Health Insurance Profits: The Comments

I get comments on almost every post, but one post in particular gets at least a comment or two per week. Health Insurance Profits has sparked some serious outrage from some people, many of whom think that the health insurance companies should not be allowed to make profits and a few who claim that health insurance companies "have no legitimate claim to existence." Often times I want to respond to these people directly, but most people who disagree with me post anonymously. I find this cowardly. If you really want to open up a dialogue and you truly believe in your statements at least put a name with them. What I will do over the next week or so is share with you some of the comments that stand out to me. I will also respond to them as if the people who wrote them had the courage and enough confidence in their arguments to actually put their names on them. Here goes....

Comment #1: "Your being a "real conservative" has biased your article before you even typed the first letter. Explain this, how does politics and profit fit into the health and well being of citizens?? How are going to explain your "conservative" leanings when one of your family or friends is without insurance and becomes sick and can't afford to pay the medical bills? Are you going to tell them, it's okay because the insurance company is not making that much by way of "profit margin"?? You need to do some more growing up son and realize that the health care debate isn't about profit or what political party you follow, it's about people living or dying because of what they can and can't afford when it comes to health care."

My Response: Thank you for your comment and thank you for reading. I find it interesting that your perception of me being a "real conservative" makes you think that I am the one who is biased. Your assertion that my political leanings have anything to do with this issue at all is amusing. The truth is that the roots of my beliefs are based on fact, not political ideology. "Beliefs" is actually the wrong word to use here. Facts are based on objective reality. Facts are observed. Beliefs are not. You believe that money has no place and serves no purpose in the health care industry. In doing so you ignore the objective reality that healthcare costs money and the money must come from somewhere. Merriam-Webster defines bias as "a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment." It is not my personal judgment that healthcare costs money. I have simply observed that healthcare costs money and that the laws of economics apply equally to the healthcare industry as they do to any other. It may not be the patient who pays for the care, but that does not make the costs vanish. It is, in fact, your bias that taints your perception of my observation of reality. It is your willful ignorance of the facts that forms the premise of your bias, causes your outrage and evokes your condescending tone. Reality is what drives me. Reality is the basis of all of my writings, and reality is the space in which I choose to live.

You assert that the healthcare debate is not about politics. If you believe that the government should provide healthcare for everyone, that it should be "free," then you undermine your very statement, because government is politics. Are you telling me that Medicare and Medicaid are not driven by politics? Why, then, can I not qualify for Medicaid? I am ineligible for Medicaid, because a politician has deemed me as such. If we move to a single payer system in the United States or we have a public "option" then politicians will be the ones deciding who gets care and who does not. Politicians will set the payment rates for doctors and politicians will tell us which treatments we can and cannot receive. They will do this because healthcare is not free, and when the government is paying the bills the issue at hand is political in nature. This is a fact. You can choose to ignore it, but you will face the consequences of your choice. Eventually, if you get your wish, you will go to the doctor and he or she will recommend a treatment only to have a politician will tell you that you cannot have it. But it's not political, right?

You also asked how profit fits into the health and well being of citizens. To illustrate the necessity or, more accurately, reality, of profits in healthcare let us assume that a hospital takes in $10,000,000 per year in gross revenue. This hospital has decided that it is in the best interest of the people not to make a profit. 75% of their revenue, $7,500,000, goes to pay for utilities, property taxes, hospital gowns, medicines, surgical gloves and all of the other medical supplies necessary to run the hospital. The other 25%, $2,500,000, goes to pay the salaries and benefits of the doctors, nurses, assistants and other employees of the hospital. 75% + 25% = 100%. This hospital has achieved your goal of zero profit. However, the hospital suddenly needs a new X-Ray machine, or maybe they have found out about a new lifesaving surgical procedure that requires an investment in new equipment. Unfortunately, the hospital cannot afford to purchase the X-Ray machine or the new equipment, because they have no money with which to do so. Since they make no profit, every penny in revenue that they take in is spent on taking care of patients. It's okay though, because they are following your desire of keeping profits out of the healthcare picture. People can no longer get X-Rays at this hospital, but at least the hospital is not making a profit.

The same profit illustration could be made for device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and insurance firms. I agree with you that people living and dying because of what they can and cannot afford is a component of the root of the issue. Reality is the other component. Handing over healthcare to the government does not make it free, nor does it remove you and me from the responsibility of its costs. The healthcare industry is not independent of the laws of economics. The government does not make money on its own. It only seizes money from us to pay for the services that it provides (many of which are perfectly legitimate). The government pays for nothing. You and I, through taxes, provide the government with every penny that it spends. The belief that government spending allows us to keep the dollars in our wallets is nothing more than a belief.

You can go next door and ask your neighbor to feed your family for a while. You will then pocket the money you would have spent on food, but eventually your neighbor will run out of money. You will then have to find another neighbor to feed you. There will come a time, however, when you will have emptied all of your neighbors' pantries. They will not be able to feed themselves, having spent their money on your food, and they will turn to you as the only one who has money to buy food since you have been mooching off of them for so long. Your coffers will quickly be depleted as well. The objective reality is that when the government spends more, the government must seize more. We will pay for healthcare in one way or another. You can choose to ignore reality, but you will soon find that what you desire simply does not exist.

Who Knew It Was So Easy?

President Obama, today, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, that's right. The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize today for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." It seems as if the criteria for winning the prize have changed. No longer must one actually accomplish anything so long as a person exerts "extraordinary efforts" to do something.

Tomorrow, I start work on my teleportation machine, an instant food multiplying laser to feed the hungry and a cure for cancer! I will work extraordinarily hard over the next year, harder than anyone else, to ensure that I win the Nobel Prize in something next year. It shouldn't matter that I have a degree in marketing, no physics or medical background whatsoever and I work in the advertising industry. President Obama has shown us that all that is needed to win the Noble Prize is "extraordinary efforts," and that's what I will give.

I really try hard to stay away from the satirical and stick to the facts, but I just can't help it right now, because this is so laughable. The man has accomplished nothing! No, I am not just being an "Obama hater" or a "racist" by saying that. It's true, and I can back it up. On to the facts....

January 22, 2009: Obama's signs an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Is it closed? No. Failure #1.

February 17, 2009: Obama signs the "stimulus package" into law. Obama promised that, with the stimulus package, the unemployment rate would not rise above 8%. The unemployment rate now stands at 9.8%. Failure #2.

April 5, 2009: North Korea conducts a ballistic missile test despite the pleadings of world leaders, including President Obama, not to do so. Failure #3.

June 2009: Iran conducts fraudulent elections, attempts to silence protestors and takes other oppresive measures against its own people. President Obama stands by and largely does nothing save the utterance of a few words telling Iran to stop. Did this "strengthen international diplomacy"? No. Failure #4.

June 2009: The Honduran Supreme Court orders the military to arrest Honduran President Manuel Zelaya for attempting to undermine democracy and violate their nation's constitution. President Obama, and his administration has continually backed Zelaya ever since, working to get him reinstated as president of Honduras. Meanwhile, the Honduran Congress is busy setting up democratic elections to elect their next president, per their constitution. Failure #5.

Summer 2009: President Obama attempts to get health care legislation passed before the August Congressional recess. It's October, and the legislation still hasn't passed. Failure #6.

I could go on, but this is getting boring. The man has not accomplished anything, domestically or internationally. Kudos to him for winning the prize and giving some nice speeches, but there are a lot of people out there who can give speeches. There are very few who can actually back them up and accomplish things. President Obama is yet to prove that he is one of these few individuals. The world is full of great intentions. However, if intention equals accomplishment then our world should be free of war, hunger, disease, murder, abuse, etc. There is one key thing missing from this equation: reality.

One cannot ignore reality, and it seems as if the Nobel Committee is trying to do just that. The intentions are great, for sure. Few people, if any, want war, hunger, disease etc. The reality of the situation is that they exist. Evil exists in the world, and it must be dealt with accordingly.

Oh, and one little known fact is that the nominations for the Nobel Prize are due on February 1st of each year. President Obama had been in office for eleven days at that point. What had he accomplished before February 1, 2009? What had he done to "to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," at that point? The answer is absolutely nothing. He was a community organizer in Chicago, an Illinois state legislator and a United States Senator. I cannot think of a single international accomplishment that could have been put on his application for nomination prior to February 1, 2009.

According to Nobelprize.org, the Nobel Prizes have been "honoring men and women from all corners of the globe for outstanding achievements." No longer is the award about achievement. President Obama has clearly demonstrated this. Anyone who receives the award from this point forward must live with the reality that this prestegious award now requires nothing but setting aside reality and thinking good thoughts. Maybe we should just rename it the Nobel Good Intentions Prize.

Your Tax Dollars at Work!

First of all, sorry for the lack of posts lately. I've been pretty busy, and I haven't had the time to do the research that I would like to put into this blog. I have opted not to post rather than just throw up thoughts and commentary.

Recently, the Heritage Foundation posted a list of "50 Examples of Government Waste." Some of these examples are absolutely absurd. Some of the highlights include:

#7 Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

#15 The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

#23 Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, "Girls Gone Wild" videos, and at least one sex change operation.

#24 Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.

#49 The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.

What you just read is only 1/10th of the examples provided by The Heritage Foundation. There are 45 more in the article, guaranteed to make you take a second look at the deductions section of your paycheck. Taking things a step further, these examples are only a small portion of the total waste and abuse of our money that takes place in Washington. Also note that they are almost exclusively dealing with the federal government here. Tack on state and local waste, and you've got hundreds of billions of dollars that belong to you and me being wasted every year.

Do you really think a government takeover of our healthcare system will reduce costs?