At last the 'REAL DEBATE' begins in earnest!

[PLC1]

Oh, now I understand where you're coming from... you think the constitution is an outdated, antiquated document and applaud the fact that its completely ignored by government.

I acknowledge the fact that it isn't being strictly interpreted by anyone any more. The "promote the general welfare" clause is used to justify practically anything that the government wants to do, including providing a "public option."

I did know we were number one, that wasn't at issue, it was your numbers. Here's what you originally said:



According to the source you cited, you got some numbers wrong. The US is 15.5%, not 17%, it supports your claim of Canada at 10% but France is listed as being 11%, not 7%.

OK, my numbers stand corrected. My point is still valid, regardless. The US pays more than any nation that has "socialized" medicine.

If a Rolls Royce is so good, why doesn't everyone drive one?

Obviously, because of cost. People go to other nations for health care not because the cost is higher, but because it is a lot lower. Your question could be, if a Hundai is so inexpensive, why doesn't everyone drive one? There are a variety of answers to that one.

I never cited a single radio pundit but you did cite WHO. Leave the strawmen and stereotypes to the Radical Leftists.

Who else is saying that the US has the best medical system? You don't want to believe WHO, so who do you believe?

There is a wedge (insurance and government) between the consumer and the provider. The larger the wedge, the greater the gap gets between what we pay out of pocket and what the third party pays... in short, costs rise in direct proportion to the lowering of out of pocket expenses. As those costs rise, people push to make the wedge larger. Problem is, the wedge is the problem causing the rise.

OK, now that makes sense. If we want to bring costs down, then the way to do it is for the consumer to pay a greater share. That is an argument in favor of a catastrophic care package, whether it is provided by government or by the industry.

Personally, I'd like to see just such a package as a public option. the consumer would pay out of pocket until the costs reached a certain threshold, then the government subsidized care would step in. Such a system could bring down costs without anyone being bankrupted by medical expenses.

You missed the point of the analogy. Lets say there is food insurance. You
(the consumer) pay a monthly bill of $50 to an insurance company (the third party) and you get an insurance card with which you can use to purchase food your grocer (the provider). Suddenly, your options at the supermarket are unlimited, lobster, steak and caviar every night... what the hell, its only $50 a month, live it up!

Pretty soon, the grocers supplier has a shortage of steak, lobster and caviar, so the cost of those products rise in an effort to lessen demand (supply/demand curve). Because you're insulated (by a third party) from the rise in costs, demand remains high despite the higher costs.

Next thing you know, your insurance company is not bringing in enough money to cover your expenses, so they have to raise rates to $100 a month to stay in business. Well you won't stand for any of that, greedy bastards, so you get government involved and the problem gets exponentially worse from there....

Because costs are rising too fast and so many people can no longer afford the costs, government passes a law that requires all grocers to give food away to those who can't afford to pay and don't have insurance. Those losses are then absorbed by the grocer or shifted onto the government and the taxpayer picks up the bill. Well now the demand for steak, lobster and caviar is astronomical, so once again, the price goes up in a vein attempt to try and lessen demand.

Once again, your insurance company has to raise your monthly premium to $150 a month, greedy bastards, and you're not pleased with the costs rising out of control.

Now the insurance company, the grocer and you are all frothing at the mouth demanding government "do something" to bring costs under control.

Enter the Public Option.

Government creates a public option and sets their rates at $50 a month (and subsidize the rest on the backs of taxpayers), downright reasonable to you, and they pay the grocer his money so he can pay his supplier so everyone's happy... except the insurance provider who is now going out of business because he cannot shift his overages onto the taxpayer.

Well, government can't print money forever, so your taxes go up by $100 a month and you're fine with that because you want government to be fiscally responsible and its better than you giving $150 a month to those greedy bastards at the insurance company.

Another problem hits... The tax hikes aren't enough to cover the still surging costs and the overruns are now being pushed onto the federal debt. Because there has been no reduction of demand and the supply is dwindling, costs still continue to rise. So here comes rationing.

Before long, those greedy insurance companies are out of business, you're paying an extra $200 a month in taxes on top of the $50 a month premium you pay for the Public Option but you can only purchase crackers and bacon bits with your coverage.

Bottom line, when the free markets are not allowed to function according to the supply and demand curve - because there is a wedge separating the consumer from the provider - the result is exponential growth of costs on one end and an equally exponential diminishing of supply on the other.

OK, so the reason that medical care is so expensive, or at least one reason it has become so expensive, is that the consumer isn't paying for his/her own costs. That principle operates regardless of whether the payor is government or an insurance company.

What do you think is the best way to bring free market principles into play? Are you in favor of doing away with employer provided insurance entirely? Should we do away with Medicare? What would replace those programs?

I can see where you are coming from in an ideological sense, and you make good points. From a practical standpoint, however, how would the principle of applying market principles to health care work?

No one seem willing to just let people who can't pay die, so the public winds up paying the bills in one way or another anyway.

Once there is a public option, everyone has to pay into it whether they use it or not, so those not in the public option will be subsidizing the costs through higher taxes and will still have to pay for their own insurance as well.

There already is a public option. We call it Medicare/Medicaid. Only certain people are eligible for it, yet everyone supports it. Would you end those programs?

Or would it be more fair if everyone could participate in them, since everyone is paying for them?

Without Medicare, seniors would have no health insurance at all. No one but nobody would be willing to extend coverage to the most expensive demographic. Seniors would continue to work in order to keep insurance until they were physically unable to do so, and then what?

Government runs on taxes, they know who butters their bread.

Government runs on campaign contributions and on votes. They know who butters their bread.

The voice of the people doesn't matter to Washington politicians, they think they know what's best for you and they are pushing for the "greater good" of society. If that means you have to go with less, then that's a sacrifice you are expected to make as your obligation to the collective.

The voice of the people doesn't matter because money talks a lot louder than voices.

Medicare part A alone has 34.6 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. Medicare and Social Security together have 106.4 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

That is because the money collected for Medicare and SS has been spent on other things. Now, it's time to start paying back those "loans" from programs that have been supported by payroll taxes for decades.

The welfare state is doomed to collapse and you cannot point to anything that suggests the trend will reverse itself.

You think there should be a revolt in America if we don't get Universal Healthcare... Wait till the bills for the welfare state start rolling in and then we will have a revolt on our hands.


I think you've arrived at the correct conclusion despite your premise being wrong on the source of rising costs.

I think you're right about the welfare state, but the fact is that the only entity that has the power to bring health care costs under control is the government. Of course, as I said, they probably won't do so, and any debates we have on the subject are simply academic. What will happen is that the costs will continue to escalate, the government will still be paralized by partisanship, and nothing that won't help the lobbyists or the party in power will actually be passed.

Still, it would seem we could do as well as the other nations of the world in providing health care at a more reasonable cost. Maybe when it gets to the point that only an elite few can afford health care, when we have to fly off to Timbuctu to get that life saving operation, then we will demand that something be done about it.

 

[arisajr]

Polls show 50% of the people do not think it is the govt's responsibility to provide health care.

What was the exact question of the poll? Cause according to some polls a lot of Americans are in support of the healthcare reform. It is possible that your poll is referring to a certain part of healthcare. It seems odd that so many Americans don't think the government should provide healthcare. People want the government to provide them with services and I think that healthcare is one of those services.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, my numbers stand corrected. My point is still valid, regardless. The US pays more than any nation that has "socialized" medicine.

Really? How much does France pay out of tax dollars to give free tuition to medical students? I bet that little slight of hand reduces the fees that doctors must charge.

How much does it costs individual Canadiens in lost labor or life satisfaction when they are waiting on average 17.8 weeks to see a doctor? How much does it costs canadiens when they have a greater shortage of doctors than we do? How much does it costs them when 10% of their doctors move to the US? Did they train those doctors at taxpayer expense like they do in France? How much does it cost Canadians when the average age of a hospital in Ontario is 40 years compared to he average age in the states of 9 years?

Cost comparisons of the sort you have listed mean little when we consider that the average cost per GDP of an Ethiopian is even less than a Canadian but no one is suggesting that they have it better in Ethiopia. Quiality counts for a lot.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=4526

 

[Dr.Who]

What was the exact question of the poll? Cause according to some polls a lot of Americans are in support of the healthcare reform. It is possible that your poll is referring to a certain part of healthcare. It seems odd that so many Americans don't think the government should provide healthcare. People want the government to provide them with services and I think that healthcare is one of those services.

Rasmussen - 38% like Obamas plan
56% dont want such a plan
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

 

[PLC1]

Really? How much does France pay out of tax dollars to give free tuition to medical students? I bet that little slight of hand reduces the fees that doctors must charge.

How much does it costs individual Canadiens in lost labor or life satisfaction when they are waiting on average 17.8 weeks to see a doctor? How much does it costs canadiens when they have a greater shortage of doctors than we do? How much does it costs them when 10% of their doctors move to the US? Did they train those doctors at taxpayer expense like they do in France? How much does it cost Canadians when the average age of a hospital in Ontario is 40 years compared to he average age in the states of 9 years?

Cost comparisons of the sort you have listed mean little when we consider that the average cost per GDP of an Ethiopian is even less than a Canadian but no one is suggesting that they have it better in Ethiopia. Quiality counts for a lot.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=4526

I'm not sure, just how much does France spend on medical school tuition? As a percentage of GDP, would it bring their expenditures up to the level of those in the US? It's hard to imagine, but I suppose that is a good argument, if we had reliable figures.

If the quality of care in the US is so much superior, why is it that our life expectancy is lower, but our infant mortality is higher? Why is it that Canadians don't seem to be interested in a US type of medical care? Why is it that France doesn't jump on the bandwagon and institute a health care system like ours?

Let' take a little poll in Europe, Canada, and Australia. Ask people, "if you could, would you trade your system of "socialized" medicine for a US type of care based on employer paid health insurance?

Let's see what the numbers tell us. Perhaps we do have a superior system. It's for sure that we have a costlier one.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm not sure, just how much does France spend on medical school tuition? As a percentage of GDP, would it bring their expenditures up to the level of those in the US? It's hard to imagine, but I suppose that is a good argument, if we had reliable figures.

Those things are called a hidden tax just because they are hard to find.

What we should do is add the total tax burden of France plus the total medical burden and compare that to the total burdens of the US.

If the quality of care in the US is so much superior, why is it that our life expectancy is lower, but our infant mortality is higher?

Because we eat like pigs, abuse our bodies, and kill each other.

But when we treat medical conditions (like cancer) we have far higher survival rates than France or Canada.

Why is it that Canadians don't seem to be interested in a US type of medical care? Why is it that France doesn't jump on the bandwagon and institute a health care system like ours?

France and Canada are both moving in our direction as we move in theirs. Someone is going the wrong way. But they have the advantage of having experienced both systems.

Let' take a little poll in Europe, Canada, and Australia. Ask people, "if you could, would you trade your system of "socialized" medicine for a US type of care based on employer paid health insurance?

Polls show that no one wants to trade what they know for what they don't know. The unknown is fearful.

Let's see what the numbers tell us. Perhaps we do have a superior system. It's for sure that we have a costlier one.

It is both best and costlier (maybe). But quality does cost. Meanwhile the costs of our system and theirs are both increasing exponentially. What is true today may not be true tomorrow. Their costs may rise faster than ours. At least we have market forces to some degree to be a counterforce.

 

[GenSeneca]

I acknowledge the fact that it isn't being strictly interpreted by anyone any more. The "promote the general welfare" clause is used to justify practically anything that the government wants to do, including providing a "public option."

I see... so the constitution is only to be strictly applied to terror suspects, caught overseas, not wearing uniforms, killing our troops or plotting to kill American civilians, but it should not be strictly applied to US politicians or our government....

Now I get it... If I want the American government to respect my constitutional rights, I have to renounce my US citizenship, move to another country, then take up arms against America. Its so simple!

OK, my numbers stand corrected. My point is still valid, regardless. The US pays more than any nation that has "socialized" medicine.

As the good Doctor pointed out, there are hidden costs. For instance, Medicare is 34 trillion in the hole... Imagine our % of GDP if that were factored in!!! ...and we haven't yet gone to universal care!!!

The US debt is reported at 12 trillion, but we actually have outstanding debt obligations of more than 140 trillion. Now considering that the US is far more open a society where matters of the state are concerned than most, and our public still doesn't have a clue as to our actual debt obligations, there is no possible way we can get all the information necessary to properly compare the US and France in medical expenditures.

Now a quick note on Canada... There are about 200 MRI machines in Canada while there are roughly 9,500,000 here in the US.... and that's just MRI machines. They cost money, a lot of money, and those expenses get added to our healthcare spending numbers. The US also performs more than three times as many MRI exams as Canada, 83.2 MRI exams per 1,000 population vs. Canada's 25.5 MRI exams per 1,000 population. Exams cost money.

Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information

Who else is saying that the US has the best medical system?

You must have been listening to "Rant Radio" when reading my replies because nowhere in this thread have I asserted that "the US has the best medical system". Nor would I... I too want reforms, massive reforms, Capitalist reforms, the kind that actually lower costs rather than simply hiding massive new debts in government programs outside public scrutiny.

You don't want to believe WHO, so who do you believe?

Who do I believe? Me. You are the one who's always saying, "Well, that's just your opinion", as a way of discounting whatever conclusion I have arrived at that you don't agree with... Well it's just WHO's opinion that the US is 37th in the world and knowing that they have an ideological bias towards countries with collectivized medicine, I don't value their opinion.

I made that poster using an actual photo from a Cuban hospital. Cuba ranks 39th, just two rankings below where they placed the US, and they got that high on the list because they get extra points for having a heavily socialized system.

OK, now that makes sense. If we want to bring costs down, then the way to do it is for the consumer to pay a greater share. That is an argument in favor of a catastrophic care package, whether it is provided by government or by the industry.

Government eliminated the Catastrophic Care option from private insurers through "regulations" which forced all policies to cover much more than the original C.C. Ins. previously covered.

Personally, I'd like to see just such a package as a public option. the consumer would pay out of pocket until the costs reached a certain threshold, then the government subsidized care would step in. Such a system could bring down costs without anyone being bankrupted by medical expenses.

Such a plan would drastically reduce the costs of lesser procedures but those over the cost threshold, where the wedge kicks in, would still face the problem of costs rising out of control.

OK, so the reason that medical care is so expensive, or at least one reason it has become so expensive, is that the consumer isn't paying for his/her own costs. That principle operates regardless of whether the payor is government or an insurance company.

Quite correct, it holds true for both. The difference is, government is a "one size fits all" plan while private insurance can customize coverage to the needs and financial situation of the consumer. That flexibility helps the consumer while not completely shielding them from the effects of supply and demand.

What do you think is the best way to bring free market principles into play?

Radical Right Wing Extremist Reforms:

1. Tort Reform
2. Eliminate the ban on insurance companies competing across state lines
3. Eliminate key regulations (to allow things like Catastrophic Care plans)
4. Eliminate the federal legislation that rewards Universities for limiting enrollment in their medical schools and programs
5. Eliminate the cap on immigration for health care professionals and those in the Healthcare industry

Those would be a good start.

Are you in favor of doing away with employer provided insurance entirely?

No.

Should we do away with Medicare?

Yes. On the federal level anyway. The federal government should also be barred from bailing out any states that go bankrupt.

What would replace those programs?

States could choose whether or not to implement any welfare state programs they like, its their constitutional right to do so, but when they fail, the federal government wouldn't be there to bail them out with money from states who didn't bankrupt themselves with welfare programs.

I can see where you are coming from in an ideological sense, and you make good points. From a practical standpoint, however, how would the principle of applying market principles to health care work?

I think I've answered that. There is nothing "practical" about the welfare state, every program is bankrupt. Pretending like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and Welfare are "practical" because people need, and rely on, the assistance they provide doesn't doesn't change the fact that they are bankrupt, which is the opposite of practical.

No one seem willing to just let people who can't pay die

There is no law stopping them from digging deep into their own pockets and providing insurance to someone who needs it. The same altruists/collectivists who claim its a "moral obligation" to provide the needy with care are only willing to do so as long as everybody is forced to do it, they don't feel enough of a "moral obligation" to do so as individuals and by their own choice.

so the public winds up paying the bills in one way or another anyway.

We talked about this line of reasoning before. You accept without challenge that we are, and want to be, a collectivist society... so we may as well go all out and make it official.

The fact that we are forced to pay for it one way or the other is the problem and that's what needs to be changed.

Or would it be more fair if everyone could participate in them, since everyone is paying for them?

I don't think its "fair" that every is forced to pay and I don't accept the premise that we have to be a collectivist society.

Without Medicare, seniors would have no health insurance at all.

Perhaps if their children weren't paying so much in taxes to support the welfare state, much of which is wasted on bureaucracy and fraud, they could afford to purchase coverage for their elderly parents.

Government runs on campaign contributions and on votes. They know who butters their bread.

The NYT's had an article today talking about how universal coverage would pit the younger generations against the older generations as they both competed for a limited amount of healthcare dollars from the government. I can't find the article or I'd post it, but its the kind of thing you need to read and contemplate. Resources are always finite but need is always infinite.

That is because the money collected for Medicare and SS has been spent on other things. Now, it's time to start paying back those "loans" from programs that have been supported by payroll taxes for decades.

Sure, we'll just dip into our massive federal surplus... oh wait, record deficits and debt. Yeah, that money is gone and the debt obligations are more than current, and coming, generations can pay to make good on the promises made to seniors.

I think you're right about the welfare state, but the fact is that the only entity that has the power to bring health care costs under control is the government.

Government created many of the problems by getting involved, it needs to reverse the damage by undoing much of what its done and then get out of the way.

Still, it would seem we could do as well as the other nations of the world in providing health care at a more reasonable cost.

First, you don't have any idea the extent of their debt as a result of healthcare spending. Second, we would be much better off if the invisible hand of the market had more control over healthcare than the bumbling hand of the government.

 

[PLC1]

(deleted because the post was too long. See above)

I didn't say that the Constitution shouldn't be applied strictly. I said it hasn't been applied strictly in many years.


If we're going to apply the constitution strictly, then let's apply it to everything, and cut back the federal government by about 90% If we did that, then there would be plenty left over for health care and a whole lot more.

The fact is, no one is going to cut the federal government back to only what is specifically allowed in the Constitution.

As the good Doctor pointed out, there are hidden costs. For instance, Medicare is 34 trillion in the hole... Imagine our % of GDP if that were factored in!!! ...and we haven't yet gone to universal care!!!

You seem to be assuming that the unfunded liability would be even worse with universal care. Given our current runaway costs, I'm not so sure that is the case.

The US debt is reported at 12 trillion, ... edited so the post would be under 1,000 words)

If France has a huge unfunded liability as well, and if it is a lot larger than ours, then you have a good point. Does France, in fact, have a huge unfunded liability? We do.

Now a quick note on Canada... There are about 200 MRI machines in Canada while there are roughly 9,500,000 here in the US.... and that's just MRI machines. They cost money, a lot of money, and those expenses get added to our healthcare spending numbers. The US also performs more than three times as many MRI exams as Canada, 83.2 MRI exams per 1,000 population vs. Canada's 25.5 MRI exams per 1,000 population. Exams cost money.

Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information

So, we have nearly 10 million MRI machines for nearly 300 million people, or almost one for every 30 people? No wonder our health care costs so much if those figures are accurate. Don't MRIs cost a couple of million each, at least?

(shortened to make the post 1,000 characters. See above).

On the need for massive reforms, we agree.

Who do I believe? Me. You are the one who's always saying, "Well, that's just your opinion", as a way of discounting whatever conclusion I have arrived at that you don't agree with... Well it's just WHO's opinion that the US is 37th in the world and knowing that they have an ideological bias towards countries with collectivized medicine, I don't value their opinion.

I believe me, too.

Such a plan would drastically reduce the costs of lesser procedures but those over the cost threshold, where the wedge kicks in, would still face the problem of costs rising out of control.

The fact remains that the individual can't pay for catastrophic care out of pocket, not unless he is very wealthy. Either the insurance company, or the government will have to pay at least the majority of the costs. Either way, the consumer is not paying. How can market forces be used to bring such costs down?

Quite correct, it holds true for both. The difference is, government is a "one size fits all" plan while private insurance can customize coverage to the needs and financial situation of the consumer. That flexibility helps the consumer while not completely shielding them from the effects of supply and demand.

Private insurance that is affordable is not individual, but group. If an individual has to buy a policy without being a part of a group, then it is unlikely that it is going to be adequate regardless of how "customized" it might be. The reality is that only group insurance can negotiate prices or cover "pre existing conditions".

Radical Right Wing Extremist Reforms:

1. Tort Reform
2. Eliminate the ban on insurance companies competing across state lines
3. Eliminate key regulations (to allow things like Catastrophic Care plans)
4. Eliminate the federal legislation that rewards Universities for limiting enrollment in their medical schools and programs
5. Eliminate the cap on immigration for health care professionals and those in the Healthcare industry

Those would be a good start.

Yes, that would be a good start. There is nothing particularly radical about any of the above. It would only be a start, however.

No.

How are market forces going to work when the employee isn't paying for his own care, not selecting the insurance carrier?

Yes. On the federal level anyway. The federal government should also be barred from bailing out any states that go bankrupt.

You must be very young if the reality of depending on Medicare hasn't hit yet. Of course, if the states took over Medicare, the seniors in that state could still have medical care. I'm not sure they would ever be able to leave their state of origin, however, and if they lived in a state that didn't have Medicare, they would have no real access to health care at all.

States could choose whether or not to implement any welfare state programs they like, ..shortened to make the post fit)

Medicare is not a welfare program.

I think I've answered that. There is nothing "practical" about the welfare state, every program is bankrupt. Pretending like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and Welfare are "practical" because people need, and rely on, the assistance they provide doesn't doesn't change the fact that they are bankrupt, which is the opposite of practical.

Medicare and social Security are not welfare programs. They are paid for by their users. Medicaid is the only one of the above that is a welfare program.

There is no law stopping them from digging deep into their own pockets and providing insurance to someone who needs it. The same altruists/collectivists who claim its a "moral obligation" to provide the needy with care are only willing to do so as long as everybody is forced to do it, they don't feel enough of a "moral obligation" to do so as individuals and by their own choice.

OK, I stand corrected. You are willing to just let people who can't afford health care die.

If the costs keep soaring, there will be more and more in that category.

We talked about this line of reasoning before. You accept without challenge that we are, and want to be, a collectivist society... so we may as well go all out and make it official.

Whether we want to be or not, the fact is that we all pay for the uninsured in one way or another. Of course, if we are ready to deny care to anyone who can't pay, then we don't have to be a "collectivist" society.

Is allowing hospitals to turn away people who can't pay one of the reforms you support? That one would be radical, whether it would be considered "right wing" or not.

The fact that we are forced to pay for it one way or the other is the problem and that's what needs to be changed.

Oh, then the answer is yes.

Perhaps if their children weren't paying so much in taxes to support the welfare state, much of which is wasted on bureaucracy and fraud, they could afford to purchase coverage for their elderly parents.

It is not a matter of being willing or being able to purchase coverage for seniors. No one would willing to sell coverage to seniors without Medicare, as doing so would not help the bottom line.

Talk about death panels!

The NYT's had an article today talking about how universal coverage would pit the younger generations against the older generations as they both competed for a limited amount of healthcare dollars from the government. I can't find the article or I'd post it, but its the kind of thing you need to read and contemplate. Resources are always finite but need is always infinite.

As long as hospitals only have to treat paying customers, there will be plenty of health care to go around, so no competition will be necessary.

Sure, we'll just dip into our massive federal surplus... oh wait, record deficits and debt. Yeah, that money is gone and the debt obligations are more than current, and coming, generations can pay to make good on the promises made to seniors.

Yes, and pay for wars fought on credit.

You do have a point. Deficit spending has to come to a halt, and the feds have to start paying back that debt, including the money that has been taken from Social Security and Medicare. It will be painful, require cuts and probably tax increases as well, but it will have to be done, and soon.

Government created many of the problems by getting involved, it needs to reverse the damage by undoing much of what its done and then get out of the way.

do you mean the way it helped out the mortgage lenders by not regulating their industry? Now, there's a good idea.

First, you don't have any idea the extent of their debt as a result of healthcare spending. Second, we would be much better off if the invisible hand of the market had more control over healthcare than the bumbling hand of the government.

No, I don't, but then neither do you. Are the nations that have so called "socialized medicine" programs in worse financial difficulties than our own government is? If not, the how can we attribute their financial woes to their health care system?

 

[GenSeneca]

I didn't say that the Constitution shouldn't be applied strictly. I said it hasn't been applied strictly in many years.

My point remains, you don't seem the least bit bothered by that fact.

If we're going to apply the constitution strictly...

Then universal healthcare would not be an option.

The fact is, no one is going to cut the federal government back to only what is specifically allowed in the Constitution.

Again, you seem to have thrown your arms in the air and decided that government has no limit on their power.

You seem to be assuming that the unfunded liability would be even worse with universal care.

My assumption that our liabilities will be greater are based on governments abysmal record with operating such programs. Your assumption is that they will decrease, precisely which government programs can you cite that have been financially successful?

Don't MRIs cost a couple of million each, at least?

I suggest you read the following article:

How Much Do MRI Machines Cost?

After you look at the massive costs of obtaining, operating, staffing and repairing an MRI machine, remember that we have nearly 10 million of them... and that's only MRI machines. I could cite at least another dozen pieces of technology that we have more of than any other country.

Private insurance that is affordable is not individual, but group.

I have no problem with group plans. My point was that private plans, whether individual or group, can be customized to the needs of the consumer whereas the government plans are always one size fits all.

There is nothing particularly radical about any of the above.

You only think so because you're a reasonable individual. Ask one of the resident Radical Leftists about my proposals and they will set you straight.

You must be very young if the reality of depending on Medicare hasn't hit yet.

I would have to be incredibly naive to rely on the existence of Medicare when the time comes for me to need it.

Medicare and social Security are not welfare programs. They are paid for by their users.

Both programs operate on the principle of the redistribution of wealth. Both are inter-generational theft but SS is worse because its a massive Ponzi scheme.

OK, I stand corrected. You are willing to just let people who can't afford health care die.

When the welfare state collapses on itself from fiscal ruination, how will the sick and dieing of that generation get care?

The sad reality is, politicians and government have created unsustainable systems, so eventually some generation will have to fall on the sword.

Whether we want to be or not, the fact is that we all pay for the uninsured in one way or another. Of course, if we are ready to deny care to anyone who can't pay, then we don't have to be a "collectivist" society.

America is the most generous nation in the world, we give more to charitable organization than any other country. I don't see why you have such a problem with Americans having a choice rather than being forced. Where government programs do not exist, there are charities available.

Is allowing hospitals to turn away people who can't pay one of the reforms you support?

I know you have the microwave society mentality of everything now, now, now, but I'm looking at taking 50-100 years to reverse the trends that have placed us where we are today. Over time, we won't have to deny people medical care because it will be as universally available, and affordable, as food and clothing.

No one would willing to sell coverage to seniors without Medicare, as doing so would not help the bottom line.

You are probably familiar with life insurance, both term and full, health insurance should be allowed to model their business after the life insurance model. They could only do that and be profitable if they were allowed to compete across state lines.

Yes, and pay for wars fought on credit.

While I agree that we shouldn't fight wars on credit, I'm curious as to why you think its OK to fund the welfare state on credit but not wars.

You do have a point. Deficit spending has to come to a halt, and the feds have to start paying back that debt, including the money that has been taken from Social Security and Medicare. It will be painful, require cuts and probably tax increases as well, but it will have to be done, and soon.

Are you under the illusion that such things will actually happen?

do you mean the way it helped out the mortgage lenders by not regulating their industry? Now, there's a good idea.

The housing bubble and resultant financial collapse was a classic example of political entrepreneurs gaming the system. Read my newest blog entry and try to understand the difference between Capitalism and Neomercantilism.

No, I don't, but then neither do you.

I'm not the one looking at other countries and wanting to emulate them without having all the information. You know, when the Progressives were pushing for the inception of the welfare state... they used the argument that we were the only industrialized nation in the world without social safety nets. Look how well that's worked out for us. Now you listen to them again when they make the same argument about Healthcare.

 

[arisajr]

Even though you have some issues with the healthcare reform in least it's a system in the right direction. Our current healthcare system isn't working. Maybe we should be looking at other countries to see what they got right. Many European countries have healthcare which is subsidized by the government and allows for everyone to get the same treatment. Adopting this kind of system might not be the right thing for America but it is a step in the right direction.

 

[PLC1]

My point remains, you don't seem the least bit bothered by that fact.

I am totally resigned to the fact. We're never going to go back to a limited government of the type that our founders envisioned, never. I learned that in 1980, when I voted for Reagan under the assumption that he would be able to scale back the size of the federal bureaucracy. When that didn't happen, I went back to voting third party again. It is likely that such a government wouldn't work in 21st. century America anyway.

Then universal healthcare would not be an option.

At least 90% of what the federal government does would not be an option.

Again, you seem to have thrown your arms in the air and decided that government has no limit on their power.

I suppose you could interpret it that way. Why dream of what is not possible?

My assumption that our liabilities will be greater are based on governments abysmal record with operating such programs. Your assumption is that they will decrease, precisely which government programs can you cite that have been financially successful?

the FDIC. Can you imagine what would have happened when the current recession struck without it? It isn't hard. it is the same thing that happened during the last great depression.

I suggest you read the following article:

How Much Do MRI Machines Cost?

After you look at the massive costs of obtaining, operating, staffing and repairing an MRI machine, remember that we have nearly 10 million of them... and that's only MRI machines. I could cite at least another dozen pieces of technology that we have more of than any other country.

So, an average of say, two and a half million times ten million of them equals twenty five trillion dollars tied up in MRI machines. Can those figures be right? A million millions is a trillion, right? and 10 million times 2 and a half million would be 25 trillion. How can we possibly afford that? No wonder our health care system is so expensive, if that is any indication.

If there is one for every thirty or so individuals, it makes one wonder whether we really need that many. An MRI only takes an hour or so, so with one for every thirty people, we could easily give an MRI to everyone about once a week. Is that really necessary?

I have no problem with group plans. My point was that private plans, whether individual or group, can be customized to the needs of the consumer whereas the government plans are always one size fits all.

Individual plans are prohibitively expensive except for young healthy individuals. Group plans may be tailored to the group, but not for the individual.

My son, for example, is 40 and single (any 40ish unmarried women out there... no, let's not go there). He has insurance through his employer, who has capped benefits at $800 per month. Since every employee has to take the same plan, he has to have the family plan, which costs an extra $400 due to the employers cap. If he could take a single plan, he would have less out of pocket.

So much for individually tailored plan. Now with a larger group, say for example, a group of 300 million, there should be room for some to have a family plan, others to have a single plan.

You only think so because you're a reasonable individual. Ask one of the resident Radical Leftists about my proposals and they will set you straight.

We should be able to come up with a reasonable plan if we have reasonable people working on it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we've elected too many rabid partisans.

I would have to be incredibly naive to rely on the existence of Medicare when the time comes for me to need it.

Currently, you have no real choice.

Both programs operate on the principle of the redistribution of wealth. Both are inter-generational theft but SS is worse because its a massive Ponzi scheme.

SS would work if the government wouldn't put it in the general fund and spend it, and if they wouldn't give it away to people who didn't earn it. For 38 years, I and my various employers put 8% of my pay into a retirement fund controlled by the State of California, but not into the black hole our state calls its "general fund". At age 61, I was able to retire at 92% of my pay. Since I no longer had that 8% coming out, my pay didn't go down at all. Were the feds as responsible... no scratch that. The state wasn't responsible. The state had an "evil, socialistic, terrible" union that was strong enough to nix the idea of putting the retirement fund into the general fund and spending it. If we had such a union looking out for our interests in Washington, then the average SS recipient could retire at full salary at age 61. What a reform that would be!

America is the most generous nation in the world, we give more to charitable organization than any other country. I don't see why you have such a problem with Americans having a choice rather than being forced. Where government programs do not exist, there are charities available.

Surely, you don't seriously think that charity can make up for millions without health care?

I know you have the microwave society mentality of everything now, now, now, but I'm looking at taking 50-100 years to reverse the trends that have placed us where we are today. Over time, we won't have to deny people medical care because it will be as universally available, and affordable, as food and clothing.

Not the way it's being run today it won't.

You are probably familiar with life insurance, both term and full, health insurance should be allowed to model their business after the life insurance model. They could only do that and be profitable if they were allowed to compete across state lines.

Sure, until the insurance you choose at age 25 goes out of business over the years, and you find yourself trying to get coverage at age 65. Good luck with that.

While I agree that we shouldn't fight wars on credit, I'm curious as to why you think its OK to fund the welfare state on credit but not wars.

I don't think we should be doing any of that on credit. Maybe credit could be used for capital improvements, like a high speed rail or further interstate highways, but not for day to day expenses. Putting such on the MasterCard will ruin a family or a nation. We need to have a balanced budget amendment, and not just when the party of "fiscal responsibility" is not in power.

Are you under the illusion that such things will actually happen?

Maybe when that collapse you keep talking about is imminent

The housing bubble and resultant financial collapse was a classic example of political entrepreneurs gaming the system. Read my newest blog entry and try to understand the difference between Capitalism and Neomercantilism.


I'm not the one looking at other countries and wanting to emulate them without having all the information. You know, when the Progressives were pushing for the inception of the welfare state... they used the argument that we were the only industrialized nation in the world without social safety nets. Look how well that's worked out for us. Now you listen to them again when they make the same argument about Healthcare.

No, you're the one claiming that other countries are lying about how much they spend on health care. I'm the one asking why they would do that.

 

[GenSeneca]

Why dream of what is not possible?

So you accept that governments power has no limits... As you have stated, its neither possible to limit their power nor is it practical to limit their power in the 21st century. Yet you also cling to the idea that government has your best interests in mind and wants only to use that power to take care of you and protect you...

Stockholm Syndrome

the FDIC.

I ask for a financial success story for a federal program and you cite the FDIC? According to the FDIC balance sheet, the fund has $13 billion in reserves covering $4.831 trillion worth of assets. That is a deficit of $4.814 trillion.

No wonder our health care system is so expensive, if that is any indication.

Once you get into the details, its pretty clear why the US spends so much of its GDP on healthcare.

Is that really necessary?

I'm curious as to what amount of GDP we spend on entertainment, I bet its higher than HC.

Group plans may be tailored to the group, but not for the individual.

I'm not disagreeing with that. My point remains that its far more flexible than a government program.

Currently, you have no real choice.

My choice is to rely on government programs that I will pay into all my life but will no longer exist when I need them (Medicare/Social Security), or rely on private sector investments to meet those same needs.

SS would work if the government wouldn't put it in the general fund and spend it, and if they wouldn't give it away to people who didn't earn it.

Its too late to cry over spilled milk, but its not too late to stop the continued spillage. The funds are gone and the program is too deep in debt to make good on its promises, so workers will pay much higher payroll taxes and recipients will receive drastically reduced benefits. While that will not solve the problem, it will be seen as the "Pragmatic" solution.

For 38 years, I and my various employers put 8% of my pay into a retirement fund controlled by the State of California, but not into the black hole our state calls its "general fund". At age 61, I was able to retire at 92% of my pay.

You must have been in the public sector to have such a generous retirement pension. Where did you work and for what union?

Some quick math... Lets say you earned $100,000 a year, that will make the math easier:
$100,000 - 8% = $8,000/yr X 38 years = $304,000 Retirement fund
@61 you retire with 92% of your salary = $92,000/yr
$304,000 divided by $92,000.....
After 3.3 years, your enitre retirement fund was depleted. I know what you're going to say... I didn't account for interest. Well, at a very generous 5% APR (about double what you'd get in a bank), you would have $904,760.18 at retirement, that's less than 10 years worth of pension.

What was the APR on your retirement account?

The state had an "evil, socialistic, terrible" union that was strong enough to nix the idea of putting the retirement fund into the general fund and spending it.

If you had an APR of 5%, after 10 years of collecting your pension, your retirement salary is coming out of the paychecks from current union employees and possibly even the taxpayer wallets (depends on who you worked for).

If we had such a union looking out for our interests in Washington, then the average SS recipient could retire at full salary at age 61.

That is what he have going on in Washington, a giant ponze scheme where the new people pay off the old investors. Don't forget, whether its politicians and bureaucrats or Unions and their bureaucrats, they get their cut of pay for running the scheme.

Surely, you don't seriously think that charity can make up for millions without health care?

Need is infinite. Resources are finite. You have to come to terms with that reality. No amount of charities, no amount of government programs, no combination of the two, will ever have the resources necessary to meet the infinite needs of the population. You recognize that charity lacks infinite resources but you seem to think government is as unlimited in its resources as it is in its power.

We need to have a balanced budget amendment, and not just when the party of "fiscal responsibility" is not in power.

But you're already "resigned" to the fact that government has unlilmited power, that there is no accountability, and that attempts to bring government under control are impractical in the 21st century....

Maybe when that collapse you keep talking about is imminent.

The collapse is not only imminent, its part of an orchestrated strategy:

Cloward and Piven Strategy

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation....In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

You should read the whole piece.

No, you're the one claiming that other countries are lying about how much they spend on health care. I'm the one asking why they would do that.

NO, you're the one who's saying we need to have a healthcare system like "every other industrialized country", all I did was point out that you don't have all the information relating to the actual costs of such systems.

 

[PLC1]

So you accept that governments power has no limits... As you have stated, its neither possible to limit their power nor is it practical to limit their power in the 21st century. Yet you also cling to the idea that government has your best interests in mind and wants only to use that power to take care of you and protect you...

Stockholm Syndrome

No, that's not what I said at all, and no, we aren't held hostage by the government.

We still do have government of the people. Of course, it would work a lot better if the people were more informed and involved, but we are far from having a dictatorship.

I ask for a financial success story for a federal program and you cite the FDIC? According to the FDIC balance sheet, the fund has $13 billion in reserves covering $4.831 trillion worth of assets. That is a deficit of $4.814 trillion.

And yet they were able to keep a run on the banks from making a bad situation even worse.

Once you get into the details, its pretty clear why the US spends so much of its GDP on healthcare.

Do you actually think the figures of 25 trillion for enough MRI machines to do a test on every citizen once a week are accurate? Somehow, I think your comparison of how many MRIs we have vs. how many Canada has is flawed.

At least I hope it is. MRI machines with a price tag equal to twice the national debt is not something we need or can afford.

I'm curious as to what amount of GDP we spend on entertainment, I bet its higher than HC.

More than 15% of the GDP? I don't know, but that seems pretty high.

My choice is to rely on government programs that I will pay into all my life but will no longer exist when I need them (Medicare/Social Security), or rely on private sector investments to meet those same needs.

or rely on private sector investments that probably won't be there either. Private businesses come and go. It is kind of a Hobsen's choice, isn't it? If you believe that private corporations are always more efficient and reliable than the government, if the government really can't do anything right, then we're all in deep doo doo, aren't we? On the other hand, the government isn't going out of business.

Its too late to cry over spilled milk, but its not too late to stop the continued spillage. The funds are gone and the program is too deep in debt to make good on its promises, so workers will pay much higher payroll taxes and recipients will receive drastically reduced benefits. While that will not solve the problem, it will be seen as the "Pragmatic" solution.

Yes, let's stop the continued spillage. Let's get the SS funds out of the general fund, and start paying back those IOUs. Let's stop using the funds for welfare for people who haven't paid in. Maybe then the average citizen will be able to retire at full salary at the age of 61.

You must have been in the public sector to have such a generous retirement pension. Where did you work and for what union?

I was in the public sector, but did not work for a union. My employers were school districts.

Some quick math... Lets say you earned $100,000 a year, that will make the math easier:
$100,000 - 8% = $8,000/yr X 38 years = $304,000 Retirement fund
@61 you retire with 92% of your salary = $92,000/yr
$304,000 divided by $92,000.....
After 3.3 years, your enitre retirement fund was depleted. I know what you're going to say... I didn't account for interest. Well, at a very generous 5% APR (about double what you'd get in a bank), you would have $904,760.18 at retirement, that's less than 10 years worth of pension.

You didn't factor in the employer contribution, which, like SS, was another 8%. You also didn't figure compounded interest, nor the growth of the school system. California State Teacher's Retirement is not in the financial bind that SS is, due largely to the fact that surplus funds have been invested in growth funds over the years, not spent. It is much like a large private pension plan, but one that covers a large number of people. The APR varies, according to the state of the economy.

If you had an APR of 5%, after 10 years of collecting your pension, your retirement salary is coming out of the paychecks from current union employees and possibly even the taxpayer wallets (depends on who you worked for).

The money comes from past investments, as well as from contributions of other employees. It isn't dependent on any union, and doesn't matter whether the contributors are union members or not. Most are, some are not.

Need is infinite. Resources are finite. You have to come to terms with that reality. No amount of charities, no amount of government programs, no combination of the two, will ever have the resources necessary to meet the infinite needs of the population. You recognize that charity lacks infinite resources but you seem to think government is as unlimited in its resources as it is in its power.

That's why we have, and will always have, some form of rationing. The mantra that a single payer system will lead to "rationing" is not a real argument.

But you're already "resigned" to the fact that government has unlilmited power, that there is no accountability, and that attempts to bring government under control are impractical in the 21st century....

Again, that's not what I said at all.

The collapse is not only imminent, its part of an orchestrated strategy:

It seems that 43 years would have been long enough to have brought on the collapse if the "orchestrated strategy" were real and effective.

I'm not sure you understand the power of compounded interest. Take 100,000 dollars and multiply by 1.05 (5% increase). Keep hitting the times button. After 10 times, you have $162,889. After 20 times, you have 265,329. After 30 years, you have $432,194. After 38 years, you have $638,547. A hundred grand becomes 2/3 of a million in that time, which is why the fund works. There is a large surplus that keeps growing exponentially.

And it is a government program, not a union benefit. Imagine that, a government program, just watched over by the union to see that the **** don't steal the funds, like the feds have done with SS. It just takes a little vigilance.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, that's not what I said at all

Is limiting the power of government "workable and practical in the 21st century" or not?

Is limiting the power of government to the very specific role of protecting our rights practical?

If not, what more do you want government to do?

We still do have government of the people.

We increasingly have a tyranny of the majority, the rights of the minority are not being protected.

we are far from having a dictatorship.

Tyranny of a majority is not dictatorship.

And yet they were able to keep a run on the banks from making a bad situation even worse.

So massive deficit spending is fine... so long as it is "pragmatic".

the government isn't going out of business.

104 trillion dollars in debt and growing... Its only a matter of time.

Let's stop using the funds for welfare for people who haven't paid in.

So now you're advocating to let people die in the streets?

The mantra that a single payer system will lead to "rationing" is not a real argument.

Rationing gets progressively worse with single payer systems.

It seems that 43 years would have been long enough to have brought on the collapse if the "orchestrated strategy" were real and effective.

US debt obligations at $104 trillion and climbing.

I'm not sure you understand the power of compounded interest.

Actually I do... Which is why I know our national debt will sink us,

$4.8 trillion - Interest on U.S. debt
November 19, 2009

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Here's a new way to think about the U.S. government's epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

There is a large surplus that keeps growing exponentially.

Just like our massive debt, which grows exponentially... and would only get larger with a public option.

 

[PLC1]

Is limiting the power of government "workable and practical in the 21st century" or not?

Is limiting the power of government to the very specific role of protecting our rights practical?

If not, what more do you want government to do?

Stopping the out of control growth of government and its debt may be possible, but it isn't going to be easy. It will have to be done, but insisting on a strict interpretation of the Constitution is never going to happen.

What do I want government to do? Balance the budget, control the borders, and put a satisfactory end to the 8 year wars we're still fighting, that's the main thing. If they can end the out of control growth of health care costs, then let's by all means do that, too.

We increasingly have a tyranny of the majority, the rights of the minority are not being protected.


Tyranny of a majority is not dictatorship.

I think you represent a pretty small minority, which nevertheless, has rights. How do you think your rights could be protected?

So massive deficit spending is fine... so long as it is "pragmatic".

No, and I'm sure you're aware that I didn't say that at all, and have in fact been arguing the opposite. Stopping a run on the banks is pretty pragmatic, don't you think? You do remember the history of the great depression, don't you?

104 trillion dollars in debt and growing... Its only a matter of time.

The actual 12 or so trillion we have is bad enough without exaggeration, but yes, it will sink us if we don't do something about it.

So now you're advocating to let people die in the streets?

Do you think that stopping spending of SS funds for welfare is going to result in people dying in the streets? If so, what do you think will happen when, as you say, SS inevitably fails?

Maybe if we reform it now, we can avoid people starving.

Rationing gets progressively worse with single payer systems.

There is no reason to believe that.

US debt obligations at $104 trillion and climbing.

Actually I do... Which is why I know our national debt will sink us,

I'm afraid you're right about that, unless we address the situation now. It is going to require higher taxes and budget cuts, neither of which is going to be popular.

If health care costs keep climbing, that will sink us too.

Just like our massive debt, which grows exponentially... and would only get larger with a public option.

You already know my answer to that one.