Those Greedy Insurance Companies

     Have you seen the report about the actual profits made by health  insurance companies?  To hear some people talk, those evil companies are the greediest of all.

     The reality is that the health insurance industry is near the bottom in terms of profits.  In the Fortune 500 list of 53 industries, they rank 35th.  So unless you approve of the government’s taking over 34 other major U. S. industries, it is just plain wrong to use the profit margin of the health insurance industry as an excuse for taking them over.  (Unless you want to bail them out the way the government bailed out some of the banks.)

     There are other reasons to dislike insurance companies–the high cost of premiums, the hassles, the occasional failure to pay up.  But painting them as greedy monsters just doesn’t cut it.  And the mainstream media would do the public a great service by exposing this lie.

     But, you might argue, the Congress is not planning to take over the health care industry.  They are just planning to give a public option.  It would be absolutely stupid to think that given a cheap public option, the private companies will not be driven out of business.

Michael Moore and Me

     A commenter, Scott Erb, took me to task for my treatment of Michael Moore in a recent post. I took what Scott wrote to heart, because I like him and respect him. He probably has a valid point.

    In my zeal I probably misrepresented Moore’s views.  Another commenter, Spherical Time, said as much.  If so, it is wrong of me.  I don’t want to do that to somebody.

     Part of the issue, though, is a matter of semantics.  What I call capitalism is not what Scott or Moore or, perhaps Spherical TIme, call capitalism.  When I say capitalism, I mean a system in which there are completely fee markets.  If there is control, or even too much regulation, then the market cannot be said to be free, and that is not capitalism.  Michael Moore wants a controlled market, or at least a highly regulated one.  That is not capitalism, in my book; therefore, I say that he is against capitalism.

     A review that I read indicated that in the movie Moore interviews a priest who says that capitalism is unchristian.  If that is true, then my criticisms of Moore stand.  He is clearly against capitalism, if he calls it unchristian in his film.

     I heard Moore criticize wealthy people with my own ears on Sean Hannity’s program.  He did not outright condemn them, but he indicated that unless they use a sizable percentage of their money to help others, they are morally wrong.  Of course, helping others, in his mind means paying more taxes.  I am certain that enriching the government is not what Jesus had in mind when He told His followers to practice charity.  I am also certain that forcing other people to give money to charity at gunpoint was not what He had in mind.

     I’ll give Moore the benefit of the doubt that he would not reveal his net worth because he considers it nobody else’s business.  In that case, it is not his business how much money anybody else has.

     I’ll also give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he has given a large percentage of his wealth to charity.  I have seen no evidence of it, though it has been alleged here on my blog.  If it is true, then good for him.  I admire him greatly, in that case.  He has every right to urge others to follow his benevolent example.  What he does not have the right to do is demand that people give more money to charity or use the power of the IRS to force them to do so.

     Probably the strangest part of the conversation between Moore and Hannity was Moore’s refusal to simply admit that he has made millions of dollars.  It’s public knowledge, so why be silly and act coy about it?  Is he ashamed of it?  Is he embarrassed by it?  I’ll be glad to take a few million off his hands for him, if he is embarrassed to have so much. 

     Why couldn’t he just say, yes, I have made millions.  Yes, I made it through capitalist means.  Then he could have made his points, and people could have decided whether his points were valid and whether or not he is a hypocrite for raising them.  By not being straightforward, he poisoned a lot of people’s minds toward himself and his ideas.

Moore the Millionaire

     Michael Moore was on Sean Hannity’s program, talking mostly about his new movie.  During the conversation, Hannity tried to get Moore to admit that he is a millionaire.  All Moore would say was that he had “done well.” 

     Come on.  His movies have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars.  Even if Moore’s take was a small percentage, it would be in the millions.  If he has gotten good financial advice he should have tens of millions, I would guess.

     Why does it matter?  If you are going to make a movie that castigates wealthy people and capitalists, then you had better not be one yourself.  To do so is hypocritical.

     Besides pointing out Moore’s hypocrisy, I would like to make an even more significant point.  If Moore doesn’t believe the message that he is selling, then why should anyone else buy it?

     Why doesn’t he make and distribute his movies in Cuba, a country he seems to love so much?  Why does he depend on America’s evil capitalist movie industry?  Why does he depend on America’s movie-going public, who can only afford the expensive tickets at movie theaters thanks to capitalism?  Why not ask all those free, well-taken-care-of Cubans to fork over the price of a movie ticket?  Better yet, why not ask Fidel Castro to fork over $300 million dollars to bankroll the film and make it free to the public to view it?

     And why support capitalistic movie theaters and capitalistic movie rental companies and capitalistic food vendors and capitalistic advertisers who also get rich from the showing of the movies?

     Michael Moore should make a film about the fee clinics that he has built with his own money.  Then I would listen to him complain about rich people having no compassion and how “we” need to provide health care for needy people.  Until then he is the man behind the curtain.

What If?

     What if you sincerely cared about poor people? 

     What if you also believed that a good education is the ticket out of poverty, and so you wanted to give all kids the chance to attend private schools that cost less than public schools but that score higher marks on standardized tests?

     What if you also believed that a vibrant economy with plenty of jobs is the best way to prevent poverty, and so you wanted to reduce taxes and regulations on businesses, so that they would hire more people?  (Of course, you would also have to believe that it is normal and natural for people to work to support themselves.)

     What if you believed that having the highest possible wages and the lowest possible prices would benefit poor people more than simply giving them more and more government aid to cover inflated prices, and so you wanted to shrink government and let the economy naturally do what it does best–grow?

     What if you believed, really believed, that almost everyone could afford health care if the economy were not artificially inflated by high taxes and regulations, as well as protective measures for favored industries and companies?

     What if you had seen with your own eyes that the current statist system is not getting people out of poverty but keeping them in it, and so you wanted to try something new–a free market system?  (Of course, you would have to discard the lie that we tried a free market system at some point in history.  We haven’t.)

     And then, despite all evidence to the contrary, you were told that you want people to die and that you are indifferent to the suffering of poor people, how would you feel?

     I feel terrible, that’s how.  I honestly, sincerely believe that free market policies would do so much more to get people out of poverty than government programs.  Rather, I believe it would allow people to get themselves out of poverty, and that is even better.  I don’t want people to perpetually depend on “the government” for food, housing, and health care–for their own sake, not for mine.  I want them to feel the joy of saving and investing money and of paying for things with earned wealth. 

     I don’t want people to die.  If I believed that the result of economic freedom was the unnecessary death of innocent people, then I would indeed be the monster that some people have cast me as.  You see, people are supposedly dying now, when we have government welfare programs.  The solution to a problem is not to do more of the same thing; the solution to a problem is to do something different–something that works.

     As much as people want to claim that free enterprise is responsible for the poverty that we have in our country, I claim just as strongly that it is statist interference and intervention.  If people want to accuse me of wanting people to die, then I turn the accusation back on them.  Having an economy where almost everyone could work and could afford their own food, housing, and health care would not kill anyone.  It would allow them to live well.  Having an economy where people have trouble getting jobs or paying inflated prices for food, housing, and insurance, might indeed be killing people.

Job Creation

     A brief survey of articles on the Internet indicates to me that people conceptualize the creating of jobs in several different ways.  Some see it as a function of the economy as a whole.  Some see it, by extension of the frist concept, as a function of the economic policies and acts of the government, at both the local and the national levels.  Others see job creation as a function of individual private businesses.  Of course, most people probably see it as a combination of all those things.

     For example, when a new scientific research project is started, have jobs been created?  Obviously they have, say some people.  Others, though, point out that many research projects are funded partly by the government, which means that the net expansion of the economy is not as great as it would be if the project were privately funded. 

     I tend to be in the group that believes that job creation is best done by individual private businesses.  Private capital goes in, which means that investors make money.  Products and services are offered in an efficient, cost-effective way.  Taxes are paid, increasing government revenue instead of just circulating it from the government to the workers and back to the government, usually with a net loss.

     Of course, even if the government supplies the capital, the overall economy probably gains a little.  Government employees spend, save, and invest money, too.  They produce helpful goods or services that benefit people at large.  Therefore, the government jobs that produce the best goods or services are the ones that I like the most.

     Some jobs are created by the government out of a perceived need.  A city needs protection, so it runs a police force.  It needs sanitation, so many people get jobs by working for the city in that department.  I have no problem with this kind of government job, if it is based on a needed function.

     However, when a job is made up in somebody’s imagination, for the sake of saying that a job has been created, then I have a big problem.  When a city decides that the underworked dog catcher needs an assistant, and that assistant needs a secretary, so that the mayor can hire his brother and his cousin, I have a very big problem.

     Whenever I hear people in government talking about creating jobs, I am skeptical.  They probably mean the second kind I mentioned.  They probably aren’t thinking of a needed function and then going about supplying it with people to perform it.  They are probably thinking about how many people they would like to create jobs for, and then making up one new position or title after another.

     Remember, it’s our money, and when it is spent on creating jobs that are not necessary or at least helpful, our money is being wasted.

President Obama’s Speech

Here are some highlights of the President’s speech and some comments by me.  It is a long post, so be warned.

—————————————————————–

“But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.”

The bank bailout and the economic stimulus bill were passed under the Bush administration.  All that the President has done is implement the measures taken by the Congress before he was elected.

“I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.”

A nice piece of rhetoric (I mean it sincerely), but it reveals his ever-present arrogance.  All the problems with health care will be forever solved by him and his administration?  Wow!

 ”There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”

That number seems to change a lot.  I thought the President had said that there were 47 million uninsured people.

“And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.”

I don’t get it.  I thought he liked it when people pay for other people’s health care.

Bean-Eating Republican

     Beans can get pretty boring, especially when one eats them every week, as I did during several years of my childhood.  We had baked beans once a week, sometimes with hot dogs on the side or with frankfurters sliced into them.  Sometimes they were accompanied only by brown bread, because that’s what we could afford.  It got pretty old, even though baked beans are delicious.

     I cannot picture the stereotypical Republican eating baked beans on a weekly basis.

     When I hear Republicans described on television or in print media, I usually do not find myself identifying much with the description. One stereotype of a Republican is the upper class Northeasterner who inherited his wealth from his robber baron grandfather.  He (for he is a male) smokes cigars and plays golf at the country club and thinks that he is doing his servants a huge favor by giving them a job.  (I won’t discuss the fact here that many Democrats actually fit this description to a tee!)

     My father and mother were poor.  They grew up very poor and were very poor when they got married.  At that time, my mother washed clothes in the bathtub with a washboard.  She “cooked” canned food on an electric hotplate.  When she was pregnant with my brother, she spent the summer in front of a tiny fan in one window of their tiny apartment.

     At times during my childhood, my mother worked as a waitress to supplement my father’s salary. 

     Only one time did my parents ever recieve state aid directly.  They waited in a long line to get a couple of boxes full of staples that that state gave to qualified people.  My mother was so embarrassed and ashamed that she vowed that she would never again put herself through it, even if she and my father had to work two jobs each.

     They never did either.  My father eventually landed a good job and stuck with it, working himself up the ladder year after year.  His company appreciated his work so much that they sent him back to school to get a college degree, which then earned him a good promotion and a salary increase.

     My parents went from lower class to middle-middle class over several decades.  By the time I was applying to college, they were too “poor” to pay my tuition and fees but too “rich” for me to qualify for the financial aid that some of my classmates got.  Don’t feel sorry for me, though.  I had to work to pay for college, and working is good.  I learned a lot from working and felt the satisfaction of paying my own way in life.  Oh, and I got into college based on my achievement in high school.  It feels really good to get accepted by a college for your acheivements instead of for the amount of pigment in your skin. 

     I chuckle whenever people say that I am or was privileged.  It did not feel like much of  a privilege to see my classmates getting free college educations, free food, and free housing while I had to work at low-paying jobs to get those things.  Again, I’m not trying to evoke pity; I’m just trying to set the record straight.

That’s a Good Question!

Credit to Mike S. Adams, but I wish I had thought of it myself:

     “Obama told the press that he’s losing the health care debate because the private sector is running a more efficient publicity campaign. Hence, the private sector is outperforming the public sector in the discussion of health care policy. Does it… not then follow that the private sector will outperform the public sector in in the implementation of health care policy?”

The Worst of the Health Insurance Bill

     I want to start with a question. Why have advocates of the President’s health insurance bill referred to it as a “health care” bill.  Is the government going to build hospitals and hire doctors in order to provide health care for everyone?  No, the government is going to provide some kind of new health-insurance program and mandate certain policies for existing health insurance providers.  So let’s stop calling it a health care program and call it what it is–government-sponsored health insurance.  And let’s stop saying that people in America do not get health care.  With few exceptions, people have access to health care in America, although not everyone is covered by health insurance.

     Now on to my main topic–the three worst aspects of the health insurance program being proposed by the administration and Congress. 

The government will not call the fees it imposes taxes: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.” (page 203, lines 13-18)

What makes this provision bad is that it tricks people into believing that the government’s health insurance program will not cause taxes to be raised.  By not calling a tax, a tax, people will believe that they are getting absolutely free health care, as if doctors and nurses are suddenly working out of the goodness of their hearts and as if hospitals do not have to pay the utility bills.

The government will not let you sue over coverage limits and costs decisions: “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.” (page 124, line 4–page 125, line 2)

I had brought up this subject before.  If a private insurance company fails to provide promised coverage, their customers have legal recourse.  It is not always easy, but an individual or group can sue a private insurance company for breach of contract or otherwise failing to cover people according to the law.  Can you sue the government?  Apparently not.  You and I will be at their mercy when it comes to getting the care that we need.

The government will ration your care: Establish an annual limitation on cost sharing to ensure that “the cost-sharing incurred . . . with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified–$5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.” (29.4-29.16)

So it’s there in black and white.  You will be covered, but only so much.  Under a private insurance plan, you decide how much coverage you get, based on what you think you need and what you are willing to pay out of your own pocket.  You can purchase extra policies, as I have, to cover catastrophic illnesses or accidents.  Under the government system, it sounds like you had better not get too sick or need too many tests or operations.

This section of the bill does not seem to mean what the folks at World Magazine thought.  It seems to refer to the part of health care expenses that individuals will pay out-of-pocket.  It does strike me though as odd.  If people will still have to pay that much out of their own pockets, how is it different from the current system in which most private insurance plans have deductibles or co-payments?

SOURCE:  World Magazine, “Washington’s Prescription“

Click on the link to read more of the contents of the health insurance proposal and to find a link to the entire bill, if you are brave enough to read it.  Most of the politicians planning to impose us on it do not intend to read it all, apparently.

Go, Free Staters

     A group of Libertarians who are trying to carve out a niche in New Hampshire attended a festival there last month. I have considered joining their movement myself.  It doesn’t fit my current lifestyle, but perhaps when I retire they will already have liberated New Hampshire and I can move there.

    If you want to sign up to be part of the Free State Project, you can visit their website.