1. "Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on 'fishy' claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan."
2. "The 'public option,' a new government insurance program akin to Medicare, has been a central component of Mr. Obama’s agenda for overhauling the health care system, but it has also emerged as a flashpoint for anger and opposition.... For Mr. Obama, giving up on the public plan would have risks and rewards. The reward is that he could punch a hole in Republican arguments that he wants a 'government takeover' of health care and possibly win some Republican votes." (Republican? If the anger was restricted to Republicans, would he care?)
August 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229And both of them can only be accomplished by the government encroaching on the freedoms of others.
(Unless, of course, they got their big fat ass out of the whole thing, but they'd never do that. Useful idiots like yourself would never allow it.)
AL: "A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings."
Me: "Such as? What? Having the GALL to ask that the state not suborn their religion when they've delivered their children to the keeping of the state?"
SF - proving I'm right: "Funny you should ask. Texas has mandated--starting this year--that public school teach Bible classes. Care to guess what will happen? Remember now, this has to be taught as a literature, history and social studies class, not religion. Should we start the pool on the first law suit date?"
Though people who ought to know from Texas are claiming this "mandate" isn't true, ain't happening.
The principle still stands... we're required by law to give our children over to the care of the state (unless we are wealthy enough to buy their way free) and while they are there, the *rightful* demand that their religion, a guaranteed right in the Constitution, not be suborned is met with charges that the "State" is being made to deliver "christian" teachings.
People trust the military, which is the Department of Defense, at least partly because the DOD and the Army are not attempting to run their lives.
Yes, the shear size means there are inefficiencies and as often as not the regulations and piles of paperwork and the hoops to jump through for bidding and awarding contracts in order to prevent fraud cause their own fraud... and SF thinks this is very bad.
And we're supposed to be COMFORTABLE giving over 15% to 20% of... not the government budget! but the entire GNP to a government program that WILL interfere and interact directly with our personal lives.
All the conditions that lead to massive financial mismanagement PLUS the super bonus of having it be about something directly touching the lives of your sick loved ones.
And SF thinks this is GOOD.
At the risk of drifting the topic, I will mention that I think I know why the military is the most effective part of the government.
The military has an up or out promotion system.
Nobody can just burrow in to the military, hunker down, and wait for retirement. Not even guys with 19 years can relax too much, every year the services will kick out a few 19 year members just as examples.
Civil Service is an entirely different proposition.
Which is why Obama care will resemble the Post Office in effetiveness a lot more than it will the Navy Seals.
More conservative assholes.
Synova does the "who us?" routine that never worked for me when I was 8:
AL: "A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings."
Me: "Such as? What? Having the GALL to ask that the state not suborn their religion when they've delivered their children to the keeping of the state?" .
Let's see what I can knock out in one minute:
a) Efforts to make same sex marriage illegal beyond their own churches.
b) Efforts to put Ten Commandments in public buildings.
c) Efforts to restrict access to birth control.
d) Opposition to sexual reproduction education at home and abroad.
e) Demands that the government fund churches beyond nonprofit status to include their social service activities.
f) Demands for (Christian) prayers in schools, forcing one person's religion (and Christianity) on others.
(Now, to be very clear, I actually think most conservative dogma oozing out of "churches" today is completely at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ.)
"Let's see what I can knock out in one minute:
a) Efforts to make same sex marriage illegal beyond their own churches."
Same sex marriage *is* illegal, or was *everywhere* until recently. I happen to think it should be legalized but I'm not at all blind to the tactic of pretending that there is a huge effort to *take something away*.
And you know as well as I that no one is defending the rights of churches to hold to their own teachings within their own church.
"b) Efforts to put Ten Commandments in public buildings."
A response to efforts to take them OUT.
"c) Efforts to restrict access to birth control."
Abortion is not birth control and it's illegal to give a minor Tylenol. Cry me a river. Or just take our children away and be honest about it.
"d) Opposition to sexual reproduction education at home and abroad."
Abortion is not birth control. And using tax funds and compulsory schooling to suborn religion teaching is offensive.
"e) Demands that the government fund churches beyond nonprofit status to include their social service activities."
Demands?
Better watch out, those Christianists are out to get you.
"f) Demands for (Christian) prayers in schools, forcing one person's religion (and Christianity) on others."
Demands not to prohibit the exercise of a Constitutional right in a compulsory State institution is not a demand that prayers *must* happen, but I don't expect you see the difference.
Taking kids away from their scary fundy family values is a *good* thing, no?
"(Now, to be very clear, I actually think most conservative dogma oozing out of "churches" today is completely at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ.)"
What a relief. Because Jesus never offended anyone.
Be comfortable.
wv: apessin
No, not silly: Idiotic. As in "useful idiot".
Make up your damn mind: Is it about forcing the 47M to get insurance--many of whom don't want it, and could rightfully see this as an encroachment on their freedom to NOT have it, or is it about "affordable health care"?
Those two things are mutually exclusive.
Yes... you certainly acquired the full range or rhetoric ... but without the substance.
There is nothing "exclusive" about "affordable health care" and a national risk-management component. It's pretty obvious that if we look to make a broad-based initiative affordable, someone has to pay more to make it affordable for everyone. This is why we have progressive taxation--which you, of course, despise.
The point of risk management is that you spread the costs corresponding to a risk assessment over time. That is, everyone pays into the system all the time, but some get subsidized to get equal terms. If you opt out of the system, you pay someone else, but can't count on subsidies.
You think it's socialism? OK, do you live in a state with mandatory auto insurance? You may be a safe driver, but are you happy paying a somewhat inflated rate to subsidize law-breakers (those without insurance) and those guilty of high-risk behavior (those who would not be able to afford even the minimum mandatory insurance had the costs not been spread out). And you pay every year even if you think you're such a great driver, you don't really need insurance. If you could, you'd be a free-loader.
This is the issue in health care. Among those who lack insurance, there are surely some who choose not to pay for something they don't think they need. There are others who desperately need it but are excluded by the system. A national risk management system would prevent both from happening--no freeloaders, but, if they want to opt for private insurance which may or may not be cheaper (perhaps a "minimum" catastrophic coverage policy), they would be welcome to do so. Those who are now excluded would be brought back into the fold. The actual costs of paying for the currently under-insured should come down because they'd be subsidized for health maintenance, not for emergency room visits. High-impact events for the "healthy" uninsured would also be eliminated--right now, if the self-imposed uninsured run into medical problems (causing a car accident, for example, and breaking a couple of limbs), the rest of us end up bearing the brunt of their costs. Under the national system, everyone pays one way or another, distributing the risk.
This is the very nature of insurance. You pay the same whether you need the service or not--that's why it's called risk management and why it is important to have an accurate risk assessment (and an army of actuaries).
Before calling someone an idiot, take a look in the mirror.
That's lovely, Shadowfox.
You were the one who called me delusional earlier and demanded I produce PROOF of DEATH PANELS in the Health Care Bill.
So, how about you show me the text that does exactly what you say and NOTHING ELSE. Particularly, NOTHING ELSE that will allow the government to have a voice in the care you receive from your doctor.
Then further go on to provide me with one example ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where this has happened, instead of skyrocketing costs endangering the system, death by bureaucracy and massive loss of freedom.
You lose.
but, if they want to opt for private insurance which may or may not be cheaper (perhaps a "minimum" catastrophic coverage policy), they would be welcome to do so.
Except that the current bills proposed make it illegal for insurance companies to offer those types of plans in the future. New plans must be "conforming" to the higher levels of coverage that the Government mandates. They don't want you to have catastrophic only coverage.
If you change your job or your employer cancels your insurance, you do not have the option. You will likely be on the government plan because private insurance will be too expensive or non existant.
This is the very nature of insurance. You pay the same whether you need the service or not--that's why it's called risk management and why it is important to have an accurate risk assessment (and an army of actuaries).
You know nothing about insurance and are talking out of your ass.
Risk management is YOU managing your risk and insuring against those things that are crucial or would be devastating to you personally. Risk management is deciding which things or in which situations, insurance is not needed. Some risks don't NEED to be managed and others do.
A 20 year old person can logically decide that the risk of going to the doctor occaisionally is not worth the capital outlay and that he would be better off using current funds to pay for those few occasions and better manage the opportunity cost of money by investing the difference that he would be otherwise force to spend on health insurance. He also might decide that the risk of a catastrophic event is not that likely and opt out of insurance altogether. That is HIM managing his risk.
The insurance company will also manage their exposure to risk by refusing to insure the un-insurable or by charging higher premiums for taking the risk of those less healthy applicants.
Obama and you are proposing the everyone..EVERYONE... be forced to buy insurance and that the insurance will cover things that the person might not consider valuable. The insurer (or the taxpayer as the funder of the government insurance scheme) is being forced to accept the risk of unhealthy clients and the insured is being FORCED to buy something that they may not want.
Don't bother to try to argue with me. THIS is what I do for a living. CFP, Financial Planner ...manage risk....among other things.
WV = examr....lol you can't make it up
Do you ever freaking listen to yourself?
It probably comes out as white noise. AL has proven himself as nothing more than a troll and a racist.
You may as well debate a cockroach and that would be a step up.
At the risk of drifting the topic, I will mention that I think I know why the military is the most effective part of the government.
The military has an up or out promotion system.
Let me suggest that this may be useful, but does not completely solve the problem. One thing that has been noticeable about our military, esp. at the top, and maybe down through some of the field grade ranks, but definitely at the flag ranks, at least from the time of our Civil War, is that the wrong types of officers seem to get promoted to the top during times of peace. It is only after they screw up the initial part of a war, and are replaced, that we seem to be able to fight effectively.
Just remember the series of generals before Grant, Sherman, et al., and how they just couldn't win. Then in WWII, the early African campaign was similarly ineptly fought, until generals like Patton were brought up. We seemed to fumble around in Korea for awhile. Arguably, that may have been part of the problem in Vietnam with Westmoreland. And the same sort of thing seems to have happened with our war in Iraq.
My theory is that during peace time, the more politically adept officers rise faster through the ranks. But they are often not the best fighters, and so have to be replaced in time of war, before we can win (ok, I acknowledge taking sides here in the Civil War).
I agree. ShadowFox sounds delusional here. He seems to be talking about some magical system where everyone lives happily ever after, and there are no adverse consequences of ill advised policies. The system he is talking about, besides appearing impractical, also bears little relation to what is being proposed by the Democrats, and in particular, HR 3200.
This is the sort of magical thinking that most children overcome before adulthood. Real actions have real consequences, many being quite foreseeable, esp. if you are cynical enough about human nature.
Let us take a remote example. Everyone (or at least the Democratic majority at the time) agreed that it was tragic that kids were living in poverty. So, LBJ implemented his War on Poverty. Unfortunately, it legalized and legitimized fatherless families by subsidizing women to have kids out of wedlock. And, as a foreseeable consequence, we now have prisons full of fatherless sons, and a significant violence problem in our underclasses.
Now we are being sold on a health care system where all the incentives are designed to make liberals feel good about themselves, and not to solve the real problems we are facing.
And if you attack the bill, you're expected to provide chapter and verse for where it says something, but if you praise, there's no need to actually back that up with text.
Apparently some people just can't get it through their thick skulls that not every argument is about the Second Amendment.
The only people arguing are those of you on the left. People exercise their 2nd Amendment rights every day, in grocery stores, in restaurants, churches, at political rallies and protests, etc., etc.
Open or conceal carry is not news. It has been around for a couple hundred years. If the sight of a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm disturbs you, then I suggest you seek therapy.
Yes, the shear size means there are inefficiencies and as often as not the regulations and piles of paperwork and the hoops to jump through for bidding and awarding contracts in order to prevent fraud cause their own fraud... and SF thinks this is very bad.
We are back to play delusional or dishonest again. Are you seriously trying to suggest that all those GOP congressmen caught with a hand in the cookie jar were trying to prevent fraud rather than something simple, like... line their own pockets? Surely you jest!
Same sex marriage *is* illegal, or was *everywhere* until recently.
Well... According to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, it was always legal in the Commonwealth--we were just illegally trying to prevent it. Ditto NJ and NH.
"c) Efforts to restrict access to birth control."
Abortion is not birth control and it's illegal to give a minor Tylenol. Cry me a river. Or just take our children away and be honest about it.
OK, it looks like we have a clear winner! Now we know you're dishonest--you know perfectly well that Alpha was not talking about abortion.
The principle still stands... we're required by law to give our children over to the care of the state (unless we are wealthy enough to buy their way free) and while they are there, the *rightful* demand that their religion, a guaranteed right in the Constitution, not be suborned is met with charges that the "State" is being made to deliver "christian" teachings.
There seems to be a pattern (to being dishonest). You know perfectly well that the right to your "religion not [to] be suborned" is only half the constitutional message. The second half is that the state should not play favorites. Which part of separation do you not understand.
The military has an up or out promotion system.
Nobody can just burrow in to the military, hunker down, and wait for retirement.
... which is why we have the privilege of John McCain as a Senator and an (ex) presidential candidate. He did not want to be the first burrower.
"b) Efforts to put Ten Commandments in public buildings."
A response to efforts to take them OUT.
Ah, yes--the convenience-based constitutional protections. When it suits you--they exist. When it does not--they don't.
If you change your job or your employer cancels your insurance, you do not have the option. You will likely be on the government plan because private insurance will be too expensive or non existant.
Aha! We have another contestant! What happens, pray tell, right now when you switch to a job that carries no health insurance benefits (Walmart) or if the employer cancels the existing benefit? Or, for that matter, if the employer decides to change its subsidy from 80% to 10% of the insurance costs? Please tell us, oh, Wise One, what private options one would have in such an instance?
Open or conceal carry is not news. It has been around for a couple hundred years.
A couple hundred? Don't you mean a couple thousand? I seem to recall Romans roaming the streets with spears and swords loose, in full view... You know--the ones who showed up to the crucifiction rallies?
Don't bother to try to argue with me. THIS is what I do for a living. CFP, Financial Planner ...manage risk....among other things.
Yup... that's a way to win an argument--the Joe Isuzu method.
You were the one who called me delusional earlier and demanded I produce PROOF of DEATH PANELS in the Health Care Bill.
And your proof is? You know, I must concede--when someone starts flaunting his inability to sustain an argument, it's time for the opposition to wash its hands and move on. There is no point.
There is a Yiddish/Russian/Polish proverb--If you touch shit, it stinks.
Shadow -- What happens if your insurance gets canceled?
Well, I know you are the smartest person here, so you know all this, but I will review:
1. There is existing law which allows you to carry your insurance with you provided you pay the premiums.
2. You buy your own private insurance.
3. You go to one of many free or low-cost clinics.
4. You go to a hospital and don't pay. Free riding is an accepted norm in the United States when it comes to critical care.
5. You get Medicaid.
The fact is, there aren't many Americans not covered one way or another in this country. Of those Americans, very few are in any way in need of medical care. Only someone so very smart as you would argue that everyone should face shortages and reduced quality of care so that everyone can have free medical care no matter what.
Well, I know you are the smartest person here, so you know all this, but I will review:
7, it's against my better judgment, but I'll respond.
1. There is existing law which allows you to carry your insurance with you provided you pay the premiums.
That's right, there an existing law that allows you to carry your health insurance for a limited period of time--provided, of course, you pay full cost of that insurance that may well have been previously subsidized by your employer. Now, let's check where this law came from. Here it is: Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. "[COBRA] allows employees and their dependents to maintain coverage at their own expense by paying the full cost of the premium the employer previously paid, plus up to a 2% administrative charge (50% for the latter 11 months under the disability extension)." There is an exception for those employers who choose to help their former employees voluntarily. "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as signed by the President includes a 65% subsidy to employers for COBRA-enabled insurance for up to 9 months after an involuntary termination." Got that? That's the "Stimulus Bill" that most Republicans and conservatives opposed. The same holds for the original COBRA bill (care to guess how many Republicans were among 154 who voted against the conference report?).
2. You buy your own private insurance.
Been there, done that. The options are severely limited, the coverage stinks (especially if you can't get into a group plan). And it costs as much as or more than COBRA-mandated coverage.
3. You go to one of many free or low-cost clinics.
Interesting option. I hope you find yourself regularly in the position to patronize this service. You may understand a thing or two about "rationing" service. And, I am sure, you believe that these clinics survive on donations alone.
I actually was employed once analyzing health-care companies and their services. It turned out that large HC providers (e.g., Aurora in WI) tried to direct poor patients to free clinics instead, ignoring laws and medical ethics guidelines. Who's the free-rider in this case?
4. You go to a hospital and don't pay. Free riding is an accepted norm in the United States when it comes to critical care.
5. You get Medicaid.
The last three options you mention are particularly telling. There is no free ride--well, it may be "free" for the victim, but it's not free for the rest of us--someone (namely, those who pay their insurance premiums or pay for services directly) must pay more than their fair share to cover the difference. And that share is significantly higher than what it would be had we subsidized insurance coverage for these people instead.
The fact is, there aren't many Americans not covered one way or another in this country. Of those Americans, very few are in any way in need of medical care.
I've personally experienced (1), (2) and (4), although (4) was not as simple as you describe (it was a billing dispute gone bad). I was never eligible for (5) and never had the misfortune to opt for (3). But you're missing the greater point. It's not just the people who don't have insurance. It is also the people whose current insurance does not cover the services they need or does not cover the expenses sufficiently (deductibles, deductible windows, percent not covered ranging from 50% to 10%, etc.). If you have a 70% plan and end up with a major surgery, the expenses may well put you in a bankruptcy.
I agree. ShadowFox sounds delusional here. He seems to be talking about some magical system where everyone lives happily ever after, and there are no adverse consequences of ill advised policies.
You know, Barney Frank got it right, "Having a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."
it's not free for the rest of us--someone...must pay more than their fair share to cover the difference
The sublime irony of this statement is incalculable, not least because of the super genius who said it. Are you really going to argue that you support a government takeover of the means of production in health care because some of us are paying more than our fair share? Laughable and sad and silly all at once.
Looks like you are well on your way to becoming a small-government libertarian conservative, Shadow. We look forward to having your stimulating brilliance at work on our side.
Are you really going to argue that you support a government takeover of the means of production in health care because some of us are paying more than our fair share?
My patience apparently will not be rewarded--you're below a dining room table as far as ability to hold an argument goes (you can at least keep a printed version on the table).
It may sink one day, but I doubt--you're too smug and wallow in your own ignorance. "Means of production in health care" are in no way implicated in any proposed version of the reform. We do not have the government taking over the health care system, NHS-style.
The point is that we have to pay for the "free-riders" one way or another--and, under the present system, it is more rather than less. And it will keep growing. The way shops deal with shoplifting--aside from the obvious security measures--is by raising prices. The more shoplifting problem and the higher the security costs, the higher the prices on everything for everyone else. The principle here is essentially the same--it's not quite a zero-sum game, but it's close.
The point is that we have to pay for the "free-riders" one way or another
Why?
The gov't says so. And then says, "Oh, we can't afford this, so we'll take over everything. That'll fix it."
Why do we have destroy our system and give up our freedom to take care of free riders? What if we just...didn't?
(Except through the previously successful and time-honored traditions of charity.)
The point is that we have to pay for the "free-riders" one way or another
Why?
The gov't says so.
As much as I hate repeating myself, you are already paying for them. Whether it is in ever-increasing insurance premiums, or co-pay, or the percent co-pay that is not covered by your policy--which, obviously, rises as the procedure rates go up--you are paying for those who don't pay for themselves. I've mentioned this at least three or four times here, on this thread. The "free ride" may be free for them, but it is not free for the service providers, so someone--namely you and me--must repay them their losses. An alternative is for the government to pay it, but, unless we expect the government to keep printing money it does not have, they must get it somewhere as well. They can increase the tax on insurance companies, they can tax medical benefits (clearly something that Congressmen found unpalatable) or they can simply write their own insurance plans and recover the costs through the premiums--the same way insurance companies do it. Oh, wait--they can't do that unless Congress writes a new law that says that they can.
The truth is that hard choices must be made, but an average conservative does not want to make any of them. He would rather wait on the sidelines until the consequences of inaction are so dire that there are only limited options available for fixing the problem. This is the hidden cost of minimal government. The problem with these "solutions" is that 1) the costs are not distributed over time and you get hit with one giant bill and 2) the continued neglect escalates the costs. This is the difference between paying for maintenance and only responding to catastrophic failures.
Putting oil in your car regularly keeps the engine running (unless there are some other problems) at a fairly small incremental cost. But if wish to forgo this cost and wait until the engine ceases, the cost of repair will be much greater than the combined cost of maintenance.
We face the same choices every day both in our homes and at the national level. For example, in the 1980s, Alan Greenspan put out the choice--we can raise Social Security contributions by the middle class and have the system solvent for a couple of generations or we can keep the premiums the same and watch the system collapse within a decade. Greenspan, Reagan and Congress made the former choice and it worked out for a while. There was another alternative--also making the high earners contribute proportionately to their income and having the system running smoothly essentially in perpetuity. This, of course, was not palatable under Reaganomics, so the idea was shelved, but with an explicit agreement between all parties that the high earners will have to contribute eventually. Greenspan was on record agreeing to this. Essentially, it was a compromise--compromise based on the promise that an important element of the plan will be fixed later. But, when time came to pay the piper, the GOP balked--tax high earners for Social Security? How dare you! Instead, we saw Bush&Co come up with insane privatization proposals that would have seen the entire system completely wiped out by the end of last year. We are lucky that no one was fooled by the privatization scheme. But someone will still have to pay for the earlier compromise--will it be the middle class again, or the people who promised to pay eventually?
The point has little to do with Social Security, Medicare or health reform. The point is that this is not a zero-sum game--different paths to fixing problems do not have the same total costs. And not paying at all is not an option--in fact, such a choice nearly always results in higher costs.
Shorter Shadow:
There is going to be an epic crisis in the future because the capitalist system is broken and corrupt.
The only solution is a radical takeover of the means of production by Shadow's super brilliant vanguard of young bachelor-of-arts recipients, who have the solutions for the coming crisis, which is not here, but it will come. Just wait.
SF,
You write these huge responses to questions not asked, making all kinds of erroneous assumptions.
I asked you why we have to pay for free-riders and you launch on a screed about how we DO pay for them and conservatives are to stupid to understand it and blah blah blah.
I asked you why but I know the answer: We pay for them because the government mandates it.
What if the government didn't mandate it?
The only solution is a radical takeover of the means of production...
I've seen parrots with better processing capacity...
I asked you why we have to pay for free-riders and you launch on a screed about how we DO pay for them and conservatives are to stupid to understand it and blah blah blah.
You want a short answer? There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Someone must pay for them. But the options are limited.
1. It can be the "free-riders" themselves.
2. It could be the service providers.
3. It could be the government.
4. Or, it could be someone else--either
a. by choice (that's called charity) or
b. because the costs are being passed to them in the form of a bill.
Obviously, (1) is out--they are not going to do it because they are, well, free-riding. The service provider cannot afford to eat the costs--they must be reimbursed for their expense, so (2) is really just a transit point, not a real option. So that leaves (3) or (4). Generally, that's what health-care providers do--they solicit charity and they increase their rates for services rendered so that other patients cover the expenses incurred by the non-paying patients and they get funding from the government in the form of Medicare and partial support for indigent care (although this is fairly small and far from full coverage). At this level, it's a closed system--the money must come from these sources because there are no others.
The options are in the way the money is distributed and in the kind of services that can be provided to reduce the costs.
(4a) is unpredictable and fairly inflexible--there are some economic factors that affect the contribution, but you can only go to that well once. If that does not cover the costs, you move on. And, generally, it does not cover the costs.
So the question is how to split the share between (3) and (4b). The point of the reform is to make (3) more efficient than (4b). The bet is that the costs will be lower if distributed through taxes than if the service providers get to decide how to make you pay more directly. But, one way or another, it comes out of your hide.
Is that clear enough for you?
SF,
Well, you really over-answered again, but I appreciate that you don't seem to be parroting the typical talking points.
That allows me to see where our fundamental disagreements are, which I will spell out to you:
1. If free-riders aren't provided with service, then no one has to pay for them.
2. The things that you find as flaws with charity, I either disagree with or don't see as flaws. To wit,
(a) Charity can cover all kinds of things the government can't reasonably foresee. That is, it's actually way more flexible than a government program.
(b) Yes, there is a limited number of times one can "go to the well". Someone seeking charity must convince the person giving charity they are worthy. This provides an encouragement to not gratuitously need charity.
Etc.
1. If free-riders aren't provided with service, then no one has to pay for them.
This is par for the course for an ideological libertarian/conservative. There is a slight problem, however:
Health-service providers must provide medical services regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Not all medical services and not at all times, but the range of these services is substantial.
Consider also that seniors who are covered by Medicare get far more in services than they put in--which is why the system is bleeding down to insolvency. And this is after Medicare low-balls medical service rates. Again, one must ask where the providers get the funding to pay for the difference (I don't mean the difference between the inflated billing rates, but the actual rates of providing the services). The answer is still the same--by inflating all charges and then negotiating discounts, the services make you and me pay for the excess. Private insurers can do what Medicare generally cannot--pass the inflated costs to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. Has the cost and quality of medical service gone up by 50% since 2000? Certainly not if we look at the rate of inflation or the actual level of service. So why are insurance premium up 50% in the same period? I'll let you figure it out. (And, no, it's not malpractice awards--sorry, that one's been debunked a long time ago, even the AMA does not buy it.)
You keep using that word "must".
It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who gets into trouble with the law and calls his lawyer who says, "They can't put you in jail for that!" And the guy says, "I'm calling from jail!"
Or the flip side, "The can put your elephant in jail for that!"
They legally "must". It's not physics, it's law, and law can be changed.
If you can't see that basic point, we can't proceed. You have to at least concede the possibility of freedom.
I think we pile up all these "must"s--diminishing freedom for everyone--and soon everyone takes them for granted, and we all become slaves to "must". Medicare is a huge "must" that we've all become slaves to.
You don't have to agree with that point-of-view, but if you can't comprehend it, we'll not get any further.
Which is fine. No sweat. But if you hope to convince people who don't already agree with you, you're going to have more luck if you can understand where they're coming from.
They legally "must". It's not physics, it's law, and law can be changed.
You're absolutely right! I was going to include this very comment in my earlier post but I could not separate it from it's cousin, "You, heartless bastard!"
"We" can change the law. And by "we" I mean you and the 300,000 Ron Paul supporters. Or is it 300,000 Pat Buchanan supporters? I have a hard time keeping track of which is which.
The point is that the change you propose is possible only theoretically. No Congressman in his right mind will vote for such a change, let alone propose it. Let's just say that as facts now stand, this law is a fact, and, under this set of facts, "must" is the operative word. Someone must pay.
But there is something else that is not a part of the law--medical ethics. And that cannot be changed by legislation. So there is a reason why it would be difficult to overturn the law that obligates medical service providers to treat people irrespectively of their ability to pay. Just like public schools are supposed to educate all students (provided they meet residency requirements). This is called social welfare and it's something that's been considered progress in the twentieth century. Of course, some considered socialist totalitarianism to be progress too, so the jury may still be out.
But, as a principle, you are absolutely right--there is no obligation on societies to treat the sick, to take care of the old and the young--it's every dumbass for himself. Social Darwinism. Just like Rush said today--if you can't afford medical treatment for your broken arm, why are you so stupid as to break your arm in the first place? Evolution in action, my friend, evolution in action...
Do you hear the crickets?
Post a Comment