Thursday, February 07, 2008
Food is an item that is critical for survival. So why is it, that in a country as rich as America, most people are forced to purchase their food from powerful corporations such as Walmart? Why is there not food insurance, paid for by employers or better yet the government, whereby people can go and get this critical substance for a small co-pay or free, without having to go up against the powerful and connected food industry and their lobbyists?
I'll tell you why. Because if people no longer have to "pay" for food, everyone would eat Filet Mignon every night and the price of food would skyrocket and become unaffordable. Politicians would talk about the food crisis and campaign for government regulations and price controls to fix the problem. The regulations would reduce all incentives for the food producers to actually improve, and as a result food quality and supply would be reduced. People would starve.
You might recognize the above situation as exactly what's happening in health care. Employers providing health insurance started out as a loophole so companies could pay their employees more during the wage price controls during WWII. This slowly caused market distortions that were fixed by more and more government regulations until it has metastasized into the clusterfuck we have now.
Hillary wants to fix the problem by taking the cause of the problem and doing more of that. That doesn't make much sense to me. If a guy is bleeding because he was shot in the arm, you don't cure him by shooting him in the head.
From where we are now, we can go in two directions.
In Canada/England/Cuba, everyone has healthcare. But you have to wait 6 months to get an appointment with your oncologist, and the only reason they even have MRI machines (the few they have) is because we invented them, improved them, and most importantly, what's left of our free market created a reason for companies to build them. If G.E. had to sell these things to the FDA instead of for-profit hospitals, they just wouldn't of bothered, we wouldn't have them, and no one would even know what would've been possible.
So what would happen if people had to pay for healthcare themselves? Take a look at laser eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance. 15 Years ago surgeons were using scalpels. Now, we have advanced computer controlled lasers that literally remap the cornea with incredible results. At the same time the price has tumbled.
That's the weird thing about making people pay for things. They demand high quality and/or low prices. And suppliers have immediate feedback on what to produce and in what quantity.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that price signals and market clearing should be EVEN MORE DESIRABLE when you are dealing with something important like food or health. Why is it OK that we can have incredible leaps forward in something as trivial as MP3 players, and be satisfied with the current situation in healthcare?
Democrats, it is NOT OK to propose something destructive just because you have good intentions.
I'll tell you why. Because if people no longer have to "pay" for food, everyone would eat Filet Mignon every night and the price of food would skyrocket and become unaffordable. Politicians would talk about the food crisis and campaign for government regulations and price controls to fix the problem. The regulations would reduce all incentives for the food producers to actually improve, and as a result food quality and supply would be reduced. People would starve.
You might recognize the above situation as exactly what's happening in health care. Employers providing health insurance started out as a loophole so companies could pay their employees more during the wage price controls during WWII. This slowly caused market distortions that were fixed by more and more government regulations until it has metastasized into the clusterfuck we have now.
Hillary wants to fix the problem by taking the cause of the problem and doing more of that. That doesn't make much sense to me. If a guy is bleeding because he was shot in the arm, you don't cure him by shooting him in the head.
From where we are now, we can go in two directions.
In Canada/England/Cuba, everyone has healthcare. But you have to wait 6 months to get an appointment with your oncologist, and the only reason they even have MRI machines (the few they have) is because we invented them, improved them, and most importantly, what's left of our free market created a reason for companies to build them. If G.E. had to sell these things to the FDA instead of for-profit hospitals, they just wouldn't of bothered, we wouldn't have them, and no one would even know what would've been possible.
So what would happen if people had to pay for healthcare themselves? Take a look at laser eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance. 15 Years ago surgeons were using scalpels. Now, we have advanced computer controlled lasers that literally remap the cornea with incredible results. At the same time the price has tumbled.
That's the weird thing about making people pay for things. They demand high quality and/or low prices. And suppliers have immediate feedback on what to produce and in what quantity.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that price signals and market clearing should be EVEN MORE DESIRABLE when you are dealing with something important like food or health. Why is it OK that we can have incredible leaps forward in something as trivial as MP3 players, and be satisfied with the current situation in healthcare?
Democrats, it is NOT OK to propose something destructive just because you have good intentions.
