Following up on an earlier post of mine that explained why price controls inevitably create shortages, Ed Morrissey deftly wields the clue bat to good effect: Fixing prices does not lower costs. Let me repeat that: fixing prices does not……

They are spending our money with these boondoggles and indebting future generations into dependency and bottomless debt. One has to wonder who profits from these shenanigans. It certainly isn’t the producers.

right2bright: I know congress has excellent care way above the cost they bear, but according to this site,
http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress#ixzz0UcUluQQa, Representatives pay about $300 per month, and Senators about $600.

amr on October 21, 2009 at 8:31 PM

You are correct, still a small amount…however for an additional $503 they have their own hospital with specialists at their beck and call….you didn’t read what I posted?
This is a top of the line hospital right in the capitol, manned by several doctors, dentists, and specialists.
If they need a specialists, they are provided for free, no extra charge.
The insurance you are talking about insures them, totally and they are allowed to have their own personal doctors at home.
So for a grand total of $650 per month, they have 100% medical care, with any specialist in the U.S. flown in at no charge, complete dental for no charge, eye care and glasses no charge, everything medical.
Google “Office of Attending Physician” and sit back and be awed at the expense and the depth of their care.

Sources said when specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.

“If you had, for example, prostate cancer, you would go to one of the centers of excellence for the country, which would be Johns Hopkins. If you had coronary artery disease, we would engage specialists at the Cleveland Clinic. You would go to the best care in the country. And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was,” Balbona said.

Last year, Congress appropriated more than $3 million to reimburse the Navy for staff salaries at the office. Next year’s budget allocates $3.8 million for the office, including more than half a million dollars to upgrade the Office’s radiology suite. Sources said additional money to operate the office is included in the Navy’s annual budget.

3.8 million dollars for only 204 who have signed up for the service…however, if you don’t sign up, you still get the service.

Anderson said members of Congress are treated by specialists from military hospitals who visit the OAP at no charge. Congressmen are also eligible for free out-patient care at military facilities in the Washington, D.C., area, including Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center.

However, Anderson said, “individual health insurance is required for members to see local health professionals.”

This is why they want us on our plan…and they don’t want anything to do with the plan they are forcing on us.

I could run a really cheap hospital too, if someone else had to pay for all the Doctors….

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Notice Proud Rino decided to “move along”…I guess the gov. free market, ain’t so free after all.

That’s because a majority of the voting public really like medicare and social security and they don’t want to change them.

Really? The majority of the working professionals I know would love to end both programs and let people keep the extra 15% of their income themselves.

I’d even be happy to continue paying the taxes and forgo the benefits if it would mean that I’d be the last generation to get screwed by these scams.

Yeah but the taxes are paid mostly by the wealthy

Dunno what cesspit State you live in, but here abouts, schools are paid for via property taxes. Which hit rich and poor, renter and owner, in equal share.

So, no; any contention that follows from your assertion is invalid.

Secondly, this is unconstitutional on it’s face. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal govt to force people to buy health insurance or to provide same, regardless of the need. None. I know that quaint little document means nothing to anyone (and I mean ANYONE) in washington dc anymore, just pointing it out.

runawayyyy on October 21, 2009 at 4:11 PM

They will try to hide behind the commerce clause on this one, but I agree with you..this is not constitutional.

–Jimbo doesn’t believe that a government-set or -negotiated price is the same thing as the government running something. Right now, for instance, the premiums for private insurance are set by state regulators. That doesn’t mean the government is running the insurance companies.

Jimbo3

If this is true, why aren’t the Democrats calling the state regulators evil capitalists protecting their profits, rather than making that charge against the insurance companies?

Secondly, this is unconstitutional on it’s face. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal govt to force people to buy health insurance or to provide same, regardless of the need. None. I know that quaint little document means nothing to anyone (and I mean ANYONE) in washington dc anymore, just pointing it out.

What people like Proud Rino do not understand is that government lives off of working people, it does not turn a profit. They could just as easily demand the doctors work for minimum wage. After all, that would really cut costs wouldn’t it?

How about pro bono?

A good example would be a lot of the farm programs. The idea of a loan rate is to set a basic price. The loan rate is basically cost of production. The deficiency payment {or subsidy} is the difference between costs of production and market price. In years when the market prices are higher, the subsidies are lower. The original idea behind that had nothing to do with taking care of farmers, not really, it was designed to create an ample supply of cheap food for an ever growing urban population.

In health care if they try to implement a cost control, the end result will be more government support to keep people in business or face shortages. Same thing.

right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM

LOL… notice its NAVY Doctors on call? ie… paid for by the Defense Department?

I could run a really cheap hospital too, if someone else had to pay for all the Doctors….

Market forces are relegated to supply and demand only. Government is not beholden to supply and demand for its survival as business is.

anuts on October 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM

A perfect, exact response and definition…nothing more really needs to be said to Proud Rino, even he should understand that (but he won’t).
Well done…

Most people cannot afford to pay twice, for the same service.

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Actually Romeo, about three times, since private is about half the cost of public education.

Well either the government program isn’t sustainable, in which case insurance companies only need to wait out the storm for a few years (if even that), or the plan will become so unwieldy that people will pay ten times that $21 per month

Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Hey pal, this is the program that has been in existence for decades…decades. The hospital was just upgraded last year at a cost of millions of dollars.
But you are correct, I did not report accurately the costs, I transposed the figures. The Office of Attending Physicians, charges $503 dollars per year, not $305, so you have unlimited coverage for a little over $40 per month.

This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country’s health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic — described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital — will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country’s best and most efficient government-run health care.

The Office of the Attending Physician includes at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses, and a pharmacist. When a specialist is brought in, members pay no additional costs.

And as far as “waiting out the government”…

Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses — without submitting claim forms to their insurer. Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years.

Makes your argument a little foolish doesn’t it??? The one where private insurance can compete with government programs because if the gov is underpriced, it will eventually have to raise or go out of business…aren’t you the least bit embarrassed now?

Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM

No, the Government has created a situation whereby we would have to pay TWICE (once through taxes, once through Tuition) to put our kids in Private school.

Most, like myself, cannot afford that. So the Government is forcing us through their TAX policy to put our kids in public school.

And they will do the same thing with Health Insurance. Because they will pay for parts of the “public option” through taxes… which you already pay… you will not be able to AFFORD the private option…

Most people cannot afford to pay twice, for the same service.

Still waiting.

Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:26 PM

While you’re waiting, perhaps you can indulge me in this:

I do think the government runs *some* things better than private companies do – the military, the fire department, the police,….

Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Out of curiosity, what was your comparison reference?

anuts on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM

–Jimbo doesn’t believe that a government-set or -negotiated price is the same thing as the government running something. Right now, for instance, the premiums for private insurance are set by state regulators. That doesn’t mean the government is running the insurance companies.

Jimbo3

You still think that hospitals aren’t able to run themselves efficiently? That if Medicare(Govt) sets a price and that is a baseline, (which it is already for insurance) and that insurance pays that or near the same amt. that it will make hospitals find ways to save costs? I’m no hospital administrator (although I did sleep w/one at a Holiday Inn Express once! heh!) but I believe most hospitals are operating as efficiently as they possibly can already. That is an argument all of us have been making for at least 2 pages. I don’t want my MRI results read by someong in India. I don’t want one janitor for the entire hospital. I don’t want a PA making a big decision about treatment. Coughs and colds, bumps and scrapes, fine, but not diagnostics concerning possible larger issues. I don’t believe that you really are arguing sacrificing quality for these little cost saving measures. It simply isn’t logical. They already do these things in Great Britain and Canada as has been argued ad nauseum. They ration b/c they cannot pay the costs.

Romeo, PAs are used rather extensively in Texas. And it’s not legal things neccessary driving the use of an MRI. If you can make an accurate diagnosis without the use of an MRI, there’s no reason to use an MRI. If you can’t, then it’s a standard of good practice to use an MRI, and not so much a legal point.

Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Sorry, was gone for awhile…

You do realize that Malpractice lawsuits are in STATE court, not Fed Court… so what State laws you have (like in Texas with TORT reform) will have a large impact on things like PAs.

I know that in the 13 years since I retired from the Navy, I have never gone to the Doctor, and not been treated BY a Doctor (California and Colorado).

And it IS a Legal condition which would force the Doctor to use an MRI even for someone whose insurance would not pay for it… they would have use it to confirm or rule out the diagnosis, or they would be in court so fast it would make their head spin (at least according to my neighbors wife… who is a Trauma Nurse at a major Denver Hospitals Emergency Room).