Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Controlling Heath Care Cost In a Free Market

Controlling Heath Care Cost
In a Free Market

How do you control health care cost in a free market?  Is it a free market if it is government regulated?  If regulation is viable, is inactivity a subject to regulation?

Free Market versus Health Care, the free market defined by Adam Smith and the bible for his supporters does not conceive of the current Health Care Cost Crisis.  Adam Smith advances a simple theory that supply is regulated by demand.  Health care does not fit that model; there is no way for supply to satiate demand without death panels.  On our deathbed we are going to be asking for anything and quite literally everything to sustain us.  There is no limit to what can be done for a dying patient.  Demand is not affected by supply in our healthcare system today.  We have to do this via Government Regulation; the natural laws of supply and demand have no credible affect in this equation. 

The cost of that healthcare is effected by two factors, the demand for it, as I have stated earlier is unlimited, and the supply of healthcare professionals.  The supply of Healthcare professionals in our system today is HIGHLY regulated, but MARKET forces do not regulate it.  The supply of Doctors is regulated by access to Medical School.  Matriculation at Medical Schools in America today is regulated by many things, the admittance process aspires to be all about ability.  But in actuality it is a business and to get around it you have to learn how to exploit its weaknesses.  There are some 580,304 applications for 18,668 places, 31 applications for every admission.  Now virtually everyone of those 580,304 applications has met the basic ability requirements, the grade point average, the test scores the decision comes down to the intangible elements and this is where the corruption of legacy, nepotism and personal contact comes into play. 

If Medical School Admissions are to be truly market regulated we have to open MORE medical schools so that most if not all of those that meet the basic grade average, and test score requirements can find a school.  Currently this is not happening, medical schools are not free markets they are Good Old Boy networks. 

We do not have Free-Market Healthcare today.  We could never and would never want to sustain Free-Market Healthcare.  The demand for healthcare is naturally and instinctually insatiable.  We have to regulate Healthcare.  To make it as FREE-Market as possible we have to regulate cost.  To regulate cost we have to establish a system that brings all participants into the market, no one can be allowed to just sit on the side limes and let an emergency regulate their participation. 

The Democratic Process produced "Public Law 111–152 - ''Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" let's call it by its name and not try to utilize the logical fallacy, ad hominem, [1] of calling it Obamacare.

Now is the "Public Law 111–152 - ''Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" constitutional.  The purpose of our Union was to exploit the economy of scale.  We are a UNION.  We are a UNION of states yes.  The intent of our constitution was to limit Government, yes. 

The preamble to the constitution, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What "We the People" too often forget is our purpose, "to form a more perfect Union."  Our founding fathers were intent upon taking advantage of the economy of scale with "a more perfect Union."  The issue of States Rights v Federal Rights is a fabrication.  In 1789 we were a Union of independent Sates.  We were the developed world's first attempt at a United Nations. 

Two Hundred and Twenty years, a Civil war and the 14th Amendment later we are ONE Nation.  We no longer consider ourselves independent Countries joined by a common constitution.  Thus the idea of States rights has no basis. 

Today there are anarchists among us who oppose any authority.  They claim to be defenders of States Rights, when in fact they are anti-government anarchists.  They do not care what the issue is, they oppose the imposition on their liberty, even if it is a democratically established "more perfect Union.

The question comes down to individual liberty versus a democratically established "more perfect Union."  In any Union the individual gives up some Liberty for the sake of the Union.  The question has to be is the denial on INDIVIDUAL liberty that The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) imposes beyond the reach of a democratically established "more perfect Union."

The Congress shall have Power To… provide for the… general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In that we have to do something "To… provide for the… general Welfare of the United States": health care is out of control.  Health care costs are inflating at an unsustainable rate.  We have this right to do this because of the economy of scale inherent in the democratically established "more perfect Union."  We are after all in it to "promote the general Welfare" as we democratically establish a "more perfect Union."  The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) seems "necessary and proper" to the current majority of representative and democratically elected government.

On a separate note, "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process"; but that is another story.(http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Monday, March 14, 2011, 5:39:18 PM

[1] An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316

Post a Comment