Is America’s health care system failing? A lot of people seem to think so. For one thing, there are now an estimated forty-seven million people without health care insurance. And, the solution to the problem invariably involves spending more money.

P.J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

Do you think that Barack Obama has the answers to providing health care in America? Or, John McCain? How about George W. Bush? Hillary Clinton? Or, for that matter, any politician? Do they really have the answers?

If they can’t do it, then how about the politicians in Canada or Great Britain? Have they solved the problem in their countries? Some people believe they have. However, in England, where the private practice of medicine was outlawed when socialized medicine was first established there, they were eventually forced to permit the public to go outside the state’s system to obtain health care from private physicians.

The story is much the same in Canada today. Many Canadians come to the U.S. for emergent needs, such as bypass surgery, because the waiting time in Canada is interminable, often many months before their citizens can get life-saving treatment when they need it. And, it can take many months to get an appointment with a doctor in some communities.

All state-run health care systems have one thing in common: rationing. Not necessarily involving the use of ration cards, but rationing nonetheless. That is, rationing of resources. The cause is a devilishly simple principle that is present in all nationalized health care programs: it’s free, or so low cost that it’s almost free. Basic economics clearly demonstrates that whenever something is free, the demand quickly becomes unlimited. The lower the price, the greater the “demand.” Give something away that people want and the “demand” will be virtually unlimited.

However, the flip side of unlimited demand is a shortage of supply. And, not having enough doctors, nurses, or equipment, such as CT Scanners and MRIs, eventually leads to rationing. Without enough health care to go around, rationing becomes a necessity. That’s what has been wrong with nationalized health care in England, Canada, Germany, Japan, the former USSR, everywhere it has been tried.

If there are no politicians who really know what should be done to solve our health care problems why do we keep expecting them to come up with answers?

Just exactly what are the problems? Too many uninsured? Too high cost? Poor quality? Lack of availability? All of the above? Do you know? Or think you know? And, what have been the government’s (read politicians’) solutions to date?

National health care (socialized medicine) in one form or another is the primary health care policy that is gradually being adopted in America. And it is slowly but surely lowering the quality of the health care we are getting. Talk to any doctor you trust and see if they don’t agree. They will tell you that they are working much longer hours for far less money, that many M.D.s are retiring early because they are fed up with the government and insurance company bureaucrats telling them how to practice medicine. There is a growing shortage of doctors and nurses.

You may say, we don’t have socialized medicine in America! Perhaps not yet, but we’ve been headed in that direction for a while, and we seem to be going further down the path as the years progress. It’s a slippery slope. For example, consider Medicare.

But, Medicare is not socialized medicine, you may insist.

Unfortunately, it is, or is headed that way. Why? For one thing, it’s a system that is based on price controls.

Price controls have never worked, ever, in any society at any time in history. They were tried as early as 301 A.D. by a Roman emperor, Diocletian, who implemented price controls under penalty of death. But, even that didn’t work. What price controls do is cause shortages, increase costs and disrupt markets.

Look at what has happened to the Medicare program since 1984, the year the government changed its method of reimbursing hospitals from cost plus to a system called DRGs (Diagnostic Related Groupings). DRGs is a method of classifying illnesses and assigning a comparative value and a specific authorized payment to each. At that point, many hospitals began to lose money because the government started dictating the prices that are paid for inpatient care.

Around 70% of most hospitals’ patients are seniors, whose bills are paid by Medicare. The Federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) determines, in its sole discretion, the prices that can be charged for seniors’ inpatient hospital care, and then pays only 80% of those amounts. The differences between a hospital’s standard fees for service and the amounts that Medicare pays must be written off. They cannot be collected from the patient. That’s price control.

Furthermore, because Medicare payments are determined solely by the government, annual Cost of Living increases are limited, generally to between one and two-and-one-half percent, in spite of the fact that hospital costs have been rising for years at an annual rate of anywhere from six to fourteen percent.

Between health insurance contracts (HMOs) and Medicare limits on their charges, hospitals generally collect only about 50% of their total billings. The rest is written off. The result of all this is predictable: many of them are losing money. About one-third of all hospitals in California are currently operating at a loss. For the non-profit hospitals, part of the loss is made-up through fund raising, but it’s not enough. With a national health care plan, at some point, many hospitals would either be closed or services curtailed. That has been the pattern in every country that has nationalized its health care. Nonetheless, that seems to be where we are headed, in spite of compelling evidence that it doesn’t work.

Like the proverbial frog being cooked in a pot of cold water, Americans are gradually becoming aware that the quality of their health care is declining, even as costs continue to go up. It just hasn’t sunk in yet. When it does, they will undoubtedly be led into believing government has the answers and demand more government control, regulation and oversight. And, our politicians will be only too willing to oblige.

Nationalized health care in America is gradually overtaking the free market, and we are all being slowly cooked in the pot of government intervention. So, don’t be surprised at the type of health care program we get as time progresses. Whatever your own conclusions, remember one thing: that our politicians won’t have to rely on whatever health care plan they establish for everyone else. As usual, they will have their own, superior plan. And, it will not be a part of the nationalized health care system that the rest of us will be required to use. If you doubt that assertion, just look at the health care plan that our Federal legislators and government employees have now.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Many Americans disagree with the notion that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN and think that the now famous words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?” should be our watchword, believing that we must continue talking to solve the world’s problems.

Unfortunately, the answer to Rodney King’s plaintiff query is: We can’t always get along. Some people refuse to compromise and insist on having their own way, no matter what. “Just getting along” implies that there is always some middle ground where the parties can come together to resolve their differences. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

There are times when some people are simply not willing to “get along” unless, of course, it’s strictly on their own terms. And, that may be harmful to the other side, as exemplified by the situation with Israel vs Iran, Syria, and Palestine, which have the common goal of wiping Israel off the map and driving the Jews into the sea. There is no way to compromise or “just get along” with such a position, where the other side is unwilling to settle for anything less than your destruction.

One of the more notable examples of the failure of trying to resolve problems with talk took place in 1939, immediately prior to Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland at the start of WWII. When England’s prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, “left Munich with a declaration signed by Hitler that assured peace,” he returned home “believing that he had achieved ‘peace with honour,’” and made his famous statement, “I believe it is peace in our time.” Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn’t.

There have been plenty of other occasions throughout history when agreements have been reached without one side having any intention of honoring them. North Korea’s now well known lie to the Clinton administration regarding nuclear power and “the bomb” is a good example of the acts of duplicity that have resulted from “talk.” And, it now appears that the agreement North Korea entered into with the Bush administration will prove to be just as worthless?

Following are some of the comments I received about my conclusion that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN, along with my responses:

COMMENT: “It might be useful to try to write about the virtues of the UN? Who else would be sent now to Lebanon-Israel border zone?
HRS: It would probably be possible to put together another military force for this assignment, perhaps using some of the same troops that have been volunteered to the UN force, just as NATO troops are now being used in Afghanistan. The difference is that in Afghanistan NATO troops are fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. In Lebanon, the real issue is whether or not the UN troops will disarm Hezbollah, or at least try. They have already been told that they are not authorized to use force, which will allow Hezbollah to rearm and prepare for the next assault on Israel, at that point under the auspices of the UN. So, what good are they?

COMMENT: “What other forum is there for nations to talk to each other?”
HRS: Perhaps none at the moment, but there’s nothing to prevent us from organizing a more constructive forum of like-minded nations.

COMMENT: ”Look into its history? Did they do some good somewhere?
HRS: Sure they have done some good. Past performance can be important, but the UN is no longer the same institution it was in its early years. And, organizations that are no longer effective or, worse yet, corrupt, should be dissolved, in favor of something new that works.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (historian): “First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.’s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy–infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers–chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.”

COMMENT: “Do the participants really have to be friendly to each other? (Polite, yes!)
HRS: No, they don’t have to be friendly, but there’s a big difference between not being friendly or having different strategic interests and outright hostility. As for being polite, I don’t see anything polite about the recent behavior of Venezuela, Iran and Sudan at the UN General Assembly. Antagonistic would be a better word. And, having to listen to insults and threats is not “talking” in the sense that is intended to solve problems.

COMMENT: “USA does pay way too much, and look at the value of the HQ there in NYC!! But, where else should be the HQ? How about Albania? Or Mogadishu??? Or Russia?”
HRS: My gut reaction is: Who cares where they go? Let someone else pick up the tab. They will be just as biased against the U.S. in any venue, but at least we don’t have to listen to their insults on our turf and pay for it.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva.”

COMMENT: “Yes it is flawed, but maybe somehow the participants are the ones to pull
up their sox and improve it. This guy Bolton (whose appearance is against him) is actually terrific!!! Let’s see what he can do? Mending is better than ending???”
HRS: I agree, Bolton is terrific, and I would also like to see him lose the mustache. At least I think so without seeing him sans facial hair. Who knows, if we saw him without it, we might like him better the way he looks now.

As for the “participants” improving the UN themselves, I don’t think so. The institution has reached the point where it is far too corrupt and out of control to be reformed from within. The only way that might be accomplished would be to use the power of the purse strings, and that doesn’t seem likely, because it’s doubtful that the other members who provide the bulk of its funding would be willing to do that.

I also don’t think we should stop talking, I just don’t think anything is accomplished in the UN that cannot be done better in another, or other, forum. There are plenty of ways to communicate without The UN, which I believe is not only a waste of time but a deterrent. Those organizations that are a part of the UN and that are worthwhile can and should be continued, either independently or as part of some other organization.

However, I don’t think that “mending” is necessarily “better than ending.” Sometimes it’s necessary to scrap something and simply start over.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria’s censure or a Chinese veto.”

© 2006 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved