Going Rogue

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Could you explain exactly what you think the purpose of government is?

It's right there in the preamble to our Constitution: "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

(Please forgive my adding emphasis to lines I feel to be especially relevant to this discussion.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I know a little bit about medicare reimbursement rates. I work for a clinical laboratory ....

If we charged insurance companies the same that medicare reimburses us then we would be out of business in a week. What happens in practice is that the other insurance companies pay more for services than they would if medicare paid a reasonable rate.......

And this is exactly the problem. It needs to all be on a level playing field with a public option to control the costs.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Superlucky

I haven't seen a pirated copy yet.

And yes, you are all busted. Some of us actually wanted to read about the book.

Sorry, I'm a little cranky because it has become abundantly clear that I am going to have to martyr myself and read this book on behalf of the MR community. Maybe I'll start a new thread at that time so that Madam Broshkina and I can discuss it. The good news is that it appears to be bereft of philosophy or policy so the actual book conversation can't devolve into politics. Who am I kidding - anything can devolve into politics.

PM me when you do. I started this with an honest inquire as to what people thought of the book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Superlucky

I don't want any kind of king. I want a weaker executive branch. And a viable third party. But that's neither here nor there...

Less government. Libertarian is the closest thing we have to a third party...

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

It's right there in the preamble to our Constitution: "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

(Please forgive my adding emphasis to lines I feel to be especially relevant to this discussion.)

no no.......I was asking 93terp. I also happen to think the government isn't the solution, its the problem, and that if anyone from the government tell me they're "here to help" I'd run.....since he finds my beliefs so repulsive, ignorant and shallow, I was wondering what he thinks the purpose of government is.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 93terp

Or Joe the Plumber/Joe Six-Pack for that matter! ....

There's a six-pack-Pam in the new John Irving novel.

and a boy named Joe

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

It's right there in the preamble to our Constitution: "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

(Please forgive my adding emphasis to lines I feel to be especially relevant to this discussion.)

Actually, the word "perfect" in the Constitution means "complete." It's an archaic usage.

As for "promoting the general welfare," that's a moving target, and our idea of what the general welfare is today is quite a bit different than it was back then. So things change, and maybe health care really is within the scope of the term these days.

The problem is that government run health care will, in my view, DEmote the general welfare, in a manner of speaking. When the government pays for your medical care, you will only get the medical care the government thinks you should have.

The words following the "general welfare" phrase are "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." When the government takes over health care, and the citizens no longer have the right to access health care except on government terms, where is our liberty?

We have to be careful about that general welfare clause. If we are not careful, it can expand to sweep away our liberty.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And this is exactly the problem. It needs to all be on a level playing field with a public option to control the costs.

A public option will not control the costs. It will eliminate the competition.

That's the reason that there's an unrelated business tax in the Internal Revenue Code - to keep nontaxed entities (charitable foundations, for example) from competing unfairly with entities that have the additional expense of paying taxes. The "public option" will not be paying the taxes that private insurance will have to pay, and will have a terrific advantage to, at least for a while, undersell the insurance companies till they go out of business.

Furthermore, government does NOT control costs. It increases costs. Anything that the government subsidizes winds up either costing more or being rationed.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rhadin

What happens if your employer ceases to do business, or decides to no longer offer health insurance or decides that the only plan it will offer has a $10,000 yearly deductible (i.e., only covers catastrophic illnesses, non-preexisting), or simply fires you because there is more money to be made by having fewer employees?

You pay for your own, just like my brother did when that happened to him.

Or you join an affinity insurance group, like your university might have, just like my son did when he was between jobs and working free lance.

Or you do like I do, which is accept the catastrophic option, and self insure for the rest, which in the long run actually costs me less than the previous plan I had, even taking into account my routine medical expenses.

Or you do like another of my sons, the economics major from Northwestern who seems to view insurance as a racket, and doesn't bother with it.

Or maybe we just outlaw health insurance, and see if maybe that doesn't result in lower prices and better access all the way around.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

A public option will not control the costs. It will eliminate the competition.

....
Furthermore, government does NOT control costs. It increases costs. Anything that the government subsidizes winds up either costing more or being rationed.

No. The costs are out of control BECAUSE of Corporations and Private business that have been allowed to do whatever they want. Just like the Credit Card companies they have all written their own rules and coerced congress into passing them. It's out of control and so is big government, we've got to start somewhere and health care is as good a place as anywhere -- except maybe the credit card companies.

[Billjr13]

And making Government even bigger by putting them in charge of health care will help. The federal and state governments so efficient with all their programs that they run smoothly and cost effectively

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No. The costs are out of control BECAUSE of Corporations and Private business that have been allowed to do whatever they want. Just like the Credit Card companies they have all written their own rules and coerced congress into passing them. It's out of control and so is big government, we've got to start somewhere and health care is as good a place as anywhere -- except maybe the credit card companies.

I agree that government "regulation" of businesses results in businesses capturing the regulatory agencies and, in effect, writing their own rules.

What I don't understand is how you start with this observation and wind up with the conclusion that what we need is MORE government involvement.

Particularly when you recognize that government is out of control.

Government is out of control, so let's hand over our health care to it?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I agree that government "regulation" of businesses results in businesses capturing the regulatory agencies and, in effect, writing their own rules.

What I don't understand is how you start with this observation and wind up with the conclusion that what we need is MORE government involvement.

Particularly when you recognize that government is out of control.

Government is out of control, so let's hand over our health care to it?

Stop generalizing. Government is too big, many things need to change, it must be done correctly. Government is ALREADY in charge of everything anyway. The point is to begin changing it -- decisions must be made as far as how to do it. The Public health care OPTION DOES NOT PUT GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF HEALTH CARE any more than it already is, but it does provide a better means to control the out of control costs that have destroyed the system.

Now I'm not going to post wrt this any more. I've said what I think. You guy carry on.
I'm going to go check Sarah in her running outfit.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by 93terp

Or Joe the Plumber/Joe Six-Pack for that matter! Gawd forbid that we might want our President to be smarter than the "average Joe". Sure would be nice to see a return to the days where intellectualism and intelligence were revered instead of reviled.

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States
to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory
than to the faculty of Harvard University." - William F. Buckley, Jr.

So would I.

There is a difference between intelligence and judgment. Many people have one or the other. Sometimes I wonder why the combination is so rare. Yet it is, or so it seems to me.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Spartacus2112

Let me first say that I have been avoiding the political debate but I feel I must chime in on this solely because you cannot keep your coverage.
The only way the grandfather clause can remain in place is if nothing changes on your current policy. If it does, you or your employer must purchase into the policy set forth by the government on the year of the implementation of the bill. That from sections 101 & 102 of the house bill.

Yep. Pretty darned sneaky, isn't it? These guys we have in Congress think we are all a bunch of fools. And we keep reelecting them, so perhaps we are.