The Truth Isn't Always What Sounds Right
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
It's funny how simple truths elude politicians when they are trying to further their agendas.
Recently, there was a good example of this when politicians were screaming for price controls in the oil industry to bring down gas prices.
Of course it sounds good when you blame the people in the other political party for fiddling while Rome burns. W should be taking action. W should be putting price controls in place to curb inflation of gasoline prices.
That sounds really good to regular folks shelling out $2 per gallon. And, of course, members of W's administration sound really callous when they say that price controls don't work and we should let the market control the prices.
Callous as it may sound, they are right.
Just about any economist will tell you that artificially lowering prices generally increases demand.
But what needed to happen to bring gas prices down was for demand to decrease.
You can argue about why supplies were short, but you can't argue that supplies weren't short.
When supply is short and demand is high, prices rise. It's a simple economic truth.
As demand decreases, supplies increase and prices fall. Another simple economic truth.
But why bother with the truth when you can have a great sound bite?
I see the same thing happening in the patients' rights debate.
W is threatening a veto of a Democrat-backed patients' rights bill.
W says that the plan has the potential to price insurance coverage out of the reach of many Americans.
Here's a flash. Insurance coverage already is priced out of reach of most Americans.
The only way the vast majority of Americans - myself included among them - could afford a family health insurance plan is if they have an employer who provides a portion of it.
How many people can afford $700 or $800 a month for a family health insurance plan?
I think we all know the answer to that.
But anytime politicians start fooling around with health insurance regulations, the prices rises.
Remember when we made health insurance coverage "portable?" That means that if you have a plan where you work now and you change jobs, your new employer has to pick you up regardless of pre-existing conditions.
I can't say I am opposed to that idea, but let's look for a moment at its effect.
Insurance companies have reams of statistics to look over. They know how many cases of every imaginable disease there will be in any given demographic.
They do the math.
They know how many new cases of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc., they will be responsible for when the new law goes into effect.
What do you suppose they did? They raised rates.
They are not in the business of losing money, after all, so the cost of insurance increased.
Who do you suppose paid for the increase? Primarily, our employers. Secondarily, us.
The cost of health insurance doubled in the last 10 years, eating up larger chunks of our income.
Now, reports the Associated Press, "the Senate's Democratic majority wants to pass far-reaching rules designed to help patients sue HMOs when delays in or denial of care lead to disastrous or fatal results. In general, the bill also would grant patients access to emergency care, the right to select a pediatrician as a child's primary care physician, access to specialists and other rights."
The simple truth is that a plan like that will drive insurance costs even higher.
Enter the spokesman for W:
'While the president strongly supports a comprehensive and enforceable patients' bill of rights and has been working with members of both parties to enact legislation this year, he believes the measure pending in the Senate would encourage costly and unnecessary litigation that would seriously jeopardize the ability of many Americans to afford health care coverage.'
And the response from the opposition:
"It is disappointing that the president continues to repeat threats to veto comprehensive patient protections supported by virtually every group of doctors, nurses and patients,' said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of the bill. 'The president should stand with them and not with HMOs and insurance companies.'
Another simple truth is eluded.
The senator from Massachusetts needs to realize that it's not an us-against-them kind of deal.
It's not doctors, nurses and patients against HMOs and insurance companies. That's a counterproductive position to take.
We are all in this together. Hospitals, nurses, doctors, patients, HMOs and insurance companies are inextricably intertwined.
If Congress passes laws that result in higher insurance premiums, then the very people the good senator is trying to help will suffer.
Frankly, I think if the cost of insurance goes up much more, lots of employers are going to stop subsidizing health insurance premiums for their employees.
Many small businesses - the largest block of employers in the country - simply will not be able to afford it.
The result is the vicious cycle created when people don't have health insurance.
They need care. They get the care, but they can't pay for it. Health care providers cost shift it to people who can pay for it - namely those who have insurance.
Insurance companies raise rates, pushing more people into the ranks of the uninsured.
Sure, it may sound like W is in bed with the insurance companies and HMOs. But I think W sees the simple truth.
If the cost of insurance keeps going up, nobody - not even our employers - will be able to afford it. [[In-content Ad]]
It's funny how simple truths elude politicians when they are trying to further their agendas.
Recently, there was a good example of this when politicians were screaming for price controls in the oil industry to bring down gas prices.
Of course it sounds good when you blame the people in the other political party for fiddling while Rome burns. W should be taking action. W should be putting price controls in place to curb inflation of gasoline prices.
That sounds really good to regular folks shelling out $2 per gallon. And, of course, members of W's administration sound really callous when they say that price controls don't work and we should let the market control the prices.
Callous as it may sound, they are right.
Just about any economist will tell you that artificially lowering prices generally increases demand.
But what needed to happen to bring gas prices down was for demand to decrease.
You can argue about why supplies were short, but you can't argue that supplies weren't short.
When supply is short and demand is high, prices rise. It's a simple economic truth.
As demand decreases, supplies increase and prices fall. Another simple economic truth.
But why bother with the truth when you can have a great sound bite?
I see the same thing happening in the patients' rights debate.
W is threatening a veto of a Democrat-backed patients' rights bill.
W says that the plan has the potential to price insurance coverage out of the reach of many Americans.
Here's a flash. Insurance coverage already is priced out of reach of most Americans.
The only way the vast majority of Americans - myself included among them - could afford a family health insurance plan is if they have an employer who provides a portion of it.
How many people can afford $700 or $800 a month for a family health insurance plan?
I think we all know the answer to that.
But anytime politicians start fooling around with health insurance regulations, the prices rises.
Remember when we made health insurance coverage "portable?" That means that if you have a plan where you work now and you change jobs, your new employer has to pick you up regardless of pre-existing conditions.
I can't say I am opposed to that idea, but let's look for a moment at its effect.
Insurance companies have reams of statistics to look over. They know how many cases of every imaginable disease there will be in any given demographic.
They do the math.
They know how many new cases of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc., they will be responsible for when the new law goes into effect.
What do you suppose they did? They raised rates.
They are not in the business of losing money, after all, so the cost of insurance increased.
Who do you suppose paid for the increase? Primarily, our employers. Secondarily, us.
The cost of health insurance doubled in the last 10 years, eating up larger chunks of our income.
Now, reports the Associated Press, "the Senate's Democratic majority wants to pass far-reaching rules designed to help patients sue HMOs when delays in or denial of care lead to disastrous or fatal results. In general, the bill also would grant patients access to emergency care, the right to select a pediatrician as a child's primary care physician, access to specialists and other rights."
The simple truth is that a plan like that will drive insurance costs even higher.
Enter the spokesman for W:
'While the president strongly supports a comprehensive and enforceable patients' bill of rights and has been working with members of both parties to enact legislation this year, he believes the measure pending in the Senate would encourage costly and unnecessary litigation that would seriously jeopardize the ability of many Americans to afford health care coverage.'
And the response from the opposition:
"It is disappointing that the president continues to repeat threats to veto comprehensive patient protections supported by virtually every group of doctors, nurses and patients,' said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of the bill. 'The president should stand with them and not with HMOs and insurance companies.'
Another simple truth is eluded.
The senator from Massachusetts needs to realize that it's not an us-against-them kind of deal.
It's not doctors, nurses and patients against HMOs and insurance companies. That's a counterproductive position to take.
We are all in this together. Hospitals, nurses, doctors, patients, HMOs and insurance companies are inextricably intertwined.
If Congress passes laws that result in higher insurance premiums, then the very people the good senator is trying to help will suffer.
Frankly, I think if the cost of insurance goes up much more, lots of employers are going to stop subsidizing health insurance premiums for their employees.
Many small businesses - the largest block of employers in the country - simply will not be able to afford it.
The result is the vicious cycle created when people don't have health insurance.
They need care. They get the care, but they can't pay for it. Health care providers cost shift it to people who can pay for it - namely those who have insurance.
Insurance companies raise rates, pushing more people into the ranks of the uninsured.
Sure, it may sound like W is in bed with the insurance companies and HMOs. But I think W sees the simple truth.
If the cost of insurance keeps going up, nobody - not even our employers - will be able to afford it. [[In-content Ad]]