This page was last updated on June 22, 2011.
The cost of living longer; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 22, 2011.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.
“What if rising health-care costs are a fact of life, or, more specifically, living longer?
“N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University and an adviser to GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, raises that possibility in a column in The New York Times.
“‘One thing the two parties share, however, is the belief that controlling health care costs is possible,’ he wrote. ‘Yet many economists believe that the rise in health spending is largely the result of medical advances, which prolong and enhance life at a high cost. Perhaps health spending will inevitably, and even should, keep rising as a share of national income.”
[RWC] Though the editorial doesn’t make it clear, if you read the subject editorial (“Seriously, Some Consensus About Health Care”) you’ll find “the two parties” are Democrat and Republican.
If you read my paper “Healthcare” as long ago as 2008, you know I raised the issue of “medical advances, which prolong and enhance life at a high cost.” I’m glad to see Harvard economics professors and the BCT are catching up. <g> I also wrote, “While we focus on increasing prices for healthcare services, it’s also important to recognize the prices – in constant dollars – for many treatments have dropped.”
As for “many economists believe that the rise in health spending is largely the result of medical advances …,” I don’t buy the “largely” part. My opinion is 70+ years of government interference in the medical care market deserves the “largely” description.
“‘This possibility raises a question: If health care becomes an increasing share of the economy, how will we allocate it, and how will we pay for it?’”
[RWC] Stating the obvious, this question would not exist if government hadn’t interfered in the medical care market. This is one of those “unintended consequences” we get with just about every leftist policy/program.
“There’s another area that needs to be addressed when it comes to health care costs: The responsibility of individuals for their personal health.”
[RWC] I’m confused. If the BCT believes “individuals [are responsible] for their personal health,” why did/does it support Obamacare?
“The United States is in the midst of an obesity epidemic that has enormous costs and consequences. Overweight and obese people are more prone to high blood pressure, heart problems and diabetes, all of which add to the cost of treatment and care. (The same holds for tobacco users.)”
[RWC] I haven’t researched this, but the whole “obesity epidemic” thing sounds like yet another lefty-invented “crisis” intended to transfer more power from the individual to the government.
“For many, but not all, these health issues can be addressed through a combination of exercise and nutrition.
“So, who should bear the costs of caring for individuals who take little or no responsibility for taking care of themselves?”
[RWC] Yet another question that wouldn’t exist if government hadn’t interfered in the medical care market. Without the interference, each of us would be paying our own way for our individual life choices.
“Government? Private insurance? Whichever method is used, other people — either as taxpayers or premium payers — still end up paying for those who take no responsibility for their health.”
[RWC] Why? Has the BCT heard of auto insurance? High-risk drivers (accidents, speeding tickets, etc.) pay higher premiums while lower-risk drivers pay less. You find the same thing when you buy some life insurance policies. Though it would be completely inappropriate for government, there’s no reason private insurers shouldn’t be able to price their policies based at least partially on personal behavior.
“Unless that personal issue is addressed, no health care reform, whether it’s government- or market-based, will succeed.”
[RWC] In case you missed it, the BCT is 1) laying the foundation for more government control over our behavior and 2) laying the foundation for blaming you and me when Obamacare melts down, as is Medicare.
The “personal issue” comment is true for a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly like Obamacare, but completely untrue for a true free-market medical care approach. As I wrote in my paper “Healthcare,” “As long as you don’t pay the ‘full ride’ and do so out of pocket so the expense ‘hits you between the eyes,’ you will be price insensitive. Note, it’s not only important that you pay for your healthcare, but you must know you are doing so. … What happens when a vendor knows you don’t care about price? He keeps increasing prices until you push back and begin to patronize another vendor.”
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.