It’s no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we’d be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada. We have outlined some of the points that Proponents and Opponents of the Healthcare Bill argue.
Proponents make the following points….
-
The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million
-
Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals
-
We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.
-
Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.
At the same time, opponents argue…
-
There isn’t a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
-
“Free” health care isn’t really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
-
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
-
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
-
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn’t mean they can’t receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
-
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
-
Patients aren’t likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
-
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn’t mean they can’t receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
-
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
-
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
-
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
-
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
-
Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
-
Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
-
Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
-
Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
-
Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a “right” by the public, meaning that it’s politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
Whether the healthcare bill passes or fails, we at PennyTrader.com are dedicated to helping our members make money. In fact, we have compiled a list of stocks we think could benefit from its passage. And at the same time, we have provided a list of stocks we think members should add to their radars if the bill fails. (more…)
And while there is a great deal of debate regarding the root causes of hyperinflation, most Economists believe that it is caused by a massive and rapid increase in the supply of money, which is not supported by growth in the output of goods and services. This results is an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money (including currency and bank deposits), accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money, similar to a bank run.
But while the price of oil has risen from the $30s to $50, oil stocks have not really rallied much. Below we highlight the ratio of oil stocks (S&P 500 Oil & Gas index) to oil (the commodity). When the line is rising, oil stocks are outperforming oil, and vice versa for a declining line. As shown below, when oil spiked in early 2008, the ratio dropped to its lowest level in years. Then when oil tanked in late 2008, the ratio spiked to its highest level in years as oil stocks held up much better. Recently, however, oil has rallied and oil stocks have been stagnant, causing the ratio to come back down. At the moment, the ratio is resting just above the average since 1990..
