August 01, 2009
– Comments (9)
Pleasde take a lesson in healthcare.
And take a lesson in balls.
Join the 92 representatives who support Single Payer, HR 676, and get it right.
I disagree with Mr. Weiner's views on single-payer healthcare, but I wholeheartedly agree with him that repiblican lawmakers are wimpy, two-faced little chicken****s. (Pardon my implied French.)
A few thoughts about Mr. Weiner's arguments in favor of single-payer: is it competition if you are forced to pay for one of your options whether or not you use it? Is that really choice? I guess we already have school choice too: you pay for the public schools, and you get to choose whether to dump your kids there or pay for a decent private school.
Medicare's political success is no more a mystery than the political success of sugar tariffs or investment bank bailouts. If the benefits are concentrated enough to be appreciated, and the harm is spread thin enough not to be worth fighting about, those who benefit are politically active enough to keep the program, whether it be Medicare, sugar tariffs, or bank bailouts. Those who suffer do not notice the difference in their lives that those taxes and inflationary deficits make, at least not in each individual case. But the cumulative effect keeps pressing down on the working class, even as they fight to keep the very programs that bleed them dry.
How do you eliminate the influence of special interests in Washington? How do you prevent regulatory capture? Any real-life examples of how to accomplish that? I'll give you one: stop doing things that business has a special interest in. Stop having regulators for them to capture. Free workers, free investors, free markets, and end the fraud of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve. Free the people and end the tyranny of the banks and their captive Washington bureaucracy.
Great post Devo rec #5 from me
1st, why not have campaign finance and lobby reform?
I try to be open minded and respectful of constructive ideas but eliminating fractional reserve banking is far too extreme and it is in itself not evil. Maybe the actual fractions could be increased quite a bit. I have followed the arguments for this a fair amount and the whole argument seems off the wall, hugely disruptive, and a major economical drag. Plus, most of the examples I've read of banks who folow the 100% reserves rule are either hundreds of years old and/or were rare. With todays sophisticated means of both assessing borrower risk and in pursuing payment should there be default, banks can and do make far more informed decisions. These tools and mechanisms were either non existant or crude by comparison even a few hundred years ago. Credit reports, collateral protections like foreclosure etc. Plus, 50-100 years ago and further, you could hide and live pretty much the same. Now you would have to take extreme measures to run from debt. It's a different world now and in that way at least, IMHO, a better one.
Same with eliminating regulators. Are you rying to be Darethtoredux here? because I can only think you are being sarcastic, right? Because why not forget putting hens in houses then. Put'em out in the open. The foxes will regulate how many they kill and the chickens have more room to run,.right? Because foxes wouldn't be so foolish and shortsighted as to kill all the chickens just to gorge today, right? I guess they could ask for a fox targeted bailout of additional chickens maybe? (Tied-down Avians Relieves Predators..) Now that would be Fox newsworthy LOL
Or forget guards in prisons because they only open themselves up to bribes and corruption right? Eliminate the guards and let the prisoners police themselves. After a few thousand die they'll realize they have to get along and they'll stop shanking each other, right? For pete's sake when will unfettered market folks realize that corporations are not socially responsible entities anymore by and large. they have zero loyalty even to a country. They can and will run themselves and the country into the ground to be more competitive today and to boost this quarters performance. They are not as smart/adaptive as animal populations which tend to find an equilibrium. Survival of the fittest etc is not a good applicable model for economic and social theory. We need smart effective regulation just like we need traffic laws and prison guards; and for the same reason.
I honestly think that many who espouse these views think that people actions don't affect those around them even against their will. They say "there shouldn't be a speed limit because if I want to drive fast and I crash so what, I get killed or crash my car." But don't seem to addresst who or what else could be damaged, hurt or killed.They instead focus on the cost of stop lights, traffic signs, police writing tickets etc! The indignity and socialism of having their precious freedoms infringed on!. It frankly makes no sense to me at all. Damn I'm surrpised more folks don't go live on an island or with the Mennonites.
Same with regulation. Should we eliminate the FDA for instance? They are rife with inefficiencies and cozy relationships. The hard truth is there are no easy solutions. We just have to accept that having the greatest freedoms for all while maintaining reasonable protections is complicated, messy and imperfect. And requires constant tweaking and revision. Cars and planes crash but I don't think we can go back to horses and buggies anymore just for the tempation to make it simple. There is simply no compelling reason to revert to anarchy or the middle ages which is the logical progression for what some seem to basically be advocating.
These positions seem often to be coming from either a nostalgia for what is mistakenly viewed as a simpler more pure time, or are throwing the baby out with the bath. Just because a system has flaws does not mean it is evil or should be eliminated. It's like the gold standard argument. No one I've read (or can stand to read) who argues for this addresses the fact that times have simply changed. Had societies had the wherewithal, technology and cross governmental cooperation to handle our level of fractional lending, fiat money (that couldn't be easily counterfeited), and regulation the powers that be and the general public in those societies would I believe, have embraced them or even insisted on them. We do these things not because we've strayed from the right path or lost our way (or are too stupid to select the "right" alternative) but because we have evolved and can & do handle the complexity of administering the practices of the banking and the marketplace. And it achieves greater parity while freeing the market up. Checks and balances, gas and brakes.
Should we eliminate the FDA for instance?
YES! Hands down. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why can't my girlfriend buy anti-biotics without a perscription? Why does she have to pay for a doctor's appointment if she can simply pee on a stick and know with 100% certainty that she has a UTI?
What if I like trans-fat? What if I think it tastes good? Why can't I eat it? And I don't have health insurance and I don't take gov't aid so don't try to argue that if I get fat/sick that someone else is going to have to bear the cost.
P.S. I am aware you have said much more that is in great error, and if I am feeling like another good laugh latter I will return to respond some more.
Eliminating prison guards! HA! Like any libertarian would advocate such nonsense...but nice hyperbole to try and make us look stupid.
We might need less prison guards if we let out all the non-violent criminals locked up for victimless crimes. I might advocate that.
Why is the system broken? Why is it too expensive? Could Medicare and Social Security and Medicade be the reason?
This will NOT lower costs! Even the CBO says you are crazy if you think this will lower costs.
If you want to argue that we have a moral reason to provide healthcare for everyone fine, but at least be honest. This is going to cost a fortune, and we don't have it because we have already spent hundreds of fortunes on endless wars, welfare, and gov't healthcare.
Costs have only risen since the gov't got involved, and this bill won't change that.
Can I field this one Devoish?
You knucklehead. Ok I'll bite. Would you like to test your own drugs and food? Sure you could hire a food taster (or in your case, another one) but despite the resultant huge boom in the "Food Taster" industry (food digestors being too expensive for all but the wealthiest) therby boosting employment for the desperately unemployable would these vassals protect you when the untested penis enlargement cream you bought and used for 6 months that failed to double you to 4 inches also turned you blue permanently? Making your one-eyed, mushroom-shaped, purple-helmet, gristle-missile into a trouser-smurf? I think not. The FDA is your friend (Feeding Dare Autonomously)
Trans fats: are those the crossing dressing fats or fats that have actually had an operation? I can never remember. Either way if you actually like the taste, you need to find yourself some real food.
I would also free the victimless criminals. But I would want all their stashed marijuana in return. Fair is fair.
But seriously Medicaid and medicare costs have skyrocketed mostly from health insurance and drug company costs increasing. How else can the industry have a 30% margin for profit and marketing (including lobbyists and campaign contributons) Medicaid and medicare costs have otherwise gone down and with just a 3% overhead I might add. Let's see private industry match that.
How about his exceprt From Time 7/30/09
The best-constructed health-care bill, developed by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, would eliminate the health-care tax exclusion the unions want. "But we also offer a tax credit of $17,000 per year, which is more than most people are getting in health-care benefits now," he says. Wyden's bill addresses most of the other major health-care issues. It has 14 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate, it covers everyone and offers more choices, it reforms the health-insurance business, it alleviates the responsibility of employers, it has a robust cost-control mechanism, and it has been scored as revenue-neutral over 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office. "It's got everything," says Stabenow, one of the co-sponsors, "except interest groups to back it."
Also, yes, It's a moral imperative. I hate you for making me expose my tree hugger sensibilities you big meanie!
Best as always and thanks for the props on my hyperbole, from a master I might add
PS trans fats have been linked to UTI's in the sexually active by the FDA. Just kidding.
BTW who's gonna test the cream or antibiotic for your girlfriend's UTI to make sure it's safe? You? Your food taster? Where would it go? Wait, forget it. I don't want to know... Rest assured you wouldn't want the drugs companies or any private industry to be in charge of that.
Really? You think a company would release such products to the market? And say that they did...what do you think would happen? How long do you think they would last as a company? One person dies and the free market media reports the story, you going to continue to buy their product?
The FDA was created in 1906...i'm pretty sure they didn't put any food tasters out of business (certainly not mine). How did people ever trust a drug company to deliever a reliable product that wouldn't kill them prior to the FDA? How in the world did food even make it to people's mouths when they lived in such fear without the gov't to save them?
What Devoish supports: The United States National Health Insurance Act ("Expanded & Improved Medicare for ALL") and The Healthy Americans Act (HAA) are NOT the same bill. I see a little more common sense in Wyden's bill but still do not believe that it will lower costs. The Lewin Group says it will save 4.6 billion in the first year (enough to throw a few congressional parties!), and will save 1.48 Trillion over tens years. Ten year projects are historically flawed since they rarely look at the long term effects of these bills on other companies.
Even so, I would be more likely to support HAA because it would return a lot of money to the people in what is basically a Democrat type tax break by forcing companies to abandon the HMOs. It will never see the floor for that reason alone. The gov't wants to make the insurance companies and the drug companies MORE wealthy...after all, they have all the big lobbiest and make massive donations to campaigns.
Follow the money!
The insurance industry wants to use the Gov't to make insurers more wealthy.
HR676 will slam the door on them.
Private insurance has proven to be the most expensive model for paying for healthcare in the world, by double.
I would rather pay less and get more through Gov't than continue paying more and getting less through the private insurance model.
Free markets have never succeeded in delivering quality healthcare.