Google certainly bristled under the restrictions of the Chinese government, but they complied with the letter of the law. I'm pretty sure that's not why Google is pulling out.
Google is leaving China because China has been trying to "hack" Google. by that I mean, they used disreputable means to gain access to and undermine Google's technology and resources with the goal of using Google as a vector to attack other American businesses and interests.
Or at least, the Chinese government's action precipitated the pull-out.
turns out that is inaccurate. insurers are restricted in the range of prices they can offer on the same plan (and apparently that range is mostly due to age). so a person that lives recklessly but is the same age as you will pay a similar premium.
living off 1st world medical care certainly explains why there's no cure for Malaria.
certainly, the priorities of our pharmaceutical companies are kinda whack. seeing as most private pharma R&D goes into keeping their drugs from losing patent protection. and most private medical R&D seems to go into making more expensive scanners.
seems like the rest of the world might benefit by a leveling out of the research playing field.
For your reading entertainment, here's an article about the emerging markets for pharmaceuticals.
Next year, the report predicted, drug sales in China will outpace those of France and of Germany, while Brazil will be buying more medications than Britain.
all those countries mentioned provide some form of universal healthcare.
CBO is an agency of about 250 employees located in the Ford House Office Building at the foot of Capitol Hill. Well over half of its staff have advanced degrees in economics, public policy, and a variety of other disciplines.
Clinton tried to fix everything that was wrong with healthcare in one fell swoop. That didn't work out too hot. Would we be in this stew if they had adopted a more conservative approach, one that could be tweaked and revised over 15 years?
Yes, there are flaws in the plan that will only be uncovered as it goes into effect. However, the law is not stone, future Congresses will be able to use these reforms as a base which they can improve.
And perhaps the funding wont work out like the CBO predicts, but it might. It might work out even better than their predictions. (That's why they're called predictions.)
But health care is a tightening noose around this country's economy. We could ignore it for fear that rising debt and inflation will eventually choke us to death, but it seems like those dangers are much further off in the future.
basically the 4 year buffer is to help the insurance industry handle the change and to allow the insurance exchanges time to set up and mature before they are flooded with mandated demand.
Since no one has attempted to give you a legitimate answer, here we go:
1) Insurance companies are mandated to spend 85% of the premiums they receive on medical care. So they can raise premiums, but they will also have to raise the amount of money they spend out. For this reason, free market principles should ensure that insurance premiums are tied quite closely to medical costs since a company with inflated premiums can always be undercut by one with premiums closer to the cost of care.
2) Once again, free market principles, why would I buy an insurance policy that doesn't cover my insurance needs? And since the law prevents insurers from canceling your coverage if you become sick, I imagine that means they cannot drop your coverage to exclude your illness either.
3) Ensuring equal coverage for everyone was never a principle concept behind health insurance reform. Ensuring that everyone has access to health care was. There's a difference between flying your private jet to New York to see the best doctors in the world and being able to afford to take your child to the local clinic when she has a fever.
Your three questions are interesting and important, but I don't think they qualify as the biggest issues with US health care today.
In my mind, among the biggest issues in US health care are: 1) millions of Americans currently have no access to health care other than going to the emergency room (which tends to be a very expensive way to treat people). 2) employer-provided health insurance is beginning to show cracks as premiums rise and the recession continues. Small businesses are starting to cut coverage or drop it altogether. And people who lose their jobs are faced with paying the full cost of insurance or having no coverage. 3) individuals and people with pre-existing conditions do not have affordable options for health insurance for themselves and their families.
this legislation addresses these problems at least in part.
1) all people will be required to have health insurance. which means more healthy people in the system. it also means that people who are just beginning to get sick will (hopefully) be able to seek treatment before their conditions become emergencies. not only does that mean a healthier more productive populace, but it also should lower medical costs and ease crowding at emergency rooms.
2) small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges which will pool their risk pools together so they can get similar kinds of deals that huge businesses have for their employees. also, standardization of plans should prevent insurance companies from playing games to confuse buyers, allowing apples-to-apples comparisons between insurers.
3) like small businesses, individuals will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges. also, while federal law prohibited employers from denying insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that law did not apply to individuals until now.
2 & 3 are tightly bound together. if a stable individual market for insurance comes to be because of this bill, it will remove a huge pressure from small-businesses and . Entrepreneurs can quit their jobs to start the next Google or Facebook knowing that they and their family are still covered. And small businesses (under 50 employees) will be able to hire employees, pay them a decent salary and let them use their earnings to pay for their own insurance plan (rather than quietly taxing their earnings and sending that money to the insurer).
healthcare in this country is a very complex entity with many interwoven aspects. It's hard to look into the future and see what will work and what wont. but one thing was clear was that the way health insurance was being run was not sustainable.
there's another aspect of this bill that is often overlooked. If the insurance companies find a way to worm around the intent of the law, then Congress will most likely find a way to stop it. Insurers know tha
I did not think I was being snide, well until the end. Then I was being a little snide. But really I was trying to be funny. You didn't think the baseball thing was funny?
I did say I have great respect for the founding fathers. To be fair, I had no way of knowing beforehand that you made a study of the Constitution. I feel like I know a great deal about it (though I do not doubt that you know more) and many people on Slashdot lecture about the Constitution without really any understanding of the subject.
I apologize if you feel that I was impugning you. It was only my intention to stand up for myself.
In regards to the question, if you consider the relatively short life of this country, I think you'll find that it's marked by a near constant reinterpretation of the meaning of the words of the Constitution.
everything from a standing army, to a central bank, to abolition and prohibition, to a system of highways, to a social safety net was read into the words of the Constitution.
And it wasn't because the Founding fathers anticipated that their country would need a highway system 150+ years on. Or that they knew that this country would play a pivotal role in pursuing two global wars. (I doubt they could have conceived of a "World War".)
These things exist/happened (or not, as in the case of slavery) because the country needed it to continue to function and no other entity could provide it.
That politicians, judges and lawyers could later shoehorn some justification from the various loose phrases ("general welfare") does not speak so much to the sagacity of the founding fathers as the flexibility of our language.
And seeing just how different this country is than the one envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution, what sense does it make to apply their arguments to modern issues? Certainly we can read them like we read other wise men. But we must fashion our arguments so that they can stand on their own merits.
I leave you with this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What the flippety-flip are we to make of that. Now that (in clear violation of the intent of the founding fathers) we have a enormous standing army, does the right to bear arms still persist?
Well, let's just say that the first part is just a little fluff. The second part is the important part. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit. A private individual should be able to own and bear (and use if necessary) all the tools available to the modern military. If I had the means, there's no constitutional justification for the federal government to prohibit me from owning a bazooka or a tank or a nuclear bomb.
What you did was attempted to do was indicate that "Most Americans" are stupid
Stupid? I never said anything like that. That's an idea you injected into what I was saying.
What I did was point out that a poll of what Most Americans think is not a particularly good way to understand what's actually happening.
Most Americans think they are above average intelligence. They also think they are above average drivers. This is obviously not true. But borne out in polls.
Most Americans thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. They also thought that the war in Afghanistan was a good idea. Whether or not this is the case, most would now say that they were not and are not now a good idea. I certainly don't know and I guess only history can be the judge of that.
Most Americans thought the economy was in great shape in 2007. The DOW was at 15,000, quants were brilliant. The Web 2.0 was the wave of the future. MySpace was worth a bajillion dollars. Now those views are seen as quaint.
My point is not that most people are stupid (the bell curve suggests that most people are of about normal intelligence). It's that people (all people -- me, for example) are bad at predicting the future. And that they (once again including me) are REALLY REALLY REALLLY REALLLLLLLLLLY bad at confronting problems in the future. So saying that people like their health-care now is not a convincing argument that their health care future is secure.
You didn't bother to read the CNN link, did you. It wasn't long.
A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent... Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years
so the entirety of the $54 billion in savings is due to lower malpractice premiums.
And now for a little math. $5 billion is 1/500th of $2.5 trillion. So tort reform, while certainly a useful idea, is not going to have much of an effect on government health-care spending, which seems like a healthy chunk of healthcare spending overall.
Now, say that the private health care industry is 20 times more affected by tort issues than the public sector. (I can think of no reason for this to be the case, but let's just say.) that means that tort reform would save 1/25th (4%) of private health care spending. not insignificant.
yet, my insurance premium goes up 15% each year. say that 4% savings went directly to my premium (Feels like I'm making a lot of allowances). You're saying that the other 11% increase is due to people showing up in emergency rooms with colds?
You can understand why I might be skeptical.
Speaking of skeptical: tort reform does not do away with malpractice suits altogether so why wont doctors still have the same incentives to order unnecessary tests and procedures? They still have to carry malpractice insurance and will still be penalized by their insurers in the same ways, right? And aren't the patients just as responsible for not trusting the word of their doctor and wanting those extra tests and procedures?
Many of those 30 million are uninsured by choice
Until they become sick. And then it turns out that (unless they have $40K in their bank account) everyone else has been insuring them the whole time.
barriers preventing out of state insurance purchases (imposed by state government regulation)
why do you think states prevent out-of-state insurers?
my understanding is that it's to allow the state governments to regulate the industry without worrying that insurers will just pick up and move to a more loosely regulated state.
why are state governments regulating the insurance indus
Because that whole states' rights thing worked great for the Confederates!
Let's see, weak federal government and super-powerful states... makes me think of the European Union.
Don't get me wrong, Europe's swell. But I think one of the great advantages this country has over Europe is its strong centralized government. And, I don't know about you, but I get the feeling they kinda think so too.
Thanks for replying. I was modded up before I was modded down.
Far be it for me to denigrate the Constitution. It's a marvelous document. But you cannot run a country with just the Constitution. Perhaps the most marvelous thing about the Constitution is that it is general and flexible enough to allow this country to address the problems of the 21st century without being constrained by a list of solutions from the 18th century.
Now, to your arguments. I do not accept "Make it smaller" nor "Tax me less" as a cohesive framework for running a government.
These are not ways of running a government. They are campaign slogans.
Modern government does things, it fixes potholes, builds parks and schools, enforces the laws, resolves disputes. Actually the list is endless.
Our's also provides health insurance and subsidies for the poor and elderly. Because before it did that the poor and elderly lived and died out on the streets and it turns out people didn't like that.
You want to shrink government but you don't have solutions for how to deal with the repercussions of cancelling programs you hate. That is why I say it's not a logical framework for a modern government.
Every government program, "entitlement" or not, is in a constant state of flux. Medicare and Social Security included. Each successive Congress and administration addresses perceived inequities or inefficiencies in their own way.
The reason they aren't cancelled is not because they are "entitlements". It's because the people who want to cancel it don't have solutions for how to deal with the repercussions of cancelling it.
Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance? I am very interested in what you have to say, that's why I am continuing this conversation.
I would encourage you to try to accept that I am not trying to play gotcha here. I am not trying to win anything. I ask questions because I am trying to explain to you why your arguments aren't convincing to me. In the hope that you will be able to make your point of view clearer to me.
I fail to see your point. Most Americans believe grass is green.
You make the argument that the American public is happy with their health insurance. So why change it?
I make the point that the American public is not always the best judge of what's going on. And so a poll that says they're happy with their health-care doesn't mean much when we're talking about the system collapsing in the near future.
To further expand on that. I'd say that public opinion is what economists would call a lagging indicator. So it wont be until after collapse of health insurance in this country that public opinion turns from "Gee, my health care is alright." to "Holy CRAP! WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE DO SOMETHING TO AVERT THIS CRISIS!"
Which I would think my examples of the economy in 2007 and the Iraq War would help elucidate.
The idea behind health reform is to avoid the crisis by addressing the major systemic problems before they lead to a collapse.
Now, let's get to this other thing. You read my post and thought, "He's saying I am contradicting myself". But that's not what I am saying. I tried to clarify before, but that didn't work.
My point is not that your concerns aren't valid. It's that you present a collection of grievances as though they were a cohesive argument.
I've been in the health-care industry for over 20 years now. It needs reform. Fix the broken parts of it. Don't tear it down and rebuild it. I can tell you virtually all my peers (not all) feel the same. My job has me working with many doctors and nurses -- and virtually all feel the same.
so here you make an interesting statement that would have been a good place to start a conversation. with a little elaboration you might make a cohesive argument.
That elaboration should proceed from this statement:
It needs reform. Fix the broken parts of it
And you should elaborate on: - what are the broken parts? - how will fixing them resolve the never-ending spiral of higher medical costs?
But please do not use Tort Reform as the lynch-pin of your arguments. Knowing what I know, I cannot accept Tort reform as a solution.
The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.
The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.
You could further elaborate to answer these questions: -What do your fixes do to reduce government over-spending on health care? -What do your fixes do to help small businesses who can no longer afford to provide health-care to their employees? -What do your fixes do for individuals who do not get insurance through their employer? And those who have pre-existing conditions? -What do your fixes do for the 30 million uninsured (and many times more under-insured) citizens of this country whose numbers are likely to increase as insurance premiums rise? -And finally, why is it only now, when major health reform appears possible that these minor changes are being championed? Couldn't these small changes have been implemented any time in the last 20 years? Why weren't they?
I would suggest reading "Constitutional Journal"
You work in the medical profession, please do not presume to have a better understanding of
(just a quick aside, you don't really think the money collected from the telephone excise tax is going to fund an ongoing Spanish-American war, do you?)
I am not saying that the issues you raised are mutually exclusive. What I am saying is that as they stand they are just a collection nits, not a cohesive argument.
If it's broken, why are most Americans happy with their health care?
Most Americans think they are of above-average intelligence. Most Americans thought the Iraq war was a good idea. Most Americans thought the economy was going gangbusters before 2007.
Most Americans don't pay for their health insurance directly (though they certainly pay for it in reduced salary).
What do workers in the health-care industry think? Cause what I hear from friends and family is a universal "The system is broken".
there is NO way a Democratic executive with his party having supramajority in the Senate and a huge majority in the lower house would have trouble passing such "reform"
We have a huge and complex health insurance system in this country with countless interested parties. We have an issue that has been building for 20 years.
We have 40% of the US Congress just adamantly refusing to do anything in the hopes that it will improve their chances in November. Which means that in order to pass a law the other 60% have to be unanimous.
Requiring a unanimous vote on an incredibly complex issue, it seems reasonable that it would have some difficulty no matter what the situation.
and secondly, supramajority?
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
first of all, your arguments lack cohesion.
- are you concerned about "liberty" or are you concerned about the budget? - are you concerned about the budget or are you concerned about paying taxes? - are you concerned about paying taxes or are you concerned that your tax money is going to fight wars from 100 years ago?
maybe you are legitimately worried about all these things, but you should work on developing a logical framework for government into which all these ideas fit. and no, "I don't like paying taxes" is not a logical framework in terms of how a modern government is run.
let me make this as simple as possible. forget all the little things, like whether the bill is budget neutral or covers abortions, that's just filler.
here's the deal: the health care system in this country is broken. to fix it, you can pay some extra taxes to the federal government for the rest of your life, or you can pay hefty fees to the insurance companies for the rest of your life.
The same thing works with Google and YouTube. Compared to the whole cost of running Google, the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error, and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra' space and run on 'extra' bandwidth that isn't needed right now, but has been paid for already, so it's basally 'free'
The Credite Suise guys calculated that Youtube is pumping out 30 million megabits per second, and you think that's a rounding error for Google?
The point of the article isn't that Youtube's bandwidth needs are so negligible they may as well be free (far from it).
It's that because Google has its own fiber, it's able to barter with other ISPs in kind.
So Google doesn't have to lay out cash to pay for the bandwidth it uses to stream dorky white kids covering R&B songs and people throwing their wii-mote into their LCD-TV.
There's still an opportunity cost involved, since Google doesn't generate revenue on the bandwidth the other peers send through its lines, either.
my point being that both analogies are wrong. which clouds the conversation with bad data and should not be rewarded.
google is not "taking the bus", google owns its own "bus lines"
nor is google "not riding in other people's cars", google is explicitly "riding in other people's cars" and in exchange the other people get to "ride in google's car" when they need to.
greed, replied to your message below with an appropriate analogy.
not everyone can be a fantastic teacher (in the same way that not everyone can be a concert pianist) no matter how well they are trained. and there aren't enough people with the temperament, focus, love, patience and understanding that make up a fantastic teacher to teach every child on every subject.
unless you're very wealthy (and probably even then) your children are going to have teachers that are not inspirational. and perhaps they're not even particularly well informed. or perhaps your child's teacher is truly inspirational, but it turns out that he or she is not inspirational in a way that works for your child. your child will spend day after day, hour after hour sitting through interminable lectures and stupid pointless presentations. they will get useless comments on their school work and they'll bring home ridiculous assignments. And just in case you think it's just in your imagination, your neighbor's lod will be assigned to a more capable teacher in the same subject.
well clearly, due to this terrible misfortune, your child will end up working at a gas station for the rest of his life.
it seems to me that many parents look on education as some sort of passive process (your kid goes to school for 12 years and comes out Enhanced With Knowledge® ). so when they see their child struggling in school they naturally think the school is broken. they want better teachers and better facilities to put the knowledge into their child! Well, it couldn't hurt. But real learning happens only when the student is actively involved in the process. Yes, excellent teachers know how to make subjects come alive for their students, but students need to be able to inspire themselves.
If it takes an army of miraculous teachers to get a person to graduate high school, that person is going to have serious issues when they confront a world full of people who aren't exerting every particle of effort into making them successful.
the ones with the brightest students? but they have it easy, their students are interested in classes and want to learn. so then the ones with the most problematic students? not necessarily, a terrible teacher would stand out less amongst low-performing students. so, the ones with the most improved test scores (aka. no child left behind)? well, sorta. but excellent teachers who don't "teach to the test" will end up with poorer results than automatons that drill all day. do we really want to disincentivise imagination and creativity amongst our teachers?
so maybe test scores plus peer review? what are you a hippy? you can't have the teachers rating themselves. right. test scores plus administrative review? sounds reasonable. but what about dysfunctional principles? and bias or personal grudges?
well no system is perfect.
not to mention how do you determine if a french teacher is better than an algebra teacher? or a gym teacher is better than a history teacher?
sure, you can come up with a system that takes into account all the variables, but will it be more efficient or less complicated than the methods currently being employed in public schools around the country?
Slashdot Mirror
Google certainly bristled under the restrictions of the Chinese government, but they complied with the letter of the law. I'm pretty sure that's not why Google is pulling out.
Google is leaving China because China has been trying to "hack" Google. by that I mean, they used disreputable means to gain access to and undermine Google's technology and resources with the goal of using Google as a vector to attack other American businesses and interests.
Or at least, the Chinese government's action precipitated the pull-out.
turns out that is inaccurate. insurers are restricted in the range of prices they can offer on the same plan (and apparently that range is mostly due to age). so a person that lives recklessly but is the same age as you will pay a similar premium.
1984 != Socialism
they may have referred to themselves as "socialist" but the word for that kind of government is Totalitarianism.
living off 1st world medical care certainly explains why there's no cure for Malaria.
certainly, the priorities of our pharmaceutical companies are kinda whack. seeing as most private pharma R&D goes into keeping their drugs from losing patent protection. and most private medical R&D seems to go into making more expensive scanners.
seems like the rest of the world might benefit by a leveling out of the research playing field.
For your reading entertainment, here's an article about the emerging markets for pharmaceuticals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/business/global/17drug.html
Next year, the report predicted, drug sales in China will outpace those of France and of Germany, while Brazil will be buying more medications than Britain.
all those countries mentioned provide some form of universal healthcare.
We did! It's called the CBO
CBO is an agency of about 250 employees located in the Ford House Office Building at the foot of Capitol Hill. Well over half of its staff have advanced degrees in economics, public policy, and a variety of other disciplines.
Clinton tried to fix everything that was wrong with healthcare in one fell swoop. That didn't work out too hot. Would we be in this stew if they had adopted a more conservative approach, one that could be tweaked and revised over 15 years?
Yes, there are flaws in the plan that will only be uncovered as it goes into effect. However, the law is not stone, future Congresses will be able to use these reforms as a base which they can improve.
And perhaps the funding wont work out like the CBO predicts, but it might. It might work out even better than their predictions. (That's why they're called predictions.)
But health care is a tightening noose around this country's economy. We could ignore it for fear that rising debt and inflation will eventually choke us to death, but it seems like those dangers are much further off in the future.
basically the 4 year buffer is to help the insurance industry handle the change and to allow the insurance exchanges time to set up and mature before they are flooded with mandated demand.
insurers can charge whatever prices they want.
Since no one has attempted to give you a legitimate answer, here we go:
1) Insurance companies are mandated to spend 85% of the premiums they receive on medical care. So they can raise premiums, but they will also have to raise the amount of money they spend out. For this reason, free market principles should ensure that insurance premiums are tied quite closely to medical costs since a company with inflated premiums can always be undercut by one with premiums closer to the cost of care.
2) Once again, free market principles, why would I buy an insurance policy that doesn't cover my insurance needs? And since the law prevents insurers from canceling your coverage if you become sick, I imagine that means they cannot drop your coverage to exclude your illness either.
3) Ensuring equal coverage for everyone was never a principle concept behind health insurance reform. Ensuring that everyone has access to health care was. There's a difference between flying your private jet to New York to see the best doctors in the world and being able to afford to take your child to the local clinic when she has a fever.
Your three questions are interesting and important, but I don't think they qualify as the biggest issues with US health care today.
In my mind, among the biggest issues in US health care are:
1) millions of Americans currently have no access to health care other than going to the emergency room (which tends to be a very expensive way to treat people).
2) employer-provided health insurance is beginning to show cracks as premiums rise and the recession continues. Small businesses are starting to cut coverage or drop it altogether. And people who lose their jobs are faced with paying the full cost of insurance or having no coverage.
3) individuals and people with pre-existing conditions do not have affordable options for health insurance for themselves and their families.
this legislation addresses these problems at least in part.
1) all people will be required to have health insurance. which means more healthy people in the system. it also means that people who are just beginning to get sick will (hopefully) be able to seek treatment before their conditions become emergencies. not only does that mean a healthier more productive populace, but it also should lower medical costs and ease crowding at emergency rooms.
2) small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges which will pool their risk pools together so they can get similar kinds of deals that huge businesses have for their employees. also, standardization of plans should prevent insurance companies from playing games to confuse buyers, allowing apples-to-apples comparisons between insurers.
3) like small businesses, individuals will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges. also, while federal law prohibited employers from denying insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that law did not apply to individuals until now.
2 & 3 are tightly bound together. if a stable individual market for insurance comes to be because of this bill, it will remove a huge pressure from small-businesses and . Entrepreneurs can quit their jobs to start the next Google or Facebook knowing that they and their family are still covered. And small businesses (under 50 employees) will be able to hire employees, pay them a decent salary and let them use their earnings to pay for their own insurance plan (rather than quietly taxing their earnings and sending that money to the insurer).
healthcare in this country is a very complex entity with many interwoven aspects. It's hard to look into the future and see what will work and what wont. but one thing was clear was that the way health insurance was being run was not sustainable.
there's another aspect of this bill that is often overlooked. If the insurance companies find a way to worm around the intent of the law, then Congress will most likely find a way to stop it. Insurers know tha
I did not think I was being snide, well until the end. Then I was being a little snide. But really I was trying to be funny. You didn't think the baseball thing was funny?
I did say I have great respect for the founding fathers. To be fair, I had no way of knowing beforehand that you made a study of the Constitution. I feel like I know a great deal about it (though I do not doubt that you know more) and many people on Slashdot lecture about the Constitution without really any understanding of the subject.
I apologize if you feel that I was impugning you. It was only my intention to stand up for myself.
In regards to the question, if you consider the relatively short life of this country, I think you'll find that it's marked by a near constant reinterpretation of the meaning of the words of the Constitution.
everything from a standing army, to a central bank, to abolition and prohibition, to a system of highways, to a social safety net was read into the words of the Constitution.
And it wasn't because the Founding fathers anticipated that their country would need a highway system 150+ years on. Or that they knew that this country would play a pivotal role in pursuing two global wars. (I doubt they could have conceived of a "World War".)
These things exist/happened (or not, as in the case of slavery) because the country needed it to continue to function and no other entity could provide it.
That politicians, judges and lawyers could later shoehorn some justification from the various loose phrases ("general welfare") does not speak so much to the sagacity of the founding fathers as the flexibility of our language.
And seeing just how different this country is than the one envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution, what sense does it make to apply their arguments to modern issues? Certainly we can read them like we read other wise men. But we must fashion our arguments so that they can stand on their own merits.
I leave you with this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What the flippety-flip are we to make of that. Now that (in clear violation of the intent of the founding fathers) we have a enormous standing army, does the right to bear arms still persist?
Well, let's just say that the first part is just a little fluff. The second part is the important part. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit. A private individual should be able to own and bear (and use if necessary) all the tools available to the modern military. If I had the means, there's no constitutional justification for the federal government to prohibit me from owning a bazooka or a tank or a nuclear bomb.
What you did was attempted to do was indicate that "Most Americans" are stupid
Stupid? I never said anything like that. That's an idea you injected into what I was saying.
What I did was point out that a poll of what Most Americans think is not a particularly good way to understand what's actually happening.
Most Americans think they are above average intelligence. They also think they are above average drivers. This is obviously not true. But borne out in polls.
Most Americans thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. They also thought that the war in Afghanistan was a good idea. Whether or not this is the case, most would now say that they were not and are not now a good idea. I certainly don't know and I guess only history can be the judge of that.
Most Americans thought the economy was in great shape in 2007. The DOW was at 15,000, quants were brilliant. The Web 2.0 was the wave of the future. MySpace was worth a bajillion dollars. Now those views are seen as quaint.
My point is not that most people are stupid (the bell curve suggests that most people are of about normal intelligence). It's that people (all people -- me, for example) are bad at predicting the future. And that they (once again including me) are REALLY REALLY REALLLY REALLLLLLLLLLY bad at confronting problems in the future. So saying that people like their health-care now is not a convincing argument that their health care future is secure.
You didn't bother to read the CNN link, did you. It wasn't long.
A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent...
Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years
so the entirety of the $54 billion in savings is due to lower malpractice premiums.
And now for a little math. $5 billion is 1/500th of $2.5 trillion. So tort reform, while certainly a useful idea, is not going to have much of an effect on government health-care spending, which seems like a healthy chunk of healthcare spending overall.
Now, say that the private health care industry is 20 times more affected by tort issues than the public sector. (I can think of no reason for this to be the case, but let's just say.) that means that tort reform would save 1/25th (4%) of private health care spending. not insignificant.
yet, my insurance premium goes up 15% each year. say that 4% savings went directly to my premium (Feels like I'm making a lot of allowances). You're saying that the other 11% increase is due to people showing up in emergency rooms with colds?
You can understand why I might be skeptical.
Speaking of skeptical: tort reform does not do away with malpractice suits altogether so why wont doctors still have the same incentives to order unnecessary tests and procedures? They still have to carry malpractice insurance and will still be penalized by their insurers in the same ways, right? And aren't the patients just as responsible for not trusting the word of their doctor and wanting those extra tests and procedures?
Many of those 30 million are uninsured by choice
Until they become sick. And then it turns out that (unless they have $40K in their bank account) everyone else has been insuring them the whole time.
barriers preventing out of state insurance purchases (imposed by state government regulation)
why do you think states prevent out-of-state insurers?
my understanding is that it's to allow the state governments to regulate the industry without worrying that insurers will just pick up and move to a more loosely regulated state.
why are state governments regulating the insurance indus
Because that whole states' rights thing worked great for the Confederates!
Let's see, weak federal government and super-powerful states... makes me think of the European Union.
Don't get me wrong, Europe's swell. But I think one of the great advantages this country has over Europe is its strong centralized government. And, I don't know about you, but I get the feeling they kinda think so too.
Thanks for replying. I was modded up before I was modded down.
Far be it for me to denigrate the Constitution. It's a marvelous document. But you cannot run a country with just the Constitution. Perhaps the most marvelous thing about the Constitution is that it is general and flexible enough to allow this country to address the problems of the 21st century without being constrained by a list of solutions from the 18th century.
Now, to your arguments. I do not accept "Make it smaller" nor "Tax me less" as a cohesive framework for running a government.
These are not ways of running a government. They are campaign slogans.
Modern government does things, it fixes potholes, builds parks and schools, enforces the laws, resolves disputes. Actually the list is endless.
Our's also provides health insurance and subsidies for the poor and elderly. Because before it did that the poor and elderly lived and died out on the streets and it turns out people didn't like that.
You want to shrink government but you don't have solutions for how to deal with the repercussions of cancelling programs you hate. That is why I say it's not a logical framework for a modern government.
Every government program, "entitlement" or not, is in a constant state of flux. Medicare and Social Security included. Each successive Congress and administration addresses perceived inequities or inefficiencies in their own way.
The reason they aren't cancelled is not because they are "entitlements". It's because the people who want to cancel it don't have solutions for how to deal with the repercussions of cancelling it.
Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance? I am very interested in what you have to say, that's why I am continuing this conversation.
I would encourage you to try to accept that I am not trying to play gotcha here. I am not trying to win anything. I ask questions because I am trying to explain to you why your arguments aren't convincing to me. In the hope that you will be able to make your point of view clearer to me.
I fail to see your point. Most Americans believe grass is green.
You make the argument that the American public is happy with their health insurance. So why change it?
I make the point that the American public is not always the best judge of what's going on. And so a poll that says they're happy with their health-care doesn't mean much when we're talking about the system collapsing in the near future.
To further expand on that. I'd say that public opinion is what economists would call a lagging indicator. So it wont be until after collapse of health insurance in this country that public opinion turns from "Gee, my health care is alright." to "Holy CRAP! WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE DO SOMETHING TO AVERT THIS CRISIS!"
Which I would think my examples of the economy in 2007 and the Iraq War would help elucidate.
The idea behind health reform is to avoid the crisis by addressing the major systemic problems before they lead to a collapse.
Now, let's get to this other thing. You read my post and thought, "He's saying I am contradicting myself". But that's not what I am saying. I tried to clarify before, but that didn't work.
My point is not that your concerns aren't valid. It's that you present a collection of grievances as though they were a cohesive argument.
I've been in the health-care industry for over 20 years now. It needs reform. Fix the broken parts of it. Don't tear it down and rebuild it. I can tell you virtually all my peers (not all) feel the same. My job has me working with many doctors and nurses -- and virtually all feel the same.
so here you make an interesting statement that would have been a good place to start a conversation. with a little elaboration you might make a cohesive argument.
That elaboration should proceed from this statement:
It needs reform. Fix the broken parts of it
And you should elaborate on:
- what are the broken parts?
- how will fixing them resolve the never-ending spiral of higher medical costs?
But please do not use Tort Reform as the lynch-pin of your arguments. Knowing what I know, I cannot accept Tort reform as a solution.
The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.
The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.
You could further elaborate to answer these questions:
-What do your fixes do to reduce government over-spending on health care?
-What do your fixes do to help small businesses who can no longer afford to provide health-care to their employees?
-What do your fixes do for individuals who do not get insurance through their employer? And those who have pre-existing conditions?
-What do your fixes do for the 30 million uninsured (and many times more under-insured) citizens of this country whose numbers are likely to increase as insurance premiums rise?
-And finally, why is it only now, when major health reform appears possible that these minor changes are being championed? Couldn't these small changes have been implemented any time in the last 20 years? Why weren't they?
I would suggest reading "Constitutional Journal"
You work in the medical profession, please do not presume to have a better understanding of
(just a quick aside, you don't really think the money collected from the telephone excise tax is going to fund an ongoing Spanish-American war, do you?)
I am not saying that the issues you raised are mutually exclusive. What I am saying is that as they stand they are just a collection nits, not a cohesive argument.
If it's broken, why are most Americans happy with their health care?
Most Americans think they are of above-average intelligence. Most Americans thought the Iraq war was a good idea. Most Americans thought the economy was going gangbusters before 2007.
Most Americans don't believe in evolution.
Most Americans don't pay for their health insurance directly (though they certainly pay for it in reduced salary).
What do workers in the health-care industry think? Cause what I hear from friends and family is a universal "The system is broken".
there is NO way a Democratic executive with his party having supramajority in the Senate and a huge majority in the lower house would have trouble passing such "reform"
We have a huge and complex health insurance system in this country with countless interested parties. We have an issue that has been building for 20 years.
We have 40% of the US Congress just adamantly refusing to do anything in the hopes that it will improve their chances in November. Which means that in order to pass a law the other 60% have to be unanimous.
Requiring a unanimous vote on an incredibly complex issue, it seems reasonable that it would have some difficulty no matter what the situation.
and secondly, supramajority?
first of all, your arguments lack cohesion.
- are you concerned about "liberty" or are you concerned about the budget?
- are you concerned about the budget or are you concerned about paying taxes?
- are you concerned about paying taxes or are you concerned that your tax money is going to fight wars from 100 years ago?
maybe you are legitimately worried about all these things, but you should work on developing a logical framework for government into which all these ideas fit. and no, "I don't like paying taxes" is not a logical framework in terms of how a modern government is run.
let me make this as simple as possible. forget all the little things, like whether the bill is budget neutral or covers abortions, that's just filler.
here's the deal: the health care system in this country is broken. to fix it, you can pay some extra taxes to the federal government for the rest of your life, or you can pay hefty fees to the insurance companies for the rest of your life.
that's the whole debate.
The same thing works with Google and YouTube. Compared to the whole cost of running Google, the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error, and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra' space and run on 'extra' bandwidth that isn't needed right now, but has been paid for already, so it's basally 'free'
The Credite Suise guys calculated that Youtube is pumping out 30 million megabits per second, and you think that's a rounding error for Google?
The point of the article isn't that Youtube's bandwidth needs are so negligible they may as well be free (far from it).
It's that because Google has its own fiber, it's able to barter with other ISPs in kind.
So Google doesn't have to lay out cash to pay for the bandwidth it uses to stream dorky white kids covering R&B songs and people throwing their wii-mote into their LCD-TV.
There's still an opportunity cost involved, since Google doesn't generate revenue on the bandwidth the other peers send through its lines, either.
a car metaphor that makes sense, it can be done!
plus you tossed in some irrelevant, but interesting, Judo information.
+1 in fake mod-points to you!
my point being that both analogies are wrong. which clouds the conversation with bad data and should not be rewarded.
google is not "taking the bus", google owns its own "bus lines"
nor is google "not riding in other people's cars",
google is explicitly "riding in other people's cars" and in exchange the other people get to "ride in google's car" when they need to.
greed, replied to your message below with an appropriate analogy.
More accurately, this is like saying "I don't own a car, so my petrol costs are zero"
how was this modded up? it's because he makes fun of the parent isn't it. but that metaphor doesn't work at all.
neither the parent do anything to illuminate the article, both seem to be confused.
and they're both modded +5 Insightful.
not everyone can be a fantastic teacher (in the same way that not everyone can be a concert pianist) no matter how well they are trained. and there aren't enough people with the temperament, focus, love, patience and understanding that make up a fantastic teacher to teach every child on every subject.
unless you're very wealthy (and probably even then) your children are going to have teachers that are not inspirational. and perhaps they're not even particularly well informed. or perhaps your child's teacher is truly inspirational, but it turns out that he or she is not inspirational in a way that works for your child. your child will spend day after day, hour after hour sitting through interminable lectures and stupid pointless presentations. they will get useless comments on their school work and they'll bring home ridiculous assignments. And just in case you think it's just in your imagination, your neighbor's lod will be assigned to a more capable teacher in the same subject.
well clearly, due to this terrible misfortune, your child will end up working at a gas station for the rest of his life.
it seems to me that many parents look on education as some sort of passive process (your kid goes to school for 12 years and comes out Enhanced With Knowledge® ). so when they see their child struggling in school they naturally think the school is broken. they want better teachers and better facilities to put the knowledge into their child! Well, it couldn't hurt. But real learning happens only when the student is actively involved in the process. Yes, excellent teachers know how to make subjects come alive for their students, but students need to be able to inspire themselves.
If it takes an army of miraculous teachers to get a person to graduate high school, that person is going to have serious issues when they confront a world full of people who aren't exerting every particle of effort into making them successful.
who are the best teachers?
the ones with the brightest students? but they have it easy, their students are interested in classes and want to learn.
so then the ones with the most problematic students? not necessarily, a terrible teacher would stand out less amongst low-performing students.
so, the ones with the most improved test scores (aka. no child left behind)? well, sorta. but excellent teachers who don't "teach to the test" will end up with poorer results than automatons that drill all day. do we really want to disincentivise imagination and creativity amongst our teachers?
so maybe test scores plus peer review? what are you a hippy? you can't have the teachers rating themselves.
right. test scores plus administrative review? sounds reasonable. but what about dysfunctional principles? and bias or personal grudges?
well no system is perfect.
not to mention how do you determine if a french teacher is better than an algebra teacher? or a gym teacher is better than a history teacher?
sure, you can come up with a system that takes into account all the variables, but will it be more efficient or less complicated than the methods currently being employed in public schools around the country?
of course! clearly an accused teacher is less good than one that hasn't been accused.
nothing is too good for our children!
how many add-ons were you running with Firefox?
how many are you running with Chromium?
A quintillion times higher than the LHC?
Might I suggest that we not use the word possible to mean "as likely as your car turning into a pig and flying away".
Thanks!