28 April 2011
Life Cycle Health Insurance
There certainly is reason to believe that despite the large upfront adjustment costs of replacing Medicare and complementing Medicaid with life cycle private health insurance (cf. http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/healthcare.htm) would help resolve our health care system’s financial problems and improve the resulting general wellbeing. I’m not sure that telling the health insurance industry “plainly and boldly” to adopt that product model at the risk of suffering the imposition of a government-run single-payer system is possible in the face of a determined “socialist”-baiting Congress.
Nevertheless, other additions to Mr. Kowalczyk’s innovative solution might include the following:
1) The legal means for migrating seniors from Medicare to lifespan health risk insurance will require substantial government subsidies to make up for missed cash value accruals. The long-term vision necessary for proposing that program is a challenge for elected government officials.
2) Perhaps the cost of compassionate care for those who require it despite opting out of private health care insurance can be minimized by imposing sanctions on them,
such as relinquishing all other rights they enjoy beyond the rights of illegal aliens.
3) Lifestyle improvement instruction and services, preventive medicine and other ways to avoid expensive end-of-life treatment will naturally lead to reduced costs for health insurers and justify discriminatory pricing favoring provident subscribers.
There certainly is reason to believe that despite the large upfront adjustment costs of replacing Medicare and complementing Medicaid with life cycle private health insurance (cf. http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/healthcare.htm) would help resolve our health care system’s financial problems and improve the resulting general wellbeing. I’m not sure that telling the health insurance industry “plainly and boldly” to adopt that product model at the risk of suffering the imposition of a government-run single-payer system is possible in the face of a determined “socialist”-baiting Congress.
Nevertheless, other additions to Mr. Kowalczyk’s innovative solution might include the following:
1) The legal means for migrating seniors from Medicare to lifespan health risk insurance will require substantial government subsidies to make up for missed cash value accruals. The long-term vision necessary for proposing that program is a challenge for elected government officials.
2) Perhaps the cost of compassionate care for those who require it despite opting out of private health care insurance can be minimized by imposing sanctions on them,
such as relinquishing all other rights they enjoy beyond the rights of illegal aliens.
3) Lifestyle improvement instruction and services, preventive medicine and other ways to avoid expensive end-of-life treatment will naturally lead to reduced costs for health insurers and justify discriminatory pricing favoring provident subscribers.
Ryan Health Care Plan’s Incentives Are All Wrong
The problem with the Ryan Plan, as interpreted by Betsy McCaughey in the April 27, 2011,WSJ, is that private health care insurance plans are driven by their ability to be profitable for the firms that offer them, not by their success in effectively maintaining, if not improving, the health of their subscribers. The market will reward those insurers who best satisfy the desires of eligible policy holders (dying old people, like me) with expensive, desperate procedures that promise a chance at extending life expectancy. Supplying these treatments will generate revenues for health care providers and insurers, while doing nothing to raise the well-being of the population at large.
Reliance on the free market will not prevent the health-care industry from bankrupting itself—take a look at the airline industry. Moreover, owing to the centrality of health to society’s essential goals it will also bankrupt the nation.
As inimical as it is to Emersonian principles of self-reliance, there may be no alternative to intervening in private decision-making when it comes to selection of life-styles. If we are to avoid financial ruin, we can no longer afford to allow businesses to encourage people to consume products or practise habits that have unintended consequences (cause collateral damage) like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other preventable illnesses.
The problem with the Ryan Plan, as interpreted by Betsy McCaughey in the April 27, 2011,WSJ, is that private health care insurance plans are driven by their ability to be profitable for the firms that offer them, not by their success in effectively maintaining, if not improving, the health of their subscribers. The market will reward those insurers who best satisfy the desires of eligible policy holders (dying old people, like me) with expensive, desperate procedures that promise a chance at extending life expectancy. Supplying these treatments will generate revenues for health care providers and insurers, while doing nothing to raise the well-being of the population at large.
Reliance on the free market will not prevent the health-care industry from bankrupting itself—take a look at the airline industry. Moreover, owing to the centrality of health to society’s essential goals it will also bankrupt the nation.
As inimical as it is to Emersonian principles of self-reliance, there may be no alternative to intervening in private decision-making when it comes to selection of life-styles. If we are to avoid financial ruin, we can no longer afford to allow businesses to encourage people to consume products or practise habits that have unintended consequences (cause collateral damage) like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other preventable illnesses.
26 April 2011
Unions Aren’t the Solution Either
The recent resignation of NYC Schools Chancellor Cathie Black demonstrates the power of the teachers’ union to prevent an innovative approach to strengthening the city’s public education system. Education leaders in the countries referred to by Randi Weingarten in her OpEd article in the April 25, 2011 Wall Street Journal are less presumptuous than Mayor Bloomberg and would never ignore the political clout that is held by the teachers’ union.
Education leaders in those countries revere and respect their teachers no more than the leaders and child-raisers in our own society. They don’t say, however, that they would have initiated unionization for their teachers. In fact, they would undoubtedly prefer not to have to deal with unionized professionals, at all, even though their jobs depend on the political support of organized labor.
What those countries have been able to do is devote a greater proportion of their education resources to improving conditions that favor student performance than to acceding to the demands of demagogic labor leaders. Meekness on Ms. Weingarten’s part might be one solution to our children’s poor performance.
The recent resignation of NYC Schools Chancellor Cathie Black demonstrates the power of the teachers’ union to prevent an innovative approach to strengthening the city’s public education system. Education leaders in the countries referred to by Randi Weingarten in her OpEd article in the April 25, 2011 Wall Street Journal are less presumptuous than Mayor Bloomberg and would never ignore the political clout that is held by the teachers’ union.
Education leaders in those countries revere and respect their teachers no more than the leaders and child-raisers in our own society. They don’t say, however, that they would have initiated unionization for their teachers. In fact, they would undoubtedly prefer not to have to deal with unionized professionals, at all, even though their jobs depend on the political support of organized labor.
What those countries have been able to do is devote a greater proportion of their education resources to improving conditions that favor student performance than to acceding to the demands of demagogic labor leaders. Meekness on Ms. Weingarten’s part might be one solution to our children’s poor performance.
23 April 2011
Ryan’s Inconsistency
Why does the Wall Street Journal (in its editorial on April 20, 2011, “The Other Medicare Cutters,”) think that an elected board of experts would do a better job of supervising improvements in our health care system than a board appointed by our elected President and confirmed by our elected congressional representatives? Of course, as decided by our unelected Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, the money that would be spent on getting them elected is tantamount to our cherished free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Ryan plan supposedly results in affordable health care by using the market to offer seniors a selection of private insurance plans. The problem is that the market is the place where people compete to make money. It’s only wealthy seniors who will have the broadest choice in that market. Our collective health, on which the vitality of the entire nation depends, is not improved by making sure that, whatever it costs, the most effective treatment is available. Our collective health is not a tradable item; it is allocated among individuals by reference to the number of bodies they represent, not by the size of their respective wallets.
If we set our sights on affording to improve our collective health, then we have to allocate the administration of its care according to medical need instead of dollar cost. Attacking the overall cost of healthcare has to begin with the underlying condition of the collective bodies, i.e. by mandating wiser living practices and effective treatment procedures. Society cannot be hostage to desperate life-prolonging measures that merely extend the continuance of pulses while diverting resources from raising the general welfare.
Why does the Wall Street Journal (in its editorial on April 20, 2011, “The Other Medicare Cutters,”) think that an elected board of experts would do a better job of supervising improvements in our health care system than a board appointed by our elected President and confirmed by our elected congressional representatives? Of course, as decided by our unelected Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, the money that would be spent on getting them elected is tantamount to our cherished free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Ryan plan supposedly results in affordable health care by using the market to offer seniors a selection of private insurance plans. The problem is that the market is the place where people compete to make money. It’s only wealthy seniors who will have the broadest choice in that market. Our collective health, on which the vitality of the entire nation depends, is not improved by making sure that, whatever it costs, the most effective treatment is available. Our collective health is not a tradable item; it is allocated among individuals by reference to the number of bodies they represent, not by the size of their respective wallets.
If we set our sights on affording to improve our collective health, then we have to allocate the administration of its care according to medical need instead of dollar cost. Attacking the overall cost of healthcare has to begin with the underlying condition of the collective bodies, i.e. by mandating wiser living practices and effective treatment procedures. Society cannot be hostage to desperate life-prolonging measures that merely extend the continuance of pulses while diverting resources from raising the general welfare.
22 April 2011
Redefine Our Well-Being
The selection of Letters to the Editor under the heading, “President Obama Has Missed a Chance to Be a Uniter,” in the April 22, 2011, Wall Street Journal shows the paper’s need to redefine its concept of the country’s well-being. In particular, the first two writers appear to measure the satisfaction of life’s goals in terms of an individual’s monetary wealth. The third writer seems to miss the point that one of the instances of waste and abuse in federal government expenditures is the funding devoted to congressional oversight when it comes to preventing contracting by the very donors who finance the election campaigns that allow congressmen to keep their jobs.
Americans of every income level would be much better off if it were acknowledged that we expect our government to provide certain common services to all members of society. Moreover, it is necessary for those services to be paid for out of our own income, rather than by continual borrowing from overseas. And finally, it is reasonable for that expense to be shared according to each taxpayer’s ability to pay. Even though the dollar is needed to promote the general welfare, having money doesn’t mean that is the way it will be spent.
The selection of Letters to the Editor under the heading, “President Obama Has Missed a Chance to Be a Uniter,” in the April 22, 2011, Wall Street Journal shows the paper’s need to redefine its concept of the country’s well-being. In particular, the first two writers appear to measure the satisfaction of life’s goals in terms of an individual’s monetary wealth. The third writer seems to miss the point that one of the instances of waste and abuse in federal government expenditures is the funding devoted to congressional oversight when it comes to preventing contracting by the very donors who finance the election campaigns that allow congressmen to keep their jobs.
Americans of every income level would be much better off if it were acknowledged that we expect our government to provide certain common services to all members of society. Moreover, it is necessary for those services to be paid for out of our own income, rather than by continual borrowing from overseas. And finally, it is reasonable for that expense to be shared according to each taxpayer’s ability to pay. Even though the dollar is needed to promote the general welfare, having money doesn’t mean that is the way it will be spent.
16 April 2011
What’s Happening in Libya?
The early 2011 events in North Africa and elsewhere in the Arab world have given European leaders the opportunity to try and redeem the legacy of their colonial pasts. The heads of government in Great Britain, France and Italy have called for NATO to take active measures in support of the rebels in Libya in order to force Col. Muammer Qaddafi to relinquish political control.
None of those European nations really has the capability or popular will on its own, even in alliance with the rest of the European Union, to muscle an embarrassing despot out of power at the risk of alienating the strategically critical Arab community. The Arab League has endorsed intervention only in order to prevent harm to civilians. This impotence is illustrated by the desultory role that France has played in restoring order to Ivory Coast.
They owe it to the gleeful speculation of the world’s commodity traders that oil prices have spiked high enough to make it necessary for President Obama to acquiesce to the use of NATO’s heavily American firepower in supporting Libya’s rebels. His action provides the internationalist mantle that makes intervention politically palatable to the war-weary European public. Aspirations have been fanned by modern communications beyond educated Libyans’ real capacity to replace Qaddafi’s regime with a practical, if more democratic, alternative. It will take time for them to master the ability to manage their nation’s affairs and economy.
Foreign powers are the engineers of Libya’s modern commercial wealth. To the extent they intervene, they will reap responsibility for shepherding the development of the country’s civic order and equitable distribution of its wealth. The information technology revolution has made it impossible to enjoy the benefits of exploiting Libya’s hyddrocarbon riches while ignoring the needs of its people. The price of exploitation will go far beyond military overthrow of a dictator.
The early 2011 events in North Africa and elsewhere in the Arab world have given European leaders the opportunity to try and redeem the legacy of their colonial pasts. The heads of government in Great Britain, France and Italy have called for NATO to take active measures in support of the rebels in Libya in order to force Col. Muammer Qaddafi to relinquish political control.
None of those European nations really has the capability or popular will on its own, even in alliance with the rest of the European Union, to muscle an embarrassing despot out of power at the risk of alienating the strategically critical Arab community. The Arab League has endorsed intervention only in order to prevent harm to civilians. This impotence is illustrated by the desultory role that France has played in restoring order to Ivory Coast.
They owe it to the gleeful speculation of the world’s commodity traders that oil prices have spiked high enough to make it necessary for President Obama to acquiesce to the use of NATO’s heavily American firepower in supporting Libya’s rebels. His action provides the internationalist mantle that makes intervention politically palatable to the war-weary European public. Aspirations have been fanned by modern communications beyond educated Libyans’ real capacity to replace Qaddafi’s regime with a practical, if more democratic, alternative. It will take time for them to master the ability to manage their nation’s affairs and economy.
Foreign powers are the engineers of Libya’s modern commercial wealth. To the extent they intervene, they will reap responsibility for shepherding the development of the country’s civic order and equitable distribution of its wealth. The information technology revolution has made it impossible to enjoy the benefits of exploiting Libya’s hyddrocarbon riches while ignoring the needs of its people. The price of exploitation will go far beyond military overthrow of a dictator.
Use My Taxes More Wisely
Nicolas Kristof wrote in the New York Times of April 14, 2011, the following:
Congressman Ryan’s prescription for reforming Medicare is to rely on the market to incentivize health care providers to make the cost of medical services affordable by capping government expenditures with block grants to the states. Unfortunately, history tells us that most states are no more successful at living within their means than the federal government. The only real fiscal discipline for either of those spendthrifts will come ultimately when both of them are cut off by international financial markets.
President Obama is on the right track when he calls for rigorous research on the effectiveness of medical procedures. That is where tax dollars need to be spent. But just as urgent is the need for federal programs to educate the public on the relative advantages of healthier lifestyles and diets, and on the foolhardiness of relying on technology to make it possible to engage in self-destructive habits. That is almost as reckless as expecting the market to liquidate the national debt.
Nicolas Kristof wrote in the New York Times of April 14, 2011, the following:
The real challenge [in reducing the federal budget deficit] is to control health care inflation. Nobody is certain how to do that, but the Obama health care law is testing some plausible ideas. These include rigorous research on which procedures work and which don’t. Why pay for surgery on enlarged prostates if certain kinds of patients turn out to be better with no treatment at all?
Congressman Ryan’s prescription for reforming Medicare is to rely on the market to incentivize health care providers to make the cost of medical services affordable by capping government expenditures with block grants to the states. Unfortunately, history tells us that most states are no more successful at living within their means than the federal government. The only real fiscal discipline for either of those spendthrifts will come ultimately when both of them are cut off by international financial markets.
President Obama is on the right track when he calls for rigorous research on the effectiveness of medical procedures. That is where tax dollars need to be spent. But just as urgent is the need for federal programs to educate the public on the relative advantages of healthier lifestyles and diets, and on the foolhardiness of relying on technology to make it possible to engage in self-destructive habits. That is almost as reckless as expecting the market to liquidate the national debt.
