[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…

Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]

Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.

We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?

We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…

The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)

The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?[/quote]

First, I’m very unsatisfied with the Senate bill. I fail to see the logic of the mandate, it is simply a handout to the insurance industry. Combined with a readily available public plan, it may have made a bit more sense. But i would still have considered it a flaw in the bill.

As is the funding method in the Senate bill. A surtax on the highest tax bracket would have made much more sense. (And no, I don’t believe there is any empirical evidence that would stifle any economic growth, certainly not at income levels above $250,000 per year.)

And no, the public option would not satisfy my socialism definition. No goods or services would be manufactured or distributed by the government. Just as Medicare and Medicaid are not socialized medicine. See my comment above with regards to how insurance fits into the capitalist/socialist model.

(And I think the “pay czar” makes a lot sense for companies which recieved bailouts, if the position held any authority. It would have made a lot more sense to have written it into the bail out agreements 13 or 14 months ago. It wasn’t. Unfortunately, the pay czar won’t do anything)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…

Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]

Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.

We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?

We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…

The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)

The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?[/quote]

First, I’m very unsatisfied with the Senate bill. I fail to see the logic of the mandate, it is simply a handout to the insurance industry. Combined with a readily available public plan, it may have made a bit more sense. But i would still have considered it a flaw in the bill.

As is the funding method in the Senate bill. A surtax on the highest tax bracket would have made much more sense. (And no, I don’t believe there is any empirical evidence that would stifle any economic growth, certainly not at income levels above $250,000 per year.)

And no, the public option would not satisfy my socialism definition. No goods or services would be manufactured or distributed by the government. Just as Medicare and Medicaid are not socialized medicine. See my comment above with regards to how insurance fits into the capitalist/socialist model.

(And I think the “pay czar” makes a lot sense for companies which recieved bailouts, if the position held any authority. It would have made a lot more sense to have written it into the bail out agreements 13 or 14 months ago. It wasn’t. Unfortunately, the pay czar won’t do anything)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…

Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]

Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.

We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?

We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…

The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)

The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?[/quote]

First, I’m very unsatisfied with the Senate bill. I fail to see the logic of the mandate, it is simply a handout to the insurance industry. Combined with a readily available public plan, it may have made a bit more sense. But i would still have considered it a flaw in the bill.

As is the funding method in the Senate bill. A surtax on the highest tax bracket would have made much more sense. (And no, I don’t believe there is any empirical evidence that would stifle any economic growth, certainly not at income levels above $250,000 per year.)

And no, the public option would not satisfy my socialism definition. No goods or services would be manufactured or distributed by the government. Just as Medicare and Medicaid are not socialized medicine. See my comment above with regards to how insurance fits into the capitalist/socialist model.

(And I think the “pay czar” makes a lot sense for companies which recieved bailouts, if the position held any authority. It would have made a lot more sense to have written it into the bail out agreements 13 or 14 months ago. It wasn’t. Unfortunately, the pay czar won’t do anything)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…

Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]

Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.

We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?

We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…

The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)

The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?[/quote]

First, I’m very unsatisfied with the Senate bill. I fail to see the logic of the mandate, it is simply a handout to the insurance industry. Combined with a readily available public plan, it may have made a bit more sense. But i would still have considered it a flaw in the bill.

As is the funding method in the Senate bill. A surtax on the highest tax bracket would have made much more sense. (And no, I don’t believe there is any empirical evidence that would stifle any economic growth, certainly not at income levels above $250,000 per year.)

And no, the public option would not satisfy my socialism definition. No goods or services would be manufactured or distributed by the government. Just as Medicare and Medicaid are not socialized medicine. See my comment above with regards to how insurance fits into the capitalist/socialist model.

(And I think the “pay czar” makes a lot sense for companies which recieved bailouts, if the position held any authority. It would have made a lot more sense to have written it into the bail out agreements 13 or 14 months ago. It wasn’t. Unfortunately, the pay czar won’t do anything)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…

Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]

Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.

We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?

We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…

The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)

The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?[/quote]

First, I’m very unsatisfied with the Senate bill. I fail to see the logic of the mandate, it is simply a handout to the insurance industry. Combined with a readily available public plan, it may have made a bit more sense. But i would still have considered it a flaw in the bill.

As is the funding method in the Senate bill. A surtax on the highest tax bracket would have made much more sense. (And no, I don’t believe there is any empirical evidence that would stifle any economic growth, certainly not at income levels above $250,000 per year.)

And no, the public option would not satisfy my socialism definition. No goods or services would be manufactured or distributed by the government. Just as Medicare and Medicaid are not socialized medicine. See my comment above with regards to how insurance fits into the capitalist/socialist model.

(And I think the “pay czar” makes a lot sense for companies which recieved bailouts, if the position held any authority. It would have made a lot more sense to have written it into the bail out agreements 13 or 14 months ago. It wasn’t. Unfortunately, the pay czar won’t do anything)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Carl Veritas]SK in CV,

The American Hospital Association?

Is this the entity that gives existing hospitals veto power wether another hospital is to be built where it operates?

The private/public hospital figures are from Milton Friedman’s “Input and Output in Medical care.
Quoted from an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, Economics Professor Loyola University Maryland

I’d love to hear your comments on his take about our nations health care scene

http://mises.org/story/3793%5B/quote%5D

First, no, the AHA does not hold veto power over whether new hospitals or beds can be added.

The article lumps all hospitals that are not for-profit together as evidence as movement towards socialims. It ignores NGO non-profits in the equation. They are not evidence of a shift towards socialism, and they make up roughly 1/2 of all hospitals. It promotes the narrative, but ignores the facts.

As does the authors assertion that Medicare and Medicaid are evidence of a shift towards socialism. The VA is socialized medicine. The VA both pays for and provides medical services, as does the NHS in Great Britain. Medicare and Medicaid provides no medical services.

On the continuum from socialism to fascism, insurance of any sort is kind of a non-issue. And the argument can be made that all insurance falls outside of the definition of capitalism. Though an essential part of our economic model, it’s kind of an appendage that doesn’t actually do anything. Capitalism generally refers to private ownership of the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services. Insurance is neither a good nor a service. (Note again,…the argument can be made that….)

It’s more akin to bookmaking or other forms of gambling. A bookmaker sets the odds so that winners equal losers and makes money with the vig. That’s what insurance companies do. They set the rates so that premiums equal losses plus some vig. But the vig has grown so large without regulation (the rate of the vig, or the reciprocal of the loss ratio has more than doubled over the last 20 years) that regulation is needed to restore competition. And to the extent that competition is a key characteristic of efficient capitalism, that regulation is essential.

Again, back to the gambling analogy, in roulette, the house wins because all the odds are set exactly as if there were 36 numbers. But the 0 and 00 give the house the edge. Roughly a 5% vig. Gamblers have learned to live with it. In medical insurance, it’s as if the house added 000 to the table a few years ago. And the take rises to roughly 7.7%. And now, they’re adding 0000 to the table, again without increasing the payout, jacking the vig up to 10%. Without competition (by way of a public option or some other regulation) it just isn’t going to stop.

Please don’t conflate my desire here for regulation as a push for bigger government, it’s not. It’s a desire for better government. Despite the author’s illogical assertion that fascism is a type of socialism, he is simply mistaken. Fascism is a fierce and often coerced nationalism combined with a corporatist economic system. Regulation which protects individual rights from corporate actions is what distinguishes our political-economic system from fascism.

And as far as my view on the nations health care system, as a consumer, a consultant to the industry for many years, and a member of a family where a significant portion of the income is derived directly from the industry, I think it is irreparably broken, and badly in need of change. And I don’t believe we’re going to get it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Carl Veritas]SK in CV,

The American Hospital Association?

Is this the entity that gives existing hospitals veto power wether another hospital is to be built where it operates?

The private/public hospital figures are from Milton Friedman’s “Input and Output in Medical care.
Quoted from an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, Economics Professor Loyola University Maryland

I’d love to hear your comments on his take about our nations health care scene

http://mises.org/story/3793%5B/quote%5D

First, no, the AHA does not hold veto power over whether new hospitals or beds can be added.

The article lumps all hospitals that are not for-profit together as evidence as movement towards socialims. It ignores NGO non-profits in the equation. They are not evidence of a shift towards socialism, and they make up roughly 1/2 of all hospitals. It promotes the narrative, but ignores the facts.

As does the authors assertion that Medicare and Medicaid are evidence of a shift towards socialism. The VA is socialized medicine. The VA both pays for and provides medical services, as does the NHS in Great Britain. Medicare and Medicaid provides no medical services.

On the continuum from socialism to fascism, insurance of any sort is kind of a non-issue. And the argument can be made that all insurance falls outside of the definition of capitalism. Though an essential part of our economic model, it’s kind of an appendage that doesn’t actually do anything. Capitalism generally refers to private ownership of the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services. Insurance is neither a good nor a service. (Note again,…the argument can be made that….)

It’s more akin to bookmaking or other forms of gambling. A bookmaker sets the odds so that winners equal losers and makes money with the vig. That’s what insurance companies do. They set the rates so that premiums equal losses plus some vig. But the vig has grown so large without regulation (the rate of the vig, or the reciprocal of the loss ratio has more than doubled over the last 20 years) that regulation is needed to restore competition. And to the extent that competition is a key characteristic of efficient capitalism, that regulation is essential.

Again, back to the gambling analogy, in roulette, the house wins because all the odds are set exactly as if there were 36 numbers. But the 0 and 00 give the house the edge. Roughly a 5% vig. Gamblers have learned to live with it. In medical insurance, it’s as if the house added 000 to the table a few years ago. And the take rises to roughly 7.7%. And now, they’re adding 0000 to the table, again without increasing the payout, jacking the vig up to 10%. Without competition (by way of a public option or some other regulation) it just isn’t going to stop.

Please don’t conflate my desire here for regulation as a push for bigger government, it’s not. It’s a desire for better government. Despite the author’s illogical assertion that fascism is a type of socialism, he is simply mistaken. Fascism is a fierce and often coerced nationalism combined with a corporatist economic system. Regulation which protects individual rights from corporate actions is what distinguishes our political-economic system from fascism.

And as far as my view on the nations health care system, as a consumer, a consultant to the industry for many years, and a member of a family where a significant portion of the income is derived directly from the industry, I think it is irreparably broken, and badly in need of change. And I don’t believe we’re going to get it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Carl Veritas]SK in CV,

The American Hospital Association?

Is this the entity that gives existing hospitals veto power wether another hospital is to be built where it operates?

The private/public hospital figures are from Milton Friedman’s “Input and Output in Medical care.
Quoted from an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, Economics Professor Loyola University Maryland

I’d love to hear your comments on his take about our nations health care scene

http://mises.org/story/3793%5B/quote%5D

First, no, the AHA does not hold veto power over whether new hospitals or beds can be added.

The article lumps all hospitals that are not for-profit together as evidence as movement towards socialims. It ignores NGO non-profits in the equation. They are not evidence of a shift towards socialism, and they make up roughly 1/2 of all hospitals. It promotes the narrative, but ignores the facts.

As does the authors assertion that Medicare and Medicaid are evidence of a shift towards socialism. The VA is socialized medicine. The VA both pays for and provides medical services, as does the NHS in Great Britain. Medicare and Medicaid provides no medical services.

On the continuum from socialism to fascism, insurance of any sort is kind of a non-issue. And the argument can be made that all insurance falls outside of the definition of capitalism. Though an essential part of our economic model, it’s kind of an appendage that doesn’t actually do anything. Capitalism generally refers to private ownership of the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services. Insurance is neither a good nor a service. (Note again,…the argument can be made that….)

It’s more akin to bookmaking or other forms of gambling. A bookmaker sets the odds so that winners equal losers and makes money with the vig. That’s what insurance companies do. They set the rates so that premiums equal losses plus some vig. But the vig has grown so large without regulation (the rate of the vig, or the reciprocal of the loss ratio has more than doubled over the last 20 years) that regulation is needed to restore competition. And to the extent that competition is a key characteristic of efficient capitalism, that regulation is essential.

Again, back to the gambling analogy, in roulette, the house wins because all the odds are set exactly as if there were 36 numbers. But the 0 and 00 give the house the edge. Roughly a 5% vig. Gamblers have learned to live with it. In medical insurance, it’s as if the house added 000 to the table a few years ago. And the take rises to roughly 7.7%. And now, they’re adding 0000 to the table, again without increasing the payout, jacking the vig up to 10%. Without competition (by way of a public option or some other regulation) it just isn’t going to stop.

Please don’t conflate my desire here for regulation as a push for bigger government, it’s not. It’s a desire for better government. Despite the author’s illogical assertion that fascism is a type of socialism, he is simply mistaken. Fascism is a fierce and often coerced nationalism combined with a corporatist economic system. Regulation which protects individual rights from corporate actions is what distinguishes our political-economic system from fascism.

And as far as my view on the nations health care system, as a consumer, a consultant to the industry for many years, and a member of a family where a significant portion of the income is derived directly from the industry, I think it is irreparably broken, and badly in need of change. And I don’t believe we’re going to get it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Carl Veritas]SK in CV,

The American Hospital Association?

Is this the entity that gives existing hospitals veto power wether another hospital is to be built where it operates?

The private/public hospital figures are from Milton Friedman’s “Input and Output in Medical care.
Quoted from an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, Economics Professor Loyola University Maryland

I’d love to hear your comments on his take about our nations health care scene

http://mises.org/story/3793%5B/quote%5D

First, no, the AHA does not hold veto power over whether new hospitals or beds can be added.

The article lumps all hospitals that are not for-profit together as evidence as movement towards socialims. It ignores NGO non-profits in the equation. They are not evidence of a shift towards socialism, and they make up roughly 1/2 of all hospitals. It promotes the narrative, but ignores the facts.

As does the authors assertion that Medicare and Medicaid are evidence of a shift towards socialism. The VA is socialized medicine. The VA both pays for and provides medical services, as does the NHS in Great Britain. Medicare and Medicaid provides no medical services.

On the continuum from socialism to fascism, insurance of any sort is kind of a non-issue. And the argument can be made that all insurance falls outside of the definition of capitalism. Though an essential part of our economic model, it’s kind of an appendage that doesn’t actually do anything. Capitalism generally refers to private ownership of the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services. Insurance is neither a good nor a service. (Note again,…the argument can be made that….)

It’s more akin to bookmaking or other forms of gambling. A bookmaker sets the odds so that winners equal losers and makes money with the vig. That’s what insurance companies do. They set the rates so that premiums equal losses plus some vig. But the vig has grown so large without regulation (the rate of the vig, or the reciprocal of the loss ratio has more than doubled over the last 20 years) that regulation is needed to restore competition. And to the extent that competition is a key characteristic of efficient capitalism, that regulation is essential.

Again, back to the gambling analogy, in roulette, the house wins because all the odds are set exactly as if there were 36 numbers. But the 0 and 00 give the house the edge. Roughly a 5% vig. Gamblers have learned to live with it. In medical insurance, it’s as if the house added 000 to the table a few years ago. And the take rises to roughly 7.7%. And now, they’re adding 0000 to the table, again without increasing the payout, jacking the vig up to 10%. Without competition (by way of a public option or some other regulation) it just isn’t going to stop.

Please don’t conflate my desire here for regulation as a push for bigger government, it’s not. It’s a desire for better government. Despite the author’s illogical assertion that fascism is a type of socialism, he is simply mistaken. Fascism is a fierce and often coerced nationalism combined with a corporatist economic system. Regulation which protects individual rights from corporate actions is what distinguishes our political-economic system from fascism.

And as far as my view on the nations health care system, as a consumer, a consultant to the industry for many years, and a member of a family where a significant portion of the income is derived directly from the industry, I think it is irreparably broken, and badly in need of change. And I don’t believe we’re going to get it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Carl Veritas]SK in CV,

The American Hospital Association?

Is this the entity that gives existing hospitals veto power wether another hospital is to be built where it operates?

The private/public hospital figures are from Milton Friedman’s “Input and Output in Medical care.
Quoted from an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, Economics Professor Loyola University Maryland

I’d love to hear your comments on his take about our nations health care scene

http://mises.org/story/3793%5B/quote%5D

First, no, the AHA does not hold veto power over whether new hospitals or beds can be added.

The article lumps all hospitals that are not for-profit together as evidence as movement towards socialims. It ignores NGO non-profits in the equation. They are not evidence of a shift towards socialism, and they make up roughly 1/2 of all hospitals. It promotes the narrative, but ignores the facts.

As does the authors assertion that Medicare and Medicaid are evidence of a shift towards socialism. The VA is socialized medicine. The VA both pays for and provides medical services, as does the NHS in Great Britain. Medicare and Medicaid provides no medical services.

On the continuum from socialism to fascism, insurance of any sort is kind of a non-issue. And the argument can be made that all insurance falls outside of the definition of capitalism. Though an essential part of our economic model, it’s kind of an appendage that doesn’t actually do anything. Capitalism generally refers to private ownership of the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services. Insurance is neither a good nor a service. (Note again,…the argument can be made that….)

It’s more akin to bookmaking or other forms of gambling. A bookmaker sets the odds so that winners equal losers and makes money with the vig. That’s what insurance companies do. They set the rates so that premiums equal losses plus some vig. But the vig has grown so large without regulation (the rate of the vig, or the reciprocal of the loss ratio has more than doubled over the last 20 years) that regulation is needed to restore competition. And to the extent that competition is a key characteristic of efficient capitalism, that regulation is essential.

Again, back to the gambling analogy, in roulette, the house wins because all the odds are set exactly as if there were 36 numbers. But the 0 and 00 give the house the edge. Roughly a 5% vig. Gamblers have learned to live with it. In medical insurance, it’s as if the house added 000 to the table a few years ago. And the take rises to roughly 7.7%. And now, they’re adding 0000 to the table, again without increasing the payout, jacking the vig up to 10%. Without competition (by way of a public option or some other regulation) it just isn’t going to stop.

Please don’t conflate my desire here for regulation as a push for bigger government, it’s not. It’s a desire for better government. Despite the author’s illogical assertion that fascism is a type of socialism, he is simply mistaken. Fascism is a fierce and often coerced nationalism combined with a corporatist economic system. Regulation which protects individual rights from corporate actions is what distinguishes our political-economic system from fascism.

And as far as my view on the nations health care system, as a consumer, a consultant to the industry for many years, and a member of a family where a significant portion of the income is derived directly from the industry, I think it is irreparably broken, and badly in need of change. And I don’t believe we’re going to get it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Carl Veritas]NeetaT,

At the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises.
State and local governments began taking over the hospital industry that by early 1990s only 10 percent are.

If not socialism, what should we call this,
the free market?[/quote]

I’m not sure where you got your numbers, but according to the American Hospital Association 2008 survey, local, state and federally owned hospitals made just over 20% of all hospitals.

http://www.aha.org/aha/resource-center/Statistics-and-Studies/fast-facts.html

[Author]

Posts