Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part II
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

Arguing
with Idiots By Glenn Beck

Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to "bring down the cost of medical care."

There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.

Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already-- and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a "duty to die."

A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby "bring down the cost of medical care." A stranger's death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.

At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a "duty to die" so that younger people can live it up is obscene.

You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain's government-run medical system. You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.

But reducing these things is not "bringing down the cost of medical care." It is simply refusing to pay those costs-- and taking the consequences. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Lawyers and Insurance Companies
By the way, FearGal, the Trial Lawyers Assn is a gigantic Democratic special interest. They use insurance companies to insert themselves into the pocketbooks of each and every one of us. Your party, the Dems, are the KINGS of special interests.

Dems have been working with insurance companies for decades to restrict competition inside states. And not just on healthcare.

Ever wonder why CEOs of two of America's largest insurance companies backed Kerry and then Obama. I think they were well aware that the Dems were in the hip pocket of the TLA.

Lawyers have been working through government for ages as well, restricting competition in their field, and working with the court system to change "The Spirit of the Law" into "The Letter of the Law." Not to mention their efforts to curtail any kind of tort reform.

FeargalX
I'm sorry but all of your verbal spewing of "facts" just leaves me wondering what on earth they have to do with the point. The number of lawsuits in total is not what needs to be considered. There are many medical specialties that go wanting for doctors because of the cost of medical malpractice insurance for members of that specialty. Obstetrics is one specialty where that is the case. Doctors are not entering that specialty because they can't afford the malpractice insurance. The big payout lawsuits are a problem, but far less so than the smaller lawsuits that are settled out of court. Doctors are blamed for many things that are not within their power to control. Tort reform would greatly help the situation. So would government deregulation. We have no idea what a free enterprise health care system would look like because one hasn't existed in this country for a very long time. Government can't even run a post office profitably. What makes anyone think they can run a health care system? Any government system that covers everyone is going to be a system that must ration care. Otherwise, the costs become unsustainable. It is not the role of government to take care of us. It is not the role of government to rule over us. They are there to maintain the systems that we cannot manage on our own, like national defense. I am quite capable of managing a relationship with my doctor without their help. As for the comments about insurance companies, sorry, but I don't buy the "greed" argument. Many insurance companies are non-profits and the ones that aren't are not exactly raking in the profits when you compare them to other industries. I will take my chances with Blue Cross rather than Uncle Sam, thank you very much. I can, at least, fire Blue Cross and find another carrier if I don't like the way I am treated. Try firing Uncle Sam.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.