Health Care Industry Trying To Get On Obama’s Good Side Before He Nationalizes Them
It won’t work, of course, but you can’t blame them for trying.
WASHINGTON – Top representatives of the health care industry plan to offer $2 trillion in cost reductions over 10 years in a bid to help pass President Barack Obama’s health overhaul, a source familiar with the negotiations said Sunday.
Industry officials representing health insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug makers and a major labor union plan to be at White House on Monday to present the offer. …
There is a sense among some of the groups that this may be the best opportunity to strike a deal before public opinion turns against them, fueled by anger over costs.
More likely they want to get out in front of the Obama administration, helped along by his lackeys in the national media, begins demonizing them in the same way he’s demonized investors in the Chrysler and GM deals.
Here’s what they’re afraid of. And, frankly, what you should be afraid of too:
Insurers, for example, want to avoid creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.
Here’s why you should be afraid:
If government health care plans become available then they’ll run all but the most exotic (and most expensive) health care plans out of business. That means little or no choice on health care for most of us. It’d be much like the public school system is now. With schools we’re all stuck sending our kids to the nearest public school, no matter how good or bad that school is, unless we can afford to opt out and go to a private school. Or home school. The same would be truth with health care. Unless you can afford to opt out to a private plan, you’ll be stuck with government health care regardless of how good it is.
As for medication, what cost-benefit analysis can the government possibly apply that is any better than what we have now? If a given medication will work for a patient, and if that patient can afford it, then why does the government need to be involved? This “cost benefit” stuff sounds suspiciously like the government deciding what sort of medication is acceptable for us. Once again, denying we private citizens choice. Do you want some government bureaucrat deciding what medications you can and can’t take? Because I don’t.
And finally, government price controls on health care are the worst possible thing that could happen to us. The reason why places like Canada and Great Britain are notorious for having long waiting lists to get health care is because those places ration health care. And they ration health care for the sake of price controls. You simply cannot provide an unlimited amount of health care on a finite government budget. In order for it to be workable at all, the government must control how often you use your health care. That means rationing. Now, we have rationing now in that you can only get as much health care as you can afford or that your insurance carrier is willing to pay for. While that’s far from perfect, better that than some bean-counter deciding your too old to get cancer treatment, or too fat to get knee surgery.
Also, once government price controls are in place, whose to say the best and the brightest in the health care industry won’t uproot and go places where the government doesn’t run their business for them?
My intent isn’t to put a smiley face on our current health care system. There are a lot of problems with it. That being said, Obama’s fix is worse than the problem.



