Alway good to hear both perspectives... Excellent debate between two classmates: maybe those republicans werent SO crazy to want to delay... Jon Stewart Delivers Blistering Takedown of Obamacare Rollout: Dems Cant Spin This Turd youtube October 21, 2013 - After the government shutdown, Jon Stewart said all Democrats had to do to regain political footing was a mildly competent implementation... Unlike · · Share · Yesterday at 1:56am · You, Mark Hall and 4 others like this. 1 share Zach Oyer and people say hes relentlessly biased! This shows that when Jon Stewart sees something ridiculous, he makes fun of it, regardless of which party its about Yesterday at 11:21am · Like · 2 Eric R. Schmidt The link didnt work anymore, but I think this may be the same segment you were referring to philly/... 13 hours ago · Like · 2 Jefferson Thacker The link didnt work ahahaha And anyway, yes the govt. shutdown was still crazy. And not even politically beneficial. And to use a Jon Stewart clip but not to mention the Government Shutstorm: America Sits On Its Balls broaches on a level of reporting I would normally associate with CNN. 8 hours ago · Edited · Like Conrad P. Wineland just saying, if they cant even make the website work... how can they expect to write a comprehensive reform of an entire industry (that works)? 6 hours ago · Like Mark Hall Why would anyone buy something that the salesman themselves would refuse to buy? 6 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 1 Jefferson Thacker I dont agree that the current industry works. That of course depends on many sub-definitions, and I think a major one is this: should the primary concern of health care in America be (1) profit, or (2) patient care? I think both the current system AND Obamacare are primarily concerned with profit for the health insurance corporations, and I find this morally abhorrent. So I also disagree with the concept that Obamacare represents a comprehensive reform because it is more accurate to say that this law represents guaranteed profits for the insurance corporations, at the expense of a captive audience, namely the American taxpayers. Money can buy many things, and it seems that more parts of life are becoming monetized everyday; access to clean water, clean air, physical security and protection from crime, and most forms of health care should all be public goods. 5 hours ago · Unlike · 1 Jefferson Thacker Also I think theres been a lot of willful ignorance about the Elephant In The Room... WHY is health care SO EXPENSIVE these days? I think one major cause is that administrators and top executives in health-related businesses are receiving vast salaries that are not commensurate with the actual work they perform. Now here could begin a discussion about who should get to decide how much someone gets paid, or if thats anybodys business besides the professional in question and their employer... thats all well and good, but I would again like to emphasize that this is not a normal commodity. We are talking about peoples physical well-being, from geriatrics getting hip surgery to children receiving chemotherapy and everything in between. I think to discuss the health care industry without pausing to consider the social nature of health care itself is to miss the entire point. 5 hours ago · Unlike · 1 Conrad P. Wineland a few things- First, i never said the current system works. Second, more people and less resources means that we have to determine a fair way of splitting up said resources. A marketplace that is truly free and not tampered with by the government will allow the fairest distribution of those resources where they are needed most - through pricing. We have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to live free from want. The beautiful thing about prices is that nobody has to decide how much someone gets paid. In a free market (emphasis on free, because the marketplace in America is far from it with government controls, kickbacks, subsidies, etc) the price of a good incorporates all factors, more than any one govt official or committee could even comprehend. And- it is able to react much more quickly as well. It doesnt have friends at giant pharmaceutical or insurance companies. It doesnt want to make money. Why is healthcare so expensive these days? Maybe Medicare and Medicaid have something to do with it. Medicaid rarely covers the cost of a patients procedure (cost, not what the doctor would have charged to make money, just the cost) and takes more time to process (if it even goes through). This is a big reason why prices are inflated- people dont have to pay it directly, doctors ask for way more than its worth to try to get some money out of it and the people dont complain because they never see the price tag. This raises the price across the board. Granted, health care has a pretty inelastic demand, but so does food. The market can handle it. My main point is this: The ACA is not ready for prime time, legally or practically. We cant pay for it. It doesnt solve the problem. It creates another huge, inefficient bureaucracy subject to human error and human emotion. It invades your most private personal records and allows people you dont know or trust to view them. It puts your health in the same hands that created the award winning american public school system.... Lets imagine were old school farmers taking our corn to the marketplace. Weve got a beat up old cart that is drawn by a ragged horse thats half alive. We arent making very much money because we cant get our corn to market very quickly. Whats the best thing to do? Obamacare is the equivalent of replacing the cart with a nice new shiny GIANT cart that we have to finance over 30 years with the bank, but not bothering to replace the horse. It puts on more load without adding motive power. 4 hours ago · Unlike · 2 Jefferson Thacker I see now that you meant the word works to modify reform, not industry, my mistake. Still, I dont think that the pricing mechanism in a free market is exactly fair, although it is certainly fast. If a rich man is in a lifeboat with paupers, I dont think its fair for him to buy the last of the water. This, I think is a moral issue at heart. I agree that there is rampant fraud with Medicaid, but I think the fault lies more with those committing the fraud than with Medicaid itself. However Medicaid obviously, ideally, should not be susceptible to the fraud in the first place, so there is clearly a problem there too. I also agree that the Affordable Care Act is misguided, and so far seems clumsy. What really burns me about it is that the entire public discourse started off about getting health care to all Americans (a notion I support) but by the end of the whole parade, it seems to me that the primary function of the law is to stuff taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the health insurance corporations. And health insurance finance is not the same as health care provision. You are absolutely right that the problem remains unsolved, although I think we will disagree about what WOULD solve the problem, or even which problem perhaps we are addressing in the first place. Thanks for talking about this, its nice to hear a well-reasoned response instead of the somewhat incoherent anti-Obama sloganeering that seems to unfortunately drown out the more legitimate concerns. 3 hours ago · Unlike · 1 Conrad P. Wineland Always glad to have a reasonable argument. I wish we could get everybody all the healthcare they needed. Pricing would regulate the frivolous from the necessary in a perfect world. I do take exception to your lifeboat analogy though- money would be worthless in a lifeboat. If a guy wanted to risk it all and sell his portion of water for an exorbitant price, hoping for a quick rescue, he should be able to do it. Its also his fault when he dies of thirst, and nobody should be forced to give up the water they wisely saved because he made a greedy or foolish play and lost. Thats kinda the whole argument about this to begin with. The highest morality allows people to fairly do what they want with the resources they have, and holds them accountable for the mistakes they made. Then people can decide to help or not, but its their choice. 3 hours ago · Unlike · 2 Jefferson Thacker Well thats one way to think of the lifeboat. But imagine it instead as an auction system, where the water is being held separate and the people place bids... I think you see where this is going... By free market economic theory, the richest man will end up with all the water, or at least as much water as he cares to buy, and the poorest man will either end up with nothing at all, or at best whatever water is left over if for some reason (not likely in a lifeboat) the richer parties dont buy it all first. The water in this imaginary lifeboat is an inelastic demand, which is true of critical health care also, as you pointed out yourself. If the poor man dies of thirst because he was the poor man, I do not think (1) that I would call this moral, or (2) that this situation falls under your point about letting people suffer for their mistakes. ...unless we call it his mistake for being the poor man in the first place. But social darwinism has never done much for me, especially when I understand that the success of the human race is largely due to our propensity to help each other, at least within family or tribal units, the in group. 3 hours ago · Unlike · 1 Conrad P. Wineland see but youre manufacturing a third party that is selling the water. Who do you think that is? it would never happen that way unless there was already an authority structure in place AKA the government. So even in your own analogy, the government ruins everything 3 hours ago · Like Jefferson Thacker To avoid seeming to be only a smartass nay-sayer, Ill put a stake in the ground and say that I would like to see a Federal Medical Corps operated similar to the military, with the purpose of providing medical care to the American people at taxpayer expense (just as the military is funded). BUT back to the lifeboat, I agree that the third party is manufactured as you say but I see absolutely no reason to claim that its the government. Couldnt that third party just as easily be a corporation... say... the Bechtel corporation in 2000, which pressured a government to make illegal the collection of rainwater in order to squeeze the impoverished population to fork over their money to buy back their OWN water? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Cochabamba_protests 2000 Cochabamba protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org The Cochabamba protests of 2000, also known as the Cochabamba Water War or the W... See More 2 hours ago · Like Conrad P. Wineland This required government cooperation. It takes two to tango. Capitalism is good, cronyism is bad. Also man- ask anybody with experience in the military or MSC how much money the DOD just flat out wastes every day. Enough to pay for healthcare for everybody and then some. Government just isnt very good at allocating resources. Its a fact of life. 2 hours ago · Unlike · 1 Jefferson Thacker I would argue that a lot of that wasted money is due to contractors, so absolutely, two to tango. But the government also put a man on the moon and builds imported cities in the desert for soldiers halfway around the world. So I think that the truism about government incapacity to allocate resources really needs a second look. And back to Obamacare: remember, all were doing is paying for INSURANCE. Not health care. The care itself would per force cost less, since the insurance companies are going for a profit. 2 hours ago · Like Conrad P. Wineland If you throw a lot of money at a lot of things, youll eventually get a few things right. NASA was good in the beginning but followed the trend all govt programs do and became so bloated and inefficient that it nearly shut down. Except they never shut down. We dont even have a space shuttle anymore... you know who does? The Private Sector. Building cities in the desert is a waste of money especially for an unnecessary and illegal war that should have been over 10 years ago. Also- profit seeking drives companies to become more efficient users of resources and create a better product (that more people can afford), UNLESS there is little or no competition, like there would be with your medical corps. 2 hours ago · Unlike · 1 Jefferson Thacker The political quality or legitimacy of the war doesnt speak to the fact of its construction, and the allocation of resources required to do so. However I should remember that there are massive amounts of private contractors involved as well, so it may not speak to MY point about defending the ability of the government to accomplish projects... so thats kind of a scrub. But the military actions themselves do require massive logistics that are in fact accomplished by government employees in the military, that is true. Also look at the Works Progress Administration under FDR, and the highways that were built under government authority, where workers were paid by the government, out of the budget which was taxpayer money in the first place. That worked out just fine. With my Medical Corps, I dont see why a lack of competition within the Corps itself would necessarily be a bad thing, or create a worse service. The people would be salaried; with their pay as a known quantity, Im sure that medical care providers who are CURRENTLY in the military still try to do their best as a general rule. If I were emperor of the US, I wouldnt abolish private health insurance; if you want it, thats your right to buy it. Just as the existence of the US Postal Service doesnt preclude the existence of UPS, FedEx, etc. And probably the most important point I can make here: I dont think there is much competition in the health insurance industry right now. I see more collusion and reliance on subsidies. Same with oil. Same with most of our biggest industries. I think the most vicious competition youll see in these Towers of Industry are the corporate executives scheming and back-stabbing to get the best offices and the highest of the already-ridiculously-high salaries. But I really dont get the feeling that Blue Cross is doing its best to undercut Humana, or Exxon to Shell. 2 hours ago · Edited · Like Conrad P. Wineland RE: Highways- Think of where we might be right now if we never built the interstates. People would still find a way to get where they wanted to go, right? But with a huge free roadway system, the auto industry took off and precluded the construction of better, more efficient modes of transportation like trains. Now you have to sit on the interstate for 4 hours a day commuting to work because the train system in america doesnt exist. Hell, we might have flying cars today if we never built the interstates. People find a way to get what they want. About your last paragraph, I agree completely. Collusion and Subsidies- both products of bad governance, not capitalism. Capitalism naturally takes the easiest path, like anything else. When we provide an easier path through poor governance, the system doesnt work as designed. 2 hours ago · Unlike
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 03:15:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015