Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
If Health-Care Reform Passes, Will Protests Increase?
At The Daily Beast, Reihan Salam argues that "the so-called "town brawls" are a sign of things to come":
To get a glimpse of America’s future, consider France. The French have the health-care system that Americans desperately want: it combines private providers and patient choice with a large and generous public insurance system, one that keeps out-of-pocket costs extremely low for working families. The French system is also dramatically cheaper than our own. But whenever there's a move to tweak the system in some way—say, to gently nudge patients to get the approval of a general practitioner before seeing a specialist—the French go absolutely mad with rage. Doctors go on strike, massive street protests ensue, the riot police come out: it's a crazy scene.
And it makes perfect sense: as more life and death decisions are placed in the hands of democratically elected legislators, politics become more than an occasional nuisance.
The logic here, which I agree with, is fairly similar
to what
I've argued about health-care reform and corporate lobbying:
Making government a bigger player in the health-care process means
that health-care decisions are increasingly political decisions,
which, in turn, means that people and companies turn ever more
toward political acts—like protests and lobbying—in order to
participate. Obama has repeatedly talked about moving the country
beyond politics. But the health-care reforms he supports would, in
fact, further politicize the health-care system.
Previously, I wrote about industry support for health-care reform. Ron Bailey wrote about handouts in cap-and-trade legislation here.
|8.10.09 @ 7:40PM|#
I'll always believe that France's budgetary flexibility for things like this has been provided by the sweat of American taxpayers (and soldiers). When you don't have to worry about keeping Gunther and Ivan out of your hair, you can have all sorts of fun with your pocketbook.
Sean W. Malone|8.10.09 @ 7:44PM|#
Yeah, Europe isn't only benefiting from our military
protection... Because the EU underpays for drugs deliberately as a
condition for pharma companies being allowed to sell there at all,
the US "private" system eats the remainder in the form of higher
costs.
So we're not only subsidizing their citizens' protection from
international threats, we're also directly paying for a shitload of
their medicine. And France's system is still going
bankrupt.
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
|8.10.09 @ 7:47PM|#
The French have the health-care system that Americans
desperately want
Says who? I have no interest in their system whatsoever. Apparently
a large percentage of the population agrees with me. And regardless
it does not come in a vacuum. France has persistently high
unemployment and unfunded obligations that make Social Security and
Medicare look positively solvent. I would not be using France as a
model for good government policy. Of course I would not use the
United States either.
hmm|8.10.09 @ 8:10PM|#
It's not just health care. The trend will spill over into everything since government has its hand in everything.
qwerty|8.10.09 @ 8:21PM|#
And it makes perfect sense: as more life and death decisions
are placed in the hands of democratically elected legislators,
politics become more than an occasional nuisance.
Yup. I love it when people wring their hands over government
corruption, too. "What can we do to stop politicians from abusing
their power?" The answer is, don't give them the power.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.10.09 @ 8:31PM|#
America : baseball :: France : riots
So, the French see riots as increasingly irrelevant, but insist
that they should be steroid free?
|8.10.09 @ 8:35PM|#
As I've commented before, the notion of "positive rights" such
as the right to health care, which entail obligatory wealth
redistribution from some to others, sets up irresolvable conflicts.
The interests which "win" in this "democratic" process which
progressives advocate determine the distribution of all resources,
get to impose the costs of their "rights" upon the losers.
The irresolvable conflict of rights at the philosophical level
translates into conflicts at the political level, which will be
played out not by reasoned debate (because reason cannot resolve
the inherent logical conflict between positive and negative
rights). Hence people will increasingly turn to the use of force to
get their way - such as violence in the streets.
That's why the task of moral philosophers has always been to define
normative rights in such a way as there are not conflcits between
them. The purpose of creating rights is to resolve
conflicts - to decide who has the right to something, so
as to avoid violent conflict between members of society. By setting
up irresolvable conflicts at the philosophical level, positive
rights set the stage for violence at the political level.
Alice Bowie|8.10.09 @ 8:45PM|#
If Health-Care Reform Passes, Will Protests
Increase?
Of course it Will!
Spending $1Trillion towards healthcare will significant reduce the
amount of money we can give to Israel, or Africa, or
Halliburton.
|8.10.09 @ 8:46PM|#
Making government a bigger player in the health-care process
means that health-care decisions are increasingly political
decisions, which, in turn, means that people and companies turn
ever more toward political acts-like protests and lobbying-in order
to participate.
Just as an example of what I'm talking about ... if I'm obligated
to pay for your health care, then your decision to have children
imposes costs on me, and on the country as a whole. So now there
becomes a political impetus to have a national policy attempting to
regulate the size of families - see China's one-child policy - or
impose mandatory birth control, etc. People who want kids are
pitted against people that don't. And whoever "wins" the election,
gets to force the other group to obey them. Non-Breeders get to
impose mandatory birth control, or breeders get the non-breeders to
pick up the tab for their kids. Instead of such conflicts being
resolved by a system of "rights" the only "right" is who wins the
election.
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 8:52PM|#
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an
unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There
can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."
Ayn Rand
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 8:55PM|#
Spending $1Trillion towards healthcare will significant reduce the amount of money we can give to Israel, or Africa, or Halliburton.
What, exactly, about modern American politics leads you to this
stunningly retarded conclusion?
I usually don't respond to you because you talk like a paranoid,
stuttering crackhead, but seriously, has increased spending in one
place led to budget cuts elsewhere?
Alice Bowie|8.10.09 @ 8:59PM|#
I was be Facetious ... not necessarily paranoid. Though you may
have hit it on the nose with the Crackhead comment.
What I meant to say is that I didn't hear a PEEP from the
conservative movement when King Cheney and his Bitch Bush spent
$11billion per month on IRAQ.
|8.10.09 @ 9:09PM|#
What I meant to say is that I didn't hear a PEEP from the
conservative movement when King Cheney and his Bitch Bush spent
$11billion per month on IRAQ.
Great! Another ignoramus that doesn't know where he is.
|8.10.09 @ 9:20PM|#
What I meant to say is that I didn't hear a PEEP from the
conservative movement when King Cheney and his Bitch Bush spent
$11billion per month on IRAQ.
God almighty, stop it with this already. Yes, of course you didn't
hear a peep about that from conservatives, because conservatives
SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR. They don't support government health
care.
For fuck's sake. Their positions stem from one set of principles
about government's role. Yours stem from another. You don't "prove"
anything when you make statements like this. You're merely relaying
an observation about differing political positions; it's not an
actual argument.
|8.10.09 @ 9:22PM|#
Hi5 Hazel!
Hazel consistently writes the most lucid, insightful commentary
around this place.
Alice Bowie|8.10.09 @ 9:31PM|#
because conservatives SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR. They don't
support government health care.
I just hope the voting public remembers this.
Gillespi keeps saying that "the best way to stimulate the economy
is to have two people dig holes and have three people fill them
in."
Well, with the bombing and the eventual rebuilding IRAQ...I don't
see this to be much different.
I'd rather have my tax money Government Health Care than to Israel
or Iraq.
I just wish there was a TOWN HALL for those things.
Alice Bowie|8.10.09 @ 9:34PM|#
Healthcare is Completely out of Control.
An indemnity policy today runs about $2,700 per month. My mortgage
in a NYC suburb isn't even $2,700 per month.
If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance...because the policies
today SUCK!!!
You can't even buy catastrophic insurance.
|8.10.09 @ 9:37PM|#
I'd rather have my tax money Government Health Care than to
Israel or Iraq.
There you go: Now you've got the seed of an actual argument.
Merely pointing that people didn't complain about thing X, which
they supported, but do complain about thing Y, which they don't
support, is a waste of everybody's time.
|8.10.09 @ 9:39PM|#
If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance.
That would be awesome. Insurance prices would plummet!
Alice Bowie|8.10.09 @ 9:44PM|#
Today's insurance policies not only carry deductables...but
co-insurance and co-payments.
I don't think that there is a difference between the words
deductable, co-insurance, and co-payments. That's just the
insurance company making up words to that you don't think that your
deductable is going up.
I have an insurance policy I get from my employer. I pay over $500
per month (my contribution) towards the premium. AND the Policy is
COCK!!! Nothing is covered...and EVERYTHING IS A PRE-EXISTING
CONDITION.
If something bad happens to me, my wife, or either of my
girls...That's it for me.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.10.09 @ 9:45PM|#
Healthcare is Completely out of Control.
An indemnity policy today runs about $2,700 per month. My mortgage in a NYC suburb isn't even $2,700 per month.
If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance...because the policies today SUCK!!!
You can't even buy catastrophic insurance.
That depends on where in the States you live...see for instance
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-care-insurance-for-less-than-100.html
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 9:46PM|#
Assuming that your figure, Alice, of 11 billion per month in
Iraq is correct, that would be 847 billion dollars for the entire
length (March 2003 - present) of the occupation.
Now, frankly, it doesn't matter what you would and would not rather
spend 1 trillion dollars on. The Iraqi occupation money is
already spent. It's a sunk cost, and arguing about it is
akin to arguing over spilt milk. The question is whether it's smart
to spill more milk.
So, in other words, talking about the occupation is a big red
herring on your part.
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 9:47PM|#
I pay over $500 per month (my contribution) towards the premium. AND the Policy is COCK!!! Nothing is covered...and EVERYTHING IS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
For the love of Christ, man, why are you paying it then?
max hats|8.10.09 @ 9:50PM|#
It is incredibly rare that protests of any sort increase in
fervor long after the initial spark of outrage. The life cycle of
most mass protest movements is about 2 months, and even that is in
the most extreme cases. You may still have anger after a month or
two, but getting nontrivial numbers of people to show up on a
workday with signs, that is tough.
If I was in charge of the fight to stop a national health care
plan, I would have a very different strategy. An incensed minority
is far, far less politically powerful than a grumpy majority. But,
as a guy on the other side of this debate, I whole-heartedly
encourage all opponents of the democratic plan to keep supplying
CNN with loops of red-faced lunatics disrupting town hall meetings
and writing ridiculous editorials calling Obama the new Stalin, or
saying that Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized if he lived
in the UK. Currently, the confused independent voter sees both
sides, and he may not understand the debate, but he can clearly
tell who is less insane. It's kind of like the 2008 election all
over again.
JB|8.10.09 @ 9:51PM|#
We subsidize French health care (drugs, devices, procedures,
etc.) and we also subsidize French defense (NATO, etc.).
I am getting damn tired of subsidizing the French. Let's make them
take all our wannabe little socialists.
|8.10.09 @ 9:55PM|#
An indemnity policy today runs about $2,700 per
month.
Cite please. I have a stand-alone BC/BS plan for me and my
daughters that is $450 a month.
The fact that you don't understand the difference between
co-payments, coinsurance and deductables (or don't believe there is
one) might be a sign for you to be quiet on this issue until you
know what you are talking about.
Alice Bowie|8.10.09 @ 9:55PM|#
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
You are absolutely right. Even a family plan costs $577.82 per
month...with NO co-insurance and only a $5,440 deductable.
Maybe I just need to move out of NYC.
|8.10.09 @ 9:55PM|#
max hats,
Sounds like you've considered a certain health care plan and you
like it. However, I'm not interested in taking part in it.
Cool? I'm gonna move on now, OK?
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.10.09 @ 10:12PM|#
Alice Bowie,
You claimed no one could buy catastrophic insurance. So I showed
you decent catastrophic ($5000 max OOP per year) insurance plan
with some elements of health/vision/dental/drug care
program included for $100/month per person.
That's less than I pay for data service
In short, you're wrong.
Suck it up.
|8.10.09 @ 10:14PM|#
To be fair, the French are a rather bitter people. They go up in arms about damn near everything. Have you read Les Miserables?
EscapedWestOfTHeBigMuddy|8.10.09 @ 10:15PM|#
::wonders if he might have misunderstood Alice::
Or do I owe you an apology.
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 10:16PM|#
Sorry to bring it up again, but I am confused as to why, if it
is true that Alice's plan pays for nothing, why he is paying that
500 dollars a month?
You know you don't have to pay for the insurance, right?
It must be paying for something.
oh, and max hats is a partisan shill and should never, ever be
taken seriously.
Elemenope|8.10.09 @ 10:28PM|#
France has persistently high unemployment and unfunded
obligations that make Social Security and Medicare look positively
solvent.
But, but, but...Social Security is solvent.
Anyway, carry on.
max hats|8.10.09 @ 10:51PM|#
oh, and max hats is a partisan shill and should never, ever be taken seriously.
This word, "shill," I do not think it means what you think it
means. I don't come here to advocate anything, and I certainly
don't pretend to be nonpartisan. Not really a troll either, because
I type out what I believe and call it like I see it. No grand
conspiracy, no sociopathic shut ins. I'm just dude, sorry to
say.
|8.11.09 @ 12:12AM|#
"Their positions stem from one set of principles about
government's role."
The Republicans have principles? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
That was funny. Have you got one about the Democrats being for the
little guy? That would be funny too.
|8.11.09 @ 12:46AM|#
Making government a bigger player in the health-care process means that health-care decisions are increasingly political decision
Yeah the insurance industry's bottom line is a much better standard
to apply to medical decisions.
Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 1:01AM|#
Serious question. A liberal friend of mine posted some thing on his blog about all the conservative nuts showing up at town halls. I know what the exaggerated claims are, but what is actually going on at the town halls? I'm too busy to check one out. Anybody been to one?
Anonymous|8.11.09 @ 1:17AM|#
Apostate Jew, that's right, but it's still good form to assume
good faith and principles in a debate until proven otherwise, and
then righteously tear the opponent limb from limb.
There's no better honest way to change minds.
Mike Laursen, there are videos on youtube available. At the worst,
they're heckling Congress Critters when they talk about "stimulus"
and welfare and socialized medicine. Dissent is thuggery, after
all, and ignorance is strength, Stalin would say.
Turnkey|8.11.09 @ 2:02AM|#
The insurance industries bottom line would also be influenced by customer service and coverage if healthcare wasn't tax subsidized by going through an employer.
Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 3:03AM|#
Mike Laursen, there are videos on youtube
available.
Thanks for the tip. I watched a few of them. I have a better feel
for what's going on now.
Except I'm wondering what's with Iowans. They are eerily polite.
Must be all the Jello and sun tea.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 7:32AM|#
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
I did admit that u were right...and that I was wrong.
It's just that in the NYC Metro area health insurance is pretty
high...and doesn't cover much if you or a family member get a
stroke, cancer, etc.
In all fairness, the salaries are pretty high as well.
|8.11.09 @ 8:20AM|#
Alice Bowie,
Insurance costs in NYC are so high primarily because of ridiculous
regulations imposed by the state:
"In New York, medical underwriting is not allowed. This means that
insurance companies are not permitted to review the medical history
of prospective members. As a result, they are required to charge
the same rate (or premium) to members regardless of their health
status. This leads to extremely high premiums. "
Also, "In New York, all health insurance companies must offer
insurance coverage to all individuals, even those with serious
medical conditions. "
This is why you are getting raped by premiums, and why people in
other states pay 80% less than you. GTFO of New York.
I found that on a health insurance website, BTW.
http://www.healthplanone.com/healthinsurance/newyork/
robc|8.11.09 @ 9:13AM|#
GTFO of New York.
Or, lobby congress to allow sales of insurance policies across
state lines.
That way, Alice could buy a policy from a cheap state.
This is an example of states mucking around with interstate
commerce and would be an actual legit use of the ICC on the part of
congress.
Anonymous|8.11.09 @ 9:34AM|#
This is why you are getting raped by premiums, and why
people in other states pay 80% less than you. GTFO of New
York.
And yet I constantly hear from every chickenpot socialist that it's
the company and the profit motive doing this, not government
regulation. I mean everyfuckingwhere. You can't read tech news
without a constant undercurrent of anti-profit.
EscapedWestOfTHeBigMuddy|8.11.09 @ 9:51AM|#
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
I did admit that u were right...and that I was wrong.
Allow me to offer you my apologies. I simply didn't parse you post
correctly the first time.
Oh the embarrassment! I die. The very electrons of my missive lose
the will to live and destroy all machines through which they pass.
The internet crashes, infrastructure fails, everyone dies. Oh the
embarrassment!
|8.11.09 @ 10:13AM|#
"If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance...because the
policies today SUCK!!!"
I agree, maybe you should lobby for states to stop over regulating
them, so we can have more choices. And let's stop employers from
being forced to buy insurance, so we see the costs and people who
aren't employed aren't forced to subsidize the employed.
Those would go a long way to improving the insurance products
offered, because people making fully informed choices directly
knowing the ocsts will improve it, while every time the cost is
removed we see problems.
That would have another plus: you needn't worry about pre-existing
conditions because you wouldn't be switching companies every few
years.
In fact, ket's not force insurance companies to pay for
pre-existing conditions, but instead make the insurance company you
had at the time it was discovered pay, just like insurance in other
industries. After all if you had insurance A and your house floods,
and you switch to insurance B before all payouts are finished,
Insurance B doesn't have to finish paying for your house damage,
insurance A is still liable because they took the risk. Yet in
healthcare we force insurance B to cover it, which is insane.
That is also why few insurance companies offer reductions for
preventative healthcare or living risk free lives, after all they
aren't going to see the benefit of your lowered risk, instead
whoever you are insured by 30 years from now will. So why should
they offer you a deduction. If we freed insurance to offer any plan
imaginable, and freed it from whoever you are employed by at the
time, there is a good chance you'd stay and an insurance company
would do more to keep you.
I'd like health insurance to work the way insurance does in every
other industry: as a risk mitigator. Health insurance today is not
insurance at all, it's welfare. We want to force companies to pay
for our healthcare, while we pay them only a small fraction of the
cost. Of course that model breaks down for the elderly when a
majority need care.
I'm not against welfare to help others, though some are. But let's
call it what it is, not insurance. And let's leave insurance alone
but free it and let the market inform prices.
|8.11.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Another huge difference between France and the US is the legal
system. In France the tort system is nearly inaccessible, terribly
slow, and produces low judgements. In the US, the system encourages
costly litigation, the payouts are huge, and the risk run by the
plaintiff in filing suit are low. Comparing the two countries
without taking into account who is in charge there...In France it
is bureacrats and technicians...In the U.S. it is lawyers from top
to bottom...is literally just a meaningless eruption of
verbiage.
That said, I do agree that the French and the Europeans in general
have not paid their own way in terms of national security,
nevermind the defense of free commerce on the high seas etc. That
has permitted them to spend tax money buying votes and promising
goodies that permit buying more votes...which has bankrupted them.
Oh, and there is no future generation to pay for the promised
pensions, because they haven't had enough children. However, thre
reason many of their industries are able to be competitive with
international standards despite the high costs, high taxes, and
heavy regulation, is that there are almost no lawyers. At best, in
France, the status of a lawyer is a sort of glorified clerk. the
nice parts of town in France are not half populated by wealthy
lawyers, as it is in any american city.
Anonymous|8.11.09 @ 11:12AM|#
I agree, maybe you should lobby for states to stop over
regulating them, so we can have more choices
Now if there were some way to convince every single idiot who
spouts off about it that this is the problem, then you'd be on to
something. But everything I hear in the local news, personal blogs,
tech news, forums, and from several friends is that the government
just can't do enough to stem the profit motive that drives
corporations to rape their customers. There is no voluntary
transaction, utility, supply and demand, elasticities, or freedom
of association with these people. It's like a socialist European
cult of Nader or something.
|8.11.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Just as an example of what I'm talking about ... if I'm
obligated to pay for your health care, then your decision to have
children imposes costs on me, and on the country as a
whole.
I seem to recall this exact scenario going on at the Twentieth
Century Motor Works. It didn't turn out so well.
|8.11.09 @ 11:22AM|#
$11 Billion for "the war" sound positively tiny (6%) compared to
the $181 Billion one month deficit for last July. In any case, "the
war" will end someday. Government Medical Care has never ended (at
least not yet).
Our government (Rep. and Dem) has bankrupted us.
PC|8.11.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Instead of Cash for Clunkers, how about Health Care for Cell Phone Plans or Health Care for Cable TV? People could learn how to have priorities by giving up their Cell Phone Plans or Cable TV Packages and buy fucking health care instead so this country doesn't go bankrupt.
|8.11.09 @ 11:40AM|#
One serious question... Why does a "positive right" (per Pres.
Obama) stop at "free health care."
From a survival point of view--the rough rule of "3":
3 minutes without air--you die
3 hours with out shelter--you can die (cold,heat, etc.)
3 days without water--you die
3 weeks without food--you die
For 90% of the population---would it be 3 years without health
care--you may die?
Where is the free shelter, food, clothing, & water lobby for
the whole country (excluding current welfare programs which are
supposed to be limited in scope and support)?
|8.11.09 @ 11:46AM|#
I'd rather have my tax money Government Health Care than to
Israel or Iraq.
It's not necessarily a binary choice. The government could not
spend on either and cut your taxes, enabling you to get a
health plan more to your liking.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 12:15PM|#
"In New York, medical underwriting is not allowed. This means
that insurance companies are not permitted to review the medical
history of prospective members. As a result, they are required to
charge the same rate (or premium) to members regardless of their
health status. This leads to extremely high premiums. "
So basically, those low premiums i see in other states are for
people that will never use their insurance...Because, the minute
that they do, the premiumns will go up as high as they are in
NYC.
Remember, If insurance costs $100 per month when you are
healthly...and you simply don't get coverage again once you get
sick...why even pay the $100 in the 1st place?
|8.11.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Why pay that $100 in the first place? Because the first time you
need it, you get the coverage they're obligated to pay. The expense
may be the equivalent of $100 per month since you were born, but
they're going to pay it.
The second, third, etc. may cost you more, but that first lottery
ticket has paid off big time.
|8.11.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Alice Bowie asked, "So basically, those low premiums i see in
other states are for people that will never use their insurance"
why even pay the $100 in the 1st place?"
No, it's because other states people who are generally healthy
(without pre-existing conditions, habits, etc) pay lower premiums
than those who are generally unhealthy. Such underwriting practices
seems fair to me. I have no desire to pay for costs stemming from
other people's decisions to smoke, over-eat, drink, ride without a
helmet, have unprotected sex...
"why even pay the $100 in the 1st place?"
Congrats, you just explained why many of us choose to contribute to
an HSA instead. I'd rather toss my tax free earnings into a medical
savings account than fork over monthly insurance premiums that gets
spent someone else's problems. (which is the same reason I'm
opposed to national health care, btw)
(sorry if duplicate)
|8.11.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Bryan Travis, excellent points at 11:02am.
Even Canada gets a huge advantage from having a much less
accessible court system and a much higher bar to clear to prove
"malpractice."
Of course, technically if the government healthcare system picks up
the tab for your continuing care and possibly even makes you whole
again, it would seem to be a net gain. But it's worth noting that
the cost of this care does not fall back on the doctor (or his
insurance company).
frege|8.11.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Does Obama know what a "brand name" and "generic" drug are? It
doesn't seem like he does. A generic is the same chemical sold
under a different name. Our genius President does not know what he
is talking about. GW Bush would have probably known this stuff. And
if he had gone on for 10 minutes with this generic/brand name
gibberish the media would have held it up as a sign of
stupidity.
President Genius just babbles for an hour and then CNN and MSNBC
lie through their teeth for him. Obama has no understanding of
economics or business and will destroy the quality and availability
of healthcare in this country. I am sure the Linda Douglasses out
there will call me a liar because Obama promised to eliminate
lines.
Fletch|8.11.09 @ 4:20PM|#
But, but, but...Social Security is solvent.
This quote comes from the front page of the official SSA Statement
of benefits I received last week.
"In 2017, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in
taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the SS Trust Fund will be exhausted
and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for
each dollar of scheduled benefits."
-Michael J Astrue
|8.11.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Alice, your first problem is that you have an indemnity policy.
Everyone who has them thinks they are supposed to be the best
(probably because of the cost) but they are the worst you can get
because they have the highest premiums and least benefits. The govt
requires they use attrition to abandon the program, they can't just
end it and transfer people to other plans.
Since the advent of HMOs, indemnity policies are the ones insurance
companies are trying to rid themselves of because they suck and are
costly to administer. So they raise rates and lower benefits to
encourage you to cancel them in favor of better plans, be they PPO,
EPO, or HMO.
I don't care what anyone says, HMOs are not the devil. Indemnity
policies should be abandoned and its up to you to do it. Tell your
employer to get a PPO or HMO or just get out of the employer plan
and buy your own HMO in NY for about $1200 per month for your whole
family. You may have less choices of physician because of the
network, but the $1500 savings per month would be worth it to any
rational person. Plus you will just have a copay, no coinsurance
and no deductible. HMO doctor does not mean bad doctor. No doctor
is worth $1500 more a month (just for access to them - you could
pay less in cash to them for care) than any other.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Steve,
???Safe Sex????
I don't know how old u r...or if you have been able to procure any
'ASS' in the last couple of years...but, SAFE SEX????
Everyone has the "occassional" SLIP UP !!!
|8.11.09 @ 5:02PM|#
"In 2017, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the SS Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits."
Well, of course, it's not as if in 2017 they'll start drawing cash
from a real account with genuine assets. To pay out the money from
"The Social Security Trust Fund" the Treasury will have to dip into
general revenues which means either increased taxes, increased
borrowing or some combination thereof.
This is just a another chance to visit the fraudulent nature of
this scheme.
As I have pointed out on several occasios, we can have Swedish
levels of benefits if we are willing to accept Swedish levels of
taxation. But, from what I hear, even the Swedes are tired of
Swedish levels of taxation.
And the pension part of SS isn't even the problem. There are only
so many geezers and each gets a relatively fixed monthly payout.
Not really a huge chore to plan for meeting that obligation in any
given year. Migh piss off the people who have to pay the taxes but
it's a fairly predictable burden.
On the other hand, a promise to fund all healthcare on demand, even
if it's to a fixed pool of beneficiaries is a open ended promise
without an upper limit.
It's medicare that has us fucked. And the Obamabots are trying to
pretend that expanding that promise to everyone isn't fraught with
hazard.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 5:12PM|#
I personally feel that we should abandon
employer-sponsored healthcare.
To those who prefer HSA...I hate 2 tell U.
You will NEVER be able to SAVE enough to pay for the
delivery of your Two Kids, the occasional sniffles, a stroke,
cancer, etc. etc. etc.
Unless one is so mean-spirited ... and can give a shit of another
person's child developing Leukemia...I guess HSA is OK.
We need the Pyramid Scheme. A Pyramid Scheme involving all
Americans. It's really the only way healthcare coverage can
work.
Let's Take a simple example:
You make $100,000 per year.
You get a 5% raise per year for ten years
You put away 10% of you salary: $10,000
Assume that you've NOT PLAYED the STock MarKeT...It looks like the
follwing table:
Year Base H.S.A
1 100,000 10,500
2 105,000 11,025
3 110,250 11,576
4 115,763 12,155
5 121,551 12,763
6 127,628 13,401
7 134,010 14,071
8 140,710 14,775
9 147,746 15,513
10 155,133 16,289
TOTAL in UR H.S.A Acct 132,068
Let me TELL U... You will NEVEr, Ever Save enough money to truly
pay for your Health Care.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Oh Yea...and by the Way
??? How many of You Make $100,000/year???
??? How many of you get 5% raises per year ???
??? How many of you get a 5% return on Money???
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 5:19PM|#
may bad ... that last table was horrible
a better table
Year Base H.S.A
1 100,000 10,500
2 105,000 22,050
3 110,250 34,729
4 115,763 48,620
5 121,551 63,814
6 127,628 80,406
7 134,010 98,497
8 140,710 118,196
9 147,746 139,620
10 155,133 162,889
TOTAL in UR H.S.A Acct 162,889
Still looks like a good amount.
Wait until you kid breaks an arm
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 5:27PM|#
Now, if you pooled everyone's 5% in a Pyramid Scheme...you would
definitely have the benefits of a greater health population help
those that are sick.
I know that this is not popular with libertarians...but it's
probably the only thing that would work. Unless you have a
boat-load of money...or are completely poor and can get
medicaid...or you are middle class and once they take your house,
savings, retirement, and children's college funds...you will be
eligible for medicaid.
A pyramid scheme is not so bad. A Ponzy or Madoff scheme or
Govermentment Scheme, however, were the PERP squanders the FUND
(see below) in good years, is a bad thing
FUND = [Revenue collected] - [cost of benefits] + [Interest on
Fund].
F = (R - B) + I
In a Ponzy or Madoff scheme, the FUNDS is squandered...so there is
NO [Interest of Fund].
Sometimes in a Pyramid Scheme, the principal of the fund must be
used when R > B + I. This has happened ONCE in the last 12
years.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 5:31PM|#
Remember guys, with the Medium Income going down-and-down with outsourcing, downsizing, etc...and cost of rent/gas/food/fuel/healthcare/pot/mistresses going up-and-up...It's hard to save that 5%.
Brian|8.11.09 @ 6:11PM|#
Alice,
You are either misinformed or being disengenious. Your employer
funded plan cannot have pre-existing conditions under federal law,
unless you had more than a sixty three day lapse in coverage within
the past year. Or simply did not participate, and waited until you
got sick to go on the plan. If you have been covered under a group
health plan for more than one year there is no longer any pre-ex
exclusions, and it has been that way since 1997.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 6:25PM|#
I know that brian.
But, if one moves out of NYC, that law simply does NOT apply.
I'm just saying that I am for eliminating the Employer Sponsored
HealthCare. It isn't really Employer Sponsored...You, the employee,
pays for it. Net you, the employee, does not get the benefit of a
tax write-off.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 6:26PM|#
Also Brian, What generally happens...and I am GENERALIZING, is that you get a stroke, you loose your job, you get cobra, you can't pay the cobra, you loose your benefit, you become unisurable.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 6:29PM|#
Don't get me wrong. If I got a stoke....I would pay my health
premiums. But, once unemployed, one may find COBRA to be pretty
high.
And, if you're just gonna pay premiums until u run out of money
(becuase co-pays, deductables, and co-insurance is pretty high) ...
why even pay anything?
Just keep the money under the mattress, run up the Credit Cards,
hide the money, and wait for bankrupsy...this is what savy people
are doing ALL OVER NY and NJ...I'm not sure about the rest of the
country.
Alice Bowie|8.11.09 @ 6:31PM|#
If you ask ME, and i know no-one is asking, but it's the
BANKRUPSY that is driving Health Care Up. Doctors and hospitals
have to charge more because they will ultimately get stiffed from
people that
A. sincerely Can't Pay
B. Hustlers that scheme the system
|8.11.09 @ 7:34PM|#
Also Brian, What generally happens...and I am GENERALIZING,
is that you get a stroke, you loose your job, you get cobra, you
can't pay the cobra, you loose your benefit, you become
unisurable.
This is why you should always negotiate for higher pay instead of a
health benefit, and then put your money into an HSA or buy your own
insurance.
Buy catastrophic coverage and pay out of pocket for routine medical
visits. Then it won't disappear if you lose your job as a result of
an illness.
Also one reform that could be made would be to make sure the
insurance company pays the costs *throughout* the period of
illness, and can no longer charge premiums after you get sick.
Which is like charging you premiums after your car is
totaled.
The market would be taking care of these things, but because hardly
anyone actually pays their own premiums, it can't. The consumer
isn't choosing his own insurance plan so it's not going to respond
to the consumer's needs.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.11.09 @ 7:49PM|#
Just keep the money under the mattress, run up the Credit Cards, hide the money, and wait for bankrupsy...this is what
savydishonorable people are doing ALL OVER
FTFY.
Not much that can be done about it in reality, but I wouldn't
associate myself with someone I knew to have done this.
|8.11.09 @ 9:35PM|#
Alice insisted, "SAFE SEX???? Everyone has the "occassional"
SLIP UP !!!"
It's fruitless for you to make assumptions as to my age or
lifestyle. Yes I drink, yes I ride a motorcycle without a helmet,
and yes I have sex, be it protected or unprotected. The point I
made in my post is that I've taken financial precautions to pay for
mishaps due to my choices -- and, as such, I refuse to pay for
mishaps due to the choices of others.
And yes, that includes practicing safe sex. I refuse to finance an
abortion or STD treatment for you or your family member... just
like I refuse to pay for lung cancer treatment should you choose to
smoke, or head trauma because you chose not to wear a helmet. The
list could go on and on and on.
If you don't like me (or the government, or the rest of society)
preaching safe sex to you or telling you how to lead the rest of
your personal life, don't ask us to pay for your "slip-ups". I
believe Helen touched that in her comments near the top; if you
expect a nanny-state or big brother society to take care of you,
you better be prepared to have a nanny-state or big brother society
telling you how to live your life.
Anonymous|8.11.09 @ 9:55PM|#
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy, nor would I, but only because I don't like bounty hunters.
|8.11.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Alice, according to your table, a man and a wife who each earn
$50,000 when they get married will have over $63,000 to pay for
delivery costs within after the first five years of marriage.
Assuming normal vaginal delivery without complications, that amount
saved should pay for two babies (
http://www.google.com/search?q=average+cost+of+baby+delivery ), and
still leave $50,000 to pay for any complications.
Still can't afford kids? Then don't have kids. It's not society's
responsibitity to pay for your individual choices, wishes, and
wants.
Alice actually wrote, "We need the Pyramid Scheme. A Pyramid Scheme
involving all Americans. It's really the only way healthcare
coverage can work."
Um, you advocate an interesting solution. According to Wikipedia,
'a pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves
the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the
scheme, often without any product or service being delivered'
Which part of that appeals to you as a model for health care? The
unsustainable part? Or the fact services won't be delivered? Aren't
those the two aspectes the main criticisms of the universal
healthcare proposal?
Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 8:03AM|#
Wikipedia is not a valid source for reference. You know
that.
What I'm saying is that the Pyramid Scheme for Social Security
worked fine until Reagan decided to use the FUND as part of the
GENERAL TREASURY.
So, now, when we work and pay 15.2% of our salary toward social
security it NO LONGER goes into the FUND...it goes to the GENERAL
TREASURY.
The Pyramid will NOT work if there is NO FUND for years where the
BENEFIT costs are greater than the REVENUE Stream PLUS the INTEREST
earned on the FUND. Sometimes, one must use the PRINCIPLE in the
FUNDS because the REVENUE and INTEREST is not enough.
This has worked FINE for years. We are facing something called the
demographic diversification: BENEFICIARIES out number the REVENUE
providers. This would NOT have been a problem if the FUNDS had not
been Sqandered. It was Squandered by Reagan, Clinton, the two
Bushes, and Obama.
The Pyramid FUND (whether medicare, social security, pensions,
etc.) should NOT be part of the GENERAL TREASURY. This is what made
GM Fail. As large as GM is, they did NOT have, and would never have
enough people in their pyramid to compensate the retired. They had
to pay out of future profits.
As far as you not wanting to pay for bad behavior, then you might
as well not pay for anything. You may be perfectly ok eaating
steak...but call pot smoking a big sin.
Irregardless of what people do, we should all pitch in to help each
other out. It's been a social contract that has worked for years.
It's pretty much how the rest of the FIRST WORLD does
it...successfully.
Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 8:09AM|#
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
U may wanna call that act dishonorable, but, the alternative may be
the local bus terminal ones family in the event of tragic or
castostraphic illness.
And, when the general consensis is "YOU BETTER HAVE MONEY TO PAY
FOR YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE...or YOU CAN GO TO HELL..." Can u really
blame people for being DISHONORABLE?
Steve's argument above simply comes down to "POOR PEOPLE should be
BANNED from HAVING children"...since they can't afford the
delivery.
These are the types of things that would lead to a BASTILLE DAY in
America.
I'm not poor, I'm not part of the NYC filthy rich.
|8.12.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Alice wrote, "Wikipedia is not a valid source for reference." In
this case of defining Pyramid Scheme, it is; you'll be hard pressed
to find another published definition that refutes it.
The inherent shortcoming of the Social Security program can be
summarized in two words: Baby Boomers.
Alice accused, "Steve's argument above simply comes down to POOR
PEOPLE should be BANNED from HAVING children...since they can't
afford the delivery."
I'm sorry. You're right, I am a dumbass. Where is the line to get
OUT of prison?
Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 11:15AM|#
Steve's argument above simply comes down to "POOR PEOPLE
should be BANNED from HAVING children"...since they can't afford
the delivery.
The flip side is that if no one is willing to pay, either out of
savings or charity, then poor people have the duty to conscript
unwilling parties into paying for the job they desire done.
|8.12.09 @ 11:22AM|#
What I'm saying is that the Pyramid Scheme for Social Security worked fine until Reagan decided to use the FUND as part of the GENERAL TREASURY.
Jesus fucking Christ, the Social Security "Trust Fund" was used as
part of the GENERAL TREASURY from the very beginning. Generating
revenue for the general fund was the whole idea. The pension
benefit bullshit was secondary and merely a way to make it
popular.
Reagan wasn't even the one responsible for hiding the size of the
deficit by including FICA in revenues but not including Social
Security payments in outlays. That, I believe was LBJ who wanted to
hide how much the Vietnam war and the Great Society were
costing.
The only thing that Reagan did was raise FICA taxes to try to cover
the benefit increases of the 1970s plus all the other crap that
Congress had tacked onto the original pension benefit.
In case you missed what every other person here seems to
understand, the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a fraud and is
absolutely meaningless in terms of meeting any future SS
obligations. Always has been, always will be.
Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Isaaic,
What i'm saying is the TRUST FUND should not be used as part of the
GENERAL TREASURY...and should soley be used for whatever the
pyramid is setup for. Without it, the pyramid just doesn't
work.
It would have met obligations if it were NOT Squandered.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.12.09 @ 12:42PM|#
U may wanna call that act dishonorable, but, the alternative may be the local bus terminal ones family in the event of tragic or castostraphic illness.
Declaring bankruptcy is welching on ones debts. But we have, for
good or for ill, decided that there are time when it is better to
allow welching than not. No doubt the things you listed above
played into that choice.
That is what the institution of bankruptcy is for: making certain
welches legitimate before the law. But it comes with some rules,
and one of them is: you tell the court about all your assets so
that the court can judge whether and how much welching you're going
to be allowed to do.
The biggest dishonor here is appealing to the law to legitimize
ones non-payment, and at the same time contemptuously
blowing off ones obligatory disclosure under the same law.
Feh!
Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 2:35PM|#
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
I know, and I would usually agree.
However, when Donald Trump can declare bankruptcy three, and still
live large...do u think he followed the rules?
GM Declares bankruptcy and no longer has to pay pention
benefits..yet, they are still in business...selling Cars...and
Keeping profits.
Bankruptcy was designed by the rich...for the rich.
It allows rich people and institutions an avenue to keep their
riches and welch on their debt.
I'm sorry that I don't find poor people that do the same
dis-honorable.
|8.12.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Alice,
It is simply not possible for the government cannot save the
"Social Security Surplus".
Every penny received by the Treasury is instantly spent, either on
outlays or buying back existing debt.
There are no government "savings accounts", only bogus "trust
funds".
Any spending from a "trust fund" must be done with money the
Treasury has either taxed or borrowed that day.
My question: Why bother with the "trust fund" in the first place?
Why not simply set the dedicated tax at the level required to meet
the outlays of the program for any given year?
Answer: Because without the "trust fund" politicians would not have
that huge bucket of free money that they have fooled the taxpayers
into believing has bee save in a "personal account" just for
them.
Don't worry kids, your not going to miss out on your SS pension
because the Boomers spent all the Benjamins in the "Social Security
Trust Fund". The politicians have already done that.
If you don't get your SS pension it will be because the pols have
lost their will to tax.
And when did that ever happen?
|8.12.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Actually, Canada does save the surplus funds from Canada Pension
Plan contributions.
They are invested in Provincial and Municipal bonds.
There have been various complaints over the years about
malinvestment and even a few of cronyism but the Canada Pension
Plan does manage to avoid many of the failings of Social
Security.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.12.09 @ 6:13PM|#
However, when Donald Trump can declare bankruptcy three, and still live large...do u think he followed the rules?
[...]
I'm sorry that I don't find poor people that do the same dis-honorable.
It's OK because the-toupee-that-walks-like-a-man did it?!?
Do you really want to use that media-thing as a yardstick
for moral behavior? You might as well choose Elliot Spitzer!
/obvious
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245