This is an observation in broad brush strokes:
It seems that many institutions in this country have been corrupted by a kind of Leninism. That is not to say that they are marxist or even communist, but a reflection of the political methods employed by the Soviet Union. The example I would point to is Socialist Realism (wikipedia). Even art, arguably one of the highest achievements of man, was subordinated to ideology in the Soviet state.
To be fair, the use of art to further politics is not a new idea. One just has to look at the Pyramids , or read Plato's Republic. However, the soviet example echoes to me because of the dearth of art it left behind. What great artist of the twentieth century existed in the Soviet Union? If you run a google search no name pops up, though you do see an entry for propaganda posters. A few entries later you see a traveling exhibition, which prominently features a Faberge egg, definitely not a Soviet production. So to do our modern institutions seem barren. Take your pick of any political issue and you can find a depressing solidarity between press, academia, the arts, and the left in this country. Everyone is pulling together to further their ideology.
I would bid any reader to reflect, is this good or bad? You could argue that solidarity is merely a side effect of the wisdom contained within these institutions. Yet, to me, Socrates had a great point about those who proclaim their wisdom, as they have often mistaken opinion for truth and thus lead others into error.
13 October 2007
Follow up thoughts
Thinking back on my back-of-the-envelope calculation:
An obvious argument against what I posted below would be that the increase in taxation would be offset by business and individuals no longer having to pay an insurance company for health care. That is true, but overnight you would have essentially eliminated every health insurance corporation, and thrown all those people out of work. This is an even worse deal for those who went the HSA route, as now all the money they had been saving (and would be theirs at retirement iirc) would now be appropriated by a federal agency going forward. Now as far as I know, no major candidate of either party is currently advocating this. Instead we have a proposal to force everyone to carry health insurance. The downside of this is discussed at Pajamas Media here.
An obvious argument against what I posted below would be that the increase in taxation would be offset by business and individuals no longer having to pay an insurance company for health care. That is true, but overnight you would have essentially eliminated every health insurance corporation, and thrown all those people out of work. This is an even worse deal for those who went the HSA route, as now all the money they had been saving (and would be theirs at retirement iirc) would now be appropriated by a federal agency going forward. Now as far as I know, no major candidate of either party is currently advocating this. Instead we have a proposal to force everyone to carry health insurance. The downside of this is discussed at Pajamas Media here.
08 October 2007
Back of the envelope calculations
Note: Just some scattered thoughts on universal health insurance. This is not particularly organized, or even expressed well, but I wonder if anybody has thought five minutes about it.
At any rate I thought five minutes about it... you could probably argue that I should have thought ten.
$548,112,577,632.36
Thats my back of the envelope calculation of what universal, single payer, health insurance might have roughly cost in the year 2000. How did I calculate it? I took the cost of an HSA plan with a $3000 deductible and $183.01 per month premium over a year. I then multiplied that by the number of households according to the year 2000 census (105,480,101).
I'm assuming (a pretty big assumption) that the HSA plan is rationally priced to cover the risk of a large pool of the insured. I also assume that each household is pretty much an equal unit (in reality they are not and quite disparate).
Thus this number is probably not very accurate, but it gives you a handle on what it could cost. If anything the cost will be higher because most of your economic incentives to economize on health care (except for time) will be gone. In a single payer system there isn't insurance, instead its a cost distributing function. Insurance implies that you might not have to pay 100%. Not to mention you pay a penalty in administrative costs. You will never get a dollar in output for every dollar of input.
Also, while people will also call this 'free' health care, it isn't. Somebody has to pay for it, and you will in the form of taxes. If Congress was acting in a rational matter when it instituted socialized health care, it would raise a special tax that would only go to fund health care, and draw no revenues from the general fund. Congress would also not run any sort of deficit, except in maybe a twelve to twenty four month time frame to smooth out variations in tax receipts quarter to quarter (adding yet a higher administrative cost in the sense of having to pay interest and maintain bond issues).
Anyway, lets assume that each household will have a $434 additional tax liability per month. Thats roughly $5200 a year in additional taxes. Roughly 10% of income, for a household with an income of $50,000 a year, and it only gets more regressive with the less a household makes. At $25,000 its roughly %20 of your income for instance. In the interests of fairness, of course, the less wealthy will not be required to pay as much. This will shift the burden upward.
Of course in my scenario you still pay income tax to the federal government...
Assume that if you earn $50k, you have $40k of taxable income at a %20 rate..
Thats $8,000 in federal taxes owed + $5,200 for universal health care...
$13,200, (%26.4 of income) in total taxes to federal government (haven't even factored in state, local etc) Over $1000+ a month.
Federal spending would also rise from 2,656 Billion dollars (2006 outlays) to 3,116 Billion dollars (my estimate). With a GDP of 12,907 billion dollars you are looking at the federal government equal to 1/4 of the economy.
Ouch.
This doesn't even get into the philosophical issues surrounding universal health care, issues such as rationing, central control, and modifying the compact between the people and their government.
At any rate I thought five minutes about it... you could probably argue that I should have thought ten.
$548,112,577,632.36
Thats my back of the envelope calculation of what universal, single payer, health insurance might have roughly cost in the year 2000. How did I calculate it? I took the cost of an HSA plan with a $3000 deductible and $183.01 per month premium over a year. I then multiplied that by the number of households according to the year 2000 census (105,480,101).
I'm assuming (a pretty big assumption) that the HSA plan is rationally priced to cover the risk of a large pool of the insured. I also assume that each household is pretty much an equal unit (in reality they are not and quite disparate).
Thus this number is probably not very accurate, but it gives you a handle on what it could cost. If anything the cost will be higher because most of your economic incentives to economize on health care (except for time) will be gone. In a single payer system there isn't insurance, instead its a cost distributing function. Insurance implies that you might not have to pay 100%. Not to mention you pay a penalty in administrative costs. You will never get a dollar in output for every dollar of input.
Also, while people will also call this 'free' health care, it isn't. Somebody has to pay for it, and you will in the form of taxes. If Congress was acting in a rational matter when it instituted socialized health care, it would raise a special tax that would only go to fund health care, and draw no revenues from the general fund. Congress would also not run any sort of deficit, except in maybe a twelve to twenty four month time frame to smooth out variations in tax receipts quarter to quarter (adding yet a higher administrative cost in the sense of having to pay interest and maintain bond issues).
Anyway, lets assume that each household will have a $434 additional tax liability per month. Thats roughly $5200 a year in additional taxes. Roughly 10% of income, for a household with an income of $50,000 a year, and it only gets more regressive with the less a household makes. At $25,000 its roughly %20 of your income for instance. In the interests of fairness, of course, the less wealthy will not be required to pay as much. This will shift the burden upward.
Of course in my scenario you still pay income tax to the federal government...
Assume that if you earn $50k, you have $40k of taxable income at a %20 rate..
Thats $8,000 in federal taxes owed + $5,200 for universal health care...
$13,200, (%26.4 of income) in total taxes to federal government (haven't even factored in state, local etc) Over $1000+ a month.
Federal spending would also rise from 2,656 Billion dollars (2006 outlays) to 3,116 Billion dollars (my estimate). With a GDP of 12,907 billion dollars you are looking at the federal government equal to 1/4 of the economy.
Ouch.
This doesn't even get into the philosophical issues surrounding universal health care, issues such as rationing, central control, and modifying the compact between the people and their government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)