I think you are deluding yourself if you think you can ‘vote against’ a poor performing government function.
Pick any one you can think of. Here are a few examples to help spur the process:
The DMV
The FDA
The FAA
The TSA
Whatever healthcare bureaucracy springs up as a result of Obamacare
Medicare Service
There. There are few starters.
Now tell me how, if one of those doesn’t perform to your satisfaction, you are going to ‘vote’ to change it. At the Federal level you get to vote for
1 Representative every 2 years
2 Senators, alternating every 6 years
1 President every 4 years
Tell me how you ‘vote against’ a poorly performing FDA, for example. I know I can vote against Giant Foods, or Kroger, or Safeway immediately. By taking my money and walking out the door. How do I ‘vote against’ the FDA?
I’d like to respond in kind, but it seems perilously close to BBQ territory. Still, for now I’ll simply ask whether you likewise frequent a grocery store, and if so what you think of the prices ‘dictated’ by competing products there (and what you would do if that store ‘dictated’ new terms you disliked).
Well, no. For one thing, I have no desire to rebel against Coca-Cola; I find their price reasonable for the quality of the product (and, again, suspect it’s because people would jump ship to a different brand if they did otherwise, but never mind that now). That said, I of course know that Coca-Cola operates Sprite, but in the scenario you seem to be spelling out I wouldn’t care; if they ‘dictated’ terms I disliked with one of their brands while being reasonable with another such brand, I’d jump ship to their own alternate brand without compunction – though I of course hasten to add that Pepsi isn’t operated by Coca-Cola, and I could jump ship to them.
Again, though, I don’t care whether the corporate board gives a fuck about me; I don’t give a fuck about them, either. Coca-Cola can ‘dictate’ any terms they want, and I’ll shrug as surely as if a mom-and-pop made a take-it-or-leave-it offer; I don’t have to take it; I can, and frequently do, leave it. Try shrugging when the government makes a take-it-or-take-it offer and you wind up fined or jailed or shot; try it on Coca-Cola’s offer and they’ll – um, nothing, really.
I’ll risk being whooshed just in case that was even a ***half-***serious reply: we likewise have a couple of Wal-Marts nearby, as sure as we have a K-Mart and a Target; we of course also have a big fine mall containing multiple department stores along with dozens of specialized retailers offering various merchandise. How are things in your neck of the woods?
You realize of course that “could it help?” is a hopelessly namby-pamby, wishy-washy, old-fashioned way of looking at things. Very few people ask that question, and even fewer vote with it in mind.
Even worse, I usually toss in a “would this idea even work?” when evaluating politicians ideas. Which I do not think makes me old fashion just because I don’t think anyone EVER considered that a big deal in politics.
I think all this talk about “I have complete freedom as to where I shop and what I buy” is distracting, as consumption is most certainly not the be-all and end-all when it comes to how corporations subtly and not-so-subtly affect our lives. Let’s say you are shopping, not for bread or a beer, but for a job (wow my original point); you want a certain minimum salary to ensure that your family can reasonably thrive. You check Company A, but find that they’ve sold most of their decent-paying jobs overseas-nothing there. Likewise you check out Companies B, C & D-nope, nothing there too. Meanwhile you read about the huge severance bonuses that several high-ranking officials in these companies have gotten, money that could have been used to pay your salary, if they had so chosen. The businesses in question have managed to control your life in a way no less pernicious than government might have-do you acknowledge this at this point, or continue pointing fingers at Washington and blaming them 100% for this state of affairs?
Most people are healthy at any given time, some it’s no surprise to say that most of them are satisfied with their coverage. But it doesn’t really prove anything.
I’ve never gotten in a car wreck. If someone asked me whether I’m satisfied with my car insurance, I’d probably say yes. The real answer is “I don’t know”, but I don’t want to sound like an idiot by saying that. The truth is I’m really not all that informed as to how good it is. The car insurance company could be screwing people over big time who got into wrecks, and I wouldn’t know about it because I never had to deal with them when the shit hit the fan. I’m simply not a good source to ask for when it comes to the quality of car insurance, even though I’ve been insured for several years.
There has been a thread going on about a person with "locked in Sydrome’. All he can move is his eyes. It is a horrific thing to happen to a person. What he has touched on is the difference in his treatment in America compared to the treatment others from other countries get. When you really need medical help, you will learn to hate our system.
In America ,if you get very sick, bankruptcy is part of your future battles. Fighting your insurance company is your new job.
Well insurance is NOT like other businesses. I would like the conservatives on this board how they feel about having to buy auto insurance … that is, being legally required to. It strikes me as a situation that is exactly parallel to health insurance. Why is enforced auto insurance a good thing but enforced health insurance a bad thing?
Also, I think a basic aspect of insurance must be taken into account here. Insurance is about pooling risk. The larger the pool you are dealing with, and the more varied the risks represented, the better off you supposedly are in terms of premiums. The whole point of single payer is to expand the pool to include everyone creating a giant risk pool that has plenty of contributors so premiums can be averaged down. That’s why it works so well in all the sane countries that employ it.
Here is America the private insurers’ strategy seems to have been developing relatively small risk pools that consist, as much as possibly, of only healthy individuals. That’s what the much-despised “pre-existing condition” was all about … keep actually sick people out of the risk pool, cause you will have to pay for their care. The failure to address the single payer option means that the government has done nothing to address the risk pool issue, except for forbidding “pre-existing conditions” by fiat, leaving insurance companies to come up with some other means of excluding people who need a lot of medical care from their programs. This is why many of us were angry at the loss of single payer … because we actually understand the numbers better than conservatives do. If you can honestly address this issue, you might have some cred with me.
This question has been asked and answered a million times. You only have to buy insurance if you own and drive a car. If you don’t have a car (or don’t drive it), you don’t have to buy insurance for it.
For health insurance the equivalent would be that you’ll have to kill yourself if you don’t want to pay. As long as you’re alive, you’re forced to pay it.
But I don’t point a finger at Washington and blame them 100% for it.
I don’t see that Company A is under an obligation to provide me with a job, and neither is Company B or Company C or Company D – and, sure as I’d only want to do business with them if they offered a good enough product for a good enough price, they only want to hire me if I can offer enough value to justify my paycheck.
As a consumer, I shrug and walk away when offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal by Company A if they don’t have what I’m looking for; I’m under no obligation to buy their crap, and I don’t especially want the government telling me otherwise. As an employer, Company A can shrug and walk away when offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal by a jobseeker who doesn’t have what they’re looking for – and I don’t especially want the government telling them otherwise, either. I don’t see that it’s the duty of A or B or C to provide me with a job; I don’t see that it’s the government’s duty to make any of 'em do it, either.
So much for hypotheticals. In the real world, of course, I’m employable and therefore employed; I didn’t approach corporations asking for a handout, but asked to make money by making them money – just like I get my bread and beer from the market by giving them something in return. I don’t see that either corporation is obligated to give me something for nothing, sure as I’m not obligated to give them something for nothing.
And that’s the argument the Democrats should’ve made, with regard to health insurance; emphasize why folks only think they’re happy, thereby shining a light on “screwing people over big time” stuff that consumers don’t know about – and then bring the reform once you’ve pitched that advertising campaign with all the salesmanship you can bring to bear. Instead, they passed the legislation first, while a majority of Americans kept patiently explaining that they were personally satisfied with their own coverage and wanted to keep what they had – to the point where a majority of the voters in 2010 favored repealing the horrifyingly unpopular law.
Given the near-impossibility of getting to work, school, etc., in many areas of the US without a car, I categorically reject your notion of the voluntarism of driving for huge numbers of Americans as angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff.
Yes, most of us need a car, no question. But there are people who can make do with bikes and/or public transportation.
Anyway, I’m all for health-care reform, but I think this is a lousy way to do it. If we’re all going to be forced to pitch in, I’d rather have it be in a form a income tax, or something similar. With forcing people to pay, you know damn well there will be people that the government will say can afford to pay, but when they don’t because in reality they can’t, the government will fine them. Or they can afford to make a payment, but now one of their other bills is a month behind and they’re getting a shut-off notice. That’s not a very good system.
It would be nice if government could help keep us safer as we travel on airlines. The practical reality is the theater of the absurd that is the TSA.
It would be nice if the government could rectify the injustices done to Native Americans. Instead we get the decades long incompetence and thievery of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
It would be nice if we could ensure that farmers are protected from drought and flood. Instead we have farm subsidies funneling taxpayer money to huge corporations who grow crops that are used to destroy markets in the third world.
It would be nice if we could ensure senior citizens have a safety net. Instead we have massive transfers of wealth from the young to the old with little regard for the income level of the senior citizens we are subsidizing. This creates an insatiable hunger for more benefits and goodies that become inalienable rights.
It would be nice if the government could respond to natural disasters in an efficient way to get people back on their feet. Instead we have FEMA and Katrina.
I don’t know where the liberal’s boundless faith in government comes from. I once had it, but it quickly dissipated. Like them I wish government was there to do these things in a way that was cost effective and actually worked. Some functions are necessary and unavoidable functions of the Federal government. Most of them are better understood and managed more locally where each citizen can better communicate what they want and need. In addition at the local and state level the feedback between what you want and what it costs is more directly felt.
Not even remotely close. For one thing, you only need to buy insurance if you drive on public roads. If you’re driving your own truck on your own land, you don’t need insurance. You don’t even need a driver’s license or registration.
Second, when driving on public roads the only insurance required is liability insurance. In other words, you need to be insured so that you can pay for the damage you cause to other people. Collision insurance to protect the value of your own vehicle is totally optional.
Finally, in many place you can have the requirement for insurance waived if you can show that you have the ability to pay reasonable damages yourself.
If you want a real analogy with public health insurance, imagine car insurance like this:
Everyone is forced to buy it.
The government sets the rules for what is covered and what isn’t.
The insurance must cover not only catastrophes (collisions), but also routine maintenance, inspections, and all new parts and service required to keep the car running long past its natural lifetime.
Imagine a system like that. Imagine that every time you needed tires, or a tune-up, or had an engine failure, you had a right to free service. You’d have people taking their cars in for free service every time they heard a new squeak or rattle. And auto service stations would love that, since the insurance companies are paying for it.
To carry the analogy further, what about the people who are currently uninsured because they’re driving old beaters that are falling apart, so private maintenance insurance is too expensive for them? So the government announces that it will mandate that every car on the road be covered, even if that car is a wreck blowing blue smoke and requiring almost a ground-up rebuild to keep it running.
In a system like that, can you imagine how expensive insurance would be? If auto service stations were paid by insurance companies, where would your incentive be to keep costs down and to take care of your car?
In a system like that, auto repair places would have every incentive to pad the bill, since the end customer doesn’t care. But the insurance companies have an incentive to keep costs down. Therefore, they would require large amounts of diagnostic testing and paperwork to prove that the work is necessary. Administration costs skyrocket.
The car insurance analogy works once you put in assumptions to make it look more like the health insurance market. And once you do, it becomes clear just how screwed up that idea is.
I wish health insurance were like car insurance. Such insurance would protect you from catastrophe, but would require that you pay for your own routine health care. It would have high deductibles, so that insurance companies only need to be involved in the transaction between doctor and patient for severe or chronic cases. It would retain the inherent cost control by putting the burden for payment on the patient for routine matters, and give the patient freedom to seek out any doctor they chose while under the insurance cap.
Jessica Simpson, Angelina Jolie and Heather Locklear have controlled my life in a way no less pernicious than government might.
I wanted to date them all…perhaps even get married and have kids, and they said “No”. They didn’t even return my calls. And they were the worse for it. They got in bad relationships that wasted a lot of good will, money and energy along the way. It would have been better if they had hooked up with me.
Just like the corporations that should have hired you but didn’t.
Come to think of it, Dean Smith controlled my life in a way no less pernicous than government might. I wanted to play small forward for the North Carolina Tarheels, and he wouldn’t let me. In fact, he didn’t even recruit me. He’s probably never even heard of me.
The nerve of that man! I have a right to that position! Just like I have a right to date and/or marry all of those women. They have controlled my life in a way no less pernicious than government.
I completely agree with you. Some silly people might say that those companies are private enterprises, backed by private capital, and have a right to do whatever they want to do. They might even say that’s why it’s called a ‘voluntary transaction’ where two parties come together of their own accord and make a deal.
They would be wrong. You have a right to those jobs, even if the shareholders and their hired managers think otherwise. You have a right to be paid from their treasury whatever you think you’re worth.
You have been wronged. Your life has been controlled in a way no less pernicious than the government might, who has legal use of force (backed up by guns and imprisonment).
You’re a victim. It’s not your fault.
Now if I could only get those women to return my phone calls. If they don’t, I’ll stand right there next to you on the victim line. Save a spot for me.