Archive for the ‘health care’ Category

Medicare and Money

July 28, 2011

Many people do not understand what money is or why it is even at the forefront of thought in all economic decisions, even when it comes to whether or not your grandma should get cancer treatment.

Let me help you understand.

First, money is valuable because it is valuable. People are willing to trade their time for it, and because people are willing to trade their time for it, you can buy people’s time with it.

All economic goods, from food to medicine, is all the product of someone’s time combined with their ability and the tools and resources they have available to them. The ability is largely dependent on an individual’s natural talent, but much more so on how they have spent their time to refine that talent. The resources they have available to them are available because someone took their time and ability and applied it to get them there.

All of these factors depend, ultimately, on time.

Since humans live about 70 years and then they die, we all have limited time. If we were ageless or immortal, then we probably wouldn’t care about how long things take to do. If it took 1 second or  1 year or a billion years, it would be the same to us. But we are mortal. Each of us will, eventually, die, and so our time is inherently precious to us.

Money represents our time. It is, in essence, a small part of our life. If you treat money as if it were a fraction of your life, or someone else’s life, then you will start to treat it reverently and carefully. You will find you are much more frugal, choosing more often to do without rather than spend someone’s time to meet your needs.

Now, consider grandma’s cancer. Grandma has cancer. She will, eventually, die, either from the cancer or from something else. She has limited time left. She has spent a great deal of time already doing whatever it was she chose to do with her life. Her bank account may reflect the amount of time she used up for her purposes versus the amount of time she used on behalf of others. She has also accumulated other resources, like her children and her grandchildren, maybe her property, and such. These all represent the investments she made with her time.

The decision was made some time ago to invest people’s time into researching cancer treatment and diagnosis. Doctors, nurses, and hospital staff were trained to run hospitals, built with the time and expertise of countless millions of people, both those who put it together and those who brought resources to the building site as well as those who created those resources. We cannot discount the efforts of the architect and board who made countless thousands of decisions after spending time to deliberate about the best way to build this particular hospital. Land was set aside, land that could’ve been used for growing food or building a grocery store or an office building, or even a road that could’ve saved 2 minutes on everyone’s commute every day of the week.

As your grandma enters that hospital, and as the doctor takes time out of his schedule to see your grandma as opposed to anyone else, then as the doctor makes decisions, in consultation with your grandma, further taking up open spots both in terms of who will get what medicine and who will get what time in which facilities, people’s time is consumed.

This is represented with the hospital bill. All those times are represented with a simple dollar value.

If the treatment is more expensive than what people are willing to pay for it, then the doctor has no choice but to refuse to see your grandma. Why? Because there are other people who are more willing to bid for his time and the hospital’s resources.

This is capitalism 101: You cannot force people to do things. They must voluntarily trade their time and money, or there is no deal. If one side says, “I will only do X if you give me Y”, then you can’t get X without paying them Y. Of course, you can negotiate and haggle, but in the end there must be mutual consent to the terms.

(Note that I am not talking about crony capitalism. I am talking about the same capitalism that the guy who sells hot dogs from his cart practices every day. Crony capitalism is not capitalism at all, but socialism disguised, because it relies on government force to work.)

Let’s reword all of the above in terms of money rather than time.

Grandma has cancer. The doctor says, “I will diagnose and treat you, but it will cost several hundred thousand dollars.” If Grandma doesn’t have several hundred thousand dollars, she cannot get treated.

Medicare has distorted the medical field. It does this in a number of ways, but the simple fact that it covers the cost of Grandma’s cancer treatment means that the cost is never considered, either by grandma or the doctor. This means that the doctor, the medicine companies, the hospitals and staff are free to charge almost as much as they want. If they are unhappy with how much money they make, they petition the government to give them even more money,.

This is unhealthy, obviously. Grandma should be in complete control of her health care. She should only be allowed to spend the resources that are given to her. If you wish Grandma could receive more treatment than she can afford, then feel free to send here a few dollars. At the end of the days, Grandma will have to make a decision: Is it best for me to spend the money I have on the best treatment I can get? Should I settle for a cheaper treatment and save my money for the future (or save it for my children?) Or should I forego treatment altogether, enjoy as many of my final moments knowing that there will be more money for others in the future?

Obamacare was proposed because the socialists know that you need some sort of cost control measure. They want to enforce lower prices by refusing treatment altogether for Medicare recipients. That will work, to a degree. However, it won’t be a proper solution because it doesn’t discourage people from charging as much money as they can. Instead, they just have to campaign really hard to get their treatments approved. This is already happening as we see, because certain drugs that are denied to people are already part of the political debate. Such a thing never happened before.

Capitalism says that you allow the individuals to decide for themselves, based on what they have available to them. This sounds harsh, but it means that people who want to have good treatment in their final years will save their own money, doing their best to maximize their wealth in their final years.

It also means, and this is the key component, that they will seek the best treatment they can get at the cheapest price possible. This will drive doctors, hospitals, and drug companies to invest in providing the best care possible cheaply. You will see, under such a scenario, advertisements encouraging people to use particular hospitals or particular treatments, not because they are necessarily superior to all the others, but because they keep their costs deliberately low while providing better service.

If we can put these economic forces to work, we can dramatically decrease the cost of health care. I wouldn’t be surprised if cancer treatment became as cheap as pineapples and bananas are in the supermarkets. Of course, we today think of these things as cheap commodities, but at one point they were the most expensive produce in the world, worth more than their weight in gold.

Imagine if cancer treatment for grandma cost only $10, without a single penny in subsidies from government. It is possible, and it will happen, because everywhere capitalism is introduced, prices fall, supply increases, quality increases, and demand is met.


Obamacare: FRAUD

March 4, 2011

Rep. Shimkus from Illinois catches Sebellius admitted to financial fraud. The Obamacare bill cuts $500B from Medicare, and spends it twice.

Don’t worry, there’s far greater frauds being committed almost every day in almost every government in our country. If governments had to report their financial status the same way public corporations do, we’d have a clearer picture of how deep in the hole we are. Unfortunately, they don’t have to do any such thing.

The federal government, but the way, is some $67 trillion—$67,000B in the hole. That’s how much it needs in assets to cover the future expenses it has promised to the elderly.


October 6, 2010

Get your hands out of my pocket, you filthy sponge.

Real Americans don’t think this way. Real Americans get boostrappy and figure out a way to make themselves useful in this world.

Oh yeah, the reason why you’re unemployed? It’s because you’re taxing the rich, especially rich corporations that would’ve hired you otherwise.

Or you have yet to figure out that it’s up to you to make yourself useful for the world.

Go back to school, take Econ 101, and tell me what part you didn’t understand.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Would You Buy Health Care If…?

September 22, 2010

Would you buy health care from a company whose president believes in rationing care. That is, denying care to some for the benefit of others? Would you still buy it if the president was appointed behind closed doors without consultation of the board of directors and refused to speak publicly about his views on health care?

Of course not.

Yet, if you are subscribed to Medicare, that is the kind of company you are dealing with. (link)

When private companies behave badly, they go out of business.

When governments behave badly, people die.

There’s a big difference.

See, if you work in the private health care industry, if you don’t provide health care, you lose your job. If you work in the government health care industry, it doesn’t matter how many vets or old people die under your watch due to your incompetence and political views. You still get to keep your job with its retirement package, even if nobody wants government health care.

We need a separation of health care and state. Otherwise, people will die while bureaucrats and administrators do nothing and talk to no one.

What now?

March 22, 2010

In other countries, liberty dies much like it did yesterday. Thanks to the Democrat’s bill, you now have fewer freedoms today than you did yesterday. Bit by bit, chunk by chunk, you wake up each day to discover the box you are consigned to live in is closing in on you.

In our system of government, the people are king. We really have a tremendous amount of power. Now, we don’t get our way every single time, and that’s a really good thing because the people are not always right. But if we are consistent and unwavering, we will get what we really want. If we are reasonable and patient, we are all but guaranteed to win.

In our case, the people of the United States have, for a very long time, wanted a larger and more intrusive government. They’ve asked for it in the polls. An entire political party, and more than half of the other, have been working diligently to deliver it. Between the bookends of Coolidge to Reagan, the national discussion wasn’t whether the federal government should control our lives, but in what form that control should appear.

Today, we have to realize what our real enemy is. It’s not the democrats or liberal republicans, although these are the physical manifestation of the enemy and the political head. Our enemy isn’t even really the idea of medical care for everyone or guaranteed retirement benefits.

Our enemy is simply the idea that the federal government should be involved, in any way, shape, or form, in the lives of the private citizen in an intrusive way.

We must recognize this fact. Our rights exist when government doesn’t infringe upon them, but protects them. Thing is true, universally: When government is too strong, the people have no liberty.

Now, there are some things we really, really need a federal government for. We need such a government to unify us in wartime. We need such a system to represent us with a clear and unified voice overseas. We need such a system to ensure that free trade exists between the states of our union. We need such a system to ensure that we have a stable yet adaptive money supply. And we need such a system to ensure that contracts written in Maine are enforced in Washington State.

But that’s really the limit and scope of such a government. Outside of these things, and a few other things like that, the federal government really has no business in our lives.

We, as a people, must change. We must stop demanding the federal government to do things for it that it was not intended to do. We must stop looking for checks or services. We must stop looking for the federal government to feed us when we are hungry, clothe us when we are naked, watch over us when we are sick, or give us money when we are poor.

There are other people and other institutions we can, and indeed, should turn to when we are hungry, naked, sick, or poor. The people of the United States are by leaps and bounds the most charitable people on the face of the earth. If you stick your hand out in need, you will be filled. I promise you that.

If we are sick, if we are hungry, if we have any physical need that we cannot meet ourselves, not only can we turn to our fellow citizens, but we must. We must remind ourselves that we don’t work to get rich. We work to benefit ourselves and others. Our lives and fortunes are meant to be spent helping others. The cost of admittance through the pearly gates is to help those around us. By depriving us of the opportunity to serve our neighbors, we are condemning ourselves to forever live outside those gates.

So, tonight, promise that you will stop turning to the federal government for charity, and start turning to your neighbors. If you have something you want to share with the poor around you, why don’t you turn to the poor rather than the government to help distribute it?

Is America now a Dictatorship?

March 22, 2010

In a free country:

I decide what doctor I will see
I decide if I buy health insurance
I decide what kind of health insurance I buy
I decide what kind of light bulbs I buy
Private businesses decide who runs their company
I decide who I hire and who I fire

The difference between freedom and a dictatorship is who makes the decisions. (more…)

Please, Arrest Me!

March 21, 2010

Dear President Obama,

1918 Lighthouse LN NE
Tacoma, WA 98422

That’s my address. I have no intention of adhering to any of the so-called “laws” of the Obamacare bill that just passed. You cannot name one word from the Constitution of the United States that gives you or congress any power to do what you just did. As far as I am concerned, I do not live in a banana republic despite the fact the federal government disagrees with me.

Jonathan Gardner

PS. I just hosted a fundraiser at my house for a republican candidate who has actually read the constitution: Dick Muri. I plan on spending many, many dollars and encouraging many, many people to do the same.

PPS. President Carter loves you for some reason. Oh yeah, it’s because he’s no longer the worst president in our history.

We Need to Put the Brakes on Congress

March 17, 2010

By: Frosty E Hardison

In a recent Gallup Poll (March 12, 2010 – Click Here) Congress’s approval rating is 16. That means on the average of 100 Americans only 16 folks think that Congress is still doing a swell job of representing them. That in itself should be another story being followed up on by the national media.

So, my question to you John & Jane Q Public: Who IS Congress representing?

I mean if the devil is in the details and government is going to get involved even more in heath care – You do know your costs are going to go up – right? That is a given any time government and the waste that goes along with anything government controlled, takes over anything in the private sector.

Do you work in the health care field? Do your doctors like what is coming? Are they whispering about moving to Australia, New Zealand, Japan or Texas? Will this bill limit a doctors’ ability to make a living? When and if the doctors leave, will health care still be all it is? Do you think Congress should have the ability to mandate limitations on such things while at the same time raise their own income on demand? Seems a bit self serving doesn’t it – to be able to raise your own salary and dictate how much others can/cannot make? What is that called? Is it a conflict of interest?

Again, Congress isn’t representing me or our country when they raise their own salaries when their approval rating is so low. So just who is it they are representing?

God help us.
Frosty E Hardison

Frosty E. Hardison is a graduate of Colorado Technical University with a degree in Business Administration. An MBA honors student with a 3.83 GPA, Frosty is most recognized for standing up against the Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown as a stand alone “science film” in his daughter’s science class in January 2007. Frosty is a Senior Business Analyst and Consultant to small to medium businesses across the nation. He specializes in data research and business analysis as well as work flow/production efficiency – to increase profits. For questions, see his website.

Health Care Bill Seems Dead as a Doornail

March 10, 2010

23 Dem Yes Votes on Obamacare Switch to Undecided

House Dems Try to Pass Obamacare Without a Vote

If the house tries to pass the bill without a vote (which it may!) then we’ll have an unconstitutional law begging for someone to bring it to the Supreme Court. There, the Supreme Court can throw it out and issue some sort of nasty ruling telling congress not to try that business again.

Of course, if the bill passed at all, there would be a massive fight in the courts regarding how the 13th Amendment applies to the law.

Why Health Care Cannot be a Right

February 26, 2010

Some liberals have a hard time understanding why everyone shouldn’t have the ability to go on the government dole to get their health care. After all, you have a right to live, right? So why isn’t the government providing free health care to people?

Folks, your rights end where others rights begin. If health care were something that were magically created out of thin air with no effort except on the part of the person receiving it, then it could be a right.

Unfortunately, if you want health care, you require things like doctors who have spent the better part of their life studying and practicing medicine, and who are insanely familiar with various diseases and how to fix them. You also need nurses and hospital staff to keep the hospital functioning and clean. You also need pharmacists and pharmacologists and chemical engineers and a whole host of people involved in discovering new medicines and producing them. You may require medical devices, anything from a pacemaker to knee replacements to simple crutches or wheelchairs. These need to be manufactured and distributed. Not only that, you’ll need help moving to and from the hospital, particularly in an emergency or under careful circumstances.

These things are not free. They are not even cheap. If you think about how much money went into producing these goods and people, you begin to understand the enormity of the cost of real quality health care. But what really counts is the amount of educated effort. That is, the real time spent by people who are extremely qualified at what they do. Developing new medicines, devices, and treatments come at tremendous cost. The care afforded by a pair of well-trained and diligent nurses, although exceptionally valuable, doesn’t even approach the care of a doctor who spent many, many decades reading and studying medicine, and then carefully applies the facts of your case to his vast experience.

The closest thing we have to the right to health care is the right to bear arms. Yes, we all have a right to carry knives and guns and ammunition, and we especially have a natural, God-given right to use those weapons to kill people if they are a threat to our life or the lives of people around us. But we don’t have the right to obtain quality weapons for free or even cheaply. Ask someone how much an AR-15 or a quality shotgun costs. Ask them how much it costs to buy ammo. Then ask them how many hours they put into practicing at the gun range, including the cost of practice ammo, targets, eye and ear protection devices, etc…

We also have a right to speak freely. But speaking requires effort. If we want a microphone, we need to buy it or rent it. Speakers and audio equipment are especially expensive. Broadcasting your voice on TV or radio signals isn’t cheap either, requiring knowledgeable technicians and the right to broadcast on a particular frequency in a particular area.

You do have a natural right to health care. You should be free to trade with whomever you wish to obtain life-saving medicine or treatments. You should be able to buy a spot in a hospital, provided you are able to pay for what you use and there is room in the hospital for you. Charities should have the right to collect money and goods and medicine and distribute that to people who are sick and poor.

What you don’t have is the right to enslave the medical professional or take things that don’t belong to you. That’s because people have the right to own what they own.

If you want to have the government administer a medical program for you, I feel like that should be your right. Provided, of course, that you don’t take a dime out of anyone else’s pocket, limit the natural freedoms or liberties of anyone else, nor impose yourself in any way on any one else.

Of course, given the government’s track record of managing resources, I would think most people would shudder in terror with the thought of government being able to make life-and-death decisions.

I would rather we have capitalism in our health care system. Let people compete with each other to try and deliver health care for less money. Let the good, cheap systems survive, while the expensive, ineffective systems go bankrupt.