On Ham And Health Care Reform

KRAM1 · July 21, 2009

On Ham and Health Care Reform

Yesterday we learned that, in order to “stimulate the economy,” the federal government spent millions of dollars buying boiled ham. Pushing back against the public outcry, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack proudly proclaimed that his Department had purchased the ham for the needy, and at $1.50 per pound.

It didn’t take long for people to point out that any shopper could purchase that same ham for (drumroll please) about 79 cents per pound.

So the federal government paid twice the market price for ham, right? No, it’s worse than that.

When you’re buying millions of dollars worth of ham, shouldn’t you be able to negotiate the best possible price? A price lower than the full retail price that any consumer pays at the grocery store? Isn’t it more likely that the Feds paid 3 or 4 times what they should have for boiled ham?

This kind of inefficiency is a defining characteristic of government. Absent competition and other market incentives to spend wisely and maximize efficiencies, government routinely pays too much for goods and services, and tolerates a level of fraud that would never occur in the private sector.

Which brings us to the current claim that the best way to hold down health care costs is to give government a bigger role and greater control over the health care industry, since it will be able to take advantage of the government’s vast purchasing power and economies of scale.

Right. If you can’t do it with boiled ham, how are you going to be able to do it with radiological services and neurosurgery?

But there is one unique function in our society that government (and only government) wields, and that’s the use of force. And it’s through the use of force, not through economies of scale, that the Feds will attempt to hold down the growth of health care costs. Force by placing effective price controls on drugs, medical devices and medical services. Force by denying coverage for certain treatments and by denying payments to service providers. The blunt instrument of government force, applied to health care.

Do we really want the people who pay 3x the price of boiled ham, and who have the exclusive right to control prices and put people in jail, running the health care system?

Thought you might like to see this short piece from The Institute for Policy Innovation...a non-partisan non-profit policy think tank based in Lewisville, Texas. Web-site is www.ipi.org

Interesting point to ponder, is it not? Just how efficient do you really think the government will be running YOUR health care program? Think you could "sue" if anything egregious happened? Do you really thin that a health care program run by the government will, in any way, LOWER COSTS???? Think again the next time you bite into a ham sandwich.

Censored by Laurie · July 21, 2009

The inflated cost is exactly the point in this situation and is in no way parallel to health care (unless you want to make the argument that ham is bad for you...but if you're starving I suppose you're not terribly concerned with your cholesterol levels).

This is essentially another bailout for a struggling industry...but at least here there is a product moving and being put to good use. Its kinda like paying your kids $20 to mow your lawn when you know the illegals would do it for $10. You're not doing it as an actual business decision...though this will help keep YOUR ham at 79 cents a pound.

And we've covered bailouts on here ad nauseum...some see them as a neccissary evil, some see the ghost of Karl Marx personally writing checks...but few love 'em.

Health care? You're reaching.

KRAM1 · July 21, 2009

No...you missed the point entirely...it is about the inefficiency of government to run any program and keep the costs down...ham purchases or health care...get the government involved and you run costs up...not down as even the administrations own budget office has indicated in the case of the proposed health care "reform" proposal.

Censored by Laurie · July 21, 2009

No...you missed the point entirely...it is about the inefficiency of government to run any program and keep the costs down...ham purchases or health care...get the government involved and you run costs up...not down as even the administrations own budget office has indicated in the case of the proposed health care "reform" proposal.

No...I didn't. I get your point that government tends to be less than efficient...but that is not the issue here, thus making this a laughable comparrison.

The government PURPOSELY over-paid for this product...probably amongst many others...as a means of either stimulus or subsidy.

Hell, depending on how much ham you eat you may even end up with a free pound or two.

KRAM1 · July 21, 2009

The government PURPOSELY over-paid for this product...probably amongst many others...as a means of either stimulus or subsidy.

And, you know this how? And since when does one have to overpay for anything to "stimulate" the economy or to use it as a "subsidy"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can one not stimulate activity through a contract negotiated at a cost efficient price? If you cannot, then we are all in for a massive implosion of the health care system in this country.

CBL, do you really belive what you said about "overpaying" in order to stimulate? Good grief...my economics and finance profs would turn over in their graves! I hope you were not a business or economics major at UNT. :lol:

Censored by Laurie · July 21, 2009

And, you know this how? And since when does one have to overpay for anything to "stimulate" the economy or to use it as a "subsidy"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can one not stimulate activity through a contract negotiated at a cost efficient price? If you cannot, then we are all in for a massive implosion of the health care system in this country.
CBL, do you really belive what you said about "overpaying" in order to stimulate? Good grief...my economics and finance profs would turn over in their graves! I hope you were not a business or economics major at UNT.

We've seen dozens, if not hundreds of straight hand-outs over the past year...there are pay not to plant subsidies all over various agricultural industries...had this been a simple one of those would we be having this discussion?

To me...and while no I have no evidence of this outside of the statement you quoted saying that this purchase was to "stimulate the economy" rather than "to buy ham"...this is a creative way of helping the ham industry (said with ironic smile), while at the same time getting something in return.

Take this hypothetical: Some big ham exec is on his Cessna and he gets on the horn to Obama's Ham Czar and says: "hey look man, the cost of transportation and feed continue to rise, but we're doing our damnedest to make sure the cost of ham doesn't...but I don't know if we can without your help. What do you say you toss us one of them there bailouts...I think 1.5 mil outta cover it." But the Ham Czar is smart, so he replies: "We definently want to keep the cost of ham affordable to the American public...but I think I see a win-win situation...whatta you say we buy a million pounds of ham of ya...but we'll do it at $1.50 a pound since it has become so difficult to to maintain market price. We'll use the ham to feed the poor and then you use the added capital to ensure that ham stays affordable to John Q. Public."

FirefightnRick · July 21, 2009

This is essentially another bailout for a struggling industry...

And I can only guess as to why the swine/pork industry is struggling this year?

Crisis!

Rick

Censored by Laurie · July 21, 2009

And I can only guess as to why the swine/pork industry is struggling this year?
Crisis!
Rick

Damn Mexians

Edited July 21, 2009 by Censored by Laurie

mad dog · July 21, 2009

Damn Mexicans

I think you mispelled Mexians.

FirefightnRick · July 21, 2009

I believe the jist of the Ham purchase concerns stems from this report:USDA: 760,000 poundsof ham for $1.2M

The administration seems acutely aware that some wasteful spending from the $787 billion recovery package is inevitable, as noted by Vice President Biden earlier this year.

Rick

eeally · July 22, 2009

And, you know this how? And since when does one have to overpay for anything to "stimulate" the economy or to use it as a "subsidy"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can one not stimulate activity through a contract negotiated at a cost efficient price? If you cannot, then we are all in for a massive implosion of the health care system in this country.
CBL, do you really belive what you said about "overpaying" in order to stimulate? Good grief...my economics and finance profs would turn over in their graves! I hope you were not a business or economics major at UNT.

Halliburton Services doing what trained Military could do......$120000 vs $38,000.

Defense spending.....No competition! Oh wait there are 2 companies that can produce F-60's for around 350 million. If we cut 2 of those everyone in America could get a Ham....or at least a doctors visit...or wait maybe we could provide scholarships for more doctors, I don't know! What could we do with 700 million. Too bad we already ordered 40 more! Hams or jets I forgot which one. Does not matter! Both are prime examples of Gov interference with our lives.

All I need is a gun, a pig , and some penicillin......and that would save taxpayers......350,038,001.79.......how is that math?