Health Mandate Unconstitutional?

[mattp]

Fairweather,

I still disagree that it was "thuggish" to criticize a political institution in a political speech, and I'd also say that he actually voiced criticism for only that one decision though a much broader criticism of the court might actually have been warranted.

 

Feel free not to respond any time you want but feel equally free to tell us how it was thuggish for Mr. O to do as he did and maybe you can fill us in on how the current leaders of the Republican party or the former president you don't like to talk about are not "thuggish."

 

[mattp]

I know you hate government, Jay, but check out the VA some time. Last I heard they actually deliver excellent care for the price and the old stories of rats in the national hospital are out of date. I haven't looked in to it recently, but I think that is what you'd find. Single (government) payor is probably, in my opinion, a better bet than having private insurance companies whose job it is to deny coverage in charge of anything related to health care.

 

As to your other ideas, I couldn't for a minute agree that the more you make the more you should be cared for. That is just plain wrong.

 

And, as to "third party payors," I'd have to agree that you are probably right that if we are not individually responsible for payment there will be at least some people who like attention or just like going to the doctor or who are hypocondriacs who will over-consume. I don't think that would pose a bigger problem than the current distortions, though.

[billcoe]

I know you hate government, Jay, but check out the VA some time. Last I heard they actually deliver excellent care for the price

 

 

Bad example, I believe that you're totally and 100% wrong on this Matt.

[JayB]

I know you hate government, Jay, but check out the VA some time. Last I heard they actually deliver excellent care for the price and the old stories of rats in the national hospital are out of date. I haven't looked in to it recently, but I think that is what you'd find. Single (government) payor is probably, in my opinion, a better bet than having private insurance companies whose job it is to deny coverage in charge of anything related to health care.

 

As to your other ideas, I couldn't for a minute agree that the more you make the more you should be cared for. That is just plain wrong.

 

And, as to "third party payors," I'd have to agree that you are probably right that if we are not individually responsible for payment there will be at least some people who like attention or just like going to the doctor or who are hypocondriacs who will over-consume. I don't think that would pose a bigger problem than the current distortions, though.

 

I love the government! It can fulfill quite a number of functions in society that not other institution can. I just think it does those things best when it restricts its attention to them - instead of doing things that other entities can do better. I also think that there are things like determining what sorts of political speech are acceptable, what consenting adults are allowed to do to themselves or to other consenting adults that are absolutely none of the governments business. Most folks are cool with that as long as the things that I claim the government shouldn't have a hand in involve gay marriage or legalizing drugs, but generally become quite hostile when I add things like staffing ferries, operating buses, etc to the list.

 

I don't dispute the fact that there are government institutions that can provide excellent care with a level of cost efficiency that's on par with or better than comparable private institutions - but I think that they are entirely dependent on the existence of a private medical economy outside their walls, they aren't scalable, and that making the government both the payor and the administrator of all medical care delivered in the US would cede far too much direct power and authority over individual lives and liberties to the government.

 

I don't think anyone applauds the fact that Bill Gates or the president is likely to get medical care that's better than a disabled coal miner - but it's hard to imagine how you could ever rectify that reality with the ideal of equal care for all without granting the government a great deal of discretion over how people spend their own money.

 

As things stand now - it's not clear to me that we're doing the poor any favors by putting them in a single payer system that pays so little that there's an ever smaller number of providers who will even see them, or how they'd be worse of with income indexed vouchers plus a government funded, income indexed HSA, for example.

 

I think that for whatever reason, you are someone for whom the mere mention of George W Bush is sufficient to induce the intellectual equivalent of anaphylactic shock (much like a former co-worker who *literally* became beet red and had to excuse himself from the room whenever the subject of GW came up) - but other than that you're a good guy who wants the best for people. There's probably a lot we agree on - but even if we want the same ends we'll probably never agree on the best means to achieve them....

[mattp]

What is this, Jay? "The mere mention of GWB?" If you want to talk about characterizations we could speculate about whether you are the type of guy who likes to take completely unfounded jabs at "liberals" just for fun or whether it is because you are a rude son of a bitch. But lets stick to the discussion, OK?

 

If you are referring to my exchange with Fairweather, I think it was and is perfectly appropriate to ask him how he could call a statement made by our current President "thuggish" when he's been defending that bunch of crooks and liars for the entire time cc.com has been live.

 

Back to the discussion: I don't think anyone here would argue that we should try to prevent Bill Gates from getting better care than a disabled coal miner. The question is whether the taxpayer or the general fund should pay for the higher level of care provided Gates. I did not mean to imply that I think we should make it illegal for Bill Gates to pay for extraordinary care.

 

As to the system we now provide the poor? I agree that the rates of reimbursement are discouraging for providers, and that the system is not what it should be. I would favor revisiting the entire thing, and if higher taxes were required I would support that, too (I'm pretty sure they are if we are to cover everybody). I'd also suport a REAL discussion of the deficit, whiile we are at it.

[ivan]

I know you hate government, Jay, but check out the VA some time. Last I heard they actually deliver excellent care for the price

 

 

Bad example, I believe that you're totally and 100% wrong on this Matt.

anecedotal evidence of course, bill, but last month i had a vet in from washougal who had half his face blown off in iraq a couple years ago and he reported he is very happy w/ the va's service - both my little bro and father are combat vets drawing disability too and, though they bitch about everything under the sun, they are positive about their gov veteran services

 

i might add i lived the first 18 years of my life w/ military docs n' dentists n' can't complain.

[billcoe]

Dentist Humor

 

[video:youtube]