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 Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.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 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Oct 25, 2008

That's one way of looking at it. The other is to say that the citizenry discharge some of their personal responsibilities to each other through the tool of government, the most efficient way to take care of everybody.

That would explain why Canada's standard of living is equivalent to a relatively poor US state.

on Oct 25, 2008

Is society really better off without him [Buffet] but with the 23-year old welfeare mom?...I don't think I could illustrate better precisely why it's so scary imagining the government deciding who should get care than what you just wrote above

Care to give more precise details on what you would find less scary than that (i.e. what specific method of evaluating you're talking about)? The impression I'm getting from what you've posted is that you'd support a system where care+provision of services+valuation of life was done solely on how much money a person is expected to earn in the rest of their lifetime (hence why I've asked for clarification in case this isn't what you're supporting). If it is though, it'd mean someone who has worked all their life paying taxes (but now doesn't earn much) doesn't get entitled to receive decent care (and it's not like you've got police insurance, or [insert various other publicly provided service not health related here] insurance. Similarly, a mother who raises 4 children and is only able to work part time is deemed near-worthless by such a system, since they're not directly earning money, even though they're benefitting society by raising those children who would then grow up to pay taxes. Then you have the worker who earns enough to survive, and who spends the vast majority of their time volunteering to help charitable causes. They benefit society by helping the most vulnerable, but they're not actually earning much if anything.

Meanwhile if you hear of people dying, which would be worse, '100 women and children slaughtered', or 'CEO killed'. I mean it could be those 100 women and children combined would never hope to earn as much as that CEO, but does that make them less valuable to society than the CEO? Is the value of someone simply about their earning potential and nothing else? In fact is money the sole thing of importance in life+society? Happiness afterall has been shown to bear more in common with relative incomes than absolute income (once you're above a basic level of income needed to survive) - society is happier with things being more equal (all else equal) - should that get ignored completely?

on Oct 25, 2008

Care to give more precise details on what you would find less scary than that (i.e. what specific method of evaluating you're talking about)? The impression I'm getting from what you've posted is that you'd support a system where care+provision of services+valuation of life was done solely on how much money a person is expected to earn in the rest of their lifetime (hence why I've asked for clarification in case this isn't what you're supporting). If it is though, it'd mean someone who has worked all their life paying taxes (but now doesn't earn much) doesn't get entitled to receive decent care (and it's not like you've got police insurance, or [insert various other publicly provided service not health related here] insurance. Similarly, a mother who raises 4 children and is only able to work part time is deemed near-worthless by such a system, since they're not directly earning money, even though they're benefitting society by raising those children who would then grow up to pay taxes. Then you have the worker who earns enough to survive, and who spends the vast majority of their time volunteering to help charitable causes. They benefit society by helping the most vulnerable, but they're not actually earning much if anything.
Meanwhile if you hear of people dying, which would be worse, '100 women and children slaughtered', or 'CEO killed'. I mean it could be those 100 women and children combined would never hope to earn as much as that CEO, but does that make them less valuable to society than the CEO? Is the value of someone simply about their earning potential and nothing else? In fact is money the sole thing of importance in life+society? Happiness afterall has been shown to bear more in common with relative incomes than absolute income (once you're above a basic level of income needed to survive) - society is happier with things being more equal (all else equal) - should that get ignored completely?

I prefer a system where who voluntarily opt in to get health insurance of various levels.

To me, 40 million uninsured is a feature, not a bug.

on Oct 25, 2008

Draginol
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?


For the most part, they can, they just choose to spend their money in other ways. THAT is why so many of us are against it.  We already have means testing for health insurance with the poor getting it for free.  The people who don't get coverage are overwhelmingly people who could afford it but choose not to. 

My liberal dad: If mccain just gives people a cash credit towards healthcare (instead of free healthcare like obama) most would spend it on a new car isntead.

Me: And those people are stupid enough to deserve to die from their choices. (and they wouldn't, because the hospital will still treat them, they will just have to declare bankrupcy... and wait longer, and get lesser treatment, but they will still be treated, which is completely wrong!).

on Oct 25, 2008

Care to give more precise details on what you would find less scary than that (i.e. what specific method of evaluating you're talking about)? The impression I'm getting from what you've posted is that you'd support a system where care+provision of services+valuation of life was done solely on how much money a person is expected to earn in the rest of their lifetime (hence why I've asked for clarification in case this isn't what you're supporting).

Quite wrong, neither of us is arguing that the GOVERNMENT decides to give healthcare to a rich person over a poor person...

The thing is, no matter WHAT metric people choose to use, they are artificially twisting the system, evolution, and free choice.

ANYBODY is entitled to treatment... so who gets it? the person who can afford it, either via their money, connections, political power, personal relationships, celebrity status, CHOICE of healthcare, or any other method that we have not thought about.

Basically we are arguing against "well, people CAN'T provide medical treatment to themselves, either directly or via wise choices, thus we must take control over all medical treatment in the country and DECIDE who gets it". Which is an unnatural perverse thing where people get to decide "this person is worth more to society because he is rich" or "this person is worth more to society because he has children and is young" or "we think smoking is bad, so this person should be denied care even though he can afford it because he DESERVES to be sick for smoking".

on Oct 25, 2008

Meanwhile if you hear of people dying, which would be worse, '100 women and children slaughtered', or 'CEO killed'. I mean it could be those 100 women and children combined would never hope to earn as much as that CEO, but does that make them less valuable to society than the CEO? Is the value of someone simply about their earning potential and nothing else?

what is worse is when the ceo is killed by the government so they can take HIS money and use it to save the lives of women and children whom they deem more important. And that is what we are discussing, we are not discussing killing 100 women or a ceo. We are discussing chosing to save one CEO or one housewife with the CEOs money.

Actually to be more accurate it is one ceo dies from being denied treatment to save one woman now, 10 woman die due to lack of treatment because said CEO is no longer paying taxes and funding more healthcare. (vs... one woman dies because she can not AFFORD treatment and chose to buy a second car instead of health insurence, and 10 women are saved over the next 10 years from the taxes the CEO pays, after he was ALLOWED to SAVE HIMSELF by hiring doctors with HIS OWN MONEY).

on Oct 26, 2008

Basically we are arguing against "well, people CAN'T provide medical treatment to themselves, either directly or via wise choices, thus we must take control over all medical treatment in the country and DECIDE who gets it". Which is an unnatural perverse thing where people get to decide "this person is worth more to society because he is rich" or "this person is worth more to society because he has children and is young" or "we think smoking is bad, so this person should be denied care even though he can afford it because he DESERVES to be sick for smoking".

You're basically just describing an economics-based triage, which isn't being proposed by anyone so far as I can tell. Even in socialist nightmares/paradises like the UK or Australia, need determines access. If you need immediate medical treatment, you'll still get it. It's not like CEOs are turned away at the door, or you swipe your credit card and are allowed in/denied entry as appropriate.

But if you can hang on a week or two, you're not going to be ushered into surgery straight away. Immediate surgery is reserved for critical cases, and other operations are scheduled for appropriate times. That can mean a long waiting period for something that in the US might be treated immediately at the cost of your house or a formidable insurance excess.

As for who pays, everyone does to some extent, but it's true that the middle class without private insurance bear the brunt of the load (if you have private insurance, you don't pay nearly as much). There's just so many of them that it's inevitable.

on Oct 26, 2008

By dying earlier?! We could survive as a species with a life expectency of 30 years (due to no healthcare), just as we could survive if everyone over 50 years old was refused food and forced to starve to death. Doesn't make food any less of a need, in fact it shows that it is a need if you die much faster without it!

You are comparing apples and oranges.  We are not denying anyone the basic necessities of life, nor have we.  And 30 years?  Yea, about 100k years ago.  But life expectancy was growing even before anyone had mandatory health care.  And they will continue to grow. And death?  It comes to us all eventually.  We have not erradicated it.  We WANT to live longer.  we are not guaranteed it.  We may WANT health care, but while some need it to live, not all do.  That is the point.

Most people under 30 do not NEED any health care. (note not all, most).  When you state something is a NEED - you have to show a direct causality between it and rights.  And with health care that just does not exist.

The man who WANTS a color TV does not NEED a color TV.

on Oct 26, 2008

Even in socialist nightmares/paradises like the UK or Australia, need determines access. If

But again - if the need is the same (from a medical standpoint) what criteria is used?  WHo decides and how?

on Oct 26, 2008

You're basically just describing an economics-based triage, which isn't being proposed by anyone so far as I can tell. Even in socialist nightmares/paradises like the UK or Australia, need determines access. If you need immediate medical treatment, you'll still get it. It's not like CEOs are turned away at the door, or you swipe your credit card and are allowed in/denied entry as appropriate.

No. He's not.  Good grief if some of you guys could just free your minds for half a second of your rooted ideology.

What he is saying is that the people -- individuals -- should be given as much control of their destiny as possible. If someone chooses not to get health insurance, then that is their choice and there are consequences that go with it.

Because healthcare is a finite resource, we already have people (doctors, insurance providers, etc.) making judgments as to who gets what. But least presently, the people in competition for those resources made the decision and put their own resources on the table to be in that competition.

But what universal healthcare does is bring everyone to the table where the new arrivals who are competing for this finite resource not only are freed from their own bad decisions but are paid for by the people they are competing with for those finite resources.

If healthcare was an infinite resource, this wouldn't be such an issue. But it's not.  And all the warm fuzzy love talk never changes that chilling underlying fact of life.

on Oct 26, 2008

And btw, I am not completely opposed to goverment intervention. There is simply a right way and wrong way of doing ti.

The best thing the government can and should do, is fund SERIOUS medical research, and make it's fruits available royalty free. paying 5$ a month for patent free perscription pills instead of 100$ for necessiry drugs would help a lot of people, and is something that should be funded by our tax money. But that requires the government to actually get into the business of inveting stuff.

on Oct 26, 2008

People CAN purchase health care insurance in the United States. If they're very poor, they get Medicaid.  Those who choose not to purchase health care insurance are making that choice for themselves.

You know, I am often toying with the idea of moving to the states. (Of course, as a working non-Mexican English-speaker my chances of being seen as a compatible immigrant are slim.)

I like to do comparison calculations. I look up a city, check the rents, see what the job market has to offer, and try to figure out how much money I would make, how much rent I would pay, how much life would cost etc..

I _always_ include health insurance in the calculation. It wouldn't occur to me to live without just to save that money.

I am currently not employed (I work as a contractor; apparently I am some kind of Web server and database expert), but I do have health insurance. It came with my last job. But I kept it and kept paying for it when I quit, although I am no longer in the company plan.

 

on Oct 26, 2008

I _always_ include health insurance in the calculation. It wouldn't occur to me to live without just to save that money.

A very responsible choice. one that should be rewarded, no penalized.

on Oct 26, 2008

What he is saying is that the people -- individuals -- should be given as much control of their destiny as possible. If someone chooses not to get health insurance, then that is their choice and there are consequences that go with it.

But he also says there is no consequence, because if you don't have health insurance you just go to the hospital and get the treatment immediately anyway, declare bankruptcy and keep living your life as before.

Companies don't have the easy access to cash that governments do; I don't think it's fair to make private hospitals carry the poor without any recompense (they're unlikely to be high enough on the creditor list to get much of what they're owed back).

If you need non-essential health services, I think it's better you wait at home before going to a public hospital than clogging up a private hospital emergency room and then skipping on the bill and raising costs for everyone.

on Oct 26, 2008

But he also says there is no consequence, because if you don't have health insurance you just go to the hospital and get the treatment immediately anyway, declare bankruptcy and keep living your life as before.

Companies don't have the easy access to cash that governments do; I don't think it's fair to make private hospitals carry the poor without any recompense (they're unlikely to be high enough on the creditor list to get much of what they're owed back).

If you need non-essential health services, I think it's better you wait at home before going to a public hospital than clogging up a private hospital emergency room and then skipping on the bill and raising costs for everyone.

If you don't have insurance (or a lot of cash), you don't get heart transplants or liver transplants or access to specialists.

Emergency rooms will patch you up no matter what but they're not going to look on the bone marrow list for you.

7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7