creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
23 Jul 2014
Policing America

I want the police to be better armed than the bad guys, but what exactly does that mean today? Apparently it … Read More.

16 Jul 2014
Who'll Build the Roads?

"Tea party members don't think there's a federal role in transportation!" complained Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio,… Read More.

9 Jul 2014
Important Slow News

Wars, plane crashes, mass murder — it's easy to report news that happens suddenly. Reporters do a good … Read More.

Health-Care Competition

Comment

The statist establishment would love a single-payer health-care system like Canada's if it were politically achievable. Barack Obama said that if we were starting from scratch, single payer is what he'd back. But, thankfully, Americans are still libertarian enough to cringe at turning the medical system entirely over to government.

So with single payer out of reach, the fans of government control have grabbed for second best: the "public option." This would be government-run health insurance that would "compete" with private insurance. (It wouldn't compete fairly because it could do something no private firm can do: milk the captive taxpayers.) But the public option is proving hard to get. Even some Democrats are nervous about it.

What's a statist to do?

Leading Democrats in the Senate say the answer might be nonprofit health cooperatives. Sen. Charles Schumer wants some method "to keep the companies honest," and if the "public competitor" can "do those things in a co-op form, I think we're open to it" (http://tinyurl.com/l55gyh).

One sign that this may be the way things are heading is that the New York Times, the mouthpiece of the statist establishment, ran a front-page article last week that begins with glowing praise for a co-op where doctors have lots of time to spend with patients because of its "collaborative model of primary care." Among the media it's an article of faith that the "collaborative model" is more consumer friendly than a profit-seeking business.

The Times connects the dots in case anyone missed the point. "On Capitol Hill, those innovations have made Group Health a prototype for a political compromise that could unclog health care negotiations in the Senate and lead to a bipartisan deal. ... [T]he Senate Finance Committee seems poised to propose private-sector insurance cooperatives ... as its primary mechanism for stoking competition and slowing the growth of medical costs."

Give me a break. Since when is government needed to stoke competition? Competition is what happens when government lets people alone. I defy anyone to give me an example of lack of competition that doesn't have its roots in government intervention.

Since co-ops are nonprofit organizations owned by their members, the Times' story subtly implies that the profit motive is responsible for the absence of competition and higher medical costs.

But that's ridiculous. In a free market without government barriers to entry, it's the quest for profit that produces competition and lower costs.

If health cooperatives were really more efficient and innovative, wouldn't they be copied all over the country? That's how the market works. When someone comes up with an innovative way of doing business, it is quickly imitated and improved on. But buried late in the Times story is the revealing fact that the co-op is "a rare survivor among the hundreds of rural health insurance cooperatives."

Hello? Don't the Times editors see the disconnect? If co-ops worked well, today there would be thousands of them. Why should taxpayers fund a method of delivering health care whose success is "rare"?

The newspaper story made another point that is a favorite of the policy elite: Preventive care will save tons of money. If that's true, there is nothing (but government) to keep people from implementing that principle. But is it true?

This seems to be one of those things we know that isn't so.

I take Lipitor. The drug may extend my life. But this doesn't lower my health-care costs. Years of pill-taking increases costs. If the pill works, I may live long enough to get an even more expensive disease. And maybe I, like millions of others, take Lipitor unnecessarily because we would never have had heart attacks. We then spend more, not less, on health care.

Health-care expert John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org) says there are "literally hundreds of studies from over the past 40 years that show preventive medical services usually increase medical spending ... Contrary to popular belief, checkups for children and adults do not save the health care system money" (http://tinyurl.com/mc745s).

If the policy elite really wanted cost-cutting competition, they would deregulate medicine. No one has ever found a better way to stimulate competition than freedom.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Dear John Stossel, If American Taxpayers are smart, they'll demand to go back to “Pay as you go”
system for medical expenses, insurance, and everything else, that includes
stopping politicians and insurance companies from taking the last penny from
you!

Taxpayers don't really care about party affiliation; therefore, the article
under HPE Guest Column 6/28/09 “GOP Health plan doesn't address real issues”
I'm quoting ‘Then maybe there wouldn't be 45 million uninsured in America!'
According to statistics, population shows approximately 305 million Americans,
subtract the 45 million (that's mentioned in article) - which is 15% of us, right,
with no health insurance. This leaves 255 million, or 85%, with insurance;
therefore, as usual, something doesn't add up.

America doesn't need anything else controlled by a radical and socialist
government, let alone National Healthcare! ‘Fair Tax', to include property taxes,
and ‘pay as you go' for doctors and hospitals, would cut theft and tons of useless
paperwork. Trillions would be saved by Taxpayers for their own families!

At no time have Taxpayers, that have a job at present, heard the words “We, the
politicians, in order to pay off trillions we borrowed without Taxpayers consent,
are going to reduce our salaries and retirements to $12,000.00 yearly, which
would benefit America!”

This is one actual insurance/government billing. Stop and wonder “Where's the
money” for this joke of a healthcare for all? ‘Explanation of Benefit' in which
Medicare and your private insurance, which you pay, in addition to what little they
pay out for you to your doctors after you've paid big bucks. If your doctor billed
for $233.00, Medicare paid $76.20, and your private carrier said it was OK to pay
$19.05, I don't suppose it will ever occur to receivers that this type ‘welfare
program' is OK. May articles have been written that Social Security/Medicare paid
dearly for people's care, including gastric bypass (which one could start by
pushing their chair away from table) which they couldn't afford, including the
Viagra, Cialis, Intense, and TV Programs telling the world about your sex life! “If
you don't work, have never paid social security, why should you receive anything
that Taxpayers have worked for?”


Being self employed, never accepting any type government/grant money, and
remembering when insurance became Mandatory started myself and my
employees to thinking ‘if our insurance was running $100.00 month for a family of
three (3)', what would it be when we had to start paying the insurance companies
to handle paperwork for government/politicians, illegitimates, social and welfare
programs and anything else that was forced on Taxpayers and small business
owners! Well, now we know, don't we?”

I'm quoting John Adams - “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” America is now an enslaved nation
with trillions of dollars in debt and all because of deceit and greed. Surely, you
remember history and the Dictator that said “We'll destroy America and never lift
a finger!” If this doesn't wake you up, nothing will!

While I'm on a roll, Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for Viagra, Cialis, new ‘intense'
for women, gastro surgery, and illegitmates, let alone TV ads! Common sense has
gone ‘bye-bye!'
Comment: #1
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:02 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
John Stossel
Jul. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 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 30 31 1 2
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
Jamie Stiehm
Jamie StiehmUpdated 25 Jul 2014
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 25 Jul 2014
Susan EstrichUpdated 25 Jul 2014

11 Nov 2009 The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers

14 Nov 2007 Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet

3 Jul 2013 I Shrugged