Draginol Draginol

Liberal super majority: The ramifications

Liberal super majority: The ramifications

Good article at the WSJ discussing the likely results of the upcoming election.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

Read the whole thing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

55,119 views 105 replies
Reply #76 Top

That's one way of looking at it. The other is to say that the citizenry discharge some of their personal responsibilities to each other through the tool of government, the most efficient way to take care of everybody.
End of quote

That would explain why Canada's standard of living is equivalent to a relatively poor US state.

Reply #77 Top

Is society really better off without him [Buffet] but with the 23-year old welfeare mom?...I don't think I could illustrate better precisely why it's so scary imagining the government deciding who should get care than what you just wrote above
End of quote

Care to give more precise details on what you would find less scary than that (i.e. what specific method of evaluating you're talking about)? The impression I'm getting from what you've posted is that you'd support a system where care+provision of services+valuation of life was done solely on how much money a person is expected to earn in the rest of their lifetime (hence why I've asked for clarification in case this isn't what you're supporting). If it is though, it'd mean someone who has worked all their life paying taxes (but now doesn't earn much) doesn't get entitled to receive decent care (and it's not like you've got police insurance, or [insert various other publicly provided service not health related here] insurance. Similarly, a mother who raises 4 children and is only able to work part time is deemed near-worthless by such a system, since they're not directly earning money, even though they're benefitting society by raising those children who would then grow up to pay taxes. Then you have the worker who earns enough to survive, and who spends the vast majority of their time volunteering to help charitable causes. They benefit society by helping the most vulnerable, but they're not actually earning much if anything.

Meanwhile if you hear of people dying, which would be worse, '100 women and children slaughtered', or 'CEO killed'. I mean it could be those 100 women and children combined would never hope to earn as much as that CEO, but does that make them less valuable to society than the CEO? Is the value of someone simply about their earning potential and nothing else? In fact is money the sole thing of importance in life+society? Happiness afterall has been shown to bear more in common with relative incomes than absolute income (once you're above a basic level of income needed to survive) - society is happier with things being more equal (all else equal) - should that get ignored completely?

Reply #78 Top

Care to give more precise details on what you would find less scary than that (i.e. what specific method of evaluating you're talking about)? The impression I'm getting from what you've posted is that you'd support a system where care+provision of services+valuation of life was done solely on how much money a person is expected to earn in the rest of their lifetime (hence why I've asked for clarification in case this isn't what you're supporting). If it is though, it'd mean someone who has worked all their life paying taxes (but now doesn't earn much) doesn't get entitled to receive decent care (and it's not like you've got police insurance, or [insert various other publicly provided service not health related here] insurance. Similarly, a mother who raises 4 children and is only able to work part time is deemed near-worthless by such a system, since they're not directly earning money, even though they're benefitting society by raising those children who would then grow up to pay taxes. Then you have the worker who earns enough to survive, and who spends the vast majority of their time volunteering to help charitable causes. They benefit society by helping the most vulnerable, but they're not actually earning much if anything.
Meanwhile if you hear of people dying, which would be worse, '100 women and children slaughtered', or 'CEO killed'. I mean it could be those 100 women and children combined would never hope to earn as much as that CEO, but does that make them less valuable to society than the CEO? Is the value of someone simply about their earning potential and nothing else? In fact is money the sole thing of importance in life+society? Happiness afterall has been shown to bear more in common with relative incomes than absolute income (once you're above a basic level of income needed to survive) - society is happier with things being more equal (all else equal) - should that get ignored completely?
End of quote

I prefer a system where who voluntarily opt in to get health insurance of various levels.

To me, 40 million uninsured is a feature, not a bug.

Reply #79 Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 24
If that's the case. If your system really has such layers of protection against those who cannot afford insurance, then tell me why a large amount of americans still cannot have insurance coverage?
End of Draginol's quote


For the most part, they can, they just choose to spend their money in other ways. THAT is why so many of us are against it.  We already have means testing for health insurance with the poor getting it for free.  The people who don't get coverage are overwhelmingly people who could afford it but choose not to. 
End of quote

My liberal dad: If mccain just gives people a cash credit towards healthcare (instead of free healthcare like obama) most would spend it on a new car isntead.

Me: And those people are stupid enough to deserve to die from their choices. (and they wouldn't, because the hospital will still treat them, they will just have to declare bankrupcy... and wait longer, and get lesser treatment, but they will still be treated, which is completely wrong!).

Reply #80 Top

Care to give more precise details on what you would find less scary than that (i.e. what specific method of evaluating you're talking about)? The impression I'm getting from what you've posted is that you'd support a system where care+provision of services+valuation of life was done solely on how much money a person is expected to earn in the rest of their lifetime (hence why I've asked for clarification in case this isn't what you're supporting).
End of quote

Quite wrong, neither of us is arguing that the GOVERNMENT decides to give healthcare to a rich person over a poor person...

The thing is, no matter WHAT metric people choose to use, they are artificially twisting the system, evolution, and free choice.

ANYBODY is entitled to treatment... so who gets it? the person who can afford it, either via their money, connections, political power, personal relationships, celebrity status, CHOICE of healthcare, or any other method that we have not thought about.

Basically we are arguing against "well, people CAN'T provide medical treatment to themselves, either directly or via wise choices, thus we must take control over all medical treatment in the country and DECIDE who gets it". Which is an unnatural perverse thing where people get to decide "this person is worth more to society because he is rich" or "this person is worth more to society because he has children and is young" or "we think smoking is bad, so this person should be denied care even though he can afford it because he DESERVES to be sick for smoking".

Reply #81 Top

Meanwhile if you hear of people dying, which would be worse, '100 women and children slaughtered', or 'CEO killed'. I mean it could be those 100 women and children combined would never hope to earn as much as that CEO, but does that make them less valuable to society than the CEO? Is the value of someone simply about their earning potential and nothing else?
End of quote

what is worse is when the ceo is killed by the government so they can take HIS money and use it to save the lives of women and children whom they deem more important. And that is what we are discussing, we are not discussing killing 100 women or a ceo. We are discussing chosing to save one CEO or one housewife with the CEOs money.

Actually to be more accurate it is one ceo dies from being denied treatment to save one woman now, 10 woman die due to lack of treatment because said CEO is no longer paying taxes and funding more healthcare. (vs... one woman dies because she can not AFFORD treatment and chose to buy a second car instead of health insurence, and 10 women are saved over the next 10 years from the taxes the CEO pays, after he was ALLOWED to SAVE HIMSELF by hiring doctors with HIS OWN MONEY).

Reply #82 Top

Basically we are arguing against "well, people CAN'T provide medical treatment to themselves, either directly or via wise choices, thus we must take control over all medical treatment in the country and DECIDE who gets it". Which is an unnatural perverse thing where people get to decide "this person is worth more to society because he is rich" or "this person is worth more to society because he has children and is young" or "we think smoking is bad, so this person should be denied care even though he can afford it because he DESERVES to be sick for smoking".
End of quote

You're basically just describing an economics-based triage, which isn't being proposed by anyone so far as I can tell. Even in socialist nightmares/paradises like the UK or Australia, need determines access. If you need immediate medical treatment, you'll still get it. It's not like CEOs are turned away at the door, or you swipe your credit card and are allowed in/denied entry as appropriate.

But if you can hang on a week or two, you're not going to be ushered into surgery straight away. Immediate surgery is reserved for critical cases, and other operations are scheduled for appropriate times. That can mean a long waiting period for something that in the US might be treated immediately at the cost of your house or a formidable insurance excess.

As for who pays, everyone does to some extent, but it's true that the middle class without private insurance bear the brunt of the load (if you have private insurance, you don't pay nearly as much). There's just so many of them that it's inevitable.

Reply #83 Top

By dying earlier?! We could survive as a species with a life expectency of 30 years (due to no healthcare), just as we could survive if everyone over 50 years old was refused food and forced to starve to death. Doesn't make food any less of a need, in fact it shows that it is a need if you die much faster without it!
End of quote

You are comparing apples and oranges.  We are not denying anyone the basic necessities of life, nor have we.  And 30 years?  Yea, about 100k years ago.  But life expectancy was growing even before anyone had mandatory health care.  And they will continue to grow. And death?  It comes to us all eventually.  We have not erradicated it.  We WANT to live longer.  we are not guaranteed it.  We may WANT health care, but while some need it to live, not all do.  That is the point.

Most people under 30 do not NEED any health care. (note not all, most).  When you state something is a NEED - you have to show a direct causality between it and rights.  And with health care that just does not exist.

The man who WANTS a color TV does not NEED a color TV.

Reply #84 Top

Even in socialist nightmares/paradises like the UK or Australia, need determines access. If
End of quote

But again - if the need is the same (from a medical standpoint) what criteria is used?  WHo decides and how?

Reply #85 Top

You're basically just describing an economics-based triage, which isn't being proposed by anyone so far as I can tell. Even in socialist nightmares/paradises like the UK or Australia, need determines access. If you need immediate medical treatment, you'll still get it. It's not like CEOs are turned away at the door, or you swipe your credit card and are allowed in/denied entry as appropriate.
End of quote

No. He's not.  Good grief if some of you guys could just free your minds for half a second of your rooted ideology.

What he is saying is that the people -- individuals -- should be given as much control of their destiny as possible. If someone chooses not to get health insurance, then that is their choice and there are consequences that go with it.

Because healthcare is a finite resource, we already have people (doctors, insurance providers, etc.) making judgments as to who gets what. But least presently, the people in competition for those resources made the decision and put their own resources on the table to be in that competition.

But what universal healthcare does is bring everyone to the table where the new arrivals who are competing for this finite resource not only are freed from their own bad decisions but are paid for by the people they are competing with for those finite resources.

If healthcare was an infinite resource, this wouldn't be such an issue. But it's not.  And all the warm fuzzy love talk never changes that chilling underlying fact of life.

Reply #86 Top

And btw, I am not completely opposed to goverment intervention. There is simply a right way and wrong way of doing ti.

The best thing the government can and should do, is fund SERIOUS medical research, and make it's fruits available royalty free. paying 5$ a month for patent free perscription pills instead of 100$ for necessiry drugs would help a lot of people, and is something that should be funded by our tax money. But that requires the government to actually get into the business of inveting stuff.

Reply #87 Top

People CAN purchase health care insurance in the United States. If they're very poor, they get Medicaid.  Those who choose not to purchase health care insurance are making that choice for themselves.

End of quote

You know, I am often toying with the idea of moving to the states. (Of course, as a working non-Mexican English-speaker my chances of being seen as a compatible immigrant are slim.)

I like to do comparison calculations. I look up a city, check the rents, see what the job market has to offer, and try to figure out how much money I would make, how much rent I would pay, how much life would cost etc..

I _always_ include health insurance in the calculation. It wouldn't occur to me to live without just to save that money.

I am currently not employed (I work as a contractor; apparently I am some kind of Web server and database expert), but I do have health insurance. It came with my last job. But I kept it and kept paying for it when I quit, although I am no longer in the company plan.

 

Reply #88 Top

I _always_ include health insurance in the calculation. It wouldn't occur to me to live without just to save that money.
End of quote

A very responsible choice. one that should be rewarded, no penalized.

Reply #89 Top

What he is saying is that the people -- individuals -- should be given as much control of their destiny as possible. If someone chooses not to get health insurance, then that is their choice and there are consequences that go with it.
End of quote

But he also says there is no consequence, because if you don't have health insurance you just go to the hospital and get the treatment immediately anyway, declare bankruptcy and keep living your life as before.

Companies don't have the easy access to cash that governments do; I don't think it's fair to make private hospitals carry the poor without any recompense (they're unlikely to be high enough on the creditor list to get much of what they're owed back).

If you need non-essential health services, I think it's better you wait at home before going to a public hospital than clogging up a private hospital emergency room and then skipping on the bill and raising costs for everyone.

Reply #90 Top

But he also says there is no consequence, because if you don't have health insurance you just go to the hospital and get the treatment immediately anyway, declare bankruptcy and keep living your life as before.

Companies don't have the easy access to cash that governments do; I don't think it's fair to make private hospitals carry the poor without any recompense (they're unlikely to be high enough on the creditor list to get much of what they're owed back).

If you need non-essential health services, I think it's better you wait at home before going to a public hospital than clogging up a private hospital emergency room and then skipping on the bill and raising costs for everyone.

End of quote

If you don't have insurance (or a lot of cash), you don't get heart transplants or liver transplants or access to specialists.

Emergency rooms will patch you up no matter what but they're not going to look on the bone marrow list for you.

Reply #91 Top

correct, also... skipping on the bill does have consequences... your credit is decimated for the next 7 years. Besides, I didn't say that it is GOOD that people can do all those things, I just said current laws already allows for this much leeway.

Reply #92 Top

what is worse is when the ceo is killed by the government so they can take HIS money and use it to save the lives of women and children whom they deem more important. And that is what we are discussing, we are not discussing killing 100 women or a ceo. Actually to be more accurate it is one ceo dies from being denied treatment to save one woman now, 10 woman die due to lack of treatment because said CEO is no longer paying taxes
End of quote

If you scale the provision of public services according to income/taxes (note: not just healthcare) you lose that argument, because that womans care will be scaled based on her income, the same as the CEO's, meaning that saving the CEO might well not save far more future people (that is, the CEO might pay $100k in taxes, and the woman $1k, with the CEO then receiving 100 units of care, and the woman 1 unit). Meanwhile, I specifically am referring to more than 1 person compared with 1 person for the very point that to me a life is worth something. That is, if you had 2 people earning $80k together, and one person earning $80,001, the 'income/tax' valuation would say that the 1 person's life is worth saving over the other 2. However the key difference between who to save is that in the one case you're saving an extra life, in the other, you're saving an extra $.

You are comparing apples and oranges.  We are not denying anyone the basic necessities of life

Most people under 30 do not NEED any health care. (note not all, most).  When you state something is a NEED - you have to show a direct causality between it and rights.  And with health care that just does not exist.

The man who WANTS a color TV does not NEED a color TV

End of quote

Healthcare is deemed a 'need', not a want. I.e. it is a basic necessity since in many cases denial of healthcare can lead to death. You even show this by trying to restrict yourself to talking of "most" people under 30 not needing it (btw the 30 figure was plucked out of the air by me since I couldn't be bothered to research the precise life expectancy of people when living without any form of healthcare :p). They still do, if their situations change to move them from the 'most' category into the 'non-most' one! If I get shot in the leg and am bleeding, I NEED healthcare. Therefore, if I am not shot in the leg, I still need healthcare for the event that I do get shot in the leg. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's not a necessity.

Similarly food is a need - even if I've eaten a massive meal and can survive for a month or so without any more food, it doesn't change the fact that food is still a necessity. 'most' people may not need food in the next day (in the developed world), but it's still a necessity.

Reply #93 Top

If I get shot in the leg and am bleeding, I NEED healthcare. Therefore, if I am not shot in the leg, I still need healthcare for the event that I do get shot in the leg. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's not a necessity.
End of quote

That's the very reason many young people take the risk of going without health insurance - the odds are with them as few people are 'shot'.  They would be smart to have insurance, but the younger you are the higher the cost/risk ratio & the less 'necessary' it seems.  They're not risking going without treatment, because they will be treated - what they are risking is all the stuff they bought instead of insurance.  Life cannot be insulated from choices, good & bad.  Universal or nationalized healthcare won't mean that all of a sudden everyone gets to go to the Mayo Clinic.  It will mean that a massive, faceless bureaucracy will have to be petitioned for anything 'expensive', the definition of which is subject to change, and there will be long waits for services in short supply.

Reply #94 Top

No. He's not. Good grief if some of you guys could just free your minds for half a second of your rooted ideology.
End of quote

How about you free yours first?

Reply #95 Top

If you scale the provision of public services according to income/taxes (note: not just healthcare) you lose that argument
End of quote

The whole POINT of nationalized healthcare is to NOT scale it, to give "equally" to everyone.

Reply #96 Top

Healthcare is deemed a 'need', not a want. I.e. it is a basic necessity since in many cases denial of healthcare can lead to death. You even show this by trying to restrict yourself to talking of "most" people under 30 not needing it (btw the 30 figure was plucked out of the air by me since I couldn't be bothered to research the precise life expectancy of people when living without any form of healthcare ). They
End of quote

No, a need is like food, water, shelter.  You need those to live.  Since health care is not universally necessary to life, it is not a need, but a want.  You can live well, happy and healthy without it.  I am trying to get people to stop using terms flippantly that do not fit the definition.  Like "rights" and "needs".

Wants are things that enhance life.  Cars make it possible to work great distances from where you live.  Phones make it possible to visit people more often and at a greater cost savings than physically visiting them.  ONe can construe both as "needs" but in reality they are not, they are just enhancements to the quality of life, but not necessary to life itself.

SO it is with health care.  It does enhance life for some, and extend life for many.  But it is not a right (rights do not tax others - health care does), and not a universal need.

And the 30 figure is actually a good figure.  Before that, the major cause of death is usually accidents (including homicides), while after 30 things do tend to start breaking down.

Reply #97 Top

Since health care is not universally necessary to life, it is not a need, but a want
End of quote

Wait a minute. You never had a life-endangering condition? (you are old older than me, if I remember?)

Never had cancer? Aneurysm? An accident? An infection? Any disease that would be cure by modern medecine, but you have been near-certain death earlier?

If you want, I can make you meet peoples for who it had happened. And their family. You will argue to THEM that health care is not a necessity to living.

Reply #98 Top

Health case is necessary to live just as much as BODY ARMOR or a HELMET is... Sure it can save your life when someone threatens to kill you (a bullet, falling off a bike, or bacteria; in this order).

Noone says it does not save lives. But being capable of saving a life =! needed for life.

Reply #99 Top

No, a need is like food, water, shelter.  You need those to live.  Since health care is not universally necessary to life, it is not a need, but a want.  You can live well, happy and healthy without it.  I am trying to get people to stop using terms flippantly that do not fit the definition.  Like "rights" and "needs"
End of quote

So presumably clothing isn't a need, since you can often survive without it? Similarly shelter isn't a need because you can live on the streets? For economic purposes, needs are generally seen as: Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing, Healthcare/Medicine (not to say everything in those catagories is a need of course; caviar, distilled water, a mansion house, leather jackets and cough sweets would all be wants not needs, despite fitting in each catagory respectively). That you would be attempting to compare healthcare to things such as a car, a phone, or other luxuries demonstrates just what sort of a gulf there is between the two. I can live without a phone, I can (and do) live without a car. I can live without fine foods, or designer clothing. I can live without a fancy house, holidays abroad, wine, cigarettes, etc. etc., but not healthcare. If I get a disease, or a severe injury, or [insert any other life endangering health related problem], I need healthcare.

Then you start talking of rights - that's totally separate to a need or a want. A right is something that society has deemed you are entitled to (and is typically enshrined within the laws of that country). I have a right to freedom of speech (subject to various restrictions) in my country, for example. It doesn't mean I need it. Meanwhile I don't have a specific right to a home, or a right to food, even though they are needs (although in reality I'd receive sufficient funding to be able to obtain these assuming I wasn't throwing my money away in other areas).

They would be smart to have insurance, but the younger you are the higher the cost/risk ratio & the less 'necessary' it seems
End of quote

I disagree - there's a strong case that you would be smart to not have insurance! It depends on your risk aversion really, but if you're risk neutral then you should never have any kind of insurance unless you don't have to pay for it all. If you then factor in bankruptcy declerations and (in the case of health insurance) provision of essential healthcare you have an even stronger case for not getting insurance. That's being a bit picky on my part though :p.

The whole POINT of nationalized healthcare is to NOT scale it, to give "equally" to everyone
End of quote

Brad appeared to be suggesting public services should be scaled though, that is that if you're paying for these services for both yourself and someone else, if you both then need the service you should get priority because you've paid for it. Hence why I then spent more time going over the issue of valuing a life, and the scaling of public services etc. - I'm not trying to say that in reality public services would be scaled in such a way, it was more a hypothetical 'if they were' in part or fully.

Reply #100 Top

Wait a minute. You never had a life-endangering condition? (you are old older than me, if I remember?)
End of quote

Not yet. 

Never had cancer? Aneurysm? An accident? An infection? Any disease that would be cure by modern medecine, but you have been near-certain death earlier?
End of quote

Nope.  But even if I did, I have options now.  I wont later.

If you want, I can make you meet peoples for who it had happened. And their family. You will argue to THEM that health care is not a necessity to living.
End of quote

I am sure you can find plenty.  I did not state "no one".  However, if you WANT to live long and have a problem, then health care is kind of a good thing to have.  But it is not a universal "need".  And most assuredly not a "right".

For my wants, I plan.  For those less fortunate, there is already programs to take care of them.  YOu can be a very sickly person and live to a ripe old age, or a very healthy one and die tomorrow.  No one, not even the messiah himself, can guarantee you life or health.  Life is a crap shoot.  NOt a guarantee.