Comments on: Does Fee-for-Service Explain Rising Health-Care Costs?

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

Your column makes sense to me, of course. But one point you and Arnold have made continues to puzzle me.

Would third-party payment lead to overuse of health care if insurers had more freedom to deny payments and to customize policy terms? If government intervention were eliminated, couldn't insurers write and enforce contract terms that effectively controlled medical care costs?

By: Arthor Bearing

Arthor Bearing — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

I believe the major obstacle blocking acceptance of the libertarian explanation of rising healthcare costs is not problems with its theoretical formulation or that we make poor arguments, but the perceived heartlessness of a theory which discourages the government from subsidizing the healthcare of the poor and elderly.

This is the major weapon that the liberal Republicrats have against libertarians. We can make brilliant, logically sound arguments until our faces turn blue, but the politicians will still have the people's hearts because they promise easy answers and the assurance that they can just magically make it work.

An intractable problem.

By: TrUmPiT

TrUmPiT — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

"Medicaid and Medicare are outright promises by Uncle Sam to pay for most of the medical care received by large groups of people - namely, poor Americans and the growing number of Americans 65 years and older."

I can understand helping poor people with their medical expenses, but why automatically those over 65? The fact that there are "large groups" that are poor is the problem to address. Lyndon Johnson made great strides to address the plight of poor, held-back America with his Great Society programs. Unfortuntately, the egocentric rich didn't want to ante up, so they got pro-rich Republicans elected to dissolve the programs. As a result, the rich got richer and poor had babies which they were forced to have before Roe v. Wade, or government subsidized abortions.

If Mormon (not moron) doctors tithed 10% of their medical services to the poor then, perhaps, we wouldn't be in the health care mess that we are in, at least in Utah. Along with the hippocratic oath, the requirement to serve the poor at no, or small charge should be part of their duty and pledge. Some law firms do pro-bono work. That should be the norm. Let's get the government out of the health care/insurance business. Let the charitible forces of successful professionals and business people of good will throughout the country do the necessary things to help the poor and give them a leg up. We are our brother's keeper contrary to libertarian theory.

There is a subtle argument here for tackling the problem of people who have vast fortunes that they selfishly hoard and keep all to themselves to societies great detriment. That bad acquisitive nature of some is the antithesis of charitable good works. Let's squash them like the greedy bugs that they are! Let's make the world a better place to live for all not just those with the means to enjoy the finer things in life.

By: Speedmaster

Speedmaster — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

As usual, EXCELLENT work!

By: John Galt

John Galt — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

TrUmPiT, do you realize that you are so over the top that you sound like a parody of yourself?

Where do your true beliefs end and the joke begin?