read this, please!

Comments

4 responses to “read this, please!”

1. 

   Mario

   September 11, 2009

   Ah, Ryan, you ruined my night. Now I’m depressed even further.

   Reply
2. 

   ryan

   September 12, 2009

   I wish I didn’t feel morally compelled to post a link to that article, but I did. I’ve been conflicted about healthcare reform ever since they decided not to pursue a single-payer system. And after Obama’s speech, I was a little hopeful, but then I read that article and realized that it was basically just platitudes – we’re getting screwed, again. I was wary before; now I’m just cynical and annoyed. I should be angry… But like so many Americans who are middle class, the bones I’ve been thrown by the wealthy to keep me appeased enough to not revolt are functioning as they intended: I have retarded health insurance, but I have it and it is keeping me from financial ruin. So, I try to be thankful for what I have, even though I should be marching in the streets for what we all should have!!

   Reply
3. 

   Ezra

   September 12, 2009

   I have some qualms with this article.

   1. A single payer system isn’t the only way to reduce the costly paperwork involved in insurance. There are things called standards which can be developed which would allow the same paperwork to be completed no matter which insurance company the bill was going to. Don’t think it can work. What is the internet based on? STANDARDS. People all over the world can read this web page because of them. Don’t tell me the only way to reduce this cost is through a single payer system.

   2. Harping that insurance companies have donated to a candidate. Universal coverage REQUIRES that people with extra means (the rich) pay extra so the people without the means (the poor) get coverage. Just because in this case the rich chose where to put their money rather than having the masses (a significant % of which are poor) tell them where to spend their money (on them of course) doesn’t make it evil. If you don’t want rich companies funding political candidates because it might influence their decision then you have to at least mention that politics is more about marketing (which requires $) than about good ideas.

   3. Pretending that health care is a special case of Congress not working effectively. Show me one case where Congress did something that worked. The vast majority of ideas that are even slighly controversial get thrown out early. Enterprise is where innovations happen; where a small group of individuals can put their energy into their controversial idea, try to make it work, and take the risk of it failing. Congress and committees are where you can predict the outcome before talks even start. Did you actually believe Obama during the campaign when he made promises that had to go through Congress? Just because the public and the media MADE candidates state their position on topics doesn’t mean that any president could actually do anything about it.

   4. Obamacare – Why, when one of the main points about why the reform is failing is that Obama will not take a leadership position on things, is the reform being called Obamacare. If you group of six is really the ones who are crafting it, call it Baucascare

   Reply
4. 

   ryan

   September 12, 2009

   Hi Ezra,

   Point 1 is valid. It’s highly unlikely that it will ever happen because obfuscation is one of the key tools of insurance companies (thus the different paperwork), but it is a possible alternative to a single-payer system solution to this one problem.

   Point 2 revolves around a fundamental assumption about how the world should work. Your assumption is that the rich should determine where their money goes. I disagree with that assumption. The rich make their money off the poor. Ergo, I think the government should redistribute wealth. I doubt any amount of discussion will result in us coming to a friendly compromise on this – these are fundamentally different ways of thinking about the world. We will probably have to agree to disagree.

   Point 3 – I think what the author of that article is saying is basically what you are – Congress does not work. It never works. While I think that is something of an exaggeration, the point that warrants discussion is: Is the political system in the US broken beyond repair? I think the author is saying that it is. Politicians in Washington say one thing to the people who elect them, then turn around and let the moneyed, the lobbyists, and large corporations write the legislation. At its most basic level, this is a kleptocracy.

   Point 4. Another good point. I don’t think the author is calling it Obamacare so much as parroting what others are calling it, but it clearly is not Obamacare. It’s really more “lobbyist-healthinsurer-care”.

   Reply