Sowell: The 'Costs' Of Medical Care - Pt. II

[Terri]

By Thomas Sowell
November 3, 2009

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.

More

[bootsn]

right on Mr. Sowell. if the powers that be were truly interested in bringing the cost down they would pass tort reform yesterday, the fact is they are going to protect their buddies the ambulance chasers. that is the major cause of high medical cost's. one can only hope the next administration will pass tort reform,

[FlaJim]

We were originally told that costs of universal health care/insurance would be offset by savings of $26- to $30-billion/year in fraud and waste in the Medicare-Medicaid program. Latest figure being bounced around is $80-billion. I that's the case, why wasn't this being done before when everyone's been aware of deficits in those government programs? It's a chimera.

In fact, these Dem clowns are only interested in their agenda, regardless of costs - monetary and mortality. What they didn't count on was the opposition their agenda would produce. As opposed to Europe and Canada, where people have long been accustomed to depending on government and implicitly trusting it, Americans don't have that tradition. Quite the opposite. We also value our earnings as ours and value human life more dearly than they do.

The Dems clearly miscalculated and it will cost them - thank God!

[Charie]

Boy, FJ, I hope you're correct.

It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences.

A deft way with words as always Dr. Sowell.

I saw my doctor today and he is just wild that his bill has been brought forth by the Dems.. I asked him if his whole medical group was against it and he said, "All but one. There's always one!" He also said that "the AMA doesn't speak for me, they only speak for about 18% of their members."

I'm afraid doctors will be in short supply if the Dems manage to push this through. What are the Dems going to do? Force people to become doctors? They can't do that so they'll do as Dr. Sowell says, they'll import more doctors from 3rd world countries or what I say, insist the medical schools graduate more of their students whether they're capable doctors or not. There will be a whole lot more nurse practitioners and then not even nurse practitioners. You can factor this out to its logical conclusion.

[Terri]

The 'Costs' of Medical Care - Part II
By Thomas Sowell
November 4, 2009

Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to "bring down the cost of medical care."

There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

[FlaJim]

A recent report on Canada said they had a 6 to 9 month wait to get an MRI. Then I discovered that the entire country (over 30-million) has fewer MRI machines than the city of Tampa (metro area of 350,000).

When I got one, 10 years ago, it obviated serious surgery and my problem was dealt with by using a few relatively inexpensive drugs for a short period of time. Had I been required to wait, the problem would have escalated into a major one since the diagnosis was unclear.

Holding costs down is a desirable goal but not with the consequence of human suffering or death.

[greg]

if the powers that be were truly interested in bringing the cost down they would pass tort reform yesterday, the fact is they are going to protect their buddies the ambulance chasers. that is the major cause of high medical cost's. one can only hope the next administration will pass tort reform,

That "hope" might be more guaranteed when we conservative American citizens participate in our American self-governance citizenship.

What's that? Due diligent voting, like yesterday, every June and November of every year. Then between election days of their term we hold the feet of these hireling reps and leaders that we brought on board to our fire of feedback accountability when they stray, and our encouragement of support when they don't. And finally, have citizens who wish to serve waiting in the wings when we see the need to fire habitually errant hirelings.

The Dems clearly miscalculated and it will cost them - thank God!

Pelosi and Reid are going to make one last try end of this week. Let's go after our hirelings regardless of their world view to firewall their try, and make a note to fire the errants come 2010, 2012, and 2014, particularly Democrats and RINOs.