By Keith Boykin
Monday, May 11 2009, 2:23PM
in politics
CNBC contributor Keith Boykin debates Rick Scott of Conservatives for Patients' Rights on the issue of government involvement in health care. Boykin argues for a government-run health care option but Scott says the government will drive private insurers out of business by driving down the costs. But isn't that the point of health care reform -- to drive down the costs?
Comments (3)
Joaquin May 17 2009, 9:41AM
I don't believe that Keith had the time to explain the statistics that he was trying to provide the panel. The reason to give the 13% difference was because all of the costs that the host, Larry, says were not counted is because those expenses (rent management, taxes, capital, and health insurance) are absorbed by compounded offices. The government has multi-tasking units in multiple service houses and each of the units doesn't have to bear the sole costs for the administrative expenses that would normally fall to a sole private insurer. Those concerns of rent management, taxes, capital and health insurance are actually minimized because of that fact. And more to the point, private insurance companies seek to outsource those cost for the very same reason that the government has these multi-tasking units in multiple services houses. One other thing. The government also pays less to the people who perform the tasks necessary to carry out the business of healthcare to individuals that Medicare and Medicaid serve. They pay less to the attending physician and the surrounding healthcare workers and administrative staff. This is key.
I believe that the corporate CEOs are more upset because the burden to pay for the workers if given to the government would pull from their profits. As it stands now, the CEOs have their druthers because if they subsidize the healthcare insurance of their workers then they get to say how much they will cover. They will also get cut backs and benefits from their allegiance to another big business partner...namely the private healthcare insurer. But, when the government gets to insure workers then, the government gets that voting capital for its own use. In other words, they get the authority to order the CEOs to pay what the cost will more accurately look like for the maintenance of a governmental system. The US Government will then have the authority to sensibly demand more taxes from private corporations because they will have assumed one of the private industries traditional roles...taking care of their employees. It would be fair and it would be right. And by the way, it would be better like Keith said in the first place.
Having said that though, I can understand why the conservatives want to block that sort of experience. Like Rick was trying to intimate to the public...we don't really want to be like the rest of the world. We want to be better; so, let's borrow some more lessons from other countries so that we can improve on the governmentall healthcare model for greater gain of not just the government coffers, but also gain for the private American industry of healthcare. We need the competitive desire to stay alive and well.
Hey just saw your debate on cnbc. First off I think you are great. The topic was gun control and ethics, they were making it sound as if all dems were against guns. I think your argument, which you did touch on, should be be dems are against gun violence not guns. More gun control is needed in cities not in the federal parks where the crime rate is probably nil. This wasn't Obama selling out it was Obama knowing its a non-issue. I use the bic lighter method - if more people die of a bic lighter(around 200 a year) than the Topic X its a non issue and the federal govt can't really do anything about it. I don't think violence in parks will increase by 200+ because people can now carry guns into federal parks.
Sophia July 29 2009, 10:52PM
Why do these people distort the truth? How many elderly people are covered by private insurance? Can they even afford the cost? Why do for profit entities (insurance companies) prefer to cover more people who are less likely to utilize their care than those who need it?
There should be a leveling of all citizens so that everyone can be covered under the same type of insurance.
Joaquin
May 17 2009, 9:41AM
I don't believe that Keith had the time to explain the statistics that he was trying to provide the panel. The reason to give the 13% difference was because all of the costs that the host, Larry, says were not counted is because those expenses (rent management, taxes, capital, and health insurance) are absorbed by compounded offices. The government has multi-tasking units in multiple service houses and each of the units doesn't have to bear the sole costs for the administrative expenses that would normally fall to a sole private insurer. Those concerns of rent management, taxes, capital and health insurance are actually minimized because of that fact. And more to the point, private insurance companies seek to outsource those cost for the very same reason that the government has these multi-tasking units in multiple services houses. One other thing. The government also pays less to the people who perform the tasks necessary to carry out the business of healthcare to individuals that Medicare and Medicaid serve. They pay less to the attending physician and the surrounding healthcare workers and administrative staff. This is key.
I believe that the corporate CEOs are more upset because the burden to pay for the workers if given to the government would pull from their profits. As it stands now, the CEOs have their druthers because if they subsidize the healthcare insurance of their workers then they get to say how much they will cover. They will also get cut backs and benefits from their allegiance to another big business partner...namely the private healthcare insurer. But, when the government gets to insure workers then, the government gets that voting capital for its own use. In other words, they get the authority to order the CEOs to pay what the cost will more accurately look like for the maintenance of a governmental system. The US Government will then have the authority to sensibly demand more taxes from private corporations because they will have assumed one of the private industries traditional roles...taking care of their employees. It would be fair and it would be right. And by the way, it would be better like Keith said in the first place.
Having said that though, I can understand why the conservatives want to block that sort of experience. Like Rick was trying to intimate to the public...we don't really want to be like the rest of the world. We want to be better; so, let's borrow some more lessons from other countries so that we can improve on the governmentall healthcare model for greater gain of not just the government coffers, but also gain for the private American industry of healthcare. We need the competitive desire to stay alive and well.