Nov 07 2009

US Finally Gets Its Priorities Straight on Health Care

Published by at 11:16 pm under politics,USA

While $100 billion per year to insure 36 million Americans for health care may seem steep to some, these same critics won’t bat an eye at an extra $100 billion thrown at the defense budget.

Definitely a step in the right direction. Nicely done, Mr. Obama.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “US Finally Gets Its Priorities Straight on Health Care”

  1. Fredon 08 Nov 2009 at 7:23 am

    Hasn’t passed the Senate yet and your description as “$100 billion per year to insure 36 million Americans” is extremely “limited”

    Under Obama’s borrow, borrow, borrow & spend, spend, spend administration this bill is a $1.4 TRILLION dollar boondoggle.

    Unless you believe Obamasiah when he says he’ll fund it by finding $400 Billion in Medicare “waste” without cutting Medicare services and you realize that the numbers he uses have ten years of revenue and seven years of expenses . . nice way to “not run a Health Care deficit”.

    Figure this out:

    “An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. ”

    When ordinary Americans get the bill for this monstrosity of DNC and Obama vanity, when they wake up to the new taxes, when the rest of the US economy reacts to the changes in the disposable incomes they have, there will be political hell to pay.

    The Law of Unintended Economic Consequences is going to be brutally tough on America if the Senate passes this bill.

  2. johndoe124on 08 Nov 2009 at 8:18 am

    Why is your health a government responsibility?

  3. jnarveyon 08 Nov 2009 at 11:14 pm

    Because a healthy nation is a more productive — and therefore, more competitive and secure, nation.

    Universal coverage means everyone can visit the doctor when health problems are small and take action to prevent them from becoming a big drain on resources.

    It’s not any government’s intrinsic responsibility to spend $100 billion per year maintaining enough nukes to blow up the world thousands of times — but that’s how money does get spent in the USA. Nice to see some of these princely sums proposed for more mundane domestic uses.

  4. reiveron 08 Nov 2009 at 11:57 pm

    @jnarvey, you said…

    “Universal coverage means everyone can visit the doctor when health problems are small and take action to prevent them from becoming a big drain on resources.”

    That is not an accurate description of reality. (I cannot visit a doctor whenever you want.)

    I have to wait 2 to 3 weeks to get an appointment with my doctor. Alternatively, I can try to go to a drop-in clinic, but often when I try to go to one, I get a sign on the window saying they are FORCED to close because government has set limits on the number of people they can see in a day.

    Not to mention that you assume that tax funded Socialized medicine is the “best” way to get medicine. Socialized systems are notorious for pushing costs up while allowing quality to fall. (Which is consistent with my experience with Socialized healthcare in Canada.)

    Productivity is only harmed by Socialism. (Not aided by it.) Since it distorts or destroys market signals.

  5. jnarveyon 09 Nov 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Reiver, not sure where you live, but in Canada, I’ve never heard of a drop-in clinic forced to close because government set a limit on the number of patients. I’m guessing you just made it up.

    If we operated on purely laissez faire economics, there would be no national spending on roads, public infrastructure, defense — actually, no government at all. But we recognize that living one step away from anarchy isn’t the way to go, so we pay our taxes to pay for public goods. Throwing health care into the mix isn’t socialist. It’s very much in keeping with the kind of society we’ve already built.

  6. reiveron 09 Nov 2009 at 11:39 pm

    @jnarvey, you said…
    “Reiver, not sure where you live, but in Canada, I’ve never heard of a drop-in clinic forced to close because government set a limit on the number of patients. I’m guessing you just made it up.”

    I live in Vancouver, and I took pictures of it before. Please take a look…

    http://reiver.tumblr.com/post/167188657/socialized-health-care-rationing-in-bc-canada

    And seeing as you live in Vancouver too, I can even give the address of the place so you can go see it too!

    @jnarvey, you said…
    “If we operated on purely laissez faire economics, there would be no national spending on roads, public infrastructure, defense — actually, no government at all.”

    I’d prefer that. (I.e., prefer a laissez faire environment.,)

    @jnarvey, you said…
    “But we recognize that living one step away from anarchy isn’t the way to go, so we pay our taxes to pay for public goods. ”

    That’s rhetoric and an “argumentum ad populum” logic fallacy. (I.e., an appeal to the masses fallacy.)

    If you have a cogent reason against a laissez faire environment, please present one.

    @jnarvey, you said…
    “Throwing health care into the mix isn’t socialist. It’s very much in keeping with the kind of society we’ve already built.”

    “Socialism” has a specific definition. Canadian Socialized health care is “Socialism” by definition (of what the word “Socialism” means).

  7. jnarveyon 10 Nov 2009 at 12:30 am

    Reiver, as for the clinic, all I can say is, I’m very surprised. I’ve never had a problem visiting a clinic in Vancouver or any other Canadian city. And you were free to go to one of the other clinics around the city — or indeed an emergency room, if your situation was that desperate.

    My response to your points:

    1. Reiver: “actually, no government at all.”

    I’d prefer that. (I.e., prefer a laissez faire environment.,)

    jnarvey: Great. Get in your time machine and move to Ireland in 1847. Cheers.

    2. “If you have a cogent reason against a laissez faire environment, please present one.”

    See above. I think you’ll miss our way of doing things when you’re reduced to eating your neighbors when the potato crop fails and the government decides providing assistance just wouldn’t be laissez-faire enough. But hey, that’s what you want, right?

    3. “Socialism” has a specific definition.

    You’re right about that. And nowhere in that definition does the word Medicare show up.

    But you missed the point, anyway. I’m not even arguing that Medicare is or isn’t socialist. It is. But the imperatives behind Medicare aren’t merely socialist — they’re about providing a practical solution to a FAILURE of the marketplace to produce a desired result for society: full coverage to remove the threat of individual financial ruin from health problems and better overall health.

  8. reiveron 10 Nov 2009 at 8:24 pm

    (It would be much easier to have a convo if HTML was allowed in your comments, but anyways….)

    Regarding….

    reiver: “If you have a cogent reason against a laissez faire environment, please present one.”

    jnarvey: Great. Get in your time machine and move to Ireland in 1847. Cheers.

    That is rhetoric. And is a cherry picking logical fallacy.

    (I could point to Cuba, and say, “they’re Socialist and look what a “bad” place it is”. But that would not be sufficient though. And neither is your argument.)

    The Index of Economic Freedom roughly shows how close various places in the world are to a Free Market — roughly shows how close various places in the world are to a laissez faire environment.

    And GDP roughly shows how “good” a place is.

    And the closer and get to being laissez faire environments, the “better” those places are. Or to be more precise, there is a strong correlation (of 0.63) between the Index of Economic Freedom and GDP.

    And while I do not claim that a laissez faire environment is sufficient to have a “good” place, I do claim that laissez faire-ness is necessary to have a “good” place.

    Regarding…

    reiver: “If you have a cogent reason against a laissez faire environment, please present one.”

    jnarvey: “See above. I think you’ll miss our way of doing things when you’re reduced to eating your neighbors when the potato crop fails and the government decides providing assistance just wouldn’t be laissez-faire enough. But hey, that’s what you want, right?”

    Again, you’re previous argument was fallacious. (And thus not cogent.) (And is loaded with rhetoric.)

    There is a strong positive correlation between laissez faire-ness and “good” places.

    Regarding…

    jnarvey: “… the imperatives behind Medicare aren’t merely socialist — they’re about providing… full coverage to remove the threat of individual financial ruin from health problems and better overall health.”

    Assuming that this is really what people want (and it’s not being forced on them) then there’s other ways to accomplish that goal besides Socialism, that don’t incur the penalties that Socialism incurs.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply