasculated health bill as a great accomplishment, a rescue from certain disaster. Moreover, these two initiatives together would have constituted a huge drag on any nascent economic recovery. With those dual threats now diminished, the prospects for a more robust recovery are enhanced.
And, the stock market being a forward-looking mechanism, this more optimistic economic outlook bodes well for a more robust market performance in the months just ahead. If the inflation ogre stays at bay until autumn 2010, the Dems stand a very good chance of maintaining their Congressional majorities. As for the effect on Obama’s fortunes in 2012, a lot can, and will, happen between now and then.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Single Payer in Britain
In case you missed it in the WS Journal, a British doctor named Anthony Daniels who writes under the pen name, Theodore Dalrymple, weighed in on ObamaCare. He first debunked the notion of healthcare as a “right,” pointing out that “There are several other much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.”
After noting that healthcare has been considered a right in Britain longer than in any other Western country, he remarked, “Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.”
Noting that in most of Europe, unlike Britain, people do pay at least something for their care, he reports that “British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries” and “…Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.”
So much for a “single payer”, government-run healthcare system. The full article is on page A13, Wed. July 29, WSJ.
After noting that healthcare has been considered a right in Britain longer than in any other Western country, he remarked, “Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.”
Noting that in most of Europe, unlike Britain, people do pay at least something for their care, he reports that “British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries” and “…Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.”
So much for a “single payer”, government-run healthcare system. The full article is on page A13, Wed. July 29, WSJ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)