creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
14 Feb 2012
The Progressive Legacy: Part II

"Often wrong but never in doubt" is a phrase that summarizes much of what was done by Presidents … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
The 'Progressive' Legacy

Although Barack Obama is the first black President of the United States, he is by no means unique, except for … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
The Progressive Legacy: Part III

The same presumptions of superior wisdom and virtue behind the interventionism of Progressive Presidents … Read More.

The "Costs" of Medical Care

Share Comment

We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high"— either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.

There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes— or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive— but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.

Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance— and fewer people who can afford it.

Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.

What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.

Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best.

In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.

Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.

There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.

The high costs of "defensive medicine"— expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients— could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.

If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.

Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
We are often reminded that it's the thought that counts. There is a W.C. Fields movie where he went the morning after to a bar and asked the bartender if he had spent $20 drinking the evening before. When the barkeep said he had, W.C. said, "Thank God, I thought I lost it." Mr. Sowell's article reminds me of how my city's leaders tried to prove their worth (and hopefully their re-election into office) by saving taxes by eliminating jobs. Whereas our yard refuse was previously placed unbagged near the curb for bi-weekly pick up, we citizens were told that we had to subsequently put or clippings in plastic bags. In that way only one worker with a truck and hydaulic scoop could do the work previously done by that driver and two workers who manually shoveled the left-over debris onto the truck. In practice, however, those neat plastic bags sometimes broke, leaving behind the same debris which until then those other two workers had removed. More importantly, though, there was actually no savings. In fact, it cost more for the average of three big plastic bags that were necessary, multiplied by the thousands of residents who had to buy them. As well, that cost for those bags went outside of the city to trash bag manufacturers such as 3M, Inc. or some foreign country instead of staying home to pay for those former employees. Yes, we saved taxes, and, yes, those city council members were re-elected. But, no, we were not better off because of it. I guess it's the thought that counts, as long as you don't think about it.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Patrick Chase
Tue Nov 3, 2009 1:13 PM
Dear Thomas Sowell, Good Article. Taxpayers are going to have to hire them a good lawyer, and take back their monies from the insurance and drugs companies, as this is the only way to keep the corrupt politicians from gaining anymore power. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

‘Lying' supposedly will get politicians impeached , then why hasn't ninety-five percent of
politicians been impeached, sell them a one-way ticket to Gitmo, take all their assets to pay off the
trillions they've borrowed without Taxpayers consent? Six decades later and America is bankrupt
with these ‘corrupt, greedy, lying bunch of ‘blood-sucking ticks', still in office, still drawing big
salaries and retirements, working on the same ‘programs/ healthcare' for years. They have nothing
better to do to justify the bigs bucks they steal from Taxpayers, as it's obvious none of them know
what they're doing nor care. This is why their favorite saying is “I'll check on this and get back to
you!” This brings another thought to Taxpayers minds, if the Insurance, Drug companies,
Hospitals, and Medical professionals stop ‘paying the politicians to run for office, maybe the
‘Politicians License to Steal' will come to a screeching halt!

Politicians take billions from insurance, drug companies, healthcare professionals and what few
businesses are left. This is why Taxpayers can't afford insurance, hospitals, let alone medications.
Passing of Healthcare is another POWER GRAB and will finish bankrupting America. Fraud and
bankrupting of social security, medicare and medicaid should tells folks that government run
programs have never worked for Taxpayers, just for Politicians!

Insurance and Drug companies should give their insured, that's paid them big bucks for years, all
their money back. Folks, the Taxpayer that's paid $200.00 to $750.00 monthly, would be entitled to
several million for each person. Just think, we wouldn't need them at all! What fools we've been
letting these ‘blood-sucking ticks' tell us that ‘Taxpayers have to spread the wealth around!'
Where is politicians ‘wealth they're spreading around?'

Why would politicians want to spend billions of dollars taken from insurance, drug, hospitals and
the small business owners, to run for an office that pays $200,000.00+-?

Comment: #2
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:10 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Brent Bozell
L. Brent BozellUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Joseph Farah
Joseph FarahUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Terence Jeffrey
Terence JeffreyUpdated 15 Feb 2012

24 Oct 2008 Obama and "The Left"

21 Jul 2009 Medical Care Confusion

22 Jan 2008 Dangerous Demagoguery