This sentiment is inhumane. "If you get hurt or catch a disease, too bad." The dollars don't matter here. We have to provide care for everyone. Who can plan ahead for catching necrotizing fasciitis or being in a bad auto accident or some other horrible thing? And just because you had the misfortune to be stricken with some horrible thing means you should lose the ability to participate? Even a chronic condition like diabetes, you know, with real wages down in comparison to all expenses going up, it shouldn't be surprising that a person might forgo health insurance in favor of rent, food, shoes, etc. Not surprising, and certainly not contemptible. This kind of 'free market' thinking should be exposed for the fantastically immoral nonsense that it is. Of course there are going to be people that game the system, no matter what system is in place! But to deny legitimate expenses of lesser extents in an effort to stem illegitimate losses at greater extents is itself "just plain stupid." It is appropriately metaphorically cutting off the nose to spite the face - a self destructive overreaction with nothing more at its heart than spite.For example, one big reason that our rates are skyrocketing is that it is becoming illegal for CareFirst and all other health insurance companies to deny someone with a preexisting condition. ... This is just plain stupid; it violates the entire point of insurance and will result in people gaming the system.
"fantastically immoral bullshit" - interesting choice of words. Interestingly he provides, IIRC, a concrete example of waiting until you are sick to purchase insurance. Please tell me how denying them insurance is immoral? Is it more moral to do this for, say, a filling than for a broken leg? -XC
The morality/immorality is kind of irrelevant. It will be cheaper in the long run if everyone has insurance, and then these choices will be much fewer and further between. The huge downside is that there is no doubt that the transition to universal healthcare comes with some seriously rocky turf. I have no idea whether the law will turn out to be good or bad in the long run, as there are some good things in there and some mind-numbingly stupid things, but I think that it will take at least 5 years beyond the mandatory insurance date (beginning 2014, if I'm not mistaken) to make a determination. We need to find a water level then reevaluate without being ideological, which is very hard for both sides on this issue.
Morality is not at all irrelevant when discussing health care. My whole point is that there are some things that supercede fiscal considerations. Also you make it sound as if Dems and Repubs are equally guilty of ideology, but that's not correct. The ACA in its present form is a compromise of a compromise ad absurdum. Obama and Congressional Democrats didn't even start with something ideal - they started with something reasonable and had to go from there. What we have now is the minimum that they could get through legislation. Of course it's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction.
"it will be cheaper in the long run if everyone has insurance." People say that all the time, but I don't think it's true. At not if the word insurance means what I think it means. First, almost everything gets more expensive in aggregate if more is produced, even if individual items cost less. However, there are large categories of goods where the individual cost goes UP as more is consumed. Roads are an example everyone understands immediately. My bet is that h/c is in this camp. -XC PS - FWIW, I get a rash whenever someone makes the Aristotelian argument for philosopher kings to solve contentious political issues. So I am off to get some Gold Bond, thanks so very much! :-)
I don't see how you get philosopher king out of my statement. I think it's a pragmatic view. A philosopher king view is one which says we can solve this or that problem by rationality. I'm saying we need to give the law space to develop and fit into the system, then reevaluate what works and what doesn't after some period of years. That's empiricism, the opposite of strict rationality.
A call for a non-ideological solution to a political problem always reminds me of the appeal towards a disinterested class who can solve such problems. They don't exist, but it's a cultural reflex that seems to exist in a lot of places. I refuse to discuss empiricism, rationality, and structural culture without a turleneck and a pipe. _XC PS - I would argue that it's not rational to think that a large government program can be created from scratch and then, after five years, get a good course correction to make it work better. I am completely unable to think of any such thing ever happening in the US. The Donk's gave us 1200 pages of turd to eat, and eat it we will. And our children's children....
I'm not disinterested. I work in healthcare, and my livelihood depends on people having health insurance. The industry will implode sooner or later if costs aren't reduced in the near future, as healthcare costs, as I'm sure you're aware, have outstripped inflation since, like, the 60s, or something ridiculous. My point is that there has to be an engineering solution out there that one can search for dispassionately without screaming "socialist" on the one end or "fascist" on the other. Elitist or not, empiricism is the only thing that can help inform good policy making on this type of complicated issue. You're probably right that government programs are rarely cancelled once they are initiated. The problem (why we got this bill instead of any other) is that health costs are an important issue; it's not an invented issue like so many other political topics. It needed some solution, and this subpar exercise was the only thing that could squeeze through the cumbersome rules and procedures of Congress (cough...gifts to individual legislators districts...cough).I would argue that it's not rational to think that a large government program can be created from scratch and then, after five years, get a good course correction to make it work better. I am completely unable to think of any such thing ever happening in the US. The Donk's gave us 1200 pages of turd to eat, and eat it we will
But people have been arguing since before HMO's (remember how they were supposed to save money and fix the system?) that THE END OF HEALTH is right around the corner. Was it Menckin who said that "the dark shadow of tyranny is always settling on America and landing on Europe?" I will also note that the other areas where the federal gov't "helps" us all is in paying for college and making a market for home loans. Hows that all working out for us? How about we try LESS government for once, just for giggles? -XC