Human Rights
The one term used in politics the most it seems is the word ‘rights’. Democrats claim people have a ‘right’ to things such as housing, education, medical care and more. Republicans claim people have a ‘right’ to force others to comply with their worldview i.e. religious and otherwise. Both Democrats and Republicans are wrong. It is our vast misconception of what really is a ‘right’ that has caused much confusion in almost all of the debates of the day. One side will debate their view of the ‘facts’ and the other side will debate their views. Both sides are constantly neglecting the real issue which is the violation of human rights. So it is of vital importance to understand where our rights come from and what a ‘right’ really is. Who has ‘rights’ and what do they apply to? These are things that need to be understood if any real debate can go on not only in this country, but in the world. Philosophers like Ayn Rand have explained what a ‘right’ is and where we derive our rights from, which is nature. Thomas Paine explained of rights and the right to life in general as one of the most powerful forces in our world. He said this of liberty “they had no idea that liberty was capable of such inspiration, or that a body of unarmed citizens would dare to face the military force of thirty thousand men.” This statement made in regards to the French Revolution. In the past the term rights, especially referring to right to life i.e. liberty, have engaged in men the ability to do things never before thought of on this earth. In a book by Thomas Sowell entitled Applied Economics. Dr. Sowell mentions a conversation between a teacher and a student. Where the student innocently asks his professor the question of where did slavery come from? The professor replied simply. “You are asking the wrong question the question is where did the idea of freedom come from?”
Possibly it is because the idea of freedom and ‘rights” being so new to mankind that the majority of the populace, including the freest country in the world, still have not fully grasped that ever elusive, and beautiful word ‘right.’ In order to explain rights I shall quote several small sections in one recent philosophers’ definition and defense of individual rights. Ayn Rand.
“Rights” are a moral concept, the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others – the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context – the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society. Between ethics and politics, individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law (Virtue of Selfishness, 108)
She also explained on page 110
A right is the property of an individual that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): A man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self generated action – which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life (such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Italics mine)
Lastly she said in her most popular book Atlas Shrugged this about the source of man’s rights:
The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law but the law of identity. A is A and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.
For the first time in history human rights were not given to them by a dictator or by god as a privilege, but were understood to be inalienable and to be part of man’s nature and the best part of them. That government was not there to dictate a man’s life but was instilled by the people and for the people. The Declaration of Independence laid down the principles that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined it’s only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical force.
There has been a breaking and a misunderstanding of what rights truly are and how they operate in a social context. An alleged right which takes away the rights of another man cannot by its very definition be called a right. Right’s do not enforce obligations on another person or on a group of persons. No man can claim a right to impose an unwanted obligation, an unrewarded duty or involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave”
One of the biggest key indicators of our society losing sight of the concept of rights and their corollaries was the Democratic Party Platform of 1960 which summarizes the switch from the concept of rights from political to the economic realm. The platform declares that a democratic administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote in our national conscience sixteen years ago”
1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms of mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation.
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his product at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
4. The right of every businessman, large and small to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
5. The right of every family to a decent home
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
8. The right to a good education.
These alleged rights are still being shouted out at the public, and most people listen to the yelling simply because it sounds good to them. An important aspect of morality people need to realize is that none of these things; jobs, food, clothing, recreation, homes, medical care, education etc grows in nature. These are all man-made values, goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them? A question to add at the end of all eight points above is a simple one, at whose cost? The question number one then becomes ‘the right to a useful and remunerative job … at whose cost?’ If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Our fore fathers intelligently spoke of the Pursuit of Happiness; they did not speak of the right to happiness, only a guarantee to the pursuit of happiness. This means that anyone can take the actions he or she thinks are necessary to achieve their own personal happiness. It does not mean that others must make him or her happy. For example the right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work and to have the opportunity to reach as high a level as he possibly can. It does not mean others must provide him with the necessities of life. The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property. To use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property. The right to free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference of punitive action by the government; it does not mean that others must provide that person with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas. (Virtue of Selfishness, Rand)
In order to become a free society people must have an understanding of their rights and that no one may take away their rights unless they allow someone to take their rights away from them. Over the last eighty years or so there has been a systematic destruction of man’s rights and only very few willing to do or say anything about it. This is because the main flaw in the founding of the United States of America was a lack of a moral code to back up the constitution. Abraham Lincoln once said that “those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” Does this simply mean outright slavery, or does it imply a slavery of any kind? Slavery of forcing a man to hire employees he normally would not, or of forcing some group of people to pay for the hardship of others? One of the major problems with society today is the concept of their rights, that it is their right to medical care and a job simply showcases the ignorance’s of society and its individuals in our modern culture. A group of individuals who claim they have these rights and it is the responsibility of the government to provide them with these rights.
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows liberty decreases.” – Thomas Jefferson.
In this end I leave a simple way to understand rights. Imagine this scenario, a man lives on a deserted island, in order to finally understand man’s rights he must ask himself these questions.
1. Do I have a right to food?
2. Do I have a right to housing?
3. Do I have a right to water?
4. Do I have a right to medical care if I get injured?
5. Do I have a right to a job?
The man on the island has none of these alleged ‘rights’ along with many more that today we have begun to imagine as rights. The only right this man has is the right to use his mind in order to build a net to catch fish, to make a fire to cook the fish. He must use his mind to cut down trees in order to build a shelter for himself. He has the right to make bandages when he injures himself, he does not have a magical right to medical care on a deserted island. Rights are a moral transition from his individual rights to the rights in his dealing with other men.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
An overview of Socialized Healthcare
CURRENT PROBLEMS IN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
America has produced the most advanced medical technology the world has ever seen. All around us there are more and more advancements each year. Already there are things like ‘clot buster’ drugs which have helped patients to survive heart attacks, which in the past would have killed them. There are new forms of keyhole surgery to help patients with appendicitis, allowing them to be treated and discharged in 24 hour or less, in the past this could have taken at least a week. America has improved tremendously in the advancement of cancer treatment, allowing bicyclist Lance Armstrong to live through a testicular cancer which would have killed him had he lived 40 years ago. (Zinzer and Hsieh)
The problem lies in many Americans getting access to this health care, and deciding what the best way to distribute the care is. With health insurance getting higher and higher, and medical costs are soaring. Medicines are becoming too expensive to buy and Medicare is not covering many of the elderly enough to pay for their health costs. Geri Barbera, a 79 year old grandmother, had to dip into her and her husband’s savings as well as sell their truck just to be able to afford the extra costs in medicine she needed for her husband’s treatments, Alzheimer’s, and prescription medicine. (Barbera) One of the many things that compound this problem of Americans not having access to the treatment they need is a decline of medical doctors and overall medical care.
Decline of Medical Doctors
Currently there is a problem with burn out in doctors, including many doctors not wanting to see patients who are now on Medicaid and Medicare. The American Medical Association’s survey indicates a massive 90% of doctors turning down patients who are on Medicaid, making the shortage of doctors available to those people even higher, while at the same time 99% will see anyone on private insurance. Lin Zinser a 20 year litigator in the medical and business field, and Paul Hsieh A medical doctor in Denver Colorado and co founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine foundation (FIRM) wrote an article titled Moral Health Care vs. Universal Health Care. They had this to say about a decrease in doctors.
“According to a recent survey of doctors, 30 to 40 percent of practicing physicians would not choose to enter the medical profession if they were deciding on a career again, and an even higher percentage would not encourage their children to pursue a medical career.” (Zinzer and Hsieh)
Health Care Spending
Right now the money spent on health care in America is totaling around 17% of our entire economy, which according to many economists like Walter Williams, will increase to at least 20 percent by 2019. Also in the report by Zinser and Hsieh on health care, “annual spending [is] consistently growing faster than the overall economy… because of skyrocketing health care costs, the U.S. federal Medicare trust fund is expected to go bankrupt in 2019… potentially leaving millions of elderly American’s without health insurance coverage.” (Zinzer and Hsieh)
Main Proposed Solutions
The two proposals in America are to make all Americans purchase insurance through government mandates, and those who are unable to purchase their own insurance will receive subsidies from the government. Or the other proposal is to have a ‘single-payer’ system in which the government is the only insurance company, and all private insurance companies are to be utterly wiped out. According to the executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine and author Richard E. Ralston in his article titled Free-Market Health Insurance is Not the Enemy, “Insurance companies do not pay all of every claim, but neither does Medicare. Yet history indicates that Medicare and Medicaid spending is out of control.” (Ralston). There are many problems in our current system; however the concept that what we currently have is a ‘free market’ is vastly mistaken.
BACKGROUND: HISTORY OF OUR CURRENT MEDICAL INDUSTRY
There are many misconceptions of the medical industry, such as the difference between ‘cost’ and ‘price’, the difference between ‘health care’ and ‘health insurance.’ First, is the difference between price and cost. Prices pay for costs, yet if someone were to ask a politician they might hear them say “I will bring down the cost of medical care.” This according to author and economist Thomas Sowell simply means, “… A quick fix that will win votes at the next election, regardless of what the repercussions are.” Because prices cover costs, if the prices a doctor charges does not cover the cost this will always lead to a decline in supply and in the quality of the service and or products. In Dr. Sowell’s article The Cost of Medical Care he says “the average medical student graduates with a debt of more than $100,000. The cost per doctor running an office is more than $100 an hour. The average cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is $800 million. These are among some of the costs of medical care.” (Sowell)
Secondly is the difference between health care and health insurance. Health insurance helps to pay for catastrophic health care costs, such as cancer, diabetes, heart attacks and other problems that cause long hospital stays and extreme prices. In the past when someone were injured they would simply go to the doctor and pay cash for service, or the hospital would put them on a payment plan. Those who could not afford even the payment plan had the option to use some of the many charitable organizations. What America has now is the idea that health insurance should cover the cost of all their medical needs, including normal checkups with their doctors. Again this misses the point of insurance, which is designed to spread risk. Most people would not say their house insurance should cover everything from lawn mowing services to fixing shingles and painting their fence. Home owners insurance merely protects against catastrophic incidents such as hurricanes, floods, fires. Health insurance is the same thing.
Government Interference in the Health Insurance Industry
There are many regulations, mandates, and unequal taxation of health insurance companies that give the appearance of a free market but which in actuality is far from it. Insurance companies are taxed on the premiums they collect but are in many cases also ordered to set aside a certain amount of reserves to cover future claims.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
One problem happened when during the great depression some of these insurance companies were exempt from these tax laws. They were called; Blue Cross and Blue Shield. These two organizations successfully lobbied the government to be considered ‘non-profit’ and thus exempt from many of the tax laws. The two ‘Blue’ companies offered community rating which allowed everyone in the same community to pay the same premium, based off of that particular community.
These two organizations which by the 1950’s became the biggest providers of health insurance in America wanted mainly to provide steady income for doctors and cover all expenses of medical treatments even the routine, which in the past had never been done. The problem occurred when the blues were able to get special privileges from the government in the form of their nonprofit status. This in turn harmed other insurance companies and turned health insurance into a ‘pay for all’ expense rather than a service which covered costs that would normally bankrupt a family. Eventually more and more insurance companies began to offer similar packages to their customers in order to compete with the two blue companies.
According to Zinser and Hsieh, “this new model [for health insurance companies] was a disaster in the making. In addition to minimizing incentives for insured customers to comparison shop for medical services, it also minimized incentives for doctors and hospitals to compete on price.” (Zinzer and Hsieh) Unfortunately this model did not come about by free market thinking it was a direct result of a government getting involved in the health insurance industry.
1942 STABILIZATION ACT
Another major impact on the health insurance industry was the 1942 Stabilization Act that was passed during WWII in order to freeze wages in America. The effect was that a business in order to attract new and better employees would offer health insurance coverage instead of giving a pay increase. This gave rise to the idea that it is an employee’s ‘right’ to have health insurance provided by their employers, which simply is not the case. Businesses do not cover an individual employee’s home insurance or their car insurance or other such things. This Stabilization Act was followed quickly by the IRS decreeing that health insurance premiums paid by employers are not taxable income. Another thing they decreed was that these premiums were a legitimate cost of doing business and can be deducted from the employer’s taxable income. (Zinzer and Hsieh)
This led to the major problem of employees not knowing the ‘cost’ of their health insurance and therefore to increase many employees anger at having some of that cost shifted towards them. Also these acts caused an enormous explosion in employer purchased health care, rather than individually purchased health care.
STATE AND FEDERAL MANDATES
There are over 1,900 different state and federal mandates across America which increases the cost of insurance for two main reasons. First are the mandates, usually from special interests groups like Parkinson’s advocates. These advocates lobby the government to then force insurance companies to cover Parkinson’s for all customers. This mandate leads to higher costs, as the insurance company is forced to take into account people who will need this type of coverage, whether an individual customer needs to be covered for Parkinson’s or not.
Second are the guaranteed issue laws, which force insurance companies to take on a new customer with previous ailments allowing people to wait till they are sick in order to get insurance coverage. Insurance companies must than increase the prices of their policies to their pre-existing clients and to new clients. A guaranteed issue law is equivalent to passing a law allowing someone to purchase home owners insurance for fire after their house burns down.
Government Interference in the Medical Industry
Many of the laws that have been passed cause doctors to pay fines and sometimes even jail time for things other than malpractice, such as simply making a mistake on their documentation of patient’s records. Programs like Medicaid and Medicare also have lead to a tremendous overcrowding in emergency rooms. Many of the people who go to ERs do not have critical problems but since they are covered under Medicare or Medicaid they go for ‘free.’ This makes it harder for those with serious problems to get the care they need when they need it.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND LABOR ACT OF 1985 (EMTALA)
The EMTALA law requires a hospital which accepts Medicare or Medicaid patients to accept anyone within two hundred feet of an emergency room, whether the person can pay for treatment or not. If a doctor or hospital fails to comply with this law they are subject to fines up to $50,000 for each infraction. To give an example, this would be like forcing grocery stores to allow anyone within two hundred feet to get any amount of food they say they need. A law like this would bankrupt most grocery stores. According to the American College of Emergency Physicians, from 1993 to 2003, while the U.S. Population grew by 12 percent, emergency room visits grew by 27 percent – from 90 million to 114 million visits. In the same period, however, 425 emergency rooms closed (14 percent of the ERs that existed in 1993), along with 703 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds. (Zinzer and Hsieh)
HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPAA)
This is an act that was passed in 1996 which requires by law that all doctors and any institute that provides medical services to fill out enormous amounts of paperwork saying they acknowledge their patients right to medical privacy. Dr. Reinhardt a retired surgeon in Pueblo Colorado said this about HIPAA “Every doctor needs to plan for the possibility of several fines every year.” (Reinhardt) Physicians must also have their own ‘specialized’ insurance that covers millions of dollars for fees and fines. This cost is than shifted to their patients.
Laws such as HIPAA merely turn Doctors into criminals for a simple error in paperwork. Penalties can range anywhere from $100 all the way up to $25,000 per year. Doctors are also able to be prosecuted for these errors, again this has nothing to do with actual malpractice but simply a failure to disclose or fill out all the proper paperwork. In the report done by Zinser and Hsieh a doctor told one of the authors that emergency room doctors are constantly breaking the HIPAA laws simply because it would be unethical to do otherwise.
“Complying with HIPPA… Would delay emergency medical treatment, keep families from understanding their loved-one’s condition, and preclude the crucial sharing of knowledge between family members and doctors about the history and condition of the patient.” (Zinzer and Hsieh)
The laws HIPAA enforce are the same things doctors have been acknowledging without these laws anyway, these laws simply add to the paperwork a doctor must fill out. This additional paperwork just takes away time a doctor should spend on saving lives.
DISCUSSION: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SOCIALIZING MEDICINE
There are several negative economical impacts socialized medicine has had on other countries. First, are the immense waiting lists many individuals are subjugated to in order to ration the medical services to everyone. Another problem that arises in these countries is the exodus of doctors and an overall decline of the medical care provided by the doctors in the system. Lastly is the loss of innovation, most countries currently and have always relied heavily on the innovativeness of America.
Waiting lists
Many advocates of socialized medicine in America point out the fact that America is the only industrialized country without a ‘single-payer’ system. One thing these advocates do not discuss is the enormous waiting lists these other countries must comply with. A major problem happens when people who normally would not go to see a doctor are now allowed to see one for ‘free’, at the expense of the taxpayer. People begin seeing doctors in droves for any ache or pain they might have, whether they would normally see a doctor or not.
In an article written by author and professor of economics Walter Williams Free Health Care in Canada? Dr. Williams quoted several sources from the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver based think tank. Showing some of the waiting lists Canada has to deal with. “The average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003.” The research found that Saskatchewan had the longest wait time with thirty weeks, and Ontario was the shortest at fourteen weeks. As far as Diagnostic procedures; Computer Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Ultrasound, ranged anywhere from two to twenty four weeks. (Williams, Walter E. Williams)
Exodus of Doctors
Another problem industrialized countries with socialized medicine are having is a decline in medical doctors, as well as low enrollment for medical schools. A study conducted by the Canadian Medical Association Journal showed an exodus of thousands of doctors leaving Canada. The study shows over the past 30 years 19,000 Canadian trained physicians left Canada for America. In 2006 there were 8,162 physicians who left Canada for America, “That figure accounts for about one in nine Canadian-trained physicians, which is equivalent to having two average-sized Canadians medical schools dedicated entirely to producing physicians for the United States.” (Arvantes) Two medical schools may not sound like a lot; however Canada only has 17 medical schools.
This decline in medical doctors and enrollment is a direct result of a human being not being willing to dedicate a lifetime to the perfection of a craft, than to be told how they are to operate and who they are allowed to see. A doctor is no different than any other individual who wishes to provide a service and or product and be compensated for said product/service.
Loss of Innovation
One of the most important attributes of America is its ability to create new products for itself and the world. This is shown in every aspect of Americans daily life. From telephones, cars, planes, televisions, computers, internet and more it is this ability to be innovative that has allowed America to remain the most powerful country in history. This innovation remains because of one fact, America allows individuals the freedom to create new products and then sell them however they see fit. In other words America allows for incentives, and very powerful incentives. Dr Reinhardt, although an advocate of a ‘single-payer’ health system in America, admitted America is by far the most innovative country in the world in the medical field. (Reinhardt)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research in this report was extracted from; lead economists, authors, statistical data from World Health Organization and the Fraser institute, as well as individuals in the current American Health industry, and has lead to the following conclusions on Socialized Medicine in America.
Conclusions
1. The current system in America is far from an actual free market, and many of the problems America is now facing are a direct result of the thousands of mandates and regulations both the health insurance industry and the medical industry are subject to in America.
2. Countries around the world currently under a form of socialized medicine have many problems of their own, such as the waiting lists, exodus of doctors, and an overall decline in the quality of medical services.
3. Some of our current government programs like Medicaid and Medicare will go bankrupt, without changes, by 2019.
4. The majority of the world depends on America for new life saving procedures and medicines. With a loss of incentives to create these new innovations, America is at risk of losing its ability to keep innovation going in this industry.
Recommendations
1. From the research and findings of this report it is recommended that the solution to the health care problems in America is not more government intervention, but less. It would however be a grave mistake to simply eradicate any and all government programs immediately. The best solutions are to start slowly, with for example the repealing of EMTALA. This can allow doctors and hospitals to set their own terms for garnering payment for their services.
2. Eliminate any type of special treatments certain companies might get, such as allowing ‘The Blues’ companies to have non-profit status. Repealing acts such as HIPAA can be done immediately, since these laws do nothing but add to the useless paperwork doctors and hospitals must do and adds tremendously to the amount of money they must pay out for malpractice suits.
3. The things that need to be done are to eradicate any and all government interference in the medical industry. As was mentioned before it has been this government interference that has caused the high costs of insurance and medical services we now have. To add more would only compound the problem.
Works Cited
Arvantes, James. Canadian Physician Exodus Benefits United States, Hurts Canada . 2 May 2007. 18th April 2008.
Barbera, Geri. Interview. Kirk Barbera. 18th March 2008.
Ralston, Richard E. Capitalst Magazine. 5 February 2008. 10 February 2008.
Reinhardt, Eric. Interview. Kirk Barbera. 8th April 2008.
Sowell, Thomas. Capitalism Magazine. 4 May 2004. 21 February 2008.
Stossel, John. Capitlalist Magazine. 10 August 2007. 2 March 2008.
Williams, Walter. "Walter E. Williams." 21 July 2004. George Mason University. 18th Jan 2008.
—. "Walter E. Williams ." 1 July 2004. George Mason University. January 2008.
Zinzer, Lin and Paul Hsieh. The Objective Standard. 2007-08. 1 March 2008.
America has produced the most advanced medical technology the world has ever seen. All around us there are more and more advancements each year. Already there are things like ‘clot buster’ drugs which have helped patients to survive heart attacks, which in the past would have killed them. There are new forms of keyhole surgery to help patients with appendicitis, allowing them to be treated and discharged in 24 hour or less, in the past this could have taken at least a week. America has improved tremendously in the advancement of cancer treatment, allowing bicyclist Lance Armstrong to live through a testicular cancer which would have killed him had he lived 40 years ago. (Zinzer and Hsieh)
The problem lies in many Americans getting access to this health care, and deciding what the best way to distribute the care is. With health insurance getting higher and higher, and medical costs are soaring. Medicines are becoming too expensive to buy and Medicare is not covering many of the elderly enough to pay for their health costs. Geri Barbera, a 79 year old grandmother, had to dip into her and her husband’s savings as well as sell their truck just to be able to afford the extra costs in medicine she needed for her husband’s treatments, Alzheimer’s, and prescription medicine. (Barbera) One of the many things that compound this problem of Americans not having access to the treatment they need is a decline of medical doctors and overall medical care.
Decline of Medical Doctors
Currently there is a problem with burn out in doctors, including many doctors not wanting to see patients who are now on Medicaid and Medicare. The American Medical Association’s survey indicates a massive 90% of doctors turning down patients who are on Medicaid, making the shortage of doctors available to those people even higher, while at the same time 99% will see anyone on private insurance. Lin Zinser a 20 year litigator in the medical and business field, and Paul Hsieh A medical doctor in Denver Colorado and co founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine foundation (FIRM) wrote an article titled Moral Health Care vs. Universal Health Care. They had this to say about a decrease in doctors.
“According to a recent survey of doctors, 30 to 40 percent of practicing physicians would not choose to enter the medical profession if they were deciding on a career again, and an even higher percentage would not encourage their children to pursue a medical career.” (Zinzer and Hsieh)
Health Care Spending
Right now the money spent on health care in America is totaling around 17% of our entire economy, which according to many economists like Walter Williams, will increase to at least 20 percent by 2019. Also in the report by Zinser and Hsieh on health care, “annual spending [is] consistently growing faster than the overall economy… because of skyrocketing health care costs, the U.S. federal Medicare trust fund is expected to go bankrupt in 2019… potentially leaving millions of elderly American’s without health insurance coverage.” (Zinzer and Hsieh)
Main Proposed Solutions
The two proposals in America are to make all Americans purchase insurance through government mandates, and those who are unable to purchase their own insurance will receive subsidies from the government. Or the other proposal is to have a ‘single-payer’ system in which the government is the only insurance company, and all private insurance companies are to be utterly wiped out. According to the executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine and author Richard E. Ralston in his article titled Free-Market Health Insurance is Not the Enemy, “Insurance companies do not pay all of every claim, but neither does Medicare. Yet history indicates that Medicare and Medicaid spending is out of control.” (Ralston). There are many problems in our current system; however the concept that what we currently have is a ‘free market’ is vastly mistaken.
BACKGROUND: HISTORY OF OUR CURRENT MEDICAL INDUSTRY
There are many misconceptions of the medical industry, such as the difference between ‘cost’ and ‘price’, the difference between ‘health care’ and ‘health insurance.’ First, is the difference between price and cost. Prices pay for costs, yet if someone were to ask a politician they might hear them say “I will bring down the cost of medical care.” This according to author and economist Thomas Sowell simply means, “… A quick fix that will win votes at the next election, regardless of what the repercussions are.” Because prices cover costs, if the prices a doctor charges does not cover the cost this will always lead to a decline in supply and in the quality of the service and or products. In Dr. Sowell’s article The Cost of Medical Care he says “the average medical student graduates with a debt of more than $100,000. The cost per doctor running an office is more than $100 an hour. The average cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is $800 million. These are among some of the costs of medical care.” (Sowell)
Secondly is the difference between health care and health insurance. Health insurance helps to pay for catastrophic health care costs, such as cancer, diabetes, heart attacks and other problems that cause long hospital stays and extreme prices. In the past when someone were injured they would simply go to the doctor and pay cash for service, or the hospital would put them on a payment plan. Those who could not afford even the payment plan had the option to use some of the many charitable organizations. What America has now is the idea that health insurance should cover the cost of all their medical needs, including normal checkups with their doctors. Again this misses the point of insurance, which is designed to spread risk. Most people would not say their house insurance should cover everything from lawn mowing services to fixing shingles and painting their fence. Home owners insurance merely protects against catastrophic incidents such as hurricanes, floods, fires. Health insurance is the same thing.
Government Interference in the Health Insurance Industry
There are many regulations, mandates, and unequal taxation of health insurance companies that give the appearance of a free market but which in actuality is far from it. Insurance companies are taxed on the premiums they collect but are in many cases also ordered to set aside a certain amount of reserves to cover future claims.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
One problem happened when during the great depression some of these insurance companies were exempt from these tax laws. They were called; Blue Cross and Blue Shield. These two organizations successfully lobbied the government to be considered ‘non-profit’ and thus exempt from many of the tax laws. The two ‘Blue’ companies offered community rating which allowed everyone in the same community to pay the same premium, based off of that particular community.
These two organizations which by the 1950’s became the biggest providers of health insurance in America wanted mainly to provide steady income for doctors and cover all expenses of medical treatments even the routine, which in the past had never been done. The problem occurred when the blues were able to get special privileges from the government in the form of their nonprofit status. This in turn harmed other insurance companies and turned health insurance into a ‘pay for all’ expense rather than a service which covered costs that would normally bankrupt a family. Eventually more and more insurance companies began to offer similar packages to their customers in order to compete with the two blue companies.
According to Zinser and Hsieh, “this new model [for health insurance companies] was a disaster in the making. In addition to minimizing incentives for insured customers to comparison shop for medical services, it also minimized incentives for doctors and hospitals to compete on price.” (Zinzer and Hsieh) Unfortunately this model did not come about by free market thinking it was a direct result of a government getting involved in the health insurance industry.
1942 STABILIZATION ACT
Another major impact on the health insurance industry was the 1942 Stabilization Act that was passed during WWII in order to freeze wages in America. The effect was that a business in order to attract new and better employees would offer health insurance coverage instead of giving a pay increase. This gave rise to the idea that it is an employee’s ‘right’ to have health insurance provided by their employers, which simply is not the case. Businesses do not cover an individual employee’s home insurance or their car insurance or other such things. This Stabilization Act was followed quickly by the IRS decreeing that health insurance premiums paid by employers are not taxable income. Another thing they decreed was that these premiums were a legitimate cost of doing business and can be deducted from the employer’s taxable income. (Zinzer and Hsieh)
This led to the major problem of employees not knowing the ‘cost’ of their health insurance and therefore to increase many employees anger at having some of that cost shifted towards them. Also these acts caused an enormous explosion in employer purchased health care, rather than individually purchased health care.
STATE AND FEDERAL MANDATES
There are over 1,900 different state and federal mandates across America which increases the cost of insurance for two main reasons. First are the mandates, usually from special interests groups like Parkinson’s advocates. These advocates lobby the government to then force insurance companies to cover Parkinson’s for all customers. This mandate leads to higher costs, as the insurance company is forced to take into account people who will need this type of coverage, whether an individual customer needs to be covered for Parkinson’s or not.
Second are the guaranteed issue laws, which force insurance companies to take on a new customer with previous ailments allowing people to wait till they are sick in order to get insurance coverage. Insurance companies must than increase the prices of their policies to their pre-existing clients and to new clients. A guaranteed issue law is equivalent to passing a law allowing someone to purchase home owners insurance for fire after their house burns down.
Government Interference in the Medical Industry
Many of the laws that have been passed cause doctors to pay fines and sometimes even jail time for things other than malpractice, such as simply making a mistake on their documentation of patient’s records. Programs like Medicaid and Medicare also have lead to a tremendous overcrowding in emergency rooms. Many of the people who go to ERs do not have critical problems but since they are covered under Medicare or Medicaid they go for ‘free.’ This makes it harder for those with serious problems to get the care they need when they need it.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND LABOR ACT OF 1985 (EMTALA)
The EMTALA law requires a hospital which accepts Medicare or Medicaid patients to accept anyone within two hundred feet of an emergency room, whether the person can pay for treatment or not. If a doctor or hospital fails to comply with this law they are subject to fines up to $50,000 for each infraction. To give an example, this would be like forcing grocery stores to allow anyone within two hundred feet to get any amount of food they say they need. A law like this would bankrupt most grocery stores. According to the American College of Emergency Physicians, from 1993 to 2003, while the U.S. Population grew by 12 percent, emergency room visits grew by 27 percent – from 90 million to 114 million visits. In the same period, however, 425 emergency rooms closed (14 percent of the ERs that existed in 1993), along with 703 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds. (Zinzer and Hsieh)
HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPAA)
This is an act that was passed in 1996 which requires by law that all doctors and any institute that provides medical services to fill out enormous amounts of paperwork saying they acknowledge their patients right to medical privacy. Dr. Reinhardt a retired surgeon in Pueblo Colorado said this about HIPAA “Every doctor needs to plan for the possibility of several fines every year.” (Reinhardt) Physicians must also have their own ‘specialized’ insurance that covers millions of dollars for fees and fines. This cost is than shifted to their patients.
Laws such as HIPAA merely turn Doctors into criminals for a simple error in paperwork. Penalties can range anywhere from $100 all the way up to $25,000 per year. Doctors are also able to be prosecuted for these errors, again this has nothing to do with actual malpractice but simply a failure to disclose or fill out all the proper paperwork. In the report done by Zinser and Hsieh a doctor told one of the authors that emergency room doctors are constantly breaking the HIPAA laws simply because it would be unethical to do otherwise.
“Complying with HIPPA… Would delay emergency medical treatment, keep families from understanding their loved-one’s condition, and preclude the crucial sharing of knowledge between family members and doctors about the history and condition of the patient.” (Zinzer and Hsieh)
The laws HIPAA enforce are the same things doctors have been acknowledging without these laws anyway, these laws simply add to the paperwork a doctor must fill out. This additional paperwork just takes away time a doctor should spend on saving lives.
DISCUSSION: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SOCIALIZING MEDICINE
There are several negative economical impacts socialized medicine has had on other countries. First, are the immense waiting lists many individuals are subjugated to in order to ration the medical services to everyone. Another problem that arises in these countries is the exodus of doctors and an overall decline of the medical care provided by the doctors in the system. Lastly is the loss of innovation, most countries currently and have always relied heavily on the innovativeness of America.
Waiting lists
Many advocates of socialized medicine in America point out the fact that America is the only industrialized country without a ‘single-payer’ system. One thing these advocates do not discuss is the enormous waiting lists these other countries must comply with. A major problem happens when people who normally would not go to see a doctor are now allowed to see one for ‘free’, at the expense of the taxpayer. People begin seeing doctors in droves for any ache or pain they might have, whether they would normally see a doctor or not.
In an article written by author and professor of economics Walter Williams Free Health Care in Canada? Dr. Williams quoted several sources from the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver based think tank. Showing some of the waiting lists Canada has to deal with. “The average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003.” The research found that Saskatchewan had the longest wait time with thirty weeks, and Ontario was the shortest at fourteen weeks. As far as Diagnostic procedures; Computer Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Ultrasound, ranged anywhere from two to twenty four weeks. (Williams, Walter E. Williams)
Exodus of Doctors
Another problem industrialized countries with socialized medicine are having is a decline in medical doctors, as well as low enrollment for medical schools. A study conducted by the Canadian Medical Association Journal showed an exodus of thousands of doctors leaving Canada. The study shows over the past 30 years 19,000 Canadian trained physicians left Canada for America. In 2006 there were 8,162 physicians who left Canada for America, “That figure accounts for about one in nine Canadian-trained physicians, which is equivalent to having two average-sized Canadians medical schools dedicated entirely to producing physicians for the United States.” (Arvantes) Two medical schools may not sound like a lot; however Canada only has 17 medical schools.
This decline in medical doctors and enrollment is a direct result of a human being not being willing to dedicate a lifetime to the perfection of a craft, than to be told how they are to operate and who they are allowed to see. A doctor is no different than any other individual who wishes to provide a service and or product and be compensated for said product/service.
Loss of Innovation
One of the most important attributes of America is its ability to create new products for itself and the world. This is shown in every aspect of Americans daily life. From telephones, cars, planes, televisions, computers, internet and more it is this ability to be innovative that has allowed America to remain the most powerful country in history. This innovation remains because of one fact, America allows individuals the freedom to create new products and then sell them however they see fit. In other words America allows for incentives, and very powerful incentives. Dr Reinhardt, although an advocate of a ‘single-payer’ health system in America, admitted America is by far the most innovative country in the world in the medical field. (Reinhardt)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research in this report was extracted from; lead economists, authors, statistical data from World Health Organization and the Fraser institute, as well as individuals in the current American Health industry, and has lead to the following conclusions on Socialized Medicine in America.
Conclusions
1. The current system in America is far from an actual free market, and many of the problems America is now facing are a direct result of the thousands of mandates and regulations both the health insurance industry and the medical industry are subject to in America.
2. Countries around the world currently under a form of socialized medicine have many problems of their own, such as the waiting lists, exodus of doctors, and an overall decline in the quality of medical services.
3. Some of our current government programs like Medicaid and Medicare will go bankrupt, without changes, by 2019.
4. The majority of the world depends on America for new life saving procedures and medicines. With a loss of incentives to create these new innovations, America is at risk of losing its ability to keep innovation going in this industry.
Recommendations
1. From the research and findings of this report it is recommended that the solution to the health care problems in America is not more government intervention, but less. It would however be a grave mistake to simply eradicate any and all government programs immediately. The best solutions are to start slowly, with for example the repealing of EMTALA. This can allow doctors and hospitals to set their own terms for garnering payment for their services.
2. Eliminate any type of special treatments certain companies might get, such as allowing ‘The Blues’ companies to have non-profit status. Repealing acts such as HIPAA can be done immediately, since these laws do nothing but add to the useless paperwork doctors and hospitals must do and adds tremendously to the amount of money they must pay out for malpractice suits.
3. The things that need to be done are to eradicate any and all government interference in the medical industry. As was mentioned before it has been this government interference that has caused the high costs of insurance and medical services we now have. To add more would only compound the problem.
Works Cited
Arvantes, James. Canadian Physician Exodus Benefits United States, Hurts Canada . 2 May 2007. 18th April 2008
Barbera, Geri. Interview. Kirk Barbera. 18th March 2008.
Ralston, Richard E. Capitalst Magazine. 5 February 2008. 10 February 2008
Reinhardt, Eric. Interview. Kirk Barbera. 8th April 2008.
Sowell, Thomas. Capitalism Magazine. 4 May 2004. 21 February 2008
Stossel, John. Capitlalist Magazine. 10 August 2007. 2 March 2008
Williams, Walter. "Walter E. Williams." 21 July 2004. George Mason University. 18th Jan 2008
—. "Walter E. Williams ." 1 July 2004. George Mason University. January 2008.
Zinzer, Lin and Paul Hsieh. The Objective Standard. 2007-08. 1 March 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
OIL AND AMERICA
OIL
Many claims are made during an election time, however most people would agree that very few are actually upheld. A lot of what a politician says during this time of year is, honestly, whatever people want to hear. Politicians go after culprits and evil doers at a much higher rate than in non election years. This all makes sense from a politicians’ standpoint, given their incentives and restraints. However, it is very dangerous to continue to take any politician just on their word. Studies and facts need to be taken into account. When for example, a politician says they will bring down our dependency on foreign oil while at the same time fight global warming by curbing c02 emissions. The question a voter must ask themselves is how this could possibly happen given the incentives and constraints on these particular sectors of our economy? On one hand if we are attempting to decrease our foreign oil dependency it makes sense to increase America’s refining and drilling capabilities. This is not very plausible given the incentives and constraints which are allowed by American explorers and refiners of oil. So the solution for a politician is rather complex. A politician will have a hard time convincing extremist environmentalists, and many in the general public, that freeing up the energy market would actually allow the increase of America’s supply and drop the price of gas and other products affected by oil. What a politician does instead of this is they go for the oldest and most trusted of allies, blame. Pointing fingers at all the people who seem to be villains by merit of their actions. Such as the greed of corporate CEO’s, especially those of oil companies, claiming that while these companies are getting rich the constituents of a particular politician are being hit where it hurts them the most, their pocket books. Politicians point fingers at these CEO’s and exclaim that these companies profits are to extreme to be mere “economics” and how America having to pay 4 dollars a gallon while oil companies make record breaking profits is just too much of a coincidence.
Whenever an economist comes on the air to defend the profits or to explain that what is happening is the most basic of economic principles they are often pushed aside as idealists. If the average voter would investigate the facts a little more they would begin to realize it is just that, basic economics. Oil companies are getting larger and larger amounts of profits, as well they should. What people fail to realize is that these profits don’t go straight into the CEO’s pockets, a large portion of profits are reinvested in oil exploration, drilling and refining. This allows for a higher amount of supply to be developed by a particular oil company which will in turn allow them to offer cheaper gas at the pump and undercut their competitors, which will in turn increase that oil companies future profits. This is the first thing everyone who went to public school in America should have learned, that of supply and demand. As supply goes up relative to demand prices go down. To blame oil companies of being greedy and over charging their customers is to claim that those oil companies are setting prices at will. However, if these companies could just set prices whatever they wanted to then they would never have allowed gas to be priced under a dollar in the 1990’s. In actuality if the oil CEO’s could have their way they would simply charge prices at the most outrageous amounts possible, but they don’t set prices at will prices are set according to supply and demand. At the same time, if customers could have their way they would pay as little as possible to get the gas they need, but customers don’t set prices at will either, prices are set according to supply and demand. The claim that CEO’s are greedy is a no brainer, but as economist Thomas Sowell once said “you can be the greediest man in the world and it won’t increase your income by one cent.” That’s because greed doesn’t make money, productivity makes money.
So this begs the question of what are the real causes of the increased barrel of crude and thus the higher gas prices at home. The answer to that question has to do with a few things. One reasons is the fact that 85% of our coast is off limits to drilling and so is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Secondly, is the limitation put on refining capabilities, which has caused there to be no new refineries to be built in America for over 30 years. Thirdly is the growing demand at home and abroad.
DRILLING
America has large sections of its underground oil off limits to oil explorers. This causes the U.S. to have to purchase more of its oil from outside of the country (which by the way would happen whether these sections of our country were opened up or not, the problem being America would not have to rely as much as we currently do on other countries) . If these sections were to be freed up to allow for oil exploration there would be a larger supply of world oil to help with the ever increasing demand of oil all over the world.
REFINING
There have not been any new refineries built in America in over 3 decades. This does cause there to be many inefficiencies in the much older and out of date refineries still in existence. The reason there haven’t been any new refineries built in so long is the government has passed so many environmental laws to make it uneconomical to build a new refinery. This has also led to many old refineries to be shut down, 50 out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004. Moreover, these regulations have caused the current refineries to be producing at full capacity. When a major disruption, such as a hurricane, shuts down a section of oil refining in America it is nearly impossible to shift oil production from one sector to another since every refinery is producing at full capacity rather than at a less than full capacity. Another unfortunate byproduct of a government that creates restraints rather than incentives to build new refineries is that there has been an overall decline in the actual capacity refineries can handle, while at the same time, demand has increased. What this all equates to is a country that has less ability to create more supply as demand increases.
DEMAND
It is pretty obvious to most people that with China, and India, growing at such a fast pace there is going to be a much larger global demand for oil. No matter what would happen the price of oil would have gone up because again the price of oil goes up according to supply and demand. The problem is the amount it would have gone up, and it is very hard to be able to calculate such a number (although people have tried).
In the end it is a textbook example of what happens in an ever increasing world economy. However, there are some really good things that are happening just in America. One is the decline of consumers purchasing gas guzzling Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV’s), and trucks. For example; trucks for the first time in decades, have lost their spot as the number one vehicle sold in America which will trigger a decrease in oil consumption at home. The Boeing Corporation has been creating a new more efficient jet airplane, and much more is happening in the free market. Also there could be enough pressure to free up some of restraints on America’s ability to supply itself oil. What is beginning to happen with the price of oil going so high is that in current oil fields which were abandoned because they were not economically viable at the old price of oil, but are not profitable at the current price of oil. This is why profits are a good thing, now oil companies have more money which allows them to reinvest in the drilling and refining of oil, so long as the government doesn’t get in their way. Oil Companies receive a bad rap whenever something bad happens in the economy. However, the fact remains that American oil companies remain the most efficient at producing oil as cheaply as possible, despite the regulations and restraints imposed by the government. It is time for American voters to write their congressmen and implore they step aside and to allow the professionals to do their job.
Many claims are made during an election time, however most people would agree that very few are actually upheld. A lot of what a politician says during this time of year is, honestly, whatever people want to hear. Politicians go after culprits and evil doers at a much higher rate than in non election years. This all makes sense from a politicians’ standpoint, given their incentives and restraints. However, it is very dangerous to continue to take any politician just on their word. Studies and facts need to be taken into account. When for example, a politician says they will bring down our dependency on foreign oil while at the same time fight global warming by curbing c02 emissions. The question a voter must ask themselves is how this could possibly happen given the incentives and constraints on these particular sectors of our economy? On one hand if we are attempting to decrease our foreign oil dependency it makes sense to increase America’s refining and drilling capabilities. This is not very plausible given the incentives and constraints which are allowed by American explorers and refiners of oil. So the solution for a politician is rather complex. A politician will have a hard time convincing extremist environmentalists, and many in the general public, that freeing up the energy market would actually allow the increase of America’s supply and drop the price of gas and other products affected by oil. What a politician does instead of this is they go for the oldest and most trusted of allies, blame. Pointing fingers at all the people who seem to be villains by merit of their actions. Such as the greed of corporate CEO’s, especially those of oil companies, claiming that while these companies are getting rich the constituents of a particular politician are being hit where it hurts them the most, their pocket books. Politicians point fingers at these CEO’s and exclaim that these companies profits are to extreme to be mere “economics” and how America having to pay 4 dollars a gallon while oil companies make record breaking profits is just too much of a coincidence.
Whenever an economist comes on the air to defend the profits or to explain that what is happening is the most basic of economic principles they are often pushed aside as idealists. If the average voter would investigate the facts a little more they would begin to realize it is just that, basic economics. Oil companies are getting larger and larger amounts of profits, as well they should. What people fail to realize is that these profits don’t go straight into the CEO’s pockets, a large portion of profits are reinvested in oil exploration, drilling and refining. This allows for a higher amount of supply to be developed by a particular oil company which will in turn allow them to offer cheaper gas at the pump and undercut their competitors, which will in turn increase that oil companies future profits. This is the first thing everyone who went to public school in America should have learned, that of supply and demand. As supply goes up relative to demand prices go down. To blame oil companies of being greedy and over charging their customers is to claim that those oil companies are setting prices at will. However, if these companies could just set prices whatever they wanted to then they would never have allowed gas to be priced under a dollar in the 1990’s. In actuality if the oil CEO’s could have their way they would simply charge prices at the most outrageous amounts possible, but they don’t set prices at will prices are set according to supply and demand. At the same time, if customers could have their way they would pay as little as possible to get the gas they need, but customers don’t set prices at will either, prices are set according to supply and demand. The claim that CEO’s are greedy is a no brainer, but as economist Thomas Sowell once said “you can be the greediest man in the world and it won’t increase your income by one cent.” That’s because greed doesn’t make money, productivity makes money.
So this begs the question of what are the real causes of the increased barrel of crude and thus the higher gas prices at home. The answer to that question has to do with a few things. One reasons is the fact that 85% of our coast is off limits to drilling and so is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Secondly, is the limitation put on refining capabilities, which has caused there to be no new refineries to be built in America for over 30 years. Thirdly is the growing demand at home and abroad.
DRILLING
America has large sections of its underground oil off limits to oil explorers. This causes the U.S. to have to purchase more of its oil from outside of the country (which by the way would happen whether these sections of our country were opened up or not, the problem being America would not have to rely as much as we currently do on other countries) . If these sections were to be freed up to allow for oil exploration there would be a larger supply of world oil to help with the ever increasing demand of oil all over the world.
REFINING
There have not been any new refineries built in America in over 3 decades. This does cause there to be many inefficiencies in the much older and out of date refineries still in existence. The reason there haven’t been any new refineries built in so long is the government has passed so many environmental laws to make it uneconomical to build a new refinery. This has also led to many old refineries to be shut down, 50 out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004. Moreover, these regulations have caused the current refineries to be producing at full capacity. When a major disruption, such as a hurricane, shuts down a section of oil refining in America it is nearly impossible to shift oil production from one sector to another since every refinery is producing at full capacity rather than at a less than full capacity. Another unfortunate byproduct of a government that creates restraints rather than incentives to build new refineries is that there has been an overall decline in the actual capacity refineries can handle, while at the same time, demand has increased. What this all equates to is a country that has less ability to create more supply as demand increases.
DEMAND
It is pretty obvious to most people that with China, and India, growing at such a fast pace there is going to be a much larger global demand for oil. No matter what would happen the price of oil would have gone up because again the price of oil goes up according to supply and demand. The problem is the amount it would have gone up, and it is very hard to be able to calculate such a number (although people have tried).
In the end it is a textbook example of what happens in an ever increasing world economy. However, there are some really good things that are happening just in America. One is the decline of consumers purchasing gas guzzling Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV’s), and trucks. For example; trucks for the first time in decades, have lost their spot as the number one vehicle sold in America which will trigger a decrease in oil consumption at home. The Boeing Corporation has been creating a new more efficient jet airplane, and much more is happening in the free market. Also there could be enough pressure to free up some of restraints on America’s ability to supply itself oil. What is beginning to happen with the price of oil going so high is that in current oil fields which were abandoned because they were not economically viable at the old price of oil, but are not profitable at the current price of oil. This is why profits are a good thing, now oil companies have more money which allows them to reinvest in the drilling and refining of oil, so long as the government doesn’t get in their way. Oil Companies receive a bad rap whenever something bad happens in the economy. However, the fact remains that American oil companies remain the most efficient at producing oil as cheaply as possible, despite the regulations and restraints imposed by the government. It is time for American voters to write their congressmen and implore they step aside and to allow the professionals to do their job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)