Health Care: The Wal-Mart Example

If Wal-Mart ran U.S. health care, service would be better and the cost lower. We should be so lucky . . .

[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the coolum, where you can copy and paste the code for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. I'll be on the show this Saturday (5 p.m. ET) and all throughout August. Hope you visit!]


This is Part III of my series on health care . . . and why the Democrats' plans will be a disaster. The problem with health care in America is not that we don't Democratic plans that make us all increasingly dependent on government for how and where we get medical treatment. The problem is that health care (for reasons described in the columns below) has become separated from the private enterprise system, from capitalism.

Look at it this way: In a time of economic downturn, companies like Wal-Mart and Target are reporting sharp increases in revenues, while high-end department stores are floundering. Why is that? Obviously, people are fulfilling their retail needs at discount stores. They're voting with their pocketbooks. They're choosing to be more careful with their dollars. That's a choice we have in retail stores.

Where are the health care equivalents of Wal-Mart and Target? They don't exist. When it comes to medical care, it's Saks Fifth Avenue or nothing. My brother went into a hospital three years ago with a very minor ailment -- syncope, faintness -- and when he walked out 30 hours later, the bill was $22,600. He had no insurance, so various entities paid for it, one of which was you as a taxpayer.

We have no real choices in health care. In my area (Pittsburgh/Beaver County, western PA) all the doctors charge basically the same price, and the same is true of hospitals. When it comes to choice, customers -- patients -- have very little of it.

Beyond that, patients have very little knowledge of which caregivers are good -- and which are mediocre. We have less knowledge about health care providers than we do about choices in underwear.Also, if we're covered by insurance -- or by government payouts -- we have almost no incentive to shop around.

If we need a wart removed -- or an appendix -- we go where we go.Since we're not paying for it, at least directly, the service is basically free. Why should we care how much it costs?The health plans proposed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't deal with the problem -- and it's a whopper -- that I outline.The Democrats' plans talk about cost controls, but that's all it is -- talk. Those plans are recipes to drive costs up -- and services down.

Some people are mystified by John McCain's health care proposals. Basically, they're simple. He wants to bring the private enterprise system into play. He wants people to be able to choose their own insurers and level of coverage. He also wants them to be able to choose the quality of services and even negotiate the price of the services they purchase.

It's a very good idea. It won't work out perfectly, but it will begin the process of driving health costs down, increasing choice, and -- ultimately -- improving care.

The Democrats' proposals? They'll have the opposite effect, leading to all the bad results found in universal health care programs in Canada, Britain, and similar countries.

If Obama becomes President, prepare to wait in long lines . . . and receive indifferent care. That's what happens in Canada, and it's exactly what eventually will happen here.


1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>

This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows

We're All Responsible for Ourselves

I wrote the following to an individual who said the U.S. was falling behind other countries in developing renewable energy sources, living up to the spirit of the Kyoto Treaty, preserving manufacturing jobs, and assisting people in financial distress.

I hold a different view than you do. I've been reading in The (London) Economist about Europe's backsliding on its "commitments" to the Kyoto Treaty. Admittedly, Europe and Japan are doing a better job with nuclear power than we are.

I heard today that Wal-Mart and Target were doing very well, while the upscale shops are seeing declines. Wal-Mart and Target do well because they offer low-cost goods, many of them from China. Low-cost goods are not bad for the economy, except for people who want to pay higher prices.

People in India (which has more people in the middle class than the U.S.) and China are not big fans of abject poverty, and they are doing a good job of digging their way out. That isn't bad news either.

It’s not true that we have no control over our economic lives. If we’re buying things we can’t afford, then we need to re-focus our lives on a more sustainable basis.In the last 3-4 years, I have spent approximately $1,000 on gasoline -- total. Somehow, $3.50 gallon gasoline doesn't bother me, because I don't buy it. I live in an old mill town, which I love, in a house that cost so little that I can actually afford it.

My total credit card debt? Zero dollars and zero cents.

I know I'm supposed to feel the pain of people who are financially gasping for air. But I find it hard to shed tears for somebody who has two SUVs – I have none – and a house that cost five times as much as mine did.People need to make better decisions -- and not that the "government" is going to save them.

We have seen the government -- and it (at least its tax revenues) is us. I remember during the Florida Primary, many Floridians wanted John McCain to support higher insurance rates for those of us in the Rust Belt so Sunshine State homeowners in hurricane-prone areas could pay lower rates. McCain refused. Good for him.

McCain said yesterday that he's not an economic expert but he knows a lot more about the economy than Obama and Clinton. He's correct. He knows that giving handouts to people who’ve made poor decisions literally involves throwing good money after bad.

In the end, we're all responsible for ourselves. We should restrict our assistance to those who are floundering through no fault of their own.