Why I Support a Single-Payer Healthcare System

At the Second Democratic Debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton demonstrated her total ignorance at how the Insurance Industry works. In a single phrase.

I was a licensed Health Insurance Agent in the before times. Here is a build-up to an equation I worked out.

The average cost to set a broken bone in the US is $16,000.00. Let's say that one has a broken clavicle with a torn rotator complicating healing. The cost jumps to an average of $25,000.00.

So, on a couple routine injuries, we have an average of about $20,000.00 (also to make the maths easier).

And - before I get started - let me shout a huge "NO" to a statement made some time ago by Rand Paul. The Law does not require an ER to treat those without money or Insurance, as Paul asserts. It only requires the ER to diagnose them.

INSURANCE COMPANIES are financial pools. People pay premiums, pooling their money together in case somebody has medical expenses. They are gambling that, within the six months someone is paying premiums before the Insurance sets in, nobody they cover will reach the point of requiring money for medical bills.

So, let's say we have ten people in a community and a single Insurance Company. Do the maths. How much will each individual need to pay in premiums over six months for the Insurance Company reach that $20,000.00 mark, in case someone needs it. Remember, we also have Overhead and Corporate Greed involved, but Corporate Greed cancels out later, and we'll get to the Overhead in a bit.

Now, we're a Market Economy, right? Competition is good for business, right? Supply and Demand will suggest this, as it should. However, let's add another Company.

Yes, our little Insurance Company now has competition in the area. Let's say that three people go over to the competition. 

Remember, there are only ten people in the community. So now, we have seven and three. Re-do the maths for each Company, accounting for this.

If you got the same answers I did in formulating this in my Insurance days, you'll see that, when the competition came in, the Premium cost - necessarily - had to raise, not lower. This is a phenomenon that I call Market-Opposite (it happens in rare Industries, but it happens). This is my term, and I am unaware if Economists have their own. If they do, please enlighten me. 

smile emoticon

It follows that, if Market Opposite is the case, the greater the competition, the greater the cost. Even when there are billions of customers and many, many Companies. Therefore, a Monopoly is in order, to reduce the number of Companies splitting the consumer base.

So, I have established that Insurance requires monopolization to keep prices down. But wait! A private monopoly would have to be heavily regulated to account for Corporate Greed. How much in taxes would we need to pay for the regulators? There is also, for the Company, the Overhead. Remember that? Office buildings. Agents. Can we say Premium Raise?

And then, there is a Single Payer system. Yes, we'll have some greed among the department heads (goes with the territory - this is why it cancels out). However, if the Government goes with it, it can be handled through existing Government bureaus. They already have the offices; no need to pay Overhead on them. They already have clerks to license as Agents. It's all in place already. And why pay taxes toward the regulation in addition to paying the Overhead in Premiums, when you can just pay taxes into the Premiums directly?

This is why I believe that a Single Payer System is the most cost effective way of handling Medical Insurance. The billions of people paying into a single Government Company would keep costs down (as per our Single Company in the Maths), and the lack of Overhead would take costs even further down.

And yes, I am enough of a Socialist to think that this would work for other Market-Opposite Industries as well.

And when Hillary asserted that more Competition would help lower Insurance Costs, I facepalmed hard. Yes, Conventional Market Wisdom says that it should (and in most Industries, it does), but Financial Pools are not Conventional.

So Then, Whose Life Matters?

Recently, the American people have seen a rise of Blue on Black crime – or, a possibility, the media is only now reporting it. In the wake of this, a Movement is spread across the United States, calling itself “Black Lives Matter.” This Movement is united in its attempt to bring public awareness to those levels of institutional racism which still exist in this Country.

They stage protests and are extremely vocal. Occasionally, these protests can be annoying, yes, and they have occasionally shot themselves in the foot, as it were, but when people have been oppressed for so long – and then arrested, or even killed,  if they dare speak out – one can imagine them totally justified in whatever course their Movement might take. What good is even the most peaceful protest if it cannot step on a few toes?

This hasn’t been enough justification, though, for a large portion of Americans. Criticism of the Movement has been, at times, harsh. However, the critics have merely used variations of the same arguments. My purpose in this article is to demonstrate why these arguments “don’t matter.”

In the course of this post, I shall list those arguments I have heard most often (I am certain there are plenty more) and then give a brief rundown.

“All Lives Matter”

This is currently the most prevalent argument. It has even found its way to becoming a rallying cry for the opposition. At face value, it seems to even be a common sense retort – not to mention that the phrase “common sense” is merely used today as an alternative expression for “my personal prejudices.”

There is, however, something drastically and crucially wrong with “All lives matter.”

They don’t.

Well, not yet. That’s the point.

It is quite easy to see the reason certain people spout this truism. Just take a look at some of the other political positions they might take. Libertarian Unfettered Free Market Capitalism, anyone? (Yes, I find the concept laughable and potentially dangerous, but I’ll describe my full objections, when I get around to writing my posts about Economics – I’m planning and preparing a multi-part series.)

What I am saying is, they suffer from an all-too-common misconception. They see an ideal where all lives matter. However, they mistake the ideal for reality. In the end, they are giving a backhanded agreement – “Sure black lives matter, because all lives matter.”

In this case, the statement is reasonably true. Be that as it may, Truth is not synonymous with Fact (more later). The more factually accurate statement is, “Black lives matter, because we want all lives to matter.”

This is one of the many reasons I support this Movement. I want all lives to matter, and I am prepared to fight to make the ideal into reality, rather than bury my face in the sand and/or shame the victims for every and any illusory instance, by which they may have brought the violence upon themselves.

To some powerful individuals, especially to some of the more authoritarian leaders of the opposition, black lives do not matter, although they’ll still spout the “all lives matter” truism and fully support the violence done against the African American Community by the institutions. Do these believe that black lives matter? It is evident that they do not.

Don’t believe me? Watch any commentary by FOX News pundits whenever the subject is raised. If that’s not enough, read the comments on any post or YouTube video on the subject. In all cases, be warned in advance. You will lose all respect for humanity and want to curl up in the corner of a cave for the rest of your life.

It is logical that, if black lives do not indeed matter, then all lives – therefore – do not matter.

The truism is false.

“Who cares? More blacks are killed by other blacks in gang violence and drug deals than are ever killed by whites, the police, or any other institution.”

Perhaps so; perhaps not so. I’m an empiricist, so I’ll see the validity of this once I am presented with accurate figures. Additionally, the Black Lives Matter Movement appears interested in black-on-black violence as well, for good reason. This is not the point.

The point is, this argument is a veiled non sequitur. It is a disingenuous attempt to distract attention away from protesting an undertrained, over-militarized, overstressed, overentitled and potentially racist police force.

No, I am not applying a brush stroke against the police forces, of whom I have a genuine – if tepid – respect, but even one instance of racial profiling and/or unjustified violence by on-duty members of any institution – especially a government institution  – and done in that institution’s name is two too many.

This is the big issue. Black on black violence isn’t institutionalized. Blue on black violence, in contrast, is. One issue at a time.

“Every person the police went after and/or killed was engaged in either an armed robbery or heavily armed with murderous intent.”

Really? Evidence? And no, Bill O’Reilly saying something to that extent does not qualify as evidence. Neither does “If one wasn’t guilty, then Jesus would never have allowed one to be accused.” I can’t believe people still think the latter is a valid legal argument!

On the other end, what about a person having a heart attack and then shot by police, upon arrival, who were called to assist? What about a person shot by police for breaking down on the side of the road? What major capital crimes were they carrying out? I’m sure if I asked someone who can regularly stomach FOX or other Corporate News, they will have already been provided with a lot of answers to these. Most likely, knowing Corporate Punditry, these will be answers about incidents which were going on at the same time in different places and bore little to no relation to one another.

“They’re just a bunch of malcontents who want people to have excuses to kill cops.”

Appealing to motive? Ad hominem much?

How do you presume this? Do you know the minds of each individual? This argument is so unsound, I see no reason to bother with it, except that I keep hearing this from people who get their news exclusively from FOX (and as such, I know which “anchors” there are spouting this nonsense).

That said, I have this message to the Movement. As they are aware, there have been a number of cop killings in their name. This needs to be resolved. It needs to be resolved internally, and it needs to be done soon. Don’t provide the critics with evidence against you. No shouts of “Tu quoque” at the police. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

And the same goes to the police, to the politicians and to their paid pundits. Why provide apologetics for a small number of individuals who are ruining the honor of America’s (otherwise comparatively noble) police forces? Instead, fix the problem!

“Why does this issue matter so much when unborn babies do not? Blacks have more abortions than any other demographic in the Country.”

This is another disingenuous, self-serving attempt at confusing the issue. It is irrelevant. Nevertheless, since you asked. . .

I am not going to presume to speak for everyone, but both issues matter to a good number of us. Since when did “Pro-Choice” equivocate to “Pro-Abortion?” The two concepts are, although not mutually exclusive, at a great distance from one another.

All the same, please indulge me as I put the same question back to you. Why does the abortion issue matter, when the lives of people do not matter after they are born? If you are supporting the sacredness of all human life, why aren’t you supporting this?

There will be more posts on this issue in the future, I imagine. I hope I never have to write them. Still, more news and more evidence – and more arguments - always present themselves. 

Facts, Opinions and Commonplace Assertions

In Katy, Texas, a Seventh Grade teacher gave students a quiz, in order to gauge their understanding of the difference between “fact,” “opinion” and “commonplace assertion.” One statement the students were to identify was “God is real.”

One student, based upon her Christian Faith, answered the statement as “fact.” Her teacher marked it as incorrect.

Immediately, FOX News began its spin machine, attempting to portray this as persecution against Christians. The spin went like this: Evil Teacher Orders Good, Innocent Christian Student to Deny Her Faith. It is truly the stuff of those chain e-mails that ill-informed, gullible people believe so enthusiastically, especially if they hold a predisposition to believe them, anyway.

The school has apologized to the student and her family for such an injustice.

What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong is that “fact” is, in fact, incorrect.

Now, I am not going to try to justify the question’s presence. I argue that such a hotbed issue should not have been a question on the quiz in the first place. Couldn’t whoever made the quiz find a better phrase to identify? My opinion, however, is irrelevant to the body of this post.

But let’s take a look at the phrase “God is real” and at her answer. First, in the spirit of all good discussion, let’s define our terms.

Merriam Webster defines "fact" as follows: "Something that truly exists or happens; something that has actual existence; a true piece of information."

The same dictionary defines "opinion" as: "A belief, judgement or way of thinking about something: what someone thinks about a particular thing.

Commonplace assertion does not appear in Merriam Webster, but the commonly given goes something like this: "A statement which is asserted by many to be true, but does not meet the criteria to be labeled a fact."

So, what criteria are there to make something a fact, as this was the student’s response?

To begin, facts are falsifiable. What does this mean, you ask?

From Wikipedia (oddly enough, the most thorough definition): "A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".

Second, facts are testable.

What we mean here is, subject to scientific test – which Merriam Webster defines as "a critical examination, observation or evaluation: trial: specifically: the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or its rejection.

As you can see also, falsifiability is a pre-requisite for testability.

So is God’s existence falsifiable, in the scientific sense? Many on both sides of the argument have attempted to find ways in which the Deity Hypothesis can be falsified. However, as knowledge of God’s existence or nonexistence is a pre-requisite for determining a falsifiable test (one of few such cases), falsifiability is, currently, impossible.

Is God’s existence testable? Falsifiability is a pre-requisite for testability. How can one test God’s existence, if one cannot come up with criteria to ascertain if God does not exist? A control scenario is required, and no such scenario can exist if the proposal is not falsifiable.

Is God quantifiable? If God were to appear and subject Himself to the required tests, He would be. However, if God were to appear to all the world at once in each generation, why would we need further evidence of His existence?

So the statement, “God is real,” whether the statement is true or untrue, does not qualify under the criteria for fact.

What about “opinion?”

Whether God exists or does not exist is not opinion. One would hope that, for anybody making a positive claim on this issue on either side, the statement would be a conclusion, rather than an opinion. As the reader can tell, this essayist has no respect for the concept of “faith” whatsoever, on any issue, from any side. In terms of Epistemology, where the concept is generally applied, it is useless.

So what is left for a possible answer is “commonplace assertion.” Remember the criteria for this label.

Is God’s existence commonly asserted to be true? Yes.

Does it fall under the criteria to be labeled a fact? We have, at least partially, demonstrated here that it does not.

Therefore, the answer to the question is, Commonplace Assertion. The student put “fact.” The teacher marked it wrong. The teacher was correct. There are no demands for the student to deny anything and no persecution. Except, perhaps, against an instructor trying to teach a valuable lesson in basic critical thinking. 

Now again, I say that having this as one of the statements to be labeled was, at least, irresponsible – no matter how much I wish more people could recognize the difference. 

The next question is, did this student really feel that she was being asked to deny her religion, or is she, perhaps, being exploited by demagogues with overactive persecution complexes?

These choices are not mutually exclusive, so considering her youth and the implications from certain aspects of Society, I am going to say, both.

But only time can tell. 

A Short Posit to the Christian Nation Movement.

Whenever Church and State hop into bed together, they are both corrupted by the experience.