|
|
Hope and expectations are two different concepts.
One always hopes for honesty when dealing with others, even if
those others are our elected representatives.
Unfortunately, we’ve come to expect complete dishonesty from
those representatives, yet we, nevertheless, keep electing them.
However, during this healthcare debate, which seems to be the
topic of the year, I’ve noticed that we citizens can’t seem to even
be honest with ourselves.
Most Americans cringe at the concepts of Michael Moore, who is an
unrepentant socialist. When
he makes, for example, a film deriding capitalism, most of us believe
that he is un-American. He
states, quite clearly, that he is a Christian, and that Jesus taught
that it is our duty to help others.
In that premise, of course, he is correct.
His error, though, is in the fact that Jesus instructed
individuals and church congregations to help others.
Jesus did not ever suggest that such was the duty of government
– local, state, or federal. As
a matter of fact, Jesus taught the exact opposite.
He said, “Render unto Caesar (government) the things which are
Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s.”
That concept is necessary in order to accomplish our governmental
concept of the “separation of church and state,” which Mr. Moore
wholeheartedly supports. If
the government, then, can’t, seemingly, endorse one religion over
another, then how can it involve itself in the practice of such a
religion, by doing those things that Jesus instructed us to do?
On some plane, most of us recognize this contradiction and
delusion, but I haven’t heard anyone mention it.
Why?
Perhaps we really want, in some ways, to believe in this concept,
because, over time, we’ve been quite willing to exchange our freedoms
for security. To borrow the
words of the Apostle, Paul, “Brethren, these things ought not so to
be.”
In the healthcare debate, if most of us are honest, we will admit
that we really want healthcare, and we would prefer that someone else
pay for it. Most of us
realize, though, that this “someone else” is us, as taxpayers.
Most of us, who are recipients of Medicare, believe, perhaps
rightly so, that we’ve earned our healthcare.
Those of us who are recipients of Medicaid believe it to be a
worthwhile government entitlement, and those of us, who have
employer-provided healthcare insurance, believe it to be an important
part of our employment “compensation package.”
We deceive ourselves.
We deceive ourselves because we, in fact, already receive
healthcare that is paid for by someone else.
Those of us who receive Medicaid benefits must admit such, but
the entire concept of Social Security, and therefore Medicare, is based
upon one generation paying into a system which will support the previous
generation. Those, who are
currently Medicare recipients, have, over their lifetime, had a part of
their income withheld, in order to pay benefits to their parents, and
now the children of the current Medicare recipients are doing the same
thing. We foolishly tell
ourselves that we’ve earned these privileges, and it is our money that
is being paid back to us, but such is not, at all, the case.
In reality, we’re spending our children’s money, just as our
parents spent ours. In all
honesty, Social Security, and therefore, Medicare, is nothing more, or
less, than a pyramid scheme.
Those among us, who receive employer-paid health insurance,
consider it as a part of our employment remuneration, but how can it be
such if we pay no income tax on such remuneration?
If it is part of our employment remuneration, then we should
including it in our income when we file our income tax return every
year. We don’t, so it
isn’t really part of our income, and if it isn’t part of our income,
then we aren’t paying for it. As
an example, let’s say that your employer pays you $10.00 per hour, and
that you work 40 hours per week. Let’s
also say that your employer provides you with health insurance, for
which he (or she) pays $400.00 per month.
If the health insurance is a part of your employment
remuneration, then you are actually paid $12.50 per hour.
So, someone asks you, “How much do you make?”
You tell them that you make $10.00 per hour.
Who is deceiving whom? If
your healthcare insurance is part of your income, and, therefore,
something that you’ve earned, then you really earn $12.50 an hour.
To carry it a step further, let’s suppose that, if your
employer offers to pay for your healthcare insurance, you decline.
Would he, or she, then add that amount to your check every
payday? Of course, he (or
she) wouldn’t, because it isn’t part of your employment
remuneration. Your employer
is not required to furnish you with health insurance, and, since it is
not part of your employment remuneration, then someone else is paying
for your healthcare, just as if you were a Medicaid recipient.
Now that we have been honest with ourselves and confessed that we
really do want healthcare, at the expense of someone else, we must also
admit that the idea of socialized medicine appeals to us – at least,
at some level. The fact
remains, though, that the “someone else” is us, and that “sticks
in our craw.” As long as
that “someone else” is really someone else, we like the concept,
but, when we realize that it is us, the star no longer shines so
brightly.
Now that we’ve been exposed, and have been honest with
ourselves, it’s time to get to the heart of the matter of healthcare.
This is the part that everyone in Washington, and everyone on the
street, really knows, but nobody wants to consider, probably because it
is a matter of economics, and therefore it is both boring and beyond our
scope of consideration.
Like the Law of Gravity, there is also the Law of Supply and
Demand. No legislative body
passed these “laws;” they just exist.
They are. You throw a
ball into the air, and it will come down.
As long as the supply, of any product or service, equals the
demand, the price of that product or service, will remain constant.
If the demand falls, and the supply remains constant, then the
price will fall. When the
automobile became popular, the demand for horses fell considerably,
& therefore, the prices of horses plummeted, and most blacksmiths
were out of business. Healthcare
insurance was made popular by labor unions, which began providing it to
their members. In order to
compete with unionized companies, other businesses slowly began
providing healthcare insurance to their employees.
Still, healthcare costs remained fairly constant because the
equilibrium of supply and demand remained, basically, unchanged.
Although the demand had somewhat increased, more doctors and
nurses were entering the labor market.
Consequently, the balance of supply and demand remained virtually
remained unchanged. Enter
the government.
As part of his “Great Society,” President Johnson introduced
Medicare and Medicaid, thereby creating an unlimited demand for medical
care. Since that time,
demand for medical care has skyrocketed, and the supply of medical
personnel, while having grown, has not been able to keep pace with that
demand. The basic fact is
that, today, there is no way that we can possibly educate enough medical
personnel to meet the demand for medical services, and that is why
healthcare costs are so elevated. We
can blame drug companies, doctors, lawyers, hospitals, insurance
providers, and anyone else, but the fact remains that the Law of Supply
and Demand is the reason we have such elevated healthcare costs.
To be sure, various entities take advantage of this fact, but
even if those entities are restricted, in the long-run, healthcare costs
will still rise, simply because demand will still be much greater than
the supply, and that’s the point that everybody in Washington, and
everybody on the streets, should be addressing.
As long as someone else provides you with healthcare insurance,
you will take it. After all,
you’re not a fool. The
only two possible ways that we will ever be able to reduce healthcare
costs are to either drastically increase the supply of such services or
to drastically decrease the demand for them.
We can’t possibly increase the supply enough to decrease the
costs, so that only leaves decreasing the demand.
Who wants to be first in line?
Now, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty.
If your employer stopped providing your healthcare insurance,
but, instead, included the amount that he, or she, had been paying for
that healthcare insurance in your paycheck, would you use those funds to
pay for your own healthcare insurance?
Some of us would, and some of us wouldn’t.
So, if Medicare and Medicaid recipients stopped receiving their
insurance, but the government began including those amounts in their
monthly checks, would they use those funds to purchase their own
healthcare insurance? Again,
some would, and some wouldn’t. Do
you begin to get my drift here? If
we’re left to pay for our own healthcare, we won’t use it as much,
and, consequently, the demand for such would be greatly reduced,
thereby, in the long-run, reducing healthcare costs.
Like automobiles did to the horse, demand for medical services
would be drastically reduced, making the prices go down.
As prices go down, insurance would go down, and the government
could reduce the paid allowance for such in Medicare and Medicaid,
reducing the government budget for such, and, since the original cost of
healthcare insurance would be included in our paychecks, real wages
would increase, thereby increasing income tax revenue.
We often blame corporate and individual greed for the high costs
of medical care. We’re
right. Unfortunately, we,
and our elected representatives, blame the wrong individuals.
It is our own greed that has gotten us into this healthcare mess,
and we are the only ones who can get us out of it.
We can only accomplish such through the Law of Supply and Demand,
but we aren’t even considering such, because we’re too busy blaming
others.
** DISCLAIMER
While I usually agree whole-heartedly with
my handsome husband. That said, it must be noted that I happen to be one of those individuals whose
"compensation package" includes health insurance. Since the
"raises" I get each year seem to just cover the increasing
cost of my insurance premium, I am delighted to send such off to the
nice folks at Blue Cross/Blue Shield to ensure my continuing
coverage.
|