America's aversion to socialism ?

[DoggerDan]

...and as I pointed out before, this number is still not that meaningful.

It's quite meaningful to the folks who give nearly half their paycheck to the government.

 

[MarcoD]

David Simon, the creator of TV mega-hit the Wire, riffs on prisons, cities, unions, newspapers, taxation, globalism and the American dream: http://vimeo.com/29805278" .

 

[fleem]

Some humans are more arrogant than others. Positions of power appeal to the arrogant more than do positions of usefulness. In a socialist society the government has more power than industry, and in a free market society industry has more power than government. There will be a proportional excess of arrogant, corrupt people in the positions of power. The people can control government through elections and petitions and they control the free market through supply and demand. The difference is that boycotting is a far more direct and powerful method of voting than that provided by ballots because ballots are always under the control of those in power (the two-party system is one way to maintain that power), and also the people know product quality and their salaries better than they know whether a politician will keep his promises. If the people really wanted to, they could put Haliburton out of business in a heartbeat if the government weren't protecting it, but voting will never put it out of business no matter how much the people want it so. Certainly we need government, if at least to protect the free market through basic laws against murder and theft. But why move even more power from industry to government, where we have less control of it? Think of it this way: if you despise free market because of the monopolies it creates, then consider that the federal government has all the earmarks of a monopoly larger than any other in the free market, but try to boycott it because you feel you aren't getting your money's worth and you'll have men in black at your door with weapons drawn. State sovereignty provides a free market in government (assuming you can move to another state if your state gets too irritating), but federal power stifles that competition.

 

[JDoolin]

Wolf Blitzer: A healthy 30 year old young man, has a good job; makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend 200 or 300 dollars a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But you know, something terrible happens, and all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay for that if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

Ron Paul: In a society where you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

WB: But what do you want?

RP: But, what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would be to have a major medical policy but not be forced...

WB: But he doesn't have that, He needs intensive care, for six months, who pays?

RP: That's what freedom is all about; taking your own risks. (Massive applause) This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody ...

WB: But congressman, Are you saying that society should just let him die

RP: No.

*Three shouts of "yeah" from audience; two men and one woman*

The relevant point here is not whether there are two or three shouts of yeah, but the spontaneous and enthusiastic applause after the line:

That's what freedom is all about; taking your own risks.

Freedom to eat unregulated food?
Freedom to drink water contaminated by hydraulic fracking?
Freedom to work with asbestos?
Freedom to have no affordable access to healthcare?

Is this a central tenet behind Tea Party; that they are all rugged individualists who wish to take their own chances? Do they not see a benefit in a sort of shared responsibility? Ron Paul began the sentence

"This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody ... "

I don't know where he was going with this sentence. What was he trying to say; that the whole idea of taking care of everybody is BAD, or is it GOOD? Is the Tea Party platform that we DON'T want to take care of everybody? Exactly who is it that they don't want to take care of?

I want to hear the rest of Ron Paul's sentence. To my knowledge, the liberal view is, YES, we should try to take care of EVERYBODY. We should acknowledge that people are imperfect, and that we should try to take care of them, even if they don't always make the correct decisions for themselves. As a society, we still have a responsibility to them.

As a society and a species, how does humanity want to proceed? We need to make a conscious and collective decision in this. Do we want to continue to evolve in the old-fashioned way, where the strongest and most ruthless survive and the weak and meek perish?

Or aren't we at a turning point in history, where instant communication is the norm, and we have the capacity and technology and resources to really do something different?

People keep complaining about the lack of jobs in America, and all around the world. But I see something different; An Era of Unprecedented Wealth. The problem is that our efficiency has become so great that a job that used to occupy dozens or hundreds can be done by one, or a few. But is that really a problem, or is it wonderful news?

I think we should view the lack of jobs as a Positive; not a negative. We have the resources to DO a lot more jobs. There are a lot of jobs that need to be done, but we don't have any profit-motive to do those jobs. You can only open up so many restaurants and stores before you are just taking business from someone else. You can only have so many farms before you've used up all the land. We still need a lot of things done, but without a government taking the lead and saying "We're going to use tax-money to get these things done" who is going to selflessly do those jobs or pay for those jobs? Nobody is even talking about it. Instead, it's just cut, cut, cut. There's no jobs? We need to reduce discretionary spending? Cut more jobs? WTF?

We're turtling up. We're waiting for the next big idea that will create exponential growth; but what if there is no such "next big idea?" Are we going ever going to realize we already have enough big ideas to take care of each other, and we don't need exponential profit growth?

I've strayed a little ways from Ron Paul's point, but is it the end-all-be-all of freedom, "That's what freedom is all about; taking your own risks?" Maybe that's where you get your joy from, but personally, I don't like risk, and I'd like the freedom NOT TO WORRY about risks. I'd like to know that the right people are in charge, and they are keeping an eye out for me, so that if I screw up, or I don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, or I drink my own tap water, or I go grocery shopping, I don't have to weigh the risks all the time.

And I would like to think that the people who are in charge of my food, my water, my healthcare, etc, are motivated by the public good, i.e. my safety, and not their profit. When I signed up for freedom, I did not know that meant "the freedom to take risks."

I have in mind the freedom in the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of safety. I'd like to take the latter for granted.

 

[JDoolin]

There will be a proportional excess of arrogant, corrupt people in the positions of power. The people can control government through elections and petitions and they control the free market through supply and demand.

You are correct, but we should insist on a level of transparency in both government and business such that this corruption would be harder and harder to hide.

 

[maine75man]

The people can control government through elections and petitions and they control the free market through supply and demand. The difference is that boycotting is a far more direct and powerful method of voting

Your forgetting one other means by which individuals can have control over the sort of government they participate in. Citizens can always vote with their feet. Just as you can choose what company you do business with you can always leave one governmental jurisdiction for another.

If you don't like the tax rate your paying in comparison to the services your getting you can shop around and see if there is a government that is a better value. It is more akin to a boycott then elections and petitions.

 

[mheslep]

...WB: But congressman, Are you saying that society should just let him die

RP: No.

[...]

Freedom to eat unregulated food?
Freedom to drink water contaminated by hydraulic fracking?
Freedom to work with asbestos?
Freedom to have no affordable access to healthcare?

Is this a central tenet behind Tea Party; that they are all rugged individualists ...

After the point where you've clipped Rep Paul's response he goes on to say:

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

When I see this quote from Rep Paul clipped off at his clear "No" followed by a page of unsupported speculation about him and/or the tea party and some erroneous claims* I assume little or no true interest in understanding Paul's libertarian argument (at best) or (less charitably) intention to misrepresent him.

...And I would like to think that the people who are in charge of my food, my water, my healthcare, etc, are motivated by the public good, i.e. my safety, and not their profit...

Who might these disinterested people be for instance that you can trust with your safety? Rod Blagojevich(IL)? John Edwards (NC)? Cold Cash Jefferson (LA)? Anthony Weiner (NY)? Ted Stevens (AK)? Those are some of the corrupt. The merely inept in the bureaucratic ranks are legion.

* The reality of the federal budget has not been "cut, cut, cut" but spending and borrowing increases beyond any historical precedent since WWII, if then.

 

[MarcoD]

Some humans are more arrogant than others. Positions of power appeal to the arrogant more than do positions of usefulness. In a socialist society the government has more power than industry, and in a free market society industry has more power than government. There will be a proportional excess of arrogant, corrupt people in the positions of power. The people can control government through elections and petitions and they control the free market through supply and demand. The difference is that boycotting is a far more direct and powerful method of voting than that provided by ballots because ballots are always under the control of those in power (the two-party system is one way to maintain that power), and also the people know product quality and their salaries better than they know whether a politician will keep his promises. If the people really wanted to, they could put Haliburton out of business in a heartbeat if the government weren't protecting it, but voting will never put it out of business no matter how much the people want it so. Certainly we need government, if at least to protect the free market through basic laws against murder and theft. But why move even more power from industry to government, where we have less control of it? Think of it this way: if you despise free market because of the monopolies it creates, then consider that the federal government has all the earmarks of a monopoly larger than any other in the free market, but try to boycott it because you feel you aren't getting your money's worth and you'll have men in black at your door with weapons drawn. State sovereignty provides a free market in government (assuming you can move to another state if your state gets too irritating), but federal power stifles that competition.

Well, this is an interesting opinion. On two points, I'll take it personally and care to disagree.

First, say I don't like a 'wealthy' person like Warren Buffet (I don't care, this is just for the sake of the argument.) How do you propose I should vote with my wallet? As far as I know, there's nothing I can do. Instead, in a democracy, I at least get to vote, for what it's worth.

Second, people sometimes despise free markets because of the monopolies it creates. I don't, at least, that's not my beef with it. As far as I am concerned, free markets are a tool which sometimes work, but often don't. An as examples where they don't: the deepening divide between the rich and the poor almost everywhere in the world, and the current financial crisis. (And lastly, the idea that free markets would work in health care, which you cannot opt out off anyway, and which is best implemented like a public service, like roads.)

 

[maine75man]

And how can a system that forces everyone to participate be more efficient?

If non-participation is in and of itself a risk factor and the system still pays for non-participants who require some of the costliest levels of benefits, then mandating is efficient. That's exactly the situation the American health care system finds itself in.

Emergency, Critical, Intensive, and End of Life Care are some of the most expensive services in any health care system. In America it's criminal and IMO sub-human to deny them to anyone who both needs and requests such care if you can provide it. Even in cases where such care is in short supply and must be rationed, medical ethics, and the law stand behind rationing on the basis of need as opposed to ability to pay.

Preventive care lowers the risk of people requiring the more extreme "all or nothing medicine mentioned" above. Yet preventative medicine can be denied on a financial basis.

Fair or not we are never going to get a system that makes access to "all or nothing medicine" less universal. So the only way to make the system more efficient is increasing access to preventative care.

Personally I favor the idea of a health insurance voucher system. Give everyone a minimum level of health insurance mandated by the government and paid for with earmarked taxes but purchased from private companies by individuals. If people think vouchers will work for education why not health insurance.

 

[JDoolin]

After the point where you've clipped Rep Paul's response he goes on to say:When I see this quote from Rep Paul clipped off at his clear "No" followed by a page of unsupported speculation about him and/or the tea party and some erroneous claims* I assume little or no true interest in understanding Paul's libertarian argument (at best) or (less charitably) intention to misrepresent him.

Who might these disinterested people be for instance that you can trust with your safety? Rod Blagojevich(IL)? John Edwards (NC)? Cold Cash Jefferson (LA)? Anthony Weiner (NY)? Ted Stevens (AK)? Those are some of the corrupt. The merely inept in the bureaucratic ranks are legion.

* The reality of the federal budget has not been "cut, cut, cut" but spending and borrowing increases beyond any historical precedent since WWII, if then.

I want to make it clear that Ron Paul said "No." As in, "We should not let the man die." The audience clearly disagreed with him on this point, or at least they found it funny to shout him down. I'm sorry the link that I had did not go on to show the rest of the speech. We deal with idiots on either side of any issue.

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

However, I still have some reservations about Paul's idea here. Our neighbors, our churches, and our friends will, of course, do what they can. However, unlike the government, we cannot force the neighbors, churches, and friends to be transparent.

Neighbors will help the friends that they like. Friends will help friends. Churches will do what churches do. Do you think that hospitals don't throw people out because they are Christian? No, it is because it's their JOB. It's because they decided to devote their lives and education to saving people.

The question is not whether those people get to the hospital or not. The question is whether they are financially ruined afterward. What's going to happen when you get that $100,000.00 hospital bill?

If you've gone someplace with a "Saint" in the name, then you're in a hospital that is a charity organization; they'll pay your bill, if you're poor enough, and they won't pay taxes.

We haven't given up on the idea of taking care of our self, as Ron Paul says. Who do you think is giving up on the idea of taking care of ourselves? The person that says, let's organize this; make it efficient; make it fair; make it so poor people have access to good health care?

Ron Paul says "Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it." Is Ron Paul running to be my neighbor? My friend? My church? NO! He's running to be MY PRESIDENT! It is Ron Paul who is personally not taking any responsibility.

If he were my preacher, and he said the church has a responsibility to do these things, that might be respectable. But as a politician, shoveling off all the responsibility of taking care of people onto churches, and neighbors, and friends, I don't think I can respect him.

 

[mheslep]

...

But as a politician, shoveling off all the responsibility of taking care of people onto churches, and neighbors, and friends, I don't think I can respect him.

Me, I respect politicians who adhere to the constitution, and not those who not only fail to do so but pander to the electorate that they will take care of them - something not in the constitution.

 

[JDoolin]

If he were my preacher, and he said the church has a responsibility to do these things, that might be respectable. But as a politician, shoveling off all the responsibility of taking care of people onto churches, and neighbors, and friends, I don't think I can respect him.

I've been thinking a lot about what I just said, and how badly it came out. To the contrary, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. Anybody that enters the medical profession and works as a Doctor deserves a good deal of respect, for the discipline and intelligence that took, and their motivations for entering that work.

I just happen to think that in this particular instance, he's wrong.

If you're going to be a friend, then your attitude should be "I'm going to help out my friends." If you're going to be a an active member of the community, you should say "I'm going to help my community" Likewise, a church member is quite likely to want to help out his or her church.

But if you're running for national political office, you should be aware of all those people that want to be helpful, but that does not release you from doing whatever you can to help as well.

The idea that friends, neighbors and churches have the resources to provide healthcare to all Americans (or protect their water, food, air quality, etc.) is quite preposterous.

 

[JDoolin]

Me, I respect politicians who adhere to the constitution, and not those who not only fail to do so but pander to the electorate that they will take care of them - something not in the constitution.

Why shouldn't my representitive pander to me? If I vote the person into office, I expect them to work for the electorate. I expect them to try to please all of the people all of the time. I expect them to have everything they do open to public scrutiny.

Why is it that Anthony Weiner's "transgression" is aired all over the place something that I would rather not even know, and is certainly none of my business, while the work of closing centers for the mentally disabled all over the country, and closing post offices is mostly ignored?

The politicians are going to "pander" to either the electorate, or the guys who want to make billions on fracking up Pennsylvania. Seriously, who would you rather have them pander to? Whoever is paying you the most?

 

[czelaya]

Why shouldn't my representitive pander to me? If I vote the person into office, I expect them to work for the electorate. I expect them to try to please all of the people all of the time. I expect them to have everything they do open to public scrutiny.

Why is it that Anthony Weiner's "transgression" is aired all over the place something that I would rather not even know, and is certainly none of my business, while the work of closing centers for the mentally disabled all over the country, and closing post offices is mostly ignored?

The politicians are going to "pander" to either the electorate, or the guys who want to make billions on fracking up Pennsylvania. Seriously, who would you rather have them pander to? Whoever is paying you the most?

Because all that pandering gives way to protectionist laws for corporations, special interest groups, and in the end money is taken from everyone to benefit the few.

 

[czelaya]

I've been thinking a lot about what I just said, and how badly it came out. To the contrary, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. Anybody that enters the medical profession and works as a Doctor deserves a good deal of respect, for the discipline and intelligence that took, and their motivations for entering that work.

I just happen to think that in this particular instance, he's wrong.

If you're going to be a friend, then your attitude should be "I'm going to help out my friends." If you're going to be a an active member of the community, you should say "I'm going to help my community" Likewise, a church member is quite likely to want to help out his or her church.

But if you're running for national political office, you should be aware of all those people that want to be helpful, but that does not release you from doing whatever you can to help as well.

The idea that friends, neighbors and churches have the resources to provide healthcare to all Americans (or protect their water, food, air quality, etc.) is quite preposterous.

A good question would be how has government intervention in medicine eroded the ability for such organizations to help those in need.

The major argument Ron Paul is making is that this wasn't done with tax payer's money when he was practicing medicine. It was done willingly. Now you have these costly and subsidized programs that are inefficient, skyrocketing in price, and bankrupt.

Medicare in 1966 cost 3 billion dollars. Like any other government program it has become a cancer costing agent. I seriously doubt that in 1966 there was a health care crises like the one of today(I may be wrong). However, I'm sure pandering to special interest groups was a motivating factor that caused medicare to increase at an exponential rate(doubling every 4 years).

 

[WhoWee]

BP is engaged in solar - but don't expect them to stop pumping any time soon.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/59/59267.html

 

[DoggerDan]

What was he trying to say; that the whole idea of taking care of everybody is BAD, or is it GOOD?

Bad.

Is the Tea Party platform that we DON'T want to take care of everybody?

It's that we cannot afford to take care of everybody. Trying is foolish. Responsible people take care of themselves. Irresponsible people shouldn't be left to die, but don't expect the same level of care as someone paying $10,000 a year for health insurance.

Exactly who is it that they don't want to take care of?

Those who refuse to take care of themselves, particularly those who do so under the guise of "can't."

Tie your shoes, Johnny.

But I CAN'T, Dad!

You're seventeen, Johnny, now tie your shoes!

 

[skippy1729]

A "safety net" and a "socialist welfare state" are two distinct entities. As Dennis Miller likes to say "Help the helpless, not the clueless".

Skippy

 

[mege]

If non-participation is in and of itself a risk factor and the system still pays for non-participants who require some of the costliest levels of benefits, then mandating is efficient. That's exactly the situation the American health care system finds itself in.

Emergency, Critical, Intensive, and End of Life Care are some of the most expensive services in any health care system. In America it's criminal and IMO sub-human to deny them to anyone who both needs and requests such care if you can provide it. Even in cases where such care is in short supply and must be rationed, medical ethics, and the law stand behind rationing on the basis of need as opposed to ability to pay.

Preventive care lowers the risk of people requiring the more extreme "all or nothing medicine mentioned" above. Yet preventative medicine can be denied on a financial basis.

Fair or not we are never going to get a system that makes access to "all or nothing medicine" less universal. So the only way to make the system more efficient is increasing access to preventative care.

Personally I favor the idea of a health insurance voucher system. Give everyone a minimum level of health insurance mandated by the government and paid for with earmarked taxes but purchased from private companies by individuals. If people think vouchers will work for education why not health insurance.

That still doesn't have anything to do with efficiency. You're putting a moral imperative on the situation to try and gloss over the efficiency part. There are 300 million individuals in this country, not 300 million identical Americans with the same needs.

I also hear the phrase "Ability to pay" thrown around a lot. Why have health care costs gone up over the past ~45 years? I don't believe the market has failed except inso far as it's turned into a poorly skewed market because of the regulated demand that medicare/aid has put on the system. In addition - the litigation in the medical industry is rediculous. I wish there was an easy way to reduce the amount of lawyers in this country (maybe simpler, less intrusive and complicated laws?).

Also, you've cherry picked one phrase from my posts - but haven't addressed the risk-spreading vs sharing concern. The net risk taken by individuals will go up - they're no longer responsible for the proper proportion of their risk. Any 'incentives' to change their personal risk are going to be artifical and tenuous (which also adds to the inefficiency).

 

[ThomasT]

Why have health care costs gone up over the past ~45 years?

I would have guessed that the main reasons are an increase in the elderly population, and the practices of the drug and insurance industries. But, here's an editorial from 2007 in the New York Times that seems to disagree with that:
The High Cost of Health Care

I haven't really thought about it much since I'm covered by the VA.

In addition - the litigation in the medical industry is ridiculous.

I don't think that the general level of litigation is unusually high, considering that doctors and hospitals make lots of mistakes. I'm guessing that the genuinely frivolous stuff gets weeded out fairly early in the process.

Anyway, as I think about it, maybe the Times article makes a good point. During my lifetime (I'm 64) America has possessed abundant wealth, but we've worked real hard at squandering it. Since this seems likely to continue I don't expect the America of the 21st century to be nearly as nice a place for the younger generations as it has been for those of us born in the 1940's.

Wrt the OP, I would guess that the portion of the population for which the word "socialism" has a negative connotation is the portion which has benefited most from America's vast wealth. But things are getting worse, not better, in the US. And insofar as this trend can be expected to continue, then it would seem that if aversion to social programs is the general attitude, then that general attitude is likely to change as proportionately less and less of the population is needed in the work force.

 

[russ_watters]

I would have guessed that the main reasons are an increase in the elderly population, and the practices of the drug and insurance industries.

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

 

[JDoolin]

I don't think we are using this word pandering properly. I took it to mean some kind of obsequious submission to whatever the electorate wanted. (and from context, it sounds like you mean the same thing.)

The actual definition is more as follows:

1. Pandering: ntr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders. 1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer. 2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires ...

Legal dictionary
1) v. to solicit customers for a prostitute. 2) n. a pimp, who procures customers for a prostitute or lures a woman into prostitution, all for his own profit. 3) v. catering to special interests without any principles, such as a politician who says to whatever group he/she is addressing just what they want to hear to win their support, contributions, or favors.

So given that definition, I don't want to be pandered to by the government.

What I meant to say was that I would like a sort of an obsequious, meek, submission from the government towards the genuine needs of the electorate.

Because all that pandering gives way to protectionist laws for corporations, special interest groups, and in the end money is taken from everyone to benefit the few.

Pandering is just (yuck, bleah) not what I meant at all. But even if the government is really working for the electorate, it's still possible for the corporations and special interest groups to trick them (or the electorate, for that matter) into thinking that a certain law would be more in the interests of the people, when it is actually just a front to create a prison slave system, for instance.

That's why I focus so much on transparency. The public needs good data on what our government is doing; and where the money is needed, where the money is going; what the conditions are in the places where the money is going? I'm not saying "trust your government." I'm saying "trust but verify."

What we need to see in public office are patient and long-suffering servants of the public good, who don't mind a little bit of extra scrutiny to keep them from being manipulated by corporations and special interest groups.

I don't know if you've heard the phrase "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." I'm of the strong opinion that we should give it to them. But keep an eye on them to make sure they stay meek.

 

[fleem]

I think those dictionary definitions for "pander" are somewhat dated. They don't include the modern usage in political context. I see the word frequently used in the blogosphere following this wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_(politics)

So I think its appropriate in this context.

 

[czelaya]

Pandering is just (yuck, bleah) not what I meant at all. But even if the government is really working for the electorate, it's still possible for the corporations and special interest groups to trick them (or the electorate, for that matter) into thinking that a certain law would be more in the interests of the people, when it is actually just a front to create a prison slave system, for instance.

That's why I focus so much on transparency. The public needs good data on what our government is doing; and where the money is needed, where the money is going; what the conditions are in the places where the money is going? I'm not saying "trust your government." I'm saying "trust but verify."

What we need to see in public office are patient and long-suffering servants of the public good, who don't mind a little bit of extra scrutiny to keep them from being manipulated by corporations and special interest groups.

I don't know if you've heard the phrase "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." I'm of the strong opinion that we should give it to them. But keep an eye on them to make sure they stay meek.

Sure transparency is good but I doubt that governments, in general, are ever going to be as transparent as you say. I don't trust governments just as much as I don't trust corporations. Politicians don't walk into office poor and walk out millionaires because they're angels.

However, again, no corporation, special interest group, or anyone or any entity should be given special privileges in the form of tax breaks, tariffs, and so forth. This is how you minimize manipulation and coercion in markets. We punish those who are responsible and those who are stagnant in markets get subsidized by the tax payers (GM, domestic farmers, Solyndra, and so forth).

Decoupling the hands that bind governments and private industries(not capitalism but corporatism) is what ultimately leads to mismanagement on both sides.

I'm not sure what you mean by giving it to them. I've always been a firm believer of earning everything you acquire.

 

[JDoolin]

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

True. There's also somewhat of a hard question regarding this.

Aren't expensive scans a particularly hard call? One doesn't really know for sure whether they need to do the scan until after they've done it. Sometimes they might estimate only a 1% chance of anything that might be detected by the scan, but they don't want to take chance so they order the scan.

If the patient is insured, then there's no real question; order the scan and get paid! If the person is really poor, maybe they order the scan, and report the cost as charity. If the person is uninsured, they tell the patient, there's only a 1% chance of this scan picking up anything; and ask if he wants to pay an extra $5000 to get the scan done?

Or if they're worried about malpractice, they order that scan for everybody, regardless of the cost, because the cost of malpractice lawsuits from that 1% of the people that actually do have the problem that could have been detected by the scan is just too great.

In any case, the hospital may make a cost-benefit analysis of whether to do the scan, or they may have a policy of "We're Going To Do Everything We Can For Anybody That Comes In" which means, YES, they're going to do that scan, and YES, they're going to get that $5000, at least 10% of the time. (Maybe it would have only cost $500 if they got it all the time.)

I don't know if there is really any right-or-wrong answer to the question of end-of-life care. There are some people who will just say, "Just let me die. I've had a good life." And others that will say "Do everything you can to keep me alive." And some people that are not rational enough to make such decisions. (That's what living wills are for).

The medical bills from the last couple of years of a persons life can be the highest cost bills of all their life. Are there really tough decisions to be made here? Depending on the way you look at it, yes or no. "Yes," we need to consider the quality of life, and whether it is worth the money to live for a few more days or weeks. Or "No." No cost is too great, we must do everything we can to keep the person alive.

But I think the main difference between the Republicans and Democrats is whether we handle it on the demand-side or the supply-side.

The Democrats are appalled at the current system, where people who can't afford health care simply go without. They can come to the emergency room if they have a major problem, but as far as preventative care, and regular check-ups, they do not have access to this. They are interested in creating an environment where a certain minimal level of health care is available to everyone, regardless of economic status.

The Republicans appear to be appalled by the idea that some government "Death Panel" will be rationing the health-care, making the choices of under what circumstances procedures are allowed and disallowed, and will somehow prevent them from having the best health-care that money can buy.

I should also say how the Democrats "appear to be" because the two last paragraphs are not quite parallel. The Democrats "appear to be" wanting the most expensive possible health-care for everyone regardless of economic status. I don't think that's really what they want. They just want to have access to a Doctor (or a nurse, or a clinic) without it having to be an emergency life-or-death situation. And, emergency or not, we'd like to be able to walk into the doctor (or be wheeled in on a stretcher) without the fear that we will financially ruined when we come out.

 

[mheslep]

...

The idea that friends, neighbors and churches have the resources to provide healthcare to all Americans [...] is quite preposterous.

Absent the current interference from the federal government I disagree.

The federal government has a revenue of $2+ trillion yet still over spends that by $1.6 trillion, incurring maybe a hundred billion in annual fraud from the current health entitlements alone. The idea that a federal government far removed from its 300 million people can "provide" healthcare is easily the more unlikely of the two approaches.

 

[mheslep]

... Seriously, who would you rather have them pander to? Whoever is paying you the most?

Nobody. pander: someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others

 

[JDoolin]

Sure transparency is good

Yes, yes, yes. If we could focus on that for a moment, and just let that sink in. Let's not focus on what we can easily have, but rather on what we should have, and what we MUST have.

but I doubt that governments, in general, are ever going to be as transparent as you say.

I differ in opinion on this. You are giving up too easily. For a government by the people, and for the people, there is no greater imperative than transparency. The people must KNOW what their government is doing in detail so that we may make the appropriate choices when election time is coming around.

This is not an issue we can afford to be cynical about.

I don't trust governments just as much as I don't trust corporations. Politicians don't walk into office poor and walk out millionaires because they're angels.

Precisely.

However, again, no corporation, special interest group, or anyone or any entity should be given special privileges in the form of tax breaks, tariffs, and so forth. This is how you minimize manipulation and coercion in markets. We punish those who are responsible and those who are stagnant in markets get subsidized by the tax payers (GM, domestic farmers, Solyndra, and so forth).

Transparency is important, because we must know WHY these companies are stagnant. We must know why their competitors are not stagnant. Do you think America is the only country in the world who subsidizes their industries? We have a level of transparency in this country that informs us of how much the companies are getting, and how it's being used. That is a good thing. We should also be aware of how much their competitors are being subsidized.

I am happy to see GM getting subsidized because it means more American jobs but that was in the BILLIONS of dollars. Solyndra got subsidized for a half a billion dollars, and from what I've heard, by the time they got their factories up, somehow the market was already mysteriously flooded with the patented product they intended to sell, and they could not match the price.

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but this is an area where transparency would be a good thing to have. Sure it would be nice to see those "responsible" punished, but without transparency, there is little hope of actually discovering who is responsible.

Decoupling the hands that bind governments and private industries(not capitalism but corporatism) is what ultimately leads to mismanagement on both sides.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean there.

I'm not sure what you mean by giving it to them. I've always been a firm believer of earning everything you acquire.

What I would look for is the sort of person who has earned much for their community but acquired very little for themselves. My concept of a meek person may differ from yours. Meek people don't acquire things. They're quite happy with what they already have. Meek people do not seek power. They're happy being in service to others.

(meekness) the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness
(meekness) a disposition to be patient and long suffering

 

[JDoolin]

Nobody. pander: someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others

Yeah. Thanks.

Check post 407. I really thought pandering meant something else.

 

[mheslep]

There are several factors that impact health care costs including new medical technology, an aging population, high demand for the very good medical treatments and many others. To my mind these are all secondary to the primary cause which is a lack of a market system in healthcare: there is little to no price information provided to the actual consumer. I can look up the price of launching my 1000kg payload into orbit, online, but it is impossible for me as layman to bypass my insurer to call around to hospitals and get the going rate on a procedure, nor can I get a price on insurance out of state. The resulting thinking on health care is evident everywhere, when people just assume some procedure "costs" $100K as if it were written in stone. Nobody says a flight to Florida "costs" $2K (it once did), or a computer with 500K RAM "costs" $2K (it once did) because of course there's a highly competitive market at work ruthlessly constraining the prices of these things. This state of affairs is largely due to government interference on what should be a health market: the employer health tax break since WWII, Medicare and Medicaid insurance - all creations of the federal government.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7298"

 

[JDoolin]

There are several factors that impact health care costs including new medical technology, an aging population and many others. To my mind these are all secondary to the primary cause which is a lack of a market system in healthcare: there is little to no price information provided to the actual consumer of healthcare. I can look up the price of launching my 1000kg payload into orbit, online, but it is impossible for me as laymen to bypass my insurer to call around to hospitals and get the going rate on a procedure, nor can I get a price on insurance out of state. This state of affairs is largely due to the employer provided health tax break, Medicare and Medicaid insurance - all creations of the federal government.

Good point. And again, that falls under the heading of transparency. That's another thing we should insist on being made public information.

 

[WhoWee]

In order to understand it better, I want to discuss this entire (new - quasi) socialism discussion - as it might apply to me. Apparently, there will be 2 groups - taxpayer and beneficiary?

I would prefer to be a member of the taxpayer group. Accordingly, I might be willing to create 8 new jobs this year if the Government is willing to subsidize my business ($250,000 per employee would be adequate = $2 Million cash up front) and provide me a comprehensive green energy package for my home and business - to include, solar, vertical wind turbines, and geothermal.

Now, in return, if they are willing to do this, I might also be willing to pay a 40% income tax rate. Further, I could help the employees enroll in the Government mandated health insurance plan - and either pay the premium or pay the penalty after a cost analysis. I would intend to provide training and pay a fair wage in the $10 to $25 per hour range based upon production, quality, and consistency of work.

Does this sound fair?

 

[mheslep]

Yeah. Thanks.

Check post 407. I really thought pandering meant something else.

So given that definition, I don't want to be pandered to by the government.

Heh. Nor do I. Feel that way none the less come tax day. ;-)

 

[ThomasT]

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

I of course agree that increased healthcare costs have something (maybe a lot, maybe mostly) to do with the costs associated with technological advances. It isn't clear to me exactly how much this contributes to the increase.

The argument that a less regulated, market driven healthcare system would stabalize at generally lower rates of increasing costs might be correct (and I think it probably is correct). But even if it is, I would guess that there's still going to be about 10% of the population that can't even afford the relatively less expensive preventative care, much less the very much more expensive treatment for serious conditions. So, how might we deal with that?

Wrt the OP, I don't see any way around some sort of large governmental participation. The argument that it can be handled by friends, family, churches, and secular philanthropic groups made sense half a century ago. But it's difficult for me to see it as a solution to the problem in today's America.

There's really only one way to find out. Unfortunately we seem to be too entangled with the status quo to do that (ie., to allow healthcare to be genuinely market driven). But my guess is that a primarily free(er) market driven healthcare system, while resulting in generally lower costs and decreases in the rates of increase of those costs, would nonetheless leave 30 to 40 million Americans without proper health care.

 

[JDoolin]

Regarding the mystery of costs of medical procedures, I've heard recently that even the doctors themselves may have no idea how much the drug companies are charging the insurance companies. All they know is that one drug is slightly better than the other, and its the same price (or perhaps less with the coupon) for the patient. They have no idea that it costs 10 times as much to the insurance company.

If you're going to be a friend, then your attitude should be "I'm going to help out my friends." If you're going to be a an active member of the community, you should say "I'm going to help my community" Likewise, a church member is quite likely to want to help out his or her church.

But if you're running for national political office, you should be aware of all those people that want to be helpful, but that does not release you from doing whatever you can to help as well.

The idea that friends, neighbors and churches have the resources to provide healthcare to all Americans (or protect their water, food, air quality, etc.) is quite preposterous.

Absent the current interference from the federal government I disagree.

The federal government has a revenue of $2+ trillion yet still over spends that by $1.6 trillion, incurring maybe a hundred billion in annual fraud from the current health entitlements alone. The idea that a federal government far removed from its 300 million people can "provide" healthcare is easily the more unlikely of the two approaches.

The question is, in the current system, where the current corruption is already in place, whether it is the time to say; Okay, government; hands off the healthcare system!

It's not a question of can they. It's a question of are they? And the answer is, no they aren't. Certainly not in the massive, organized fashion that would be necessary to compete with multi-billion dollar industries. If you're claiming the U.S. government has no hope to compete with special interests, how can you think that individual churches and governments would have any hope?

When the churches and communities all stand up and demand their health care rights are returned to them; when the hospitals, nurses, unemployed nurses, and neigborhood doctors decide that enough is enough, and they'll return to the good-old-days of 1950's medicine, and they have the organization to make their own rule...

You know, actually I would like to see that. Or, actually, I'd like to see more of that, since that's kind of the way my own doctor is. But if I don't see a revolution across the country of hospitals throwing off the reigns of unfair, inefficient, and costly rules I think it is better if the government changes those rules.

The government already has rules in place which are inefficient, costly, and end up making the wrong people rich. If you're saying that the churches, and communities should get together and just do something different, you are quite likely to be asking them to break the law. It would be much better to change the laws, to change them to something just.

As a presidential candidate, to say that he has no responsibility as a government official to improve the healthcare system, because that should be in the hands of the churches and friends and communities. At this point, when the government already has its hands in the health care system, Ron Paul should have to come up with a fairly robust plan for HOW to transfer the control of the health care system to communities, churches, and friends.

In any case, asking communities to handle their own healthcare systems, when there are already numerous laws and regulations in place, preventing them from doing things as efficiently as they would probably like, he's asking people to break the law, and I think the result would be pretty chaotic.

But that might be what he wants. Is that far from the libertarian ideal? What exactly is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?