Another day passes and another attack upon PROFITS.
From today's Atlanta Journal Constitution "Pro & Con" subsection which asks "Should health care reform include a "public option," in which a government plan would compete with private insurers?
The Pro person, Henry Kahn, a physician says:
.....He (Obama) guessed wrong when he thought that commercial insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers would cooperate by substantially reducing their extraordinary profits.
PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS!!!
Its all about the profits.
Over time I have learned the importance of going out and getting a factual reference point by which to base an argument upon.
Thus above I have listed the industry profits for the two industries that have been attacked for their profiteering: "Big Health Care Insurance" and "Big Pharma"
In big pharma the top 12 companies in the industry rake in a grand total of $79,426B
In big health care insurance the top 5 companies of note rake in $10,109B
Thus the argument is that this is $89,535,000,000 that could be applied toward patient care.
Don't get me wrong. $85.5 billion is a princely sum. I would settle for lottery winnings of just $85 million. It is when one frames this argument properly that we see the selectivity and the ridiculousness of this argument.
I mentioned previously that while these two entities are being attacked for profiteering - the would be Health Insurer and Drug Negotiator for those who seek the public option - the conglomerate known as the "Federal Government" has a one year DEFICIT of $1,800 billion dollars.
The argument does not stand. The only reason why the huge deficit is not problematic as experienced by those who wish to load up the federal government with more financial burden is being they don't personally feel the effects of this tremendous negative balance (yet).
The more interesting study beyond the arguments about the right to health care and the moral requirements to do so is the underlying economic ideological issues that are present among people who are resentful of corporations and the profit motive as they prefer government and its abstracted concern for massive deficits. I have often heard that "Corporations care more about the bottom line than they do about people". I struggle to understand what these same people believe that a national government who's debt is already at $12,000 billion which is expected to grow to $21,000 billion after 10 years - What does this entity care about? It most certainly is not fiscal sustainability.
I get the strong suspicion that any short term victory in nationalized health care will be akin to the recent United Auto Worker's contract signed with General Motors - the pre-bankruptcy General Motors. After the nutrition source is brought to its knees financially then the TRUE COSTS of an entity that has no regard to the bottom line will be seen.
Those who have built up their dependency upon this centralized entity without assembling the organic capabilities to preform these services more close to home, at the periphery will be damaged the most.
4 comments:
We need a national heath care program but it shouldn't be all-inclusive (just the basics).
If people deisre more complete coverage they can purchase another policy or get one through their job.
The Basicare or Basicare+ could just take the place of Medicaid/Medicare but not be as extensive in it's coverage.
Maybe there could be a higher premium for smokers, the obese and drug users (even for those unable to afford coverage).
I agree. I'm not a supporter of universal health care but I would be Ok with a universal plan that covered the basics and if you want more, you pay for more. I shouldn't have to take care of obese people and all of the health issues that come with it, smokers or drug abusers because it's 100% preventable.
My view:
Create SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE FACILITIES.
You walk in for service - they don't ask you for insurance. This is what the Progressives at the "Multiple Tax Payer Paid Health Care" symposium that I attended last year wanted. The key difference is that they wanted to make EVERY hospital in America A "Single Payer". I propose to make the exiting government hospitals so. (ie: Grady Hospital In Atlanta)
Leave people's private insurance alone. Leave the private hospitals alone.
This is how Brazil is doing it (at the macro level)
The key obstacle to accepting this are the people who believe that HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT and it should be EQUALLY DISPENSED, regardless of one's WEALTH.
The gross problem with this is NOT that poor people will receive more services than they could otherwise afford BUT the violations of one's property rights that they are willing to execute in order to fulfill their view.
It doesn’t seem to me as healthcare cant be made to feel luxurious. My experience with the elite health care services defines a very different story. Right now, I am engaged in Elitehealth.com concierge wellness program which is designed for healthcare at concierge level. They are providing me medication with care at the highest level of comfort. Their wellness program allows me to have a direct access to my personal physician via phone and email, but also in the emergency situation which I had because of having a heart attack, physician came home and also were present in the emergency room to expedite my care. They provided me a patient care concierge who managed all my transportation and accommodation. All this meant a lot to me when it comes to health. So, a concierge level hospitalization is a boon to me, and many other who are desiring to experience.
Post a Comment