Obama has criticized Detroit for failing to innovate, saying U.S. automakers should make hybrid vehicles as good as Japanese automakers do. But I suspect that governmental control is not the way to spur innovation. Think about it. Although American health care is the most expensive in the world and has among the least government interference, it is also the world's most innovative with leading treatment techniques and medicines.
If government had run the computer business the past 50 years, would we have desktop computers like the one I'm using to write this column? I doubt it. Don't even think about laptops or netbooks. The room-size computers that government and industry used in the 1950s to crunch their data worked just fine. Why would individuals need a computer? To store recipes? To send letters and messages to friends and family? Get real! That's what the post office and Western Union are for!
And what about the music industry? Would a government monopoly have invented iTunes? Would it even have developed the compact disc? Seems unlikely; LPs — or even 78s — served the public well enough and kept the musicians and producers happy. Digital music would seem like a waste of computing power and binary coding to most government bureaucrats. And would a government-controlled music industry have given us hip-hop or the Beatles or Elvis? Doesn't seem likely. Government disdains rebelliousness.
An infusion of federal money into U.S. automakers might be justified under today's unusual circumstances, but innovation, or the lack of it, is not a good rationale for federal management of industry.
Posts
14 comments:
You are so right! In particular, I have experience working in a country in which (until recently) all art and music were publicly funded (Austria) and you guessed it, any new talent emigrated to the US or did their best to "color inside the lines" of the great masters the artifacts if whose greatness lured so many tourists each year! ;) I worked on a project with a group that was trying to keep talent from leaving by lobbying the government to allow private funding of the arts. Can you imagine? They had to make a case for this! They did eventually succeed (to a limited degree) but I learned then (as a college student in 1986) how stifling government can be to the process of creation or innovation. I just pray they keep their mitts off my healthcare (I pray a LOT) these days! ;)
We are doomed.
I thought about it. Not only is it funny that anyone would take George Will seriously, but that anyone can compare or find something good to say about a healthcare system that leaves out 50 Million people. And climbing. And a good portion of that number are children. I thought we cared about our Children?
This "As long as I've got mine" mentality should never be confused with a rally behind any alleged innovations.
I love it. This "system" that "leaves out" (allegedly) 50 million isn't some monolith that beneficently doles out care only to the few at its own discretion, intentionally "leaving out" the poor and the children! If I "have mine" you can bet I PAY FOR IT, out the keester in fact!
The system has no emotions, it has no human qualities whatsoever. It doesn't make decisions on its own, PEOPLE do that. Parents who don't want to pay to cover their kids, or who can't afford to (I thought we had SCHIPS for that though, or do we really think it's the "system's" fault that kids of parents making over $60K still don't have coverage? Really?), young healthy adults who don't want to pay for something they still don't believe they'll need (and government mandates that make it nearly impossible for them to JUST buy what they DO need--catastrophic coverage or what we call "major medical"), and about 12 million illegal aliens who've been handed enough memos in every language imaginable telling them they cannot be turned away just because they can't pay and cannot be asked about their status in the country while they ask for care either.
When are we going to realize that it OUGHT to cost something to take care of your health, especially if "care" includes pricey things like MRIs, "just in case" or Cat Scans as a matter of ER protocol for anyone in a car accident, or over 50 vaccinations in the first three years for every child in America, even for diseases we haven't seen in over a generation, and a 50+% c-section rate in most hospitals (and climbing) and on and on and ON.
Yes, I agree, insurance companies need to GO, or at least be regulated like the utilities, to the extent that they can make a profit (if at all) they should only be able to make a limited profit--not Wall Street "make the investors happy at all costs" profits. But that's called government *IN PARTNERSHIP* with the private sector, government knowing what it does well (regulation) and what it does NOT do well (innovation/delivery of services). Where government has owned and operated anything outright, it's tended to be pretty backwards.
Put another way, if government run healthcare is so much better, if having "coverage" is really the core issue, head on up to Canada or over to the UK and see what their life expectancies are for those with the diseases killing most Americans--the "behavior/lifestyle" diseases like heart disease, diabetes and its complications, never mind the most common cancers like prostate, lung and breast. Yeah, go take a peek at those numbers and then tell me how much better it is when everyone is "covered." OR, if your passport isn't in order, just take a trip up to MA, where I used to live and my father still does. Try to find yourself a primary care doctor, g'head, give it a shot. And then look at your monthly outlay for care if you're not within the criteria for state-sponsored care--you know, the outlay that was supposed to go DOWN when the gov't took over? And ask people who used to like their private coverage provided by their employer if they were able to so easily "keep" it once the connector started up, or how they feel about the fines they'll have to pay if they can't afford the connector plans, but don't qualify for the state coverage (so they are without coverage AND pay something, whereas at least before they kept their money if they weren't covered, so you know, they could pay out of pocket to go to the doctor at least?)
Sorry, this "the system is mean" and it's all the fault of those who don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater people like me is a crock. The system is largely what it is because of government ham-fisted interventions. If they would step back and focus on the real problem: HIGH COST, more people would be able to buy their own coverage, they would self-ration on the big expensive stuff without having to deprive themselves of basic preventive care, and guess what? A greater percentage of those 50 mil would be covered. And then gov't could come in and do the second thing it does best, be a safety net for those who really are left behind, but I predict a MUCH smaller number than 50Mil by that point, and the gov't can handle that. ;)
....any anon#2. Get in line for your ticket.
Basically, people have all the answers yet none and continue to hypothesize while people go without. THAT is the problem.
So, instead of endless diatribes, READ and educate yourself...
Physicians for a National Health Program.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
So now opinions you don't agree with are "diatribes?" And you wonder why we haven't managed to fix this problem? Look, single payer systems exist. They have been tried, in countries smaller and with populations less polyglotted and less entitled/demanding than ours. We have evidence that they are tragically flawed. Why take away something the majority of citizens (according to recent polls) have and think works well for THEM to provide something as vague as "coverage?" Let these physicians explain how asingle payer system will handle rationing and doctor shortages and then tell me (rudely I might add) to "educate" MYSELF.
There really is no argument. What we have now does not work. Period. But until you go without, you might not get it.
If you would take the time to read the FAQ section on the PNHP website your questions will be addressed.
Or else we can stay where we are, or go back to the healthcare strides we made in the last 8 years or so? Which of course were NONE.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
Again, strawman. I've read their site, long before you instructed me to, and I think they are just flat out wrong, sorry, I do. I'm entitled to my opinion also. But theirs is not the ONLY solution. It's not stay where we are or go single payer, that's pretty unimaginative wouldn't you say? Exchange one horribly flawed system for another, differently flawed perhaps, but quantitatively just as bad?
There are other ideas out there, but of course you'll never hear/read them because they come from a few brave souls on the *other side* of the aisle. Most of the GOP is AWOL on this issue, but a few are trying hard to come up with an alternative plan because they know that Americans have been duped into believing this strawman argument (Obama and the Democrats are SO GOOD at them aren't they? And yet they were the ones who railed against the "you're with us or against us" meme, how very ironic).
Coburn and Burr are working on a plan right now that sounds promising, it even has things in it that Democrats like, like tax CREDITS. There are other ideas out there, but the marketing of the "uninsured" as the biggest problem we face (as opposed to looming doctor shortages and high costs, regardless of who's paying) has been so successful, I believe the American people will run headlong off the cliff into the single payer "solution," and that is why I pray that I am wrong. I have lived abroad, I have experienced it firsthand. It's HORRIBLE. You presume I've never been without coverage in the US, and you presume INCORRECTLY, I have. I know what it's like, and yes it sucks, but I don't believe in supporting or opposing policies solely on the basis of what is good for ME. Yes, I like my current coverage, but I don't oppose a single payer plan just b/c I like what I have. I oppose it because I think it would be bad for everyone, *especially* the poor, the elderly and the children. Trust me, you do NOT want your government deciding more about your healthcare than they already do. But again, don't take my word for it, go live it. Go try to find a primary care doctor in MA. Good luck to you.
The Burr plan? LOL. The Republicans plan will be more of the same corporate welfare to the insurance lobby disguised as something vaguely resembling intelligence. There would be no plan at all from them if they weren't trying desperately to seem relevant. Which by all counts, they are not.
It's time for real reform. Not the same rhetoric of tax credits and do nothingness we have all become used to under the Conservatives. Who conserve squat.
The Physicians plan is a sound one.
The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.
It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
Let me see... Medicare is a single payer system, is it not? Medicaid too, correct? Tell me again about all the savings from less bureaucracy and paperwork? LOL
Explain to me exactly how ADDING the entire population of the country will improve upon the single payer systems we already have, and while you're at it, why they haven't used the genius of these physcians to fix medicare FIRST, you know, as a test of their brilliance, a proof of concept as it were? Or am I just imagining that a) Medicare doesn't really provide adequate care for all seniors, most of whom have to buy supplemental care OR have to do without (big time rationing, the physicians dismiss ths and actually use it to answer the fear of rationing with the tried-and-true "We already ration" like we're OK with what we already have and would be ok with MORE) b) Medicare didn't have a prescription drug component until (egads, dare I say it) the eeevil Chimpy Bushitler, and this misguided attempt at "bipartisanshp" is--next to the war--the single most profligate thing he did as President c) Now that it has this prescription plan, most seniors STILL find they have to pay for a good portion of the drugs they need because of the gap in coverage d) even as a "single payer" plan, the government does business ALL THE TIME with the pharmaceutical companies, and many other companies who create TONS of paper?
The physicians plan (and who ARE these "Physicans" anyway? What kinds of MD are they? I tried finding out, didn't have much luck) is probably pretty close to what we'll end up with, so guess what, you'll get to tell me someday if you're right. Or not. ;) In the meantime, as long as it's still a free country, I can hope we'll see a different plan.
Oh, and I love how you say "the Burr Plan" like you've read it. No one has because they haven't finished WRITING IT YET. I was merely commenting on some of ther preliminary ideas, most of which involve giving PATIENTS more autonomy and insurance companies LESS.
I just want to add one last thing...I do NOT believe the private insurance industry is owed some right to exist, nor do I particularly want to "save" them. What I believe is that it is possible to remove them from the picture without having the gov't be the payer, without mandating that all of us be in one big "risk pool" paid for with tax dollars. I think the gov't can go on doing what it does now--as the Physicians point out (funding research, providing a safety net for those on the margins, etc...) and if patients were able to contract directly with doctors, and self-pay using HSA accounts they could fund more easily using tax credits or money they currently pour into the sinkhole that is private insurance, wouldn't more people be "covered" too?
My point is, I agree with the original premise of this blog post, that the gov't doesn't do innovation well, and simply saying that the private insurers are failing and deserve to go the way of the dodo does not automatically mean that the gov't is the best or only solution to replace them. Saying they should have a chance as if they haven't ALSO had their chance to "Fix" healthcare all these years is laughable too. The gov't's fingerprints are all over our healthcare system, with mandates and HIPPA and a laundry list of other regulations, someo of which are worthwhile, some of which are politically-motivated crap that has nothing to do with keeping us healthy or "covered." BOTH sides have had their chance to make things better, and in my view, BOTH have failed. The ONLY people who've had their chance taken away from them are patients and doctors! It's just ASSUMED we need a "payer" or a middle-man, why? Have we so given up on affordability that we assume the only way for care to be affordable (not CHEAP, but affordable--it's funny to me that some of the same people who complain about how expensive health insurance is think nothing of paying $400/month for a car payment, sustaining credit card minimums of the same amount, and easily drop over $200 on cable tv and internet service every month)is if we are all "sharing the burden" for each other? Paying through our taxes won't make the costs come down, but they sure will make our taxes go UP--this removes ALL choice regarding healthcare from the individual (by choice I mean choice of how to pay or WHOM--the physcians are quick to point out that the patient and doctor make decisions, but neglects to mention that the doctor is NOT someone you chose on your own, just as it often is with medicare today).
So yes, private insurers are villains, no question about it, but ditching them doesn't mean we would automatically default to the gov't as some would have us believe.
A majority of people in the USA AND physicians support a national health insurance program. It is the reform proposal that has the greatest level of support amongst medical professionals AND the general public.
The reason for that support is because approx. 50 Million people go without health insurance and countless others with inadequate healthcare options. That is a lot of people. 50 million. There are approx. 9.5 Million people in the entire state of NC!
Despite those that toss in smokescreens and continue to pretend we are eating fine chocolate while in reality we eat something else. Medical bills are the leading cause of Bankruptcy in the USA.
1. Everybody in, nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period --
the desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll.
2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage
goes with you.
3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else,
with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the
event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive
care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are
neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of
communicable diseases.
5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital
you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured
a fair reimbursement.
6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the
autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the
billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions
or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes
for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare,
a single-payer, universal system.
8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone,
largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare
model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97%
with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.
9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally
to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered,
and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced
CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation
packages or stock wealth or company profits.
The original post here was about innovation and government ownership regarding the government's partial ownership of automakers. This has morphed into a debate on health care, leading to 13 comments. As I indicated in my original post, conservatives and liberals will debate this issue, but I think it's been thoroughly aired here.
Post a Comment