A friend sent me this article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
It is a good, if not long, read on the author's take regarding the real issue within the current healthcare debate. I can't say that 2outof4 disagrees. There is a lot in the article that's been said on this site before. What is being discussed at present is by no means real reform!
Enjoy the start to your week.
-2outof4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
While the author doesn't present data to confirm the following statement, if it is factually correct it is very telling of the dichotomy between the truth and the focus of politicians:
ReplyDelete"For fun, let’s imagine confiscating all the profits of all the famously greedy health-insurance companies. That would pay for four days of health care for all Americans. Let’s add in the profits of the 10 biggest rapacious U.S. drug companies. Another 7 days."
People are missing the real point of the health-care debate, and focusing on easy scapegoats who really don't have a significant effect on he overall costs/problems in the system, when they worry about things like insurance company profits or executive salaries.
That article was a good read, thanks for posting it.
It is my sincere hope that a real revolution will come from the mess that we see before us today. I hold on to the sliver of hope that politicians will stand up and sensibly look for solutions rather than make the pat argument of either their party or XYZ interest.
ReplyDeleteKyleT, do you think your guy, RP, would have been able to get outside of the box a bit and make an attempt at such an endeavor?
-2outof4
While I wish I had your optimism, I don't think that there is any chance of significant change for the better coming from any of this. I can count on one hand the number of representatives in Washington whose primary concern is NOT increasing government size, scope, and/or following their (however motivated) agenda.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "mainstream" politicians go, Paul is way outside the box. He stated while campaigning that he believed it would be beneficial to shut down the majority of government agencies, and I believe that viewpoint translates here. My understanding is that he would support a lower-regulation, free-market program, and is strongly opposed to any degree of socialized medicine. Here's one bit of info:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY
I think that the health care debate is not just a question of policy, economics, or partisan politics. I think that the real debate here is deeply rooted in personal political philosophy, whether the person believes it or not. For some people, the only issue is giving "health care" to "everybody." It's my belief (one shared by Locke, Friedman, the founding fathers, and others) that it cannot and should not be the role of government to satisfy whims such as these, as it has dire consequences on the ability for all people to be free.
Of course, there is a more pedestrian arguement to be had as well. It seems very clear that there is no "problem" that the government can solve well, at a reasonable cost. There are a few arenas that necessitate government oversight, such as national defense and national legal standards (ie the constitution), but these are few and far between. Aside from these, I'd love for somebody to point out something that the government does with a cost to benefit ratio greater than that of truly free industry.
I believe some Americans can afford to pay for health care themselves, the problem is we are all really bad with money and have the financial IQs of Apes. We all believe we can have cell phones with unlimited texting, starbucks and the comcast triple play with HD DVR but the government should take care of our basic needs. Then seniors did not put away or plan for their retirement.
ReplyDeleteTo me the bottom line is invidual choices and responsibility. It was irritating how people blame the banking institutions for the housing crisis. Well I knew alot of people who made $40,000 and wanted an interest only loan for a $500,00. Nobody wanted to listen to me when I told them it was a bad idea, because your housing cost shouldn't exceed 20% of your income. Everybody wants, wants,wants and has a sense of entitlement. We live in a credit hungry society where keeping up with joneses is more important than financial responsibility.
Then the average American politician isn't hip to what is going on in the global economy. Through policies like the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan we did bring down the Berlin wall but what we did is create more competitors. We have arrogantly thought that by level the playing field we can continue to dominate. Instead (partially because of abortion) we do not have the human capital of India and China to produce things cheaply and quickly. Obviously no one in DC ever studied Egypt or ancient economies, man power always rules the day.
Plus America is so anti-intellectual that rarely do we have any home grown innovation. All the scientists are forgien nationals, because American kids today all want to be on MTV and have rims on their cars and think being relegated to a middle class lifestyle is failure.
So basically we have overspending Americans in a shrinking economy who have a sense of entitlement and believe they should have everything. We don't know the basics of budgeting, financial forcasting or how to do a cost benefit analysis. So we just hope Uncle Sam will bail our dumb behinds out of our financial ignorance.
A friend's friend in Dallas said he's never seen so many $50,000 a year millionaires!
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the roots of 2outof4, what you guys are identifying above is spot on. And in terms of pushing forward and competing on that global level into the future, we have to take our lumps and reduce the blind government spending.
I've long wondered how the hell I see so many Beamers on the road, and why I'm not in my 911!
-2outof4