ObamaCare: Insurers Need Permission to Survive; Citizens, to Live
Suppose our government declared that everyone had the “right” to a nice steak dinner. The government would require restaurants to sell $50 steak dinners to all comers. But to keep prices affordable, restaurants could only charge $25. No restaurant could survive long under such a scheme, and most Americans would be outraged at such a blatant violation of restaurant owners’ rights.
But that is exactly what is happening with health insurance in Massachusetts. Events unfolding now in the Bay State should serve as a warning to the rest of America of the danger ObamaCare poses to our health insurance, our health care — and ultimately our lives.
Since 2006, Massachusetts residents have lived under a system of “universal health care” similar to the recently passed ObamaCare plan. Insurers must cover patients regardless of pre-existing conditions. In return, individuals are required to purchase state-approved insurance. These mandatory policies include numerous benefits which many consumers may neither need nor want — such as in vitro fertilization and chiropractor services — but were included through the lobbying power of special interest groups.
Naturally, these mandated benefits raise the costs of insurance. However, insurers are not allowed to set prices based on market conditions, but must instead petition the state for rate increases.
Recently, the Massachusetts state insurance commissioner rejected 235 of 274 requested rate increases.
Insurers filed suit against the state, arguing that without these rate increases they would be forced to sell their services at a loss. The state then “delisted” the complaining insurers from the government-run exchange where residents purchase plans. Under government pressure, at least two insurers then agreed to resume sales under the old prices.
Insurance companies in Massachusetts are thus required to offer numerous benefits as determined by politicians and lobbyists, but they may only charge what government bureaucrats permit. It would be akin to the government requiring restaurants to sell $50 steak dinners, but only allowing them to charge $25.
When similar price controls and “guaranteed coverage” laws were imposed in South Dakota and Kentucky, many insurers left these states rather than be slowly bled to death. As similar laws are phased in nationally under ObamaCare, the government could drive private insurers out of business altogether, enabling it to herd unwilling Americans into a “public option.”
ObamaCare thus places a noose around insurers’ necks. Insurance companies will be allowed to survive only at the arbitrary pleasure of the government.
We’ve already caught a glimpse of how the federal government will exercise this arbitrary power. After ObamaCare was signed into law, some insurers pointed out that the law didn’t require them to immediately cover certain children with pre-existing conditions. In response, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius threatened to issue regulations forcing them to do so regardless of the actual letter of the law.
Nor will the government confine this exercise of arbitrary power to insurance companies. The government will also seek to control what medical care patients may receive. As Ed Morrissey noted, ObamaCare supporters now praise the fact that it will help the government deny treatments to patients after earlier deriding Americans’ concerns about rationing and “death panels” as unjustified “paranoia.”
The trend is becoming clear. First, insurers must seek government permission to survive. Then, patients must seek permission to receive some forms of medical care. Will we soon need government permission simply to live?
The fundamental problem is that our politicians no longer believe in the Founders’ concept of a constitutionally limited government. Instead, they believe that the government’s job is to “control the people.”
As Ayn Rand once wrote, under a properly limited government:
[A] private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
Furthermore, a proper government should be limited to the function of protecting individual rights. Only physical force or fraud can violate our rights. The government thus protects our rights by protecting us from criminals who steal, murder, rape, etc., as well as from foreign aggressors. Otherwise, it should leave honest people alone to live peacefully. In particular, it should not force Americans to seek permission before engaging in mutually voluntary business transactions such as purchasing health insurance or medical services.
Rand also warned:
[W]e are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
America is closer to that point than ever before. But we are not there yet. We can still reclaim our country if we are willing to fight back in the realm of ideas and in the realm of politics.
In the realm of ideas, we must advocate and defend the principle of properly limited government to our fellow Americans through articles, books, blog posts, e-mails, speeches, town hall meetings, tea party protests, etc.
In the realm of politics, we must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions — especially those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, then betrayed that oath by brazenly declaring that they’ll pass whatever laws they want without “worrying about the Constitution.” We must exercise our constitutional power as voters to fire those politicians who would exert arbitrary power over us, and replace them with men and women who respect the proper limits of government.
George Washington once warned that government, like fire, “is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Will our government be our servant — or our master? The choice will be ours.
“The government would require restaurants to sell $50 steak dinners for $25. And most Americans would be outraged at such a blatant violation of restaurant owners’ rights.”
Really?
Would you believe that most liberals believe that those steaks are rightfully theirs and that the role of the government is to force the restaurants into giving them the steak dinners for free?
And not only that, but when people demand that the government does this, that they – the people, the citizens are actually exercising their choice rights to control the government so that the country runs the way it is supposed to?
If you do not believe that kind of logic or thought processing is true, then you will never even scratch the surface when it comes to understanding liberals.
A quick check says that there are enough of them to get Obama elected, plus self-propagate in spite of the fact that they have no problem with killing their own new born flesh.
Yes, the socialists of all stripes do believe that, but most Americans are not socialists.
I think the only way liberals will ever understand reality is to have the tax payer not be able to pay taxes to the government to fund the “free steak”…
Now you know why I think George Orwells 1984 is the scariest book ever written. We are just a few baby steps away from the nightmare he described. Obama Care is just the latest baby step in surrendering all of our liberties to govt. It was willingly given by those that supported Govt. Insurance and the one size fits all solution crowd. I fear that unless real comprehensive steps at government deconstruction are not taken soon there will be little hope of recovery.
But even in Orwell’s “1984″ poor Winston was able to get his cigarettes and cheap gin. But we Americans won’t even be able to have those. It isn’t “good for us” you see. These are frightening times indeed.
Like most “progressive” plans, ObamaCare was obviously designed by “enlightened intellectuals” who have spent their entire lives in academia and “public service”, two arenas in which purity of thought is valued higher than actual results, and also where the actual cost of anything is never considered, because somebody else always has to pay.
Furthermore, if your argument is that it gives an inordinate amount of power to a small group, their response is, “Exactly- what’s your problem?” They “know”, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are inherently superior to everyone else who ever lived, and so are the only ones “fit to rule”. And rest assured, “ruling” is precisely what they intend to do. They seek to achieve what has ever been the hallmark of absolute power for any ruler; the ability to decide arbitrarily who lives, and who dies- and do so with no fear of consequences for themselves.
This is at the heart of not just the “health care” debate, but everything that “progressives” do; their absolute belief in their own magnificence, and everyone else’s meaninglessness. You do not matter to them, except insofar as they can “use” you to attain their own ends. Up to and including ending your life, either to prove a point or just amuse themselves.
Keep this in mind the next time someone (like The One) insists that what they’re doing is “for the Good of the People”. Because they aren’t really lying; it’s just that they regard themselves as the only “real people” that exist. So everything begins and ends with what they “need”- the rest of you just don’t matter.
Nietzsche would be so proud of them. Ayn Rand would have a very different opinion.
clear ether
eon
Someone asked the German Chancellor after the start of World War I how Germany could invade Belgium since Germany had a peace treaty with Belgium. The German Chancellor said of the peace treaty that it was merely “A Scrap of Paper.” I have this sinking feeling that our own Constitution is now considered merely “A scrap of paper.” It means whatever the current Congress wants it to mean and it certainly does NOT guarantee any individual rights anymore. It only guarantees whatever Congress or Obama wants it to guarantee and nothing more. Remember, Obama said a long time ago that he considered the Constitution a list of “Negative rights.” Now he’s proving that our Constitution will have absolutely no powers, enforced by a Federal Government that has to answer to no one.
We are living in dangerous times, my friends, and if this process is not reversed, our government will look no different than the European governments our forefathers escaped from over 200 years ago. Since our own government can now tell you to actually BUY something, such as insurance, what’s to stop it from mandating you to buy any other product? Perhaps tomorrow you’ll only be able to buy cars from GM, government motors. After all, the Federal Government already owns that. Perhaps tomorrow you will only be able to buy cothes made in the United States, regardless of the cost. Perhaps tomorrow you will only be allowed to watch programming that is allowed by the FCC, with all the other channels being deemed “Un-American.” And finally, perhaps tomorrow you will not be able to celebrate certain holidays, like Christmas, because, well, you know, we can’t have any mention of God by the Federal Government, so out it goes. And that silly Thanksgiving holiday isn’t very “Green,” isn’t it? After all, if forces people to actually kill animals, like turkeys. Have some squash instead.
Don’t let this happen to us. Be guardians of the faith and protect our rights. Vote these bums out of office in the next election and make sure you elect people who actually want to protect the Constitution. After all, the Constitution and the Federal Government should serve us, not the other way around. Mr. Obama and the Democrats seem to have forgotten that, or are ignoring that very important fact.
Of COURSE we should buy our cars from Government Motors. By taking over GM, just as he took over student loans, Barack has “eliminated the middleman,” which we all know is the most efficient determinant of the “good deal.”
I do wonder, however, what the evil, profit-making “middlemen” would do if they discovered their top executives, earning salaries in the six-figure range, were spending their working hours surfing porn sites–in some cases, ALL of their working hours. A two-week suspension, perhaps?
Hmmm, could there be a role for “middlemen” in keeping down their expenses and thereby their prices?
Obamacare is the maxim on which the perverse philosophic constructs of this administration are manifest. It epitomizes the socialist notion of controlling the very production, distribution, and consumption of goods. It is beyond comprehension that the American people will tolerate such tyranny.
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson
It’s time that we heed the founders’ calls.
We won’t; we’re just exhausting all of our options to neutralize this attack on our liberties before resulting to violent rebellion. We have recourse to the ammo box, but only after neither the Courts, nor the States, nor the next Congress nullifies this attack on our liberty.
Myth Buster
Your comment can easily be construed to prove Napolitano right.
I want to declare in clear terms that I reject any and every call to violence.
The American Revolution was not organized and carried on by a bunch of individuals but by a People organized and in arms against a direct and immediate attempt to violate the inherent Right of Freedom.
If the socialistoid regime will ever recur to violence, there will not be a “rebellion” but a work to support and defend the Constitution and it will be carried on in an orderly manner.
I invite you and everyone else NOT to help the enemies of Freedom with silly words.
The only work we have to carry on is the victory in the elections, and if that is not tough enough for you, we have the media and the universities to take back from subversive control.
And if that is not tough enough, we have the high schools to re-conquer.
And of course, the British shot first. The ball is in the Administration’s court. There will be no violence if the Administration does not initiate it, but if they cancel or steal the elections, or fire upon the TEA Parties, there will be blood in the street.
Hi Sherab- We all reject violence. BUt you have to admit sometime it is neccesary. there have been at least 2 times where coexistance was not an option(american history only) we have the revolutionary war, followed by the civil war. negotiations, talking etc was all attempted. but finally it had to boil down to a fight. nobody wants a bloody conflict. but we must be prepared for one. not just physically but mentally as well. if we limit ourselves to what we wont do to protect our freedom. then that will become exactly what we will have to do to save it. its a nice though that we can all settle differences over ‘a beer’ but why beat around the bush and lie to ourselves. strive for peace, but prepare for war. and napoliantino(sp) can contrue that however she wishes. remember theres a reason why the 1st amendment is speech and the 2nd is self defense. take care my friends!
And yet some idiots think Romney is an acceptable, even inevitable, candidate for President.
He’ll drown in tea, and should.
Having lived in post-WWII Germany for several I believe I can state that the German concept of law vis-a-vis the people is: “What is not permitted is forbidden.” Most Germans tend to go along with that idea. Is that what we, the people of the United Staes of America, want? I think not. However, according to articles elsewhere in today’s pajamasmedia, it appears that 51% of the American people are net payers of Federal income taxes while 49% are not. That is a very thin margin which may flip after a careful examination of the results of 0care. This regime dearly wants that flip since they believe that with more than half the people net receivers of Federal “largess” the ‘progressives’ will have achieved a permanent majority in Government. At that point in time, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” will become “life in dreary chains.”
The upshot is that some of the net receivers don’t want to be counted among the receivers. After all, with unemployment this high, it’s only natural that there are plenty of people who want a job but can’t get one, and their perception of the current government is that it’s not taking the problem seriously.
Hey, all you guys who voted Democrat in ’08… you sorry now?
Dr. Hsieh is absolutely right. When government violates our rights in the name of “the greater good,” the result is the destruction of wealth and living standards — NOT prosperity for everyone. The only way to achieve that is to uphold the principles upon which this nation was founded.
#4 Libertyship46 — I have this sinking feeling that our own Constitution is now considered merely “A scrap of paper.” It means whatever the current Congress wants it to mean and it certainly does NOT guarantee any individual rights anymore.
Indeed, and after Obama disbanded the SCOTUS he has had no problem trampling all over the constitution since there’s no longer a check/balance system.
Oh… wait. Obama didn’t disband SCOTUS.
Never mind.
So what is it, precisely, that you dislike about the republican form of government? The possibility that voices other than yours are heard?
Please try to consider the U.S. Constitution like a rule book for America’s politicians/referees. If the rules may be changed at will so that there exist NO rules except at the whim of the ruling party, then there is a certain amount of chaos.
Now envision a football game where the rules are voted on by the referees of each game, by their popular vote (the players to have no input–and to be demonized and ejected if they object). Fair enough? Or chaos?
Not only that, but the rules can be changed at any point during a game, and the new rules will even apply to plays that have already happened.
Again, G.L. Alston #10, you try and try, but you MoveOn.org types really need to get a life, as well as a web site of your own. Oh, that’s right, you already have one, it’s called the Daily Kos. Trust me, you far-left loons have been talking loud enough for years now, only this time you have a sympathetic ear in the White House.
Anyway, back to your pitiful point. The Supreme Court can rule on anything it wants, but if nobody enforces those rules, not much can be done, right? Andrew Jackson, a Democrat by the way, ignored a Supreme Court ruling regarding the forced removal of Cherokee Indian tribes and Jackson threw the tribe off their own land, leading to what was called “The trail of tears,” where many of the indians died. So much for enforcing Supreme Court laws. So yes, a president can do what he wants regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply decides to bypass the Supreme Court altogether. Can’t get a Cap and Trade Bill passed? Then simply get the EPA to enforce more stringent laws on industry. Don’t like people criticizing your administration? Then just get the FCC to enforce tougher laws and close down those nasty rebellious radio stations with “The Fairness Doctrine.” Don’t like what you see on the Internet about your guy in the White House? Hey, Net neutrality is only days away and it will probably be years before that case makes it to the Supreme Court. Don’t like what those guys on Wall Street are making? Then just appoint a “Pay Czar” to regulate it, even though this guy hasn’t been approved, let alone voted on, by Congress. Hate those pesky insurance companies? Well, we now have Obamacare which may or may not be constitutional (like it matters anymore), regardless of what the states or the people want (every poll had opposition to Obamacare at around 55% to 60%; supporters of the plan were always about 40% or less). And even if this law is found to be unconstitutional, Congress will simply amend the basic law to get around that.
So you see how this works, don’t you? To people like Obama and YOU, the Constitution is merely a suggestion, a starting point, because sick bums like you really do know what’s best for this country, right? Congress will pass a law now and it could be years before it’s repealed, even IF the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. But by then the damage is done. And, after we’re broke and all these programs fail and cost us ten times what they’ve been projected to cost, then who do we complain to? Jerks like you?
Trolls like you keep coming in here trying to start a fight, and it just ain’t working anymore. The facts are on our side now and, come November, that Soros money is going to dry up and peaple like you are going to have to actuall find a real job. All you’ve proved today is that even a phallus can type.
No, what we do is form an angry mob to tar and feather the deposed politicians who foisted this disaster on us, and then seize their assets for the purposes of paying for the public debt. Let the plunderers be plundered and the slavers be enslaved.
OORAH!
Why am I not surprised that you approve of trampling the rights of others, so long as a vote was held first?
Libertyship46 — Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply decides to bypass the Supreme Court altogether. [Fed Agency examples follow]
Wierd, I thought the FCC and the EPA etc. existed before Obama. Are you now claiming Obama invented time travel and retroactively created these things specifically so he could find increasingly fun ways to trample your rights?
Your screed is reminiscent of the liberal panty-wetting when Reagain fired the ATC guys in the early 80′s, then the continued panty wetting regarding Oliver North.
The question I have is whether you’re willing to buy in to the leftist anti-Reagan panty wetting since their claim is the same as yours, or whether the panty wetting is strictly partisan. Similarly, was there massive conservative panty wetting when Bush created the TSA? I don’t recall. Before I can accept any argument regarding claimed consitutional abuse as valid, I’d like to see it in a non-partisan format.
Thanks.
Weren’t you the one who was complaining about strawmen?
Yet here you are, building them by the field load.
Sorry G.L. Alston, now you’re not even making sense, let alone lieing about what I said. You said, “Wierd, I thought the FCC and the EPA etc. existed before Obama. Are you now claiming Obama invented time travel and retroactively created these things specifically so he could find increasingly fun ways to trample your rights?”
When did I say Obama created anything? I said that he is USING existing Federal agencies like the FCC and the EPA to either bypass Congress or enforce his own agenda (or both). Try reading the post, jerk. Basically, he’s even more dangerous than any other president because he is trying to circumvent Checks and Balances to get what he wants, which is what I proved with the examples listed above. Funny how you can’t refute any of my examples, either.
But, to the MoveOn.org types like you, facts really don’t mean much. I’m sure those Soros checks will keep coming in as long as you write junk like that.
Why don’t you try sticking to what I actually wrote. I’m a fan of much smaller government and didn’t approve of any of the Departments Bush created, either, so it pretty much shows you know precious little about conservative thinking. In fact, our government needs to be a lot SMALLER if we’re going to get more efficient productivity out of it.
The only panty wetting that’s going to take place here, hon, is when the Democrats are thrown out of office and people like you are going to have to find a real job. Then maybe, just maybe, we can dismantle the welfare state your hero has created and get back to some of the core principles that made this nation great.
As for seeing things in a “non-partisan” format, that’s rich coming from a hyper-partisan like yourself! Please, go sell your misguided thoughts at the Daily Kos. It’s where you belong, chum.
When did I say Obama created anything? I said that he is USING existing Federal agencies like the FCC and the EPA to either bypass Congress or enforce his own agenda (or both).
Heh. There’s a thing called a ‘sarchasm.’ (http://sarchasm.net/)
My point, which you missed, was that all politicians (ab)use agencies as they will; Obama is neither unique nor extraordinarily abusive.
Funny how you can’t refute any of my examples, either.
When did the FCC enforce the fairness doctrine? Hint: it didn’t. The EPA was trying to label CO2 as a pollutant during Bush’s tenure; that this happened recently was more due to bureacratic red tape and timing than an insidious plot to deprive you of your freedom.
And so on.
(And you think I’m devoid of fact. Fascinating.)
I’d like to see the entire EPA canned since the finding of CO2 as a pollutant. Obviously the agency went around the bend and has confused its obligation to the public welfare with thinking it is the final authority re scientific matters. On the other hand Pournelle’s ‘Iron Law’ seems to have a great deal more to do with that problem than who the president is.
But, to the MoveOn.org types like you, facts really don’t mean much.
In the alternate reality of PJM, right wing moderates are indistinguishable from socialists. Ah well. Just bear in mind that moderates make up most of the GOP and “conservatives” are the minority. Now, would you like to continue the grade school name calling? Surely me telling you that you’re a marginal, far right reactionary ought to be good for a few more.
Hey, G.L. Alston, Funny you should mention sarchasm, since you don’t seem to get it when I used it. Or, maybe you did but just are lieing again in order to distort the truth. After all, it’s what you far-left nutroots do best.
You said, “My point, which you missed, was that all politicians (ab)use agencies as they will; Obama is neither unique nor extraordinarily abusive.” That’s always the song of the far left. Everybody does it, so why can’t we do more of it, right? I thought your man in the big house, oops, I mean White House (he isn’t in jail yet, but hey, with friends like Bill Ayers and Blago ya never know) was supposed to transform government and be different than PAST presidents. So you’re telling me Obama is just another run-of-the-mill Chicago politician out for his own power? Say it ain’t so, G.L.!
Then you went on to say, “When did the FCC enforce the fairness doctrine? Hint: it didn’t.” There you go again, pal, distorting the truth yet again (what a surprise). If you look at my posts, I never said he did. What I said was, “Don’t like people criticizing your administration? Then just get the FCC to enforce tougher laws and close down those nasty rebellious radio stations with “The Fairness Doctrine.” I cited this as an example of what Obama is trying to do, not has already accomplished (sarchasm, maybe?). I said basically the same thing about Net Neutrality. But it is a fact that the Fairness Doctrine idea and Net Neutrality keep making the rounds in Congress and democrats certainly are not against it. The mere fact that Democrats, or anyone for that matter, would want to impose these laws on the American people is disturbing. Unless, of course, you agree with them. Why would I not be surprised if you did?
As for the EPA, it’s funny how they’ve been more aggressive in this matter since the democrats came back into power in Congress in 2006. And with the House of Representatives passing Cap and Trade and the White House wanting high carbon taxes to go through, I’m sure the EPA isn’t worried that this issue is going away anytime soon.
And in your happy little far-left world you said, “In the alternate reality of PJM, right wing moderates are indistinguishable from socialists. Ah well. Just bear in mind that moderates make up most of the GOP and “conservatives” are the minority. Now, would you like to continue the grade school name calling? Surely me telling you that you’re a marginal, far right reactionary ought to be good for a few more.” Buddy, if you’re a right wing moderate then I’m Franklin Roosevelt. Right wing moderate. That’s like a conservative Democrat. I’ve heard about them, like big foot, but they don’t really exist. You’re about as moderate as Jimmy Carter, without the smile. As for name calling, I call them the way I see them, and what I see is a far-left MoveOn.org hack trying to disrupt a blog. Sorry, ain’t working anymore. Time to stand up to punks like you. Deal with it.
When did the FCC enforce the “Fairness Doctrine”?
Prior to Reagan. You are aware that the “Fairness Doctrine” was official FCC policy for many years, aren’t you. Talk Radio did not develop until after Reagan canned this doctrine.
George Bush the Younger expressly referred to the Constitution as “just a god-damned piece of paper”. Do you think Obama feels differently? I suspect that he would love to run it through a shredder – on national television – if he could get away with it.
Also, Obama won’t NEED to disband SCOTUS; he’ll simply stack it with far-Left Progressives.
Dr. Hsieh’s article is spot on, excellent. Thank you.
If the government wants 25 dollar steak dinners rather than 50 dollar steak dinners for every one, than the government should let the production of beef cattle double. Allow more public land use for raising cattle rather than parks and pristine museums of natural history, off limits to commercial interests. Take the politics out of the economics. By the same token, if you want to manage health care costs, double the production of doctors, increase the amount of medical schools, then allow a competitive health care market place instead of state licensing boards, dominated by the medical profession, politically deciding the market share and the amount of doctors. Until then , health care costs will exceed the rate of inflation. In point of fact, inflation has almost been zero for over a year, but health care premiums are going up by 30 percent. Figure it out, it doesn’t take a Rhode Scholar, there is very little labor in producing one aspirin.
And this gets us back to the problem of myopia. The price of food is a rather small component to the price of a restaurant meal- most of it is the price of hiring cooks and paying overhead.
As one whose family has owned restaurants in the past (not anymore, thanks to government regulation), I can attest to the cost of the food being but a small part. Permit me to provide a short list of some of the other things that go into the cost of a meal:
* Wages for the cook(s)–already mentioned, I know, but I am including it for the sake of completeness.
* Wages for the servers.
* Wages for the busboys & dishwashers.
* Payroll taxes, benefits, unemployment insurance taxes, and similar “hidden” charges for employees.
* Electricity to keep the lights on.
* Electricity, gas, or other utilities to keep the restaurant warm or cool enough for comfort.
* Electricity or gas for the stoves to cook the food.
* Electricity to run the refrigerators and freezers (and we’re not talkin’ the size of fridge and freezer you have in your kitchen, these are known as “walk-ins” for a very simple reason… they’re large enough for a person to walk into).
* The cost of the equipment, including but not limited to the stoves and ovens, deep fryers (you did want fries with your steak, right?), refrigerators, freezers. And, of course, the cost of maintenance and upkeep on them.
* Oh, and you need someplace to sit, so there’s the cost of the tables, chairs, booths, and upkeep on same.
* Don’t forget plates, and glasses, and silverware… and the inevitable cost of replacing broken items, or the occasional item that “accidentally” finds its way into someone’s bag… yes, it still happens.
* Then there’s the cost of the building itself… either a monthly lease or rental payment, or the property taxes if the building is owned.
* Maintenance and upkeep on the building and parking lot. If the restaurant is located in a shopping center, this is typically part of the lease or rental payment.
* City and/or county business licensing fees.
* City, county, state, and federal business taxes (separate from payroll taxes listed above).
* Fees for the sewer and garbage pickup… commercial venues, especially restaurants, pay far higher fees for these than do residential properties, because of the far higher volume of waste that they generate.
* Miscellaneous equipment and supplies, including the cash register, menus, order tickets, restroom facilities, toilet paper, etc.
* Advertising, which can be everything from a nice well-lit sign outside to newspaper, direct mail, radio, and/or TV ads. Oh, and these days don’t forget a website, though that wasn’t as necessary when we owned our restaurants… because the web wasn’t around then.
Whew! As I indicated in the last item, it’s been quite a while since we got out of the business, so I’ve probably missed a few things.
And, remember, I didn’t mention the cost of the food anywhere in that list.
You’re very welcome for the lesson in applied economics, Don.
While it is true that govt interference and artificial limitations on the market drives up price. It is not true that the govt is capable of setting the proper level for either cattle production or doctors. Demanding that the number of doctors double could just as easily result in an over supply of doctors that will require the govt to subsidize doctors in order to keep them all in business.
The proper goal is to eliminate govt distortions, and allow the market to seek it’s natural level.
If you still feel that doctors, or steaks, are still to expensive, you are free to give customers of both, some of your own money to subsidize their purchases.
With his usual insight, Paul Hsieh, M.D., draws our attention to the plight of insurance companies under the Massachusetts Health Plan, the precursor to our present “Obamacare.” Insurance companies are not welfare agencies. They are businesses set up to make a profit. That profit is earned by providing a useful service — financial coverage in the case of unexpected disasters. The insurance companies are able to provide such financial coverage by carefully calculating the risk of such disasters and thus ensuring that they are rare. Insurance companies would not exist if disasters were a regular occurrence.
As Paul points out, we need to get away from a government that thinks it needs to do everything for us and as a result, wants to control all aspects of our lives. This country was founded on the principle of individual rights and all laws that interfere with this principle, including interfering with the buyers and sellers of insurance, ought to be repealed.
ObamaCareless is a massive fraud designed to do many things, none of which are efficient delivery of universal health care.
Send everyone a health card with the limits of coverage shown.
Allow rich people to buy any additional coverage they care to pay for.
To each according to their income, from each only according to the sales tax they pay. Limit government to only sales tax.
Make all civil suits automatic counter suits and let juries find Attorneys guilty of abuse of civil process and order them and their clients to pay defendants accused in what is found to be a “shakedowns” .
I did better in 100 words than Obamacareless did in several thousand pages.
The government and society has an interest in a healthy and educated society.
“…under ObamaCare, the government could drive private insurers out of business altogether, enabling it to herd unwilling Americans into a “public option”.”
Does anyone remember how we used to have silver coins in our pockets, until the clad coins that look like real silver were circulated? The silver coins disappeared.
This was a natural result of Gresham’s Law. “Bad money drives good money out of circulation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law
Just as certainly, bad insurance impositions by legislators and bureaucrats will drive good insurance coverage (and insurance companies) out of the marketplace. The forgone result will be, not could be, the public option.
God Save our Republic from such nonsense, and from Obama, our twit-in-chief.
#14 Bruce Stein — Make all civil suits automatic counter suits and let juries find Attorneys guilty of abuse of civil process and order them and their clients to pay defendants accused in what is found to be a “shakedowns”.
I saw US Government figures a while back showing that tort law etc was only 2% of the healthcare puzzle. For you to write what you did, you must have a ton of data showing that tort law reform would save a massive amount of money. Either than or you’re assuming. Which is it?
Link?
Thanks.
And we all say government figures about obama care, income tax, social security, etc, etc, etc…. they have always low balled it and often using low ball figures throughout the whole process.
Are you implying that recent gov figures are ‘fixed?’
What I saw was figured from 2004 or 2005 or so, and not GAO type of estimates.
That is usually the case.
You Agreed the 35 words saved 2% on health care, and unclogged the courts;
you want as Johnny Rocco did…
I can tell you for a fact that those govt figures are cooked. Considerably more than 2% of a physician’s gross income is spent on malpractice insurance. Physicians are only the second biggest slice of the healthcare cost pie. Hospitals are #1 and many self-insure and to do so must keep millions of dollars in untouched trusts. I believe those govt figures to which you refer only take into account a rough estimate of total tort payments and associated legal costs. In total, lawyers and the legal system account for nearly 10-15% of total healthcare costs.
I’ve also seen the numbers as to why your numbers are artificial bunk.
For example, it only includes the cost of cases that go to trial. It doesn’t include the cost of cases settled out of court. Which most cases are because the cost of defending is often more than the plaintiff is asking. Not to mention the risk of a jury who wouldn’t know a suture from a suction cup, awarding a mega-million dollar award, not because the doctor did anything wrong, but just because they feel sorry for the plaintiff.
Beyond that, it doesn’t cover the cost of unneccessary tests, ordered so that the doctor can cover his a$$ in case he’s sued.
OK, then. The conservative consensus is that the numbers I saw were incorrect with reasons ranging from “incomplete” to “fabrication.”
So who has a link for anything we can all view and discuss? Or is all of this continued assumption, accusation, speculation, and wild claims? Four posts telling me what I saw was wrong. Not one set of numbers proving it.
Numbers tell stories. Let’s see these numbers you all claim are the RIGHT numbers. Link?
And if I get told “they don’t exist” then the null hypothesis is that your arguments aren’t valid. Let’s see some numbers.
‘So who has a link for anything we can all view and discuss?’
The info on the tort related costs of health care are out there in multiple studies. The 2% cost of what makes it to a courtroom is a small part of the costs passed on to the consumer due to defensive medicine and malpractice insurance rates. 15% overall is consistent in the honest studies I’ve seen.
As far as providing you links – search it yourself. You are never going to be taken seriously here until you start thinking for yourself and that requires searching out complete information and verifying the provenance of that information, not simply regurgitating talking points.
BTW: You are no moderate and your continued claims to be one have long since passed from laughable to lame. You try to talk the talk now and again, but you can’t keep yourself in character. You have a skewed idea of what a moderate expects from government and conservative values are a complete mystery to you. The sophomoric maundering asininity of the liberal left takes you over every time.
Just Passing Through, you are exactly right!!! Good for you for calling it the way you see it. Right on!
Thanks Doctor Hsieh for a great article. I phoned some of my friends and told them about the current plight of Doctors, Lawyers and Insurance Company executives. Even after giving them the facts from your article, I found it a bit tough to convince them that when you earn a half a million or more a year in basic pay, plus several hundred thousand dollars a yearin bonus money plus the perks that you had such a tough life under our current health care system. Don’t know why….
Anyway, it was not great news that our new health care plan did not include a public option, contrary to the health industry lies campaign. But at least this broken system was partially fixed. Millions will have health care coverage for the first time, millions of dollars will be saved and the deficit will be reduced .. this year, despite fierce opposition. And that, is great news for our Glorious Country.
The money don’t come easy, that’s why. Plus, very few doctors earn over half a million gross. Maybe a private practice has a million dollars in revenue annually, but that’s before paying for overhead and malpractice insurance. Then, you have to pay over half of the profits in taxes between Federal, State, Payroll and property taxes. Then, of course, there’s the whole matter of the massive investment of time and money required to become a doctor. I’m a nuclear engineer, and I don’t have the wherewithal to endure that kind of a trial by fire.
Ah, Poor Citizen, you regurgitate the bullsh*t talking points well. You are a fine disciple. Good..for..you!
The big problem with this limited reform is it allows the greedy insurers to raise prices with more mandated coverage. A better system would impose price controls on premiums as well as well as wage controls on the employees of the insurance companies. Insurance companies would not be allowed to slash paycheck or raise prices on consumers, and that would force the greedy snout-nosed executives at the top to forgo their million-dollar a week bonuses and stock options and share with the rest of us. This would make health care provision fair and just.
If that happened people would then start questioning the forces of greed in other segments of society as well. The little spark of compassion in health care might pave the way to a society based on love rather than on hate and greed.
I agree with you that fascism is madness (and that’s what corporate-government alliances like this are- fascism). However, the executives won’t take it on the chin like you plan; what will happen is that the insurance companies will bail out of the market, or else they’ll sell health insurance as a loss leader, the way grocery stores sell milk. I.e. We’ll sell you health insurance, but only if you buy your life, auto and homeowner’s/renter’s insurance from us, too. Funny thing about trying to force people to do things they don’t want to do- they tend to revolt against the system, either by doing things that you don’t want them to, but technically aren’t against the rules, or by taking their ball and going home. Personally, if you were trying to take my stuff, and I knew you had me so thoroughly outgunned that I couldn’t resist, I’d destroy my goods out of spite, rather than give you the satisfaction of taking them from me.
Why not just let govt set wage controls for everyone?
I love the way liberals always fall back on class warfare.
As to public option not being included, if you believe Obama and most Democrats, it will be in the next bill.
Holy guacamole: how long will this right wing brain hemorrhage over health care reform go on? Most of the right wing “commentary” about Obama’s health care plan belongs in the same “Clueless and Nutcase” box as the brainless Birther crap. Obama’s plan is no more than a grossly overdue attempt at least to fix a health care before it becomes a train wreck that might make the recent financial crisis seem like a parking ticket hearing by comparison.
When someone posts a zero substance/derogatory adjective post,” name calling only”: they invariably describe themselves perfectly.
BC, if the GOP really is going to lose the argument over whether or not ObamaCare is a Bad Thing, why not just let them self-destruct?
In short, your “concern troll” posts just show that you really are worried. And that puts a smile on my face.
Thanks!
BC wrote:
Obama’s plan is no more than a grossly overdue attempt at least to fix a health care before it becomes a train wreck that might make the recent financial crisis seem like a parking ticket hearing by comparison.
An attempt to “fix health care”?
Obama’s plan takes all of the bad features found in various state laws — such as “community rating”, “guaranteed issue”, “mandatory benefits”, “no lifetime coverage limits” — all of the things that have been driving up the cost of insurance all over the nation — and applies them across-the-board to the entire nation — one big noose for all of our collective necks. How is that “fixing healthcare”?
How is it a “fix” to the problem of “the uninsured” to put a gun to their heads and demand they purchase that insurance or face punitive action by the IRS? That’s a helluva “fix”.
You’re delusional if you think this thing is going to “bring down costs“ and “improve access“. It won’t. It will only result in rationed care — and it will only serve to prove that Palin was right: We‘ll wind up with “death panels” after all.
The date this bill was signed into law will live in far greater infamy than the date of a military attack that killed a mere 3,000 Americans — for this bill killed a big chunk of the freedom of 300 million souls.
The Democratic party is now the party of National Socialist Enslavement — they haven’t gotten us all the way there yet, but it is definitely where they intend to take us.
Remember the name Mitt Romney.
We can no longer afford to elect these type of Republicans.
Why not throw everyone’s hard earned money into a giant pit of doom and we can cage-fight for our food and health-care?
Such as a system might be more fair as the status quo, for people might be more equal in brute strength than in manipulative skulduggery, wanton greed, and social connections which the current system rewards. To paraphrase Woodie Guthrie, your proposal would replace those who rob us with fountain pens with those who rob us with six guns.
No, no, no, darlin’! Six-pack abs ALWAYS win! Always. All zee time! Vorevah! Eet eez written in zee leetle book of vunders.
Thanks for another excellent article, Dr. Hsieh! And let’s not forget – that price controlled steak would taste terrible, too!
Great article Dr. Hsieh! Ayn Rand’s quote about the “ultimate inversion” is particularly chilling. Let’s not let it happen.
But what a well-ordered world it will be! Harmony achieved by Theraputic Guidance, inclusiveness guaranteed by Judicial Order, efficient use of resources assured by Central Planning, thus granting to each citizen the right to be born by permission, live a politically-correct life, and then die by prior arrangement, ushered into eternity by morphine, soft music and cuddly crib-toys. Man arrives at his glorious future and it is a Paint-By-Number Paradise.
Is sex a human right? It is? Then it’s the government’s duty to make sure that everyone gets some. Right? Isn’t that what “rights” are all about?