Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 17, 2008 By Draginol In Politics

Good article at the WSJ discussing the likely results of the upcoming election.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

Read the whole thing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html


Comments (Page 3)
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Oct 22, 2008

In the US if you need treatment and you don't have insurance / your insurance wont pay, you get it for free (medicaid / medicare).

Also... I quickly searched for the bane of all socialized health care... wait times. "Wait times canada" in google quickly revealed this site:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/wait_mn.html

Where you can look up your wait times for various operations... I quickly searched some, some simple things had a wait time of only a few weeks, then again, heart bypass had a provincial target of 185 days wait time. that is half a year.

If you need serious surgury, waiting months to years to have it is a failure. If there is something I am missing here, please inform me of it.

on Oct 22, 2008

Sigh... the health care thing again... 

If you need serious surgury, waiting months to years to have it is a failure

I live in Canada, and have friends and family members that have had life-threatening conditions requiring operations. They recieved these operations very promptly with no problems.

The horror story that you hear about wait-times are mostly over blown and almost always misunderstood. If you have a serious, life-threatening condition you get priority and you will certainly not be waiting half a year with nothing stopping you from dying until then.

But, the proof is in the pudding, which is that per capita Canadians have a lower infant mortality rate, longer lifespan, and pay less for healthcare (through taxes) than you do in the U.S!!!!

There is a good reason why ALL of the other G8 nations (with exception of the States of course) have a form of universal healthcare.

In the US if you need treatment and you don't have insurance / your insurance wont pay, you get it for free (medicaid / medicare).

hhmm, that's interesting. There must be some pretty big holes in that system that folks can slip through as I have some friends from the States who almost cried when they moved to Canada and realized the difference between your healthcare system and ours- namely, they had a litany of friends and family who had to take out second mortgages or declare bankruptcy to pay for medical bills...

Also, a co-worker of mine was working in the States and he collapsed on the job. They rushed him to a hospital where it turned out he needed an operation to remove one of his organs. Price tag in the U.S- approx $ 100,000 once all was said and done, or, he could go to Canada and have it done for free. He asked the docs to stabilize him and he had the operation done in Canada, almost immediately after he arrived back in country

 

on Oct 23, 2008

Price tag in the U.S- approx $ 100,000 once all was said and done, or, he could go to Canada and have it done for free. He asked the docs to stabilize him and he had the operation done in Canada, almost immediately after he arrived back in country

Cost was about the same.  You just footed the bill for him, without any way to 'know the figgers,' as they say.  'Free' is a fantasy.

on Oct 23, 2008

I love the term "non life threatening"... sure it is non life threatening.. and by the time you get it your health is severely deteriorated...

In theory some people can fall through the cracks in the USA, on the other hand some people have to wait longer in canada... both systems have their flaws... BUT!:

1. Bankrupcy is not PAYING for an operation, it is saying you cannot pay so the bill just goes away... if I have 50k in assests that i worked hard to get, but then i need some expensive operations to live and it costs 500k, i can just get the operation, declare bankrupcy, and start again from scratch, really it is no big deal. (and that is assuming i did not have insurence to begin with! in which case how the fuck do I have 50k in assests?). Your crying friends were just ignorent of the systems and full of fear, so they chose what SEEMED like a better plan...

2. As daiwa said, the COST is the same, it still costs 100,000k... you only make other people pay for it, so instead of taking a second mortgage, the healthier tax payers pay for it, like the ones who didn't smoke, eat healthy, and excercise regularly, yea, they are paying for your mistakes...

Ofcourse it COULD be something completely random and beyond your helping, such as genetic factors, in which case bad genes are subsidized to permiate through society...

And before you bring accidents / attacks, incedents are covered by the insurence of the place of incedient (got shot somewhere? the store insurence pays, etc...)

And at the end of the day, both systems limit how much you can get. Once your health goes south you can get infintely expensive treatments... But I doubt cadana pays millions per person on anti aids drugs or other such insanely expensive operations.

on Oct 23, 2008

Everything Artysim just said

Amen brother

on Oct 23, 2008

2. As daiwa said, the COST is the same, it still costs 100,000k... you only make other people pay for it, so instead of taking a second mortgage, the healthier tax payers pay for it, like the ones who didn't smoke, eat healthy, and excercise regularly, yea, they are paying for your mistakes...

Hum, false. You know why? the Market.

The market is, in theory, a marvelous thing to set the "proper" value of a thing, based on who is ready to offer how much, and who is ready to supply for how much. That way, there is the most economical efficient production available.

So, in the US, hospitals have to turn a profit. They are an industry, right? The cost they charge for their operation is defined by the market, not the situation. While in Canada, it is always "at cost", since no one is looking for a profit in the universal healthcare system. So, that 100K operation might have become... 80K? 60K? Who really knows how much costed the staff, the doctor and the operation room? When you take out the "hunt for profit" of the equation, you might end up with much lower costs.

You know that the U.S. have the highest rate of unnecessary surgeries in the world? That's what happen when your hospital is more concerned about its profit margin than your health.

on Oct 23, 2008

Bankrupcy is not PAYING for an operation, it is saying you cannot pay so the bill just goes away... if I have 50k in assests that i worked hard to get, but then i need some expensive operations to live and it costs 500k, i can just get the operation, declare bankrupcy, and start again from scratch, really it is no big deal. (and that is assuming i did not have insurence to begin with! in which case how the fuck do I have 50k in assests?).

That is a VERY good point. I wonder why they didn't address that in their immediate replies.

Incidentally, getting insurance is a form of voluntary socialism. And while government does indeed pick up the costs for those who (really) cannot afford the price, I do think that those who can are morally obligated to get insurance and PAY into the system that will pay for them when necessary.

 

So, in the US, hospitals have to turn a profit. They are an industry, right? The cost they charge for their operation is defined by the market, not the situation. While in Canada, it is always "at cost", since no one is looking for a profit in the universal healthcare system.

Must be tough getting good doctors in that case. I know the differences in quality between German dentists ("at cost") and Irish dentists (fantastic profits).

 

on Oct 23, 2008

That is a VERY good point. I wonder why they didn't address that in their immediate replies.

Because I really don't understand that point. Getting bankrupt is a valid healthcare plan in the USA?

What about follow-ups on the operation? What about the time in observation? What about medication you have to take afterward?

Must be tough getting good doctors in that case. I know the differences in quality between German dentists ("at cost") and Irish dentists (fantastic profits).

Good doctors? Not that tough. Very good doctors? Yhea. They are all going into the Very Expensive Hospitals of the U.S.A., and are only providing for the very rich. So I'd say it would be just as hard for you to get very good doctor as it would be for me. Except if you have a practically limitless insurance, off course.

But then, if you have that kind of money, you can very well take a plane to go take Very Good Doctor pretty much anywhere in the world. I don't see the Canadian's system weakness here.

 

on Oct 23, 2008

Because I really don't understand that point. Getting bankrupt is a valid healthcare plan in the USA?

The point is that the only difference - to the end user - between Canada and the US is who pays.  In the US, the person who can afford it pays.  In Canada, everyone pays regardless.

on Oct 23, 2008

They are all going into the Very Expensive Hospitals of the U.S.A., and are only providing for the very rich.

A myth.  Just as you explode the myths of the Canadian system, I must call you on these myths as well.

on Oct 23, 2008

The point is that the only difference - to the end user - between Canada and the US is who pays. In the US, the person who can afford it pays. In Canada, everyone pays regardless

But everyone needs healthcare. It's a basic human need. It's probably one of product that has the most inelastic demand curve on the supply/demand graph! It's not like a car, where you might need it less if you do not work, or if you change some parts of your lifestyle. You will always need healthcare! With or without a job!

on Oct 23, 2008

A myth. Just as you explode the myths of the Canadian system, I must call you on these myths as well.

Ok. But please tell me exactly how can an hospital that is looking toward a (juicy) profit margin can pay a lot more their doctor without charging more?

on Oct 23, 2008

But everyone needs healthcare. It's a basic human need. It's probably one of product that has the most inelastic demand curve on the supply/demand graph! It's not like a car, where you might need it less if you do not work, or if you change some parts of your lifestyle. You will always need healthcare! With or without a job!

Needs?  Not really.  Wants - most do.  But needs?  How did mankind survive without it for 100,000 years?  You do need (see I used it too) to be careful with words.  I will agree what MOST need it at some point. 

But all that is irrelevant to the point.  The point being that in the US, those that can pay for it themsevles.  IN Canada and other countries, all pay regardless of the recipient's abilty to pay.  IN a way, we are more socialist in that respect than you.  We soak the rich!  And provide for the poor.  And in the US, you have health care by law.  Whether you can pay for it or not.

on Oct 23, 2008



Because I really don't understand that point. Getting bankrupt is a valid healthcare plan in the USA?

What about follow-ups on the operation? What about the time in observation? What about medication you have to take afterward?


I think his point was that if you don't have the money, even in the US government will pick up the bill. But if you do have the money, you should get health insurance.

The example here of someone working in the US and going back to Canada for an operation was apparently about a person who did have an income, could have bought health insurance, and didn't. Instead he got his fellow Canadians to pay for it, from a fund he didn't pay into as he worked in the US. Is that not right?




Good doctors? Not that tough. Very good doctors? Yhea. They are all going into the Very Expensive Hospitals of the U.S.A., and are only providing for the very rich. So I'd say it would be just as hard for you to get very good doctor as it would be for me. Except if you have a practically limitless insurance, off course.



Well, all I can say is that I saw (and felt) the difference. And I am neither very rich nor do I have limitless insurance.




But then, if you have that kind of money, you can very well take a plane to go take Very Good Doctor pretty much anywhere in the world. I don't see the Canadian's system weakness here.



The point is I don't have that kind of money. I just have enough to buy insurance.

on Oct 23, 2008

Ok. But please tell me exactly how can an hospital that is looking toward a (juicy) profit margin can pay a lot more their doctor without charging more?

You are confusing Hospitals (most profit making) with specialists.  All the profit making hospitals provide for the poor and make a profit.  How?  marking up the care for those who can afford.

Specialists do not work for hospitals.  They work for themselves and charge you for their services.  So your Great doctors do not treat the indigant (actually most do on a pro-bono basis), but can charge a lot to their clients.  But all will get that heart operation regardless of the ability to pay.  And in some cases, the ones that get it off the taxpayer dime get better service as great doctors are not created out of dust, but have to rise up through the ranks just like the mediocre ones.

7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last