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 Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.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 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Oct 23, 2008

Cikomyr


Charity are usually localised, and better endowed in areas where the economy is doing better, there are more people with more money to give.

In places generally poor, or where the economy is going down, there would be less donations, and quality of the healthcare would be greater lessened. Charity just don't fit the bill when it comes to medical coverage.

Most of the major charities are nation wide.  The United Way, Salvation Army, Purple Heart, Red Cross, American Cancer Institute, etc. are all just a few examples.

Moreover, there are a ton of charities that fit the bill when it comes to medical coverage. I think you need to research this topic a bit more.

on Oct 23, 2008

Cikomyr

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!
                

But not everyone needs healthcare equally.

That's the fundamental problem with "universal" healthcare.

Often times, the least productive are also the least healthy and they get their healthcare subsidized by the productive and healthy.

The reason why the issue is never really resolved in political debates is because the debate falls on the wrong issues: It's not about cost. It's about principle.  Individualism vs. Collectivism.

Americans tend to prefer individualism.  Canadians/Europeans would call it "selfishism" but whatever you want to call it, it's a different in socitieties.

Americans, including myself, fundamentally believe that those who produce more (which is generally translated into having a higher income) should have access to better health care than those who produce less through the purchasing of different levels of insurance. One person should not be paying for the insurance of another unless they volunteer to do that.

Because it's not politically correct to say it, the fact is, most tax payers do not want to be on a level playing field with the poor when it comes to access to health care. They certainly don't want to pay for the poor to have access to the same health care they do.

I don't want to be in line to get a procedure (life critical or not) with someone who hasn't themselves contributed to the system.

We know, deep down, that healthcare is not an unlimited resource. It's a shared resource.  I think quite secretly, most tax paying Americans would love it if tax payers got preferential treatment when using roads.  I imagine there's not a few people sitting in a traffic jam even in California wishing that they had alternative routes to take that only tax payers could make use of.

On health care, it's not just a matter of convenience like roads. It can be a matter of life or death.

Not to put too fine a point on it but why should my son wait an extra nanosecond for treatment in favor of someone else's son who has the same ailment if I'm paying for the healthcare for both? You want to talk about fairness, that is what I find fundamentally unfair about "universal" healthcare.

I look at the 40+ million "uninsured" and think of that as a feature, not a bug, of the system. 

And because of that fundamental difference in outlook, you'll never be able to get agreement on the issue because the two sides are coming from drastically different points of view on what the goal is.

on Oct 23, 2008

Often times, the least productive are also the least healthy and they get their healthcare subsidized by the productive and healthy.

This is true, depending on how you look at it. My follow up question however is what about the old and retirees? By and large, it is this group that is and will be putting most of the strain on your healthcare system with the retirement of the baby boomer generation.

A retiree needing dialysis, hip replacement or even precscription drugs...there's a nice side business for U.S seniors coming to Canada to buy the same drugs at significantly cheaper costs...most likely is not going to be a very productive member of society. Even though they've worked a lifetime, if they don't have good medical coverage or are dependent on an inadequate fixed income (a pension that's stayed the same over the years and has fallen way behind compared to inflation) what should happen to them?

Should they be penalized for no longer being productive, and not having an adequate retirement plan? Should maybe we just euthanize them? That is, after all the most efficient and cost-effective solution.

Not to put too fine a point on it but why should my son wait an extra nanosecond for treatment in favor of someone else's son if I'm paying for the healthcare for both? You want to talk about fairness, that is what I find fundamentally unfair about "universal" healthcare.

Because the value of a life cannot be pegged to how much money you do or do not contribute to society. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the decision of who gets treated first should be based on who needs it more and the seriousness of the condition.

Because if you go the route of biggest contributor gets first bids, you kill democracy and might as well go back to the middle ages with a feudal system where those without are beholden to those with.

Again, let's use the fire department analogy.

A fire starts in your town. The Fire Department, being a branch of the municipality, gets more of it's funding from the nicer houses in town and the property taxes and moreover, business taxes, of the people who live in the biggest houses and probably own a couple shops locally.

So, when the fire hits, what would happen if the fire department ignored the less well off houses and ran around to different parts of town to douse the nice houses to ensure that they couldn't be touched by fire? Meanwhile, since the biggest contributors are getting "first dibs" there's no co-ordinated response to the fire or if there is it's an afterthought.

Again, you are correct this is an ideological thing. What kind of society do you want to live in? That is the question. I believe in the concept that we're all in it together. I'd rather live in a system in which no one is left behind, than a dog-eat dog world in which the motto of the day is "screw you, I'm fine!!"

on Oct 23, 2008

I'd rather live in a system in which no one is left behind, than a dog-eat dog world in which the motto of the day is "screw you, I'm fine!!"

The only problem is, our system is not as you characterize it - 'a dog-eat dog world in which the motto of the day is "screw you, I'm fine!!"'.  That is pure propaganda, not to mention fiction.  And your characterization of the Canadian system as not leaving anyone behind is not quite accurate, either - simply defining it as so doesn't make it reality.

on Oct 23, 2008

Because the value of a life cannot be pegged to how much money you do or do not contribute to society.

What are you going to peg it to?  Seriously, you have 2 people dying - all things being equal, how would you decide?

on Oct 23, 2008

This is true, depending on how you look at it. My follow up question however is what about the old and retirees? By and large, it is this group that is and will be putting most of the strain on your healthcare system with the retirement of the baby boomer generation.

A retiree needing dialysis, hip replacement or even precscription drugs...there's a nice side business for U.S seniors coming to Canada to buy the same drugs at significantly cheaper costs...most likely is not going to be a very productive member of society. Even though they've worked a lifetime, if they don't have good medical coverage or are dependent on an inadequate fixed income (a pension that's stayed the same over the years and has fallen way behind compared to inflation) what should happen to them?

Should they be penalized for no longer being productive, and not having an adequate retirement plan? Should maybe we just euthanize them? That is, after all the most efficient and cost-effective solution.

This would fall into the grasshopper and the ant story category.  If someone has been a productive member of society all their lives they probably have good insurance.

I realize it's intellectually easy (or lazy) to simply cast those who disagree with your political opinions as evil, selfish bastards. My view is that I don't want the federal government to get involved at all in health care.

After all, it's liberals, not conservatives, that seem inclined to use the federal government to try to control our lives, I could almost imagine a future liberal seriously suggesting euthanizing the elderly to cut down government health care costs. 

on Oct 23, 2008

Because the value of a life cannot be pegged to how much money you do or do not contribute to society. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the decision of who gets treated first should be based on who needs it more and the seriousness of the condition.

And who should determine need? The government? Some random group of doctors? And what is the criteria?

If "need" could be objectively and universally defined, it might be doable. But it's not. It's always subjective and in the absence of objectivity, I would prefer the government not be involved.

The value of human life is always there. Whether we accept that fact or not, people's lives are measured and valued. The question is whether they are valued by the government or through the free market? I choose the free market.

on Oct 23, 2008

A fire starts in your town. The Fire Department, being a branch of the municipality, gets more of it's funding from the nicer houses in town and the property taxes and moreover, business taxes, of the people who live in the biggest houses and probably own a couple shops locally.

A bad analogy. You know why? Because like you said, funding comes from property taxes and as a practical matter, the fire department is a shared resources that has virtually no limit (i.e. citizens aren't really even remotely close to competing for that resource).

Moreover, people pay property taxes based on a flat rate. Your property is worth N, then you pay N times X.

By contrast, universal healthcare would involve providing services to a huge group that pay nothing at all in return but still get to vote on what services they receive.  It is also set up such that a tiny group is paying nearly all the bill. And it involves a resource in which there is a great deal of competition for.

Using your fire department analogy, if my house is on fire and the house of someone who hasn't paid their property taxes is on fire, you're damn straight I would expect my house to be taken care of before the house of the person who hasn't paid taxes even if their house "needs" it more according to some people.

on Oct 23, 2008

Again, you are correct this is an ideological thing. What kind of society do you want to live in? That is the question. I believe in the concept that we're all in it together. I'd rather live in a system in which no one is left behind, than a dog-eat dog world in which the motto of the day is "screw you, I'm fine!!"

Your system is that you're all equally screwed.    Our system has some semblance of merit-based benefit.

In a socialistic society like Canada, the citizenry have largely abandoned their personal responsibilities to each other in favor of handing it over to the government to take care of things for them.

Ever wonder why the crime rate in conservative areas is so much less than liberal areas -- even taking population density into effect? Because conservatives do look at things as "we're in this together" but in a more literal sense - we work with our neighbors ourselves, we don't outsource it to the government to take care for us.

on Oct 23, 2008

Forget the SON, how about you directly... if he is paying for the same treatment for HIMSELF and ANOTHER PERSON... he has every right to want HIS to be done first... and the other person to wait in line.

You could say "that is evil, both of their lifes are equal, thus it should be completely random who goes first, or based on who is sicker"... except that if he did NOT work hard enough to be able to pay for BOTH of them, then NEITHER of them would live, how is it fair to take it from him and give it to someone else?

Yes, people are sick and dying, but health care is finite, you never answered my question if people in canada get million dollar anti aids drug coctails... or if they get a team of 10 world class doctors flown to immidiately treat them on the tax payer dime... obviously they are NOT because it will be "too expensive" (10 best doctors in the world are a fininte resource, and doctors like to be paid)... so it is not FREE health care for all, it is just EQUALLY MEDIOCRE healthcare for all by taking from those that have and giving to those that have less until they both have the same amount no matter how hard they worked for it... instead of better healthcare for those who pay for it, and lesser for those who don't (by taking from those that have, and giving to those that don't... but to a lesser amount).

I actually AGREE that health care is a necessitiy... I categorized my needs as following:

1. Water

2. Food

3. Shelter (immidiate, a shack with some logs counts as shelter if it is cold outside)

4. clothes

5. healthcare.

 

Everything else is non essential wants... so why am I not living in a hut in the middle of the forest hunting for my food and having a grand old time? because i need healthcare, the BEST i can get, and that means working for it in the USA. If I was in canada I would be sorely tempted to just sit around and do nothing, living off of welfare while I paint and excercise, and do other stuff that is not contributing to society at all (and thus raising my funds).

Food is so fucking cheap and plentiful in places like the USA that everyone can have it... but what about places where people are starving? when some people are starving, to take from those that have (because they worked hard for it) and give to those that don't (because they didn't produce anything) until they both have equal amount (aka, both have equal chance of not making it through winter) would be ATROCIOUS. It is better that the non productive member of society die then the productive one, his life is worth less then that of the productive member.

on Oct 24, 2008

Most of the major charities are nation wide. The United Way, Salvation Army, Purple Heart, Red Cross, American Cancer Institute, etc. are all just a few examples.

Moreover, there are a ton of charities that fit the bill when it comes to medical coverage. I think you need to research this topic a bit more.

You are all talking about those charities, or about "medicare" (as Guy mentionned) for those who cannot afford an insurance..

If that's the case. If your system really has such layers of protection against those who cannot afford insurance, then tell me why a large amount of americans still cannot have insurance coverage?

Tell me why a lot of people are still getting bankrupted because of their family's healthcare cost?

Tell me why healthcare coverage is one of the top (if not THE top) worry of americans?

You let people have their their lives wreaked because they had the indecency of getting terribly sick. Or maybe it was their wife's. Or their children. Charity cannot reach them all. Medicare obviously is not as efficient as some may think.

on Oct 24, 2008

After all, it's liberals, not conservatives, that seem inclined to use the federal government to try to control our lives, I could almost imagine a future liberal seriously suggesting euthanizing the elderly to cut down government health care costs.

I probably live in the most liberal society when it comes to healthcare, and we aren't even remotely close to thinking like that. I think you are quite bigoted against liberal, when you are uttering stupidities of the kind. "Euthanazing the eldery"? What a total bullshit argument you just made.

Your system is that you're all equally screwed.

No. Our system is that we are all serviced, no matter what. Some unlucky has to wait longer than others, becuase others have more urgent needs. It needs improvement, but we are far from being "Screwed". Actually, the services is usually extremely good, except for a few sad exception. But those few sad exception are FAR FAR outnumbered by the ones left behind in the USA's "you're screwed" system, even when you only look at the population ratio.

on Oct 24, 2008

Cikomyr... funny you should say that because there are some very very liberal persons I know of who have been saying exactly that (forced euthanasia)...

If that's the case. If your system really has such layers of protection against those who cannot afford insurance, then tell me why a large amount of americans still cannot have insurance coverage?
That does not make sense... "if medicaid will pick up the bills if you don't have insurance, so why don't you have insurance?" the point isn't to have insurance, the point is to get medical care.
Tell me why a lot of people are still getting bankrupted because of their family's healthcare cost?
Aside from that being relatively rare (never met one). Backrupcy = declare that you don't have the money to pay for things that you bought (such as high quality doctors and services from them) and the bill (And your current property) just goes away, and you start again from scratch. I don't understand why that is bad thing... you say that people should be spending millions that they don't have on medical treatment, then just NOT paying those millions that they own (that they chose to receive in services and goods), and STILL keep all their existing property? This isn't even as bad as you make it sound, since if you have nothing, you just get a small apartment and live there.
Tell me why healthcare coverage is one of the top (if not THE top) worry of americans?
Tell me why most women fake orgasms... Why should I know why people worry about stupid things. Probably because of liberal media lies that confuse them.
You let people have their their lives wreaked because they had the indecency of getting terribly sick. Or maybe it was their wife's. Or their children. Charity cannot reach them all. Medicare obviously is not as efficient as some may think.
You LET people have their lives ruined? I am not the one made them sick, neither is anyone else here. They got sick, shit happens. They get BETTER due to receiving the hard work and goods of many doctors, and then they don't even pay for it, they just have to give up their nice owned house and rent again. If anything they are get more then they should. And "you let" the same happen in places like canada... only in a different degree... uh oh... got a serious illment? here have some free treatment... what is that, you want BETTER treatment? sorry we can't give you the best, you will just have to make due or die.

on Oct 24, 2008

No. Our system is that we are all serviced

Like a prostitute is "serviced"?  Last I heard, that is screwed.

on Oct 24, 2008

There is another side to this that is not being addressed. The demographics of Canada and the US are miles apart. I would venture to say until recently it took a hearty person to live in Canada, a pioneer spirit so to speak. People that are productive and worked because it was a must. Now here is the difference the US population is 305,484,000, the Canadian population is 33,409,500. If 40% of Americans pay no taxes, there by paying 0 for health care (these people can replace the population of Canada with many to spare). I'll argue that if Canada had 40% of it's population as non contributors to the system that it would fail quickly.

Canada owes it's current position to the people past and present who work hard and make it possible. The US was like this once, until entitlement was implemented and now is growing like a cancer. As Canada grows internally and becomes more popular to immigrants, this is all bound to change, but by then it will be a right and too difficult to change. The only thing protecting Canada now is the hard work of most of it's people and the climate (weather) as perceived by potential immigrants, but the pain will come one day.

7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last