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 Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.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 7)
7 PagesFirst 5 6 7 
on Oct 26, 2008

correct, also... skipping on the bill does have consequences... your credit is decimated for the next 7 years. Besides, I didn't say that it is GOOD that people can do all those things, I just said current laws already allows for this much leeway.

on Nov 02, 2008

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. 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

If you scale the provision of public services according to income/taxes (note: not just healthcare) you lose that argument, because that womans care will be scaled based on her income, the same as the CEO's, meaning that saving the CEO might well not save far more future people (that is, the CEO might pay $100k in taxes, and the woman $1k, with the CEO then receiving 100 units of care, and the woman 1 unit). Meanwhile, I specifically am referring to more than 1 person compared with 1 person for the very point that to me a life is worth something. That is, if you had 2 people earning $80k together, and one person earning $80,001, the 'income/tax' valuation would say that the 1 person's life is worth saving over the other 2. However the key difference between who to save is that in the one case you're saving an extra life, in the other, you're saving an extra $.

You are comparing apples and oranges.  We are not denying anyone the basic necessities of life

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

Healthcare is deemed a 'need', not a want. I.e. it is a basic necessity since in many cases denial of healthcare can lead to death. You even show this by trying to restrict yourself to talking of "most" people under 30 not needing it (btw the 30 figure was plucked out of the air by me since I couldn't be bothered to research the precise life expectancy of people when living without any form of healthcare ). They still do, if their situations change to move them from the 'most' category into the 'non-most' one! If I get shot in the leg and am bleeding, I NEED healthcare. Therefore, if I am not shot in the leg, I still need healthcare for the event that I do get shot in the leg. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's not a necessity.

Similarly food is a need - even if I've eaten a massive meal and can survive for a month or so without any more food, it doesn't change the fact that food is still a necessity. 'most' people may not need food in the next day (in the developed world), but it's still a necessity.

on Nov 02, 2008

If I get shot in the leg and am bleeding, I NEED healthcare. Therefore, if I am not shot in the leg, I still need healthcare for the event that I do get shot in the leg. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's not a necessity.

That's the very reason many young people take the risk of going without health insurance - the odds are with them as few people are 'shot'.  They would be smart to have insurance, but the younger you are the higher the cost/risk ratio & the less 'necessary' it seems.  They're not risking going without treatment, because they will be treated - what they are risking is all the stuff they bought instead of insurance.  Life cannot be insulated from choices, good & bad.  Universal or nationalized healthcare won't mean that all of a sudden everyone gets to go to the Mayo Clinic.  It will mean that a massive, faceless bureaucracy will have to be petitioned for anything 'expensive', the definition of which is subject to change, and there will be long waits for services in short supply.

on Nov 03, 2008

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

How about you free yours first?

on Nov 03, 2008

If you scale the provision of public services according to income/taxes (note: not just healthcare) you lose that argument

The whole POINT of nationalized healthcare is to NOT scale it, to give "equally" to everyone.

on Nov 03, 2008

Healthcare is deemed a 'need', not a want. I.e. it is a basic necessity since in many cases denial of healthcare can lead to death. You even show this by trying to restrict yourself to talking of "most" people under 30 not needing it (btw the 30 figure was plucked out of the air by me since I couldn't be bothered to research the precise life expectancy of people when living without any form of healthcare ). They

No, a need is like food, water, shelter.  You need those to live.  Since health care is not universally necessary to life, it is not a need, but a want.  You can live well, happy and healthy without it.  I am trying to get people to stop using terms flippantly that do not fit the definition.  Like "rights" and "needs".

Wants are things that enhance life.  Cars make it possible to work great distances from where you live.  Phones make it possible to visit people more often and at a greater cost savings than physically visiting them.  ONe can construe both as "needs" but in reality they are not, they are just enhancements to the quality of life, but not necessary to life itself.

SO it is with health care.  It does enhance life for some, and extend life for many.  But it is not a right (rights do not tax others - health care does), and not a universal need.

And the 30 figure is actually a good figure.  Before that, the major cause of death is usually accidents (including homicides), while after 30 things do tend to start breaking down.

on Nov 03, 2008

Since health care is not universally necessary to life, it is not a need, but a want

Wait a minute. You never had a life-endangering condition? (you are old older than me, if I remember?)

Never had cancer? Aneurysm? An accident? An infection? Any disease that would be cure by modern medecine, but you have been near-certain death earlier?

If you want, I can make you meet peoples for who it had happened. And their family. You will argue to THEM that health care is not a necessity to living.

on Nov 03, 2008

Health case is necessary to live just as much as BODY ARMOR or a HELMET is... Sure it can save your life when someone threatens to kill you (a bullet, falling off a bike, or bacteria; in this order).

Noone says it does not save lives. But being capable of saving a life =! needed for life.

on Nov 03, 2008

No, a need is like food, water, shelter.  You need those to live.  Since health care is not universally necessary to life, it is not a need, but a want.  You can live well, happy and healthy without it.  I am trying to get people to stop using terms flippantly that do not fit the definition.  Like "rights" and "needs"

So presumably clothing isn't a need, since you can often survive without it? Similarly shelter isn't a need because you can live on the streets? For economic purposes, needs are generally seen as: Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing, Healthcare/Medicine (not to say everything in those catagories is a need of course; caviar, distilled water, a mansion house, leather jackets and cough sweets would all be wants not needs, despite fitting in each catagory respectively). That you would be attempting to compare healthcare to things such as a car, a phone, or other luxuries demonstrates just what sort of a gulf there is between the two. I can live without a phone, I can (and do) live without a car. I can live without fine foods, or designer clothing. I can live without a fancy house, holidays abroad, wine, cigarettes, etc. etc., but not healthcare. If I get a disease, or a severe injury, or [insert any other life endangering health related problem], I need healthcare.

Then you start talking of rights - that's totally separate to a need or a want. A right is something that society has deemed you are entitled to (and is typically enshrined within the laws of that country). I have a right to freedom of speech (subject to various restrictions) in my country, for example. It doesn't mean I need it. Meanwhile I don't have a specific right to a home, or a right to food, even though they are needs (although in reality I'd receive sufficient funding to be able to obtain these assuming I wasn't throwing my money away in other areas).

They would be smart to have insurance, but the younger you are the higher the cost/risk ratio & the less 'necessary' it seems

I disagree - there's a strong case that you would be smart to not have insurance! It depends on your risk aversion really, but if you're risk neutral then you should never have any kind of insurance unless you don't have to pay for it all. If you then factor in bankruptcy declerations and (in the case of health insurance) provision of essential healthcare you have an even stronger case for not getting insurance. That's being a bit picky on my part though .

The whole POINT of nationalized healthcare is to NOT scale it, to give "equally" to everyone

Brad appeared to be suggesting public services should be scaled though, that is that if you're paying for these services for both yourself and someone else, if you both then need the service you should get priority because you've paid for it. Hence why I then spent more time going over the issue of valuing a life, and the scaling of public services etc. - I'm not trying to say that in reality public services would be scaled in such a way, it was more a hypothetical 'if they were' in part or fully.

on Nov 03, 2008

Wait a minute. You never had a life-endangering condition? (you are old older than me, if I remember?)

Not yet. 

Never had cancer? Aneurysm? An accident? An infection? Any disease that would be cure by modern medecine, but you have been near-certain death earlier?

Nope.  But even if I did, I have options now.  I wont later.

If you want, I can make you meet peoples for who it had happened. And their family. You will argue to THEM that health care is not a necessity to living.

I am sure you can find plenty.  I did not state "no one".  However, if you WANT to live long and have a problem, then health care is kind of a good thing to have.  But it is not a universal "need".  And most assuredly not a "right".

For my wants, I plan.  For those less fortunate, there is already programs to take care of them.  YOu can be a very sickly person and live to a ripe old age, or a very healthy one and die tomorrow.  No one, not even the messiah himself, can guarantee you life or health.  Life is a crap shoot.  NOt a guarantee.

on Nov 03, 2008

So presumably clothing isn't a need, since you can often survive without it?

You might want to tell that to the Tahitans.

For economic purposes, needs are generally seen as: Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing, Healthcare/Medicine (not to say everything in those catagories is a need of course; caviar, distilled water, a mansion house, leather jackets and cough sweets would all be wants not needs, despite fitting in each catagory respectively).

No, that is a very recent "need" and is truly not a need.  I mentioned the necessities of life, not the things to make life easier and happier.  YOu do the same thing that is happening in this country now.  Your arguments can be applied to TVS (got to know when that tornado is coming, right), Phones (got to know when the Abombs are falling) or even cars (to outrace the devil).  But in reality those are wants, not needs.

That you would be attempting to compare healthcare to things such as a car, a phone, or other luxuries demonstrates just what sort of a gulf there is between the two. I can live without a phone, I can (and do) live without a car. I can live without fine foods, or designer clothing. I can live without a fancy house, holidays abroad, wine, cigarettes, etc. etc., but not healthcare. If I get a disease, or a severe injury, or [insert any other life endangering health related problem], I need healthcare

No, you want health care.  Others want cars.  SHould I make you buy a car?  To some that is the decision.  But you can do without health care (live in the country) or the ones that "need" cars can move to the city (and worry about health care because of the polution and muggings).  But neither is needed.  Both are wanted - by some, not by all.

on Nov 03, 2008

So presumably clothing isn't a need, since you can often survive without it? Similarly shelter isn't a need because you can live on the streets?

Depending on the weather... in places like alaska, the sahara, etc, clothing and shelter are a must, you will die immidiately without them.

In other places they are not. Where you could live your entire life without clothes or shelter.

Generally humans are not very good at protecting their body against the weather due to our lack of fur. that defect makes shelter and clothing a necessity of life.

The clothes and shelter issue is closer to a hypothetical water to oxygen convertors (via electrolysis) necessary for life in space / IO.

on Nov 03, 2008

No, you want health care.  Others want cars.  SHould I make you buy a car?  To some that is the decision.

If you go away from abstracts and back to our current economical status, than this is the key issue... if a person who has the choice, healthcare or a car, chooses a car. should he be rewarded by giving him "free healthcare" paid for by others?

Those who can choose neither (the poor) get free healthcare already.

on Nov 04, 2008

Those who can choose neither (the poor) get free healthcare already.

SHow me a "poor" person that does not have a car (not homeless - poor), and I will show you one that already made that decision.

on Jun 05, 2009

bump

7 PagesFirst 5 6 7