Muddled Thinking and a Faulty Premise - By Nathan Eames

This is Nathan Eames' first
contribution to The Skewed Review.
Check out his work at
personalparadigm.wordpress.com.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | HEALTH & WELLNESS | PERSONAL PARADIGM

Editor's note: This is in response to Taylor Grin's "For the Record: Socialized Health Care," which was republished on TheSkewedReview.com on June 30.

The political world in the United States is in a fluff these days following the recent Supreme Court decision concerning health care.

Opinions abound on the subject, both for and against.

While I try not to pay attention to the ramblings of political elites (too much hidden agenda), occasionally I like to read smaller opinions on the issues.

I rarely agree with them, but that's OK.

Admittedly, I am in the extreme political minority. I don't need everyone to agree with me, but I do need a logical argument.

A recent artical in The Skewed Review concerning the recent health care decision by the Supreme Court fails to meet basic logical standards.

The author of the article makes no bones about his support for "Obamacare" and at one point even claims that health care is a right--an assertion he fails to support.

However, it is with the basic premise of his entire argument that I must take issue--that the state has a compelling interest to cut costs and conversely that private businesses have no interest in cutting costs, only increasing profits.

This premise not only shows a complete lack of understanding concerning the basic function of private business, but also shows the naivete of the author concerning the interest of the state.

"Firstly, because the state covers costs of the sick, especially later in their life, through Medicaid, Medicare and other programs it has a compelling state interest in reducing the costs of these later life treatments. Conversely, because insurance companies have a compelling interest in increasing profits, and because their product is medical treatment, they have a compelling interest in keeping people dependent on treatment."

There are a couple assertions in these paragraphs and one false statement.

First, the false statement: "...insurance companies have a compelling interest in increasing profits, and because their product is medical treatment..."

Insurance companies do not offer medical treatment. Medical professionals offer medical treatment and in most cases charge insurance companies for their services.

It is true that insurance companies do have a compelling interest in increasing their profits, as do all companies in the private sector, but, far from providing the medical treatment, they pay for the medical treatment. Medical treatment is their primary expense. 

This simple fact completely invalidates the author's next statement: "...they have a compelling interest in keeping people dependent on treatment."

Last time I looked, increasing one's expenses was a horrible way to increase profits.

Perhaps Mr. Grin takes his accounting lessons from "South Park."

Phase 1-Collect Underpants

Phase 2-???

Phase 3-Profit

Though the entire piece is littered with unsupported claims, the premise of the piece hinges upon the assertion: "...state covers costs of the sick, especially later in their life, through Medicaid, Medicare and other programs it has a compelling state interest in reducing the costs of these later life treatments."

This is an absolute whopper of a statement that not only assigns an attribute of private business concerns to state affairs, but also completely ignores political reality in modern America.

The state derives its revenue through compulsory taxation and not through voluntary exchange. There is no unifying entity that receives any bonus/benefit for reducing costs in regard to the state. Furthermore, bureaucracies are in a constant battle to justify their budgets. Medicare and Medicaid are prime examples. Have they ever been able to reduce their costs and thus reduce their budget? What incentive does any director have to reduce the costs associated with his/her department? 

Reduced costs = reduced budget next year.

Additionally, lawmakers do not comprise a unifying entity in the state and each has a unique vision of the function of government. One senator's pet project is another's wasted expenditure. 

The author of this article has desperately tried to turn reality inside out, and, fortunately for us, he has failed.

*Author's Note: This piece is not a defense of health insurance companies. They, as much or more than anyone else, have contributed to the ruin of health care in this country.