creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
16 Mar 2010
Talking Points vs. Realty

In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial … Read More.

9 Mar 2010
Artificial Stupidity

A woman with a petition went among the crowds attending a state fair, asking people to sign her petition … Read More.

9 Mar 2010
Stimulus or Sedative?

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the … Read More.

The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part II

Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to "bring down the cost of medical care."

There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.

Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already— and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a "duty to die."

A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby "bring down the cost of medical care." A stranger's death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.

At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a "duty to die" so that younger people can live it up is obscene.

You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain's government-run medical system.

You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.

But reducing these things is not "bringing down the cost of medical care." It is simply refusing to pay those costs— and taking the consequences.

For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.

Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things— namely, "health care" and "medical care." Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don't do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.

Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.

If we are serious about medical care— and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death— then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.

If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.

The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world— and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.

We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change— for the worse— if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

USPS/IRS Health Care If health care is the problem, insurance is not the cause and government is not the answer. Of those "50 million," that lack insurance there were 45,000 who died without health care. WITH health care, 98,000 died FROM health care because of malpractice. The question is do we want to trust that largest corporation in the world, the U.S. Government. Do not expect house calls anytime soon. We have seen how well the government delivers on its promises and its bureaucracies pursue the money without giving us benefits on so many levels. Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS. http://theprogressivecapitalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/affordable-health-care-for-america-act.html That blog of mine above has several .pdf connections (HR. 3962 and two summaries, a few videos, and page references for new taxes and other mandates). If you cannot use the link, google "Progressive Capitalist H.R. 3962." If you believe the promises of this bill, you have to deal with the lie that it fosters competition with a government option called the "Public Option" and establishes the government as a monopoly making its own rules. Don't worry. You'll run out of "rich" soon enough. We have at least a $12 trillion economy of which at least $1.8 trillion is spent on health care. If you read the bill, there are plenty of opportunities to soak the middle class, if you do not mind the 1.6 million made jobless. REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN http://thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/ainsfloor_01_xml.pdf

Comment: #1
Posted by: JohnLloydScharf
Wed Nov 4, 2009 1:11 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
Mar. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 20 Mar 2010
Dick Morris
Dick MorrisUpdated 20 Mar 2010
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 19 Mar 2010

3 Jun 2008 Irrelevant Apologies

20 May 2008 Summer Reading

5 Mar 2008 William F. Buckley (1925-2008)