Pages

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

HealthCare: My Reply to BusinessWeek

Business Week's writer, Elizabeth Dwoskin provides an article titled, After Repealing Obamacare, What Would Romney replace it with? In typical fashion, it assumes that a bad "solution" must be replaced with another bad "solution".

Here is my reply to her article:


This article has a false premise. It assumes that Obamacare must be replaced with something else. Translation: It means that the political class must come up with a "solution". This type of fallacious thinking is why we are in financial dire straights.  The Status Quo motto, "Health Care for nothing and the Check-ups for Free".

To the writer of this article: Why do you assume that a select group in Washington DC must provide solutions for our problems? Never mind the obvious historical data that points to the gross inefficiencies of this outfit. Let us review the "successes": e.g. Medicare, Social Security, War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Postal Service, Medicaid, and etc.  None of these programs are efficiently effective, and all have helped the United States Government achieve the trillion dollar debt load coupled with a trillion dollar deficit.

Now, we are to believe that these same individuals who brought the aforementioned failures can derive a "solution"? Investors use historical data to attempt to project future events. While this method is not 100% accurate, I can accurately state that any US Government solution will be an abyssal and absolute failure, based on its historical failures.

Many believe that Insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results. I think this holds true with the majority of people in Washington DC and outfits that push their co-dependency agenda to the American People. Now we are to believe that the Government will get this one "right". Engaging into this notion is quite spurious to say the least.

The winners will not be the minorities, poor, or the sick/shut in. The winners will be the larger health care outfits, the lobbyists and most importantly; the members in Congress. Rent seeking behavior will increase, and the actors that participate in this timeless activity will be compensated accordingly, and on the tax payers dime, of course.

Should a solution involving the egregious inflation the price of Health Care, while concomitantly shrinking the availability of this precious good be considered a "solution"? Is this a viable solution for the poor and uninsured?  How do I know that inflation and increased scarcity of Health Care will happen? Government has a glorious history of providing inflation and shrinking the availability of a good when it enters the marketplace. History supports this claim.  And, the poor and uninsured will be the losers.

The solution is simple, if one understands economics. But, it is not easy if you are conditioned to think in a co-dependent mindset. The solution is not with the Government having a "solution".  The solution lies with the individuals having the freedom to choose to solve their own problems. Optimization of our individual economic utility is the solution, not the Government using the power of Fiat.

Respectfully Submitted,

Robert Williams Jr

CEO of robertwilliamsjr.com




2 comments:

Barney Murrell said...

To Robert William Jr.,

You should quit getting your information from Fox and Rush Limbaugh types as you have offered NO HISTORICAL verifiable proof that your complaints against Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Postal Service are valid. The other things you mentioned, War on Terror and Poverty, are more difficult to measure in terms of efficiency but, depending on how they are applied, are necessary activities to avoid bombings and third world nation status for the U.S.

The Postal Service has financial problems now because of the internet and not because it is inefficient. Do you think there would be universal mail service in unprofitable areas of the country if USPS were privatized? What there would be at the privatized post office would be part time workers making $10-$12 per hour and large areas of less densly populated areas without mail service.

Social Security has administrative costs of approximately 1%. On the other hand privatized SS would create millions of individual accounts which would siphon $100s of millions from personal retirement accounts into the pockets of financial advisors. One example of such fees is a Forbes article, titled, “The Real Cost of Owning a Mutual Fund,” (http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/04/real-cost-mutual-fund-taxes-fees-retirement-bernicke_2.html) that said hidden costs would raise total fee costs to 3.17% to 4.17% depending on type of account.

Medicare Administrative costs are less than private plans. A good summary of this is a PolitiFact.com “Truth-O-Meter article, “Barbara Boxer says Medicare overhead is far lower than private insurers' overhead,” (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/).

In addition health care CEO pay continues to expand by double digits yearly (http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm).

Robert Williams said...

First of all, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlements comprise well over 60% of the Federal budget. My analysis comes from looking at the obvious data from the Federal Budget analysis of the previous US Comptroller, Mr. David Walker. According to him, not Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, he states that the United States Government can not sustain this type of behavior. $15 trillion debt service only has arsed from egregious Govt spending. This data is supported by other economic scholarly reviewed think tanks.

I can not see how anyone looking at these figures with a rational mind can dispute the simple fact our Government is in serious financial dire straights. There is a problem. The Federal Government spending more money simply adds more cost to capital, and slows down the economic recovery. Historical data supports this claim as well.

There is an economic cost to every decision, and there are trade offs. The trade off is the following: Can I make a better choice with my money as compared to allowing the Government to handle more of my money? I think this argument has been debunked many times by various economic studies. The data is overwhelming that it makes more sense to allow people to keep more of their money versus having the Govt pay for every possible need.