Agreed, chop of their heads and throw their bodies on the garbage pile to rot.
The problem is that the USA is again trying to reinvent the wheel and doing a crappy job at it. This entire "health care reform" is a fiasco and another example of how the American political process is absolutely corrupt. Moreover, no one has seriously bothered to look at other systems. Most people assume that they only other system is a single payer system and that's not true. The German system, for example, is not a single payer system. It is a system of public and private insurance companies where the cost of every medical procedure is set by the Federal government and the profits of private insurance companies are regulated. It is not perfect but it works pretty well. Everyone has decent health care and those that can afford it (and are ready to pay more for their insurance) have access to marginally "better" health care. I would not call it an entitlement in Germany. As far as I know, the system work something like this. People must have health insurance and they must pay for it - they have no choice. The premium is fixed and the cost is divided between employer and employee. The lower the employee's income, the lower his or her contribution and the higher the employer's contribution. At a certain income, the employer must no longer contribute and the entire premium is paid by the employee. At that point (or even earlier if the employee's wishes) he or she can leave the public insurer and go to a private insurer. This is not unusual but common since there appear to be many private health insurance companies in Germany. People on pensions also contribute but I believe it is similar to the US where there is a fixed contribution. I also think that people receiving welfare contribute but their contribution is based on their income while the state pays the remainder. Certainly does not sound like Socialism to me. It is, I feel, important that people pay for their health insurance because that gives them an interest in controlling costs. On the other hand, I don't think it should be done with deductibles and co-payments because that often causes people to defer health care. One of the great unknown problems in the US is not the uninsured but the underinsured - people who have "insurance" but their deductibles and co-payments are so high that they do not see a physician. CHAD -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:15 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Coming unhinged over health reform? raghu wrote: > Like broken clocks, even White House talking point are occasionally > right. In particular, maybe you can explain why the following is > wrong: > > "What do you imagine would happen if premiums turned out to be > unaffordable-even with hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies? > Would Congress enforce the mandate for individuals to buy insurance, > or ease it? Would Congress keep subsidies at the same level, or make > them more generous? Would Congress play nice with insurers, or add a > public option? History teaches that, once in place, entitlement > programs tend to become more generous, not less. The approach to > programs that do not work as intended is to lubricate their operations > as Congress does best-by spending more money. This is a cause for > concern about the Senate bill, but not among liberals." Sure. It accepts the rules of the game dictated by the capitalist class. My position is that their heads should be chopped off. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
