Yes, the government will save money by providing universal health care. How it works is easy to understand — at least for those who try to comprehend both sides of the story. It all starts with something akin to a quote from an old motor oil commercial: “You can pay me now, or pay me later." It really isn’t that much different from investing a little now to avoid paying (or at least not receiving) a lot more later.
The government needs funding in order to operate. Taxes, like death, are a part of life. The more taxes a government takes in, the more that government is able to do. But when the country’s citizenry have a lower income (or a static income that does not rise in proportion to inflation), the government will take in less taxes, and that hurts the government’s ability at all levels — federal, state, local — to provide essential services such as fire, police, schools, roads, judicial systems, military. The list is almost endless.
Conservatives like to say that government is the problem, but without government protection and regulation and provision of essential infrastructure, business dies. I repeat — without government protection and regulation and provision of essential infrastructure, business dies. It becomes a vicious circle: less business means fewer jobs which means less ability for the government to enable business. Unless business takes responsibility for providing all of that protection/regulation/infrastructure a la the British East India Company, business needs to make sure the government has enough money to do those things.
What does this have to do with an overall financial benefit from universal health care? Patience — I’ll get to that.
Conservatives also like to point out government inefficiency. How is it, then, that if government is so corrupt, that Medicare operates quite well, taking care of the hideously expensive health needs of the elderly and disabled, with only a 2% administrative overhead, while privatized health insurance agencies — which tend to care for the healthier (and less expensive) segment of the population — average a 26% administrative overhead?
Where, then, is the greater inefficiency? Medicare (caring for the least healthy) with a 2% admin overhead, or private insurance (caring for the healthier segment) with a 26% admin overhead? Will somebody please explain the logic of this?
And then conservatives decry government corruption — despite the 2%-to-26% disparity illustrated above. If Medicare’s so corrupt, then how about we look at their government-mandated salaries? It’s only from 2003 (the info’s not easy to find), but this article shows that at the time, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, their top officer, made $134,000 a year, while the CEOs of the top 25 HMOs all make at least seventeen times that much, and at the top, make well over one hundred times the salary of the administrator of Medicare and Medicaid! And that’s before we get to corporate perks like resorts and private jets.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, among the many faulty assumptions and strawmen you use in this article, I just wanted to point to one.
Twice you say that medicare is more efficient despite the fact that it deals mostly with old people who need more medical care. But administrative efficiency actually has no relationship to the costliness of treating the patients. The patient costs no more or less to treat just because the administrator is paid less or takes less of a cut.
You also provide no basis for your assumption that the elderly cost more to treat than the young and healthy. The young and HEALTHY cost nothing to treat, but the young and unhealthy cost a great deal more than the elderly. The operations and treatment they need cost substantially more and treatments last substantially longer than with the elderly.
When you put a 80 year old on an expensive medication you put him on it for a few years. When you put a 40 year old on that medication you put him on it for decades. Far more espensive. The elderly generally don't qualify for major organ transplants which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but 50 year-olds who are otherwise healthy certainly do. So this basic assumption about the relative costs of care which you make is false.
Dave
2 - Silas Kain
January, 2009 - American Medical Association PAC gives $15,000 each to DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE and DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN
April, 2009 - American Medical Association PAC gives $15,000 each to NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE (3/11/09), NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. They also gave $5,000 each to BLUE DOG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, SENATOR CHARLES E SCHUMER (D-NY), and the SENATE MAJORITY FUND.
True health care reform will never be achieved until we stop the flow of cash into the political treasure chests. Wake up, America, we're getting screwed.
3 - roger nowosielski
That's why every motherfucker in Washington, D.C. is corrupt to the core.
4 - Silas Kain
Simple yet eloquent, Roger. For three years I have sounded like a broken record when it comes to Congress. I'm going to try and make this as simple as possible. You know how when someone tries to tell a parent of their child's bad behavior the first reaction is "not my kid"? It's like that with our members of Congress. These people are our neighbors, friends and coworkers. We have a propensity to blame all the other members of Congress and maintain that it's "not my Congressman".
Barack Obama will fail. He will not accomplish 50% of his mission. We treat politics like a monotheistic religion. One God, one political leader. The problem is that we have 535 "apostles" in the Capitol who are the signers of the checks. Yet we are too damn stupid to even comprehend the basic configuration of our Federal Government.
The difference between the Iranian people and we of the United States is that Iranians know what's at stake and have the guts to take to the streets to achieve change. We have NO clue what's at stake but as long as it doesn't interfere with our ability to shop at WalMart -- who cares?
5 - roger nowosielski
You know what I think, Silas. Nothing will happen until we somehow revamp our political process from ground-up. I don't know what it will take. Individual communities must make a stand and insist that they count. We've got to forget the idea that politics starts and ends at election time. It has got to become part and parcel of everyday life, the life of a local community. So there's only one thing that may possibly emerge out of this crisis - some kind of a wakeup call. But I don't really believe it will happen either. The people are too fucking lethargic and fail to understand that they're all bound together, and that what affects one affects all.
Unless the communities start acting in unison, with one voice, nothing will happen.
6 - Silas Kain
Indeed, Roger. If one looks at the problems we have in society today, it all comes down to one thing: EDUCATION. We've done a piss poor job of educating our young for the last 50 years. While many cite the Greatest Generation in exhibiting American resolve, I submit an entirely different attitude.
Those who served in World War II are, without a doubt, the greatest generation. They saw such horror and made such sacrifice that when peace was achieved they vowed to create a world where their children would never have to experience that which they had. Out of love for us, they tried to make our lives easier. They were so busy working to give us a "better life" that they lost sight of the values they had when they went to war. It's understandable. While they were the "Greatest Generation", in the end they may be remembered as the beginning of the end of the American ideal.
7 - Baronius
Silas, fifteen thousand dollars? Do you actually think that Congress is corrupted by the annual earnings of a paperboy? They're not corrupt; they earnestly implement terrible policies.
8 - roger nowosielski
It's a drop in a bucket. But lobbying money is a stream and it comes in all year round from a variety of source. It's a way of life.
9 - Silas Kain
See, Baronius, it's not about the AMOUNT of money. $15K is a drop in the bucket. But go to the Federal Elections Commission and see for yourself. If you've got some poor blue-collared slob who gets the political bug watch out. They get a $5000 check from somebody and they're sucked in. We need revamping of our election cycles and funding system. Most of all, we need to get K Street Svengalis OUT of Washington. Enough drops fall in that bucket, Baronius, and you get a flood. Americans could take a page out of the Iranian protester's play book. It's time for us to wage our own protest.
10 - Baronius
Silas, if a cause gives to both you and your opponent as the AMA does, how does that translate into influence? And what's so bad about lobbying, anyway?
11 - Silas Kain
Baronius, please tell me you're not serious. Spencer Bacchus gets $10,000 from the NY Life Insurance PAC just this year. Even the Congressional Black Caucus got $5000 from the same group. Now, Baronius, do you honestly thing the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are going to make that money count for something back in their districts? Each of the political parties received $30,000. Sure, they play both sides. Washington is the stage. The members of Congress are the puppets. Enough is enough.
12 - roger nowosielski
The whole point is, Silas, they want to have their dirty fingers in every pot, regardless who wins. I know it, you know it, and Baronius knows it.
13 - Silas Kain
So maybe it is time that all of us who KNOW it, do something ABOUT it!
14 - Baronius
Silas, I'm serious. You're not explaining where the corruption is. Money isn't necessarily influence, and influence isn't necessarily corruption.
15 - roger nowosielski
I supposed wrong. Baronius doesn't know it.
16 - Silas Kain
Baronius, there are times when the appearance of impropriety is sufficient. This is that time.
When one wades through the mountains of data from the Federal Election Commission one must wonder just where does all this money come from? Baronius, I assume that you are intelligent enough to recognize that ultimately it is the consumer who pays the price. We have not only the cost of a product's manufacture but there are the advertising and so-called "operating" costs involved. Imagine, for a moment, that severe limitations were placed upon PACs and special interest groups. That would change the dynamics dramatically.
What amazes me is that those on the Far Right who wear the Cross as a badge of honor forgot a very important chapter in the saga of the Christ -- he went into the Temple and turned over the tables of the money changers. If these Zealots want to imitate Christ, they could begin by turning the tables on K Street.
17 - Clavos
If these Zealots want to imitate Christ, they could begin by turning the tables on K Street.
If that were to happen, unlikely -- everyone in Washington benefits from the arrangement, but if it were to happen, the whole process would just go underground and continue merrily along.
18 - Bliffle
Baronius: "Money isn't necessarily influence, and influence isn't necessarily corruption."
You've gotta be kidding.
Lobbyists give money to politicians EXPLICITLY (they make no bones about this) to get access to the candidates.
Influence is even more corrupt than bribery ('campaign contributions'), cf. Lord Acton.
19 - Baritone
No doubt that access and influence are purchased. But, what is the alternative? Being a pol at any level maybe above dog catcher is a very expensive matter.
The fellow that most of you hate was able to win the presidency largely through small donations from individuals. Even so, his campaign DID receive a lot of money from any number of corporate interests as did McCain's.
If a national campaign could be waged for a relative pittance, there would be no need for huge campaign chests. Alas, that's not the case.
As to the healthcare situation, one of the main arguments against it is the "Do you want the government coming between you and your doctor?" Perhaps, perhaps not. But, how is that any different than having an HMO or insurance company making medical decisions, denying care, denying payment, all in the interest of padding their bottom line?
Does a public option amount to government competing with the private sector? I guess so. But I really don't give a rat's ass. It would take a great deal to make me shed a tear for insurance companies.
The medical insurance arm of the industry is relatively young. The larger portion of the insurance industry has been around far longer offering many other types of insurance. I am confident that they could withstand government competition in the medical insurance sector.
And talk about a "strawman" argument. Dave once again cites what he would have you believe are hard facts and figures rather than simply bullshit picked out of the air.
The numbers of elderly people who are being treated in our medical facilities far outnumber the young. Does Dave imagine that hip or knee replacements are cheap? Does he believe they are giving away heart bypass procedures? Does he believe that home health care is had simply with a gratuity, or that long term care in a nursing home is tantamount to spending a few nights at Motel 6?
I find it interesting how people rage against the notion of "socialized" health care can be found roaming the halls of our local VA hospital. What, pray tell, is the VA if not "socialized" medicine? And it seems to work pretty well.
Perhaps the HMOs and other medical insurance providers would not be so niggardly with their payouts if they weren't obligated to pay their upper level execs multi-millions of dollars every year, and be primarily concerned with their investors dividend payments.
B
20 - roger nowosielski
You know what's even a more ridiculous argument? That private insurance companies cannot compete effectively against the government plan - compared to like putting a frog and an alligator in the same pool.
21 - Clavos
What, pray tell, is the VA if not "socialized" medicine? And it seems to work pretty well.
The VA only serves about 5 million people, not 335 million, so no, it's not "socialized medicine" by definition, it's only available to a select few -- hardly more than the number served by each of the largest medical insurance companies.
The best thing about the VA is it's free. Oh wait, it's NOT free for everyone.
22 - Clavos
You know what's even a more ridiculous argument? That private insurance companies cannot compete effectively against the government plan...
They can't if they are selling their services and the gummint is giving theirs away.
23 - roger nowosielski
But the point that's being missed here is the following: why should they want to garner the market? We know the reason(s) of course.
Why not instead tailor the private plan(s) to those who can afford it? It's like if I want to buy a VW, I can get it from the government. They should be thinking Rolls Royce. Unless they want to be all things to all people.
24 - Clavos
Um, the insurance business is based on spreading the risk. If the pool of insured people is too small, the insurance companies can't insure each client for less than the cost of the service insured, so what's the point in buying their product, if you're going to have to pay for it what you would pay the docs and hospital?
If the government starts giving away free or nearly free insurance, practically no one will be willing to buy it; certainly not enough people to make up an adequate pool.
Even you, Roger, should be able to see that a commercial enterprise can't compete with an organization which is giving the product or service away.
25 - roger nowosielski
I don't deny the latter. Perhaps the whole concept of insurance should be evaluated - as to the kinds of circumstances and types of "objects" to which insurance is most applicable. I understand, I think, spreading the risk idea. But there must be a way to offer premium services to some and standard ones to others and maintain thus a sufficiently large customer base.