Wins the thread.
Yeah, my thought when I heard that one (snicker) was, “Crap, I just sold my house at a massive loss- I should’ve held onto it so the government could bail ME out”.
My second thought was, “I should go out and buy a house at really, really bad rates.”
I will be *furious *if something like McCain’s plan goes through.
Yes, the real problem is medicare. Social Security is out of what, but not so far that it can’t be fixed with a few tweaks. But medicare spending is about to explode.
I love how the some of you think the answer is ‘health care reform’. So… The current government run health care system is a mess, so to fix it, well… let the government run it all!
This unblinking faith in government never ceases to amaze me. After the last month, in which it was discovered that government regulations completely failed the financial markets, that two of the biggest problems were government-sponsored agencies, and that the ‘fix’ for it couldn’t happen until 535 politicians spent a couple of hundred billion dollars extra wetting their beaks, you might be a little more humble about the ability of government to manage large, complex systems.
You’re not going to ‘fix’ Medicare by making health care universal. The problem with Medicare is that unlimited health benefits for the elderly is bloody freaking expensive. The potential fixes are:
- Reducing benefits
- Increasing taxes dramatically
- Means Testing
But here’s the problem - this program is called an ‘entitlement’ for a reason. Good luck reducing benefits. Good luck with the means testing. That leaves tax increases on everyone else.
When you take a problem of scarce resources and give it to the government, you inject politics into the problem and it becomes impossible to make rational decisions. People have known about the looming problems with entitlements for decades. But it’s been political untouchable - the third rail of American Politics. So instead, the answer has been to do nothing, to look the other way, and to fund things with deficit financing.
You liberals are soon going to find out that in a global economy there’s a very hard limit on how much you can extract from ‘the rich’. As the tax system gets more progressive, and the government benefits provided to the middle class grow, you’re going to very soon wind up in a system where those who pay no tax or get far more in benefits than they pay in tax will have the majority vote. That’s destabilizing. And as wealthy people find it increasingly easy to do business from other locations, your ability to tax them will wane as they will just take their marbles and go elsewhere.
America’s political system is uniquely UNqualified to run health care. The political calculus of the way representation is done in the U.S. is going to turn every health care issue into a battle between states, and American politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the demands of their constituents.
In a parliamentary system, especially one with strong party discipline, individual politicians have some cover. The party in power can decide to cut health benefits to save money, and get away with it. In the U.S., every Senator and Congressman has to put his or her name on the vote, and face the consequences back home. That’s why nothing has been done about Social Security and Medicare. And that’s why, if you nationalize health care, costs are going to explode and efficiency will plummet.
Every other country that has universal health care controls costs through rationing. Waiting lists, schedules of available services, refusal to treat certain segments of the population. That’s what you do to control health care costs when people’s demands aren’t moderated by out-of-pocket expenses.
In the U.S., this is going to be very difficult to do because of the nature of the system. For example, good luck cutting those benefits to the elderly - Florida is a swing state, and it’s full of old people. This guarantees they will be pandered to, regardless of the needs of reality. Hell, the entire U.S. government is held hostage to the demands of a small Cuban community in Miami. Good luck reforming Medicare.
You think there’s pork now? Wait until politicians start promising health care to their constituents. You think hospitals will be built where they are needed? Or will they be built in the districts of the members of the appropriations committee on health care and powerful senior politicians in the House and Senate? Just how many new lobbyists are going to take up residence in Washington?
You guys want to turn health care over to the government - the same government that is willing to fund bridges to nowhere while real bridges that already exist are tagged unsafe - by the hundreds. The same government that let the levees that protect a city degenerate to the point of ridiculousness. The same government that just engaged in a huge social experiment to fund hundreds of thousands of risky mortgages and have the government try to absorb the risk.
But I’m sure THIS time it will all be great.
I believe in that instance, McCain was talking about the relationship between Reagan and O’Neill, rather than any deals. However, I don’t think McCain understands that 1.) he’s idealizing it, big time-they may have been friends, but only, as Reagan put it, “after 5pm”; and 2.) he doesn’t have NEARLY the charisma that Ronnie had. There’s no way in hell he’d be able to maintain that kind of raport with Pelosi.
(HOWEVER, I believe McCain’s definition of “fix” is actually “junk”)
I love Sam Stone. If I wasn’t married to the most beautiful woman in the world already, I would propose to him. Marry me, Sam Stone. We’ll have to go to San Francisco or Boston if ‘Sam’ isn’t short for Samantha.
Well said. As I’ve said in other threads, I’ve lived in 3 countries and raised families with small children in ‘universal health care’ systems. Americans who look longingly at those countries and wish here-could-be-like-there are in for a nasty reality.
Silly liberal. You don’t announce your plans to attack the entitlements program. You have to sneak up on them. Like Pakistan.
Not if you listen to some posters here. They talk about how WONDERFUL their national health care is and how they can’t BELIEVE that Americans have to pay out of pocket for health care! Amazing! Astounding! Come into the 21st century, America, they say…
I’ve never lived outside of the U.S., but I see the things that the government does here. They all have the same things in common:
- They are/become terribly expensive.
- They benefit four million people who don’t need the program and never did.
- They benefit a total a four people who actually need the program.
- They don’t benefit the four million people who really, really need the program.
- The offices are open M-F 9am-3pm, except all holidays including Arbor Day.
- The offices are multi-mullion dollar megaplexes with 30 customer service windows staffed by three people, two of whom are on lunch break.
- You filled out the form wrong/filled out the wrong form.
- In this modern age, where information is transmitted instantly across the world, it takes 8 to 10 business days to complete your transaction.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Now, this same government which does this in everything it touches, somehow will have a seamless, beautiful health care system for all Americans? I think not.
Which Americans are you talking about? Surely not those 47 million who have no insurance at all? How is the worst universal health system in the world not a step up for them?
Right… because arguing that there is a role for government in healthcare is exactly the same thing as saying that a government run-system will be entirely without problems of its own.
I’m not exactly clear if you’re talking about “the gummint” or the typical HMO.
Seeing as how you didn’t mention that the people running the institution you’re speaking of are making millions upon millions of dollars for providing poor service, I’m guessing you’re speaking of government. I guess that means that government is just that much better than your average HMO.
I think the government needs to help contain costs through regulation. I don’t believe in a universal health care system, but I do believe that there should be a reasonably affordable health care system. Basically, the government should review prescription drugs and cap the profit margins on them, as well as establishing reasonable and customary pricing for medical procedures. In essence, creating a government agency as a HMO with some power to prosecute those who try to gouge people. This will help efficiency in hospitals, as more people could afford to have a family doctor instead of going to the emergency room for a minor condition due to inability to pay for services.
Regarding social security, the simple solution is to change the benefit age by offering higher benefits if you delay retirement by 5 years or more, which will allow more funds to accumulate and not require drastic changes down to road. Unfortunately, no politician wants to risk the electability by pursuing this.
Sam, I’m curious as to whether you read the article a few posts up. In particular:
The unblinking faith in the market never ceases to amaze me. After the last month, in which is was discovered that when you remove government regulations (or refuse to regulate in the first place) the markets will explode with greed and eventually collapse in on themselves, someone sitting in Canada with universal health care likes to talk on the internet about how the government is the problem and tries to order me how to spend my money.
I’d prefer if you conducted your free market experiments in your own country so that you get to suffer the consequences. Instead, you are always trying to convince us to go along with your ideals. It’s win-win for you, lose-lose for us.
Whereas the American system provides unlimited health care for all?
Private healthcare rations care just as public healthcare does. The difference is that private healthcare rations based on how much money you have, while public healthcare rations based on first-come, first-served.
One item that goes missing much of the time when discussing health care is that many think in a vacuum - in isolation. They forget that they live in close proximity to many many people who do not have the ability to get health care to prevent communicable diseases.
These people generally do not get to a doctor until their diseases have progressed to a point where they are possibly infecting hundreds of unsuspecting supposedly healthy and medical-insurance covered citizens on a daily basis.
The fact is this; if the person sitting in the desk next to you, in that airplane seat, train seat, or basketball game, super market, bar, restaurant, etc… is not covered and is unable to get medical care for an illness that is communicable, then guess what? You’re exposed and you may be in a more dangerous position than he or she.
This is similar to being on a roadway with a person driving a vehicle with lousy brakes and a leaking gasoline tank.
They are already doing #3, just not quite fast enough.
Actually, if you just do #3 and get rid of the ceiling on FICA taxes (as **Fear Itself **sez), SocSec would be fine for a looooong time.
As has been said the real problem is Medicare, not SocSec.
wiki"
According to most projections, the Social Security trust fund will begin drawing on its Treasury Notes toward the end of the next decade (around 2018 or 2019), at which time the repayment of these notes will have to be financed from the general fund. At some time thereafter, variously estimated as 2041 (by the Social Security Administration[89]) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office[90]), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus.
Darn right, or announce your plan to increase taxes or the burdens of the American populace until you become a Republican president, then you create scenarios that will cause inflation or Reccession, energy and healthcare cost sky-rocketing, people losing their jobs, homes and going bankrupt because your policies have setup the market place such that the very wealthy get even wealthier and the folks who you told that you would not increase their taxes, now have the distinct ability to buy much much less with their money. See… Ronald Reagan and his no new taxes pledge and Reaganomics, followed by 4 more years of George Bush Sr. and now 8 years of George Bush Jr.
It’s the Republican hidden sleight of hand game they play on the electorate whenever we ain’t paying close enough attention.
Actually, most people think Medicare and SCHIP work pretty well. Can’t speak to Medicaid because I don’t know people who are eligible for it.
You forgot the words ‘lack of’ before ‘government regulations,’ Sam.
IOW, we’re already insuring the highest-risk group. Might as well take care of the young and healthy, too.
At any rate, the VA also takes care of a lot of elderly - guys who were young when they fought in WWII and Korea and Vietnam. And they do a pretty good job with cost control. There’s reasons for that. But feel free to ignore that. Also feel free to ignore (same link) how France and Germany control costs.
That’s true, but a lot more can be extracted from them than we’re doing now.
“I’ll deal with it!”
I saw a forum by an entitlement expert last year, and he said that fixing Social Security is like invading Panama, while fixing Medicare is like invading Vietnam.