You seem to be a good person to ask this of. I know I risk getting kicked out of the group for this, as I have seen others booted for far less risky behavior, but personally I can’t shake the notion that health care, like the defense industry, ought to be special. I am talking about profitting. I agree that as defending the nation became more technological, we needed the advances that come from competition, hence the need for the profit motive. But how can you justify permitting a company to make huge profits (and hence million dollar salaries) in the provision of health insurance? Simply explain to me where is the need for the incentive that profit gives? The reason I ask is, I know things, for a variety of reasons, look extremely rosy for the 2010 elections. But the current behavior shown on TV screens across the country of people shouting at meetings instead of encouraging a thoughtful debate about health insurance could, mark my words, damage us. I’m certain you’ll disagree, but I want you to see my motive for asking the question. (It’s similar to the concern I expressed elsewhere when Glenn Beck appeared to agree with a guy who suggested we’d all be better off if bin Laden set off a nuke inside the country.)
It’s quite simple really, people don’t work for free. Both (a good deal of) health care and K-12 education are somehow regarded as too “sacred” to be left to the cruel, uncaring marketplace as a result, they’re run by uncaring, unionized bureaucrats who get paid no matter what they deliver.
The Defense Industry consists of a number of large private companies and a whole hell of a lot of subcontractors and suppliers, some of whom work exclusively on defense contracts and some whose business is only partially defense related. They have to turn a profit to survive. In a Murtha-free world they would have to bid on contracts based soley on quality, price and delivering on schedule.
Too much of medicine and medical insurance has become divorced from the profit motive (efficiency, economy, effectiveness, customer satisfaction, etc.) because of the third-party payer insurance system. As for the state-run Medicare, Medicaid, and VA systems, they have become unaffordable, inefficient, fraud-ridden, boondooggles. Because bureaucrats set the prices and reimbursements to doctors and hospitals for various medical procedures and drugs administered and pile on the red tape, fewer and fewer physicians can afford to take on Medicare and Medicaid patients. The estimated unfunded liabilities of these programs now reach into the scores of trillions of dollars.
Now cometh Obama who basically wants to extend Medicare to all. He and his congresscritter allies insist that they will be able to make this expanded system work with magical efficiency and economy and they expect us peasants to be dumb enough to believe them.
It's easy for those with a liberal viewpoint to win arguments based on the emotional appeal. For example, the “obscene profits” moniker given towards whatever group they are attacking currently. The same tactic is used almost every time, just substitute the words “big oil”, “big pharmacy”, etc. (they never seem to use the term “big labor” however). The flaw in the argument is that there is nothing “immoral”, “illegal” or fattening about profit, regardless of the size.
At the smallest level, i.e. the single entrepreneur, the profit motive works beautifully and simply. You decide to go into business as a plumber. You may or may not have any skills or special training in the field, that's really not relevant. You buy some tools, a truck, and some jeans that ride down the crack of you butt, and take out an add or put up a sign. Sooner or later someone calls you because they need your services. You and they agree to a price and you do the work and all is well. You are free to set your price, they are free to go elsewhere or pay your price.
Your success or failure is entirely up to your skills in attracting business, satisfying customers and making large amounts of money. You'll need the latter because you still have to pay the government for the privilege of allowing you to be hard working, creative, and taking a risk. But notice there is no mention of “obscene profits”. Everybody is happy, and you are free to invest your profits to hire helpers, advertise or settle frivolous lawsuits against you from people that desire to get rich quick.
The same example will apply to doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs, and even dirty old big corporations. If everyone involved does not act unethically, no matter how large the dollar amounts involved, it boils down to exchange for goods and services.
It only became immoral when liberals decided to pit one group against the other to achieve their desired goals, namely to get something for nothing. Don't be confused by liberalism, they are trying to demonize their target, “big insurance” to achieve their goal which is “fascism”. The obscene profits they are talking about have greased the wheels of the economy for hundreds of years.
It's only when politicians get involved that the balance of exchange gets skewed to line the pockets of the real villains.
Far from being excoriated for voicing an opinion contrary to “group think”, you should be applauded for asking questions. As to the last part, I'll defer to someone else. Personally, I think everyone so far is only getting warmed up. The left hasn't seen real rage yet, but they are pushing everyone towards it.
Profit is the difference between costs and revenue. And I say the bigger profit is better because you kept costs down and revenue up. If you are overcharging, people will stop paying unless you are a monopoly.
In any non monopoly situation, BIG PROFITS ARE GOOD FOR SOCIETY. Big profits mean big taxes paid. Big profits mean you are providing a great service at a low cost.
If you want to look at what happens when profits are low, look at General Motors.