Replies

Post your short news items, issues of interest, links, and so on. All who advance the Cause are welcome.

LET'S ROLL!!!

Good morning...sorry I was so late this morning, but someone re-arranged the computer area and has moved the computer into a rather unaccessable area in her room...

I'll be posting later in the afternoon when I get to PA and we have peace and quiet and room to post.

Off to d house for that cup # 2, be back in a bit.

Good morning Neets and ALL you wonderful people.

Off to check the news. Back later.

Good morning Neets. You're doing fine. There's been a bombing in Chechnya that has killed 40.

Well, our new Senate Leader will lead us straight into a thicket. Just as the President wants.

Look forward to a lot of yelling and screaming at FR. The White Flaggers will lament the death of the republic, yet again. We're gonna see immigration social security, health care, and education reform. We're not going to see much of the 10th amendment, and we won't see a drastic roll-back of the New Deal.

I am all for a reform of our health care system. American is blessed with a marketplace and politic of supply and demand that has led to a revolution in medicine. From our universities to the drug companies that are working on new answers, it is a product of the American genius -- or greed, if you will -- for innovation. My sister, a gene-bio-chemist-whatever works for a biotech firm. She is sworn to curing cancer. We're all hoping she gets it before my uncle goes to the lung variety. We're also counting on her making a fortune out of it. The side of innovation is all we could ask for. I'm not sure what in public policy could possibly speed discovery. Whatever the government does it must not be at the cost of innovation.

Where the wheel is broke is at the provider side. Two premises to frame my argument:
1) As that corporations and government primarily fund health insurance, we all pay for it, either as consumers or tax payers;
2) Insurance companies are socialized medicine.

Corporations pass health care costs along to the economy. It makes American business less competitive in price and imposes a downward force on employment. But, as with the payroll "contribution" of business to employee Social Security, Medicaid, etc., the weight is upon the consumer. (Don't get me going on payroll taxes...)

Insurance operates like your worst-case socialized system: it removes competition, drives up cost, and takes away accountibility. It is one of the worst developments of the modern economy. When insurance was localized to certain consumers and types of commerce, such as shippers, or carriage operators, its negative effects were particular. As insurance has become universal across consumers and commerce (driven by attorneys and the complexities of our overly-hedged economy), its negative effects have become general. Its benefits have remained particular.

Insurance today is a private regulatory system. Just because it is "private" makes it no better than government regulation. Try to keep your home without insurance, or run your car, or keep a retail business. You have no option but to join the system. Self-insurance is either suicide or for owners of insurance companies. Insurance is no longer voluntary.

Ever hear of a contract of cohesion? It's the three pages of fine print in your car loan. You have no choice but to sign the contract if you want a car loan. Those who can afford it the least are the most vulnerable to contracts of cohesion. It's a fact of life. However, when there are no other options, not even for those who can afford to pay cash for the car, then we have a problem. Such is our private health insurance system. The only way out of insurance is no insurance at all. That's called dropping out. Of society.

Here's a third premise for my argument: just because a bad system is private doesn't mean it's better than a bad government system. Bad is bad. The libertarians will freak at this, but there are certain things government does better than the market. That's my fourth premise. Here's a fifth: business don't give a damn for your rights. (Ask TRW's credit dept.)

My fondest hope is that so long as we're going to go with a system of pooled risk (insurance), we might as well make it across the board. As it is, payers have to assume unpaid risk of the non-players and the drop-outs. Furthermore, society as a whole pays for insurance anyway through the general economic burden. We might as well get with a plan whereby health insurance is avaible to everyone on an equitable basis. I see no reason that a government employee is offered a subsidized healthcare plan when I have no access to it, subsidized or otherwise. I'm not asking for the IBM plan -- that's theirs to have or to lose.

I'm not sure where to go with this. I do know it's going somewhere. The country demands something. To offer nothing will be to give it to our opponents to define what we will get. Nationalized healthcare will not fly in this country so long as the country believes that we have something better. As it stands, what we have is perceived as better. Not by much, particularly if you talk about HMOs, Teddy Kennedy's little monster.

I'm hoping for a solution short of regulatory means, and far short of nationalization. To me, the key is to whip the insurance system into shape, some how, some way.

Nicollo's got more worries than answers tonight. Just shootin' from the hip here, just a start.