Emmer column: The impoverishing power of the health-care boom
UNICEF figures it would cost $30 billion a year to provide a primary education to all the children of the world who are not receiving one now. It is a big number, but not crazy for a global problem.
It’s roughly what Colorado’s state government burns through in a year. It’s about $12,000 per Colorado household.
It is also the savings if Coloradans paid market rates for health care. It appears that Americans pay twice as much as other rich countries for roughly the same quality care, whether delivered by wholly socialized or significantly privatized systems.
Singapore pays only 25 percent of U.S. prices even though it is a much richer country, per person.
Nonetheless, it looks like Colorado’s ski counties are in the top three areas for highest health care costs in the U.S. That means we are world champs. Or chumps.
Health care is sucking $24,000 out of the average U.S. family’s income each year, according to 2014 numbers from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Matching the efficiency of other rich countries means saving $12,000 per household each and every year. Maybe more.
That is life-changing money for most Americans.
There are two primary theories for out-of-control costs. Forgive me for abbreviating them, though I hope not unfairly. Each theory is sponsored by one of the two major political tribes. Remember that both parties have highly trained BSer PR specialists.
The first theory is that high health-care costs are the private sector’s fault. Businesses are driven by profits. Government could run health care much more efficiently.
The opposing theory is more piecemeal. High costs are due to high malpractice judgments and a fragmented insurance market, and maybe insufficient patient control of health care costs. Government makes it worse, goes this line of reasoning.
Neither theory fits reality hand-in-glove. The greedy business theory has three holes in its hull. First, 80 percent of hospitals are nonprofits, about 50 percent of commercial market health insurers are nonprofits. One would think nonprofit hospitals coupled with nonprofit insurers would be able to undercut for-profit health care. They don’t.
Second, the world is enormously richer than, say 1776, precisely because it has usually harnessed the profit motive successfully. Vigorous competition among openly self-interested parties has provided low-cost, high-quality and spectacular choice in tires, tofu, tummy tucks and most other free-market goods and services.
Lastly, government pays for roughly 50 percent of health care. Even with such massive commercial clout, government has proven unable or unwilling to control costs.
Nor is the opposing theory very convincing. Malpractice judgments and single-state health insurance markets are important, but they seem insufficient to bulk up health care costs to such poverty-inducing weights.
One tribe wants to expand the socialization of health care to build upon the great successes of public education, public retirement systems and welfare.
The other wants to reduce the socialization of health care to avoid the great failures of public education, public retirement systems and welfare.
Curiously, neither Democrat nor Republican health reform efforts seriously try to control costs.
It is less of a head scratcher once OpenSecrets.org tells us that health care is largest source of lobbying money in our weakening democracy. Last year, health care spent four times as much on lobbying as the oil and gas industry and seven times that of defense.
Politicians and health-care leaders seem to have formed an alliance against the public.
Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and cowgirls; health-care providers have overpowered individuals, insurance companies, employers and even government.
How can we know? Health care costs have increased 70 percent after subtracting inflation just since the turn of the century. That is money snatched away from individuals, employers and public spenders.
Just as gravity pulls water, virtually all organizations expand their turf, their income, their boss’s salary until they meet resistance of equal or greater force. Health care has not yet met that resistance.
An additional theory: The deeper failure may be that individual citizens have let others take control of their health-care checkbook.
Politicians, bureaucrats and health care people are wonderful individuals whom most of us would be proud to have as friends and neighbors. It is not the fine individuals working in the The System, as much as The System trashing its own credibility.
There is a gusher of money in Colorado health care savings, bigger even than Abqaiq, that mother of Arabian oil fields. Twelve grand per household per year is plenty of money to pay off the national debt, beef up everyone’s retirement and buy an education for those desperately poor kids that should be in class instead of roaming the streets.
As citizens, it looks we will have to solve this ourselves. If “by the people, for the people” is more than verbal vapor, “we, the people” have the right to the power to fix this.
Vince Emmer is a financial analyst in Gypsum. He runs Citizens Due Diligence in his off hours. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Centrists are likely extinct