Slashdot Mirror
HR 3200 Considered As Software
bfwebster writes "Independent of one's personal opinions regarding the desirability and forms of government-mandated health care reform, there exists the question of how well HR 3200 (or any other legislation) will actually achieve that end and what the unintended (or even intended) consequences may be. There are striking similarities between crafting software and creating legislation, including risks and pitfalls — except that those risks and pitfalls are greater in legislation. I've written an article (first of a three-part series) examining those parallels and how these apply to HR 3200."
Something needs to be done as today's system is very much set to rip people off and make ceo's rich off people not getting what they are paying for.
I was thinking just a few days ago that having a buganizer for congress would be an interesting idea. Not very politically likely because you'd never be able to mark a bug "Will not fix - Working as intended" when it was clear that the only reason for a law was because the politicians were bribed enough.
special comment on health care from olbermann. remember this when you vote next.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You've never written software for airplanes, missile or missile defense, or nuclear plants, then! I'd wager that each of those have actual pitfalls rated in human death rather than merely some pissed off administrators because the money wasn't pushed around they way they want it to.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
TFA itself (OK, part I) seems to be mostly about why the analogy of major legislation-as-software doesn't really work.
Then why do the analysis from this perspective in the first place? It just gets in the way.
I am working on a project along similar lines. Bringing software and version control practices to creating legislation. You can read a bit about it here.
http://jeff.jones.be/technology/projects/open-source-country/
and see a site in progress here http://opensourcecountry.org/
HR3200 considered by a software designer with no concept of how legislation works, aka: how to get my rant about HR3200 posted on Slashdot by superficially comparing it to software.
Okay, maybe that title is too long, but at least it's more accurate.
The bulk of the article is concerned with how HR3200 is an unmanageable mess because it's really really long and makes reference to lots of other laws. Well, surprisingly enough, this is how just about every other piece of legislation ever looks. Laws are not written in, and do not exist in, a vacuum. There is a tremendous body of legislation that already exists. New legislation has to modify parts of that existing legislation, while keeping other parts, deleting still other parts, and ignoring completely other parts that aren't relevant to the new law. It's sort of like revision control in software, except instead of having a bunch of diff files in the background and having the new law be the final combined output, the new law is basically a diff file itself, which in turn modifies earlier diff files, which may themselves modify earlier diff files, and so on. The entire revision history is kept in the legislation itself, basically.
HR3200 is very long and complex because it's seeking to overhaul a very large and very complex system with a vast number of laws already written about it. HR3200 has to modify a number of these existing laws in order to do what it aims to do. Frankly, I'd be worried if it came in at much LESS than 1000 pages, given the scope of what it is trying to do and the vast amount of legislation that's already been written regarding health care. The relevant government agencies have plenty of lawyers and other experts whose job it is to make sure the legislation is understood and implemented as written.
Basically, this whole article is an excuse to drive page hits to this guy's blog, and to Slashdot, by trying to come up with some excuse to get huge argument started about health care on a technology site.
After looking at his blog, forgive me if I do not believe that this "analysis" is about anything but conclusions he's already reached (ie, Obama is a Commie Nazi).
...At least it isn't a Car analogy.
Wow I saw HP 3200 and was like how could a scanner fix health care
Is this article a troll? Yes, I can see the utility in comparing legislation with software, although I was hoping for something a bit more than superficial analogies. But if the comparison is any use at all, then it will apply to legislation as a whole, so why choose one particular piece of current and controversial legislation to discuss? Surely the fact that it is both current and controversial is only a distraction from the main thesis, of comparing legislation with software? I suspect that the author has an agenda, of trashing the legislation. He also makes a rather fundamental misunderstanding, in his haste to criticize HR 3200. The 'spaghetti coding' is because he isn't looking at the source program itself, what he is looking at is a diff, between the existing regulation and the proposed amended regulation. That is a rather critical difference that invalidates 90% of his analysis.
The blogger's complaints seem to boil down to:
1) The legislation is in English
2) The legislation is long
3) The legislation amends current law
Seems to me that *any* important legislation has these "flaws," including laws that have had very positive consequences (i.e., McCain-Feingold). Thankfully, other websites actually parse and interpret the legislation rather than whine about its length.
Do you have the technology to rebuild it? Excuse the flippancy, but the article, in terms of the 1st part, was interesting and clear but insufficient in so far as it didn't allow me to draw any conclusions based upon your conjectured parallels. Having said that I think what you're attempting is vital and necessary. We're creatures of context and, as such, we're likely to take inferences from our more tested and experienced contexts and apply them out of context, or, more widely in other contexts. Abstracting the "rules of engagement", or, protocols from your profession and overlaying them on the outputs of a legislative body is a good thing. It's kinda like overlays. The abstracted take away message derived from one discipline can be very instructive and even beneficial to an alien discipline. It's the ability to overlay one set of abstracted readings or mappings to another discipline's readings or mappings that's difficult and rare. It's even more rare that someone can adequately project the two mappings to the two different parties and have anything like agreement ensue. IMHO it's not only worth the effort, it's necessary, but if I were you, I'd be hearing that famous line: "Imagine, if you will..." with the Eagles 'Hotel California', "you can check in, but you can never leave", playing in the background. Good luck with that.
ideopath @ play
Isn't H.R. 3200 sort of like DirectX 4?
It would be interesting if there was a structured legislation language.
Consider:
All terms and covered individuals and entities defined up front.
Specific sections that spell out standard considerations
Some kind of enforcement mechanism that wouldn't allow for confusion.
Example sections
TItle:
Purpose:
Definitions: A list of all terms and their definitions.
Requirements: Something that must be done
Prohibitions: Something that can't be done
Funding: How it will be paid for.
Penalties: If any, punishments for violating provisions of the law.
I could see a complete class library, defining the government, that would be used to build the text of the legislation
See what great ideas you can come up with when you are four bottles into your third six-pack?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I, for one, do not need to see the current health care legislation cast in yet another new light. What's next?
Your health care bill rewritten as FORTRAN with no compile errors?
1300 pages of health care reform written in haiku (it might be more understandable this way)?
The health care reform bill run through deCSS?
Will it never end?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Olbermann? Seriously?
You might as well quote someone from the psych ward...one of the inmates.
The fact that Astroturf showed up as one of the recommended tags for this story made me feel a lot better about Slashdot.
Maybe Toms Hardware can do a 12 page article on how to DIY your own HR 3200-approved RAID array for under $14 billion :-)
The entire law profession relies on the ambiguities, as do politicians.
Keep in mind who writes the laws and it's clear why the idea falls apart.
that legislation, *any* legislation, is more like writing patches than rewriting laws, and, subsequently, trying to understand a piece of software by reading a patch is a very silly idea. What would be useful, is to see the patched law, and read it in proper context.
HR 3200 Considered As Software.... What next?
Smells like socialism to me.
But those metaphorical nitpicks aside, I think it's a worthy thing to hold the two systems up to each other and compare methodologies. I think each side would stand to learn a lot from each other. For example under the US Constitution the role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law, and even evaluate as to whether a given law is constitutional. This bears great superficial similarity to the process of Quality Assurance in software development... except that formal QA by the Judiciary only happens AFTER that code is rolled into production. Prior to publishing, laws are not required to go through pilot phases, there are no "test environments." There's just a period of "code peer review" as the bills get worked, reworked, and finally signed into law.
I wonder what it would be like if any new federal law had to be piloted in the authoring congressman's home state for a year before it rolled out to the rest of the country?
From the article:
Heh. HR 3200 "represents the worst excesses of the waterfall development lifecycle"? I love it.
It's a valid point, though. I am deeply suspicious of "big bang" plans in either software development or legislation.
So, how do we apply "agile" software development practices to legislation? All I can think of is: develop a new system in the small (pick one or a few states to try it) and establish a time box, and evaluate whether the legislation accomplishes its goals, then decide whether to spread it to more states, scrap it and start over, or what. That seems like a great idea to me.
President Obama has promised that, if passed, this will simultaneously expand health care coverage to everyone; improve the care everyone gets; and lower costs for everyone. Once a few states have adopted this and all those promises prove out to be true, then everyone will see how well it works and there won't be a bitter political battle to adopt it.
Unless of course it turns out that the promises are not in fact kept, and it doesn't work as planned. Then we will have been spared from putting 1/6 of our economy through a disaster.
Agile law development for the win.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
He neglects to mention that neither the President of Congress have Constitutional authorization to legislate health care for private individuals, or to form National health care organizations.
To compare with software, that would be rather like the software engineers deciding what features are going to go into the software (and getting paid for it), against the explicit instructions of the customer.
The Republicans say that health care is not in trouble.
Well it probably isn't in "crisis", but there are difficulties with it.
Democrats are essentially saying "let government take over the insurers, then we will pay for a lot of it". Mind you they do not reduce the cost ( except around the edges), they just say the government will pay for something we cannot afford but never tell us that the government can't afford it either.
The political pundits mostly fall into the same categories.
I say before we figure out how to pay for health care, we do our best to reduce the high cost of health care.
Every diabetic who spends even a little time in internet groups will tell you that test strips that cost about $1.00 should cost about 10 cents. The manufacturers patent the shape of the conductors then sue others who make competing strips for their meters. It's called the Gillette model ( "Make profits on the razor blades not the razors.") same thing we see with printer refills.
The pharaceutical companies add time release agents or antacids to their drugs ( along with other tricks ) to extend their patents. Politicians say drug companies need to make large profits to offset the large cost of developing drugs but in modern times when the stock market fell, drug companies stocks were some of the last to fall, and the market rose drug stocks were some of the first ti rise. The drug companies have to be doing something right.
The fact is that politicians are failing to focus on many of the real problems. I would suggest a solution but the Secret Service might treat it as a threat rather then me being facetious.
I don't care so much about the hr3200, but the idea put forward is brilliant.
Just to be able to debug/compile the law, run test cases - get all the faults out, and then release it.
And then if somebody finds ways to abuse it, you can pass "bugfixes".
And if you have some questions about the law, you can hire a someone to do a unit test for you and see if it passes.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
I just the other day got, a Congress was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Congress commercially. [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of campaign contributions over the Congress. And again, the Congress is not something you just deposit something in. It's not a big bank. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your money in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of cash, enormous amounts of cash. -- Former Senator Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska
"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
That is your sig and you are suggesting kieth olbermann?
Does it hurt your head to have that much doublethink going on?
I suspect that if you are worried that the government has become riddled with special interests then it would be rather unwise to advocate a bill that expressly encourages a shift to publically funded care through taxation among other factors. Simply because if the corporations have as much influence on our government as your sig implies [agreed btw], it would effectively mean putting a very large section of the US' healthcare in their hands sans any existing dwindling market forces. If corporations have the chance to do so, they will modify the healthcare system to favor themselves through government action.
That [By the Corporations, for the Corporations.] is your sig and you are suggesting kieth olbermann?
Olbermann & co--and O'Riley & co on the other side of the aisle--are hardly the face of corporate media. They are both big fish in the fairly small pond of cable news punditry, but both are overwhelmed by the audience figures of the "mainstream" news outlets -- NBC proper, ABC, CBS, and other broadcast networks. Heck, I think they're looked down on, in journalistic respect, by late-night comedians.
This lets them both do just about exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect -- stand up and scream bloody murder when they see something they feel is done wrong.
Oh, and so long as the subject isn't MSNBC, NBC, or GE, Olbernman's a perfectly good source beyond any sensible reproach. I mean, unless you think CNN's doing it right, with their "let's cover two sides with no comment when one starts lying" theory.
[Corporations] will modify the healthcare system to favor themselves through government action.
Agree 100%. The more government is involved in economic decisions, the more corporations will try to insert themselves into the government to influence those economic decisions.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
sans any existing dwindling market forces
the legislation currently on the tables doesn't rule out free-market alternatives. It gives 1 more choice to you. I would suggest 2 extra additions to that law : 1/insurers shouldn't be able to be throw you off insurance. 2/the only things influencing the monthly fee for insurers should be things like tabacco- and alcohol-usage.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Maybe you should have read the End User Agreement before you bought that package.
...Maybe United States Law should be made a wiki? Maybe that would foster enough understanding by individuals to actually push for reforms that people want, instead of pushing for reforms that no-body can understand due to the limitations of the presentation media.
Disclaimer: If I were this system engineer, I'd scrap it all and start by looking at the original requirements, not all the feature creep requests.
Money is the root of all evil?
I think the constitution was written in assembler...Hard to decode but pretty damned effiecient.
The bill of rights was written in Basic....
HR3200 definitely looks like something written in .NET by a team of 5,000 Indian folks making 50cents an hour.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I'm going to have to dismiss the entire analogy as false due to stretching the premises. Software, in its fundamental sense, is a specific set of instructions designed to make a machine respond precisely, purportedly to accomplish some specified machine-driven task. There is no corresponding requirement for legislation to control the behavior of human action. In fact, according to Blackstone's "Commentaries", law is supposed to define what persons may NOT do. I can see where confusing the two viewpoints might lead us into the quagmire.
The simple laws of mechanics that control our machinery today are subject to very precise, although inexact, mathematical definitions. Theoretically it is possible to prove the precision and error of our computational instructions (although it is not practical to do so in all cases at this time). No human language to date can capture the causes and effects, conditions and nuances with mathematical precision. This shortcoming of human language has been an obstacle in Western philosophical thought since the early Greeks. Therefore, legislation must be drafted in precise terms relating to generalities, but interpreting the law must be done by judging the specific case to see if it fits the criteria described as prohibited behavior.
So we have two very important distinctions: First, to direct computational behavior we must only describe the desired behavior in precise terms. To direct human behavior, we must describe the desired behavior by precisely describing ALL the undesirable behavior, and this is probably impossible. (I'm not going to get into the morality of master-managing each individual's life, nor the tendency of people to resent being forced to behave in ways they don't want to.)
Second, we lack the precision to even clearly define simple boundaries of behavior, especially when nuanced by myriad values and beliefs. This means that the method of reconciliation for conflicting logic cannot be the same as that for precisely-defined goals such as software requires.
In defense of the article, it seems that both legislation and software respond to logical analysis. It seems that clearly-defined legislation is also clearly-defined propositional logic.
OT: Some Science Fiction writer will probably have a field day describing a serious future where the computationality of Truth, Justice and Equality conflict with real life. In Houston, if you run a red light you've broken the law. A computer and camera can prove you ran the red light. However, thousands of tickets per year are being dismissed due to matters of extenuation, mitigation and mercy. So where does the "objective, computerized judicial process" fit in?
"Elected officials should be limited to two terms; one in office and one in jail."
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I'm European (Dutch to be exact).
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
I don't mean to say that public healthcare is a perfect system --there is no such thing as a perfect system-- but it sure as hell beats private healthcare on just about every point.
Sometimes it seems the US hates "socialism" so much that they reverted to "asocialism".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This might already be in here somewhere -- but Lawrence Lessig's Codev2 is an obvious link to this post, covering the parallels between legislation and, well, code. http://codev2.cc/
but let's classify its type i.e. malware.
Remember...
The vast majority of legislatures are lawyers. The vast majority of legislatures are beholden to the; Lobbyists, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, and other lawyers that made the system the disaster it is today. Therefore, there is a powerful impetus to keep it the same, in effect, allowing the Insurance Companies to continue bleeding the middle class, and making medicine one the most profitable sectors of our economy (at the expense of actually providing said middle class with anything actually resembling medical care or service.)
The current legislation is designed to preserve the status quo, while producing the illusion of actually doing something. In fact, it will certainly cause a lot of motion and activity, but in the end, after all the dust settles, I expect that you will find nothing of significant note will alter. That would jeopardise the flow of money and power to those who already have both.
A recent fixed price program has turned up in several states, and it look remarkably attractive. You pay a fixed price for standard care including check-ups, x-rays, basic care, preventative medicine (i.e. flu shots, etc.) This service represents about 95% of the normal care a person should have, and will ensure that the average person will have the necessary resources to catch serious problems early when their resolution will be relatively inexpensive. Everyone would still need coverage for catastrophic illness, but with the majority of the medical heavy lifting separated from the rare cases, the cost of even that coverage would drop significantly. By avoiding the need for insurance, and a huge billing beaurocracy, the monthly cost of standard medicine can drop to $50-$80 depending on area and local cost of living.
Its time for doctors and the middle class to thank D.C. for trying, and as usual being for the most part ineffective, and take this problem into our own hands. We can do exceptionally better (in fact it would take a degree of dedication to do worse.) We need to begin the process of taking medicine back from the lawyers, and business men, who have turned health care into a cesspool of profit taking at the cost of the public welfare.
To paraphrase Bill Marr, "There is nothing wrong with capitalism, however there should be things for which we do not choose to endeavor for profit. Capitalism is like sex. Sex is wonderful and should be enjoyed regularly, in fact we'd go extinct if as a society we stopped. That said, there really are things we simply shouldn't be screwing..."
What part of "News affecting your ability to live as a free, responsible person online belongs in the Your Rights Online (YRO) section. Spam, invasions of privacy, onerous licenses -- they all go here." is hard to understand?
HR3200 considered by a software designer with no concept of how legislation works, aka: how to get my rant about HR3200 posted on Slashdot by superficially comparing it to software.
Sweet. I wanna do that, too. In fact, I tried. I wrote up a spoof trouble ticket for the U.S. government Trac site. It had comments from harryt84, bigdog, ggrinch; there were commit notes from hillaryrc; and it even included abusive ticket spam from rushl. Several of the comments were dated to match historical events. It was a satirical civic lesson written in the curt, pompous tone of an open bug tracker. It was beautiful. I tried to post it.
And. fucking. slashdot. would. not. accept. it. It complained that my lines were too short. When I finally worked through their lame heuristic[1] (which, incidentally, is either buggy or deceptive), I found that the comment formatting was unacceptable. Can't we have a <pre> tag? Anyway, what's the point of slashdot if you can't post cutesy trash?
So... to answer your comment: Yes, slashdot should be the forum for self-indulgent ranting about techno-political conceits, but, today, technical limitations hobbled the attempt of at least one slashdot whizkid to partake in the ritualized sophomoric political discourse.
GBCW, etc., etc.
1. A version of the spam heuristic is at github. Note the substr() call. Odd. Why did I notice this code? Wrong question. Right question: Will I ever get back the time that I spent researching the slashcode project.
</breakdown>
if there is any comparison to projects I have been around, HR3200 is done by those fools who scope out a project by figuring out what they can do before they figure out what they need to do.
Politics not aside, isn't amazing how big bills are when money is no object? How many future generations are we going to saddle with the greed of our current politicians?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
But the less the government is involved in economic decisions, the less corporations will feel the need to influence it. Seems you just can't win.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
i wish i knew the answer. i am american and i wish fervently for socialized single payer (government) health care. all i want is to be able to get checkups and normal procedures. i no longer can afford health insurance, and am unable to get better pay or benefits that would cover it. i only see general good outcome to socializing health care. why many americans are so afraid of the "socialism" aspect is beyond me. isn't universal access to health care a good thing to have? i suspect holdover fears from cold-war era myths. i only look at some european socialized systems and sigh longingly. if i had skills useful there, i would move there.
American here who lives in NL. Your healthcare system sucks balls. I can't get treatment and I just get bounced between one GP and another who tells me to wait and it will fix itself. That's why America is opposed to public healthcare.
One reason is we don't want healthcare dictated to us. The proposed healthcare reform sets minimum required healthcare levels that we must have. As a healthy 25 year old, I only need catastrophic insurance and a healthcare savings account - under the new plan such coverage wouldn't be allowed and I'd be fined for having such little coverage. What gives the government the power to dictate to me how much insurance I should or should not have?
I think most of us realise this isn't healthcare reform, but rather a healthcare band-aid that is only going to make healthcare more expensive for a lower quality of service.
As I see it, the point of this exercise isn't to critique the healthcare bill per se, it is to take some of the hard lessons learned from doing systems development and apply them to the legislative process.
Anybody who has ever tried to implement a big, complex system knows just how unbelievably hard it is to create working code that does what it supposed to do. It is ridiculously difficult it is to even get people to AGREE what a system is supposed to do in the first place, let alone code it.
From a systems development point of view, then, the author's thought experiment is a good one, and surely a valuable (and uncommon) one given all the shouting, etc.
One thing I would point out, however, is that Legislation != Source Code. Rather, Legislation = Requirements. The "source code" comes later, in the form of regulations written by the various agencies who are charged with execution of the law. This means, unfortunately, that the situation is even worse that we imagined.
Imagine if you were given a 1,000+ page set of requirements, with absolutely no guidance on intention, context, or usability.
Now go build your system.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Good outcome? You mean like medicare/medicaid which are GOING TO bankrupt this country already? The same programs that have driven health care costs up due to their nature of only paying 10% of the posted price for operations/procedures so that hospitals and the like have had to jack prices up to be able to get even a slight return on procedures they perform?
Regardless of my own ideology, I have to recognize that any regulatory change is good for software developers, and thus, is good for me. From a "let's get money" perspective, as a developer, any sort of reform or regulation that changes the nature of the market is good. This election I watched Obama speak at victory, thinking, "well, the socialists are going to do everything, but, maybe I'll pay some bills or buy that GTO after all."
From the insurance perspective, single payer is a disaster, the status quo is useless, but, the proposed changes to existing insurance are good. The ideal case, I suppose, would be a hopelessly confusing compromise piece of legislation that fuses the best ideas of both parties into some typical Washington disaster that is doomed to wreck the economy before it even starts. I remind myself that to be more receptive to using "state's rights" to argue that every state should be allowed to have its own regulation. It's all money in the bank for me.
This is my sig.
To be complete, he needs to take a look at the Democrats too. Senator Conrad of North Dakota is as bought and paid for by the health industry as anyone Olbermann called out in that video.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I think it's an unwillingness to admit that their system isn't the best. You know the mentality - Number one! Number one!
Even free-market advocates think it's broken.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I suppose if we're going with the coding analogy, we have to fit lobbying into it somewhere. How confident are you that the development project will come in on time and work as promised when 90% of the coders have taken money or gifts from competitors and foreign governments and companies with a vested financial interest in making sure your code doesn't save your clients any money? They habitually take such money from third parties and use it to convince the boss to renew their contract every year.
Frankly, I'm amazed any effective legislation ever gets written and passed.
Perhaps they think you should lose some weight?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I can't get treatment and I just get bounced between one GP and another who tells me to wait and it will fix itself.
It's true though - one day your voice will break and your balls will drop. The acne takes a bit longer to disappear but I believe you can get Clearasil over-the-counter in the Netherlands.
Squirrel!
The answer is that the majority of Americans are ignorant of and uninterested in the details of health care delivery. That makes it easy for insurance companies to mount campaigns of lies to paralyze the majority with fear of any change from the current dysfunctional and excessively expensive system.
I would guess that there are also many Europeans who are equally uninterested in the details of health care delivery, but since you already have a working system that is less of a problem.
I don't support it at all. I think it's a horrible idea for the US to get single payer healthcare.
I'll grant you the idea isn't bad. I just don't trust the government enough to do it. I'm not some anti-government nut, but let's look at some of their track record:
Basically, I don't trust that this won't become another giant mess of regulation and debt that we can't get out of. If they fixed Medicare or Social Security and it actually worked, they'd have credibility. As it is, this just seems like a chance for a giant boondoggle.
Don't forget the fun regulation that comes with government regulations. When my grandmother died, her life insurance was enough that my grandfather would have been pushed out of Social Security, his only means of support. So he had to spend it in one of the ways that was approved. He bought a new car.
He could have saved that money, used it to make his retirement more comfortable, or to pay medical bills that would inevitably happen later.
Instead he had to buy a new car (other choice: buy/fix home, may be others) so he wouldn't get kicked out. But it wasn't enough money for him to live off of for even a year, so he had to comply.
Fun stuff, those government regulations.
Giant entitlement debt ridden morass of weird regulations. That is what the current track record leaves me to expect, and I don't want it.
Fix medicare, make it solvent. Or SS. Once they have that record that they can actually run a program like this, we can talk about single payer healthcare.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
But the less the government is involved in economic decisions, the less corporations will feel the need to influence it. Seems you just can't win.
Let me get this straight, you think that corporations feeling less need to (and therefore putting less effort into it) influence the government is a bad thing?
Please explain.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
sans any existing dwindling market forces
the legislation currently on the tables doesn't rule out free-market alternatives. It gives 1 more choice to you.
Are you aware that Obama and several others have said in the past (before he was elected), that the "public option" is intended to be the first step to getting the U.S. to a single (government) payer health care system?
So, as far as I can tell, the people promoting the "public option" all wish to migrate the U.S. to a single payer system, but do not believe that that is politically possible, but I am supposed to take their word for it that it will be designed merely to compete with existing health insurance. The public option combined with the regulations that will be put on private health insurance will ensure that private health insurance will be unable to compete with the government option and so private insurance will then gradually wither away.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm European (Dutch to be exact).
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
I have no problem with public healthcare. I oppose all healthcare being supplied (paid for) by the government. There are several reasons. The first is that I get perfectly good health care under the current system and see no good reason to fix what isn't broken. A second reason I oppose government run healthcare is that all of the plans I have seen proposed look like they are intended to break any part of the system that would be resistant to government control. Finally, none of the plans seem to actually address those problems that I see with the health care system in the U.S..
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Easy. If influence is unnecessary, it's because laws cannot be MORE beneficial to the corporations.
Since you alredy started, here's my tagalong (addressed to the article author):
Every time you write "By contrast" you're showing us how your thinking is wrong.
You're not putting something into place without a "test-run". These things are hashed out at multiple stages before being voted on by the house or senate.
"complex, obscure, jargon-laden English" is there for a purpose, they are (supposed to be) using legal terms in a legal document, where every word is precisely defined and chosen so that usage matches all of the other laws and court documents. That's why we have a legal profession - legal English is not everyday English.
"Spaghetti coding" is a special case of jargon, where you simply reference something alredy written so you don't have to repeat yourself and risk having a mismatched redefinition. It's the same as macro expansion if you want to stick with the software idea.
So at best, congratulations for discovering how a Bill becomes a Law. It's messy, ain't it? And no, they aren't going to use multiple bills to do this - it's all or nothing because one side wants one set of changes and another side wants different changes. You don't fight this out multiple time, potentially coming up with conflicting rules. You wouldn't commit a partial change which breaks the build and then hope the other team can fix the build without reverting your changes would you?
Too bad I have to be logged in to make comments - it makes correcting people on the internet that much more difficult if I have to get an account for every blog out there.
Prepare for the worst beta-test ever.
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
According to economist Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal, the most likely answer to this question is "because it will help black people". He argues that this was the biggest reason Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson couldn't get health care plans through. And part of the reason why Bill Clinton couldn't, and probably bigger part of the reason Barack Obama's having a tough time.
Plus (like some of my sibling posters) a lot of folks put a Somebody Else's Problem field around 40-50 million people who lack health insurance, and the even larger number of folks who's health insurance companies cancel their coverage as soon as it comes time to pay major claims.
I am officially gone from
We see our system as broken but superior. Cancer and heart disease care appear superior, even if costs are higher. Our system seems better suited to drive new drug innovation. And we've heard stories of the Dutch waiting months for simple things like hip/knee replacement surgeries. Or the UK waiting 9 months to start a simple drug treatment program after diagnosis (not to mention low wages driving new doctors into other lines of work). IE, we've heard a lot of stories from across the Atlantic that scare us spitless. Then top that off with the mess our government usually makes of anything and we're sure that as bad as we see your system, we would obviously wind up with something far worse.
That's weird. When I walk into a hospital in the Netherlands they just help me and the healthcare system pays the bills afterwards. In fact I've been helped at first aid without people even asking my name; about as anonymous as your cowardly ass is here.
p.s. If you believe the healthcare system sucks balls, you should have gone to the building with the red cross on it, not the one with the red lights.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Consider that if the software industry in the form of IBM had been socialized in the 1970s, we would all still be using mainframes - every last one of us. It was great at the time, but it was a free market that allowed other forms of computing to show the IBM leaders that their belief in mainframes as the way of the future was wrong. When the government makes a decision, who can show that it was right or wrong? Everyone must follow it - and so any better ideas are squelched. The U.S. government might be capable of implementing with the best known solution for now, but I also want the new best solutions to be born and thrive rather than being killed in the womb by government regulation. I don't want to be stuck with the best 2009 medical system in 2030.
What is the difference between Microsoft and the Federal Government? Both occasionally do something right. Both have even been known to do something extremely well. But both also have a long history of providing crap that annoy anyone who understands what is being provided, the privacy issues, and the amount of control. Both try to extend their reach into every facet of your experience. So what is the difference?
I can choose Linux. I can choose Mac. I can choose WordPerfect. It will cost me in terms of convenience because almost everyone else uses MS Windows and MS Office standards - but I can choose to be different if I have strong enough reasons for not wanting Microsoft.
When the Federal government makes the decisions for me - I have no choice.
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun - Mao Tse Tung
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
So, the more government regulates business the more business seeks to influence government. You perceive that business has too much influence on government, your answer to reducing business influence is to increase government regulation of business?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If a S.E.P. field is the reason, then the USA has bigger problems than just healthcare.
I pay more for public healthcare than I get out of it (it's a form of insurance, that's how insurance works for most of us) but I have atleast one friend who would've most likely died by now had we not have had a public healthcare system; no private company would have insured her with her medical history. So I'll gladly pay that little bit extra (which, coincidentally, is still significantly less than what americans pay for private healthcare) if it means other people's lifes will be better. If american citizens don't think like this, they have a far bigger problem than just healthcare.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
HR 3200 is like a big hulking piece of crap software with a terminal case of creeping featuritis. It was designed by people who have never designed software or a user-interface and whose primary education is better suited to finger-painting and deep, sustained nasal exploration. What's worse is that the marketing department won't tell you that it's riddled with bugs and hidden "features'. Just buy it and we'll fix them later. Oh and they also are using that annual upgrade fee business model so you end up paying the full price of the program every couple of years which by the way they automatically deduct from your bank account. And this piece of government software doesn't have to obey anti-trust laws so it's tightly integrated into a crappy, buggy, and expensive OS an no other software can compete because the government doesn't have to make a profit.
How would you feel if the EU in Brussels decided they would replace your Dutch health care system with one run from Brussels, that would apply across the whole EU? We distrust what's done in Washington D.C. for much the same reasons.
sans any existing dwindling market forces
the legislation currently on the tables doesn't rule out free-market alternatives. It gives 1 more choice to you.
Are you aware that Obama and several others have said in the past (before he was elected), that the "public option" is intended to be the first step to getting the U.S. to a single (government) payer health care system? So, as far as I can tell, the people promoting the "public option" all wish to migrate the U.S. to a single payer system, but do not believe that that is politically possible, but I am supposed to take their word for it that it will be designed merely to compete with existing health insurance. The public option combined with the regulations that will be put on private health insurance will ensure that private health insurance will be unable to compete with the government option and so private insurance will then gradually wither away.
Last I checked the bill does not call for the obliteration of publicly elected representatives. If the american public does not want a single payer system, it will elect representatives in goverment that will not create a public payer system. If the american public does want a single payer system, it will elect representatives that will create a single payer system. The choice of which system we have and which is the "good" one and which is the "bad" one is not yours or any other single person's to make. If we decide we want socialized health care, and it is enacted through the democratic system we have established in this country, then you and your friends that have been bitching about it will just have to accept that that is the way the rest of the nation wants things. Just like how right now I accept the fact that my dream of a socialized health care system in america probably will never happen because most americans are like you in their opinion that a single payer system is doomed to failure. However, as you should rightly recognize, a great deal of Americans are concerned about the lack of a public option to protect the public from the pitfalls of a purely capitalized health insurance industry that by its very nature cannot and will not service those that most need health care. I'm sorry if you don't like the prospect of this health care reform, I really am, but don't spit in the face of democracy over it because you didn't get your way.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Money IS part of the object of this bill; one hope is that if we move to a system similar to the rest of the OECD countries, we might (like them) not only deliver better and universal care, but also save money. Some of the spending might be shifted from "payroll deductions (health insurance)" to "payroll deductions (tax)", but overall, every other country on the planet spends less per capita, and less as a percentage of GDP. Because we're a wealthy country, it's not unusual that we spend a lot per capita, but it is unusual that (as a wealthy country) we spend such a large portion of our GDP, especially when we deliver such inferior (life expectancy, infant mortality) results.
Note that the sense that we are a "wealthy country" has changed in the last few decades; despite continuing increases in productivity, very little of that (adjusted for inflation) has trickled down to most people. We've had a more progressive tax code in the past; it didn't kill us, or the economy.
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
According to economist Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal, the most likely answer to this question is "because it will help black people". He argues that this was the biggest reason Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson couldn't get health care plans through. And part of the reason why Bill Clinton couldn't, and probably bigger part of the reason Barack Obama's having a tough time.
Plus (like some of my sibling posters) a lot of folks put a Somebody Else's Problem field around 40-50 million people who lack health insurance, and the even larger number of folks who's health insurance companies cancel their coverage as soon as it comes time to pay major claims.
In my experience, the same people that are barking mad about public health care are also the religious zealots that want prayer in schools, the ten commandments in public buildings, and intelligent design in science class. Yet for all their "christian values", helping their fellow man in need is just too much to ask. Hands off my cash, Jack, your failing heart isn't my problem. Jesus loves me and gave me a PPO.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
If the American people decide they want a single payer system, so be it. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake. The American people currently don't want a single payer system. Additionally, they have recognized that the current "public option" is an attempt to get a single payer system in by the back door and appear to have decided that they don't want that either.
As far as I can tell, all of the support for the "public option" comes from people who want a single payer system but have recognized that the American people will not accept one at this time. The evidence I have seen suggests that somewhere around 50% of the population doesn't want the "public option", while only somewhere around 30% do want it. So who is the one "spitting in the face of democracy"?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If the American people decide they want a single payer system, so be it. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake. The American people currently don't want a single payer system. Additionally, they have recognized that the current "public option" is an attempt to get a single payer system in by the back door and appear to have decided that they don't want that either. As far as I can tell, all of the support for the "public option" comes from people who want a single payer system but have recognized that the American people will not accept one at this time. The evidence I have seen suggests that somewhere around 50% of the population doesn't want the "public option", while only somewhere around 30% do want it. So who is the one "spitting in the face of democracy"?
Who the fuck do you think is writing and modifying the damn bill? The same officials we elected to act on our behalf. If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Gladly. I think your next comment is a great starting point.
That's just simply not the case. If it were, Canadian citizens wouldn't come to the US for treatment and British subjects wouldn't avail themselves to the private health services available in their country. I've got friends in several countries "benefiting" from the type of public health care certain people want us to "enjoy," and their experiences do not fill me with confidence. I'm not sure which story I look more forward to experiencing myself: Waiting over a month to see the first in a series of Doctors about blinding eye pain I'm suffering from, only to have him refer me to someone else or waiting nine months with only narcotics as treatment for my broken back, only to be told "Well, since it took so long, your vertebrate have fused and we'll have to re-break them." Those and more stories that are such stellar examples of how much better public health care is, and how I'm so misguided in my opposition to it.
The big sticking point for many of us opposing "public" health care is that the majority of people who are in the private health system in the US currently are at least satisfied with the care they're receiving (if not, like me, absolutely overjoyed with it) and all of the current proposals for a "public" option would take our current system away from us. This is, of course, par for the course for anything the US Government meddles in. The goal is never to bring the unfortunate up to a higher standard, but just to assure everyone has "the same" standard, which generally means bringing those at a higher standard down. And that's what all the current proposals being floated in Congress will do: Bring down the standard of care for all of us who currently enjoy private insurance, by setting up an alternative to private insurers that doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else or compete on the same playing field, by actively encouraging private employers to cancel their private insurance and put their employees on the public option, and by creating a new payment scheme that (like Medicare/Medicaid) "drives down costs in the health industry" by forcing Doctors to take a loss to treat patients covered under the plan, a loss they're forced to make up by passing along the cost to those of us paying under the private system. All this without any mention of tort reform (the only real way to bring down health care costs in this country right now) or any benefit being offered to those of us who did the right thing, went to school, worked hard, and are already providing for ourselves and our families.
And, at the end of the day, that's a big deal for me. I worked my way through school for eight years, going pretty deep into debt in the process, and worked my ass off to get a good job and keep it before having a family. Now my first kid is on the way, but luckily I've worked and prepared for this moment so we'll all be taken care of. But that's not good enough? Now you want me to pay for the people who WEREN'T willing to take care of themselves AND you want to take away the benefits I've worked so hard for? And you're confused WHY I'm so against it?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
What happens when you actually get so sick you are no longer able to work? Your insurance company gladly took your premiums when you were healthy, but as soon as you need to use it, you have 18 months (that's if they don't find a reason to deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition - some estimates put that at 50% chance for major illnesses). If they can't fix you in 18 months, you will be bankrupted, and will remain unemployable and uninsurable for the rest of your miserable life.
So many smart people around here are so, so stupid.
Oh, we don't oppose it. Not at all. And there are a lot more uninsured than is widely believed (we're kinda hard to count, 'cause we don't go to the doctor nor deal with insurance corps).
Anyone who is against it are mostly ignorant nutjobs who don't realize that veterans care, medicare, etc., are all ``socialized medicine'' programs, and everyone is ok with those.
ie: no sane politician would ever try to shut down medicare (cause they'll be out of office next election season). Yet those same politicians are claiming that ``medicare for everyone'' would be terrible.
As someone that is opposed to public health care, I'd be happy to explain. There are two basic issues that I have with it. Primarily, I already have the best health care in the world. For those with good insurance, the United States has the best health care in the world. I could see a doctor right now, and be back here in two hours if I had a problem, for about $10. The care is great, and I am willing to pay for it. Those without insurance, and those that don't take care of themselves drag down the national care statistics. The biggest myth in this whole debate is that quality of care for non-deadbeats is poor.
Secondarily, cost will rise, and quality of care will decline for those that are insured, as we will be paying for everyone else. The bottom line is that people without health care in this country have generally chosen not to prioritize health care over other things, like cable television, cigarettes and alcohol. That's regrettable, but it's also their problem. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute crisis on mine. These people won't be paying for their insurance under a national plan either. The already-insured will be picking up their tab. More demand and less supply doesn't reduce costs unless demand is seriously checked via reduced coverage and lesser care. While the overall quality of care will increase allowing the proponents of the system to proclaim victory, quality of care for everyone that currently receives care will drop.
In addition to the obvious economics of the situation, there is also the more pressing issue of increased bureaucracy. What is it that fundementally separates national health care from every other government program to the extent that it won't be mismanaged just as every other government program? Public health care will be just like public education, you can show up and get a basic sub-par education, but for anything decent you need to pay for public education that you'll never use, and private education. We'd be better off investing in ending the entitlement culture, than in more public services.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Are you aware that Obama and several others have said in the past (before he was elected), that the "public option" is intended to be the first step
i don't care about that step, i care about this step. Should we ban cars because legislation could order every car to be a death-trap ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The majority of the people in the system are healthy. Find me some sick people who are willing to say that.
"drives down costs in the health industry" by forcing Doctors to take a loss to treat patients covered under the plan, a loss they're forced to make up by passing along the cost to those of us paying under the private system.
It's funny, but all these anti-healthcare reformers never mention the record profits insurance companies have been making over the last two decades. No, cutting the profits out of the equation will have nothing to do with reducing costs. Remember, if you are an insurance company, there is only one way to make money - take money from healthy people, and NOT PAY IT OUT.
All this without any mention of tort reform (the only real way to bring down health care costs in this country right now)
The tort reform in Texas has had no effect on costs. None.
Now you want me to pay for the people who WEREN'T willing to take care of themselves AND you want to take away the benefits I've worked so hard for?
Not at all. We just want access to an insurance company that doesn't waste my money giving it to shareholders, will not drop my coverage when I actually get sick enough to use it, will not require I enter bankruptcy if I come down with a catastrophic illness, and will stop pretending that we don't already pay for anyone who shows up to an emergency room. There is only one entity I know of that can pull that off.
To begin I'll flat out tell ya I don't trust either party, or anyone who is a politian.
I'm against this but not for most of reasons most people think someone would be.
Our government was designed to be inefficient for a reason. When government moves fast the people lose. Look whats happened since January, how many big bills (1000 plus pages) have made it through where many of the people voting for them *HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE BILL*, case in point the "stimulus bill" which people simply didn't have time to read it from when it was made available to them to when they voted on it. How many of these went through while congress and the press were talking about other things.
I have no problem with big bills, what I have a problem with is them being pushed down my throat without out even having a chance for a discussion on weather its right for this country or not.
At this point in health care we have a government (and other special interest groups) that claim it wants to have the conversation, but is trying to use its power instead to make people listen without listening itself. At the same time people (democrats, republicans and independants) have questions and concerns that are not being answered. These people are being billed as extreemists. Is this how our government is supposed to work?
I also love the numbers that both sides are putting forth on this issue, these numbers aren't even close. I begin to wonder who is correct, or if neither are correct and the number isn't somewhere in the middle. This is a common occurance, polititions love to fudge the numbers (and in many cases make them up on-site) to suite their purposes.
I honestly don't know what to believe, I guess I'll have to get a copy of the bill and read it my self... Oh yea, that ranks right up there with getting shot, but to see what is on the table its potentially the only real way to have any idea what they are really doing.
Also one thing I've learned over the years, often the best fix for a problem is the least ammount needed to actually fix the problem. This works in the real world, quite well. For instance x computer program stoped working recently, what do you do first:
1) Remove and reinstall the program
2) Wipe the hard drive clean, get another OS, install it, then after noticing that the program doesn't work on the OS acquire another program that was intended for that OS
I would say currently our elected polititions are trying to do option 2 without even considering option 1.
There have been many smaller proposals that have been largely ignored, I'm not saying that any one of these would have fixed health care in this country, but they may have helped the situation, and several of them together might have fixed or minimized many of the issues. My point here is they haven't even tried.
Is this how we want things done?
Also why do we have to quickly approve a bill now that wouldn't take effect until 2013, or by some reports I've heard 2017?
To those who claim I'm against health care reform because I have questions and issues with this bill I say health care reform needs to happen, I'm just not sure this is the way to go about it.
At the moment I have lots of questions that either I'm getting conflicting answers or no answer at all.
--- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
The American people currently don't want a single payer system.
Source please?
As far as I can tel
Ah, THAT source.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Yes, it's true that rich Canadians who want to turbo the system go to the US, and that the Canadian provincial systems will occasionally pay for care in the US when they face a resource shortage.
I have a question, though: where do poor and middle-class Americans with no coverage go? Because they sure as hell can't go to Canada. From my perspective, it seems like the Canadian and European systems forces rich people with non-life-threatening conditions wait a bit longer, while the American system makes poor people either go drown in debt, wait until they're on death's doorstep, or actually die.
I think that's a pretty solid endorsement of socialized care, unless you're a well-to-do sociopath.
--srj/mmv
Olbermann he is ONE OF THE VERY FEW that attacks BOTH sides. (can you produce 3 videolinks of FOX news or glen beck criticizing bush ?)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
As a European, how would you feel about government medicine doled out by a large, unaccountable bureaucracy run by the EU and based in Brussels?
Yeah, that's what I thought you would say.
That's why many of us have no interest in government healthcare run out of Washington, DC by a bureaucracy likely to be larger, less accountable, and more subject to corruption than any the EU could cook up.
Instead, we choose to live in states that already provide (effectively) universal health care (e.g. Wisconsin).
If you don't like the health care in your city or state, get active in local politics to change it.
If too many of your neighbors disagree with you and you fail, vote with your feet and move to e.g. Wisconsin.
Competition: that's the beauty of a federal system of government.
It's not really that the majority of the US opposes public health care, its that a large portion of people are on employer-based coverage. In the past health care proposals of this year, and Clinton's in 93, the Democrats have made their strategy and goals to provide coverage to the uninsured. This has meant that those people who already have coverage, and don't understand the complex proposals do not understand what the health bills will do to their existing coverage. This means that they have anxieties about health care reform that can be exploited by Republicans and industry claims that they are going to lose their insurance if the bills pass. This doesn't mean that a majority oppose the notion of more government involvement in health care, it just allows for a very vocal minority that deeply oppose it.
You can watch the government giving an estimated Trillion dollars to the banks, and then say MediCare is going to bankrupt the country?
I think your priorities are a bit strange.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Because largess in either the private or public sector is easily corrupted as history has shown time and again. However you can choose to move your insurance to another carrier if you have problems with them, where as you have nowhere to go with public insurance.
Decentralized anything gives the individual more power and choice. Sometimes this means higher prices, but this is a tradeoff most Americans are willing to make.
A law is analogous, not to a single piece of software, but to a bug fix/new feature to a single, massive program that has been in continuous service for 800 years. Also picture the pointy-haired bosses implementing the code and the actual programmers only working in an advisory capacity.
. If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
Why do you think it didn't pass before the August recess? Because a boatload of Democratic Congresspersons realized that they would lose the next election if they voted for the bill as it was.
The evidence suggests that a majority of Congresspersons would not vote in favor of the bill as it currently stands. Considering that the bill was not written at the time of the last election, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the majority of the Congresspersons were elected for the express purpose of passing this bill.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Change of subject: This is the REAL link, apparently.
You are correct. We have far larger problems than just health care. But a good health care system would lessen the problems.
The basic source of the problems is a high level of "low level fear" which is nearly always in the background when decisions are made. This tends to cause paranoid and dysfunctional decisions to occur, but it's so pervasive that it's not considered either unusual or sick.
The weird thing is that a side effect seems to be lots of people arguing in against anything that would decrease other peoples level of fear. It's as if they've decided "I'm afraid, so it must be a good thing."
This, of course, is aided and abetted by various government actions (see, e.g., DHS) which increase the level of fear while doing little for security.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So, you are saying that you want the "public option" at this step, but you don't want to see the implementation of a single payer system?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Socialist: Why don't you want public healthcare?
Me: I'll pay for my own healthcare.
Socialist: What about all the people that can't afford health care?
Me: That's not my responsibility.
Socialist: Isn't that heartless?
Me: Yes.
Socialist: But you have more money then they have, isn't it your responsibility to give some of that money to those who don't have any?
Me: No.
Socialist: The fact that you have money can only be a result of 1) your privileged position or 2) evil deeds.
Me: Well, I was born to a family that easily falls below the poverty line, so 1 probably isn't true. And I wouldn't consider writing software evil. Perhaps you feel this way because YOU could not achieve success without 1 or 2?
Socialist: No. You are lying. The poor are noble. The rich are evil. The rich get and stay rich by oppressing the poor. Therefore it is the right of the poor to take what they need from the rich.
Me: That sounds like robbery.
Socialist: No. The poor don't rob the rich. The government passes legislation to tax the rich and then decides who gets the money.
Me: Isn't that robbery?
Socialist: No, that is socialism. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Me: I'm not a socialist. I believe in individual responsibility, personal property, and personal rights.
Socialist: So do I! I am protecting the rights of the poor.
Me: The right to what?
Socialist: The right to healthcare. Unlimited and free access to healthcare for those in need.
Me: And you propose paying for it by robbing me?
Socialist: It is not robbery, it is progressive taxation.
Me: What about my right to personal property?
Socialist: The right to healthcare is more important than your right to have personal property.
Me: I disagree.
Socialist: Its for the the greater good. Besides you will have equal access to healthcare.
Me: I already have access to healthcare.
Socialist: That's not the point. There are millions of people without healthcare.
Me: That's not my problem.
Socialist: What if you need more healthcare than you can afford?
Me: Then I will probably die. Besides, I can afford more healthcare if you don't rob me first.
Socialist: But wouldn't you want someone to help you?
Me: Probably, but I wouldn't rob someone to pay my bills. If someone chooses to donate to my cause, I would be eternally grateful, but I wouldn't expect or demand it.
One time bailout that I was 100% against is different than a government handout program that has helped drive prices up for everyone who isn't leeching off the government and is going to bankrupt the country in the next decade or so guaranteed.
I will be blunt only be cause your post deserves it:
Both you and Paul Krugman are idiots.
1. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with race. My circle of friends have an informal rule about arguing in which you automatically loose when invoking Nazis to bolster your position. This should also apply to bringing up racism as well (P.S. Just so you know, I am not white).
2. About half of the 40-50 million uninsured your are talking about are foreign nationals, the vast majority of which are Illegals.
I will split the difference with you about your last point. I have personally had problems with a carrier which did not properly honor it's claims, but my company was able to switch to another one because we had a choice. Single payer WILL (as admitted by many democrats including Barney Frank and Mr. Obama) eventually drive out all private sector carriers.
According to Rassmussen 54% of Americans said that passing no healthcare reform would be better than passing the plans currently proposed by Congress.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Don't fool yourself, friend. The people behind the bank bailouts and the people behind socialized healthcare are the same. Both want to line their pockets with taxpayer money and neither have any interest in your general well being.
Take care of your own finances and take care of your own health and don't expect anything from anyone else.
Remember Hurricane Katrina? New Orleans still hasn't recovered, and the reason is almost entirely because of FEMA screwing things up before finally allowing private charities in to fix what they could. FEMA is essentially health care for infrastructure rather than people. And it simply doesn't work.
Hell, the current economic crisis was caused by the government over-regulating the banking industry, forcing them to take risks they never would have in the free market.
With successes like those, it should be no wonder that Americans don't want their government anywhere near health care. The US government has already demonstrated that it is entirely incompetent to run anything.
Not really. The federal and state regulations make it difficult to get health insurance for yourself as good and affordable as employers can get it. Large employers even take advantage of those regulations to provide "self-insurance" for their employees, so insurance companies don't get involved in claims decisions - the employer pays the bills.
Yes, you can contract with any other private party for anything. That's the entire basis of common law. And of course everyone wants those contracts to benefit themselves more than the other party. Caveat Emptor.
So with those regulations in place, most folks shop insurance as part of the package when looking for a job. And that's typically the only decision on health care payment / insurance that most folks ever get to make. That really distorts things, as a lot of costs are hidden, controlled, or inflated in one area to take advantage of some tax benefit or other.
Providing less choice in these areas, and basically making a lot of existing plans illegal (or "grandfathered") is not going to improve the situation. There are many ways of addressing the problems that people have, and a public option seems like a reasonable direction, but not when lots of other options are being outlawed at the same time.
Things that aren't even being considered include moving away from employer-based health insurance, implementation of reasonable tort reform, ending in-state restrictions on out-of-state health plans, and ending the ability of providers to drop or raise rates on the insured when they are diagnosed with an expensive condition.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Legislation is software to be executed on a biological system. I think most legislators, indeed most people, don't realize that. They seem to turn sentences into general impressions, then make decisions based on those general impressions, rather than strictly and literally interpreting the words. When you do interpret the law as it is written, they complain that you're "getting technical."
The Economist awesome. Thanks for the post. True, the article states that health care is broken, but it does not support public health care, socialized medicine, or anything close to it.
The article you posted says that America's health care system is broken because 1) overconsumption (Americans get too much unnecessary healthcare) and 2) lack of competition in the health care market. Their solution is to 1) reduce the amount of "unnecessary" healthcare that people get and 2) add more free market competition to the system.
And there is the rub. The solution is the exact opposite of what public health care supporters want. They want more health care, not less. They want a public option, not more private options. As far as I can tell, the solutions being proposed would just make things worse.
Actually, I happen to have several chronic conditions. They're mostly minor, thankfully (though a few could have killed me a couple times in the past had I not been treated). I've also had about a dozen different friends/family treated for cancer, and (with one exception, which may of been her own fault) they've all been very pleased with the treatment they got. Yes, there are sick people who get screwed in the current system, and I can make a list of things I'd like to see improved, but all the evidence points to things getting WORSE under a public system.
I fail to see how profits are a bad thing. I like having a house, a car, food, etc. All things which are enabled by my company's ability to generate a profit.
Finally, something we agree on. ;) Cutting profits out of the equation has nothing to do with reducing costs and everything to do with control. Medicare does a pretty good job of cutting profits out of the equation (the profits of Doctors, that is), so let's keep emulating that, I suppose?
And I fail to see how this is somehow wrong. The only thing WRONG is if an insurance company is refusing to pay out on money they have previously agreed that they would pay out. If that's happening, then concentrate on fixing THAT. The answer isn't to eliminate private insurance because of it.
There's a lot more going on in Texas to drive up costs than just malpractice suits. And I'm not sure the metric I've seen most people use to judge whether tort reform helps or not (the ordering of excessive/unnecessary tests) is the right one, since in my previous experience working in the medical industry, malpractice insurance premiums seemed to be the big cost related to that. But I'm willing to accept that tort reform may not lower costs significantly. It's still something that should be pursued, however.
Yes at all. A public option would require me to pay for it. End of story. EVEN IF I DON'T MAKE USE OF THE SERVICES! Even if I provide for my own health care, I'll STILL be paying for the public option. Very much like people without kids, or people who send theirs to private school pay for public schooling for others. That's frankly ridiculous. I'm happy with my coverage, let my opt completely out of the public system and don't charge me for it. But that will never happen, because it won't work.
I fail to see how that's a waste. It encourages investment. Investment helps drive growth. But if you MUST have an insurance provider who isn't so evil as to turn a profit, I'd suggest looking at the coop model. Honestly, that's how my car insurance is handled and it's been a pretty nice experience.
Is this something you've actually experienced? As I said before, I've had literally a dozen people close to me come down with varying degrees of cancer, and none of them were dropped by their provider. I've had a couple brushes with death myself as well as some serious illnesses, and never once has it affected my coverage.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Now why would we care what Rush had to say!
I suspected this thread would have very little to offer /. users and I was correct!
Why bother
As much as I hate answering a question with a question... But where do poor and middle-class Canadians/Brits go? My friend with the broken back was a lower-middle-class Canadian miner. The other person I gave an example of was a webcomic artist (probably, by definition, someone who's below the poverty line). Both of them were stuck with only the public option, which failed to serve them.
In the US system currently, treatment for those with health problems who cannot (or will not) provide for themselves varies from state to state. And I'm all for taking care of those who legitimately CAN'T take care of themselves (the permanently disabled, those born with permanent health problems, etc.) That's why I give to charities. The problem is, the government is singularly BAD at determining the difference between those who CAN'T care for themselves and those who WON'T care for themselves.
Actually, it seems like it forces EVERYONE to wait longer, including those with life-threatening illnesses.
I know for a fact that for a non life-threatening illness, I could see a physician of my choice within the next 24 hours (more likely 1-6 hours, if it's early enough in the day.) For something serious, I could be in an emergency room within a matter of minutes. In either case, my access to care will not be affected by what insurance I have (the financial burden for making use of the care, of course, will vary depending on insurance). From what I've seen, this doesn't seem to be true in either the Canadian, British, or Australian systems; if for no other reason than people there don't seem to want to be doctors any more!
If someone legitimately needs medical treatment currently, it will be provided. Yes, it's a pretty raw deal if you're poor, and some people do have to end up declaring bankruptcy on medical debts and that does hurt the system on the whole. Yes, it obviously needs improvement. But that doesn't mean the people who are providing for themselves should be punished so that those who refuse to provide for themselves get a free ride. And it doesn't mean we need to dismantle the parts of the system that DO work to fix the parts that don't.
Yes, it's pretty easy to sell "PUNISH THE EVIL RICH!" to people who aren't.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Social Security would be solvent today if it had been treated as truly seperate funds from the general Federal (there are actually two funds for SS), as it was originally enacted. However, despite being recorded seperately from the general tax revenue, both SS contributions and the funds are used in the general budget calculations. Therefore, the funds were never allowed to build properly and the available surpluses siphoned-off over the last three decades. So Social Security isn't analogous to a pyramid scheme, it's analogous to a trust fund with corrupt trustees skimming off the top any time they feel like it (yet leaving IOUs recording the exact amounts they took). Heck if Congress just redeemed the IOUs it owes to the Social Security fund it could cover every living US citizen, including those born today, when they retiree with benefits similar to current ones (adjusted for inflation).
Don't feel like looking anything up to prove it, but you're clueless if you think that your side has a monopoly on pundits who are willing to criticize their own side.
Partisans on both sides occasionally make criticisms of their own side, but only people who watch/listen/read them on a regular basis see these criticisms. These same people only rarely watch the other side's partisans so they are unlikely to see them turning on their own side.
PROVE IT : Just give ONE link with Bill O'Reilly then.
Olbermann he is ONE OF THE VERY FEW that attacks BOTH sides. (can you produce 3 videolinks of FOX news or glen beck criticizing bush ?)
Well, I'm no fan of Beck, but, well... yea:
Yea, so what?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Single payer WILL [...] eventually drive out all private sector carriers.
That'd be strange, considering private healthcare is still thriving in other countries with public healthcare. Why would this happen in the US when it doesn't happen in any countries?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The biggest myth in this whole debate is that quality of care for non-deadbeats is poor.
No the biggest myth is the one you are propragating. That only deadbeats or those that choose not to have health insurance are uninsured. Some people really want insurance, but can't afford it. In many cases the reason they can't afford it isn't becasue of their messed-up priorities, but instead it's because they have pre-existing conditions (often for reasons they can't control) that they either can't find coverage for or any coverage that is available is unaffordable for anyone making less than a six-figure salary. What is the personal failing of a person in that situation, not being born rich?
Secondarily, cost will rise, and quality of care will decline for those that are insured, as we will be paying for everyone else. The bottom line is that people without health care in this country have generally chosen not to prioritize health care over other things, like cable television, cigarettes and alcohol. That's regrettable, but it's also their problem. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute crisis on mine. These people won't be paying for their insurance under a national plan either. The already-insured will be picking up their tab. More demand and less supply doesn't reduce costs unless demand is seriously checked via reduced coverage and lesser care. While the overall quality of care will increase allowing the proponents of the system to proclaim victory, quality of care for everyone that currently receives care will drop.
News Flash! Both you and I (someone who works and has decent health insurance) are already paying for care for the uninsured. It's just we are only paying for the relatively costly catastrophic and/or life-saving procedures, and not the usually cheaper preventative or earlier intervention procedures. By various state laws many hospitals and some other medical caregivers have to stablize life threatening cases regardles of the patient's ability to pay. Do you think those costs are just eaten and not passed on to the paying patients?
As for supply and demand, in the short term it may be a problem but not necessarily in the long term. While being against public health care, even Lou Dobbs admits that most developed nations with either government-paid, government-run, or a mix of the two, have more doctors per capita than the USA. Often times the difference is very significant, like 100+ people less per doctor than in the USA.
In addition to the obvious economics of the situation, there is also the more pressing issue of increased bureaucracy. What is it that fundementally separates national health care from every other government program to the extent that it won't be mismanaged just as every other government program? Public health care will be just like public education, you can show up and get a basic sub-par education, but for anything decent you need to pay for public education that you'll never use, and private education. We'd be better off investing in ending the entitlement culture, than in more public services.
Interesting you use public education for your analogy, as it is nothing like any of the proposals put forth by reformers. Public education relies on funding from almost every level of government, from local property and sales taxes to State and Federal income taxes. Also, despite the recent tempest in a teapot, the circulum is almost exclusively determined at State and Local levels, with most of the influence being at the school district level. I assure you, neither in funding nor administration would a single-payer system resemble current public educaiton!
Those without insurance, and those that don't take care of themselves drag down the national care statistics.quote>
In the Netherlands we have no uninsured people to drag our statistics down. The problem here is that you think of these people without insurance as "statistics". That "dragging down" of the statistics is real people suffering and dying. But as long as those dying people don't make your healthcare bill higher, you're fine with it?
You also claim people without healthcare insurance have chosen to do so. You do understand that the US private healthcare system can deny clients with pre-existing conditions, terminate insurance contracts and refuse medical care for a plethora of reasons? None of these people have chosen to be without insurance. And what about the millions of people living below the poverty line, it's not even an option for them.
What is also odd is that so many of these comments claim healthcare cost will increase (which is weird considering americans spend a lot more on it than most countries with public healthcare) and declining quality (again weird, considering average life expectancy is rather low in the US compared to other countries).
This is exactly the type of apathy I meant when I said "asocialism" in my initial post.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Bottom line: Nobody trust the government to do it right.
Conservatives are riled up about this issue because there is an entitlement tsunami is going to crater the economy if we don't get social security and medicare/medicaid reform (mixed up with anger about stimulus plan pork spending). Ironically the Health Bills are being presented as cost saving reform, even more ironically they are also supposed to increase coverage for more Americans. Which one is it? A reduction of cost or an new expensive government entitlement? They don't believe it can be both and so they assume the latter.
Seniors are scared of a medicare reform as they don't want their benefits affected.
Doctors are scared of government controlling their livelihood even more than the insurance companies already do.
Insured people are scared that the government will ration their health care/reduce its quality.
The U.S already provides public health care for 40-60% of its citizens through medicare/medicaid. These programs will be insolvent in a decade and both parties agree they are a mess. The Republicans don't seem to care and the Democrats think that doubling down and expanding coverage to 100% of Americans will somehow make it easier to manage / less expensive.
It's fear that's running the show. The proposed health care plans are supposed to reduce costs, expand coverage to uninsured, and not ration health care. Most people think that you've got to pick two out of the three and since no politician will admit which one of the three will get the short end of the stick fear abounds.
I can explain very succinctly why I, as an American, oppose public health care, wheras you may not. First, let me explain my position:
1) The cost of health care is infinite.
In other words, there are ailments and diseases which no amount of money can cure. We could consume every single dollar produced by the planet simply giving one small country the best health care possible, and people in that country would still die from uncurable diseases.
The result of 1) is that health care must be rationed. This is the case regardless of which system is installed; therefore, when we talk about health care systems, the real question we are asking is, 'how should the limited health care budget be spent'.
2) Individuals are not the same, and some are worth substantially more than others.
How do you measure the value of an individual? Quite frankly, I would measure value using money, since health care is paid for with money, and people with more money generally contribute more to the total health care funding than those without.
3) When it comes to allocating a limited resource, an omniscient oracle will give the optimum result. The next most efficient way is using a properly regulated market.
In short, markets are the best way to distribute the money pool. Having a centralized government do it is less efficient than a proper market.
So there we go. Healthcare resources are limited, not everyone deserves the same level of health care, and if the government is involved there will be unnecessary inefficiency. That's why I'm opposed to it.
That said, I recognize the need for government support for some fraction of the population (let's try to keep it below 10% please), and I absolutely see the need for reform in tax laws, drug approval processes, and pricing models in health care.
Quite frankly, one of the things I'd most like to see is a requirement for 'posted pricing' for health care providers: the price for a service is posted publicly at least one month in advance, and that is the price for all payers, whether homeless bum or insurance company.
The reason I think this is important has to do with recent billing information I've been getting from my 'insurance' company. The billed price for a service is typically ten to 15 times (!) the amount paid by the insurance company, due to hardball agreements negotiated by the respective companies. Just to be clear on this, if I were to pay the billed amount, I would pay for example 100 USD. My insurance company would pay, for example, 8 USD. This is rate seem consistent across the board for nearly all services.
With an imbalance that great, it seems to me like a good idea to slap down an isolation barrier between the two. Something funky is definitely going on.
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
What is also odd is that so many of these comments claim healthcare cost will increase (which is weird considering americans spend a lot more on it than most countries with public healthcare) and declining quality (again weird, considering average life expectancy is rather low in the US compared to other countries).
We spend more largely because most advanced health-care R&D is done here, and other countries don't respect our intellectual property rights. When other countries decide to create generic drugs from US IP, they are directly raising health care costs in this country. The average life expectancy is higher in the US than in any other country if you exclude people that don't have insurance, so that point is moot.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
This is a red herring for two reasons: First, if you are somehow suggesting that by taking government out of economic decisions you will lesson corporate influence over those decisions, you are insane. At best, government is a counterbalance to corporate influence for one big reason (which brings me to reason #2: If your government is not doing its job in keeping corporate influence out of economic decisions, you can vote them out.
This is why the Supreme Court decision that's coming down the pike this week, that will allow corporations unfettered ability to pour money into elections, is a horrible upchuck of the sick that comes from the Supreme Court appointments made by the last three conservative administrations. First is the lie that money=speech. Second is the lie that corporations should have all the rights of individuals. Both of those need to be changed, and will if, god-willing, Obama gets another pick or two onto the Supreme Court.
Corporate money has to be removed completely from the political process. That's why publicly-funded campaigns have to become law. Otherwise, Democratic vs Republican will have no meaning, it will all just be corporate governmance of our lives. If you are one of those "government is bad/private sector is good" kooks, you have no idea of how much worse it could be the more corporations replace government in our lives.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Again the presumption that anybody who wants to have a more social society is a "socialist" of the marxist/communist flavor. Do you really think the world is that purely black & white? Do you understand that pretty much entire Europe would be considered "extreme left-wing" (left of your socalled democrats) in US political terms?
Pretty much the whole fantasy conversation you play out is a straw man argument where the pro-public healthcare person is portrayed as a communist. It would be equally easy (and equally invalid) to create a similar conversation where you are portrayed as a dictator.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Then they won't have to "influence" it, because they'll own it. Government by corporation is much much worse than government by people.
I'm so surprised when I hear people say they distrust government, but seem to have faith in corporations. At least you can influence government through votes. Corporations have limited consumer power to such an extent that there is absolutely no way to influence corporations. Even taking your money elsewhere doesn't matter to them, because they'll still get it in the end.
The nightmare that's headed our way is not because of some big all-powerful government. Not as long as we have elections. The nightmare coming our way is the absolute power of corporations, only accountable to equity owners. They don't like you and they don't want you to be happy. They only want you to need them and to pay.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I've been proven wrong. well, that's what you get when only the shouting matches wind up on the tube. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS8jOlY6U6o [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtwjrXhB1gY&feature=related And my favorite : [3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSl0EcEa99E (that actually only proves O'reilly as a fascist(from wikipedia on fascism : "Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government".)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
1. I'll bet good money you haven't read his argument. Do so. Then we'll talk. Among other things, he and I both stated that this issue is less about race now than it was in the 1940's when Truman first tried to create a single-payer system.
2. If I grant your point entirely (that the 20-25 million foreign nationals without health insurance aren't a problem), then you still have 20-25 million citizens, or about 10% of the population, to concern yourself with. It's hardly insignificant.
3. What about those people employed by companies that aren't as flexible as yours was? There are lots of companies who's only goal with health benefits is to keep the price low, and if they lose a few employees that's just a cost of doing business.
I am officially gone from
No : just look at this !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVMOoLtfBVQ
Actually, one of the more interesting recent political shifts is that evangelical Christians are no longer a unified conservative block of voters. A significant portion of them find the economics of more liberal folks appealing, as part of the whole "love your neighbor as yourself" thing.
I am officially gone from
I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the majority of the Congresspersons were elected for the express purpose of passing this bill.
Maybe if you stick enough words in my mouth you'll be able to convince yourself you are right. I never made any such claim. My claim is that the american people elected representatives whose agendas and views they supported, who they trusted would listen to their voices. If the majority wants no public option, then that should be reflected in the actions of their representatives. If the majority does not want a public option and it is created anyway, then we elected shitty representatives and we only have ourselves to blame. In that case, the next time elections come around, we'll elect representatives that will promise to right the horrible wrongs of yesteryear and they'll go riding on the white horse of Truth, Justice, and the American Way to remove the public option from law. Like I said, that's how our democracy works. And again, if you don't like it, I can only offer my condolences and urge you to write to your congressman or representative. You can argue till you are blue in the face that there is some enchanted mystical evidence delivered upon the chosen few to disseminate onto the world that the american people do not want a public option, but in the end that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Reality doesn't care what evidence you have (and for some reason do not divulge). If the bill passes with a public option, it's because our representatives acting on our behalf passed it as such. It is not because an evil liberal socialist president and his evil liberal socialist cronies decided to pick on the poor god fearing capitalist patriot conservatives and take all their fancy health care away.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
According to economist Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal, the most likely answer to this question is "because it will help black people". He argues that this was the biggest reason Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson couldn't get health care plans through. And part of the reason why Bill Clinton couldn't, and probably bigger part of the reason Barack Obama's having a tough time.
So, it's racism? That's your answer? Because of racism? Really?
Look, we elected a black President. He's there right now running the office. Can we stop playing the race card now? Shouldn't we talk about real issues and stop accusing the opposition of racism? Or is it just too easy a ploy to give up?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You claimed that I was somehow "spitting on democracy", by opposing a "public option". No law has been passed at this time, this seems to suggest that a majority of Americans have reservations about the bills that have been brought forward in Congress (the Administration and Congressional leadership originally set a deadline for passing healthcare reform before the August recess).
I see your comment about "if the bill passes", are you suggesting that people should just shut up and accept whatever bills are passed by "our representatives" without letting said representatives (and our fellow citizens) know what we think of the bills under consideration?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Socialist: Why don't you want public healthcare?
Me: I'll pay for my own healthcare.
Socialist: With what?
Me: Faith and Ponies.
Socialist: I see. Have a nice day.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
The US has a long history of government corruption.
A government/state healthcare system would be RIFE with severe problems, much like the already HORRIBLE Medicare and Medicaid "Insurance" for social security pensioners.
Essentially, the US govt would end up imposing "Lowest Bidder" behavior into this national healthcare system. By it's very nature, one could not opt out of paying for this clusterfuck, and so, the realistic ability to seek superior alternatives would be effectively castrated.
Since most americans still have their beloved grandmothers, and get to watch as they slowly die because Medicare and Medicaid wont pay for life saving drugs or treatments, you can imagine how many younger people would be "Resistant" to the idea of being put into a similar situation.
It is a common myth that Americans are "Rich"-- We really aren't; Comparatively, somebody in Amsterdam is richer than somebody who lives in Albania; but both have to work hard in order to live in their respective environments, due to local inflation.
As a result, expecting "Joe Sixpack" American to be able to realistically choose better health insurance over the McHealthcare the government would offer is a farce. It would be unlikely that Joe could afford paying TWICE for healthcare. (Especially since he is already paying twice for retirement-- once to SS for the current crop of old people, and again for his 401k)
In a time when the total US economy is in a state of recession, and money is even more tight than usual for the middle and working classes, this is a VERY VERY frightening prospect.
That is why most americans are so strongly against government sponsored healthcare. It creates a situation where only the very wealthy would be able to afford coverage for arbitrary treatment (not covered by the McHealthcare government program, which would probably include most intensive care cancer recovery clinics, and other "expensive" procedures.)
Yes, the trailer park queens with 50 kids from different dads could get their kids flu shots via the govt healthcare; but it would be unlikely that they could get much more; and by imposing McHealthcare on the whole population, you stand to actually DIMINISH total quality of healthcare coverage to accomplish this goal.
That sounds like a losing game to me.
Personally, I don't feel this way about the healthcare issue specifically, but the average American is wildly overtaxed. And I don't mean that they simply pay too much in taxes, but that they get very, very little for the huge sums of money.
We have public schools, and for the most part, they are a disaster. We have public highways that are often a disaster. We have an absolutely massive military that does not seem to return much money to the taxpayer (save for the Coast Guard). We have social welfare (Social Security and Medicare/Medicade) that are completely broken.
Basically, with some exceptions, the bigger the 'public initiative,' the bigger the disaster at the end of the tunnel.
It's very hard for people to wrap their heads around paying yet MORE to help other people, when they themselves may just be getting by. Couple that with the fact that so much taxpayer money here does not go back to the citizenry, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Let's also not forget that the insurance business here is a huge one. They have plenty of money to keep the fires over this issue well-stoked. It has been suggested that some of the "protesters" at the town hall events were actually paid operatives from PR firms working on behalf of the
There is also, for better or worse, a staunch individualism among many Americans. Personally, I think it comes from being citizens of a country made of largely social outcasts from other places. Individual independence was a day-one kinda thing here.
That being said, I think that social or semi-social medicine is a great thing for the country. After all, we're going to continue to get soaked no matter who's running the show (does anyone actually think the public option will be cheaper or better than what we have now? It's the same people running the show, albeit with different titles). We might as well have the additional fractional amount of control that comes with having the program publicly administered.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Mod parent up - should be +6
is a conceptual oxymoron.
That is another rather major difference between computer programs and legislation: We can close our computers, even networks, off from external inputs. Thus, we can restart them in a known state, stop them to inspect the internal state of the system, and thereby debug them.
It is rare for any of us to write 1000 lines of code that work the first time. Large programs take a tremendous amount of debugging.
The idea that the legislator can make a better world by passing a 10,000 page law with no tools, no debugging, and to be executed by an open system is silly, insane, and guaranteed to make the world a worse place, not a better one.
Well, pretty easy...a fairly sizable majority of people in the US care currently covered, about 80-85% last figure I saw on tv. Out of those, about 75%+ are perfectly happy with their coverage.
I am quite happy with my coverage I get from work.
I think most of us in this category don't want to see it taken away from us...we don't want the govt. in charge of something so important as our health, likely lowering the level of coverage and choice available to us, just to try to cover a few more people that aren't currently covered. As the currently bills under consideration stand, they won't cover everyone either, and the cost is something at this time we cannot afford.
We currently have TOO much debt in the US for this at this time.
Many of us like our health care levels of service, I'd wish we could take what largely works for a majority of us in the US, and make some changes that do need to be made, such as allowing consumers to purchase their insurance across state lines (like we can with car and motorcycle insurance), and also to fix it where you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
BOttom line, the us general public is suspicious of having even more govt. involvement in an important part of our life...they never seem to do things like this very well, or terribly efficient. It will be a huge waste of taxpayer money, for more paperwork and red tape...and frankly I don't want a govt committee play doctor in setting up what are approved levels of care and cost effectiveness.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You mean "postive consequences" such as eliminating the possibility of un-electing an incumbent?
You claimed that I was somehow "spitting on democracy", by opposing a "public option". No law has been passed at this time, this seems to suggest that a majority of Americans have reservations about the bills that have been brought forward in Congress (the Administration and Congressional leadership originally set a deadline for passing healthcare reform before the August recess).
Oh how you misquote me, without actually even quoting me.
I'm sorry if you don't like the prospect of this health care reform, I really am, but don't spit in the face of democracy over it because you didn't get your way.
Note that I did not equate the opposition of a public option with anything. You spit in the face of democracy by suggesting that the policy goals of this administration are weakly supported even though they clearly have public support - they won the fucking election - or that this one health care reform bill is somehow going to circumvent all other democratic processes and take us down a slippery slope to your nightmare scenario of a single payer system. It's hysterical FUD and I won't abide it.
I see your comment about "if the bill passes", are you suggesting that people should just shut up and accept whatever bills are passed by "our representatives" without letting said representatives (and our fellow citizens) know what we think of the bills under consideration?
*sigh* Again, let me quote myself since you seem unable to do so.
If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
And again, if you don't like it, I can only offer my condolences and urge you to write to your congressman or representative. ... If the bill passes with a public option, it's because our representatives acting on our behalf passed it as such.
And one more to grow on:
I don't know why you bother responding if you're not going to read first.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
are you serious? watched fox much, lately?
feces flinging monkeys writing code? That is equivalent to what we have in Congress.
I may not be a smart man, but I know what an inode is.
And how many of those Americans actually know anything about the bill? Outside of the silly "Death Panel" and "OMG socialism!" FUD? Watching the news, and reading the paper, there is very little actually said about the contents of the bill, just a bunch of ignorant partisan mouth noises.
I'm a rather well informed individual, and I can find pretty much no source which objectively explains the bill to non-lawyers and non-wonks. Sure, lay people can just RTFB, but how many people can actually make any sense of it, or keep track of the constant changes, and consequences of debates?
Hell, even reading this single /. discussion I haven't actually seen anyone debating the actual specifics of this debate without resorting to arguing about socialism, or corporatism (neither of which are immediately applicable arguments).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
One fact that seems to be not getting enough attention is that under the current system, hospitals often can't collect on the full amount that they bill uninsured patients for and later have to write it down or write it off completely. This creates an incentive to increase the rates they use for billing all patients to cover the hit they take in collection with certain patients.
This means that under the current system you're indirectly paying for the uninsured.
"My claim is that the american people elected representatives whose agendas and views they supported, who they trusted would listen to their voices. "
Your claim is wrong:
The "american people" do not elect anyone to either house of Congress. Think about it for a moment. That is a red herring often used by opponents of term limits. Voters (in a perfect world, drawn exclusively from the ranks of living citizens) in the appropriate Congressional District and State elect their Representative and Senator resepectively. In both cases this is a very small subset of the "american people". The candidates they are permitted to choose between is very limited due to the party system. Given the rampant gerrymandering in drawing the boundaries of Congressional districts, generally one party's candidate will have a massive advantage.
I suggest that the seniority spoils system in both houses has a considerable effect on preserving incumbents in office. I'm certain you can think of one or more Congresscritters (sorry for the insult to critters there) of either party that you consider to be an utter embarrasment the nation as a whole. Are the voters of CA district 8 really going to vote against the incumbent there in a primary - much less the general election? Is the national party as well as the state and local party organization not going to do everything within their power to prevent a primary challenger there?
I suggest that it generally takes time to corrupt a Representative or Senator, but the longer they remain in office the more corrupt they become. Term limits reduces the time the congressperson is exposed to corrupting influences.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
I read that quote a bit different than you did. I saw it as a clumsy attempt to say "It will help poor people", or whoever the demonized disenfranchised group is of the moment. (Not so) Long ago it was black people, then it was white trash and the mythical welfare mom, and now its illegal immigrants and Hispanics in general. Whoever we erroneously classify as "public leaches" who we are so much better than because of uber Protestant work ethic.
Which is odd, since most of the uninsured poor people I know worked harder than most of the people who think their lazy ne'er-do-wells. And sadly most of them became poor because of chronic health problems.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
But what about all the other computer manufactures? Actually, your analogy is flawed, it would be like the government founding a mainframe company in the 1970s, not socializing a single company. You do know that in countries with public health care there still exists private insurance companies, and private doctors, right?
You also realize that the "everyone uses Microsoft products, thus I am punished for using Linux or OS X" argument is fatally flawed too, right? If I get a shunt through Government health care, it will do the same thing as a shunt sold to me by Megacorp A's insurance. Just because more people have Megacorp A's products shoved down their throat doesn't make the alternatives less applicable. You can't even say that this hurts innovation, since in my experience (switching back to OSs) OS X has generally more innovative 3rd party development than Microsoft does.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Not the parent, but I can kill your argument very quickly:
"Yeah, that's what I thought you would say." = strawman.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Yes, that unbiased source called "factcheck", operated by the Annenberg Foundation. The same Annenberg Foundation that played matchmaker for Obama and Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. I'm sure, just as you are, that there is no way that these fair and honest arbiters of fact would have any dog in this fight. It's just a coincidence that FactCheck writes an article defending HR3200.
(And note, contrary to your distortions, they don't parse the legislation for you, they only parse what they deem to be relevant portions relative to a chain email).
2) Individuals are not the same, and some are worth substantially more than others.
How do you measure the value of an individual? Quite frankly, I would measure value using money, since health care is paid for with money, and people with more money generally contribute more to the total health care funding than those without.
Huh? Your confusing two concepts, monetiary worth, and human worth. Money has nothing to do with the former, and these terms are not connected or related in any way. I know a lot of worthless people worth a whole bunch, and a whole bunch of worthy people worth very little. All having a ton of money means is that your better at acquiring money, which really means squat in the grand scheme of things.
To be completely clear, I cannot actually judge the worth of any individual, and neither can you, especially with such a arbitrary metric as how much money someone managed to stick in their mattress over their life. Is Paris Hilton worth more than some dirt farmer in Appalachia? What about Bernie Madoff? I'd put individual worth more in the area of "what have you done to enrich the lives of others, and have a positive long term influence on society" over, "how have you treated people like objects to increase the size of your coffers".
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Dude, you are a loon. And a selfish one, to boot. On the other hand, perhaps you're simply ignorant or disoriented, in which case I sincerely hope this rant helps a little...
Healthcare in the US is a tragedy, and your attitude is tantamount to sociopathy. Part of being a member of a community is being willing to sacrifice a little for those farther to the left side of the income/opportunity bell curve - even those who get there willfully.
"Socialized" healthcare and insurance just works. I live in Germany, and am privately insured. My wife isn't, she is covered by the "public option" - one of several dozen privately run group insurance "co-op's" that are strictly regulated by the government. My wife is also a long-term HIV survivor. All together, her drugs alone amount to about 65k Euros a year - and she has been taking them in one cocktail or another for the last 20 years. She is unemployed, by choice, as her doctors told her that the stress of a regular job could dramatically affect the quality of her life, not to mention the duration - and the unpredictability of her symptoms and the side effects of her drugs made working regular hours intractable for her and her employer. The government (and my taxes) also help out here by providing a minimal disability pension, based on the income she earned before becoming unable to work.
If she wants to, she can switch to any of the other public option co-ops tomorrow. Or I could take her onto my private plan. Tell me how exactly the system would take care of her in the States? Personally, I am thankful that I never had to find out. My last brush with the American health care system showed me that.
A few years ago, my wife and I were in Las Vegas on vacation. She had a sudden attack of pleurisy - which pretty much seemed like a heart attack when it happened in the middle of a show at the Wynn. The result was 24 hours in a Vegas hospital, a couple of really expensive aspirin, a couple of liters of saline and glucose, a clear bill of health and a bill for about $24000. This probably would have been a serious financial blow for anybody who was as surprised by it as we were. Fortunately, I'm not covered by a US insurance plan. I (not my wife, me) have a travel health plan (also private) from my credit card company. It's part of the 35 Euro annual fee I pay. I called them (1 call) and they took care of the rest. Worked a deal with the hospital, paid the bill and let me know everything was ok. They even dealt with the hospital when they contacted me directly and tried to squeeze me for the difference (about $8000) between the initial bill and the settled amount. The whole deal cost me about 20 Euros in long distance mobile charges for the initial call - which they also offered to reimburse. No hassle, no new restrictions, no new premiums.
I pay a load of taxes, part of which goes to help defray the cost of regulating the health care industry in Germany, as does part of my medical insurance premium. I have absolutely no problem with that. The "public option" insurance scheme includes government regulation that keeps all players in the industry in line. Services require approval (if they are not emergencies) beyond a certain baseline, but are generally covered. This also applies to my private insurer. The fees hospitals, pharmacies and doctors can charge are regulated as well, as are the awards in malpractice cases. If I want additional coverage (e.g. orthodontia), I can purchase it privately - as can my wife - at reasonable rates.
Of course there are a minority of tragic, exceptional cases where treatment is of poor quality, withheld for extended periods, or unavailable - but nowhere near the number (46 million uninsured?!) that surely occur daily in the US. I have yet to hear of RAM (Remote Area Medial Volunteer Corps) setting up shop in a German soccer arena to provide basic services to regular citizens.
Be very happy and consider yourself fortunate. Pray (you are in that demographic, I'll bet) that you never are in a situation where your w
Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
I should know better than to feed the trolls. I expressed an opinion that is consistent with the results of recent polls (there is little support for this Administration's goals on healthcare reform) and you said that I was "spitting on democracy". You may disagree with my interpretation of those polling results, but my interpretation is not some unsupported leap to a wished for conclusion.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm a rather well informed individual, and I can find pretty much no source which objectively explains the bill to non-lawyers and non-wonks. Sure, lay people can just RTFB, but how many people can actually make any sense of it, or keep track of the constant changes, and consequences of debates?
That is a good reason right there to oppose this bill (or any other that is equally complex).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It would be equally easy (and equally invalid) to create a similar conversation where you are portrayed as a dictator.
I think you misspelled "dick" in that last bit... Oh, wait a minute... that's the conversation he related...
Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
"Why do you think it didn't pass before the August recess? Because a boatload of Democratic Congresspersons realized that they would lose corporate sponsorship if they voted for the bill as it was."
FTFY
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
What corporate sponsorship is that? Or haven't you noticed that most of the corporations are on board for this?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Based on the things I say on here, you probably have every right to refer to me as crazy. But you have no way of knowing how much of my personal time and/or money goes to charity, so you have no right to call me selfish.
And I'd probably agree with you there, based on seeing the industry from inside, but apparently we disagree on WHY it's a tragedy.
Sociopathy is a pretty vaguely defined term. If anything, I think it's sociopathic to think you have a right to help yourself to other people's money.
And that's what charity is for. There's nothing selfless about handing over money at gunpoint.
You know what's funny? I actually support a co-op option (I even mentioned it in one of my other comments). The problem is, the people pushing health care reform from the top right now are as VIOLENTLY opposed to a "co-op" program as the people fighting it from the bottom are opposed to a public option. I think it's a great compromise and it achieves what the supposed objectives are of this supposed reform quite nicely. The fact that the reformists are so dead set that it's government control or nothing is very telling about their motives to me.
That's great. That's also not how the proposed US plan would work, in the end.
Well permanent disability coverage does exist. Usually in employer provided insurance plans (at least, that's how mine works). HIV, fortunately, is one of the few chronic illnesses I don't have any experience with the long-term treatment of. So I won't try to guess how she'd be handled in the system. I'm sure not as well as she's been treated in Germany. Examples such as that are one of the reasons I'm perfectly willing to admit that health care in the US needs fixing, I'm just not willing to accept that it means people like me and my parents have to be punished and the working parts of the system have to be destroyed.
Hospital
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
In good faith, I will retract my racism assertion, and apologize for calling you an idiot.
In order to move forward on this issue, distractions such as this must be off the table.
As to you second point, I am glad to see that we agree on a more reasonable number of uninsured. This fact alone just chopped the projected cost in half.
In general, I agree with you that it looks bad for even that many people to be without insurance, but here is the catch: What constitutional power does the government have to force anyone to get insurance (hint: a number less than one). And even worse, how many of the uninsured DO NOT WANT insurance at all ? Can you legally force them to take it, even if they don't want it? For those who need it but can't afford it, we can start with income tax credits to make it more affordable.
Lastly, back to my last point, most companies value their employees, so they will tend to keep them happy, if not they tend to go out of business (by the way I have worked for more than one company that switched carriers due to employee complaints, I only mentioned the one above because I was closely involved with a dispute with the carrier).
So to sum up single payer is a supremely bad idea for the US. Sure it may work in some European countries, but they have populations vastly smaller than most states here, and often have extremely strict immigration policies. But lastly, I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers and Adam Smith instead of Krugman.
The only hope for a lasting democracy is a vibrant middle class, which will be buried by a single payer system.
Your sig is rather ironic given your position on this issue. As for the availability of private insurance and private doctors - we have a similar system in the United States for schools. We have both government schools and private schools. However, whether or not your attend private school, you still pay the same taxes as people who attend the government school. You have have to pay twice. Even though the private schools are widely regarded as far superior, most people send their kids to public school because they can't afford to pay for both government and private schools.
One huge difference is the attitude of the teachers. At the private schools, they tend to want to work with the parents. At the government schools, they tend to have an attitude of closing ranks to cover their butts. At the private schools, they want you to keep sending your kids. At some of the government schools, they know they have your kid and he's more of a hostage so you better not offend the staff.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Heh. Yes I am a dick / asshole / heartless bastard. But, at least I'm not a thief, beggar, or politician. So, =P
That's good. Too bad a smug sense of entitlement and bitter resentment of anyone with different opinions can't pay the bills either.
Amen, brother.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Actually, I have read both the Federalist Papers and Adam Smith. Federalist #10 in particular has a massive problem, namely it assumes that a faction can't organize itself because of how large the country is (which doesn't work thanks to modern communication tools). Adam Smith's big mistake is that he tends to assume that everyone understands what they need to know about what is being bought and sold, which as recent events with subprime mortgages have demonstrated is not necessarily the case.
Now, about your last paragraph, which is really fascinating:
The only hope for a lasting democracy is a vibrant middle class, which will be buried by a single payer system.
When did we have a vibrant middle class in this country? Most economists would point to the 1950's as the height of middle-class America. Which has a lot of characteristics that current America is missing like:
* very high marginal tax rates for top brackets. And by very high, I mean 75-90%.
* a heavily unionized labor force.
* High minimum wages, enough so that one minimum wage earner could support himself (yes, usually himself) and his family working 40 hours a week.
* Health care wasn't government run, but was considered a standard part of any employment offer.
It obviously wasn't perfect (particularly for black people and women), but it was the closest this country has ever come to a vibrant middle class. And it happened with economic policies that would make Ronald Reagan roll over in his grave.
I am officially gone from
Actually I never stated where I stand on this issue, just that the analogy was flawed, and also floating around an inaccurate premise.
Also part of the problem with public schools is that people have gutted them, and then used the consequences of that to claim that they are a failure and that they should be further gutted. At least this is true in my state (AZ), which has the worst public education in the country (well, 48-49th worst). This also ignores the fact that they weren't failures for a hundred or so years up until the modern age.
For the record I'm against the Obama health care package, though for pretty much the opposite reasons as the "ZOMG socialism!" crowd. I have something against mandating me giving money to corporations, which is what his plan does sans the "public option", which, if you've noticed, isn't happening, nor is it even talked about. Though I do feel that our current system is broken beyond repair, and whatever Obama doesn't probably won't break it much more than it already is (nor improve it).
The sig is still valid, no matter how I feel about whatever partisan speaking point is being bandied about to whip up my fellow plebes at this moment. I'm fine with us being more European, I don't see this going against much of any principle. I also don't think our founding fathers were big fans of libertarianism or Ayn Rand for obvious reasons. I don't think they viewed the ideological simplification of "the free market" as a trump for human worth, dignity, and the general well being of Americans.
Also in the quote (and most of Abbey's works): country != my particular political philosophy that all others should adhere to for fear of being branded "unamerican", or "socialist", or "fascist". A country is nothing more than a broad collection of individual people sharing a varied mesh of common values and passions, and common land and resources. If you read Abbey, you'd realize he probably wouldn't think much of either the people for Obama's plan, or those screaming "socialist" at it.
In my view, we need to defend our country from Libertarians, Ayn Randroids, the political correct left, well meaning people who "know better", the coastal elite, and the prideful ignorant "Joe the Plumbers". We must protect it from lobbyists and the christian right, from politicians who take money from corporations, who represent corporations, from anyone that holds mere economy, or political ideology higher than the people and land. First and foremost we must protect it from anyone who thinks they are right. Anyone who thinks that their point of view is the only view that should be appreciated.
I rant, I apologize for it. I'm sick of people somehow thinking where you stand on a mere political debate actually has any bearing on anything that actually matters, much less the character of the person.
My personal take on the matter is give us true public health care, and instead of taxing anyone, cut the defense budget by an equal amount, reallocating that money to something meaningful and important. While we're at it chop the defense budget further, putting 90% of it into health, education, and museums, things that actually improve peoples lives, and increase the over all happiness.
If we can't defend our country for a mere couple tens of billions, perhaps we should stop pissing people off.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Interesting, but I don't get your point about #10, the way I read it, its not so much about scaling up to a large physical country (or population for that matter), but rather balancing a large number of varying opinions (ie. factions) an trying to give them a more equitable voice via a representative government.
As for your point about Adam Smith and the sub-prime mortgages, this is clearly the fault of the government for not properly safeguarding the mortgages via oversight, which it has a very poor track record in doing in general, which gives me one less reason to trust them with overseeing health care.
As for your last point, the middle class in the 50's payed somewhere around 20% income tax. Adding mandatory health care to the mix (still waiting for you to sight the constitutional authority on this) is still yet to be seen, but I would venture to guess it will be an extra 10%, and as will only get higher, yielding an average tax rate of about 30% (top rate of 70), which is what we had in the mid 1970's, and we all know how good it was for the middle class back then. And don't forget all the fees, state income taxes, sales taxes, etc added on to that.
And I believe the middle class was financially at its strongest from the mid 1980's to the mid 2000's, with a maximum income tax rate of around 35% for the period !!!
No entity should be able to force an innocent individual to do anything, whether that entity is a government, a corporation, a group of people, or an individual.
The proper purpose of government is to simply protect the individual against force and fraud, from any entity.
When all human interactions are voluntary, you have nothing to fear from a business - without the power of the gun (government) to force you to do things.
Mine is Good
if you are somehow suggesting that by taking government out of economic decisions you will lesson corporate influence over those decisions
That is exactly what he is suggesting, and it is patently obvious. The government rewards special privileges, franchises, subsidies, and other government-coerced favors through law. The government influences winners and losers all the time through legal power and government fiat. The geyser of taxpayer cash is aimed roughly in the direction of "special interests" with the understanding that power and influence will splash back on them.
It is naive to believe that somehow "evil corporations" like Apple and Google are out to get us all with their "iPods" and "Search Engines", and we need to be saved by Washington bureaucrats.
All a business can do is offer you a product. They cannot force you to buy it.
The government, however, has a legal monopoly on the use of force in society. That power should be restricted to protecting individuals (as per the Constitution). The government should not be controlling and making decisions for us.
Historically, the US government was the first to subordinate government to the individual. For the first time in history, you, the individual, were given a sanction to live - free from others controlling you and forcing you against your will. Unfortunately, through a long road of altruist, anti-individual mentality, many Americans have been guilted into giving up their freedom at the expense of the growth of government power and bureaucratic control over all our lives.
Mine is Good
I certainly disagree with you that public healthcare is better than private. There is a reason why America exports so much medicine and medical technology, and why people from other countries come to the U.S. for treatment - because our system is better.
Moreover, every aspect of health care has been increasingly regulated for 50 years, which is why the US has some problems today. All around us we see the failures of the regulatory state. Central planning doesn't work and it's failures are evident, everywhere
Here is one American viewpoint for you: my life and my property are not a means to other people's ends. Just because somebody, somewhere, needs something does not mean that I must be forced to provide it.
Mine is Good
Well it's not broken - but it is true that 50+ years of government :"reform" have hurt the industry and the people who need it.
This is a failure of the regulatory state, which already regulates and controls a great deal of the health care industry.
Mine is Good
If legislation is like software, and software is currently patentable, maybe we should patent some legislation and sue when someone writes a bill similar to the patent.
Legislation Troll!
"sp3d2orbit", aka "Me", meet Juan. Juan has a kid. His kid is seriously ill, and will die in 3 months without treatment. With treatment, his kid will be fine.
Treatment is quite cheap, medically speaking, only costing $75,000. Or about what Juan makes in in a little over 5 years at minimum wage.
Now, if Juan robs you, his kid lives. Robbing you, as a first offense, not involving anything serious like copying mp3s, will get Juan little more than a slap on the wrist. Perhaps only probation. And that's only if Juan gets caught, which isn't terribly likely.
Of course you might not have $75k lying around your home. Juan may have to hurt you, beat you up, or kidnap your kid, to get you to cough it up.
But hey, 10 years from now Juan will be out of jail, and his kid will be alive. It beats the alternative.
How will you survive Juan? And then Pablo? And then Steve? And then Mike? The onslaught is relentless. People with nothing to lose...
Or perhaps Juan will just get the medical attention for his kid, and then declare bankruptcy. Medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy.
Naturally, hospitals will pass the costs onto those who can pay. That would be you. Which explains why my health insurance costs more per month than a home mortgage + property taxes.
I said nothing about bad or good. If you say "let's get this straight", perhaps you should endeavor to do that first rather than frothing at the mouth?
Put it another way, if government is already letting corporations do as they please (abusing monopolies, causing pollution, reducing working conditions or whatever) then there's not much left for them to ask for, is there?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why would they have to own it? It's possible that a government believes in lessay-faire on it's own merits.
Where did I say that it did?
Within the article, or others linked to it (I originally read them in the print version) you'll find that other countries such as France and the UK seem to do either almost as good at considerably less cost, or slightly better at a slightly lower cost. Both of those use public/socialized healthcare. I don't know how you work out that those must be worse.
Seems you're one of the people I was talking about.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Put it another way, if government is already letting corporations do as they please (abusing monopolies, causing pollution, reducing working conditions or whatever) then there's not much left for them to ask for, is there?
How do you think corporations usually get monopolies in the first place?
I always find it amusing when people talk about corporations generally opposing government regulation. Most large corporations favor heavy government regulation of their industry, it is a barrier to entry making it harder for someone new to compete with them. Large corporations may oppose specific regulations, but they almost always favor the government regulating the business they are in.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The sheer size of a large incumbent is a barrier to entry, they don't need regulation to keep out competitors. This is particularly true in utilities. And it's even more true if they're allowed to get away with dirty tricks.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Read up on the history of company towns.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
For Federalist #10, read the section on how a majority faction won't subvert the democratic republic. The size and spread of the population was critical to that argument.
For the subprime mortgages, a very likely reason the government didn't oversee the mortgage markets was because Congress and the President underfunded the organizations dedicated to overseeing the markets. For instance, the head of enforcement for the SEC testified to Congress that "While we appreciate and examine every lead we receive, we simply do not have the resources to fully investigate them all."
On your last point, you would be incorrect about the financial strength of the middle class. Using the census's figures on median and mean income: From 1949 to 1969, mean and median incomes (adjusted for inflation) approximately doubled. From 1985 to 2005, median and mean incomes (again adjusted for inflation) increased by about 20%. Looking at this chart of how those income gains were distributed also suggests that the 80's and 90's were not the environment of a middle-class powerhouse.
Lastly, under Clinton the top marginal tax rate went from 35% to 39.5%.
I am officially gone from
In my comparison to Microsoft I did say that the government has been known to occasionally do some things very well. The question is what to do when the government fails massively. In a free market, when the de facto monopoly becomes inefficient enough, people change to other providers despite the high cost of doing so. When the government becomes inefficient, you're pretty much stuck, and reform can be blocked by entrenched special interests and rent-seekers. I don't want a healthcare system that eventually comes to resemble U.S. public schools.
Taking for granted that your explanation for failing public schools in AZ is correct, what does that say about public health? If the voters of the future are healthier than others, and they decide to gut the healthcare system because they don't see a reason to pay taxes for services they don't use, then you have failing healthcare. This may be a problem for one of the same reasons some schools are being gutted, demographic differences between voters and service-receivers. Voters in Arizona tend to be American. Many of the school kids are children of immigrants, and many of those illegal immigrants. An older American voter may not have the same emotional commitment to local education that he would have if it were his own grandchildren or the grandchildren of other people of similar culture who were attending the schools. How will these younger naturalized immigrant voters feel about paying for the healthcare of older Americans 30 years from now - especially with the divisive effects of a national focus on multi-culturalism as opposed to assimilation?
But regardless of the reason for failing AZ schools, the fact remains that if you want to opt-out of the system, you still have to pay for opting in, and you then you have to pay again for your private instruction. The failing schools never disappear the way private schools with a similar record would.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
The most ridiculous part about US 'consumers' (they sure aren't citizens) and the health care question is the fact that they aren't demanding that their health is taken care of due to the amazing amount of taxes they pay. I am in Australia and as far as I am concerned our medicare system works brilliantly. If you want private coverage and/or private hospital with cable TV and a private room then you pay for it. Although for a private room in Australia with Cable TV you pay bugger all compared with a US citizen who would pay a lot more for a much lower level of service. I do agree with the US consumers though as the proposed reforms for their system do nothing but guarantee greater profits to a seriously broken and predatory health system. To do it right in the US they would have to dismantle the stupid system they have now and as they are not citizens just consumers it will NEVER happen.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I pay a medicare Levy out of my weekly wages. It doesn't upset me in the slightest. As the poster above me said it is all part of being a participating member of a community. My money even funds methadone for heroin addicts and thats fine with me too as they are people too. I will never ever understand people from the US there really is something fundamentally broken inside of a lot of you You can rave about how charitable you think you are but I reserve the right to call 'sheenanigans'.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I think he defined why the US is such an awful place very well
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
As I said, I don't think that this is the best plan. If you asked me what was, I'd probably write 10,000 words which amount to me saying "I don't know, something other than we have now". Judging from some of the people I know, we at least have to streamline what we have now, because right now our system is pretty much a complete failure where it counts (unexpected catastrophic illness, and long term chronic illnesses that preclude working for a living wage).
I don't think Obama will fix that.
If the government came up with a public heathcare scheme, I don't think it would be that catastrophic, since if it gets bad (like our public school have), then private industry can still step in. Actually if it is at all like many places, Government healthcare will be the option for the poor, and the lower middle class, while people with a bit more money opt for faster more personalized service via private insurance. It would be more a safety net, and a supplement to your normal insurance for most of us.
As stated, though, I have no clue.
. Voters in Arizona tend to be American. Many of the school kids are children of immigrants, and many of those illegal immigrants. An older American voter may not have the same emotional commitment to local education that he would have if it were his own grandchildren or the grandchildren of other people of similar culture who were attending the schools. How will these younger naturalized immigrant voters feel about paying for the healthcare of older Americans 30 years from now - especially with the divisive effects of a national focus on multi-culturalism as opposed to assimilation?
Part of our problem is a large population of elderly people who don't see the point in paying. Actually the AZ education is a hugely complicated mess, its hard to pin down any single reason for it failing so badly. Part of it is voters voting for fake conservatives who rip money from the schools for other pet projects (and calling it eliminating pork, though we still see no benefits from it) which hurt actual performance and thus the desire to help it along with some cash (this is the viscous cycle). Some of it is the huge glut of non-English speaking children holding back progress for everyone. Some of it is No Child Left Behind, and our own acceptance of a fatally flawed standardized test, which killed our curriculum ("teach the test"). Some of it is the general incopitance of teachers who think entertainment is 50% of the equation, and self-esteem is the other %50. And again, a large part of it is huge population growth, with no increase in funding stretching the infrastructure too far. Etc... Its a complicated beast.
Though, to be honest, I haven't seen any proof that private schools have any better performance (at least in this state). I'm sure some of the upper crust ones might, but I wholly doubt that the vast majority of them are much better. (A quick Googleing says there is a very minor to nonexistent difference in performance). I don't think that just saying "free market" will solve all of our problems, either though.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
All a business can do is offer you a product. They cannot force you to buy it.
Read up on the history of company towns.
Read up on how to move to another town
Mine is Good
Apparently I was too subtle. Your statement: "All a company can do is offer you a product. They cannot force you to buy it." is historically untrue. Companies have set up systems that coerced people into being customers and prevented them from leaving. If you don't think companies would attempt to create a similar system in the absence of regulation then you are much less cynical than I.
For a modern example of people being tied to jobs they dislike and being forced to give money to companies they loathe I refer you to the current system of employer paid health insurance.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
It's not an arbitrary metric. You want an arbitrary metric? Try "what have you done to enrich the lives of others, and have a positive long term influence on society".
Money is quantifiable and measurable, and it pays for research. It also pays for hospitals, EKGs, vaccines and plastic surgery. People with a lot of money put a lot more money into the system. It only makes sense that they should be able to buy better service.
No matter what you may think of her, I guarantee you with complete certainty that Paris Hilton has done more for American health care than your typical 'dirt farmer in Appalachia', simply due to the fact that she has pushed a huge amount of money into the system. I'm perfectly willing to give her the privilege of paying more to buy better care than what I could purchase with my limited resources.
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
My point is simply that all a business can (legally) do is offer things. You can walk away any time.
Mine is Good
And my point is that the only reason that is all a business can legally do is because of goverment interference in economic decisions. In the absence of government regulations you (could, and have in the past) end up with company towns that limit one's ability to leave.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.