<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>composmentis's Diary</title>
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/composmentis</link>
	<description>Just another RedState: Conservative News and Community weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:31:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.2.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>Call it Fannie Med</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>John Stossel has a  great post about how ObamaCare can&#8217;t possibly work despite the delusions of the left.</p>
<blockquote><p>1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches &#8212; without controversy &#8212; that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.</p>
<p>2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yectg7h">does that</a>. Once the planners&#8217; mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy &#8212; or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/05/the_costs_of_medical_care_part_ii__98985.html">points out</a>, government cannot really reduce costs<a href="http://tinyurl.com/yjvlzh9"></a>. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).</p>
<p>3) How does government &#8220;create choice&#8221; by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their &#8220;minimum&#8221; coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.</p>
<p>4) How does it &#8220;create choice&#8221; by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let&#8217;s call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough <a href="http://tinyurl.com/l7qoxv">to say</a> that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.</p>
<p>Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that&#8217;s impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won&#8217;t talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?</p>
<p>Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians&#8217; refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won&#8217;t solve our problems.</p></blockquote>
<p>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/11/the_us_house_of_presumptuous_meddlers_99099.html</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/composmentis/2009/11/23/call-it-fannie-med/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

