Will Smith Can’t Save Us From The Right
In my chat today, a reader asked me to respond to Megan McArdle’s lengthy case against national health insurance. The problem is that, well, there’s not a lot to specifically respond to. In 1,600 words, she doesn’t muster a single link to a study or argument, nor a single number that she didn’t make up (what numbers do exist come in the form of thought experiments and assumptions). Megan’s argument against national health insurance boils down to a visceral hatred of the government.
If you’ve ever taken the time to watch congressional activity on C-SPAN, particularly in the House, you see this a lot. There are people, Democrats, talking about important things of serious significance. I don’t even necessarily agree with these people all the time, but there’s no disputing the fact that they’re talking about an issue, and then a conservative Republican will get his or her turn at the microphone and begin a conversation about how Barack Obama has enlisted a legion of robots to drain us of our blood. They say these things, and then thanks to the rules of decorum in congress the other side can’t bust out laughing or scream “what the fuck”. They just have to go back to what they were discussing. On earth.
If national health care will kill medical innovation, could someone please explain to me why national defense hasn’t killed military technology innovation?
Really. Seriously. What’s the diff?
The spaceship from Independence Day is like the Obama administration. Zapping America of it’s innovation, wealth, money, and freedom. Heh.
Gabriel chimes in to illustrate the substance of the post. Conservatives love to rant, and facts don’t matter.
Heh. Indeed.
fafaroo: You really have not heard about the $640 wrench and the $1,000 toilet seat?
Those numbers come from distributing R & D numbers throughout the entire project, which actually include contractor dinners and business trips; thousands of man-hours of human testing, and equipment testing.
Who will pay all those costs if the government puts limits on the price of drugs?
Do you want a Federal Department of Medicine that spends money like the Pentagon?
I don’t think so.
Do you want a Federal Department of Medicine that spends money like the Pentagon?
Civilized nations’ health care systems (France, Canada, UK, etc.) are all cheaper than the current one in the U.S. I’ll take my chances.
Do you want a Federal Department of Medicine that spends money like the Pentagon?
Nice dodge, Frank. Unless you’re prepared to argue that the government needs to privatize the nation’s military defense. Are you?
Do you believe that we should slash defense spending?
Otherwise, perhaps you could explain, why is it that we have a single payer defense system, the government, and the most technologically advanced military in the world.
Or are you saying we don’t have the most technologically advanced military in the world?
Help! It’s the attack of apples vs. bricks! Nonsensical comparisons!
Help! It’s the attack of apples vs. bricks! Nonsensical comparisons!
No one is making you do it.
Help! It’s the attack of apples vs. bricks! Nonsensical comparisons!
Explain why it’s nonsensical, Gabriel.
Really. Seriously. What’s the diff?
Suddenly, there’s a diff?
a) Providing health care may be cheaper than providing defense, but it’s not cheaper than providing health care and defense , now is it?
b) Indeed, you may be willing to sacrifice military defense for health care, but everyone else in America but you is not.
The problem with having a “visceral hatred of the government” is of course, that it becomes acceptable to be incompetent while in government. While one side is working on their ability to do the job well the other side is like the rotten employee who doesn’t care about anything but undermining his competition, because he has a visceral hatred of honest work.
If Republicans were smart, they’d be good at their job while also coming up with pragmatic solutions to make government more efficient.
What neither Frank nor any of his right-wing comrades will tell you is that the $1 trillion dollar price tag that they’re always screaming about includes a sizable chunk of the TWO trillion that we already spend on health care each year and that health care reform, if done properly, engineers savings that will pay dividends for years to come; through reducing overhead, through economies of scale and through other cost cutting measures.
Health care reform (proper reform) doesn’t cost money in the long run, it saves money. That’s not just some abstract ideological principle (like ‘government is not the solutiont to the problem, it is the problem’), it’s something that happens every day in real life, in medicare and in other govenrmental healthcare systems here and throughout the world.
Without health care reform, the growth of costs will continue to balloon, and in a decade or so we will literally not be able to afford the pot that we piss in.
The current plan DOES NOT SAVE MONEY. What are you talking about? Barack Obama keeps talking about saving money, that’s great. But the CBO put that myth to bed.
Look it’s going to be hard to save money. If you want to have the best technology and care, it’s going to cost. Certain reforms and increased competition can do that. But when you’re talking about something as important as healthcare, it’s going to cost ya.
Look it’s going to be hard to save money.
Quite so. I assume that means you support a well-funded public option.
fafaroo;
You are kidding right?
Military innovation is driven through competition. The Government doesnt try and build tanks, planes or guns. They publish specifications & requirments in a rfp and companies respond with proposals or prototypes. The government picks the best product and awards the contract.
Even though it is mainly capitolistic, there is alot of waste by government requirements that severly drive up costs by like 70% versus dealing with the public sector.
No, I support a true free market approach to healthcare that actually allows for competition.
I’m against any “public option”.
And your proposal to bust up the healthcare insurance monopoly is?
Frank DiSalle, who provides your health-care?
Gabriel McKee, a public option is the definition of providing competition. It’ll force private insurers to do a better job at a lower price.
No it won’t. Because government can set the price at anything it wants. Doctors will be working for the federal government. And it will drive private insurers completely out of business. Because it puts them at an unbelievable disadvantage.
Therefore the government WILL have complet control over healthcare, eventually.
“Doctors will be working for the federal government.”
Wrong again.
Keep swinging and missing.
For example, I have a relative on a Federal pension. He receives government health-care, basically. And his doctor is in private practice. And in this relative’s words, he gets the best health-care in the world.
Lotta ignorance out there. What was that thing the Lady said to Obama: “Government screws up everything, and hands off my medicare!!”
There are people, Democrats, talking about important things of serious significance. I don’t even necessarily agree with these people all the time, but there’s no disputing the fact that they’re talking about an issue, and then a conservative Republican will get his or her turn at the microphone and begin a conversation about how Barack Obama has enlisted a legion of robots to drain us of our blood.
Oh for crying out loud. We just witnessed the spectacle of the President of the United States engaged in a “beer summit” with two guys involved in a local arrest somewhere and you’ve got the cojones to write this drivel about Democrats and their “seriousness?” Stop. Ok? Just stop. It’s one thing when you’re writing stuff like an ideologue does. But when you write stuff like this, I picture you sitting there holding a check signed by Howard Dean himself.
Gabriel McKee, a public option is the definition of providing competition. It’ll force private insurers to do a better job at a lower price.
Right and government programs are models of efficiency and good service. Good grief. And let me remind you of something: the government doesn’t have competition. Know why? Because the government can lose money on something year after year after year after year after year after year and they’ll never go out of business. A real business doesn’t have that option.
Why do you think independent bookstores and small stores go out of business in the face of a Wal-Mart or Barnes & Noble? They can’t just lower prices. Difference in that scenario is, it’s part of the overall free market. Wal-Mart and B&N don’t operate on funds provided by taxpayers.
and then a conservative Republican will get his or her turn at the microphone and begin a conversation about how Barack Obama has enlisted a legion of robots to drain us of our blood.
Really? Show your work. Show some proof. that *ANY* conservative House member has done that. Links please. I’ll wait.
Health care reform (proper reform) doesn’t cost money in the long run, it saves money. … in medicare and in other govenrmental healthcare systems here and throughout the world.
Yep, no costs whatsoever associated with Medicare or governmental health care throughout the world.
If the private sector is so much better and cheaper than the government, how exactly is the government going to put the private companies out of business?
What no one on this thread has brought up is a clear case where a government health care program CAN perform this service both cheaply as well as effectively.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Veterans Administration.
By most measures, it provides healthcare cheaply and provides better outcomes for its recipients.
Was that so hard?
BTW, I can’t believe no one pointed out some seriously wrong logic in Frank’s first post,
“Who will pay all those costs if the government puts limits on the price of drugs?”
Let’s see, are you ranting about the expected higher costs AFTER the government puts a limit on their costs? Are you expecting to see higher utilization or are you expecting government to negotiate a price higher than the market? In my test case (the VA) as well as in TRICARE (the active military’s health care program) your government negotiates very good rates for the prices it pays.
Locus : the price of something is roughly determined by adding together the cost of research and development, the cost of labor and supplies, and the cost of marketing and distribution.
You can recover the cost of L&S more or less on the fly; the cost of M&D as well. But, if the the cost of R & D is not recovered soon, you will have to either stop further R&D (meaning no new products) or finance R&D (further indebtedness).
Let’s say you need to charge $45.00 for Drugamycin until it goes generic, in order to recover M&D, L&S, and R&D. Fine
But, what if the government says “Sorry, no can do… You can only charge $39.00 for Drugamycin”
Then, where oh where does the rest of the money come from?
As for the Veterans’ Administration, they do not treat everybody, nor do they treat every thing. That is part of how they do what they do. Also, as Jay pointed out, they can operate at a loss indefinitely (see AMTRAK for details), and, finally, no employee ever gets fired, so they have a loyal staff.
Obamacare would in no way resemble that.
Also, stop with the word play , Oliver. This is health care “reform” in exactly one sense: our health care system would be “re-formed” into another kind of health system. There is actually no indication that there would be an improvement.
How can people bash institutions that they claim are wasteful and inefficient, arbitrary and capricious in their application of policy, and hold too much power over the lives of ordinary citizens…then turn around and extol the virtues of other institutions which arguably are also wasteful and inefficient, arbitrary and capricious in their application of policy, and hold too much power over the lives of ordinary citizens?
Perhaps both institutions (federal and state government, and the corporate sector) are needed to counterbalance each other, and perhaps other institutions also exist to help check each and prevent collusion between the two.
Governments issue patents, copyrights and trademarks, provide guarantees of deposit, set interest rates, set the terms of incorporation and rules so that shareholders actually have enforceable rights, and have done thousands of other things to help ensure we have a robust and prosperous private sector. Corporations pay taxes that help the government afford to do all that. In return, the government issues regulations to protect public safety and health, to ensure some de minimis rights for the American worker, and to ensure there is fair competition in the marketplace. Corporations in turn employ millions of citizens, and produce products which, on balance, enhance the life and productivity of the people. In theory, this should all be one happy circle of (socioeconomic) life, folks.
Frank,
“Then, where oh where does the rest of the money come from?”
Your hypothetical is compelling, but it fails because government will not be the only purchaser of the fictional Drugamycin.
I haven’t seen any discussion on the Hill that would prohibit anyone from augmenting a government plan with additional private insurance (much like the case in other countries abroad whose government provides a health care floor). Perhaps companies can recoup their costs there.
Also, many health economists who have studied the differences between international prices for drugs and those in the US have noted the lower costs in Europe, Japan, and other countries where their governments negotiate lower prices for bulk purchases. Because their citizens were getting cut rates for drugs manufactured in the US, where did the drug manufacturers get the rest of the money to pay for the high costs of the drug development? The US market, of course, where there are few restrictions on raising costs. I would like to also note that Medicare Part D benefit has little cost controls over drug prices either.
> Really? Show your work. Show some proof. that *ANY* conservative House member has done that. Links please.
How’s about Virginia Foxx…
“Republicans have a better solution that won’t put the government in charge of people’s health care. [The plan] is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”
http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-foxx-health-care-comments-090730,0,2622612.story
Right and government programs are models of efficiency and good service.
You should inform the millions of people who suffer under universal health care. The vast majority of them love universal care. You should warn them, pronto. Chop-chop, man, there’s no time to lose!
Your hypothetical is compelling, but it fails because government will not be the only purchaser of the fictional Drugamycin.
I am reminded of the old joke: A guy enters a store and sees a sign: SHOES FOR SALE $6
He says , “How do you sell such good shoes so cheap?’
The clerk says, “We buy them for $8.00″
The guy says, “Then how do you make a profit?”
The clerk says , “We make it up in volume”
Locus, no matter who buys Drugamycin , the seller has to recover the cost per item.
I haven’t seen any discussion on the Hill that would prohibit anyone from augmenting a government plan with additional private insurance
You haven’t seen it because you haven’t been looking.
Sorry WD, but that quote involves neither blood draining nor robots. FAIL.
The vast majority of them love universal care.
Your definition of vast majority might need a bit of fine tuning…
Frank, am I mistaken is thinking that you’re on some form of Federal assistance, possibly government health-care? Thought you mentioned that once.
More to the point, it’s amazing how so many people who receive government health-care (Federal pension, police officers, soldiers, public school teachers) tend to think they’ve got great health-care. That’s been my experience at least.
> Sorry WD, but that quote involves neither blood draining nor robots. FAIL
Glorious.
> Your definition of vast majority might need a bit of fine tuning…
That poll says precisely nothing about NHS vs private. I’ve been trying to find an actual poll on support for privatisation of the NHS but one doesn’t exist. I imagine because the pollsters wouldn’t appreciate being laughed at quite so heavily. Closest I can find is this from a conservative think-tank:
“How should NHS budget shortfalls be addressed”
– Individual contributions, higher taxes, better prioritisation are the responses. Privatising the NHS doesn’t even appear.
From the same report “For older people, privatisation was a concern – fear of ‘losing’ the NHS”.
You’ll also note that even the kookiest, far-wing parties in the UK don’t have privatisation of the NHS in their manifestos.
As I said before, FedEx and UPS are as large as the entire USPS by revenue and employment.
The government cannot be grossly inefficient, yet highly efficient at ruining the insurance company monopoly which saw 400+ percent increase in profits between 2000 and 2007.
You cannot have both.
Um, freD… “grossly inefficient” and “highly efficient at ruining” are actually sunonyms.
Jaim, I am on government – assisted health care, and one must be very careful to distinguish between administration and medical care.
A doctor is a doctor is a doctor. A nurse is a nurse is a nurse. Even when you deal with interns, residents and student nurses, they are very good at what they do, and well supervised.
There is only problem I have ever seen: Their care is very close to emergency care. You get the symptom treated and may find yourself returning many times until they figure out what’s wrong with you.
On the administrative end, it runs the gamut from humorous to terrifying. Giving you appointments when the hospital is closed; telling you have to wait three weeks for rabies shots; calling you the day before your health plan “expires” (when it actually doesn’t) — and that just scratches the surface.
That’s why I say you need to sit in a clinic to see what Obamacare will look like. As a patient, you won’t notice much difference. As a customer, you will be appalled.
Frank DiSalle: But, what if the government says “Sorry, no can do… You can only charge $39.00 for Drugamycin”
And is that what the plan is, Frank? I’d appreciate you pointing out where it says so.
What if the gov’t says “We’re only going to pay $39 for Drugamyacin but we’ll buy it in bulk.”?
As for the Veterans’ Administration, … and, finally, no employee ever gets fired, so they have a loyal staff.
IMHO, you’re wrong about staff loyalty. Not being allowed to fire anyone leads to a lazy staff (incompetance has no consequence) rather than a loyal one.
Also, you’re wrong about nobody getting fired. And that’s not an opinion.
Jay: Because the government can lose money on something year after year after year after year after year after year and they’ll never go out of business. A real business doesn’t have that option.
Tell that to the car companies.
Frank DiSalle: <i.b) Indeed, you may be willing to sacrifice military defense for health care, but everyone else in America but you is not.
I am. So, once again, Frank, your arguments are shown to just be patently false.
We just witnessed the spectacle of the President of the United States engaged in a “beer summit” with two guys involved in a local arrest somewhere and you’ve got the cojones to write this drivel about Democrats and their “seriousness?” Stop. Ok? Just stop.
How about if you guys stop stoking stupid comments about local arrests into national crises requiring further responses?
Frank DiSalle: Locus, no matter who buys Drugamycin , the seller has to recover the cost per item.
It’s been said the first pill costs $100 million to develop and sell, and then each subsequent pill costs a few buck to make.
However is the drug company going to recover $100 million on just that first pill?
Oh, you mean, volume and economies of scale do play a part?
What if the gov’t says “We’re only going to pay $39 for Drugamyacin but we’ll buy it in bulk.”?
Isn’t that Walmart’s business model?
Not being allowed to fire anyone leads to a lazy staff (incompetance has no consequence) rather than a loyal one.
I thought that was the right’s beef with the teacher’s union?
However is the drug company going to recover $100 million on just that first pill?
I didn’t say “first pill” – you did.
If selling in bulk reduces cost , then it reduces cost. The idea is not that R&D must be recovered immediately, but that it must be recovered quickly enough so that R&D can continue.
And there are other factors. The last time I used the VA’a urgent care , they gave me theophylline for asthma.
In the emergency room and doctor’s office , they will not give it to you. There is a medical disagreement , and the VA is staying on the “theophylline” side. What happens when Obamacare is in place and SAMHSA and NIMH disagree; or VAMC’s and CDC disagree, etc ?
Frank DiSalle: I didn’t say “first pill” – you did.
I know. But you said “per item”. I’m just trying to show that your joke and your rephrasing it as “per item” doesn’t really have much to do with the accounting for R&D.
>begin a conversation about how Barack Obama has enlisted a legion of robots to drain us of our blood.
What a hoot! Oliver, as I’m sure you’ve *cough* read McArdle’s piece, can you point us to where her opining is akin to talking about “how Barack Obama has enlisted a legion of robots to drain us of our blood.”?
Megan McArdle is a laughingstock.
Frank, why you you allow yourself to receive Socialist health-care?
Jaim, it’s this living and dying thing. I have chosen to live. I suggest you try the alternative, and write me a short report, so I can make a better decision.
Good one, Frank. But we need Jaim posting here from outside the US where he ran away from his problems as the perfect liberal metaphor.
And because laughter is the best medicine.
Seriously, Dennis, if Jaim wanted to improve his life by running off to Korea, more power to him. But he ought to at least acknowledge that it wasn’t only the liberals and Democrats who made it possible.
‘Running off?’ You cons have some bizarre opinions of living overseas.
And Frank, your argument would be more compelling if the pharmaceuticals’ marketing budgets weren’t quite so robust.
I too am happy that Jaim had the opportunity and the means to move overseas- I mean that and I’ve told him so several times. It’s the bashing of half of Americans that he does so proudly, from Korea, after he’s admitted that his job situation in America sucked because of George W. Bush, that I find amusing. He’s certainly free to do that, but I’m also free to use him as a metaphor for malcontent elitist liberals who blame others for their problems; the others they blame always being Republicans. And in the case of Jaim, are Republicans contributing far more to bettering America than he is.
Dennis: He’s certainly free to do that, but I’m also free to use him as a metaphor for malcontent elitist liberals who blame others for their problems; the others they blame always being Republicans
IN a manner similar to how conservatives find Democrats to be the source of all the country’s ills?
Dennis: And in the case of Jaim, are Republicans contributing far more to bettering America than he is.
By promoting stupidity by refusing to denounce birthers as the idiots they are. By being obstructionist because their stated goal is to see Obama fail, rather than to work toward actually improving America’s undeniably poor overall health system.
I’d be happy to return their contributions to them.
Jaim, it’s this living and dying thing. I have chosen to live.
…at tax payer expense, but not the kind that would “sacrifice” America’s “defense,” of course.
I suggest you try the alternative, and write me a short report, so I can make a better decision.
…about the “free market” health system in America.
Frank DiSalle, ladies and gentlemen!