Random Rants/Health Care

[12AX7]

... democracy is hostile to liberty.

   That, I think, is the fatal flaw in the American model of country and culture. Which could be another thread entir- another sub-board, even.

[Demosthenes]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

-- Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler [unverified]

[xolik]

"Screw all y'alls!

-- Sir Xolik Wellington the Fifth [possibly drunk at the time]

[Clear_Runway]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

nothing is perfect. no government is sustainable, they tend to exist in cycles.

[ivan]

Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?

There is always a drive to reduce poverty. Poverty of some is not good for society as a whole.

As long as government is seen as a means of reducing poverty, there will be those in government who will have that as a goal.

As long as government is seen as a means of reducing poverty, there will be citizens demanding that government do so.

Right now, government is seen as a means of reducing poverty by a substantial number of citizens.

[ivan]

I agree. Poverty sucks, but no matter what it is going to exist. Try to eliminate it completely (I.E. pure socialism) and the entire population just sinks down into poverty.

And Ivan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that the best course of action is to basically go away from socialism in the long run by toying with it in the short run? Let me introduce you to my friend, the Temporary Toll. You know, the one that supposedly pays for the road initially, then goes away later? And then, you know, doesn't go away?

The same is true for government in general. Let government have one tiny little power, and it will beg for more. Government is a black hole of power. Taking the power back is nearly impossible. It is almost never accomplished by anything short of revolution. There is no way in the world to accomplish smaller government by making the government bigger.

I am proposing that we have already veered away from a laissez-faire socio-economic system and implemented a substantial amount of socialistic measures in the name of benefiting the citizenry. I am further proposing that any movement back towards smaller government is extremely difficult and not likely to happen, because for the benefits of laissez-faire to kick in, we'd have to take away things from citizens that they will not give up without a fight. If anyone has a plan for dismantling Medicare, Social Security, the public school system, public roads and transportation, food stamps, unemployment insurance, labor unions, minimum wage, and so on and so on and so on without incurring a bloody socialist revolution, I'm listening.

The US was on the brink of just such a socialist revolution about 100 years ago. The institutionalization of labor unions and labor laws staved it off, so instead of revolution what we had was socialistic creep.

Don't hold me to proportions, I'm just illustrating a point (yes, I read ahead  ):

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Pure Capitalism....................................................................We are here^.................Pure Socialism

What I am proposing is that there is no turning back. There is only going futher towards socialism.

When we do that, one of two things will happen. Either we will make socialism work well enough for it to be a stable system in the long run, or, like the Soviet Union, and for much the same reasons, our economy will collapse. And then we can start over again.

My overall, overarching, meta-argument at the root of all this is that no socio-economic system can thrive with the presence of an underclass, and, so far in human history, the only method that has been demonstrated to work in dealing with an underclass is socialism. Capitalism has failed in that regard everywhere in the world, and has repeatedly embrased socialistic elements in order to deal with poverty.

Perhaps US Capitalism failed precisely because it was thrwarted by the adoption of crippling or polluting socialistic measures. In that case, someone ought to go start a country based on solid libertarian principles and see if it can be grown to a first-world economy.

[ivan]

    For the life of me I cant understand why that isn't self-evident to people.

   ivan, there are more than those three choices. You yourself mentioned hybrids and that "I do think is that rational people can come up with a workable compromise."  Tort reform and open every state to every insurance company; let them market health plans (that's what they "DO") is another option.

The options I listed were in regard to dealing with an underclass. These are people who do not contribute to the economy -- the unemployed and the unemployable. Tort reform won't help them buy insurance, because they can't buy anything unless we give them money.

So, again, the options are: (a) ignore the problems and let them fester; (b) dismantle socialism in this country so that the benefits of a free market can have their effect; or (c) use tax money.

Right now, we are choosing (c) for some problems, like health insurance for the elderly, and (a) for others problems, like health insurance for the unemployed.

By "workable compromise" I mean effective, efficient use of tax money where needed.

You can argue that the unemployed don't need health insurance. But if we decide that they do need it, there is only one place it will come from: us.

    It has also been pointed out that the federal government cannot "force" you to "purchase" anything. That is entirely unconstitutional. If one cannot opt OUT of paying the impending tax; that is the net effect.

State governments already do. In Cali, we can't drive a car unless we purchase insurance. It's the law. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

[ivan]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but when I'm able, I contribute to a number of charities. 

Funny thing is, that's voluntary... and yet I do it anyway.  I've heard that at least a few others do too.  Imagine how much more folks could give if they didn't give up 1/3 to 1/2 of their income to local, state and federal government to disappear down the Black Hole of Bureaucracy?

I know I'd be giving more.  There's a number of charities out there that are designed to provide health care to those who cannot afford access on their own.

Yes, that is one way that a free economy contributes to the reduction of human suffering. It is a Libertarian credo: most of us already give when we can, and would give more if we had more to give. And why is that? Because most humans who have their basic needs met are capable of compassion, and do not gladly tolerate the suffering of others. This is how a free economy and a free society works in concert with human nature to elevate society as a whole, through the free actions of individuals. I believe this could work. I also believe I'll never have a chance to see it demonstrated in this country.

So, now we have our choices again: do nothing to mitigate suffering; remake our society; or use tax dollars.

It's Hobson's choice -- and I'm using that term correctly, for the choice has already been made for us.

Americans will not, in the long run, tolerate suffering in our midst. We never have, and never will. We fought a bloody civil war on that account. We've instituted measure after measure to reduce the suffering of children, the elderly, the working and the poor. We will continue to do so as long as we exist as a nation. It is etched into our Christian roots, our Western worldviews. We imbibe compassion and mercy with our mothers' milk. We're just that way.

So, in this particular instance, given that eventually we are going to have some kind of univeral coverage, and given that we're all going to pay for it to some extent, rather than resist the inevitable it may behoove the citizenry to pressure legislators to hammer out the best plan possible.

Which is pretty much the net effect of your arguments below.

Not to mention, there's a big numbers problem here that occurred to me yesterday.

(this is an unscientific representation, so don't try pinning proportion to me here, I'm just illustrating a point).

Population increase in the US has more or less flattened out since the 1960s.  It's still rising, but the big boom has been done for a long time, particularly since after the 60s, people just weren't having as many children, a trend that continues.


Baby Boomers and elderly in the US: (many of whom already qualify for Medicare)

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|


Everyone Else:

|----------------------------------------------------------------|


When you consider that Medicare -- a system which we already have in place to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it -- is already handling (or will already be handling) the bulk of those who can't pay for their own medical costs... why the headlong, breakneck RUSH to scramble some cobbled-together 1000-page boondoggle to handle the smaller demographic?

I simply refuse to see this as anything other than a scare tactic used to push a power grab.  Same as anything else government rushes through with this kind of frenzy of urgency.

Anything this ill-conceived and this "urgent" CAN'T be good.  It doesn't make sense by the numbers.

Of course, with all the baby boomers going on Medicare and Social Security at roughly the same time, and with the staggering numbers of unemployed already in this country (and that's only going to get worse in coming years), I suppose instead of 18% of Americans under 65 being uninsured, we'll probably be looking at government-induced crushing poverty to pay for Medicare and Social Security... so that 18% will most likely look more like 80% of the under 65 crowd being uninsured by 2025.

So we institute a public option to fill in that 18% gap we have now, incur an unfunded couple of TRILLION dollars to pay for it (that's an unfunded couple of trillion dollars every few years, mind you), and bring about that crushing poverty a few years early?

You're right, we need a better plan.

[Wunderkind]

I'm sure this has surfaced already in some text that I missed whilst reading all of that (damn you guys post like you're politicians or something), but I would like to return to the barter and trade system. In exchange for healthcare I will give you a bushel of fresh tomatoes and a supremely healthy milking goat. Screw this money thing, it's too annoying.

[h4wt_b3t4]

I don't have a goat or tomatoes, but I *can* offer some pirated mp3s, a few DVDs, and three dozen eggs.

[12AX7]

I'm sure this has surfaced already in some text that I missed whilst reading ...

 but I would like to return to the barter and trade system. In exchange for healthcare I will give you a bushel of fresh tomatoes and a supremely healthy milking goat. Screw this money thing, it's too annoying.

   http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,6837.0.html

[12AX7]

State governments already do. In Cali, we can't drive a car unless we purchase insurance. It's the law. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

 
  Yes, state governments I'm not sure about as far as 'constitutionality'; but the fed has played this same end-run around the Constitution in other matters as well; calling it the "commerce clause". There is a convoluted explanation of how they are using / interpreting this to do what they want regardless of constitutionality. Drug and guns laws are the first thing that comes to mind. How can the federal government dictate what you put into your body? They can't; plain and simple. But they say they CAN regulate "interstate commerce"; then they say since 'illegal' drugs are bought, sold, and transported over state lines, they are clear to "regulate" it. Same with firearms. They can't tell you how many you can have, what type of arms you can have, or nearly anything else without using this methodology. If you aren't already familiar, read up on Anslinger. The only way the fed could make drugs and/or machine guns (they were both taken care of in one fell swoop with this) was to impose a tax under the commerce clause; which a citizen had to pay to purchase a stamp that allowed them to have such items. Then, the federal government didn't make any stamps, and never sold any. Thus, drugs and machine guns are viewed as "illegal" now.
   That is an underhanded, bullshit way of passing laws; and simply because it's been done before (ship has sailed) doesn't validate it, or make it ok to do it again.
  And no, tort reform in itself wouldnt purchase insurance for the poor; but it certainly would help drive insurance costs down overall; this, plus with every health insurance company peddling custom-tailored plans in every state. With the average premium lowered, there wouldnt be nearly as many uninsured. Of course, that wouldn't happen overnight; but neither will the proposed plans. With a much smaller graphic of uninsured (a lot of which will be people who will *NEVER* buy insurance no matter what the cost) I think the problem could be dealt with in a more palatable way than the current proposals.

 

[pbsaurus]

...State governments already do. In Cali, we can't drive a car unless we purchase insurance. It's the law. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

Actually there is an opt-out, if you're willing to post a bond for the minimum insured amount, so the rich can opt-out but the impoverished nor even a majority of the employed can't

[Clear_Runway]

without the commerce clause washington would just ignore the constitution in those areas, like they always do.

[Joe Sixpack]

I'm sure this has surfaced already in some text that I missed whilst reading all of that (damn you guys post like you're politicians or something), but I would like to return to the barter and trade system. In exchange for healthcare I will give you a bushel of fresh tomatoes and a supremely healthy milking goat. Screw this money thing, it's too annoying.

All that's stopping you is having to find a doctor who wants your tomatoes and goats. But you're still the sucker, because you have your pills but you doctor now has your milk goat. What you should really try to trade are your milk and tomatoes for a goat that squirts health care.

[ivan]

a goat that squirts health care.

That was in the original plan before the naysayers screwed it up.

[12AX7]

  Udderly unpossible.

[h4wt_b3t4]

  Udderly unpossible.

Argh, seriously? So I gave up a bunch of freaking tomatoes for this useless thing?

[12AX7]

  Tomatoes come in bunches?

[pbsaurus]

Ever hear of grape tomatoes?

[12AX7]

 Nope. I thought they only came in 'regular', cherry, and toe.

[h4wt_b3t4]

For the record, by 'bunch' I meant 'a lot'

[pbsaurus]

Pear and plum too.

[ivan]

Tomatoes come in lots?

[xolik]

Tomatoes come in lots?

Usually when I'm doing my stand up act, yeah.