For years and years Albuquerque City Employees have signed up for insurance benefits and have had the option of choosing their provider. It seemed only fair. Lovelace, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Presbyterian all were available health care providers that had both pros and cons. Finding a primary care physician can sometimes be a feat in itself, and when you finally find a good provider you do not want to have to change.
Unfortunately, Mayor Berry helped to make sure that city employees no longer had a choice in the matter. Earlier this year he forced others out and allowed only Presbyterian to be the sole provider.
This sudden change caused hardships on many city employees. Co-pays went up, premiums were increased, and service went down. For example, prescription medications and treatments that were provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield are no longer being approved by Presbyterian. Employees are left with two options, pay for the treatment and medication completely out of pocket or go without.
In fact, the Eye was contacted by two separate parents of special needs children. These parents are employed by the Albuquerque Police Department.
One parent explained to the Eye that the co-pay and out of pocket expense has risen so much, their family can not afford to get the care their child needs. Another parent explained that they have now been forced to apply for Medicare as Presbyterian does not provide the same treatment that is needed for their child's survival. These parents explained that this lack of service is the exact reason why they did not enroll in the Presbyterian Health Plan when they were hired by the city.
Our last email recieved stated that this employee has been prescribed the same medication for several years for an untreatable medical condition. The medication provides relief for the pain and discomfort this condition is causing. This employee has tried other medications and the one they are currently using is the only one that works. Presbyterian refuses to pay for the medication and it is forcing this employee to spend four hundred dollars just to remain healthy. The employee tried to appeal, however the staff at Presbyterian wants this employee to try all the other medications, yet again and even now is refusing to compensate the employee.
What gives Mayor Berry the right to chose what health plan employees are allowed, especially those that have been long time employees and were promised to be able to make the decision on health care when they first enrolled. What benefits is the Mayor personally receiving to have had this radical change become permanent?
Is the Mayor concerned that his employees are suffering and are inconvenienced at his hands?
Will Mayor Berry ever allow the citizens of Albuquerque to have a choice about ANYTHING or will he continue to dictate everything?
One thing is for sure, Mayor Berry's independant, selfish ways of "ruling" are not only ruining morale, they are physically hurting the employees as well.
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Dec 13, 2011
Nov 6, 2009
Congressman Teague Has A Split Personality On Energy
Marita K. Noon
If there is one thing T. Boone Pickens knows how to do, it is make money. When T. Boone gets behind something, financial gain is the incentive. There is nothing wrong with making money, but his motives cannot be viewed as purely altruistic. When the price of natural gas was high, he advertised converting the world to wind power as wind power needs back-up base-load power and the only source that can ramp up and down quickly is natural gas. Now that natural gas prices are lower, he no longer promotes wind power. He is, however, pushing a new scheme to increase natural gas usage. Natural gas is a clean-burning fossil fuel, so using more natural gas is good.
However, when T. Boone partners with Congressman Harry Teague, one has to look askance. At best, Teague appears to be a bit schizophrenic.
While we do not currently know what version of cap and trade will pass through Congress-or even if any form will pass, we know that Teague voted for the Waxman/Markey Bill (AKA cap and trade). The purported goal of cap and trade is to get America off of fossil fuels by making their emissions taxable in some form-and therefore more expensive for the consumer. One variant of cap and trade basically eliminates coal from America's energy portfolio, which means our coal-fired power plants that provide about half of our base-load energy needs will all have to be converted to natural gas--additionally upping the price. So Teague has essentially voted to make natural gas--a fossil fuel his company helps produce--more expensive and then supports a bill (H.R. 1835) that would use taxpayer money to underwrite the conversion of vehicles from gasoline or diesel to natural gas. We the taxpayers will get hit on both sides of his efforts.
In addition to his apparent split personality, the opinion editorial produced jointly by the Teague/Pickens team has several other flaws.
In their proposal, they recommend tax incentives for converting fleets to be fueled by natural gas. On the surface this sounds good-we trade an imported fuel for a domestic one. The use of natural gas has already been tried in agricultural and oil field vehicles since the 60's and was not reliable.Yet, this is being tried in several government agencies as a way to be more environmentally friendly--even though the infrastructure is not there. To solve this, Teague/Pickens then encourage opening more NGV fueling stations. This will take years and years to make happen due to right-of-way issues, environmental regulations and excessive costs--which their approach would have underwritten by the taxpayer (as are, or course, the aforementioned tax incentives). By the time a NGV infrastructure could be functional, something totally different could be in place.
Another flaw is their idea that NGV will reduce our dependence of foreign oil. We currently use foreign natural gas and their plan would increase natural gas use--therefore using more from foreign sources. I am all for natural gas use and I support getting off of foreign fuels of all kinds. But switching our vehicles to NGV will not do that. What we need is to open up drilling options-for both natural gas and oil! Their op-ed cites a study indicating that the continental United States has enough natural gas reserves to last 118 years. That may be true, but how much are we currently allowed to access? Much of America's natural resources are off-limits due to environmental NIMBYism! With all of the nonconventional fuels coming online, I believe we could be almost energy independent now--or at least have energy security (meaning we get our fuels from friendly countries such as Mexico and Canada). But we must be able to access them.
Additionally the Teague/Pickens piece claims that natural gas burns cleaner and produces "virtually no particulate emissions." I agree that natural gas burns cleanly, but so do most other fuels today. America and Canada derive the largest single percent of energy from coal, yet they both have some of the cleanest air of the industrialized world. Wasn't Waxman/Markey about CO2, not particulate emissions? Come on Harry, make up your mind.
Teague's action in voting for Waxman/Markey was a vote to shut down fossil fuels when the next generation of fuel--whatever it may be--is not yet available. After all, as they state, "Wind and solar are not helping you drive to work in the morning."
Marita Noon is the Executive Director at CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the nonprofit organization working to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom and the American way of life. Find out more at www.responsiblenergy.org. Note: The above is in response to a previously published op-ed
If there is one thing T. Boone Pickens knows how to do, it is make money. When T. Boone gets behind something, financial gain is the incentive. There is nothing wrong with making money, but his motives cannot be viewed as purely altruistic. When the price of natural gas was high, he advertised converting the world to wind power as wind power needs back-up base-load power and the only source that can ramp up and down quickly is natural gas. Now that natural gas prices are lower, he no longer promotes wind power. He is, however, pushing a new scheme to increase natural gas usage. Natural gas is a clean-burning fossil fuel, so using more natural gas is good.
However, when T. Boone partners with Congressman Harry Teague, one has to look askance. At best, Teague appears to be a bit schizophrenic.
While we do not currently know what version of cap and trade will pass through Congress-or even if any form will pass, we know that Teague voted for the Waxman/Markey Bill (AKA cap and trade). The purported goal of cap and trade is to get America off of fossil fuels by making their emissions taxable in some form-and therefore more expensive for the consumer. One variant of cap and trade basically eliminates coal from America's energy portfolio, which means our coal-fired power plants that provide about half of our base-load energy needs will all have to be converted to natural gas--additionally upping the price. So Teague has essentially voted to make natural gas--a fossil fuel his company helps produce--more expensive and then supports a bill (H.R. 1835) that would use taxpayer money to underwrite the conversion of vehicles from gasoline or diesel to natural gas. We the taxpayers will get hit on both sides of his efforts.
In addition to his apparent split personality, the opinion editorial produced jointly by the Teague/Pickens team has several other flaws.
In their proposal, they recommend tax incentives for converting fleets to be fueled by natural gas. On the surface this sounds good-we trade an imported fuel for a domestic one. The use of natural gas has already been tried in agricultural and oil field vehicles since the 60's and was not reliable.Yet, this is being tried in several government agencies as a way to be more environmentally friendly--even though the infrastructure is not there. To solve this, Teague/Pickens then encourage opening more NGV fueling stations. This will take years and years to make happen due to right-of-way issues, environmental regulations and excessive costs--which their approach would have underwritten by the taxpayer (as are, or course, the aforementioned tax incentives). By the time a NGV infrastructure could be functional, something totally different could be in place.
Another flaw is their idea that NGV will reduce our dependence of foreign oil. We currently use foreign natural gas and their plan would increase natural gas use--therefore using more from foreign sources. I am all for natural gas use and I support getting off of foreign fuels of all kinds. But switching our vehicles to NGV will not do that. What we need is to open up drilling options-for both natural gas and oil! Their op-ed cites a study indicating that the continental United States has enough natural gas reserves to last 118 years. That may be true, but how much are we currently allowed to access? Much of America's natural resources are off-limits due to environmental NIMBYism! With all of the nonconventional fuels coming online, I believe we could be almost energy independent now--or at least have energy security (meaning we get our fuels from friendly countries such as Mexico and Canada). But we must be able to access them.
Additionally the Teague/Pickens piece claims that natural gas burns cleaner and produces "virtually no particulate emissions." I agree that natural gas burns cleanly, but so do most other fuels today. America and Canada derive the largest single percent of energy from coal, yet they both have some of the cleanest air of the industrialized world. Wasn't Waxman/Markey about CO2, not particulate emissions? Come on Harry, make up your mind.
Teague's action in voting for Waxman/Markey was a vote to shut down fossil fuels when the next generation of fuel--whatever it may be--is not yet available. After all, as they state, "Wind and solar are not helping you drive to work in the morning."
Marita Noon is the Executive Director at CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the nonprofit organization working to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom and the American way of life. Find out more at www.responsiblenergy.org. Note: The above is in response to a previously published op-ed
Jul 19, 2009
Common Sense & Healthcare
We've been watching with a fair amount of alarm as Obamacare works its way through the House and Senate. The mantra from Democrats is that since something needs to be done we should get the government to do it.
To be fair, these guys have been campaigning on government run healthcare since 2006. So their rush to ram their socialized "public" insurance scheme down the public's collective throat is predictable if not understandable. Unfortunately, none of the Democrat's claims square with reality.
You don't even have to be an economist to understand that a government run program will be hugely expensive and fraught with waste and corruption. When has government done anything more cost-effectively than the private sector?
Government isn't subject to the harsh realities of the market place so it's insulated from the consequences of failure. To make matters worse, spending every last budgetary dime is encouraged. If governmental departments fail to spend their share of our tax loot, chances are they won't receive as much for next year. In other words, they are punished for their good behavior.
Supporters of the Public Option Insurance Co. love to claim that administrative costs for Medicare recipients are less than for the privately insured. They often quote the talking point that Medicare administrative costs are 2% of the total payout while private insurance administrative costs are in the 20% to 25% range.
Besides being absolutely counter-intuitive, the comparison is of the administrative costs as a percentage of the overall payout. Medicare's population is generally older and in poorer health than their privately insured counterparts. As a result, Medicare recipients generally cost (pay out) more per person than the privately insured.
Someone who's insured, healthy, and never sees a doctor has an administrative cost of 100% in the model used by supporters of Obamacare. In other words, all of the money paid out by the insurance company goes to administrative costs. If it costs $100 per person per year for an insurer to administer this person's health insurance, then the cost as a percentage of the amount paid out ($100) is 100%.
On the other hand, someone in the late stages of their life, who has multiple serious medical issues costs the insurer (in this case Medicare) thousands and thousands of dollars per patient making administrative costs seem low as a percentage of the total amount paid out for that patient. If in this case, the cost of administering the insurance is $100, but the amount paid out for medical care is $5,000, then the cost as a percentage of the amount paid out ($5,000) is 2%.
In reality, the cost for administering a privately insured person is about $453, while the administrative cost for a Medicare patient is about $509 (read it here). Medicare administrative costs are an average of 12% per person higher than private insurance. Now that makes sense.
A lot of folks complain about their health insurance. If you've ever had to make a claim due to some kind of illness, chances are you've run into a buzz saw of rules, regulations, and bureaucracy. Most of the time these experiences are pretty bad at a time when you're not exactly at your best. You might even develop a bit of animosity towards corporate America.
We think it's fair to say that many liberals (there's nothing progressive about self-labeled "progressives") both dislike and distrust corporations in general and health insurance companies in particular. However, it's nonsensical to believe that getting money for care out of the largest "corporation" in the world - the United States government - would be easier than getting care from one of the 1,000 plus private insurance companies.
When exposed to the market, bad insurance companies ultimately fail while a government insurance company has the closest thing to eternal life. Regardless of care, regardless of performance and in stark contrast to those it serves a "public option" government run and funded health care "option" would be almost impossible to challenge.
The 536 and a half board members of Public Option Insurance Co. not only run their insurance scheme, but have the ability to set the rules of engagement with their private sector competitors.
One of the issues that repeatedly pops up is - how are we going to pay for this intrusive and massive government program? Estimates put the various "public option" programs at anywhere from $1 TRILLION to $1.6 TRILLION of borrowed money. Democrats have numerous schemes designed to pay for the Public Insurance Co. that they claim will be "revenue neutral." However, none of them seem to be able to point to a TRILLION DOLLARS worth of savings anywhere and the dirty not so little, not so secret reality is that they will be raising taxes on big business and small business to pay for it.
Remember, when business costs rise (and taxation is a cost of doing business), they either charge more for their products and/or services or they stop providing their good and/or services. It's really pretty simple. Would you pay your employer to work for them?
If a business can absorb the new costs artificially imposed by government, they'll do it by charging more and lowering other expenses. That means they'll be trying to charge more and letting people go in order to protect their interests. Businesses cannot and will not pay you to provide their goods and/or services to you - which means you will pay their costs and taxes or they will close their doors.
The most vulnerable businesses are small businesses. Small businesses provide most of the jobs in this country. They also tend to fall into Obama's definition of "rich people" because they tend to be sole proprietorships, LLCs, or subchapter S corporations.
In Albuquerque, restaurants are a visible example of small businesses that cannot survive Obama's chopping block. They employ thousands of often relatively unskilled, somewhat itinerant workers and generally do not have the margins to allow their operators to provide healthcare.
If Obamacare with its "public option," penalties, and taxes, becomes the law of the land, many of these restaurants will not be able to keep their doors open. And it will be the local operators that will be affected first and worst. One local operator recently told us that should Obamacare pass, they will close all of their locations.
Obamacare will provide "public option insurance" to a bunch of people who because of Obamacare can't afford food or shelter. It doesn't take a genius to see that Obamacare will create an exponential downward spiral as small businesses shut down and government revenue drops across the board.
This doomsday scenario is not as far fetched as you think. The current economic crisis coupled with the borrowing and spending of Obamanomics has already stressed our economy to the breaking point. Common sense indicates that a massive spending program like Obamacare could easily send us over the edge into the economic abyss.
Alarmingly, the Gaffster-in-Chief and the Obama Administration as a whole don't seem to understand what they've done in a few short months and what could be the result of their actions.
Most tellingly, the very people (like Senator Jeff Bingaman) who are the most enamored with Obamacare want nothing to do with it when it comes to their personal healthcare. Every amendment that forces Congress to be the first enrollees of the Public Option Insurance Co. is faced with fierce opposition from the very people who would like the rest of us to end up on its rolls.
All of this leaves us with one very practical, common sense question... If it won't save money, we can't afford it, will end competition, and even the politicians who want this for us don't want it, why should we?
To be fair, these guys have been campaigning on government run healthcare since 2006. So their rush to ram their socialized "public" insurance scheme down the public's collective throat is predictable if not understandable. Unfortunately, none of the Democrat's claims square with reality.
You don't even have to be an economist to understand that a government run program will be hugely expensive and fraught with waste and corruption. When has government done anything more cost-effectively than the private sector?
Government isn't subject to the harsh realities of the market place so it's insulated from the consequences of failure. To make matters worse, spending every last budgetary dime is encouraged. If governmental departments fail to spend their share of our tax loot, chances are they won't receive as much for next year. In other words, they are punished for their good behavior.
Supporters of the Public Option Insurance Co. love to claim that administrative costs for Medicare recipients are less than for the privately insured. They often quote the talking point that Medicare administrative costs are 2% of the total payout while private insurance administrative costs are in the 20% to 25% range.
Besides being absolutely counter-intuitive, the comparison is of the administrative costs as a percentage of the overall payout. Medicare's population is generally older and in poorer health than their privately insured counterparts. As a result, Medicare recipients generally cost (pay out) more per person than the privately insured.
Someone who's insured, healthy, and never sees a doctor has an administrative cost of 100% in the model used by supporters of Obamacare. In other words, all of the money paid out by the insurance company goes to administrative costs. If it costs $100 per person per year for an insurer to administer this person's health insurance, then the cost as a percentage of the amount paid out ($100) is 100%.
On the other hand, someone in the late stages of their life, who has multiple serious medical issues costs the insurer (in this case Medicare) thousands and thousands of dollars per patient making administrative costs seem low as a percentage of the total amount paid out for that patient. If in this case, the cost of administering the insurance is $100, but the amount paid out for medical care is $5,000, then the cost as a percentage of the amount paid out ($5,000) is 2%.
In reality, the cost for administering a privately insured person is about $453, while the administrative cost for a Medicare patient is about $509 (read it here). Medicare administrative costs are an average of 12% per person higher than private insurance. Now that makes sense.
A lot of folks complain about their health insurance. If you've ever had to make a claim due to some kind of illness, chances are you've run into a buzz saw of rules, regulations, and bureaucracy. Most of the time these experiences are pretty bad at a time when you're not exactly at your best. You might even develop a bit of animosity towards corporate America.
We think it's fair to say that many liberals (there's nothing progressive about self-labeled "progressives") both dislike and distrust corporations in general and health insurance companies in particular. However, it's nonsensical to believe that getting money for care out of the largest "corporation" in the world - the United States government - would be easier than getting care from one of the 1,000 plus private insurance companies.
When exposed to the market, bad insurance companies ultimately fail while a government insurance company has the closest thing to eternal life. Regardless of care, regardless of performance and in stark contrast to those it serves a "public option" government run and funded health care "option" would be almost impossible to challenge.
The 536 and a half board members of Public Option Insurance Co. not only run their insurance scheme, but have the ability to set the rules of engagement with their private sector competitors.
[Sidebar]Common sense tells you that the referee shouldn't be a member of one of the competing teams. Although New Mexico's recent history seems replete with examples of competitors slipping the ref a few bucks for favorable calls... but we digress.
We say 536 and half because you have 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 members of the U.S. Senate, President Obama, and Joe Biden. The Vice President only gets to vote when there's a tie in the Senate and if you've spent any time listening to Gaffster-in-Chief, you understand the half part. Perhaps they should consider keeping Biden in an undisclosed location? We're just sayin'...
[End Sidebar]
One of the issues that repeatedly pops up is - how are we going to pay for this intrusive and massive government program? Estimates put the various "public option" programs at anywhere from $1 TRILLION to $1.6 TRILLION of borrowed money. Democrats have numerous schemes designed to pay for the Public Insurance Co. that they claim will be "revenue neutral." However, none of them seem to be able to point to a TRILLION DOLLARS worth of savings anywhere and the dirty not so little, not so secret reality is that they will be raising taxes on big business and small business to pay for it.
Remember, when business costs rise (and taxation is a cost of doing business), they either charge more for their products and/or services or they stop providing their good and/or services. It's really pretty simple. Would you pay your employer to work for them?
If a business can absorb the new costs artificially imposed by government, they'll do it by charging more and lowering other expenses. That means they'll be trying to charge more and letting people go in order to protect their interests. Businesses cannot and will not pay you to provide their goods and/or services to you - which means you will pay their costs and taxes or they will close their doors.
The most vulnerable businesses are small businesses. Small businesses provide most of the jobs in this country. They also tend to fall into Obama's definition of "rich people" because they tend to be sole proprietorships, LLCs, or subchapter S corporations.
In Albuquerque, restaurants are a visible example of small businesses that cannot survive Obama's chopping block. They employ thousands of often relatively unskilled, somewhat itinerant workers and generally do not have the margins to allow their operators to provide healthcare.
If Obamacare with its "public option," penalties, and taxes, becomes the law of the land, many of these restaurants will not be able to keep their doors open. And it will be the local operators that will be affected first and worst. One local operator recently told us that should Obamacare pass, they will close all of their locations.
Obamacare will provide "public option insurance" to a bunch of people who because of Obamacare can't afford food or shelter. It doesn't take a genius to see that Obamacare will create an exponential downward spiral as small businesses shut down and government revenue drops across the board.
This doomsday scenario is not as far fetched as you think. The current economic crisis coupled with the borrowing and spending of Obamanomics has already stressed our economy to the breaking point. Common sense indicates that a massive spending program like Obamacare could easily send us over the edge into the economic abyss.
Alarmingly, the Gaffster-in-Chief and the Obama Administration as a whole don't seem to understand what they've done in a few short months and what could be the result of their actions.
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”The debate over healthcare has been astonishingly devoid of common sense. We currently have a system that isn't perfect but still manages to provide the best care and by far the greatest number of medical innovations in the world. Why we would throw the baby out with the bath water in order to insure a group of people who are already assured care is beyond belief.
Most tellingly, the very people (like Senator Jeff Bingaman) who are the most enamored with Obamacare want nothing to do with it when it comes to their personal healthcare. Every amendment that forces Congress to be the first enrollees of the Public Option Insurance Co. is faced with fierce opposition from the very people who would like the rest of us to end up on its rolls.
All of this leaves us with one very practical, common sense question... If it won't save money, we can't afford it, will end competition, and even the politicians who want this for us don't want it, why should we?
Sep 5, 2008
Little Brother
You've heard of Big Brother, the dictator in George Orwell's 1984 whose benevolent face stared out at the public from state owned telescreens found in every public place and in every home - Big Brother is watching you. Albuquerque has its own version of Big Brother - we'll call him Little Brother (for obvious reasons). Yep... The one, the only, The Almighty Alcalde himself - Mayor Martin Chavez.
Little Brother is watching you with his red light scam-eras, he lives in your radio with his "Q-Tips," he saves city employees from nasty tobacco, and now he's going to tell you what snacks to eat.
It's simple common sense. If the vending machines don't carry products that the public likes, they won't buy the products offered and the owners of the machines won't make money. If the vendors don't making money, then there won't be any vending machines. Regulation of a free market place for any reason results in shortages, period. The Soviets found that out the hard way and even the Chinese have discovered the power of the free market.
Never mind that government has no business dictating what can and cannot be eaten, people will find a way to purchase the products that they want. If it's not offered by the vending machines at APS or on city property, they'll buy it somewhere else. We'd suggest the hot dog stands and sandwich shops downtown start carrying a healthy supply of unhealthy snacks.
More frightening than junk food depravation is the underlying attitude exhibited by The Almighty Alcalde. Somehow he believes that it's his right to dictate what others consume all in the name of lowering healthcare costs.
Can you imagine what would happen if Little Brother were in charge of healthcare? The freedom to choose what to eat, how much to weigh, how much to exercise, what drugs to take, what medical procedures to have, perhaps even the choice of whether or not to live or die... gone.
Little Brother says "it's not just free choice." The hell it isn't! What's at stake is not a few vendors or some junk food, it's our liberty. When government is given the responsibility to save you from yourself, you necessarily loose your ability to make a choice contrary to government doctrine - doctrine arbitrarily determined by politicians looking out for themselves not you. Little Brother is watching and he's stealing our most precious possession - our freedom... One Twinkie at a time.
Little Brother is watching you with his red light scam-eras, he lives in your radio with his "Q-Tips," he saves city employees from nasty tobacco, and now he's going to tell you what snacks to eat.
"Ultimately this affects everyone's pocket book. It's not just free choice, it's the whole pocketbook of the nation and the costs of healthcare," said Mayor Chavez.In the name of healthcare, in the name of what's good for you, Little Brother is telling those who frequent city vending machines what they can buy by restricting what the private vendors can sell. Predictably, the vendors are none too happy about Little Brother's interference in their market place. Greg Trapp Executive Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind told the Journal, "[w]hen we try to implement an all-healthy-choice option ... the sales just fall through the floor," (Subscription). Duh!
It's simple common sense. If the vending machines don't carry products that the public likes, they won't buy the products offered and the owners of the machines won't make money. If the vendors don't making money, then there won't be any vending machines. Regulation of a free market place for any reason results in shortages, period. The Soviets found that out the hard way and even the Chinese have discovered the power of the free market.
(Sidebar)APS instituted a similar ban on school campuses in order to combat childhood obesity. According to Pepsi, vending machine sales have dropped by 70% since 2002. What do you bet that childhood obesity rates haven't changed at all?
By state law, vending contracts for vending machines on city property are required to be issued to contractors who are blind first. So... Little Brother's attempt to save city employees from evil junk food will starve the blind contractors who sell it. Unintended consequences are damn inconvenient sometimes.
(End Sidebar)
Never mind that government has no business dictating what can and cannot be eaten, people will find a way to purchase the products that they want. If it's not offered by the vending machines at APS or on city property, they'll buy it somewhere else. We'd suggest the hot dog stands and sandwich shops downtown start carrying a healthy supply of unhealthy snacks.
More frightening than junk food depravation is the underlying attitude exhibited by The Almighty Alcalde. Somehow he believes that it's his right to dictate what others consume all in the name of lowering healthcare costs.
Can you imagine what would happen if Little Brother were in charge of healthcare? The freedom to choose what to eat, how much to weigh, how much to exercise, what drugs to take, what medical procedures to have, perhaps even the choice of whether or not to live or die... gone.
Little Brother says "it's not just free choice." The hell it isn't! What's at stake is not a few vendors or some junk food, it's our liberty. When government is given the responsibility to save you from yourself, you necessarily loose your ability to make a choice contrary to government doctrine - doctrine arbitrarily determined by politicians looking out for themselves not you. Little Brother is watching and he's stealing our most precious possession - our freedom... One Twinkie at a time.
Feb 1, 2008
Monopoly
When was the last time that the consumer benefited from an absolute monopoly? The answer is simple - never. That's why we have anti-trust laws to keep any one company from becoming the only provider for a good or service.
Competition has always been the cornerstone of high quality and low cost. If there were only one grocery store (or grocery store company) here in Albuquerque, that store could set the price of its goods at whatever level they chose. Fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, just about anything with a shelf life would sit longer because consumers wouldn't have a choice to purchase better fresher produce somewhere else and the stores lose money when they have to dispose of spoiled goods.
It's called the market and it's really quite intuitive. If you were able to sell some product or service that was in demand and you were the only one able to produce that good or service, you could pretty much charge whatever you wanted. Food is certainly one of those items that every one of us needs and must buy - so is health care.
Yesterday, the House Health and Government Affairs Committee passed unanimously a single payer health care scheme that would in essence create a state run monopoly on health care in New Mexico (ABQ Journal - Subscription). How does the saying go...? If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.
Nothing, we repeat... nothing is free. We all pay for health care. In fact right now, in addition to our own health care we pay for indigent care with our tax dollars. Currently, every emergency room must treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. How much more "universal" can you get?
What so called "universal" health care schemes do is create a government run health care system complete with all of the coercive influences and legislative power of the state. It would be similar to centralized control of the economy. The state is not equipped to make the millions, even hundreds of millions of decisions required to keep an economy moving, much less healthy.
We are often told that the goal of "universal" health care is to get those who can't afford health care out of the state's emergency rooms. Single payer healthcare plans won't get the poor out of emergency rooms (or their "universal" scheme equivalent); they'll simply put the rest of us in there with them.
Long lines, poor care, shortages of doctors, nurses, and staff, not to mention strikes will be a very real part of our health care future should a single payer scheme be implemented. Governor Richardson's plan would be better than a single payer scheme but would bring the full weight of government to bear on doctors by forcing them to accept all insurance plans regardless of whether or not the payment covers their expenses.
Once you get past the class envy - do you really believe that doctors should or would work anywhere for free... would you? We already have a problem keeping or getting doctors in this state, it simply makes no sense to create a health care system that covers everyone but results in a situation where there are no doctors and nurses to cover them.
In the final analysis, government intrusion into health care is dangerous at best - and would more likely be a complete disaster. What we need for government to do is to create an environment where competition can flourish and the consumer can make informed decisions about the health care plans available. Comparison and choice are the heart of competition - something a single payer health care scheme cannot and will not provide.
Competition has always been the cornerstone of high quality and low cost. If there were only one grocery store (or grocery store company) here in Albuquerque, that store could set the price of its goods at whatever level they chose. Fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, just about anything with a shelf life would sit longer because consumers wouldn't have a choice to purchase better fresher produce somewhere else and the stores lose money when they have to dispose of spoiled goods.
It's called the market and it's really quite intuitive. If you were able to sell some product or service that was in demand and you were the only one able to produce that good or service, you could pretty much charge whatever you wanted. Food is certainly one of those items that every one of us needs and must buy - so is health care.
Yesterday, the House Health and Government Affairs Committee passed unanimously a single payer health care scheme that would in essence create a state run monopoly on health care in New Mexico (ABQ Journal - Subscription). How does the saying go...? If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.
Nothing, we repeat... nothing is free. We all pay for health care. In fact right now, in addition to our own health care we pay for indigent care with our tax dollars. Currently, every emergency room must treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. How much more "universal" can you get?
What so called "universal" health care schemes do is create a government run health care system complete with all of the coercive influences and legislative power of the state. It would be similar to centralized control of the economy. The state is not equipped to make the millions, even hundreds of millions of decisions required to keep an economy moving, much less healthy.
(Sidebar)Hospitals are complex operations (pardon the pun) that require thousands of decisions that directly affect quality and cost. More importantly, theses decisions often have life or death consequences.
The 70 year Soviet experience proved our point. Shortages were the norm and the quality was so poor that when they finally started to open their markets, McDonalds had to build their own meat processing plant in order to obtain high enough quality ground beef. We're talking McDonalds here. Not that we have anything against them but their ground beef isn't exactly filet mignon.
(End Sidebar)
We are often told that the goal of "universal" health care is to get those who can't afford health care out of the state's emergency rooms. Single payer healthcare plans won't get the poor out of emergency rooms (or their "universal" scheme equivalent); they'll simply put the rest of us in there with them.
Long lines, poor care, shortages of doctors, nurses, and staff, not to mention strikes will be a very real part of our health care future should a single payer scheme be implemented. Governor Richardson's plan would be better than a single payer scheme but would bring the full weight of government to bear on doctors by forcing them to accept all insurance plans regardless of whether or not the payment covers their expenses.
Once you get past the class envy - do you really believe that doctors should or would work anywhere for free... would you? We already have a problem keeping or getting doctors in this state, it simply makes no sense to create a health care system that covers everyone but results in a situation where there are no doctors and nurses to cover them.
In the final analysis, government intrusion into health care is dangerous at best - and would more likely be a complete disaster. What we need for government to do is to create an environment where competition can flourish and the consumer can make informed decisions about the health care plans available. Comparison and choice are the heart of competition - something a single payer health care scheme cannot and will not provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)