Good Ideas Require Good Policy
When we were kids, my brother’s best friend practically lived with us while the two of them pursued their Eagle Scout merit badges. Gunther’s parents both worked “in aerospace” and kept irregular hours. Our busy household was well-stocked with after-school snack foods, and the field out back provided a perfect cover for the boys’ homebuilt “fort” and their covert botany projects. It was a match made in heaven for two pre-teenaged boys, and over the years our two families became warm friends.
I’d always wondered about the glass vial of dirty sand Mrs. Kroesner kept on her mantelpiece—it seemed so out of place with the elegant furnishings in the rest of her house. “I brought it from home.” She told me one day when I had finally worked up the courage to ask her about it. “I didn’t expect I’d ever see it or my family again.” Heavily pregnant with her son, she’d scooped it up and stuffed it into the pocket of her overcoat just before she snuck into the makeshift tunnel under the barricades of the Berlin Wall. It was the last act—and the last reminder—of her old existence as she headed off to make a new life in the west.
Twenty years ago yesterday, the most symbolic vestige of the Eastern Communist bloc fell to sledgehammers and pickaxes as the city of Berlin was reunified. The year before, Mikael Gorbachev, prodded, no doubt by the recent success of Lech Walesa’s “Solidarity” movement in Poland and the similar transitions in Hungary and other eastern European nations, had announced what came to be known as the “Sinatra Doctrine,” essentially the decision to disband the Soviet Union and allow its member states to go their “Own Way” without State intervention– Ronald Reagan’s last minute photo-op grandstanding notwithstanding.
Like many people, I cheered at the news footage, and wept as Leonard Bernstein led the Berlin Philharmonic in an emotional performance of Beethoven’s 9th symphony at the foot of the Brandenburg Gate. For those of us who grew up and came of age amidst the ideological battles of the Cold War, the tearing down of the Berlin wall was a seminal event; a victory for the forces of democracy and free trade, and a decisive repudiation of the totalitarian communist State. One hoped it heralded a new beginning and the promise of world prosperity and international cooperation. Nikita Khrushchev’s infamous “We will bury you” had turned out to be bluster after all! As the concrete fell, and the ebullient crowds surged and melded into each other, we felt a long-looming heaviness lifted from our hearts.
But much like the jubilation that accompanied the recent election of Barack Obama (and our elation then was real, too—as were our hopes,) it turned out, as it generally does, that our expectations were not quite so seamlessly meshed with the reality that came to pass.
Ironically, there are striking parallels between post-reunification Berlin and the current American transition (key word, here, transition,) from corporate oligarchy (the socialized losses and privatized profit system we have today,) to a more democratic redistributive market economy. Paradoxically, it’s obvious to most everyone that both our bureaucratic socialism as well as our ultra-liberal capitalism also require some fundamental democratic reform if our republic is to prosper.
Although it seems counter-intuitive, if we look at the Berlin wall as a metaphor for our national prejudice against collective stewardship (Democratic Socialism) separating the populist democratic West, (the current elected administration,) from the socialized corporatized East, (our failed corporate oligarchy,) the analogy gets interesting, even instructional.
Simply put, reunification has been a messy affair.
When the wall came down, a flood of East Germans threatened to overwhelm the social services of the West. Imagine that the United States were to one day announce it would no longer recognize its southern borders with Mexico, and you get some idea of the social upheaval Germany faced.
The first enormous aid package of DM115B was just the beginning of a long and expensive process. Well over DM 350B was spent in just the first three years following unification, four-fifths of which was in the form of direct government funding. Ten years later, the total amount had climbed to well over DM 1T.
Even before official unification, the West German government had decided to privatize the East German economy. The Treuhand Trust Agency (the German TARP, if you will,) was charged with taking over East German industries, stabilizing them, and turning firms over to new private management. Altogether nearly 14,000 firms were privatized between 1988 and 1994. But some problems emerged.
First, was the massive confusion about property rights. So much had been re-appropriated and reassigned first under Nazi, then Soviet, then GDR administration, that just who actually owned what was utterly obfuscated. As claimants began winning in the courts, and contracts were voided because no clear title could be established, investors shied away in droves. Foreign investment in the new enterprise zone dried up. Even Japan, which at the time was buying up everything in sight, demurred.
Secondly, East German production costs were enormous, with wages kept artificially high and far above what productivity levels could sustain in a competitive market economy. It was, after all an entrenched socialist society, long used to heavy subsidies and government protections for its workers. Western firms found it easier to serve their new Eastern markets by concentrating the expansion of existing facilities in the West, rather than investing in a entitled eastern culture long used to now-unsustainable government price supports. Consequently, new infusions of foreign money to the East were minimal.
Third, reunification was hindered by a woefully neglected eastern infrastructure, necessitating huge expenditures to bring the East up to competitive par with the rest of Germany. The railroads, for example, had been so badly maintained that they essentially required rebuilding from the ground up.
And these practical problems were dwarfed by the policy issues that confronted West German leadership. As we are seeing here in the US with “quantitative easing,” the policies that were intended to ease the transition into a new economic system forced compromises that would lead to long term structural burdens. Our current health care reform debate is a good example:
Although the huge disparity between what Medicare can handle now and what it will be able to handle when the boomer population retires will necessarily force a restructuring of our tax system—and require both a huge increase in public funding as well as a huge decrease in mandated services—this fact is conveniently ignored in the face of more immediate and politically expedient concerns; (Will I be re-elected? Will some illegal alien get an abortion on the public dime?) Similarly, the administration has chosen to prop up housing prices (and the banking industry, et al) rather than allow a catastrophic but more efficient resetting of the market. Given America’s historic propensity for armed insurrection, and its high levels of gun ownership, this is probably the wisest course of action—if not the most financially considered in the long run.
As explained in germanculture.com, Eastern Germany went into a deep economic slump immediately after unification. Within a year, the number of unemployed rose precipitously, (people go where the jobs are,) industrial production fell to less than half the previous rate, and it was estimated that the entire production of East Germany amounted to less than 8 percent of that of western Germany.
Because the reunification process was managed by western firms, the new eastern ones took on similar management and ownership styles. As large western banks assumed the assets (and liabilities,) of the former East German State Bank, they installed their representatives in its management. Those same banks, of course, administered the Treuhand funds, much as Goldman Sachs has assumed de facto management of once-privately held American industry– if not our entire economy.
Today, twenty years after reunification, the former GDR is still hugely dependent upon state funding, still significantly behind that of its western counterparts, (and most of its eastern European ones,) and the country as a whole has accumulated a massive state debt. As Polya Lesova reports:
“…The outlook for East Germany isn’t as rosy as in the early days. Despite enormous government spending, East Germany is still plagued by high unemployment, low incomes and population decline.
Germany’s national unemployment rate is 8.1%, with a rate of 7.0% in the west and 12.7% in the east. GDP per capita …(is only) 71% of that of a western German in 2008….”
Hmmmm. Massive unemployment, dwindling social safety nets, huge tax increases on the horizon, crumbling infrastructure, a thriving underground economy, morally suspect bailouts for “too big to fail” institutions, and foreign investment at a standstill as America’s democratic socialist government attempts to bail out its failed “free-market” capitalists. One wonders if Mrs. Kroesner might be having second thoughts these days….
As America seeks to reunify its public and private sectors in the coming months and years, let us remember that good ideas require good policy to implement. And that the best laid plans can be readily undone by our own good, if divided, intentions.
by ahansen
FYI, the byline is at the bottom due to spam issues.
I watch the hoopla surrounding the passage of the house health care bill with a great sense of melencholy, not because I fear the economic upheaval that will ultimately befall our children and subsequent generations (which I do), but rather that I feel we have sqandered our last best hope for truly reforming the health care system by driving waste, fraud, excessive utilization and abuse out of the system. This would free up more than enough money to provide insurance coverage to all uninsured citizens while “flattening the curve” of rising health insurance costs enough that most businesses can continue to provide affordable coverage to its employees.
This opportunity has been lost to the special interests, lobbiests, political aspirants and many ohthers who have no interest what so ever in the greater good.
If Health Care Reform abomination passes, it will allow a feeding frenzy for the Health Care Industry (Big Hospital, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Law, Big Government) at the expense of (who else) the vast middle class and the individual medical providers who work their collective butts off trying to provide compassionate coverage while fighting the collective interests above.
A travesty.
+1
It all boils down to the very simple. One page worth, even.
Get the insurance industry OUT of the practice of medicine.
A percentage of all taxes go to support a strong public health system.
If you want elective/extraordinary care, pay for it yourself.
Government is not the solution to the healthcare problem. I strongly encourage you to speak with average Canadians about their healthcare program. Most will tell you horror stories of waiting months to find a doctor taking on new patients, waiting for approval for a simple procedure or worse, waiting for approval for a complicated procedure that’s needed immediately.
Private enterprise is needed to continue to develop life saving medicine. It also needs to be up to an individual and their doctor to choose the care that’s appropriate for them. Don’t let the government into this part of your life.
Andy, we’ve had this discussion here a hundred times. The “average Canadian,” as I suspect you will discover over the course of the day, is quite satisfied with their health system– Fox New and the Insurance Industry trolls notwithstanding.
As for “private enterprise” in the research and development sector, where do you think all that grant money comes from? Big Pharma, research and academic institutions, medical outreach are ALL financed by federal funding, some exclusively.
We’re not talking about decisions between you and your doctors. We’re talking about who is going to PAY for the system to support and implement those decisions… and how. The insurance industry is already “into this part of our lives” bigtime…with their hands in our pockets at every decision. We want them out.
Ah but you’re speaking to someone who used to spend 50% of his time in Canada and the average Canadian is NOT happy with their system. I don’t listen to Faux News and crew any more than I listen to MSNBC.
Considering I’m French of the canadian variety with family in Quebec and Ontario provinces, I’m quite confident to say you’re full of it. And yes they are *average* canadians.
Good for you, and the avg American ain’t to thrilled about health care in this nation either?
The average American has healthcare that’s employer provided or purchased individually that they are happy with. Could the system be better? Of course! Could it be worse? Just let government take over and we’ll find out.
Just because Canada has some problems doesn’t mean that
the United States has to have the same problems if they set up the new systems right . In the United States we have a very good built up structure of health care providers to work with .
But anyway ,I’m not pleased with the way they drafted this
Health Care Bill . Why did I think it was possible for these clowns to do something good for America for once. Repeatedly the Politicians prove that they can’t say no to the Lobbyist .
Ahansen is right on .Your idea that people should pay more for elective or greater services I think is a sound idea ,while it keeps basic medical care for everyone on a basic plan.I think in Germany they have basic National care and they use Insurance Companies for people who want increased care .
If you go to a total public plan you would need to create greater
fraud enforcement . That’s why I think you would need to have a
1500 dollar a year deductible per citizen per year .This would also stop people from over using the system just because its
free, so to speak. They have a little bit of a problem in Japan with people overusing the system because its free . I guess eventually over users are given a talking to in Japan .
The “average Canadian,”……is quite satisfied with their health system.
I’m not so sure “satisfied” would be the word I would use to describe it. I would say it’s more like ” acceptance”!
The “average Canadian,” as I suspect you will discover over the course of the day, is quite satisfied with their health system– Fox New and the Insurance Industry trolls notwithstanding.
Makes no difference if the Canadians are or are not satisfied with their sickness care system. President Barry has clearly stated (while in Canada) that their system would not work in the good old U.S.of A.
We will end up with a lumbering inefficient gubmint mess, watch and see. If you can get hold of a copy, wade through the 2000 page quagmire of a proposal and see if you can figure it out.
I spend close to %100 of my time in Canada, and I find the Ontario system excellent, though I know it does vary by Province and region. A lack of doctors and other care providers is a problem, though there are multiple possible explanations for that. Long wait times happen, but they are the exception, not the norm. You don’t get denied treatment because your insurance company found a loop hole, and you don’t get dropped because you get sick.
“Private enterprise is needed to continue to develop life saving medicine. It also needs to be up to an individual and their doctor to choose the care that’s appropriate for them. Don’t let the government into this part of your life.”
There’s nothing accurate in this para as ahansen has pointed out. Private enterprise for developing medicine goes to the US because FDA approval gets you access to a bigger market sooner. Canada and other markets can follow later.
Canadians can utilize any hospital in their province. Multiple treatment options are available and the doctor and patient decides which to choose. There may be some options that aren’t available, but is that any different than with a private insurer? Don’t let the private for profit insurance company into this part of your life. It seems it’s only the pay-as-you go folks with deep pockets that have full freedom.
Having said all this, I’m not sure the US could transition to a single payer system like Canada’s. Our health care system ‘grew up’ with public insurance, the US’s ‘grew up’ with private insurance.
The Gov’t is not going to take over sir it is called a option if you don’t like the option you don’t have to join the club! You have the Mayo clinic as your choice of hospital fine, but if you can’t afford the Mayo you go to another hospital you can live with very simple really.
How is it then that in Florida the “public option” of home insurance is broke AND the largest insurer in the state?
I do not believe that the average person who has purchased a private individual policy (and has ever had cause to use it,) could be said to be “happy” with it. “Livid,” “homicidal,” “apoplectic,” all come to mind, however….
There is a reason health care reform is, and for decades has been, a major policy debate. And it’s not the quality of the actual care.
Before my business grew large enough to provide a group plan, I was on an individual plan. I used it and it was exactly what i purchased. If you aren’t an employer, and I suppose you aren’t…I wouldn’t speak out against the current system too loudly. I promise you that if health insurance premiums go up, or if I’m forced to buy insurance for my part time help, there will be fewer jobs at my establishment. I’m certain I’m not the only business owner who’s in that reality.
“I promise you that if health insurance premiums go up, or if I’m forced to buy insurance for my part time help, there will be fewer jobs at my establishment.”
What if you didn’t have to pay any insurance premiums?
“What if you didn’t have to pay any insurance premiums?”
I don’t have to pay any premiums now. I choose to offer health insurance. If you’re referring to a government program that i have to pay for with tax dollars, I’m still paying premiums aren’t I?
“I’m still paying premiums aren’t I?”
Indirectly, but would it affect your hiring decision?
I have no faith in my government. Let’s look at the systems they’ve put in place thus far. A health insurance mandate would make it so I wouldn’t hire anyone because I won’t be in business. A government run system where my taxes can be in excess of 50% as they are in Canada would also cause me to be out of business. Sorry, I’ll pass on government run programs.
“A government run system where my taxes can be in excess of 50% as they are in Canada would also cause me to be out of business.”
Yes, there are no businesses in Canada. You’ve caught on to our dirty little secret.
BTW, the highest marginal tax rate in Ontario is 40% for individuals (combined federal/provincial), and corporate tax rates are 34% at the high end (again combined). From what I understand US corporate rates are pretty similar, though a bit higher.
“Yes, there are no businesses in Canada. You’ve caught on to our dirty little secret.”
lmao.
The serious problem with our healthcare industry is both the insurance people having to comply with the AMA coding, and the interference by the Medicare system.
The extreme overhead PURPOSELY created by those systems (supposedly to prevent fraud but actually enabling it by creating vast confusion and slowing down the system) adds enormously to the costs. And time. Of every health professional.
The paperwork associated now with all medical procedures is mind-boggling.
“The average American has healthcare that’s employer provided or purchased individually that they are happy with.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! You are FULL of it. I don’t know where on earth you dreamed up this statement, but it’s absolutely asinine. I know very few people who are happy with their insurance, and more who have none. Nice try, pal.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! You are FULL of it. I don’t know where on earth you dreamed up this statement, but it’s absolutely asinine. I know very few people who are happy with their insurance, and more who have none. Nice try, pal.
DITTO.
ditto +eleventybillion
Correction: Bankers and Insurance companies aren’t the solution to the healthINSURANCE problem.
Private enterprises are best at maximizing shareholder returns; this is problematic when it comes to fundamental research. Ask yourself, which of the following tends to cause most human suffering, and which of the following the private medical R&D tends to focus on:
malaria v. erectile dysfunction
HIV v. hair loss
TB v. obesity
Therein lies a huge problem.
Um, obesity arguably causes more suffering than anything listed above besides (possibly) malaria.
Coronary artery disease, stroke, hypertension, type II diabetes - all huge health problems here in the US, all driven to some extent by being obese.
How about breast enhancement ? That’s one of my favorite ‘visual’ medical proceedures ! HA HA
Drug companies are not interested in curing
disease, it would put them out of business.
However, they are very,very good at creating
new ones, like heart burn and limp dicks.
You now take the purple pill, on a daily basis,
to combat heart burn when a diet correction
would have done it, and then you take Viagra,
when all you needed to do was spend some
time with an attractive lady…
Coronary artery disease, stroke, hypertension, type II diabetes - all huge health problems here in the US, all driven to some extent by being obese.
Which obesity causes all & cause limp dicks as Rancher states.Found a great product developed after the 3 Nobel Science winning mds discovered how nitric oxide (HEY OXIDE)affects our arteries etc.- L arginine, which is in our foods, but not assimilatable enough as we age. It has been known of since the turn of the c.
But back to the ranch..insurance corps cover prostate exams but not well women ie: pap smears, they cover viagra, but not birth control. Yep, lets take care of the dudes, have fun boys!
Hey Andy how about the horror of receiving a bill for $7,200 to reset a broken arm that took under two hours time???
Isn’t there a disconnect? People ain’t very happy here. What’s going on?
If you read happiness surveys, most Americans are very happy and content folks. I certainly am.
Sure, the divorce rate is 50 percent, crime in rampant and too many of us are pistol-whipped and raped, healthcare sucks, most politicians suck and lie ( and literally S & L, too. ), most families are dysfunctional with at least one family member locked up in a mental institution or in jail, and many Americans see a psychotherapist on a monthly, if not a weekly basis, at $150 a pop.
But at least these minor facts of American life are inconsequential. Heck, they barely register on our radar screens.
Okay, healthcare could be just a tad better, but let’s get back to being happy.
Let’s all take our Prozac, Viagra, Xanax, and have smiley faces.
Sorry, but you have swallowed the anti-Canadian health care propaganda hook, line and sinker.
It behooves you to study Canada’s health care system, and I’m sure you will find there are problems and concerns. However, no citizen goes without basic health care. We are free to choose our own physicians. We may choose to go to a private clinic. All emergencies are treated immediately with the best modern medicine has to offer. Wait times for elective surgery are being reduced to acceptable limits.
No one in Canada faces financial ruin due to serious illness or accident.
What is more important to a nation than the health of its most treasured asset - its children.
It’s truly perverse that in a country as prosperous as America, approximately 50 million of your own people have no health insurance, and are faced with destitution if fate deals them a blow of sickness or accident.
“We are free to choose our own physicians” - if there are physicians to choose from. Waiting lists for a physician in NB are in the thousands.
“Wait times for elective surgery are being reduced to acceptable limits.” My mother waited over a year for her first cataract operation.
“No one in Canada faces financial ruin due to serious illness or accident.” Unless you have one of the orpahn diseases that Medicare doesn’t cover.
“My mother waited over a year for her first cataract operation.”
How seriously did it affect her quality-of-life in the interim?
And when I wanted to see an orthopedist at the multi specialty practice that has all my medical records, I was told it was a two month wait just to see anyone, never mind the wait to schedule the procedure. If there aren’t enough docs in a given specialty in a particular area, you have to wait for an appointment. I bet there aren’t enough cataract surgeons in rural Montana either.
Greed, power, money, and influence are a way of life in America.
The rich and powerful don’t want rationing of healthcare. Did you notice how the Wall Sreeet pigs got their swine flu vacine. They were viewed as a priority group. Talk about pigs.
Donald Trump sued a guy because he said Trump’s net worth was only in the neighborhood of something like $300M. Trump views himself as a multitrillionaire. Just think of the money he spent for such a silly lawsuit. No doubt Donald Trump has his swine flu vacine. Cough! Cough!
I really don’t know if you can compare Canada’s healthcare system to ours across the board. We’re different countries with different histories, customs, humor, and tolerance.
Anyway, it’s too cold in Canada to get sick. LOL! Viruses just die when it’s 30 below zero. Temperatures are in Centigrade. Another difference. Most everything is different up there.
Polly,
We were in Texas when my left shoulder
started rapidly going bad, rotorcuff tears.
My orthopedic surgeon had repaired my right shoulder nine months before with a 3 1/2 hour surgery.
We have an average 2-3 months scheduling delay for surgeries.
I called him up and brought him up to date.
“Where are you” he asked.
“Texas”
“How soon can you get back?’
“Four days” I replied.
“Great, I schedule your surgery for
Wednesday morning”.
We like our system just fine….
Up until the economy started tanking, I could never get an appt for at least 2 months, and I LIVE in the usa.
My mom had to wait 4 month for 1 side, and 6 month for 2nd side, and that is out here where you bump into specialist mds all the time, especially during high season.
And now that INS is the way it is, many MDs are NOT taking ins. You pay up front, they will give you a superbill and do it on your own/submit. That is in the USA. So, I cannot PICK my own MD if I want my ins to cover basic stuff.
Again, USA.
Here in the USA.
As someone raised in the UK, I’ll take their system over ours any day!
+1 Ahansen…Nice counter…
I second this, ahansen. Nice job.
This alone should eliminate 90% of all breast reductions….instead spend the money on a shrink and solve your self esteem problems
—————————————-
If you want elective/extraordinary care, pay for it yourself.
Cause we definitely have an epidemic of breast REDUCTION surgeries that are bankrupting our healthcare system. (many of which would be solved by a serious, permanent weight loss plan).
Whoa DJ - reductions are not usually elective. I’ve had friends who have had them and you’re taking some pretty severe back problems along with other medical issues. Now granted, I understand some men want breast reductions outlawed, but we live in a world where we don’t get what we want all the time.
(Just funning you DJ. I’m pretty sure (and very hopeful) you meant breast enlargements. And yes, usually medically unnecessary. And I think if it is really important to a gal she’ll find the money somehow. But to be fair, right now insurance doesn’t cover most plastic surgery unless it is reconstructive and even that is questionable.)
Let me remind all that US healthcare is 100% more expensive PER PERSON that the most expensive socialized system in Europe.
Hence, creating a similar system should incur significant savings.
But…this bill is saying that MORE $$ is needed for the world’s most expensive system…
…right…
It seems to be lost in the debate that while the average American covered by an employer health plan is satisfied with his coverage, the average employer providing that coverage is not.
The cost of providing that coverage has risen at many times the rate of inflation forcing the employer to reduce or eliminate coverage which alienates hthe employees and the employer still sees the cost of providing that benefit (if he continues to do so) rise substantially. Unless something is done about the rising cost of providing health coverage, there will be a groundswell of employers laying most of the cost of coverage off onto the employees or dropping coverage altogether.
Over the past 20 years or so I have been involved in the plan design and procurement of health coverage for a number of mid-sized companies. The costs of providing that coverage has at least tripled if not quadrupled in that time. Most companies are just barely hanging on to thier ability to provide even the most rudimentary coverage to its employees.
Assuming that unemployement stays at historically high levels, which is quite likely, it will be quite expedient for employers to reduce or eliminate health coverage altoghether. Will the average American like his coverage when he doesn ‘t have it, or is scrambling to find “affordable” private coverage? Not likely, but that scenario is coming.
I’m one of those having to pay the bill and I don’t like it. I also can’t be fooled into thinking that having a government mandate of coverage combined with another bloated government program could possibly make things any better.
I agree, but for a lot of employers, if this bill passes, an 8% payroll tax and washing his hands of the whole health insurance problem would be too good a deal to pass up. Particularly in a time when any job posted gets dozens or applicants regardless of benefit levels.
Its one of those things that you’re damned when you do and damned when you don’t, so why not take the easiest way out?
I’ve had to subsidize half the state of California for years, and I don’t like it one bit, either, Andy. That I should have to pay through the teeth for what the illegal alien in the next bed gets for free is an abomination. Moreover, as a private payer, I don’t get the right to collective bargaining with “insurers” thus end up paying far more than someone in a group plan pays for the same services.
Now, after decades of doing the responsible thing and maintaining not only a disgustingly healthy lifestyle but a private payer insurance policy, I find it won’t cover any of the catastrophic services I thought I was paying for all those years; the policy I purchased thirty years ago bears no resemblance to the piece o’ crape I hold today.
All I want is the OPTION to PURCHASE the same care package my Senators have. And for my government to enforce that contractual agreement. Whether this comes to be through added taxation, or through a mandated public health service doesn’t matter to me. Just give me parity.
“Its one of those things that you’re damned when you do and damned when you don’t, so why not take the easiest way out?”
And you’re exactly right, employers will drop coverage and everyone ends up with the government “option.” If I wasn’t taxed as heavily as I am, I could easily add to my payroll. That’s where the solution needs to be and where government should be spending their time. Stop wasting money, cut taxes because you’re no longer wasting money, and see what happens to the economy. People tend to buy more when they have more money in their pocket…
ahansen, you probably have the option to pay a ton of money for a great policy, the problem is the ton of money part. Don’t kid yourself into thinking group plans are cheap either. I think with your previous comment, we may not be as far apart on this debate as I once thought.
My solution isn’t to do nothing. Truthfully you should be able to purchase any policy you want from any company you want…and companies shouldn’t look to your present health when deciding to cover you. It needs to be a take everyone or take no one kind of thing.
“Truthfully you should be able to purchase any policy you want from any company you want…and companies shouldn’t look to your present health when deciding to cover you.”
While I’m not defending pre-existing conditions exclusions (I hate them), I would point out that the combination you propose would mean that NO insurance company would offer a good plan.
Everyone would purchase the cheapest plan—right up until they need something serious covered, and then they would switch to a more expensive plan with better coverage.
I don’t see any simple solution to this problem, other than mandating minimum coverage standards to prevent this; with minimum standards that covered most “serious” occurences, there would be no incentive to switch plans after finding out that you have something serious.
I think under the hood all but the most basic policies are the same. The big difference is network, copay, and deductible. As long as you have a reasonable waiting period, or open enrollment period, this wouldn’t be a problem. No one would put off their cancer treatment because open enrollment isn’t for another 6 months. If you elected the $7,500 deductible plan, pay the money.
“…Everyone would purchase the cheapest plan—right up until they need something serious covered, and then they would switch to a more expensive plan with better coverage.”
Bingo.
If there is no selective underwriting, there can be no “insurance” pool, simply a membership in a cooperative. So why not call a spade a spade and get the insurance industry out of public medicine altogether?
If folks want to make certain they can get their stomach stapled and their eyebags lifted at some point, they can purchase a reinsurance policy to cover elective procedures and devices—if the insurer deems them a good risk. Public policy, private enterprise…hand in hand. What a concept.
You’re starting to sound like Hillary’s plan was a great idea. ……..co-operative buying groups
If there is no selective underwriting, there can be no “insurance” pool, simply a membership in a cooperative.
Since my relatives, friends, and spouse are not getting rich (tripling or quadrupling their salaries in the last few years), you have to wonder where the money is going? Because the insurance companies actually have fairly low profit margins compared to most American industries.
I submit it is going down the rat hole of government compliance. The 18 forms you have to fill out to bill the government or insurance company, document every tiny thing in triplicate using specific and mandated government codes, etc….
Much of their comments are that they spend much more time filling out paperwork than actually providing care.
“I’ve had to subsidize half the state of California for years, and I don’t like it one bit, either, Andy. That I should have to pay through the teeth for what the illegal alien in the next bed gets for free is an abomination.”
I’m sure millions of others share your sentiment. The problem is, many turn around and hire Jose the undocumented lawn guy to cut their grass, and his wife Rosario to clean up their house. They’re perpetuating the very thing they loathe.
I agree 100%, Griz.
Services for citizens and legal residents and visitors only.
Sponsoring a resident immigrant (I’ve done it twice; one was from Ireland, one from China,) require(d) a $250K bond, $20-30K worth of legal and embassy “fees,” and two to four years of maddening red tape, blood tests, psych evaluations, background checks, etc. Why should the educated, solvent, LEGAL applicant have to jump through hoops to emigrate here while those who flout our laws sneak in through our kitchen doors?
Those criminals who hire illegal aliens should be held personally responsible for the cost of their and their family’s health, education, shelter, food, and social oversight. Confiscation of employers’ assets and property (like we do drug dealers,) would be an effective deterrent. Or, we could just insist Americans obey our labor laws.
Amen, ahansen.
“But…this bill is saying that MORE $$ is needed for the world’s most expensive system…”
And there is the problem with letting the government create a program.
I am happy with my health care and health insurance. I buy my own. I don’t get any company benefits.
When you eat right most of your life and you put your own preventive health care as highest priority (higher than having a career and higher than having a spouse and family), you tend to have much better health than the average person your age.
While I am 100% against any government involvement in health care, if we do get socialized h.c. it should penalize the bad habits and reward the good health habits.
It is unjust for the fit to pay for the unfit.
Maintaining health is a lot of work and means a lot of personal sacrifice. In other words, it means accepting responsibility for your health. To force the responsible to pay for the irresponsible is grounds for a revolution.
Dear Bill in Los Angelos - I am glad God granted you a body that doesn’t break down but some were not given the perfect body.
I agree, (!) BiLA. But just wait until some inebriated Canyonero driver with a BMI of 47 plows into you in the bike lane. And your face hits a lamppost. And part of your brain stop working so you can’t cogitate. And you’re eight years from Medicare.
That’s when y(our) argument begins to break down.
Bill:
I think you forgot it also takes money to eat right and be in as good shape as you…can you do it on 1/3 or 1/2 less income?
So maybe we should expand the Wic program to all poor people so they can buy fresh fruits veggies tuna fish..and other low calorie foods…
The quality of discussions on this board is addictive.
——————-
Maintaining health is a lot of work and means a lot of personal sacrifice
At that point, that’s where my disability income insurance kicks in, plus my savings. Sorry to disappoint you but…no worries here.
aNYCdj,
On the contrary, it is cheaper to eat nutritious food. Junk food in LA and Phoenix, where I buy food, is much more expensive than fresh produce.
ahansen, you are talking extremes.
Are you telling me this happened to you? Are you saying tragic accidents are the norm?
If so, we humans would not have evolved at all.
Tragedy is rare. Non-preventable pre-existing conditions are very rare. Preventable pre-existing conditions are common.
Even back in the early 1990s at a salary of $35,000 to $40,000 I was eating lots of veggies and working out eight to ten hours per week. And I made house payments of $960 per month during those times in California.
November is the month in which my birthday falls. And, true to form, I’ve received the generic birthday card from the homeowners’ insurer. From the “health” insurer, I’ve gotten another rate increase. This, despite the fact that I’ve never made a claim on the policy.
I would agree with you … but I’m a very healthy, healthy-eating, active, athletic person who … has a genetic disposition to high blood pressure.
No amount of eating right or exercising will lower it. I’ve tried. Oh how I’ve tried.
I take a very very low dose of a very cheap drug and I am 100% good as new. Been on it since I was 26.
But … if my employer stopped offering health insurance, no insurer would take me due to my pre-existing condition. The condition that is perfectly managed as long as I take my meds, which I do …
Because - on paper, a 35 year old female with high blood pressure sounds like a risk. No one cares that I’m in better shape than 99% of the population ..
It’s just not 100% black and white like you want to believe …
Bill,
Google “mauled by a bear then mauled by Blue Cross.” You can take it from there….
I’m in the same position, I have a Mitral Valve Prolapse, and despite running a couple of marathons a year, having low blood pressure, low cholestrol and having had health insurance for all of my adult life, outside of an employ’ers plan, I am not insurable for health or disability. In fact, that is the single reason I don’t retire even though I could financially, I cannot take the chance of being uninsured until I am covered by Medicare. There is a high risk pool coverage in WA, but that takes two years to get into and you cannot apply if you are covered, so even that would leave me exposed.
I suspect there are a lot of us early 60 types that would be happy to step aside and let a younger person take our job if it weren’t for needing to keep health coverage in place until Medicare is available.
I think that there needs to community rated insurance plans available to those like me who have maintained “creditable” coverage for three or more years prior to application, and those that have not would have a waiting period for pre-existing conditions.
BiLA,
Sorry if this reposts. In answer to your above question, type in “mauled by a bear then mauled by blue cross” and see what you come up with.
a
I will do the google this evening. In the meantime I wonder how many of you secretly hope for the rare tragedies and freak accidents to strike very healthy people - particularly those who are against government involvement in health care. So that you can say “there, they deserve it!”
You should have googled first before you typed that.
Only you, Bilious. Only you.
Califonia has a major health insurance plan for those with preexisting conditions. My son had a heart valve replacement and is subject to seisures. We were still able to cover him ! If he has a hangnail, he has to pay for it himself. Big deal!
Hmmm. That didn’t come out quite the way I intended, but now that I think about it….
The problem is that the government IS involved in paying for medical care; through tax incentives, benefits to corporate, union, military, and retired employees, subsidies to hospitals, emergency services, medical schools, NHS, CDC, public health clinics, innoculation and epidemiologic programs, ad, um, nauseum.
Those of us who choose to live and work outside those proscribed systems (and that includes small employers,) are penalized for not buying into the big corporate/governmental structure. A unified payer system would level the playing field and cut out the middlemen.
PS. Don’t count on your disability insurance to cover your expenses. It won’t.
“I agree, (!) BiLA. But just wait until some inebriated Canyonero driver with a BMI of 47 plows into you in the bike lane. And your face hits a lamppost. And part of your brain stop working so you can’t cogitate. And you’re eight years from Medicare.”
Exactly. Nobody is bulletproof. The super aerobic BiLA breathes some of the worst air in the world, loaded with carcinogens, as he’s exercising. Does he have some miracle mask we haven’t heard about? Those veggies from the store, for which BiLA has such a voracious appetite, are loaded with carcinogens thanks to all the pesticides. Of course, in addition to his miracle mask, I’m sure BiLA will now tell us that he only eats organic, and visits all the farms before he ever consumes even a bite of their produce. Bill in Los Angeles is Superman.
How about not talking specifics but talking generally. Its all very well to say you have this, you have that, however most people don’t.
How nice to feel so secure in your life. I could only hope that everyone else could feel that way.
Umm…like, how come in the early days of the Republic, it was not a goal for the government to be involved in prolonging everyone’s health? Why not in 1812? Why not in 1850? Why not in 1900?
Why do we have to have government involved in any industry? There is no natural reason for it at all.
It’s as ridiculous for govt to be involved in health care as it is in making sure everyone wears shoes.
ahansen,
My mom had pre-existing conditions. Yet these were self-imposed by poor diet (obesity) and no exercise. We did not take a gun and go next door to our neighbor and ask for money to pay for my mom’s health care. We did not have money. The catholic hospital forgave the debt. $71,000.
That is what charity is for. In cases of non-preventable pre-existing conditions, yes.
I donate to the American Cancer Society and at times to American Heart Association. No one puts a gun to my head to do these donations. That’s how it should be. Pure voluntary.
That Catholic hospital had tax exemptions out the wazoo. The church property where the staff lived was tax exempt. The labor was volunteer and/or tax exempted. The money donated by the board and auxilliaries was tax deductible. The State reimbursed the church for treating the indigent, provided surplus equipment and supplies, etc.
So much for their “charity.”
Although I agree with you that one Mother Superior, a couple dozen nuns, a few janitors and a medical staff could run a hospital in the 60’s just as well as two hundred “administrators” do today.
years of all of us bashing the federal reserve, congress, presidential administrations, banksters, insurance companies…pretty much all the “powers that be” and somehow some of you expect those same folks to set up a better healthcare system…passed in the wee hours…on a saturday….thousands of pages long?
for or against healthcare reform is not my issue…it’s that yall support the PTBs methods in getting it done….and trust the same folks that destroyed this country economically to do so.
it’s frankly mind boggling to me….just mind boggling. it’s like it’s not even the same blog anymore when someone brings up fraking healtchare…it’s like everyone transforms from their reasonable, equitable and, prudent HBB dr. jekyl personas to their partisan hack mr. hyde’s…in a flash.
+1
+10
Yes, well in this instance, we hate the insurance companies way, way more than we hate the government.
I do not want to pay for ‘your’ health care. I will pay for myself and my family. If you don’t like it tough! Try to fine me or put me in jail and I will go to the barricades with other like minded patriots.
You just got through telling us about your son’s ongoing cardiac issues, valve replacement surgery etc! Do you have any idea how many 100K’s a year that costs the taxpayers of California?!
Hint: Your insurance company is subsidized by the same state and federal programs that guarantee dialysis treatments.
More to the point, the premiums of every other policy holder in your company will go up to reflect the ongoing costs of your son’s care.
Don’t expect the short-sighted to think through anything Ahansen.
Wow oh wow. Well I guess you wouldn’t mind if we CA taxpayers tell you to go pay for your son’s seizures on your own. Care to volunteer not taking anymore of my hard earned money to pay for you son’s problems? What a selfish prig you are. I’ve got mine screw everyone else.
test
Sweetie,
NO one has a worse horror story than I. You may have to wait in Canada, but at least care is eventually available–unlike through my “insurers” here in America. The actual quality of care here, once you can pay for it, is excellent. But the system for accessing it is broken.
Oh, but there are. My younger sister, and best friend in life, had to have her right frontal lobe removed due to a horrendous car accident at the tender age of 16. She had no health insurance as my father was incapacitated by a neurological disease and lost his business. She has never been the same. She had enormous medical bills, got a paltry settlement, and ended up with almost nothing. Shortly after she got out of rehabilitation, she ran away from a facility and was kidnapped by some sicko in a van who raped and sodomized her for nearly two weeks as he traveled around CA living in truck stop parking lots. We were very lucky to see her alive again, but her psyche was ruined beyond repair. She was an absolutely gorgeous girl before the accident, and looked like something out of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre after the accident due to the horrendous scarring. At least you still have your mind. She does not. Her life is spent living in crack motels with a man who I’d probably not mind offing had I no conscience or aversion to state penitentiaries.
Oh, Griz. I remember you mentioning this horrible horrible story under your other name and I was as nauseated by it then as I am reading of it now.
My actual ordeal was a goof compared to the psychic torture of dealing with my insurance company in the aftermath. Even as I was being mauled, I was mentally weighing the benefits of fighting back against the nightmare of having to deal with the bureaucratic and procedural hassles I knew awaited me.
Let me clarify. Of course people have endured far worse than I; your unfortunate sister among them. But in regard to the torment of having to constantly justify your existence to a faceless corporate entity which purportedly exists to assist people after catastrophic injury, the sense of betrayal is unsurpassed—and I’ve dealt with some mighty betrayals in my lifetime. The physical aspect, I can handle. The spiritual angst, and the heightened sense of social injustice is killing me.
California at least has a fund that assists people who have been victimized by a crime in paying for their medical care. Perhaps your sister would qualify? Although I’ve paid my health insurance premiums faithfully for 30+ years, when I needed Blue Cross to come through for me, they’ve done everything in their power to blow me off. If someone with my contacts and resources cannot get help, I feel I owe it to people like your little sis (and yourself,) to keep fighting for some sort of rejiggering of the system. It just seems like the right thing to do.
Hugs.
a
I’m glad you’re fighting, and I’m very sorry for your unfortunate experience. There can be no minimizing what you’ve gone through. There is something inherently evil about what the insurance companies are doing to you. No amount of money can ever fill the holes in the souls of the individuals who make the decisions which lead to the outcome you’ve experienced. There is a special place in hell for those SOB’s.
I’m in favor of government health care, since it can’t be any worse than what we have now. The ambulance chasers like John Edwards would have a much harder time suing the federal government. That’s the one group those bastards couldn’t steal money from. I notice that The One never ever mentions lawyers when discussing health care. I guess he favors the thieves over the middle class.
You don’t need a government insurance program to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
All lawsuits are “frivolous” to somebody….
Andy you keep saying gov’t run, you want the gov’t plan fine, if you want Blue Cross fine, what is the problem with choice?
The problem is the choice already exists. Government programs are not a choice. Eventually they become THE choice.
Simple reform would go a lot further than trying to rework the entire system.
Andy you have the choice to get flood insurance right now with the Gov’t many don’t opt for it even people who live in flood zones.
America doesn’t want to run a health care system but what choice was left, let the insurance companies dominate who can have care and who can’t at such ludicrous cost.
The playing field is never level with insurance companies, this health bill at least gets us a chance at moving ball towards a score.
It’s funny you bring up the NFIP. You see private companies couldn’t profit from this loser, so the government stepped in to provide a policy. Today taxpayers are on the hook for people who choose to build in a known flood zone. This is a great comparison. I appreciate you helping me prove my point.
“Today taxpayers are on the hook for people who choose to build in a known flood zone.”
Worse—they not only build in a flood-plain, but then they REBUILD in a flood-plain over, and over, and over again, after each flood. All funded by the NFIP, of course.
I think that NFIP is a bad analogy for the health-care discussion, though. I don’t see how a public option really encourages people to take more risks with their health.
The first rule of Public Option as a Stalking Horse for Single Payer is ‘Do Not Talk About Public Option as a Stalking Horse for Single Payer.’
The second rule of Public Option as a Stalking Horse for Single Payer is…
My standard response to the now daily health care thread: The rest of the western world spends less per capita on health care than we do, their citizens have longer life expectancies than we do, and they have higher rates of satisfaction with their systems than we do.
And no one goes broke because they get sick or injured.
And what is wrong with going broke because you got sick or injured? The VAST majority of sickness and injuries are preventable. Wash your hands. Eat better. Exercise more. Go to bed earlier. Drink less alcohol, take fewer drugs.
Pay more attention to your surroundings. Stop doing stupid stuff that increase your odds of getting seriously hurt. Focus on making your workplace safer.
And so on. Why should I have to pick up the bill for others’ stupidity? You are advocating subsidies for stupid behavior. Just like the government is doing with the banks and their absolute stupidity with making foolish loans.
JcClimber, thanks!
Funny how the proponents of forced involvement in health care say Europe does it, so America should too. Well that does not make Europe more civilized. They look down their noses at the US for still having people responsible for their own well being? Why can’t we look down upon them for having decades-long double digit unemployment rates due to their having nannys states wipe everyone’s behind?
Every time you eat a piece of fresh fruit that doesn’t give you cholera, or don’t catch TB from your janitor, you’re using the health care system. You’re not dead of polio or smallpox or measles or plague because of the health care system. If a barbell falls on your chest, or someone over-chlorinates the pool, you’ll use the health care system–an be glad that generations of Americans helped to build and maintain it.
Try as you might, you don’t exist in a vacuum; and neither does “your” good health. Maintaining the infrastructure is part of the price of living in a civilized society.
‘And what is wrong with going broke because you got sick or injured?’
May you one day find out.
And as long as we’re being cool and calculating, what’s wrong with spending less, living longer, and liking your health care better? Hmmm?
They are hopeless, alpha. Thanks for keeping up the good fight.
I have, thanks. Bankruptcy. I am happier and better for not buying into the victim mentality that “someone else” has to pay for my problems. That was many years ago, pre-health insurance days.
ahansen, I don’t get your point. Why does our healthcare system get credit for me not getting cholera from eating fresh fruit? If those who grow, pick it, ship it, and stock it followed basic sound health principles, like spending 30 seconds washing their hands after going poo-poo, how does our expensive healthcare system get credit for that?
Basic sanitary food handling practices have been know for millenia (read Leviticus in the Bible for example).
Frivolous lawsuits are shown to add only 2 or 3% to the total costs of medical care. Its just one of many problems, but no where near the largest.
How much defensive “paperwork” is going on in addition to the extra tests? And are the defensive test costs added into that number, or just the insurance costs and payouts?
Ahhhhhhh! The house version contained a provision which would deny benefits to states which put a limit on damages in lawsuits. Yes! Here in California, we have a MICRA $250k limit on non-economic damages (emotional distress damages) in medical malpractice cases. If this provision survives, in Cal. you will now be able to get more than $250k should the Dr. cut off the wrong leg or severly damage your child during birth.
I posted this earlier but it went away anyhow my cousin’s broken arm cost $7,200 to reset in less then two hours time i think we need something in this country don’t you?
You should have gone to the Shaman !
“Ronald Reagan’s last minute photo-op grandstanding notwithstanding.”
Without Ronald Reagan, that wall would still stand along with the Communist oppression. Lech Walesa’s bunch would have been rounded up and killed or put in prison. Please spare us the revisionist history.
“Ironically, there are striking parallels between post-reunification Berlin and the current American transition (key word, here, transition,) from corporate oligarchy (the socialized losses and privatized profit system we have today,) to a more democratic redistributive market economy.”
I find it absolutely amazing that people born in this country could not only loath our system of government but also loath our rich history (the good and the bad). Let’s all get behind America’s pending reversal and watch while a virtual Berlin Wall is built around our once great nation. Where in your high brow diatribe do you speak of liberty and personal responsibility? Your ideology is not only extremely naive, it is dangerous.
“…Where in your high brow diatribe do you speak of liberty and personal responsibility?.”
Um, in the part where the pregnant Mrs. Kreosner risks her life and that of her unborn child to crawl through a mined tunnel to freedom?
A mined tunnel needed to escape a centrally planned economy where government sets minimum wages, heavily regulates industry, has strong unions, insures no one goes without healthcare, and has a centrally planned education system. Oh, and elections where all the candidates are essentially the same, with minor (but irrelevant) differences.
Sound familiar?
That was my point, JC.
Except you seem to imply support for the biggest proponents of increasing government encroachment in our lives. Both main political parties are pretty disgusting, but one is quite up front about their desire to regulate everything they can get their hands on.
Walesa had organized Solidarity and reached a legal agreement with the Communist party before Ronald Reagan even took office.
By the time Reagan (who had initially supported leaving the barrier in place,) made his irrelevant photo op at the wall, its destruction was a done deal. The only press that took any notice of this silliness was the American.
Yet Walesa thinks very highly of Reagan…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005204
Well, he couldn’t very well bash him now, could he…
It hasn’t stopped others, has it?
Won’t ever stop me from bashing him. I was 14 when he was inaugurated and the catastrophe began.
Which catastrophe? Now, Reagan may have been too pro-government for my taste, but I seem to recall a serious period of growth during his tenure that was far superior to Carters tenure.
Ahansen - good work and accurate reporting on the facts especially as might be seen outside the American (propoganda) view
agree, I was 32 at the time and everyone knew East Germany was a shell of it’s former self and the Wall was coming down, Reagan standing there saying “tear down this wall” was grandstanding at it’s finest…when I hear all the right wingers claiming Reagan’s speech was the reason the wall came down I laugh myself silly before changing the channel on the morons
Then we have this gem.
“Although it seems counter-intuitive, if we look at the Berlin wall as a metaphor for our national prejudice against collective stewardship (Democratic Socialism) separating the populist democratic West, (the current elected administration,) from the socialized corporatized East, (our failed corporate oligarchy,) the analogy gets interesting, even instructional.”
You are actually comparing the former Soviet Union/Easter Block to our pre Obama system and the Obama administration to those on the West side of the wall. I think I have heard it all now.
PARENT ALERT - This is the type of twisted logic and moral relativism that professors are teaching your children. Be afraid.
No, cashed, I’m comparing the corporate oligarchy that has developed over the last five administrations to the economic structure of the eastern bloc, and the democratic socialism that’s being implemented at the close of the Bush and during this current administration to that of west Germany during the reunification.
PARENT ALERT: Teach your children critical reading skills so they don’t draw erroneous and simplistic conclusions from complex analyses.
“complex analyses”
“As America seeks to reunify its public and private sectors in the coming months and years, let us remember that good ideas require good policy to implement. And that the best laid plans can be readily undone by our own good, if divided, intentions.”
Even my inferior brain can understand that only left wing elitists, marxists, and other anti-capitalists seek to “reunify” the public and private sectors. Please don’t use the words “we”, “our” and “America/Americans”, that assumes we all agree with your “complex analyses”
Sounds a lot like the Fascist model of government unification of corporations under tight government regulations.
Of course, the biggest corporations love and embrace it, because it guarantees that any start ups will have enormous regulatory hurdles to overcome before they can even go into business.
Like ADA compliance, healthcare mandates, OSHA requirements, EPA regs, Cap and trade, Sorbanes-Oxley, and so on. Oh, sounds like we’re well on the way to fascism already!
Socialism - government takes over companies and industries.
Fascism - government regulates industries (for the good of the people) with the “reluctant” cooperation of the large corporations.
Both models stink. Both models squelch innovation and true wealth creation.
Yeah. Right. That’s why the capitalist Soviets kicked our butts on missile technologies, and free-market Asia is two generations ahead of us in IT.
Now you are just talking nonsense.
Thanks, DDX. I shall. In the meantime, you might want to get out a bit more often and see the world through the eyes of those who have not only taken the time to explore it, but have bothered to process those observations into something beyond the level of the average Faux viewer.
Remember how in grade school they had to put the intelligent kids in their own classes to let them excel? Cashedin and about half of the population were the ones that didn’t develop critical skills or the ability to use reason and logic.
But still they grew up and started believing they too had valuable opinions even without having ever put in the time and effort to learn skills. Using your brain is hard and I think that those of us who do it often forget how many people like Cashedin struggle with it.
Is it any wonder they parrot the comments they hear on Fox news and Rush Limbaugh? The seek the simplistic as it makes them feel intelligent and worthy of being involved in the discussion.
And the other retards parrot Oberman and Soros !
Yes it was
“Ronald Reagan’s last minute photo-op grandstanding notwithstanding.”
wall would still stand along with the Communist oppression.
BS
Why did people risk their lives trying to flee the workers’ paradises and utopias of the Communist bloc countries?
Given the global repudiation of Communism and even socialism (China is no longer socialist, Cuba is starting to allow a bit of capitalism), why is The One trying to foist it on us?
People like Bad Andy need to do themselves a favor and get out of the US once in a while. No matter what metric you choose to use, US healthcare is, by industrialised country’s standards, mediocre.
To me, the whole debate on healthcare comes down to this;
We are paying BMW prices and receiving Chevy healthcare.
In other words we are being ripped off.
If you removed the health insurance industry, we wouldn’t get the BMW, but definitely an upgrade from said Chevy. Like maybe an Infiniti.
The point is, I might be comfortable with the Chevy healthplan. But in that case I should pay Chevy premiums.
The insurance companies should stay OUT.
I’ve spent much time abroad. I don’t think you could point me to a perfect healthcare system.
We’re not seeking perfection. We just don’t want the world’s most expensive health care system, that still leaves many uncovered and bankrupts even the covered.
ahansen
I worked for five years in the Treuhand: liquidation department. Goldman was there too, along with every consultant, bank, advisor, scammer. The one deal I worked with Goldman on was “Romonta”. The buyers who Goldman recommended and screened, later swindeled some European banks out of several hundred million DM. It was bigger than Enron at the time.
During my time at the Treuhand, one director fled a criminal investigation to Switzerland. Another director started giving out millions of contracts to himself and his friends because there were “no internal rules against self dealing”.
The corruption within Germany reached all the way to the top in Germany, even senior members of Kohls’ and Mitterand’s governments were later implicated. When a whole country goes bankrupty, the target it too tempting to resist.
Most of your write-up is suprisingly accurate about some of the more subtle facts about the German economy. I won’t quibble with you about the occassional detail here and there. You have to be careful about making comparisons with the US situation. 50 years of communisum isn’t what we’ve been through. The situation is more of, no one will deny themselves anything and the sense of common good is greatly as risk as government spending explodes trying to bring back the unsustainable hyperconsumer economy.
The US situation won’t end as badly as the former Comcon/USSR states, but at some point many will suffer much more than today.
As far as Reagan’s role, I’ve since heard many opinions during my five years in Moscow and five years in Berlin. A Russian lawyer friend told me ” We knew it was all over before Reagan was elected” i.e. the Politburo was just trying to use that as a a rallying cry.
In Germany itself, I was often suprised by how often more credit is given to Reagan. The logic being a threat of a massive defense build up really did drive up the cost of being a superpower for the USSR. When Reagan gave the speech in 87, it wasn’t at all clear how the cold war would end.
One thing which won’t come out in the Media is the role Gorbachev played during the massakar in Baku. That’s where I am now, if your curious, look up January 20th. This was only two months after the wall came down and the very ugly face of the USSR was still apparant.
Dear Derek,
THIS IS WONDERFUL STUFF! Thank you so much for posting and adding it to our collective data base. Although all this happened only a generation ago, we’ve already forgotten so many of the lessons it held, and American media is becoming more and more insular in spite of our “information revolution”.
Firsthand information of this caliber is just one more reason why I Love. This. Blog.
Everyone: Please send Ben some money. PayPal button. Top right of the page.
We were paying Gorby over $1 million per year.
Spokaneman,
I am a physician, and I totally disagree about the notion that frivolous lawsuits account for 2-3% of total costs. I have not seen one credible study that verifies your claim. I know the 2-3% claim is widely bandied about by insiders in the industry, but ask physicians and they will tell you it is closer to 10-15%.
You speak of healthcare costs having increased way beyond inflation. Again I believe your(and others) argument is flawed. You cannot extrapolate healthcare costs from eg. the 70’s and compare them with today’s costs. In the 70’s a pt having an appendectomy would have had open surgery and required 2 weeks of hospitalization. Today the pt. has laparoscopic surgery and goes home the nexy day. But yet economists will point out that in 1970 an appendectomy cost $500, while in 2009 it costs $5000, and therefore healthcare costs have risen by 1000%. Working out inflation costs only works with products that remain static, like a gallon of gas or loaf of bread.
Hello All,
“No one in Canada faces financial ruin due to serious illness or accident.”
That is the most important part, IMHO. You can go from being “stable” to bankruptcy in a couple of days in this “insurance roulette”. I also find it unbelievable that they can drop your health insurance if you become sick.
Reminds me of the old Benson episode, where Benson asks the car insurance representative “You denied this man’s claim now that he had an accident. What was he paying for in the last 20 years?” and the insurance guys replies “For the peace of mind, of course!”
Anecdotally, I also consider myself an ‘average Canadian” and all the medical services I ever needed for me or the family were timely, professional and free.
Housing, on the other hand….. LOL
Best regards
arit from the “Iron Bubble” Vancouver
“Although it seems counter-intuitive, if we look at the Berlin wall as a metaphor for our national prejudice against collective stewardship (Democratic Socialism) separating the populist democratic West, (the current elected administration,) from the socialized corporatized East, (our failed corporate oligarchy,) the analogy gets interesting, even instructional.”
I am sorry, but I call BS on this one.
This may be your personal and fervent hope, but it is not what I see. What we had was dishonest elitist bleeding of the common man and creeping totalitarian removal of personal freedoms. We aren’t in a transition FROM that.
Yet.
Not a “hope,” certainly, just an observation to perhaps shake folks from some of their preconceptions and knee-jerk reaction to certain political buzz-words. Not everyone sees global historic events in the same light. That’s why I said “interesting” and “even instructional.”
It’s something to do on a late-autumn Tuesday afternoon.
Respectfully, I take the time to read your posts carefully. I consider the meaning of words cautiously. I grew up in a house where Webster’s Unabridged was kept in the dining room for reference in after dinner discussion.
Claiming that my notions are preconceived, that my reactions are knee jerk and that my vocabulary is politically populated does not make me take the conversation seriously. If not aimed at me, then you mock everyone reading your post.
The back of corporate oligarchy has not been broken. The current administration has not shown me anything to doubt that it is a continuation of the corrupt elitist puppetry in Congress and the White House. Things are not progressing slowly, they are deteriorating. This is not the patient disappointment in the pace of progress, this is the shock of being robbed and left in the gutter by a seductress. JMO.
I was not referring to you personally, Skye, nor did I have anyone in mind here as I didn’t read who posted the comment. (And I include myself in my assessments, btw.) Out of respect, however, I try not to refer to people’s obviously considered opinions as “BS.”
My aim in these guest blogs is to present a different way to look at the same set of circumstances, and maybe learn something in the process. If I mean for someone to take offense, I tend to make that pretty clear….
Having held (and resigned,) elected office I can attest that the legislative process is so contrived and so ponderous as to be mostly ineffectual—and tedious beyond human endurance. I believe this is yet another affirmation of the collective genius of our Founding Fathers. Death by Committee. I’ll wait until 2012 to make my assessment.
Our town has a population of 35k. It has no
real industry since the logging stopped, and
it likes to think of itself as a tourist spot.
Having worked on several committees and
fought the city on numerous occasions, I can
say with total honesty that I have never
seen such large scale corruption anywhere
like this, but then I live here, not there..
yes ahansen, you have me on that one. Impolite of me.
Just out of curiosity, Blue Skye, exactly what personal freedoms have been removed recently? I see an overall expansion of personal freedoms, held back only by ‘conservatives’ (like yourself?), in areas like gay marriage and legalization of marijuana.
Well Alpha I’m not sure what you’re after. Cause I snapped onthe Berlin Wall thing and was rude to ahansen you think I am a gay basher? That’s kind of a stretch.
Gay marriage? Hell, these days I’m opposed to marriage in general! For me only. Others should be able to do as they please. Practically everybody that is welcome at my table is deluded somehow in my view, yet we get along. That makes me liberal in the sense that I understand it.
As for personal liberties, they passed a law here that I can’t have a campfire anymore. A freaking campfirre! What’s this old scout going to do with a flashlight (LED) and marshmellows?
Overall, I am impressed by the growth of government obligation. This reduces personal freedom in a broad but heavy way.
I didn’t call you a gay basher, I merely asked for specific personal freedoms that had been removed. You gave me campfires. Well…
And I was pointing out that most expansions of personal freedoms are being opposed by ‘conservatives’ at the moment, and you strike me as a conservative poster. So I perceived a little contradiction. Perhaps I was wrong in my impressions, but I phrased my post as a question, not an accusation.
OK, but I find it difficult to answer your question about being a conservative, especially if that is a base to predict my thoughts on specific points or running with a crowd. I’d rather be an idealist, albiet a confused one.
I have a long list of seemingly miniscule erosions of personal freedoms which I am sure would not impress. In general I have a LOT of personal freedom, I just don’t like erosion.
The big thing is the alarming pace of government spending over private spending. When the government takes the money and decides how “we” will spend it that translates into loss of freedom. Especially when it is borrowed money.
Exactly. We are actually getting worse. Government subsidies of a failed auto industry is not fixing any problems. It’s hiding them with bandaids. Same with banking subsidies. Which we were told were needed to save the world, like a D-movie plot.
You look at who was instrumental in setting up the current financial problem systems (FNMA etc), it was more Demo than Repugnants involved, yet we trust THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE TO FIX IT? Give me a break!
Notice the Goldman Sachs alumni are firmly embedded no matter which political party is in control? Yet the voters thought there was a real difference between the parties. What a joke played on our electorate.
Good ideas on reining in Megabank, Inc’s bailmail threat:
Downsizing
Economist Henry Kaufman, a former Salomon Brothers executive who was on the board of Lehman Brothers /quotes/comstock/11i!lehmq (LEHMQ 0.11, 0.00, -3.64%) , favors downsizing institutions so that if they fail, they won’t threaten the financial system.
In 1990, the ten largest U.S. financial institutions held about 10% of the country’s financial assets. Last year, they held over 60% and the 20 largest probably held at least 80% of financial assets in the nation, Kaufman estimates.
This “financial concentration” gained momentum after Glass-Steagall was repealed and it accelerated again in the past year as the government bailed out the largest institutions, he explained.
“At a minimum, we should have financial public utilities,” he said in an interview. “Preferably we should have institutions that are small enough so that when they fail, they just fail.”
Cap on assets
Simon Johnson, an MIT professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, reckons there should be caps of roughly $100 billion on the assets of financial institutions and “serious criminal consequences” if firms are caught trying to get around such limits.
That would leave the industry with more, smaller firms with different specialties. But it wouldn’t necessarily reduce profitability, he said.
Goldman had almost $900 billion in assets at the end of September. Just over a decade earlier, the firm had a little more than $200 billion in assets, but was still very successful, Johnson explained.
Lehman grew at a similar pace. In late 1998, the firm had $191 billion in assets and by May 30, 2008, a few months before it collapsed, assets stood at $640 billion.
“The lesson of Lehman should not be that the government should have prevented its failure,” David Einhorn, head of hedge fund Greenlight Capital, said in a recent speech. “The lesson of Lehman should be that Lehman should not have existed at a scale that allowed it to jeopardize the financial system.”
The same logic applies to AIG, Fannie Mae (FNM 1.02, -0.03, -2.86%) , Freddie Mac (FRE 1.19, -0.03, -2.46%) , Bear Stearns, Citigroup and “a couple of dozen others,” he added.
They are profitable enough. I mean, who gives a flying rodent’s posterior if they are profitable? They don’t actually produce anything useful anyway.
Step aside Eddie, we’ve got a new master logician.
Snort.
I find these comment on the HBB so refreshing for there candor and rational statement of facts. You blend this with you guys honest perception on the Health care debate and how you think it will affect you makes for great reading. I go to some site and the comments are like listening to grade school kids hurdling slur and racial epithet as if they where facts. That bigotry and ignorance is becoming the norm in America and a person with education and thoughtful reasoning are called elitist, is so very sad. Why does the empty wagon make the most noise and attract the greatest attention.
Well because the semi hits the big pothole at the end of the exit ramp at 60 mph at 3am and it’s back door is unlocked……and the huge thud reverberates and shakes the picture window.
Ahhh the joys of living in the beeg apple
Why does the empty wagon make the most noise and attract the greatest attention.
I was so hoping you were going somewhere with that, dj….
Most poetic.
Nikita Khrushchev’s infamous “We will bury you” had turned out to be bluster after all!
America’s march to socialism continues apace, led by a leader with his own cult of personality, while PRAVDA has become a more reputable news source than the NYT or Washington Post.
The world has indeed turned upside down.
Instead of the one-regulator proposal, how about if all the current regulators stay in place, and the most-aggressive of these has the binding effect on Megabank gambling activities? Why go with a lone wolf hound when you have an entire pack available to hunt down the Wall Street wolves?
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Q&A: Proposed regulatory shake-up - Nov-10
Senator plans radical reform for US banks - Nov-10
Money Supply blog: A single US regulator - Nov-10
Economists’ Forum - Nov-10
Interactive feature: Financial regulation reform - Jul-30
Dodd plans self-funding of SEC through fees - Nov-10
The Financial Times
Banks bill seeks to strip Fed of powers
By Tom Braithwaite and Sarah O’Connor in Washington
Published: November 10 2009 17:10 | Last updated: November 10 2009 17:33
An influential US Senate committee has proposed a sweeping overhaul of the country’s regulatory architecture that would strip powers from the Federal Reserve and create a single banking regulator.
Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, on Tuesday presented a more radical vision of regulatory reform than that proposed by the Obama administration . The move ushered into the open a behind-the-scenes struggle between banks, policymakers and regulators.
Democrats lined up behind Mr Dodd as he presented the bill. But senior Republicans were missing from a press conference despite attempts by President Barack Obama to secure their support for one of his most important legislative goals.
The proposal to consolidate regulators faces strident opposition from the Fed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and smaller regulators who argue they are best placed to supervise banks.
Mr Dodd said most institutions should benefit from a regulator that would provide “clarity, cut red tape and make it easier to compete” but banks would “no longer be able to shop for the weakest regulator”.
…
What on Gawd’s earth is it that this firm produces?
Let me guess: (Puts hand to forehead and tightly closes eyes…DRUMROLL, PLEASE)
Financial disasters????
The Financial Times
Goldman chief defends employees’ pay
By Greg Farrell in New York
Published: November 10 2009 20:21 | Last updated: November 10 2009 21:52
Goldman Sachs pays its employees more than other financial groups because its employees are more productive, declared Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman chief executive, at an industry conference on Tuesday.
Mr Blankfein offered a wide-ranging defence of his company on Tuesday to an audience of banking analysts at a conference sponsored by Bank of America. His comments came as public debate continues over Goldman’s power and bonuses, prompting the comedy programme Saturday Night Live to ask the bank: “Can you not read how mad people are at you?”.
“I often hear references to higher compensation at Goldman,” said Mr Blankfein. “What people fail to mention is that net income generated per head is a multiple of our peer average. The people of Goldman Sachs are among the most productive in the world.”
…
They produce **profits** for Goldman Sachs. That’s what they produce!
Exactly. They “produce” nothing that actually has physical reality, instead they shuffle fake money in digital format around between parties. Taking a cut off each transaction.
They are parasites, who are killing their host. They are currently keeping the host alive a little longer through government drug injections, so they can suck a little more blood out.
217,000 out of 4,000,000 = 5 percent FB-bailout rate so far?
* The Wall Street Journal
* NOVEMBER 11, 2009
Mortgage Program Gathers Steam After Slow Start
By RUTH SIMON
The Obama administration said Tuesday that its mortgage-modification program has enrolled one in five eligible homeowners, a sign the effort is gathering momentum after a slow start. But so far few of those trial modifications are turning into permanent fixes.
The Making Home Affordable program has begun trial modifications for more than 650,000 borrowers since it was launched in February, according to data released Tuesday by the Treasury Department. That amounts to 20% of those eligible for the program. More than 217,000 trial modifications, or roughly one-third, were under way in just two states: California and Florida.
The program provides financial incentives to mortgage companies and investors to reduce loan payments to affordable levels. The Treasury Department said the program was on track to meet its goal of offering help to between 3 million and 4 million borrowers over the next several years. Those who are 60 days or more delinquent on their mortgages or at risk of imminent default are eligible.
Whether the program will ultimately be judged a success will depend upon how many trial modifications become permanent. To receive a permanent fix, borrowers must be current on their payments in the trial program after three months and submit a hardship affidavit and other documents.
The administration won’t release figures on completed modifications until December, but so far it appears that very few trial modifications are becoming permanent, often because of a lack of documentation.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said last week that more than 92,000 of its customers have made at least three trial payments under the program, but just 26% of them had submitted all the required documents for a permanent fix. Many other borrowers are still in the early stages of the program.
“It’s a fiasco in the making,” said Alan White, an assistant professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana, citing preliminary information about low numbers of permanent modifications and complaints from attorneys and housing counselors.
…
* The Wall Street Journal
* OPINION
* NOVEMBER 10, 2009, 7:02 P.M. ET
The Real Threat to Fed Independence
Unless we shrink large financial conglomerates, we will end up with a socialized banking system.
What he says…
“Today, with interest rates near zero and the stock market booming, increased political pressure will be put on the Fed when it begins to shift away from its current posture of quantitative easing. What will most inspire a shift toward tightening? The inflation rate? Better employment numbers or a housing recovery? That’s hard to say.
Even harder to say is how the Fed will deal with the speculative fervor now fomenting in the financial markets, i.e., the increase in the carry trade (borrowing dollars to buy assets) and the run-up of many stock and commodity prices. Will the Fed ignore these developments and wait until the economy gains full traction to raise rates?
The current economic situation suggests continued substantial monetary ease, but developments in the financial markets do not.
Closely related to the this conundrum is another one: How will the Fed reduce its bloated balance sheet—which has reached $2.2 trillion, compared with $919 billion in mid 2008? Fed holdings now include more than $1 trillion of obligations involving largely longer-dated mortgage-related securities.
The Fed’s unwinding of non-U.S.-government obligations will be monitored carefully by the market. But the disposition of these obligations is very sensitive politically. Many of these securities are mortgage-related. Their liquidation will put upward pressure on interest rates, which will not be welcomed by Washington, and even less by the housing industry. The Fed’s holdings of mortgage-related securities dominate some sectors of this market.
Moreover, the central bank has announced that its mortgage-related purchases probably will end next March. The Fed might attempt to mitigate the impact of this change on financial markets by purchasing U.S. government bonds of comparable maturity. But to neutralize pressure on the mortgage market, these purchases might well need to be considerably larger than the size of the mortgage liquidation.
From my perspective, the most important issue confronting the Fed will be its proposals for reforming our financial system, especially the question of what should be done with institutions that are deemed “too big to fail.” It is clear from the last few years that these large financial conglomerates have not been an anchor of stability. To the contrary. All of these institutions—including Citigroup and even J.P. Morgan Chase—would have failed if the federal government had not provided enormous amounts for direct and indirect support in key markets.
From what I could gather from a speech given by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke at a conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston a few weeks ago, the Fed favors constraining giant institutions to the point where they would become, in effect, financial public utilities. They might be required to increase equity capital and to limit their activities in proprietary trading and other risky activities.
But under this arrangement, these large institutions nevertheless would still command a vast amount of private-sector credit. And when markets became unstable in the future, other financial institutions would merge in order to come under the government’s protective too-big-to-fail umbrella.
If an overwhelming proportion of our financial institutions are deemed too big to fail, monetary restraint would fall heavily on institutions that are not. Pressure would sharply intensify on smaller institutions that mainly service local communities. Further consolidation would result, which in turn would reduce credit-market competition. At the same time, with increasing financial concentration, market volatility would increase.”
…
Professor Bear notes that the Fed’s current position reminds him of a raccoon hanging on for dear life high up in a tree with a large pack of coon hounds baying like crazy down below…