The Problem with Health Care

The problem with health care is that prices are not really based on free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is based on consumers making their own purchasing decisions based on price and perceived quality. This is why McDonalds can't charge $20 for a Big Mac & fries. People would quickly decide go to Burger King or Wendy's instead.

But many restaurants do charge $20 a plate for entrees. This is because the quality of the food and atmosphere is deemed to be worth $20 by the people who dine at such establishments.
But wide-spread health insurance has distorted the health care market. Patients don't pay attention to price because insurance companies do the paying, and people's employers usually pay the insurance. This is why health care costs increase at many times the rate of inflation. Insurance companies pass the costs in the form of higher premiums. The companies that employ the patients then pass the costs in the form of higher prices, smaller raises for employees, or making employees pay part of the costs.

The real losers in this game are people who don't work for large companies that can provide health insurance. In America, not everyone drives a Mercedes or a Porsche as we have no notion that everyone is entitled to a Mercedes or a Porsche. But we do feel that people are entitled to the best health care available.

Because of that, I do support biting the bullet and implementing a national health insurance plan to cover catastrophic events. I would make this a high deductible plan ($1000-2000). This would then put routine, low cost procedures back into the free market where they would have to be lower cost, but people in traffic accidents and cancer patients would be covered without bringing financial ruin to their families. Optional insurance could then be purchased to cover costs below the deductible.

2000

Yesterday we reached another milestone in the Iraq War: 2000 Americans dead. That's 1,030 to go until the toll equals that of the 9/11 attacks. Unless things in Iraq improve quickly and dramatically, by the end of his term, George W. Bush will be responsible for more American deaths than Osama bin Laden.

Despite what some may think from reading this blog, I don't necessarily support and immediate pullout from Iraq. Once we invaded and removed the Baathist regime, America became responsible for Iraq's immediate future. Like Colin Powel is reported to have said "You broke it, you bought it!" We have the moral responsibility to ensure that the next government of Iraq is kinder and more respectful of its people than the last one. See my earlier post Iraq: not Black or White for more of my thoughts on this.

I do believe that the constitution that was just passed is what Iraq needs, and I hope the Sunnis will come around and support it. One of the interesting things about America is that while it is always easy to find people who don't support the President, and it is easy to find people who don't believe in God, you never talk to anyone who doesn't support the US Constitution. This document, the basis of our laws has the virtual universal support of all Americans. While it can be amended, the amendment process is so difficult that when it is amended, it is almost always for a damned good reason (prohibition excepted). Our Constitution represents our ideals. It is what defines America. The universal support it has from Americans is what has made our country as politically stable for more than 200 years.

While I haven't yet read the new Iraqi Constitution, I would hope that it similarly protects the rights of all Iraqis, as well as the sensibilities of the Muslim religion. I would hope that Iraqis would recognize that and work within their new constitutional processes for change rather than through IEDs and suicide bombers.

I would hope that I don't come back in two years or so to report that Bush has exceeded bin Laden in the toll of American deaths.

The WMD Debate Continues

Last week I came across a conservative religious blog called The Week in ReVU which contained a post accusing Clinton's people of "revisionist history." Any defender of Bush accusing someone of revisionist history is like a fan of Bill "Romo" Romanowski accusing the Oakland Raiders of playing dirty.

I posted a brief comment referring to the Bush administration selling the Iraq war with WMD speculation presented as confirmed fact. This drew a second comment from "Scarlett" with the usual "blood for oil" hyperbole. The blog author, Infomaniac, chipped away at Scarlett's exaggerations while ignorning my comment.

Here is my new response.

The West Wing: Vinick Strikes Back

I seem to get a lot of search engine traffic here from The West Wing queries, so here's another post.

I was very close to quitting the show due to Jimmy Smitt's Matt Santos character being the dullest candidate ever. What’s the thinking behind Leo as the vice-president character? Give me a break! If Santos winds the election, I'm quitting the show.

The only thing that's keeping me watching is Alan Alda as Republican Senator Arnold Vinick. He's a Republican I would vote for, preaching the common sense facets of Republican philosophy while doing his best to keep the religious right agenda at bay.

The current story arc is drawing many parallels to the 2004 election. Santos is a real military veteran from the first Iraq war who was photographed in a flight suit, but actually had business wearing one, while Vinick never actually served. But then Santos says into a reporter’s tape recorder "I voted for the Central American Trade Agreement before I voted against it."!!!

The producers are stringing us along, not telling us who will win this election. But I do predict a close election that comes down to one state. Lawrence O'Donnell, if you're reading this, Vinick is a much more interesting character, and offers the show a much better platform to explore the political issues that we'll face in the next three and a half years.

VINICK 2005 ALL THE WAY!