Sunday, November 21, 2010

How Is It, Again, That Socialism Is Supposed To Contain Costs?

Government "solves" one problem but exacerbates others--and it's not just me saying it, but the NYT as well:

When Congress passed the health care law, it envisioned doctors and hospitals joining forces, coordinating care and holding down costs, with the prospect of earning government bonuses for controlling costs.

Now, eight months into the new law there is a growing frenzy of mergers involving hospitals, clinics and doctor groups eager to share costs and savings, and cash in on the incentives. They, in turn, have deployed a small army of lawyers and lobbyists trying to persuade the Obama administration to relax or waive a body of older laws intended to thwart health care monopolies, and to protect against shoddy care and fraudulent billing of patients or Medicare.

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.


Who might have foreseen this? Who, hmmmmmm....

2 comments:

pseudotsuga said...

But we had to vote for it to find out what was in it...
And it was all for the Poor People (tm) and the Children...
Oh, wait...now it's going to make more poor people, so it's working as designed! Muhuhuhaahah!

MikeAT said...

To answer your question Darren, anyone with at least a double digit IQ, any concept of economics and rudimentary intelligence. These are not missing from the regime that passed Obamacare…destroying the American health care system was the point.

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