skip to main |
skip to sidebar

Stephen L. Carter
writes in the Post:
A specter is haunting America: the specter of profit. We have become fearful that somewhere, somehow, an evil corporation has found a way to make lots of money.
Flash back three years. In 2006, Exxon Mobil announced the highest profit in the history of American corporate enterprise. Politicians and pundits stumbled over each other to call for an investigation and for some sort of confiscatory tax on the money the company earned. Profit, it seemed, was an evil, but large profit was even worse.
Today, the debate on the overhaul of the health-care system sparks a shiver of deja vu. The leitmotif of the conversation about the coming shape of health insurance is that the villain is the system of private insurance. "For-profit" firms come under constant attack from activists and members of Congress.
Thus, a recent news release from the AFL-CIO began with this evidently alarming fact: "Profits at 10 of the country's largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007." Even had the figures been correct -- they weren't -- we are seeing the same circus. Profit is the enemy. America could be made pure, if only profit could be purged.
This attitude was wrong in 2006. It is wrong now. High profits are excellent news. When corporate earnings reach record levels, we should be celebrating. The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price they are willing to pay. If a firm makes lots of money, lots of people are getting what they want.
[..] Consider the bills in Congress that seek to limit the freedom of federally aided automakers to close dealerships or to build the cars that buyers want. Preserving local jobs and building greener cars are admirable objectives, but a firm that is forced to sacrifice profitability to attain them is unlikely to be competitive over the long haul. Indeed, one reason the "public option" health insurance program under debate may turn out to be more expensive than advocates suggest is that here, unlike in Europe, we are unlikely to put up with government restrictions on what sorts of care will be available, especially for seniors. A board of experts might decide to limit access to hip replacements, for instance, but there is little chance Congress will let them get away with it.
Private insurers, by contrast, will cut whatever they can. This puts them at constant war with regulators and patients, but beneath this tension is a certain useful discipline. We want health care to be cheaper, and the for-profit health-care industry has every incentive to make it so. Supporters of the public option tout Medicare's cost advantages over private insurance, but those are largely obtained by setting below-market reimbursement rates for medical services (meaning that private patients subsidize Medicare patients). Moreover, the costs of compliance with the hundreds of pages of Medicare regulations are also transferred to the providers, and thus, again, to private patients.
(
via reason)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(1987)
-
▼
August
(138)
- If we could at least agree on one thing...
- NYC decrees coffee and tobacco do not mix
- Democrats and statism
- Who decides what care is worth the cost?
- "An interview with Barney Frank"
- Perverse Lead Regulation
- Chart of the day
- FTC prohibits commercial robocalls
- America's smallest bank
- One for the nerds
- General McChrystal gets his hippie on
- Public stuff
- Hathos alert
- Kennedy's deregulatory legacy
- The first congressional website
- And the beat goes on and on
- No crying was performed during the writing of this...
- Fascism and Freedom
- Quote of the Day
- Brace for the Kennedy Memorial Health Bill
- More flawed and more influential than his brothers
- Radley and Yglesias
- Medicare as political football
- CDC promotes involuntary male genital mutilation
- Infidel employment opportunity?
- Questions about health reform
- Why do Americans like Europe?
- Big brother, big expense hole
- There goes the filibuster
- This appeals to my inner hobo
- Yeesh
- Violence: a historical perspective
- Economic purgatory
- There really are sixteen.
- Quote of the day
- Knowing your opponent
- Photo of the week
- Illegal health reform
- The crime of retail
- A trillion here, a trillion there...
- Why I oppose government programs
- Quote of the day
- Political utility of terror threats
- Heads up
- Crime rates
- Rand Paul's money bomb
- Charlie always was an opportunist
- 2girls1bike
- Government does great stuff
- Japanese pig rodeo
- Tribute to the First Amendment
- Medicare's insolvency
- Science proves zombies could annihilate humans
- Why McCain lost
- Moderate is the new liberal, or we're all socialis...
- GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee
- DNA evidence can be fabricated, scientists show
- Evolution of the public option
- Prohibitions
- Congress deadlocked over how to not provide health...
- Refreshment contraband
- Quote of the day
- Obama's behavioral economics working a bit too well
- Government Spending vs. Economic Growth
- Stat of the day
- Telling Grandma 'No'
- "Put down the hammer"
- Obama's health-care plan won't make time stand still
- Slippery slope
- Extreme social conservatism
- Quote of the day
- Level playing field, hah
- Tax propaganda
- Crazy Islamism watch
- Public option ignorance
- Your name is Icarus, ctd.
- Dead heat
- Your papers, please
- "How American Health Care Killed My Father"
- I am sooo doped right now......
- "Why I Interrupted Bill Clinton’s Speech at Netroo...
- Reality check
- Carbon taxes and market distortions
- How Dems lost control of the debate
- Why we desperately need to cut spending after the ...
- Straight talk on health-care
- Hawking wares inside the bubble
- BSG reremake
- This elephant doesn't forget
- What Social Security teaches us about health-care
- Public health-care and loss of innovation
- Bill to legalize online poker introduced in the Se...
- Advocacy group decries PETA's inhumane treatment o...
- Obama, lobbyists, take active roles in talks on he...
- Where is this?
- Recession declared over; expansion begins
- Riding the fox
- Finally, an issue I can get behind.
- At what cost, cutting off a leg?
- How to improve health-care without spending other ...
"When corporate earnings reach record levels, we should be celebrating. The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price they are willing to pay. If a firm makes lots of money, lots of people are getting what they want."
ReplyDeleteThere was a really good article I read recently (I forget where), that examined this general notion as it applies to health insurance companies. To an extent it's true but a large amount of what goes into making a health insurance company profitable is not selling a desirable product, but the creative ways they go about denying coverage to claimants. this is the same for car insurance, homeowners insurance and health insurance. the only difference with health insurance is that people's lives are on the line, rather than a reimbursement check for a car accident.
Yeah, and nonprofit government is so much better at dealing with people who's lives are on the line.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the US healthcare system is that it's tied to employment and there isn't enough mobility between plans. If there was, consumers could rally against companies who unfairly deny coverage, the same as it works in every other market.