Chutney has raised the crucial point; why have the best healthcare if it will bankrupt you. The point of a universal health care system is that everyone pays a bit, perhaps more than what they would if they only paid for what they needed, on the basis that they would get treatment for major illness if they needed. At times it seems as though the American system is indeed fantastic, but only on the basis that you can afford it. It is my view that society must be able to look after its weakest members; those who cannot afford such treatment on their own. This is a lot like education, and the worst thing about education in the UK is that the rich can send their children to better schools for money. Unfortunately, in this bracket of "rich" come MPs. If an MP sends their children to private school, they have no vested interest in improving the state system for those who cannot afford as good education. My question to all those who don't support universal health care is do you also believe that there should be no universal education system? A system with the market as the sole method of acquiring services (rather than state-provided services) will only serve to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and consolidate power for the ruling elite. Communism has gotten a lot of flack, but if you actually look at its ideology, virtually none of what Stalin/Mao/*insert "Communist" leader* did is actually in there. Communism might be what they preached, but it is not what they implemented. For all the bad things you can say about what they did, Communism does get a lot of things right.
Communism ultimately fails, and rather quickly, because society needs the best and brightest to be properly motivated or the general level of everything turns to shit. Stalin and Mao found their solution was to mass murder the best and brightest and to instill fear in the people via agencies like the KGB. There isn't a universal education system. There is one where massive funds are diverted from being equally disbursed and to the districts where our equivalent of MPs get their campaign donations from. Those that are behind the system the most refuse to give the people choice of which locations they can send their kids, and then cry about the system needing more money (to be diverted). Our founders did get it right. People do have Natural Rights (healthcare is not one of them, but Liberty is the key). When govt. gets even of modest size, it's open to corruption and it will be corrupted. Therefore it should be so weak there's no reason to bribe a public official. I'll roughly quote both Kurt Vonnegut and Karl Marx: "The end of democracy/capitalism is when the people realize they can vote themselves tea and circuses."
denny he's right- lenin, mao, pol pot and stalin's regimes have been much more totalitarianism than anything resembling communism. same goes for uber conservatism movements with franco, hitler and mussoulini. although, i do agree with u fundamentally about communism- it stunts human creativity and more often than not in the twentieth century- communism has curbed freedoms. although, i dont believe in the milton friedmen thesis that supposes that liberalizing markets will always usher in democracy as well as freedoms, and if dont believe me go to china. nevertheless, im not an austere capitalist because i understand that capitalism is not the cure for all of the ills of society. our families are socialist enterprises (i assume your parents never competed with you for resoruces); the nba, nhl and nfl are socialist with salary caps and redistribution of monies between more profitable teams and lesser ones. and i feel essential services like health care, policing, fire should be socialist as well.
i like goldwater and bill buckley jr but reagan was an intellectual lightweight and pj oroarke is just annoying. something i would like to tackle is this notion of ppl controlling their own decisions. what happens if u have a "preexisting condition" or uninsured and dont have the money to get insured- what are your options then? in a rationale market i could choose not to buy an ipod and its wouldnt constitute a quality of life move or even more dramatic, a life or death decision but not having insurance would have such consequences. rationale markets are superb at allocating resources to the ppl that will make the best use of it, however, we all need health care and protection (policing). therefore, dispensing these essential services should be administered by a redistributive type of an arrangement.
You are stuck on insurance. You can get all the treatment you need for a pre-existing condition without insurance. Think about consequences and where that slippery slope goes. I bet $100 on a hand of blackjack and lost. There's consequences to everything. If people want to form associations, that is their right. As long as it's by choice and not by govt. mandate and massive new taxes at the expense of quality, or someone else's expense. We all need food, too. Even more than health care. Where does this "no consequences" and "take what you need" end? Finally, I'll tell you exactly why communism doesn't work. Let me give a hypothetical and you answer it: The communist government builds a 2 story building across the street from the beach. Those who live on the 2nd floor can see over the trees and get awesome views. Those on the first floor see the trees across the street. Who decides who lives on the 2nd floor and on the 1st? Lotsa luck.
food is affordable and u could circumvent the entire market thing and get basic food items at the food bank or a shelter if need be. conversely, health care is prohibitively priced and we require govt's to intervene in order to access it without indebting ourselves and generations of our offspring. im not a communist in case u missed my previous statements. btw, in that scenario u suggest- the suites with the optimum view would be dispensed to those who favoured the party in a communist system.
Robert Owen (I think it was him anyway) had an interesting solution to this; those who opted to do the perceived "worse" jobs would get better accommodation. I guess this slightly moves from "proper communism" on the basis that workers are being given incentives to do certain jobs. Another possible solution, though, is to find people who don't mind not having a great view, perhaps those who have other preferences. For example, there could be 2 apartments on the ground floor and 3 on the upper floor. Thus, in order to obtain the better view, you must sacrifice space. I admit this is taking advantage of market principles, but it does not benefit the rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=1 Governors Balk Over Emerging Health Bill Because of Cost By KEVIN SACK and ROBERT PEAR BILOXI, Miss. — The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern Sunday about the shape of the health care bill emerging from Congress, fearing that the federal government is about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without providing the money to pay for them. The role of the states in a restructured health care system dominated the National Governors Association’s summer meeting here this weekend — with bipartisan animosity voiced against the Obama administration’s plan during a closed-door luncheon on Saturday and in a private meeting on Sunday afternoon with the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius.“I think the governors would all agree that what we don’t want from the federal government is unfunded mandates,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican who is the group’s incoming chairman. “We can’t have the Congress impose requirements that we are forced to absorb beyond our capacity to do so.” The governors’ backlash creates yet another health care headache for the Obama administration, which has tried to recruit state leaders to pressure members of Congress to wrap up their fitful negotiations. In its effort to win support for the health plan, the Obama administration dispatched Ms. Sebelius — who was governor of Kansas before she joined the cabinet in April — and the federal Medicaid chief, Cindy Mann, to meet here with the governors. Meanwhle, other administration officials spent Sunday pushing the proposal on television talk shows. President Obama also plans to address questions about his health plan at a news conference on Wednesday. Although many governors said significant change was needed, they said their deep-seated fiscal troubles made it a terrible time to shift costs to the states. With the recession draining states of tax revenues even as their Medicaid rolls are surging, the National Governors Association projects that states will face aggregate deficits of $200 billion over the next three years. Because the states and the federal government share the cost of Medicaid coverage for low-income people, any increase in eligibility levels, benefits or payments to doctors would impose new costs on the states unless Washington agrees to absorb them entirely. In at least one of several bills circulating in Congress, the states would eventually pick up a share of the new costs, and the governors fear they cannot count on pledges in other bills that they will be held harmless. It was unclear whether the governors’ association would craft a statement expressing its dismay, at least partly because half of the governors did not attend. Many, including the group’s chairman, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, Democrat of Pennsylvania, stayed home to deal with budget crises. Some of the group’s most recognizable names — Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Sarah Palin of Alaska, Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, David Paterson of New York, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan and Mark Sanford of South Carolina — were not here. But the sentiment among those who were could not have been more consistent, regardless of political party. The governors said in interviews and public sessions that the bills being drafted in Congress would not do enough to curb the growth in health spending. And they said they were convinced that a major expansion of Medicaid will leave them with heavy costs. They are already anticipating large gaps in Medicaid financing after 2010, when stimulus money will no longer be available. And they point out that Medicaid already suffers from low payment rates to health care providers, discouraging some doctors and hospitals from accepting beneficiaries. If Medicaid is expanded, states would almost surely have to increase payments to doctors to encourage more of them to participate. Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee, said he feared Congress was about to bestow “the mother of all unfunded mandates.” “Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage,” added Mr. Bredesen, a former health care executive. “It’s a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and their children. It’s not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid.” He was far from alone. “As a governor, my concern is that if we try to cost-shift to the states we’re not going to be in a position to pick up the tab,” said Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, also a Democrat. “I’m personally very concerned about the cost issue, particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around,” said Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat who served in the Clinton cabinet and ran for president against Mr. Obama. Administration officials said they did not see the governors’ concerns as a major impediment to passage of the legislation. Asked about the concerns, Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, made two points. First, he said, one of President Obama’s overriding goals is to reduce the rate of growth of health costs, and that would benefit states, by relieving pressure on their budgets. In addition, he said, some versions of the legislation, including the House bill, could slightly reduce state spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next 10 years. Many governors expressed frustration that the prolonged negotiations in Washington had made it difficult to gauge the potential impact on their budgets. “There’s a concern about whether they have fully figured out a revenue stream that would cover the costs, and that if they don’t have all the dollars accounted for it will fall on the states,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. , Democrat of Colorado. Under the proposals before Congress, Medicaid eligibility would be based solely on income, without regard to other factors that have historically been used to decide who qualifies. Under the House bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover all nonelderly people with incomes at or below 133 percent of the poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the costs for those who were newly eligible Medicaid would also cover all newborns, for up to 60 days after birth, if they did not have insurance from other sources. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11 million additional people would get coverage through Medicaid under the House bill, and that it would increase federal Medicaid spending by $438 billion over 10 years. Medicaid thus accounts for a huge share of the bill’s effects: about 40 percent of the cost and 30 percent of the people who gain coverage. In the latest draft of the Senate Finance Committee’s bill, which is still being written, the federal government would pick up the extra costs for perhaps five years, but states would then have to pay their normal share. On average, the federal government pays 57 percent, and states pay 43 percent. One of the proposals considered last week by the Finance Committee would have encouraged states to issue bonds to cover the costs of expanding Medicaid. Governors in both parties revolted, trumpeting their opposition in a conference call last week with Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the committee. “There is strong bipartisan opposition to the idea of the states issuing bonds to pay for operational expenses,” said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. “One governor said it would be like taking out a mortgage to pay the grocery bill.”
As to the question about the apartment building... Someone has to ration the better apartments and someone gets a shack in Siberia. Government doesn't act in the best interests of the people, it acts in the best interests of the politicians. Their choice of "merit" is just that, and it favors certain people based upon arbitrary criteria. Given that capitalism is quite efficient at getting goods and services to people, it's the only way to go. Maybe it's the 2nd best option, but there is no 1st best one.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4PYGKun8FwQE1yOv3xp0SYIgM9AD99GNCF00 Obama losing some support among nervous Dems By BETH FOUHY (AP) – 1 day ago NEW YORK — Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party? Conservative House Democrats are balking at the cost and direction of Obama's top priority, an overhaul of the nation's health care system. A key Senate Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, complains that Obama's opposition to paying for it with a tax on health benefits "is not helping us." Another Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, tells his local newspaper that Obama is too liberal and is "very unpopular" in his district. From his first days in office, Obama's popularity helped him pass the landmark $787 billion stimulus package and fueled his ambitious plans to overhaul the nation's health care system and tackle global warming. Obama continues to be comparatively popular. But now recent national surveys have shown a measurable drop in his job approval rating, even among Democrats. A CBS news survey out this week had his national approval rating at 57 percent, and his standing among Democrats down 10 percentage points since last month, from 92 percent to 82 percent. With the economy continuing to sputter and joblessness on the rise, many of Obama's staunchest Democratic supporters are anxious for his agenda to start bearing fruit. "We are eager and impatient, so you're seeing a little bit of that," said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. "Elections have results, and those in the base are the most anxious to achieve what's promised in the election. That's why Democrats are showing some impatience in reaching our goal." Obama won Ohio, a key swing state, by 4 percentage points in 2008 over Republican John McCain. But the one-time industrial powerhouse has been hit hard by the weak economy, and a Quinnipiac University poll released this month showed Obama with a lackluster approval rating of 49 percent. Redfern argued that the stimulus program has begun to show tangible results in his state and people shouldn't expect the economy to turn around instantly. A similar argument came from Nevada, another swing state Obama carried. Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross counseled patience, saying that voters in his state want Obama to succeed and that their support would be solidified once they saw stimulus-driven building projects under way. "Generally, folks in Nevada are waiting to see the effects of the stimulus package," Ross said. "I think the president is probably just as impatient to get this money out in the country to employ people as anyone." In Missouri, which Obama narrowly lost to McCain, Democratic strategist Steve Glorioso said hardcore base voters were as enthusiastic as ever for Obama but that there was a sense of disappointment about him among less committed Democrats and independents. "People are scared," Glorioso said. "This is the worst economic time anyone under the age of 80 has ever experienced, and you can't discount people being afraid. Now that we are in July, the fear is turning to disappointment that the president hasn't fixed everything yet. I don't know why they thought he could change everything by now, but some did." Glorioso said an open Senate race next year in Missouri, where Democrat Robin Carnahan is likely to face former Republican Rep. Roy Blunt, will be a crucial test of Obama's appeal. "If the economy gets better and they pass a reasonable health care bill, his popularity will be way back up and Carnahan will win," Glorioso said. "If none of that happens, it's a moot point." In Michigan, where the near-collapse of the auto industry has driven the unemployment rate to 14.1 percent, the nation's worst, the state's Democratic chairman, Mark Brewer, said support for Obama among Democrats has remained strong. "People are very worried and concerned, I don't want to dispute that," Brewer said. "But they voted for the president in overwhelming numbers and want to support the things he's trying to do." Obama traveled to Michigan this week to unveil a $12 billion program to help community colleges prepare people for jobs. There, he made an audacious declaration. "I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy,'" the president said. "That's fine. Give it to me!" Redfern, the Ohio Democratic Party chairman, said he welcomed that statement but cautioned it came with a price. "When it's the president's economy, it's the president's trouble," Redfern said. "Americans are eager for the change that they voted into office. They support him, they just want to see results sooner rather than later."
its been six months; his predecessor had eight years to fuck it up. and lest we forget that companies are regularly coming off tarp and making profits (i.e. goldman sachs) and i think citigroup even posted a profit this quarter.
