Health Care: Response to a Liberal's Comment

A liberal friend posted a comment about my Goldman Sachs health plan piece ... here's my response:

The comment:

a few points:

1. a real market conservative would argue:
a) you can't provide your employees healthcare without generating profits
b) you can't generate the most profits without the best talent
c) you can't attract the best talent without the best benefit package (heh)
d) ergo, the $40k secretary better thank her $750k estrogen-hopped-up boss -- not only for her job to begin with -- but for her healthcare in the first place. most companies only partially subsidize these costs for their employees, paying for the remainder using a progressive scale that ties contribution rates to salary (similar to payroll taxes). therefore, she's getting a better deal than he is.

2. nice anti hilary/obama-care straw man. very similar logic to the santorum-school of political rhetoric: no same-sex marriages or the bestiality people will want to marry their dogs next...

3. finally, "mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage"? duh. that's the basic definition of health coverage: mandated benefits. i get sick, the insurer must pay for my meds. i break an arm, they must pay for my cast. but since universal healthcare is a political idea who's time has come, you're right that the next battle will most definitely be over mandatory vs. elective benefit definition.

...and keep on blogging, yo. given any more thought those "imaginary" obama republicans?

The response:

Thanks for the comments c-dub. Here are my thoughts back:

1. How would you know what a real market conservative would do? Have you met another one besides me in the East Village or Brooklyn?

a) Um, I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but the whole employer based system is bunk. Don’t get me wrong, I like it better than the idea of gov’t run health care, but we need to de-couple it from the workplace, it makes no more sense than employer sponsored home garbage pickup.

If businesses get out of the health care business, we can then: 1) create major incentives for health savings accounts; 2) allow consumers to shop across state lines for their care, essentially busting the trusts that government has created; 3) make health care portable, so that if you lose your job, you don’t lose your insurance. Also, since gov’t has to pay taxes on health care provisions, wages would likely rise … certainly liberals wouldn’t want that to happen. We should let able-bodied people take care of themselves. You don’t need mommy and daddy to pay your rent, why should Uncle Sam pay for your herpes medicine.

b-d) Leave it to a liberal elitist to have no sympathy for a middle class, secretary making 40k. If you’re not speaking Spanish and sucking the gov’t teet, you’re out of luck, eh? I can only assume you’d also argue that since Dennis Koslowski (jailed Tyco CEO) “subsidized” lower tiered employees with booming profits, it’s also ok that he bought his wife a $9K shower curtain on the company’s dime?

2-3) My argument is more “slippery slope” than “straw man.” Rick Santorum gave an intellectually dishonest argument about why we shouldn’t allow gay marriage. He’d be better off just saying he thinks gays are going to hell and taking society with them. At least we could give him credit for speaking his mind. In my case, I am actually concerned about the fiscal responsibility of universal health care. I’m not diametrically opposed to people getting health insurance, I’m diametrically opposed to working 50 hours a week and paying your bills.

Here’s the juice: as you agreed, mandates always raise the cost of coverage. And although most of these individual mandates have a relatively small impact on their own, the aggregate cost of thousands of mandates is frightening. And when people can’t afford health care, they choose to go uninsured.

The time for socialized health care has not come. While imperfect, the U.S. health care system is the best in the world. Not only do we have the best doctors, medicine, and technology, but we also have the highest life expectancy when you average-out accidental deaths. Who wants a doctors visit to feel like a trip to the DMV? You're crazy if you think it won't be like that. Further, of the 47 million uninsured that Clinton and Obama cite, only a small percentage of them can’t get insurance. If you combine illegal aliens, those eligible for Medicaid (but who haven’t applied), and those with household incomes of 50k or more (top half of the income distribution), but uninsured by choice, you’ve got a relatively small number.

We should be very wary of nationalizing an industry because a few percent of 300 million people are struggling; we wouldn’t nationalize any other industry because some of its workers were unemployed (well, maybe you would). Any plan should be specifically focused on helping the group of people who truly need it.

And as far as your wet dream of Obama Republicans … only if Huckabee wins the primary. Sorry, friend.