Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, 10/25/09, Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On Oct 25, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Hey, guess who's posting from home for the first time? (I did have some serious help getting stuff hooked up, and I still hate this laptop's 'finger mouse.' -- hmm, hadn't thought of what that conjures up, but it's entirely apt...) You mean one of these? http://xkcd.com/243/ coughs Er, not exactly...more like the...oh, never mind! Debbi Washing With Virtual Soap Maru ;} ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Well, Julia, in my experience (is that abbreviated IME?), it doesn't get better until they go to college, and even then they come home and disrupt your schedule =+)). I *still* wonder where the time goes, but I know way too much of it disappears into my computer screen. Mothers of young children all need a wife, IMO. I have a theory about working mom's and nanny/housekeepers that run along those lines... Amities, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com It's amazing what you find needs doing when you finally have all your kids in school for a full day for the first time ever. I might have most of it done by the time school gets out in early June! ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Julia wrote: It's amazing what you find needs doing when you finally have all your kids in school for a full day for the first time ever. I might have most of it done by the time school gets out in early June! I've heard the same thing about retirement; my brother-in-law and his brother, both firefighters, retired this past year and both of them say they've never been busier. That's the kind of busy I need... Good to hear from you all that haven't posted much, maybe we can get a rip roaring discussion going. Anybody over hear read Banks' new one? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia wrote: It's amazing what you find needs doing when you finally have all your kids in school for a full day for the first time ever. I might have most of it done by the time school gets out in early June! I've heard the same thing about retirement; my brother-in-law and his brother, both firefighters, retired this past year and both of them say they've never been busier. That's the kind of busy I need... Good to hear from you all that haven't posted much, maybe we can get a rip roaring discussion going. Anybody over hear read Banks' new one? Doug _Transitions_. I bought it two months ago, and have been so busy that I'm only 50 pages into it. But so far, I like it. I think in both cases, it's sort of a deferred maintenance problem. When you finally have time, there's a BIG backlog to deal with. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, 10/25/09, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: snippage Good to hear from you all that haven't posted much, maybe we can get a rip roaring discussion going. Anybody over hear read Banks' new one? Hey, guess who's posting from home for the first time? (I did have some serious help getting stuff hooked up, and I still hate this laptop's 'finger mouse.' -- hmm, hadn't thought of what that conjures up, but it's entirely apt...) Debbi Posting Like A Newbie Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:48 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform I think in both cases, it's sort of a deferred maintenance problem. When you finally have time, there's a BIG backlog to deal with. ---David ___ Yes. And in our case, it was compounded by our daughter refusing to sleep in the room she shared with her twin brother, starting about 5 weeks before school started. The project to get the spare room fixed up to be a bedroom for a 6-year-old took a big chunk of time, and that wasn't quite finished until about 4 weeks later, partly because there were some hard deadlines for 2 other projects in the meantime. :P I'm thinking about what has to be done in the breakfast nook at this point, and figuring that maybe I'll work on it for an hour tomorrow, or maybe I won't. (I think that 2-3 hours will have it *done*, but the first hour is going to be a bear.) Julia ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Oct 25, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: On Sun, 10/25/09, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: snippage Good to hear from you all that haven't posted much, maybe we can get a rip roaring discussion going. Anybody over hear read Banks' new one? Hey, guess who's posting from home for the first time? (I did have some serious help getting stuff hooked up, and I still hate this laptop's 'finger mouse.' -- hmm, hadn't thought of what that conjures up, but it's entirely apt...) Debbi Posting Like A Newbie Maru You mean one of these? http://xkcd.com/243/ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. MENCKEN ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Julia Thompson wrote: ... I think in both cases, it's sort of a deferred maintenance problem. When you finally have time, there's a BIG backlog to deal with. ... Yes. And in our case, it was compounded by our daughter refusing to sleep in the room she shared with her twin brother, starting about 5 weeks before school started. The project to get the spare room fixed up to be a bedroom for a 6-year-old took a big chunk of time, and that wasn't quite finished until about 4 weeks later, partly because there were some hard deadlines for 2 other projects in the meantime. :P I don't know if that counts as deferred maintenance or not. But I guess it did from your daughter's point of view. : ) We are in the process of finishing a room move too, actually a swap, which added the difficulty that neither room was empty for long. Our older daughter is only here some weekends, so it was time for her to give up her big room, and let the younger daughter move into it. And of course we painted, and fixed furniture, and so on... I guess that was deferred maintenance, but we weren't the ones who deferred it. I'm thinking about what has to be done in the breakfast nook at this point, and figuring that maybe I'll work on it for an hour tomorrow, or maybe I won't. (I think that 2-3 hours will have it *done*, but the first hour is going to be a bear.) Julia Or maybe you deserve a break, who knows? ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Debbi wrote: Hey, guess who's posting from home for the first time? (I did have some serious help getting stuff hooked up, and I still hate this laptop's 'finger mouse.' -- hmm, hadn't thought of what that conjures up, but it's entirely apt...) Congrats on the new job, and on getting your own rig. I'm sure you're not going to miss having to go to the library all the time. I would suggest a usb mouse. You don't want to know what I call those things. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 11:08 PM Sunday 10/25/2009, Doug Pensinger wrote: Debbi wrote: Hey, guess who's posting from home for the first time? (I did have some serious help getting stuff hooked up, and I still hate this laptop's 'finger mouse.' -- hmm, hadn't thought of what that conjures up, but it's entirely apt...) Congrats on the new job, and on getting your own rig. I'm sure you're not going to miss having to go to the library all the time. I would suggest a usb mouse. You don't want to know what I call those things. Doug I call mine a trackball . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jo Anne Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:32 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform David wrote: Hi. There I was, doing my bit to produce list traffic. Sorry... No apologies needed. I just remember so well person after person taking on JDG trying to talk about different stuff (abortion, death penalty, politics). While I think Dan talked the longest and the hardest, I came to feel the guy just got off on fanning flames of dissention. Sort of like what's going on now, IMO. And Yeah, the women probably are hiding. Just for the record, I wasn't hiding, I was buried in Things That Had To Be Done. Very seriously buried. And am now just reading this. (And there's another 3 or 4 Things That Have To Be Done in the next week or so that I'm neglecting right now in favor of trying to get somewhat caught up on this and one other mailing list that I'm usually totally on top of, to the point where my first post *there* in about 10 days got me a welcome back! from someone who'd apparently missed my posting.) It's amazing what you find needs doing when you finally have all your kids in school for a full day for the first time ever. I might have most of it done by the time school gets out in early June! Julia ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform and other stuff
On Mon, 9/28/09, kananda...@aol.com kananda...@aol.com wrote: Debbi wrote... We're Number 37! Maru and yes, I too am still alive in the real world... :) We XXs have just been sitting back proving we can have quiet moments and listen snort be scared when we start getting chatty again I'm going to try to get a computer going at home, since I need to have email for my new position at the stable (Riding Academy Director)...if only it paid more than a pittance! But hey, it will be a good learning experience, no? Debbi Who Is Forrest? Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform and other stuff
On Tue, 9/29/09, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com wrote: Yea!!! More xx'ers. And feeling every x in the morning...urf, when did my joints decide to become musical?! I don't even _like_ Rice Krispies anymore. Debbi wrote... and yes, I too am still alive in the real world... :) And Dee responded We XXs have just been sitting back proving we can have quiet moments and listen snort be scared when we start getting chatty again So where were you two when the heat was on with the health care debate? You two are the heavyweights, I'm just the lightweight (figuratively) on this subject. Please keep adding your Voices. grimace It's such a disaster, and the money from the big companies so pervasive - nd apparently persuasive - that only with great effort will real reform and not mere window-dressing occur. I'm not overly hopeful, given recent events (or lack thereof). Debbi Biting The Bullet Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform and other stuff
Yea!!! More xx'ers. Debbi wrote... We're Number 37! Maru and yes, I too am still alive in the real world... :) And Dee responded We XXs have just been sitting back proving we can have quiet moments and listen snort be scared when we start getting chatty again So where were you two when the heat was on with the health care debate? You two are the heavyweights, I'm just the lightweight (figuratively) on this subject. Please keep adding your Voices. How is everyone? Amities, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform and other stuff
Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com wrote: snippage throughout Doug wrote: Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. And Dee answered: Being the healthcare provider I can share this without cringing- 40% of men over age 40 will have some dealing with impotence. From a basic human intimacy element- those commercials wouldn't be still playing without an audience. True - I just wish they'd cut back to once per hour. First off, I love the 'boner drugs' moniker, Doug Sounds appropriate to me- ...I do wonder about how many we actually need to do RD on... I would like to see the drug companies doing some research on another antibiotic to deal with MRSA, frex. But the big bucks ain't there, doncha know? I think the assumption that consumers will purchase policies full of loopholes is a fair one. I agree. And I used to be in health care, too. Ditto. I just terminated my insurance for my cats -- I have paid in for three years -- and when Lili got a bladder infection they 1) charged me *$80* out-of-pocket, and 2) told me she had a chronic condition requiring special food (~ $1/can, 2 meals per)...oh, and cats didn't get bladder infections like people. I replied that her symptoms began abruptly the evening before, that all my previous cats had had a UTI at some point, that I had been a health care professional, etc,...well, I'm obviously still steamed. I got her atbx on my own -- symptoms cleared in 2 days. ...I heard on NPR recently that most people are happy with their health care coverage until they have to use it -- then they discover what they do and don't have and may not be happy with their coverage. Or lack thereof. And again, after living and practicing in Canada for 10 years, I'd take that system *any day* over the hodge podge we have now. We need _some_ kind of base-line coverage; folks who can afford Cadillac care should still be able to pay for it OOP/extra. Debbi We're Number 37! Maru and yes, I too am still alive in the real world... :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform and other stuff
Debbi wrote... We're Number 37! Maru and yes, I too am still alive in the real world... :) We XXs have just been sitting back proving we can have quiet moments and listen snort be scared when we start getting chatty again Dee ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform and other stuff
Dee -- Look everyone, Dee is back! I'm so glad to see you posting. I now have a stray cat and her kittens in your bedroom awaiting space at the no kill shelter. As soon as they're gone, you can come back any time. =+)) Doug wrote: Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. And Dee answered: Being the healthcare provider I can share this without cringing, but it will make some of you sit up with a bit of squirming. Just to share one of those stats to keep us all humble- 40% of men over age 40 will have some dealing with impotence. From a basic human intimacy element- those commercials wouldn't be still playing without an audience. First off, I love the 'boner drugs' moniker, Doug =+)). Second of all, while I agree that ED drugs have a place in the pharmacopeia, I do wonder about how many we actually need to do RD on -- I mean I can think of three that I see advertized on TV all the time, is that about enough? I would like to see the drug companies doing some research on another antibiotic to deal with MRSA, frex. I think the assumption that consumers will purchase policies full of loopholes is a fair one. I agree. And I used to be in health care, too. I can barely parse out just what's covered and what isn't. It's the same with cell phone contracts. They use language that doesn't always make sense to me -- it's like you have to be inside the industry, or even the company involved to understand just what they're offering. I heard on NPR recently that most people are happy with their health care coverage until they have to use it -- then they discover what they do and don't have and may not be happy with their coverage. And again, after living and practicing in Canada for 10 years, I'd take that system *any day* over the hodge podge we have now. So, how are you doing, Dee? Did you end up with a Ph.D.? (Or whatever it is for P.T.) Amities, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Kevin inquired- Why is it that taking Cialis causes you to set up adjacent outdoor bathtubs? We could never figure that one out. Sounds uncomfortable to me. LOL, no real clue, but great question. I even own two of the tubs, but one is upstairs and one is downstairs in the 100 y.o. this old house. While I haven't seen the Cialis factor in action, those of you who have ever tried to move a radiator would know it takes a small army, never mind moving even a small claw foot tubs to a beach/platform, etc. Perhaps the image of the bathtubs is for her, although tub activities seem to have a lure for both genders. My old neighbor's (a southern genteel woman who grew up in old homes) used to occasionally tell stories that most people fantasize about clawfoots, yet the lure and reality often requires a vivid imagination and being rescued by the fire department. Wouldn't that be an ending to the commercials or for SNL? Sorry not more secret insights (except with a circular/2 shower curtain/s you don't have to clean wall tiles :-) Dee ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. Being the healthcare provider I can share this without cringing, but it will make some of you sit up with a bit of squirming. Just to share one of those stats to keep us all humble- 40% of men over age 40 will have some dealing with impotence. From a basic human intimacy element- those commercials wouldn't be still playing without an audience. 5-10 years ago, my sweetheart got notice of melanoma and prostate cancer within 24 hours, recovery was challenging, even without messing with a man's brain on the topic of intimacy. When we think of health, mental health parity, prosthetic parity, etc. seem a tough set of standards to set and decide if we will pay for in commercial or public options, they say things about us as a society (although exactly what I am not always sure). Do we mandate breast reconstruction but not continence surgeries depending on need? Do we only cover basic starter prostheses after someone loses a leg? There are extremes that we might agree on like not paying for $80,000 computerized prosthesis, but where is the line? Sorry not more logical, there is lots to these topics and we really haven't been able to fully debate, figured I would get some rambling out of my head in one fell swoop, Dee ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 13/09/2009, at 2:27 PM, Ray Ludenia wrote: The change of seasons is not as obvious here as it seemed to be in the States as we toured around last year. We don't go from ridiculous negative temperatures to extreme heat as for example in Colorado. It's gradually getting warmer now (the low 20s C) and it looks like we might be expecting another horror bushfire season. Melbourne's dams are still below 30% full after 12 years of drought. I'm wondering how many more years it is before it gets through to people that it's looking like it's not just a deviation from the average, it's a climate shift to a hotter drier south-eastern Australia. And yeah, another horror season ahead. :-( Hopefully people will be better prepared for catastrophic conditions this year, and more inclined to arrange to be elsewhere on Red Alert days. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Ray wrote: The change of seasons is not as obvious here as it seemed to be in the States as we toured around last year. We don't go from ridiculous negative temperatures to extreme heat as for example in Colorado. It's gradually getting warmer now (the low 20s C) and it looks like we might be expecting another horror bushfire season. Melbourne's dams are still below 30% full after 12 years of drought. We're having a bit of a drought here in California as well, but nothing like what you're experiencing. Of course we experience nasty wildfires every year too. Um, I'd like my health care to be unnecessary! If only... If you mean do I like Australia's system?, then overall, I'd say yes. There is universal health coverage under the government mandated Medicare system, and as well as that, many people also to take out private health cover (which is subsidised by a 30% gov contribution). I won't go into detail here, but I encourage those on both sides of the debate to perhaps check out: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/healthsystem-overview-1-Introduction or http://tinyurl.com/qppnmu This seems like a very reasonable system. Its obvious that there _must_ be some large degree of subsidy by the government because insurance companies can't make money insuring low and no income people. Being a government site, it perhaps paints too rosy a picture, but it does give the outline of the system. From discussions with many people during our US trip last year, it was amazing to us what a worry it was to US citizens about how to pay for their health care. Some of the premiums discussed were to our ears, unbelievable. Relying so much on employer-sponsored health benefits seems to me a strange system. The employed surely are far more able to pay for their own health coverage than the unemployed. Here in Australia, at least everyone is entitled to basic care, usually with little copayment required. It obviously does help if you can afford to take out private health insurance was well, as it increases the range of choices you have for treatment. The system here is a mess, a complicated mess. I agree that employee sponsored care is not the best approach, but how do you change it? The reform measures they're working on now are a strange amalgamation of public and private systems, but hopefully it will eventually lead to a system similar to yours. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: John Williams wrote: http://american.com/archive/2009/august/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare Yikes. Let's first look at the source of the article, The American Enterprise Institute. Actually, the source of the article is the author, James V. DeLong. The publisher is The American, and the owner of the publisher is the American Enterprise Institute. Here's a bio for James V. DeLong: http://cei.org/people/james-v-delong Described in Wiki as some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. Well, if you are interested in the background of the author, Jame V. DeLong, you could look at specifics of his life, in the bio above. He does not seem to be closely associated with the American Enterprise Institute. In fact, his associations look rather diverse, a quality which you have praised. Or we could continue playing your game of six degrees of separation. James V. DeLong can be linked to the Clinton administration in two steps (1. Bradford, 2. Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of Treasury), and those steps are less tenuous than the two you have just outlined. If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as to what we should be paying. In what sense should be? I don't see why I should choose something just because someone else has. I should be able to make my own choices as to what benefits me the most. Which is one of the points DeLong was making: | The proper level of spending depends on the value derived from it, | and in the end this level should be whatever results from the sum of | consumer choices made in the light of the value received. And if we're doing the lions share of the innovation when it comes to medical research, then maybe we need to figure out how to get the rest of the world that benefits just as much as we do (if not more) One way to accomplish this is for American companies who develop useful new techniques to profit by selling related goods or services throughout the world. Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. I don't have a problem with any of those drugs being sold to people who want to buy them. Just because I don't want to buy them (at the moment), does not mean that others should be unable to buy them. We should all have the choice to buy any of those drugs, and as many more as people can think up. Diversity is good. Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the president and a cooperative congress? Who is they? Are you saying that James V. DeLong's proposed reforms are not worthwhile because the American Enterprise Institute did not persuade the Bush administration to eliminate the tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance? I don't think that could be what you are saying, since it does not make a lot of sense. But I cannot imagine what else you meant. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: Actually, the source of the article is the author, James V. DeLong. The publisher is The American, and the owner of the publisher is the American Enterprise Institute. The latter being one of the driving forces behind the failed conservative revolution and the miserable failure that was the W. Bush administration. DeLong's resume is impressive, but the fact that his article appears in the AEI rag is a strike against it. If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as to what we should be paying. In what sense should be? I don't see why I should choose something just because someone else has. I should be able to make my own choices as to what benefits me the most. Which is one of the points DeLong was making: It's not just because someone else has it, it's because it works and it doesn't cost nearly as much. Looking at other country's health insurance is like comparison shopping; there are dozens of them that do as well or better than we do on overall quality while paying a good deal less than we do. One way to accomplish this is for American companies who develop useful new techniques to profit by selling related goods or services throughout the world. Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. I don't have a problem with any of those drugs being sold to people who want to buy them. Just because I don't want to buy them (at the moment), does not mean that others should be unable to buy them. We should all have the choice to buy any of those drugs, and as many more as people can think up. Diversity is good. I don't have a problem with the drugs, I have a problem with the priorities. Big pharma concentrates on those drugs that can make them the most money rather than those that are deemed most necessary. Sometimes those interests coincide, many times they do not. It's a glaring flaw in the free market system. Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the president and a cooperative congress? Who is they? They referred to the proposed reforms and what I meant was that AEI and the rest of the neocons and the Bush administration had ample opportunity to address these problems when their guy and their congress was in power. As for JVD's one paragraph proposal of reforms it didn't even begin to address some of the most glaring problems such as how to cover the 50 million people that have no coverage. His proposals are vague and generally not very helpful. Take the first one; a phaseout of employment-based health insurance in favor of other policies Great, phase 'em out. I agree with that and said as much in a different post, but how do we phase them out? What other policies will we employ?The high deductible thing is just dumb. If people have high deductibles they will avoid being seen and what ever is wrong with them will probably get worse and cost more to treat. Instead, they should lower rates if a person gets regular checkups and encourage them to come in in cases where early treatment could prevent complications. In any case, I was less than impressed with the article. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Ray wrote: I fail to see what difference it makes how often I am involved. Surely this should be the case with or without my participation! Hi Ray, glad to see you're still hanging out. Are you ready for spring, or does it make that much of a difference? I know you were kidding, but as far as how often you're involved, I think it makes a big difference. The list is a better place when we get opinions from a myriad of sources and a myriad of opinions IMO. Anybody who was on the list before 6/00 knows what an interesting, vibrant community it was and what made it most interesting to me was the diversity. So how do you like your health care? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: They changed the link. Here is the new one: http://american.com/archive/2009/august/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare Yikes. Let's first look at the source of the article, The American Enterprise Institute. Described in Wiki as some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. Now there's an endorsement! Second except for the determination that health care currently isn't the same as it used to be (duh) the article itself is all spin. If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as to what we should be paying. And if we're doing the lions share of the innovation when it comes to medical research, then maybe we need to figure out how to get the rest of the world that benefits just as much as we do (if not more) rather than sticking with the current formula. Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the president and a cooperative congress? All we got was an abortion of a drug bill. You'd have to be _on drugs_ to be listening seriously to anything these guys are saying. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Hi Ray, glad to see you're still hanging out. Are you ready for spring, or does it make that much of a difference? The change of seasons is not as obvious here as it seemed to be in the States as we toured around last year. We don't go from ridiculous negative temperatures to extreme heat as for example in Colorado. It's gradually getting warmer now (the low 20s C) and it looks like we might be expecting another horror bushfire season. Melbourne's dams are still below 30% full after 12 years of drought. So how do you like your health care? Um, I'd like my health care to be unnecessary! If you mean do I like Australia's system?, then overall, I'd say yes. There is universal health coverage under the government mandated Medicare system, and as well as that, many people also to take out private health cover (which is subsidised by a 30% gov contribution). I won't go into detail here, but I encourage those on both sides of the debate to perhaps check out: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/healthsystem-overview-1-Introduction or http://tinyurl.com/qppnmu Being a government site, it perhaps paints too rosy a picture, but it does give the outline of the system. From discussions with many people during our US trip last year, it was amazing to us what a worry it was to US citizens about how to pay for their health care. Some of the premiums discussed were to our ears, unbelievable. Relying so much on employer-sponsored health benefits seems to me a strange system. The employed surely are far more able to pay for their own health coverage than the unemployed. Here in Australia, at least everyone is entitled to basic care, usually with little copayment required. It obviously does help if you can afford to take out private health insurance was well, as it increases the range of choices you have for treatment. Regards, Ray. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 11, 2009, at 4:35 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: As Obama said this morning, we should be able to civilly differ when strongly held opinions differ...particularly on a mailing list where RL is only occassionally involved. I fail to see what difference it makes how often I am involved. Surely this should be the case with or without my participation! Regards, RL. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
No apologies needed. I just remember so well person after person taking on JDG trying to talk about different stuff (abortion, death penalty, politics). While I think Dan talked the longest and the hardest, I came to feel the guy just got off on fanning flames of dissention. Sort of like what's going on now, IMO. Well, not surprisingly, I differ. With respect to JDG, while we cannot really know the motivations of others, everything I see indicated that he expressed strongly held convictions that differed from yours. As Obama said this morning, we should be able to civilly differ when strongly held opinions differ...particularly on a mailing list where RL is only occassionally involved. For a while Brin-L was a place where I feel those exchanges could take place. I think the break point came with the big blow up..on Brin-L 1a. There were RL complications from that blow-up, and the list has not been the same since. Part of it is that, IMHO, IAAMOAC was so compromised, that it passionate discussions became more personal. Another part is that a number of regular participants left the list immediately. At the present time I, a former Obama delegate, is the closest thing to a long time conservative voice on this list (e.g. I was the one arguing strongly against the idea that Bush deliberately destroying the twin towers is as believeable as the official version of 9-11) . Like the blogosphererespect for differing opinions have diminished here. I would suggest that is part of the reason why contrary opinions are usually found with folks like John. This is not a friendly place for a conservative, even one who could find welcome among very prominent liberal voices. And Yeah, the women probably are hiding. I understand your problem with signal to noise, but when John isn't stirring something up, to first order, everyone is hiding. Back in April, there was not one post from a woman, and less than 50 from men. You and I probably define signal and noise differently, but those 50 posts contained very little new and interesting. Nothing wrong with them, just that they didn't say much. So, the signal is clearly down from what it was before the break-up. I'll agree the signal/noise ratio is down, but IMHO, the lack of signal is the biggest contributing cause. If you notice how many different folks posted in the last 6 weeks compared to the number of posters in April-May, you will see that a lot more people feel they have something to say now. Even you. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
David wrote: Hi. There I was, doing my bit to produce list traffic. Sorry... No apologies needed. I just remember so well person after person taking on JDG trying to talk about different stuff (abortion, death penalty, politics). While I think Dan talked the longest and the hardest, I came to feel the guy just got off on fanning flames of dissention. Sort of like what's going on now, IMO. And Yeah, the women probably are hiding. And Keith wrote: If we do solve the energy crisis in a way that gets rid of fossil fuels, then we might still have climate change, but it isn't likely to be a big problem. Enough energy and we can even pull CO2 out of the air. Work it out, 300 TW years will convert 100 ppm of CO2 to synthetic oil which could be stored in empty oil fields. So then, you think we should focus on the energy crisis and not worry about the population levels? Interesting. If that's what you are saying, I'll have to mull that one for a while. I've spent so long worrying about populations, this will be a major shift in thinking for me. H. We've probably had this conversation before, as well. Can I play the LOL (Little old lady) card and say I don't remember? I promise to read more and try to commit things to long term memory this time, but I'm still concerned about what our Grandson and Granddaughter will be facing when they're my age. Amities, all Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 7 Sep 2009 at 21:40, Nick Arnett wrote: If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government making a decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement on your freedom, then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not worthy of serious attention. I should have figured that out a while ago. He's awfully predictable. For all his dramabombing over being this man of mystery, he's a reprisentative of a type who are socially essentially destructive because they don't participate in any form of social contract. I also don't believe he'd know good faith if it bit him, he's fully aware of the implications of his arguments. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 7, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government making a decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement on your freedom, then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not worthy of serious attention. I should have figured that out a while ago. Actually, we each make a personal decision when we vote, so in that John W has a point. I fear he just does not believe that a majority vote that forms a government and then empowers that government to take action on its behalf gives it any legitimate claim to the fruits of his labor. From my reading of this long and exhaustive thread it seems to me that JW wishs to have the right to make every decision for himself about everything. Such a view is great for a frontier where there is no need to organize a society that does not exist. I suspect that even in nature such freedom does not exist, alpha males and matriarchies exist to provide societal guidance, etc. Given human nature as I have experienced it, John, I do not see how a civilized society could exist following a total voluntary ethic. My hope for you, JW, is that someone quickly finds the source of unlimited free power and safe extra terrestrial habitats are available for you to go somewhere where you are free to practice total freedom of choice. I choose not to live in such a society. I choose to live in the United States of America and abide by its laws created by elected officials at all levels and accept the consequences if I choose to break one from time to time. learner ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote: Given human nature as I have experienced it, John, I do not see how a civilized society could exist following a total voluntary ethic. It is interesting how some people claim my posts are repetitive, while other people seem to miss what that I have written before. No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have written that here before. I wonder if you are aware that US government is now much bigger and spends much more than it has for the majority of America's 233 years? I would like to see a government sized more like US around WW1 or earlier. I also wonder why you are so interested in commenting on your imagination of what I think about government, rather than discussing health care, in particular, the subject of this thread, DeLong's health care article. Not that I mind you talking about what you imagine my thoughts are about any subject, but you might want to start a new thread for that: What does John think about __? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the statement I am prepared to make everybody in America pay their share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care.? Then we have a fundamental disagreement, because either way you say it, the consequences of your statement are that you, personally, think that you have a right to decide how my money should be spent. I suspect that you see it in the abstract. I do not. But there does not seem to be any point in arguing further about it. John-- I don't get this. You recently wrote: No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have written that here before. So some taxes are O.K.? But I imagine that some of the people paying those taxes would rather not have their money spent on items paid for with those taxes. So can't they always make the same complaint you did above? Help me out? When do you believe taxation is justified? ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: John Williams wrote: I don't get this. You recently wrote: No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have written that here before. So some taxes are O.K.? But I imagine that some of the people paying those taxes would rather not have their money spent on items paid for with those taxes. So can't they always make the same complaint you did above? Help me out? When do you believe taxation is justified? Once again I am asked something that I have already answered, and yet others say my posts are repetitive. If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread and ask me again. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Until this is resolved, kindly cease to refer to taxation as taking your money, etc. Are you serious? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Williams wrote: If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread and ask me again. *If*. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Williams wrote: If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread and ask me again. *If*. Right. I already stated my opinion that I don't think it is worth arguing about (AGAIN). I'd much rather discuss the points brought up in DeLong's article. The only posts in this thread about the article were Doug's and mine (and I think Doug only got to the excerpt). ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Hello list-- Dan wrote: Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-) To which I would argue, is low traffic a bad thing? I think the signal:noise ratio has gone way up, lately. Again, I remember quite a bit of traffic around JDG every six months or so when he'd stir the pot on the abortion debate. You might miss him and all that traffic, Dan, but I sure don't. It took me over an hour to get through this weekend's traffic with all of John's interrogative answers going round, and round, and round, and roundI'm dizzy. And as for going to jail for not paying taxes, anyone remember exactly what happened to Joan Baez? I know she refused to pay 60% of her taxes one year (in the 1970's) because that's how much went to defense and the Viet Nam war, but I can't remember off the top of my head if she went to jail or not. I'm sure it's easy to look up, but I'm trying to get out the door to go swimming. Another thing I'd like to point out, for not particular reason, is Where Are The Women On This List? Are Julia and I the only xx's left? You lurking females out there, *Please* speak up on anything and everything. This has become BrinL for mostly men and a couple of women. Chris wrote: As small as WWI or before? No way will that happen unless there is an international disaster and major die-off of the human species. Of course we might be on the way to that already due to environmental changes. This is something I worry about -- what will our Grandchildren be doing when they're my age? What will the world be like for them? The primary group we donate to each year is trying to reduce world populations. I'm worried we're approaching a colony count that's going to exceed carrying capacity. Doom and gloom? Maybe -- so convince me otherwise, guys. Oh, and anyone drive a CNG vehicle? The Engineer is starting to make noises like he actually wants to spend some $$ on car, and is thinking that might be the way to go. The only one's we found in the US were Hondas in California -- go figure. Amities, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: John Williams wrote: I don't get this. You recently wrote: No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have written that here before. So some taxes are O.K.? But I imagine that some of the people paying those taxes would rather not have their money spent on items paid for with those taxes. So can't they always make the same complaint you did above? Help me out? When do you believe taxation is justified? ... If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread and ask me again. ... John-- I did start the new thread, and am interested in a sensible discussion on the topic. Back on this thread, you seem to have a contradiction in your position. Until this is resolved, kindly cease to refer to taxation as taking your money, etc. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Until this is resolved, kindly cease to refer to taxation as taking your money, etc. Are you serious? Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since you admit that taxation is in principle justified. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Williams wrote: If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread and ask me again. *If*. Right. I already stated my opinion that I don't think it is worth arguing about (AGAIN). I'd much rather discuss the points brought up in DeLong's article. The only posts in this thread about the article were Doug's and mine (and I think Doug only got to the excerpt). The thread wandered from topic and wasn't retitled. That's how things usually work here... ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since you admit that taxation is in principle justified. Calling a spade a spade is not dishonest. And I did not admit that taxation is in principle justified. Telling me how to express myself is not a way to have a productive discussion. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:17 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: John Williams wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since you admit that taxation is in principle justified. Calling a spade a spade is not dishonest. And I did not admit that taxation is in principle justified. Telling me how to express myself is not a way to have a productive discussion. It is too dishonest, since you said: No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have written that here before. I am still reading that as taxation is in principle justified. Why are you singling out taxes paid for health care as taking my money? Anybody could say that about any government spending, so it's meaningless. Arguing fairly and honestly is the way to have a discussion with me. You're still not getting it. I am not interested in discussing this topic with you since you have called me dishonest, inflammatory, incoherent, and told me how I should express myself. That is not the way to get me interested in a discussion. This will be my final response on the issue, unless you start a thread and convince me that you are willing to consider that I might possibly have a reasonable viewpoint on the issue (even if you disagree with my views), and that you are genuinely interested in understanding my viewpoint. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Jo Anne wrote: Hello list-- Dan wrote: Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-) To which I would argue, is low traffic a bad thing? I think the signal:noise ratio has gone way up, lately. Again, I remember quite a bit of traffic around JDG every six months or so when he'd stir the pot on the abortion debate. You might miss him and all that traffic, Dan, but I sure don't. Jo Anne-- Hi. There I was, doing my bit to produce list traffic. Sorry... ... Another thing I'd like to point out, for not particular reason, is Where Are The Women On This List? Are Julia and I the only xx's left? You lurking females out there, *Please* speak up on anything and everything. This has become BrinL for mostly men and a couple of women. It could be that lurking women are carefully avoiding this thread. : ) Chris wrote: As small as WWI or before? No way will that happen unless there is an international disaster and major die-off of the human species. Of course we might be on the way to that already due to environmental changes. This is something I worry about -- what will our Grandchildren be doing when they're my age? What will the world be like for them? The primary group we donate to each year is trying to reduce world populations. I'm worried we're approaching a colony count that's going to exceed carrying capacity. Doom and gloom? Maybe -- so convince me otherwise, guys. To me, the main problem is that the people using most of the resources (us) are relatively rich enough that we don't feel much incentive to use them efficiently. Consider fueling vehicles with ethanol made from corn--we have so much food we're prepared to feed it to our cars! But not everyone is so lucky. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since you admit that taxation is in principle justified. Calling a spade a spade is not dishonest. And I did not admit that taxation is in principle justified. Telling me how to express myself is not a way to have a productive discussion. It is too dishonest, since you said: No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have written that here before. I am still reading that as taxation is in principle justified. Why are you singling out taxes paid for health care as taking my money? Anybody could say that about any government spending, so it's meaningless. Arguing fairly and honestly is the way to have a discussion with me. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: ... On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since you admit that taxation is in principle justified. ... Arguing fairly and honestly is the way to have a discussion with me. You're still not getting it. I am not interested in discussing this topic with you since you have called me dishonest, inflammatory, incoherent, and told me how I should express myself. That is not the way to get me interested in a discussion. This will be my final response on the issue, unless you start a thread and convince me that you are willing to consider that I might possibly have a reasonable viewpoint on the issue (even if you disagree with my views), and that you are genuinely interested in understanding my viewpoint. John-- If you reread my posts, I believe you will notice that I never actually called YOU dishonest, inflammatory or incoherent. I have used those terms to describe some of your methods of argument. Don't take it personally? I submit that the first step might be for you to clearly articulate a viewpoint. I keep trying to dig one out from what you write, only to have you tell me that you didn't say that. As for your offlist email to me, notice that it fits with what I'm saying. I did NOT call you names, but said that your ACTIONS were arrogant. Which I'll stand by. And it's arrogant on your part to keep asking others to dredge through the archives for your earlier posts. [OFFLIST] Seriously? You call me arrogant, because I don't want to discuss something with you after you have repeatedly insulted me and my views? You are quite a character yourself, sir. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the public option so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an option for anyone unable to pay for all of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the public option so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an option for anyone unable to pay for all of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . . . . . ronn! :) Is that any better than the current system of for-profit insurers sponsored by for-profit employers, both of whom profit most if neither pays for anything they can possibly avoid? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:16 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Patrick Sweeneyfirefly.ga...@gmail.com wrote: Until you have freed everyone else in the world from taxes, you don't get to talk about the US any more. Sorry. Just applying your own rules to you. It's only fair. No, not really. I have a limited amount of time and resources, and I choose to use them in the way that I think I can accomplish the most. There are other people in the world who are in more need than those paying high taxes (who are primarily in Europe) and are relatively well off compared to others in the third world. It occurs to me that your reasoning in this matter is like the guy who tells his girlfriend that the fact that he isn't married to her means he is *more* committed than if they were married, because he's in the relationship by choice. I know that guy. This insistence that paying lawfully enacted taxes takes away your freedom is a failure to make a complete commitment to society. Sure, people joke about marriage taking away freedom, but it's just that, a joke. People who are married are still in it by choice, but they have chosen to commit, rather than insisting that any commitment is a loss of freedom. Your equating of taxes to slavery and such is really an unwillingness to commit. It limits the freedoms that society can provide. Without people committed to paying their fair share, we would have no defense, no schools, no ambulances, no police. When you insist that off this is slavery and demand to pick and choose, you're not committed to your country for better or worse, in sickness and in health, etc. It is just as wimpy as a half-hearted commitment to a life partner. If you can't live with the commitment, you have no right to whine that your freedom is being taken away. It isn't a commitment to do whatever the other party asks, it is a commitment to do your part, freely. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 06:43 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the public option so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an option for anyone unable to pay for all of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . . . . . ronn! :) Is that any better than the current system of for-profit insurers sponsored by for-profit employers, both of whom profit most if neither pays for anything they can possibly avoid? I'm guessing you meant worse rather than better, but to answer your question as it was written That's precisely what lots of people wonder. Neither government nor business has a record that exactly encourages optimism. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
That's precisely what lots of people wonder. Neither government nor business has a record that exactly encourages optimism. I guess it depends on perspective. Compare the lot of the median citizen of the US with the median citizen of any country 500 years ago; 300 years ago; 100 years ago. Compare, even, the lot of the median person in the world in the same manner. Part of the problem with government is that, as the strong oppositition to socialized medicine by folks who don't want their socialized medicine reduced in any way shape or form, we have met the enemey and he is us. With respect to healthcare, we know the US lags behind the rest of the world in bang for the buck. So, we know improvements can be made. But, we certainly have made tremendous progress in the last 200 years. If we were to make similar progress in the next 200; things would be phenomenal. But, we may have reached the point where the low hanging fruit is taken. It all depends on whether we find good black swans for economics and find a balance to the drive towards individualistic entittlement that we've seen in the last 40 years. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John said:
Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
burger and fries.
Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to
choose has been limited.
That is obvious.
Yes, but it's not the whole story. Suppose that Alice has two $1 bills
and she could choose to buy a burger, fries or a shake, each of which
costs $1, and further suppose that Bob has no money. Then Alice could
choose from one of 36 possible futures (as each dollar could supply
one of {burger, fries, shake} to one of {Alice,Bob}, so she could
choose, for example, a burger for herself and fries for Bob or a
burger and fries for herself). Alice has quite a lot of freedom, but
Bob has none.
Suppose George insists that Alice gives $1 to Bob. Then Alice can't
choose any of the 36 possible futures. The most she can do is to pick
one of six partial futures, for example the one in which she has at
least one burger. Bob can also choose one of six partial futures, for
example the one in which he has a shake. The outcome is that Alice and
Bob collectively choose one of the 36 total futures. Alice's freedom
has been curtailed a bit, but Bob has been given some freedom in
compensation.
I guess that you would argue that Alice's two $1 bills are hers, and
that if she wants to use them to give Bob some freedom she could
choose to give one or both to him but that George isn't justified in
forcing her to. I further guess that Nick would argue that it's more
fair for George to make Alice give the dollar to Bob as the gain in
freedom for Bob outweighs the loss of freedom for Alice.
Rich
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Richard Bakerr...@theculture.org wrote:
John said:
Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
burger and fries.
Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to
choose has been limited.
That is obvious.
Yes, but it's not the whole story.
It is not my whole post, either, since you cut the quote off early.
Suppose that Alice has two $1 bills and
she could choose to buy a burger, fries or a shake, each of which costs $1,
and further suppose that Bob has no money. Then Alice could choose from one
of 36 possible futures (as each dollar could supply one of {burger, fries,
shake} to one of {Alice,Bob}, so she could choose, for example, a burger for
herself and fries for Bob or a burger and fries for herself).
I count 28. Two dollars can be spent in 6 ways (BB, FF, SS, BF, BS,
FS). First consider the ways where one person has 2 items: that makes
12 (6 x 2) possibilities. Next, consider ways where no person has 2
items: there are 4 possibilities for Alice (including nothing), and
independently, 4 for Bob, making a subtotal of 16 (4 x 4). Then the
total is 16 + 12 = 28. Or if both dollars must be spent, then the
total is 21 (12 + 3 x 3).
I suspect you double-counted the 9 possibilities where each person
gets 1 item, and also the 6 possibilities where 1 person gets two
different items. 36 - 9 - 6 = 21.
Suppose George insists that Alice gives $1 to Bob. Then Alice can't choose
any of the 36 possible futures.
28
The most she can do is to pick one of six partial futures,
7, if you include not spending the buck
The outcome is that Alice and Bob collectively choose one of
the 36 total futures.
28, but as you indicate with partial, this is an uncertain 28
compared to having one person choose with two dollars, since no
outcome can be guaranteed.
Alice's freedom has been curtailed a bit, but Bob has
been given some freedom in compensation.
Also, if each person chooses one of 7 uniformly, the 28 outcomes will
not be uniform: for example, Bob with 2 burgers will be half as likely
as each with a burger. It seems that the outcome will be less
predictable, more randomized.
I guess that you would argue that Alice's two $1 bills are hers, and that if
she wants to use them to give Bob some freedom she could choose to give one
or both to him but that George isn't justified in forcing her to. I further
guess that Nick would argue that it's more fair for George to make Alice
give the dollar to Bob as the gain in freedom for Bob outweighs the loss of
freedom for Alice.
Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone
a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice
had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we
had coupons for a medical treatment to extend life by a year? Must
Alice give up years of her life? What about contracts to provide 1
year of manual labor to XYZ corporation? If Alice was liable for 2 of
those contracts, and Bob was liable for none, must Bob take 1 of the
contracts? What would you guess Nick would argue?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John said: Yes, but it's not the whole story. It is not my whole post, either, since you cut the quote off early. I know it wasn't your whole post let alone your whole argument but it was enough for me to hang my toy example from. I suspect you double-counted the 9 possibilities where each person gets 1 item, and also the 6 possibilities where 1 person gets two different items. 36 - 9 - 6 = 21. My reasoning in more detail was that one dollar can be spent in six ways: (Alice, burger); (Alice, fries); (Alice, shake); (Bob, burger); (Bob, fries); (Bob, shake) The spending of the two dollars is independent so the total number of ways they can be spent is 6x6 = 36. However, I think that you're right as burgers are indistinguishable from each other, as are portions of fries, as are shakes, at least in a simple toy model. I was counting the case in which the first dollar buys Alice a burger and so does the second as two cases rather than one. As you said, there are six such cases that I've counted twice. I was also counting cases in which the first dollar buys Alice a burger and the second buys Alice fries as distinguishable from the one in which the first buys her fries and the second a burger. If they're indistinguishable it's clearer to describe them as Alice doesn't have a shake or whatever and there are actually only 3x3=9 cases rather than the eighteen that I counted. So the correct count is 36-6-9 = 21, as you calculated. Your method of counting has the virtue of being more elegant as well as the greater virtue of being correct. Thanks for the correction. Also, if each person chooses one of 7 uniformly, the 28 outcomes will not be uniform: for example, Bob with 2 burgers will be half as likely as each with a burger. It seems that the outcome will be less predictable, more randomized. Yes, that's true. There will be some quite odd cases in which Alice buys Bob a burger and vice versa too (and similarly for the other two products). Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we had coupons for a medical treatment to extend life by a year? Must Alice give up years of her life? What about contracts to provide 1 year of manual labor to XYZ corporation? If Alice was liable for 2 of those contracts, and Bob was liable for none, must Bob take 1 of the contracts? What would you guess Nick would argue? I think that in the cases with the money or the coupons Nick would argue that Alice should be made to give to the others, but not in the case with labour contracts, but I suppose we'll have to wait for him to give his opinion. Of course, not all years of extended life have the same cost in expended resources so that example's a bit strange. Similarly, the opportunity cost of making different people engage in manual labour varies wildly. Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 6 Sep 2009 at 15:17, John Williams wrote: I would really like to understand your point of view, I doubt it. I suspect you would like to fit me into one of your simplistic models. Good luck with that. I'm sorry, for that statement I'm taking out a warrant for your arrest for dramabombing on a mailing list without a licence. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 6 Sep 2009 at 18:46, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote: Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? If your idea of how to spend it involves leaving people to the nonexistent mercy of a nonexistent public health care system so people in the top income brackets can afford an extra yacht this Christmas, maybe so. The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice (Deliberately missing the quote-ee, but I'm sure some people will recognise it) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Richard Baker r...@theculture.org wrote: Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we had coupons for a medical treatment to extend life by a year? Must Alice give up years of her life? What about contracts to provide 1 year of manual labor to XYZ corporation? If Alice was liable for 2 of those contracts, and Bob was liable for none, must Bob take 1 of the contracts? What would you guess Nick would argue? I think that in the cases with the money or the coupons Nick would argue that Alice should be made to give to the others, but not in the case with labour contracts, but I suppose we'll have to wait for him to give his opinion. Of course, not all years of extended life have the same cost in expended resources so that example's a bit strange. Similarly, the opportunity cost of making different people engage in manual labour varies wildly. I'd argue for democracy -- none of this business of X must give Y money. A social contract, not force. That's why I said the original post failed to address the critical question of what take means. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 7 Sep 2009 at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the public option so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an option for anyone unable to pay for all of ... The UK has the NHS. And private health insurance. So, er, lol. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Nick said: I'd argue for democracy -- none of this business of X must give Y money. A social contract, not force. That's why I said the original post failed to address the critical question of what take means. If you prefer, recast the questions as In this situation, is it morally right for Alice to give Bob (et al.) whatever? or more simply Should Alice give Bob (et al.) whatever? (Although as far as I can see in lots of cases the way it works seems to be that the democratic process decides on norms and then those are imposed by various kinds of coercion on dissenters so it largely comes to the same thing. Whether one sees this is a good or bad thing I suppose depends on how much one tends to dissent.) Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: (Anyway, aren't charitable contributions tax-deductible?) You do realize that tax-deductible means that your taxes are reduced by some fraction of the amount you donate, not the whole amount? Less than half, in fact. Yes, of course. The other is called a tax credit. You can't very well expect to get full tax credits for charitable donations, since it would be easy to arrange to get some of that benefit back from the charity. (By having it hire your children, or some such. My wife worked for an arts foundation that had exactly that arrangement.) For all I know, you could actually be spending all your money on things that hurt the common good. So the above is not a very convincing argument. There are also people who cheat on their taxes. And those who commit fraud to get government money that they are not legally entitled to. I do not assume that your views are invalid because you might possibly be one of those people. Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. I think we both want things to be fair as we perceive it. You're worried about your money being spent on people who don't deserve it. I'm not that concerned about that, and am prepared to accept a bit of waste. But apparently you are also prepared to accept waste of other people's money. How is it fair for you to waste other people's money? For the last time, MONEY YOU PAY IN TAXES IS NO LONGER YOUR MONEY. It then belongs to the government. We can talk about how we don't want the Government to waste its money. Or we could start a separate thread about Taxation is theft. I'm not too excited about that topic, unless you want to outline how you would run a country without collecting taxes. That would be an interesting problem, although I expect there's no practical solution... ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. So.you admit you hate America. xponent More Truth Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Rob said: So.you admit you hate America. Am I missing a reference here because this hating America stuff doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to me? Rich GCU Perpetually Confused ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. John-- Sorry for the misunderstanding. You said it in the context of a discussion, so it looked like an argument. If you are giving that much to charity, that's good. But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. ---David No, I didn't get the hate America comment either. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: If you are giving that much to charity, that's good. But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. Possibly irrelevant, but you were the one that brought it up, saying you were prepared to take money away from me to give to others. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: Rceeberger rceeber...@comcast.net Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:29:35 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. So.you admit you hate America. I can't see how that follows. One can even support higher taxes and make that statement; because money spent on X can't be spent on Y. I think that's what opportunity costs is suppose to measure. In general, I've come to the conclusion that John is not a troll; he just has a _very_ different opinion from the average person on Brin-L. He has surprised me with some of his suggestions; he virtually quotes Rand and then states something that she'd hate in the next paragraph. I find that interesting...trying to understand the viewpoint from which both statements could flow. So, I think he is arguing in good faitheven when I really really differ with him. By my definition, a good faith arguement is one that is actually held by the person. For example, when I discussed relativity and QM with folks who believed they found fatal flaws in these theories, they definately seemed to be arguing in good faith. The fact that they didn't see the logical contradictions in their arguements didn't mean that they were trolling. (BTW Johnthis does not mean I'm throwing you in with crackpots, just giving an example of a good faith arguement I know is wrong). Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-) Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: If you are giving that much to charity, that's good. But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. Possibly irrelevant, but you were the one that brought it up, saying you were prepared to take money away from me to give to others. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care. No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the statement I am prepared to make everybody in America pay their share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care.? I think we're having a general discussion about health care. Our own experiences may be used as examples, but that's all. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Then we have a fundamental disagreement, because either way you say it, the consequences of your statement are that you, personally, think that you have a right to decide how my money should be spent. I suspect that you see it in the abstract. I do not. But there does not seem to be any point in arguing further about it. Baloney. Nobody, nobody, has suggested that they, personally think they have the right to decide how to spend your tax dollars. That's fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship. The national health care debate is about how we, as a people, will spend our tax revenue, what business our government is in. That's democracy, which I haven't heard you say a bad word about, so either admit that you're opposed to making decisions via lawful democratic means or take the nonsense about other people deciding where to spend your money and shove it. Nobody here has shown the least bit of interest in any undemocratic approaches to running a nation. If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government making a decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement on your freedom, then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not worthy of serious attention. I should have figured that out a while ago. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: That's democracy, which I haven't heard you say a bad word about, We discussed some of the bad points of democracies here recently. I posted a list. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the statement I am prepared to make everybody in America pay their share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care.? Then we have a fundamental disagreement, because either way you say it, the consequences of your statement are that you, personally, think that you have a right to decide how my money should be spent. I suspect that you see it in the abstract. I do not. But there does not seem to be any point in arguing further about it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:23 AM, John Williamsjwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: DeLong (the other one) on health care costs and health insurance reform. http://american.com/archive/2009/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare | So what should be done about healthcare costs? Many things, including | a phaseout of employment-based health insurance in favor of other | policies; elimination of mandates that require insurance coverage | of designated procedures; availability of programs that combine | health savings accounts with catastrophe insurance; availability of | policies across state lines; reform of the tort system; reform of cost | accounting procedures that create dysfunctional incentives for industry | participants; availability of high deductibles so that insurance can be | insurance rather than socialized medicine; a second look at our policy | of forcing the young to subsidize the geezers, who are after all the | wealthiest segment of the population, and who can afford to spend more | on healthcare because other demands on their income are less. | It is a long list. Take care of these reforms and total spending | will take care of itself. Spending may become higher or lower—who | knows?—but it will better represent a reasonable assessment of value | for money. These reforms will also forestall the most worrisome aspect | of the current “spend too much” panic: the urge to cut costs at the | expense of the future. The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM, John Williamsjwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: DeLong (the other one) on health care costs and health insurance reform. http://american.com/archive/2009/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare They changed the link. Here is the new one: http://american.com/archive/2009/august/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, I'd love to have enough choice with health insurance to have multiple policies tailored to my needs. a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. You mean a tax-exempt HSA account? Like an IRA? Sounds good to me. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:46:44 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, I'd love to have enough choice with health insurance to have multiple policies tailored to my needs. a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. You mean a tax-exempt HSA account? Like an IRA? Sounds good to me. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? Actually, that's not what the opposition to health care reform is coming from. Its from folks who are already on government health care, wanting no cuts in it and wanting no one else on it. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. People with insurance and second stage cancer do better than people without insurance and first stage cancer. That's one reason why measuremables place the US far down the list of industrialized countries in health care provided, even though we top the list on health care cost. In your idealized world, people happily choose good choices. Historically, we've had market ecconomies with minimal governmental interference in the past; and the choice for the majority was rock or hard place. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, which is convenient, because they are so much harder to measure than tangibles. I guess it's a difference in perspective; when arguing about emperical quesitons; I tend to like measuremables. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, that's not what the opposition to health care reform is coming from. Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. No, all companies aren't. I'm on the board of a $10 million company that seeks to make not a cent of profit. My family's insurance company doesn't seek to make a cent of profit. Nor does the company where most of our retirement money is. The first is a non-profit and the other two are mutual benefit corporations that don't make money as companies. They pay good salaries and bonuses and return profits to their customers/members. I think it says a lot about a person's attitude if they think that every company is motivated by profit. Some of the largest, most successful companies in the world were not managed by seeking profits. My financial mentor for 25 years is a former Teledyne CEO, who learned from Henry Singleton that if you manage by cash flow, profit takes care of itself. Lack of cash kills a lot more companies than balance sheet losses. Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? It is a sick version of freedom that ideologically dictates that we are not free to offer health care to everyone, as a nation rather than through private enterprise. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. No, all companies aren't. I'm on the board of a $10 million company that seeks to make not a cent of profit. You seem to have misread the part of my post you quoted above (see almost). Unless you mean to claim that most companies are non-profits. Also, you have not followed the point -- the fact that non-profits exist has little to do with the point that a large number of profit-seeking companies have a large number of satisfied customers. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. Me, too. Freedom for a nation to choose what to do with its money, just like corporations and people are free to choose. How can you insist that for a nation to *choose *to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Is freedom threatened by the nation choosing to provide highways, police, fire, education and so forth to everyone? Are those services bad because they are run by government? Where's the consistency in this argument? Freedom to choose is still freedom to choose when everyone makes the choice by democratic means. That's our nation's very definition of freedom. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: How can you insist that for a nation to choose to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. Freedom to choose is still freedom to choose when everyone makes the choice by democratic means. Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: How can you insist that for a nation to choose to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. Repeating your premise isn't proving it. Freedom to choose is still freedom to choose when everyone makes the choice by democratic means. Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Come on. That's middle school-level civics, not an argument against health care... unless you come up with some sort of evidence that providing people health care is like enslaving them. Good luck with that. We generally don't think of illness as freedom from good health, which is the freedom that you'd like to preserve for a lot of people in our country. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:00:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. Some, but I can quote data concerning age groups and their viewpointsand guess which age group really doesn't want changethe age group on social security. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. And when you don't have the money because your options for getting money are don't match the cost of insurance or healthcare. It's the freedom to die. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? The last time I brought up these data. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: ... Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. ... John-- This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. I disagree, and doubt that you can design a practical society where government activities are funded solely by user fees. Regardless, it's hard to have much of a conversation with you when you've unilaterally taken most of the options off the table. If your main point is that it's impossible to have (somewhat) universal access to affordable health care without taking money from people who don't want to contribute it, we may be prepared to agree with that, and all move on to another topic... ---David Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care. No one gets to have complete freedom of choice. Live with it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. The principle under discussion was whether a democratic vote is equivalent to freedom to choose. I gave a counter example to disprove the general principle. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? The last time I brought up these data. How about a quote? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. The principle under discussion was whether a democratic vote is equivalent to freedom to choose. I gave a counter example to disprove the general principle. Actually, as David's post indicates, you are probably in a minority in considering that the principal under discussion. I would really like to understand your point of view, but when you quote, almost perfectly, well known sentences associated with political viewwpoints and then are shocked shocked to see that people think you hold that viewpoint, understanding your viewpoint becomes nigh on impossible for me. I say this as someone who has sucessfullly understood why some folks are convinced that special relativity is false, so I'm at least average at understanding folks who are trying to communicate what they think. So, I thought of one simple question that would be extremely helpful in my starting to understand how you differ from folks who use the exact same words as you do, but mean different things. It is Is being taxed different from or the same as slavery? Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. However, I have never written that I think there should be no taxes. In fact, I think that there are indeed some cases where the ends justify the means -- that I condone taking away individual freedoms for the greater good. But I think these cases are far fewer than others seem to think. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? I know a lot more deserving people to give my money to than wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care. Are you seriously going to tell me that your choice of who I should help with my own money is better than my choice? That you therefore have the right to take my money from the people who I would give it to, and instead give it to the people you think I should give it to? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, as David's post indicates, you are probably in a minority in considering that the principal under discussion. Actually, that was the principle under discussion with Nick. You conveniently left out the quote. I would really like to understand your point of view, I doubt it. I suspect you would like to fit me into one of your simplistic models. Good luck with that. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 04:09 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. Me, too. Freedom for a nation to choose what to do with its money, just like corporations and people are free to choose. How can you insist that for a nation to choose to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Is freedom threatened by the nation choosing to provide highways, police, fire, education and so forth to everyone? Are those services bad because they are run by government? Where's the consistency in this argument? Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. There is nothing obviously true about it, except that the person is free of paying taxes. That's not political freedom, it is practically the opposite, since only in fantasy are there nations in everyone is free of paying taxes. Taxes are a political instrument, so it is nonsense to talk about them outside of the context of politics, as you keep doing. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 04:42 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:00:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. Some, but I can quote data concerning age groups and their viewpointsand guess which age group really doesn't want changethe age group on social security. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. And when you don't have the money because your options for getting money are don't match the cost of insurance or healthcare. It's the freedom to die. Which is why I suggest that finding a way to get costs under control is more important than focusing on covering the uninsured: getting the costs back down so people can afford to go to the doctor or get medicine like they could when many of us were younger rather than having to turn to insurance for pretty much everything will solve the latter problem for many who currently can't afford it. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. There is nothing obviously true about it, Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a burger and fries. Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to choose has been limited. That is obvious. Now, you may argue that I got some value for the dollar that was taken from me. Perhaps. But since I would not have chosen that particular use for my dollar, it is less value than I would have gotten otherwise. so it is nonsense to talk about them outside of the context of politics, as you keep doing. I concede the point to the expert on nonsense. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a burger and fries. Now someone takes one of my dollars. Takes *how*? Nothing like leaving out the critical element of the metaphor. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 05:12 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. However, I have never written that I think there should be no taxes. In fact, I think that there are indeed some cases where the ends justify the means -- that I condone taking away individual freedoms for the greater good. But I think these cases are far fewer than others seem to think. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? I know a lot more deserving people to give my money to than wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care. How about the people who are working but can't afford to take themselves or their kids to a doctor when they get the sniffles or a sore throat or an ear infection unless they have some sort of insurance that will pay most of the cost of the office visit and any prescriptions? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 05:36 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. Sorry. :D (Though you could have responded like the person on another list who accused me of parroting the Republican talking points when I described situations I myself have encountered . . . ;)) In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. As I said, many of the questions I have concern things I or people I know well (e.g., family and RL friends) have encountered with the current system (or patchwork of systems, if that is a better description) . . . That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. Except to the people who have tried to get help there and not been able to get what they needed. (Perhaps for a very good reason, in that they needed something that is not part of what it [the VA] delivers, but then going elsewhere requires (financial) resources they didn't have . . . ) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:27:28 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform br Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them I understand that feeling. But, that's not what is being proposed. The public option is to have government run health care as an alternative. And, fortunately, we have a giant data base of folks who have government run health insurance: those on Medicare. My _Republican_ congressman stated that the overhead for private insurance paperwork is 20%, while for the government it's 5%. But, what about public satisfaction? We have a comparative survey at http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Survey-3A-Medicare-gets-higher- marks-from-enrollees-than-private-insurance-6883-1/ or http://tinyurl.com/mwm3db From the other items featured, it does not look to be a polemic website. We see those on the public plan are more satisfied than those on employer sponsered plans. And, that doesn't even address those who can't get employer sponsered plans. Let me ask a question, and I honestly will respect your answer. Are you so opposed to the government insurance that you'll refuse Medicare and be willing to be untreated as an option? I know folks with health issues in their families who are consultants. They tell me that bare bones catastrophic insurance is about $40k/year. Is this better than Medicare? Right now, we seem to have taken the worst of socialism and capitalism to get the most expensive health care while getting poor measured results. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:21 PM, John Williams wrote: Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is never absolute. And it is always limited by the need to balance that freedom with the identical freedom due to others. Your rights end where mine begin. And yes, I understand that it's against your will. You've made that point pretty consistently any time any sort of tax-based public service comes up for discussion. Ordinarily I shrug it off and chalk it up to fundamental disagreement. But, does the punishment for not making it into the wealthiest 25% of the population have to be a death penalty? If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? Let them eat cake Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote: Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? If your idea of how to spend it involves leaving people to the nonexistent mercy of a nonexistent public health care system so people in the top income brackets can afford an extra yacht this Christmas, maybe so. Grotesque oppression isn't okay just because it's been institutionalized. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
