Why Mackey is Wrong.
A Point-by-point refutation of Mr. Mackey's points in his article, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare":
Mr. Mackey's ideas are out-of-touch with reality, and do nothing to help the millions in this country without health insurance. The so-called quote "free market" unquote has already had plenty of opportunity to cover these folks...and it has failed. Putting blind faith in "Supply-Side Jesus" seems to be a popular pasttime with GOPers, but they cannot articulate why we should agree with their "leave it to the market" attitude. If it hasn't solved the problem by now, it's not going to solve the problem.
Indeed, not only does there need to be a public option, but at this stage, I think we really need RICO investigations into the industry. I say this as someone who has lost tens of thousands of dollars into our medical system, most of which has gone to inefficient administrative overhead -- something that Mr. Mackey's ideas would do nothing to fix.
This all ignores the fact that privatized medical care makes about as much sense as privatized fire services, i.e., nil.
So let's take the gloves off, and no more Mr. Nice Guy: We need a public option now, and we need RICO investigations to unravel the hidden trusts, price fixing/gouging, and other "gotchas" that pervade the industry.
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.
- Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
- "High deductibles" are part of the problem, John. The higher the deductible, the more the patient pays out-of-pocket, i.e., that is uncovered.
We can keep raising deductibles... or we can contain costs by removing the insurance middlemen all together, at least for those who want to opt-out of the gouge-the-patient model.
- Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
- This sounds fine as far as it goes, but would do nothing to contain costs brought about by gouging of patients.
- Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
- While increasing competition, it isn't clear how this is supposed to rein in the gouging of patients. Indeed, it may, in some states, remove consumer protections designed to keep costs reined-in. I think the burden is on Mackey to explain what laws he would do away with, and if the laws he would do away with would include those that keep insurance rates down.
- Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
- Mr. Mackey's suggestions is laughable. One of the reasons for health care reform in the U.S. is to cover more people who have been denied coverage. Mr. Mackey's suggestion would further lower coverage...and as someone who has paid out-of-pocket for two hospitalizations, I think Mr. Mackey's suggestion betrays the fact that he's making this up as he goes along.
- Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
- Has no one explained to Mackey that this isn't even a drop in the bucket of health care costs? Further, this would remove umpteen-dollars amount of recourse for folks suffering from illness from iatrogenic causes...illnesses that are almost always preventable.
- For instance, a very dear friend of mine -- a diabetic -- died a few years ago due to a newly-prescribed medication causing a diabetic episode. He went to the hospital, caught an infection, was shipped down to a SF hospital, where he caught another infection...and died. If Mr. Mackey's misguided ideas about "tort 'reform'" were to be enacted, these sorts of occurances would happen even more often than they do now. Verdict: absolute tommyrot, and a red herring.
- Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
- I agree with this, though by itself, it won't do anything to stop the price-gouging.
- Enact Medicare reform.
- Since Medicare has, as a percentage, administrative costs that are far, far below those found in "'private' industry", I'd have to say this is another red herring.
- Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
- Mr. Mackey doesn't seem to understand that it is already very easy to donate to such programs...again, this is more distraction that does nothing to rein-in price gouging (and in fact, would encourage more of same).
Mr. Mackey's ideas are out-of-touch with reality, and do nothing to help the millions in this country without health insurance. The so-called quote "free market" unquote has already had plenty of opportunity to cover these folks...and it has failed. Putting blind faith in "Supply-Side Jesus" seems to be a popular pasttime with GOPers, but they cannot articulate why we should agree with their "leave it to the market" attitude. If it hasn't solved the problem by now, it's not going to solve the problem.
Indeed, not only does there need to be a public option, but at this stage, I think we really need RICO investigations into the industry. I say this as someone who has lost tens of thousands of dollars into our medical system, most of which has gone to inefficient administrative overhead -- something that Mr. Mackey's ideas would do nothing to fix.
This all ignores the fact that privatized medical care makes about as much sense as privatized fire services, i.e., nil.
So let's take the gloves off, and no more Mr. Nice Guy: We need a public option now, and we need RICO investigations to unravel the hidden trusts, price fixing/gouging, and other "gotchas" that pervade the industry.
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.
Advertisement
1) Mackey noted that Whole Foods covers $1800 of the $2500 deductible.
2) Re: would do nothing about gouging of patients - also would do nothing about the common cold, war in Afghanistan or the mission to Mars.
3) Increased competition across state lines would theoretically give people more than one provider to choose from, so an alternate company to go to when the gouging begins.
4) High civil suits prevent infections inside hospitals? Who knew. Someone call Floris Nightingale.
5) From the Boston Globe: Meanwhile, malpractice insurance premiums for internists, general surgeons, and obstetricians have skyrocketed since 2000, jumping 20 to 25 percent in 2002 alone. In Massachusetts, ProMutual Group, which covers about one-third of the state's doctors, raised rates an average of 11 percent last year, 20 percent in 2003, and 12.5 percent in 2002. Some specialists, such as obstetricians, now pay almost $100,000 annually for their malpractice insurance. ProMutual executives said they will not raise premiums this July, primarily because increases in the number of claims have slowed. ''It's not payments that's causing this," Chandra said. ''The simple explanation that comes to mind is the underwriting cycle. If they're making less money from the investment side of things, it's going to cause [insurance companies] to raise rates."
Okay, so Mackie may be wrong here, but at the same time you ignore a huge expenditure for doctors and hospitals, which are passed on to patients both in costs and distorted treatment.
6) "No need to reform Medicare"? "Left unchecked, Medicare's claim on national resources will rise from 2.7 percent of GDP in 2007 to 5.9 percent in 2030, and eventually to 15.6 percent in the following years." Yeah, that's a Heritage Foundation quote that quickly came up, but if you find the official annual report for Social Security & Medicare, it's no better. Funny, but the Heritage article seems to focus on reforming the health care market as the primary way to achieve savings - i.e. eliminating those cost overruns and price gouging.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2251.cfm
7) Of course a line item for donation on tax returns works better than none, same reason why $3 for the FEC works better than none. Will it make a dent in poor people's underinsurance? Haven't a clue - I'd doubt it, but that's an uneducated guess.
September 2, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
==| 4) High civil suits prevent infections inside hospitals? Who knew. Someone call Floris Nightingale. |==
You're kidding, right?
"Discourage." As in "applies economic pressure to encourage cleaner hospitals."
Or do you only "believe" in "the invisible hand of the market" when it agrees with your own opinions?
September 2, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't believe that civil suits are the prime manner that hospital hygiene is enforced. Do you?
September 2, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
All's I know is, you call Floris for a good time... and Florence if you want some proper nursing done.
Mix 'em up and you'll need health insurance alright.
September 2, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And no high-priced lawyer is going to cure Floris' little hygiene problem.
September 2, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I just don't believe" blah blah blah.
Economic pressures are the primary motivations for for-profit entities.
Hilarious that the "free market" types completely ignore their own "invisible hand of the market" when it suits their purposes to ignore it.
Bah!
September 3, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Long dead thread, but until you can show that lawsuits for unsanitary conditions are common and expensive, that "invisible hand" is more like a pinkie or toe-nail. "Oh, I caught an infection at a hospital, I'm going to sue." Sure, try it.
September 8, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink