I'm sure you understand that the private sector cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the government can.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says:
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Online Conspiracy Theories Latch Onto Census GPS Units
(By Kevin Poulsen, Wired.com, September 24, 2009)
The hanging death of a Kentucky census worker is likely to raise tensions among counters in the 2010 census, who have already been the focus of emotionally-charged online rhetoric this year because they use GPS.
Internet conspiracy theories have grown in recent months over the fact that census workers are now equipped with GPS-enabled hand-held computers that let them collect the geolocation of street addresses as they perform pre-census canvassing. It’s an improvement on the paper maps the census has historically used for the same purpose.
“The exact geographic location of each housing unit is critical to ensure that when we publish the census results for the entire country, broken down by various geographic areas ranging from states, counties, and cities, to census blocks, we accurately represent the data for the area in question,” the Census Bureau explains on its website.
But that explanation doesn’t wash with everyone.
A post on the widely-read Infowars.com in June warned: “I will tell you plainly, the NWO [New World Order] controlled American military wants these GPS markers so they can launch Predator Drone missile attacks, the aptly named HELLFIRE missile I might add, against a long list of undesirables here in CONUS, continental United States.”
Other commentators have posited less lethal theories. The American Daily Review warned in April that the Census Bureau is “shooting GPS coordinates of your doorway” in possible preparation for a secret Obama plan to cede some of America’s sovereignty to the United Nations.
“If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door,” the site explained.
And RightSoup.com suggests that the government, “and ACORN”, wants the coordinates for Americans’ front doors as “a jackboot convenience.”
The conspiracy theories have struck a chord with a certain type of American, and posts like these have collected comments from people vowing not to allow workers anywhere near their houses. A few comments have taken an ominous tone.
“Only a fool would allow the New World Order to come up and take GPS readings at your front door,” wrote a commenter to another Infowars.com post. “There is nothing good to come from Big Brother’s constant meddling into our lives! Beware, and carry a big stick… preferably .308 Winchester full metal jacket.”
The FBI is reportedly investigating the death of 51-year-old Bill Sparkman, who was found hanged on September 12 with the word “fed” written on his chest. The Census Bureau has suspended field operations in the Kentucky county where Sparkman was found, the Huffington Post reports.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I'm sure you understand that the private sector cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the government can.
I'm sure YOU, Cycloptichorn, SHOULD understand that the government cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the private sector can. Even Obama confirmed that the government's Medicare and Medicaid health insurances are loaded with waste and inefficiency.
Public. Option.
If it's risky to the insurance company then it's risky to the taxpayer. Reducing the risk is nice, but it doesn't change the fact that taxpayers are assuming risks that insurance companies won't.
Because the federal government is assuming the high risk customers, the insurance companies are free to continue to profit by collecting premiums for policies that are not likely to be collected on.
Quote:In this case the government is providing only that which cannot be provided more efficiently, effectively, or economically by the private sector.
Health insurance is the same. The people with pre-existing conditions or who are self-employed, or any number of prohibitive reasons cannot be covered by private insurance. Therefore it is reasonable for the government to offer a public option for them. However, if the government (taxpayer) is assuming this risk that insurance companies will not, then I think it's reasonable that I should be allowed to throw my hat in the pool, as a lower risk customer, to help offset that risk. After all, I have an interest in maintaining the solvency of such a program.
Doubtful it would change the current rates as the insurance companies don't now cover these people, so what would change for them?
Quote:Again, the government would be doing only that which cannot be provided more efficiently effectively, or economically by the private sector.
In my opinion that applies to all health insurance. The private sector cannot provide health insurance (care) more efficiently than the government can, which is why private health insurance does not want to compete against a public option. If the government entered the health insurance market for the young, healthy, and able to pay (it's already in the health insurance market for everyone else) then surely your market forces would enforce your rule above. If the government option were not as efficient, effective, or economical as private insurance then they wouldn't get many customers, thus preventing them from "staying in business" in that market.
Quote:But a law allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would add a factor of healthy competition that almost certainly would break up oppressive monopolies in some states and would almost certainly reduce rates.
I'm all for breaking up monopolies but it seems like that could be done without removing the power to regulate the insurance industry from the states and giving it to the feds. Some 30 years or so ago we did what you suggest with credit card companies. The effect was one of regulation by lowest common denominator and in the long run it hurt consumers and the economy.
What exactly does this mean "individually owned"? We can by individual policies now, it's just that no-one can afford them. We have COBRA now, but no-one can afford it. The whole reason why employer provided care is so prevalent is because individuals cannot afford to purchase it independently.
Quote:Add in the tort reform that all thinking people know is necessary, and a great deal of the broken system will be fixed without costing the taxpayer a dime.
What kinds of tort reforms?
FreeDuck wrote:
Public. Option.
Public option ONLY for broad risk that private insurance does not wish to cover. Not public option for anything and everything.
Much better for the tax payer to take a highly selective risk as it does with flood insurance and earthquake insurance than to put the taxpayer at risk for all risk.
I am pretty sure that it is the emergency room charge for an earache, the broken leg, the football concussion, obstetrics, quickly curable cancer treatments, the recoverable heart attack etc. that constitutes the lion's share of health insurance claims paid. I know that auto insurers and homeowner insurance insurers pay more in than premiums paid in most years and make up the difference by investing the premiums they collect. I'm pretty sure we could see the same phenomenon occurring with healthcare given the right environment. It certainly should be part of the debate.
It is absurd to think that removing catastrophic insurance risk from insurance policies would allow insurance companies to incur little or no risk at all.
If reforms are enacted something along the lines I have suggested, the pre-existing conditions would be addressed and the self-employed would be as able as anybody else to acquire basic healthcare coverage.
A public option as it was first suggested would put the insurance companies out of business.
What I suggest would not. Did you read that CATO piece I posted yesterday?
Quote:Doubtful it would change the current rates as the insurance companies don't now cover these people, so what would change for them?
I thought I explained that pretty well. At any rate your 'doubting it' does not make it something we shouldn't look at. Wouldn't you agree?
I believe private insurance can provide coverage for basic healthcare far more efficiently and effectively than government can if we didn't use any other basis to judge that on than what the government is already providing. The government hasn't managed social security well--it is broke and becoming more insolvent by the day. The government hasn't managed Medicare and Medicaid well--it is broke and becoming more costly and a drag on the economy every year that passes.
Who in their wildest dreams could believe that with a track record like that, the government will do better with the whole thing?
I am not wanting to take the power to regulate away from the states. I am wanting a federal regulation, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, to remove an obstacle to free market structures.
The Feds share such limited shared regulation with the state on many things including media, transportation, use of the airways, energy, and utilities. Enacting one free trade rule would not be taking over all the regulation from the state.
Maybe it couldn't be done. But it should receive a thorough hearing and it should be part of the debate.
I am suggesting reform that would enable most people to be able to afford it. That's the whole purpose of reform isn't it? Or shouldn't it be? By individually owned, I mean every citizen or family would own their own insurance policy and it would be in effect regardless of who anybody worked for or whether anybody worked for somebody at all. They could move anywhere they wanted and would still be covered just as individually owned life insurance policies work. Not losing your insurance if you lose your job or change jobs would eliminate one of the huge problems in the existing system.
Again, did you read that CATO piece I posted?
Whatever is necessary to eliminate costs that arise out of unreasonable and unnecessary defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits, excessive malpractice insurance rates, class action suits that cost medical providers millions in legal fees and enrich attorneys but accomplish little or nothing in relief for the plaintiffs, etc.
I don't pretend to be smart enough to know how to fix the existing system, but I know that Americans have solved far more complicated problems than this one. I am smart enough to recognize what appears to be a reasonable solution and what would most likely put us on a steep slippery slope to unintended negative consequences.
All I ask is that the government not force something on the people that cannot be undone and that will be worse than what we currently have.
It isn't too much to put it all out there in full view where it can be analyzed and thoroughly discussed with our elected leaders committed to doing the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing or the ideologically comfortable thing. It isn't too much to expect them to know what the people do and do not want.
It isn't too much to expect them to read the legislation they pass on our behalf.
Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.
Cyclo wrote:Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.
Come on, Cyclo....have you ever worked with a Govt agency? I work with the Govt every day (DoD) and there is absolutely no way that private industry could be more inefficient or wasteful. The profit motive of private industry is self-policing causing elements that fail to make money be sloughed off very quickly.
Govt has no such self-policing incentive to save money or increase efficiencies. As an example, the budgets of Govt agencies dollars are defined at the beginning of the year based on some justifiable (?) increase from the previous year.
Once received you are expected and judged by your ability to spend every dime thus justifying an increase in your budget for next year. That is why you always see huge government spending sprees every Sep.
Another example...Incompetent employees in the Government are entitled to a hearing before dismissal. At that hearing, the boss is required to demonstrate not only the employees incompetence, but the fact that he's provided sufficient training, as well as properly counselled and warned the employee repeatedly, in writing. The easiser alternative is always for the boss to simply encourage the dunderhead to exercise his incompetence in some other government organization.
The only place that the government could ever be more efficient and less wasteful than private industry is in the most optimistic dreams of the left.
Rather than continue this boring (for me and everybody who reads it) 'is too' 'is not' argument, let's agree to disagree. You seem to have no opinions on healthcare reform other than anything I or anybody else on the right or suggests is foolish, anything most of the people want is irrelevent, and anything the government wants is a-okay.
I accept that as your opinion, and let's move on.
If you should choose to actually articulate your own argument rather than just trying to discredit mine, we can continue to the discussion.
Cyclo wrote:Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.
Come on, Cyclo....have you ever worked with a Govt agency? I work with the Govt every day (DoD) and there is absolutely no way that private industry could be more inefficient or wasteful. The profit motive of private industry is self-policing causing elements that fail to make money be sloughed off very quickly. Govt has no such self-policing incentive to save money or increase efficiencies. As an example, the budgets of Govt agencies dollars are defined at the beginning of the year based on some justifiable (?) increase from the previous year. Once received you are expected and judged by your ability to spend every dime thus justifying an increase in your budget for next year. That is why you always see huge government spending sprees every Sep.
Another example...Incompetent employees in the Government are entitled to a hearing before dismissal. At that hearing, the boss is required to demonstrate not only the employees incompetence, but the fact that he's provided sufficient training, as well as properly counselled and warned the employee repeatedly, in writing. The easiser alternative is always for the boss to simply encourage the dunderhead to exercise his incompetence in some other government organization.
The only place that the government could ever be more efficient and less wasteful than private industry is in the most optimistic dreams of the left.
Foxfyre wrote:
Rather than continue this boring (for me and everybody who reads it) 'is too' 'is not' argument, let's agree to disagree. You seem to have no opinions on healthcare reform other than anything I or anybody else on the right or suggests is foolish, anything most of the people want is irrelevent, and anything the government wants is a-okay.
I accept that as your opinion, and let's move on.
If you should choose to actually articulate your own argument rather than just trying to discredit mine, we can continue to the discussion.
I'm familiar with these declarations of victory coming from you and bearing no relation to the actual debate, so I'm not goaded. Tossing bombs and then running away, all the while pretending to a level of maturity not evident in your behavior, is an ineffective means of politely ending debate. Nobody is fooled.
I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.
One would think that someone who was actually familiar with 'formal debate rules' would understand that individual participants generally cannot declare themselves the winner in a debate; that is the call of the judges or audience, not the proponent of an argument. And what more, it is poor form and quite insulting to do so.
Cycloptichorn
