|
Post by Ouch on Aug 31, 2009 5:50:54 GMT -5
Healthcare is a right, for it is a right to life...hey wait, I swear I've heard conservatives talk about rights to life...hmm... ...oh and I think there's this little spiel in some document we have in the U.S., guaranteeing Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I agree Ray, that doctors and medical institutions are over-charging for their services, perhaps due to trying to make up money from lawsuits, lawsuit that may or may not be justified (when you operate on the wrong side of the patient, you need to be sued...)... ...the reasons these agencies are failing, are because of a ridiculous phobia of taxes. Sure, the tax code is horrible, it does need to be re-written - I'm all for that...but when people are griping over a 1.5% tax increase...it gets ridiculous. I'd rather pay a set tax price, and know I could definitely get coverage, rather than have a premium that adjusts according to how good of an investment (like the stock market) the insurance company thinks I am, or find out after I've paid for coverage, that when I finally need to make use of the insurance coverage, that, oh...they won't cover what I need...from what I've heard from doctors, that is the most annoying thing they've had to deal with, maneuvering about limited and conditional coverage from insurance agencies. It makes more work for them, for the patient, and just about everyone involved...and people are sick and dying all in the meantime. People are getting rich off the cost of healthcare are the insurance companies. It's like having Enron run healthcare...or say let a company run the electrical utilities in California. Wait? That already happened? Enron did it! What happened when Enron ran the utilities in California? Blackouts, because Enron was crooked and looking for money, not putting service to California consumers, because profit was in their best interest....and what happened in California? The electric rates went through the roof...hmm, kinda' like healthcare... To take a Jewish/Christian/Muslim way of looking at it, God commanded us to 'Love thy neighbour', paying a little extra in taxes will certainly accomplish that, instead of watching your neighbour writhe away, dying from cancer. The Good Samaritan was 'taxed' by spending effort and helping a person in need at the side of the road... There are a lot of flaws in the way the country is administrated (in general, over the course of years not just President Obama's administration), and this legislation is just one piece of the puzzle that can work to fix some of it. It certainly won't fix it all, and I think by passing it, some of the other issues we have will become more obvious when they interact with the new legislation, and of course those issues need to be corrected, but just because there are some longstanding problems, doesn't give any reason to pass it. ...if people want to live like the 'good ol' days like they used to be' go live with the fucking Amish. If you aren't convinced about better health coverage, I'll introduce you to my Smith & Wesson, and my baseball bat. I bet I can make you change your mind in a hurry when getting some good healthcare will then seem like a good priority (Diva, I think this is how 'terrorists' are made ).
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 31, 2009 8:20:39 GMT -5
Health care is a privlage not a right... Wow.
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Aug 31, 2009 8:21:19 GMT -5
i geuss i'm pretty much in favor of 'single-payer', i.e. govt. funded health care for all; or at least for some version of it.
but you know what? getting it-finally, won't stop people bitching and whining. not one bit. the canadians piss and moan about their system. so do the brits about theirs.
that's the one thing that does disgust me about modern 'entitlement' societies; they somehow seem to provoke ingratitude, envy and cynicism in the very folks they benefit...
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 31, 2009 10:23:44 GMT -5
Wind,
You need to consider a couple of points: 1. The initial problem with health care costs was 'cost shifting', when the GOVERNMENT programs didn't pay enough for medical procedures, the health care costs were shifted to the insured. The insurance companies responded by shifting the costs to you.
When a large consumer (government) doesn't pay enough, health care providers have three choices: a. Shift costs (most do this now), b. Refuse to provide the services (a big problem for MediCal recipients) , or c. Go out of business. Which would you prefer?
2. The government is responsible for overseeing the insurance companies, and they have not been doing their job, which precipitates the abuses going on right now. We need the government to DO THEIR JOB, not simply take bribes - oh sorry 'campaign contributions' from the lobbyists.
3. The electrical problem in California was real, but look at what really happened: we had several power companies, PG&E, San Diego Power & Light, Southern California Edison etc. The state decided they could drive prices down, and in order to do so, the state forced the power companies to sell their generation facilities, then buy all their power FROM THE STATE. The state invalidated all long term contracts with power producers, and purchased electricity by the hour - from companies such as Enron. The state didn't care what the energy cost, that was passed off to the power companies, who were REQUIRED to buy it at whatever price the state was paying. The power companies were not allowed to raise their retail prices, so pretty soon they were buying electricity for 20 cents per kilowatt-hour and selling it for 6 cents. You cannot stay in business long that way.
4. Companies like Enron did in fact 'game the system', but the state didn't care, it wasn't coming out of their pocket.
5. The biggest problem producers were actually the Bonneville Power district - run by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and Los Angeles county run by - you guessed it - the government.
5. By the way, this program was ironically called 'Deregulation', but was actually much more highly regulated than anything proceeding it.
6. Whereas the tort system that fosters medical malpractice lawsuits is frequently mentioned as a problem, it actually represents a very small percentage of the total cost, so eliminating it entirely wouldn't make much difference.
You need to understand, it's not like we don't want medical care for all, it's just that at the moment our federal government is a very poor vehicle for delivering it. The solution is not throwing more money at the problem, but fixing our regulatory system.
In the past we have had many examples of people voting a tax increase to provide some social service, then having it either totally squandered or used for something totally unrelated. For example, in the Bay Area we decided to build a new bridge at Carquinez for earthquake safety. This bridge is 1/4 mile long. The original budget was $100 million. The final cost was in excess of $1.1 Billion. For a 1/4 mile bridge. Subsequently people voted to raise the bridge tolls to pay for improvements, then discovered the increased tolls were NOT going for bridge maintenance, but straight to the state general fund. Subsequently the good folks said, "Possibly we should have made it clear the money was not going for bridges, but there is no requirement to do so."
A reasonable fear of many - considering what has happened before, is that we would raise taxes to provide health care, but the funds instead would be used to pay for another war or something equally unproductive.
Here in California, we had a problem adequately funding schools, so we voted on a lottery, with the promise the proceeds would go to schools only. They do, except where the general fund provided X amount of dollars for schools, that was reduced to offset the lottery revenues. The net effect was schools don't get any more, the state does.
It is important to understand that the naysayers are not saying no because they are cheap. We would like a good health care system, better schools etc., but feel that won't happen until government does it's job. It currently is not doing so, and there is no reason to expect things to change anytime soon.
Consider things such as recently Congress added to the budget items such as more F22 fighters - that the pentagon said it didn't need, and didn't want. Why? because the manufacturers are in the district of influential congressmen. That money could be better spent to do something constructive.
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 31, 2009 10:54:43 GMT -5
"President Obama at a town hall meeting last week described a letter he received from a Medicare recipient: "I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, 'I don't want government-run health care. I don't want socialized medicine. And don't touch my Medicare.'" At a town hall meeting held by Rep. Robert Inglis (R-SC): Someone reportedly told Inglis, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." "I had to politely explain that, 'Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,'" Inglis told the Post. "But he wasn't having any of it." It's no wonder with "very serious" analysts like Arthur Laffer are appearing on CNN and saying things like this (and getting away with it unchallenged): "If you like the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government." Yeah, just wait until the government gets its mighty robot claws on Medicare and Medicaid -- snatching control away from, you know, the government. (Incidentally, the post office is amazing. As Maher said recently, anyone can drop a letter into a blue metal box on the sidewalk and in a couple of days it arrives at the place listed on the envelope. For 44 cents. Off the top of your head, can you name anything that costs 44 cents and actually functions exactly as advertised?) I can only hope that the Keep your goddamn government hands off my Medicare! people are exceptions and that a vast majority of Republican seniors understand that Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran's Administration are all government-run health care systems. Put another way: they're actively and willingly participating in socialized medicine. So the seniors who understand the facts about the Medicare system and yet are screeching at town hall meetings about government-run health care are, well, insert your favorite colorful synonym for "freakishly colossal hypocrites" right about here. Either these people have been so kerfluffled and enraged by the wingnutty "reparations" and "killing old people" lies they're hearing on AM radio that they've forgotten about the source of their current health insurance coverage, or they're fully aware of the fact that they are, indeed, beneficiaries of socialism, but they refuse to allow anyone else to participate in a similar program. You know, because socialized medicine is bad. Except for them." Source: www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/get-your-goddamn-governme_b_252326.html
|
|
Phil
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by Phil on Aug 31, 2009 12:00:29 GMT -5
It's not rocket science...
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 31, 2009 14:05:05 GMT -5
Tri,
Oh yeah, of course there's always going to be someone to complain. When you deliver something to someone on a silver platter, they want it on a gold one, and so on...
mike,
Well, a lot of your points talk about government inefficiency and mismanagement. I'm all with you on that, completely. As I identified in my post. The administration of this country needs a lot of improvement in general, and the current 'old boy' system we got in Washington needs to be rid off. However, that does not eliminate the need for health care reform.
Jason,
See above...
I'm not sure what health care system you're using, but here's what happens to me. I go to the doctor. The doctor says: "I'm not sure what's going on, I'm going to run you through a battery of several expensive tests that will cost the equivalent of your yearly salary, but don't worry it's only a third of what I make." I go through the tests and then see the doctor again, he says "Well the initial battery of tests were mostly inconclusive, we generally got an idea of what happened, we're going to run you through several more tests to confirm our findings, and then next month come back and we'll run some more tests to expand our understanding of the problem." A month later, after the battery of tests, I get a diagnosis and he says, "We're going to have to have you see us regularly while we monitor this condition, and we'll put you on this medication for a set period of time." I take the Rx and then I go to the pharmacy. I wait a few hours and then get a call, "Mr. Windrider, your insurance denied coverage for the medication, you'll need to make payment to receive your prescription." I think, "What the fuck? I pay for this out of the money I earn each week, and they're not going to do what I pay them for?" You know what that sounds a lot like Jason?
Here do an experiment for me. Go to a high class restuarant, the priciest one you can find...order the lobster, some fine wine, a few appetizers. There we go, that should rack your bill up a bit. Now ask for your check before they even bring the drinks, pay the bill - then leave...because that's just what happened in the healthcare scenario...except with those tests and waiting a couple of months (or if I'm lucky a few weeks), I just got charged probably over $100,000.00. I bet everyone here has that in their wallet, right? Of course would totally make the Census report saying average income is a little over $50,000.00 not make much sense...but of course our health care system is working perfect.
Yeah, when I had the opportunity to be employed, I worked my forty hours, sometimes more...but that had nothing to do with it. The insurance company honestly doesn't care whether I'm CEO of Super Conglomerate, Inc. or if I'm a hobo who picks up enough recyclable cans to pay them, they just want me to pay them, and when it comes down to needing that treatment, or medication, I'm going to end up having to pay when they deny it anyway, not because I'm a good honest white collar worker who keeps his tie on tight, has 2.5 children and got my college degree right out of high school. Though even if I hadn't had that problem, and I was Mr. White Collar, what happens when I was working at Big National Bank as Chief Technology Officer, and my division gets laid off, because of something like, maybe a recession...damn, there goes my healthcare. I try to apply somewhere else, and find out that Also Big National Bank has downsized, and therefore there's no room for me...damn, I'm really out of luck.
Jason, I've certainly studying economics, in fact, I'm majoring in business! I do not have a disdain for capitalism, enterprise, or people trying to make an honest wage...but like my restaurant example. I don't like going to a movie theater, paying for a ticket, only to be told that my ticket doesn't qualify to see the next big action flick, and left to stare at a blank screen. I think the world needs some capitalist institutions, because otherwise you'll have a country like Zimbabwe...but look at Canada, Britain, Sweden, etc. They have plenty of capitalist institutions, businesses, etc. (Hold on, people buy stuff in Canada, right? Can the Canadian members confirm this for me?)...they're doing fine...hell the Euro hasn't been doing too bad against the U.S. Dollar from what I've seen...
E, and Phil's post preceding mine really sum up a lot of other things I have to say as well.
I think you'd be surprised how much of that '90%' of the country actually is similar to New England. There are plenty of non-metropolitan areas, as well as plenty of rural areas in New England that face similar situations to other regions in the country. Consider Western Europe, places that have popped up in mentioning in previous posts...or our neighbour to the north for example - I didn't realise they were such third-world nations. When I visited Canada, I must've missed all the poor, starving children, and impoverished slums...same with Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Austria...wow, they must be like the North Koreans, they hide the massive poverty they must suffer, because apparently they have living standards much lower than ours...which really confuses me how so many people live longer over there...
...oh wait, I hear they're healthy, that's why...
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Aug 31, 2009 15:39:07 GMT -5
so...
ok...
i hear that there are these women out there called 'devotees', who are big into disabled guys...
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 31, 2009 16:22:17 GMT -5
Wind,
I would like to make 3 points:
1. If you believe government will bring economic efficiency to health care, I have an $800 toilet seat I would like to sell you.
2. How about this radical suggestion; why don't we adequately fund the programs we already have, and manage them better? Oh and insurance companies? Why doesn't government do their job and enforce the current insurance regulations? Oh that's right, the same government that oversees wall street, and would never allow a ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff. Oh and how about the malfeasance on wall street; isn't that what we formed a government agency specifically to preclude? Why didn't the government do that?
3. I think Tri is right, this forum is about dev's & not a political platform. Sorry for having taken us off the track.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 31, 2009 16:38:52 GMT -5
In regard to what Jason said about social security; he is correct that social security is problematic. Compare our system to Germany's. we (between the employer & employee) over 15%. I am pretty well off, and over the years paid a LOT of money into social security. If I start collecting SSI when I am 65, I will get $1,000 per month. In Germany, you pay in 17%, but collect 70% or your highest salary. You could easily retire on that. In my case, SSI wouldn't even pay my property tax.
It's not a matter of not wanting to pay for the benefit, but rather the well founded expectation of paying, and then not getting the benefit.
When you compare the US with Canada, keep in mind their government doesn't take money from lobbyists, so regulations are written to benefit the citizens, not corporations. Corporations are entitled to earn a profit, but are not citizens and therefore cannot vote. So why should they be able to purchase favor from congress? Under the current system, when health care reform becomes law, the people who will have effectively written the laws will be the drug companies, insurance companies and large hospital chains. Why? Because they are the only ones with enough money to pay lobbyists to bribe congress. Do you reasonably expect the laws to benefit you? I don't. If I lived in Canada, or most European countries I probably would.
|
|
|
Post by BA on Aug 31, 2009 17:03:48 GMT -5
so... ok... i hear that there are these women out there called 'devotees', who are big into disabled guys... I am NOT attracted to Ted Kennedy on wheels.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Dee on Aug 31, 2009 19:08:14 GMT -5
3. I think Tri is right, this forum is about dev's & not a political platform. Sorry for having taken us off the track. Mike (and Triassic); this thread started as a discussion about the possible connection of better health care (for the disabled) and Ted Kennedy as a politician highly committed to improving social conditions in the US. As have happened with many other threads, the discussions just evolve. Why shouldn´t we have a political debate here? Discussing health care seems very relevant to me - it does affect everybody in general and perhaps the disabled in particular, doesn´t it? The Message Board is rather "large" - so I don´t think discussing one subject precludes another ... hence "you can talk about everything here" as it says in the general thread on the front page of the message board.
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 31, 2009 19:42:36 GMT -5
so... ok... i hear that there are these women out there called 'devotees', who are big into disabled guys... Damn, really? I got to find me one...
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 31, 2009 21:28:30 GMT -5
Now if I didn't work my a$$ off to secure and keep a good job with health benefits, I might want those who do so to provide my health care, too. Like so many things in this, and other well-functioning, non-entitlement societies, the health care system functions well for those who take the initiative to take care of themselves. Jason, I always respect your opinion and the immense amount of logic and common sense you inject into your arguments, but when I read the piece that I just quoted above, I think you're missing out on a very important piece of the population that I am extremely familiar with. I'm familiar with it because it's me. As you may know, I'm self-employed. I own three companies. Fortunately, I've been so blessed that one of my companies has grown large enough that I can offer health insurance to myself and my employees. I'm grateful for that. However, this wasn't always the case. For years and years, my family and I went without coverage. I was still getting up every morning, "working my ass off," and doing all the things I should be, but health care wasn't an option. All funds were being poured in the business and providing basic needs. There was no room for health insurance. I have two stories, true stories, that are relevant. One of my closest friends owns a plumbing contracting business. He does plumbing for new construction. I have distributors around the country who buy my product. They're all self-employed, small business owners. I have one for an area in Florida that was previously thriving. Both my friend in the plumbing contracting and my Florida distributor were doing well a few years ago. Both have been in business for over a decade and both run moral, upstanding businesses that are respected in their communities. They're salt of the earth people. They're people you would like and know as earnest and hard working. They have employees. A few years ago, these business owners and their employees received health insurance through their companies. Now, as things have slowed, times have gotten harder. Layoffs have been made. Pay has been cut. Sacrifices must be made. Both these businesses were forced to cut their health insurance not just for their employees, but for themselves. They could just no longer afford it and continue to keep their businesses going. They're doing okay. They're plugging along, adapting, making do, and surviving. They've taken on more responsibilities personally to keep payroll down and keep things solid. They're owner/operators and responsible for the day-to-day management of their businesses' affairs. What if the unthinkable happened? What if one of these business owners got hurt -- bad? He's rushed to the hospital. He goes through the ER. Tests are run. MRIs, CT scans, blood tests. He's hooked up to IV's. He stays overnight. Emergency surgeries are scheduled. He's operated on. He's going to be in the hospital a week and recovering for another two. He's the owner/operator of his business. Everything has stopped. Work is no longer being done. He doesn't get sick time or salary. Income has ceased to come in. He has some savings to live on, but they were already stretched. And the hospital bills are piling up. Without insurance, his medical bills are climbing by tens of thousands of dollars. Every test, every medication, every procedure stacks the costs higher and higher. There's no way he can pay them, no regular human being could. His credit is destroyed. Just when he and his business need lines of credit the most to try and get things back moving and on track, they're yanked and unavailable. His funds are frozen. His business collapses. He's unemployed. His employees are unemployed. He's screwed. And why? Is it because he didn't "work his ass off?" Of course he did, harder than most your salaried folk with a "good job with health benefits." He was a business man and an entreprenuer. He clearly believed in capitalism and the free market. He didn't sit on the couch eating Oreos and watching Oprah waiting for some entitlement program. He spent 13 years building a business by himself. He didn't work for a big company, he was self-employed and couldn't get insurance. Was that a wrong job for him to choose? Was that a bad decision to strike out on his own and try for the American dream of prosperity, earned through his own ability? I mean, all the time we hear that small business is the life blood of this country. Aren't small business owners, more than anyone, taking the initiative to take care of themselves? Why did he get screwed, Jason? How does this story harmonize with the picture you painted of the uninsured? The lazy, slothful, greedy uninsured sucking off our hard working dollar? So, what's the problem? It wasn't him or his laziness or his lack of initiative that put him and his employees out of work and in financial ruin. It was the system. The system is flawed. In my country, the greatest country in the world, the most prosperous, wealthiest, envied nation on Earth, health care should be available and affordable to everyone whether you work for a big Fortune 500 or you're an artist or a teacher or a musician or a writer or a retiree or CEO of a small business start-up with one employee named you. Furthermore, it pains me to think that there are people working for a company right now that offers health benefits yearning to go out and start their own business, all the while hating the desk and cubicle they're chained to, who would be successful and prosperous and happy and leave a legacy for their children, but they can't -- they can't because they have kids and what if something happens? What if she gets hurt before her business gets to the point where she can afford her own insurance? What if she gets lupus or breast cancer? What then? It's just not worth the risk. She continues her daily grind. Her dreams are stifled. The innovations she could bring us never come to be. Her full potential is never witnessed -- all for fear of not having health coverage when the unplanned for occurs. It's not just the lazy and useless that make up our uninsured population. And with one memo from your boss about cut-backs, with one pink slip in a layoff, you could join that population without health coverage. Actually, no, no you wouldn't. You're in a wheelchair. You'd probably apply for Medicaid -- that government run option. Because you're lazy, right? That must be it.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 1, 2009 1:20:31 GMT -5
E,
I like and have great respect for your opinions, but interpret the situation a bit differently; For most of my working life I didn't have health insurance. Not because I didn't want it, and not because I couldn't afford it, but because I have preexisting conditions and no insurance company would take me. Contrast that with car insurance; If you have 14 drunk driving convictions and multiple accidents you can still buy car insurance. It is called the 'assigned risk pool', and all auto insurance companies are required to take a bite of that bitter pill, it's a cost of doing business. Why is there no medical insurance equivalent?
When you buy life, auto or homeowners insurance there are defined terms such as fire, flood, liability etc. and they all mean the same thing, one insurer cannot redefine fire insurance to exclude fires on Tuesday. That greatly facilitates comparison shopping. Why is there no medical insurance equivalent?
In California, one of the largest health care providers - Blue Cross had a reputation for canceling your insurance if you developed an expensive medical condition; the very thing you bought the insurance for. By the way, once they kicked you out, no other insurer would take you either, as you now have a 'pre-existing condition'. As an aside, sometimes they wouldn't cancel you, but your premiums would go up, as much as $70,000 per year - per family.
Why are these things possible? because the government did not do their job, you know we do have an insurance commission to preclude exactly these kinds of abuses. The lobbyists prevailed. Again. In California, HMO's are not answerable to the insurance commissioner, they go to the department of corporations. Why? Because they bought themselves an exemption.
Now the very same people who allow this behavior are going to fix the problem? Aren't we still dealing with the lobbyists?
I am not suggesting we don't need a health care fix, simply that the government has a very poor reputation of providing fixes. If your friend was on MediCal for example, the following would have happened to him: First he would not be eligible at all as long as he had any source of income. Second he would not be eligible until he sold fungible assets such as his home & business, so now he is really destitute. Then he would have a difficult time finding anyone would treat him, because the health care providers know up front they will not be paid a fair price, not even enough to cover their direct expenses. And as a final insult, once he regained his business or got a job, MediCal would now require him to repay the benefits he did receive.
Why do I bring this up? because I remember when MediCal (MedicAid in most states) was created to deal with people exactly like your friend. I think they failed. Now instead of fixing what is broken, they want to create a whole new system. Of course they promise things will be different this time, but I don't believe it. I DO believe we have problems, and your friends case illustrates that rather well, but what assurance do you have that we will not go down the same track? What happened to the National Health service? Oh yeah, it faded into irrelevance because it was not adequately funded. How about the Indian Health service? oh yeah, it faded into irrelevance because it wasn't adequately funded. Oh how about MediCal? It is currently fading into irrelevance because it is not adequately funded. Do we see a pattern here?
Why not start by doing logical things, like forcing the insurance companies to shoulder their responsibility just like any other business? How about funding the systems we already have in place? Well that would be unpopular in Congress, as it would involve a tax increase, and congress creatures would not get to put their name on a new program.
Obama promises to largely pay for the new system using savings from fixing MediCare inefficiencies. Why wait? Why not fix those inefficiencies now?
I have complaints too, but interpret them differently. For example, every couple of years I need new braces. For the particular condition I have, the ones I need are very expensive, in fact my current pair cost over $17,000. That's correct $17,000. Insurance is willing to pony up $1,500, the rest is on me. Why? because insurance prices are indexed off MediCare prices, and MediCare does not differentiate predicated upon individual needs. Now I could take the position that the government should pay, but we would be right back to $1,500. I know where Blue Cross got their prices from - MediCare. What I DO though, is thank my lucky stars I can pay for them myself, if I was dependent upon MediCare I wouldn't be very mobile. And I would NOT be happy. I realize lots of people could not afford to spend $17,000 every couple of years, but should the solution be that I cannot spend my own money to get what I need? That is exactly what would happen with a single payer system.
Before you embrace the promises of single payer, consider MediCal, would you like them to be the payer? What assurance do you have it won't be more of the same?
When considering the government systems of other countries, you need to consider who those systems are written for - their constituents. And ours? Well the lobbyists are already influencing the proposed legislation to ensure their clients - the drug companies and insurance companies get what they want. Think it will benefit you or them? Hmmm, well Obama has already conceded to the drug companies, so we will not have Canadian style savings on drugs. And conceded on providing a 'government alternative' to insurance companies. What they do seem to universally support is mandatory insurance for everyone. Now think about simple laws of supply & demand. When you are REQUIRED by LAW to purchase insurance, will it get cheaper? There are no proposals to offset the mandatory nature of insurance with any kind of cost control. Think your premiums are high now? Just wait & see what happens when insurance becomes mandatory.
In summary, I agree we have big problems, and have direct experience with some of them. But I have no confidence things will get better with our current legislative process.
Here is my one proposal that I think would make the biggest difference; Legal fictions such as corporations, labor unions etc. could not contribute to political campaigns. That's simple, "If you cannot vote, you cannot contribute". I don't mean people who cannot legally vote, I mean things like 'Political Action Committees', Labor unions, Banks etc. They cannot legally vote, and for good reason. They shouldn't be allowed to purchase their way into the legislative process either. That would restore the system whereby your legislators would answer to their constituents, not big money lobbyists, and we would get much better laws. Things like national health care wouldn't be such contentious issues.
Many times things like taxes are defined in oversimplified ways, which confuse the issues. Take tax as a good illustration; one side points out the need for increased revenue, the other side doesn't want to pay. But it is not that simple. If you run a store and sales decline, you cannot fix that by increasing prices to keep your profits stable, that would drive sales down further. And you cannot discount to the point where you are not making any money, no volume of business would correct that. Well taxes are the same, if you increase them, people will buy less, so although the tax rate goes up, revenues don't. Just as in retail sales, their is a point that maximizes profit - in this case tax REVENUE, not tax RATE. We don't tax assets (except property taxes), we tax transactions. When you get paid, that is taxed. When you buy something, that is taxed. If you discourage the transactions, the revenue falls. Instead of discussing these realities, the arguments are defined as "Those evil, stingy conservatives vs. those evil, irresponsible liberals." Neither side is evil, and neither side has a monopoly on honesty or virtue, they are simply defined that way to polarize people to a particular viewpoint.
Sorry for the long diatribe, I do get worked up about these issues.
|
|