my life is a war with the world and hopeless optimists
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
is this a model even Libertarians could embrace?
We all need healthcare, government's not helping, insurance companies aren't helping, so what about the the Democratic Party? Or any party, really, as the post suggests. Politics has made stranger bedfellows.
I would be for any private, non-profit solution. But the real reason healthcare is so expensive is due to regulations that add nothing to the process, but allow the government to control the system.
Insurance companies have to comply with arbitrary rules, and cannot just offer policies targeted to personal needs, so I have a feeling that it could not be done.
The reason health care is so expensive, is that that is what the market will bear. This is why unrestricted free market economics will never manage to provide for people in a morally consistent way.
The concept of operating a not-for-profit health care system has merit. And so I ask you, what is the largest not-for-profit organization in existence today? The government. Not a perfect solution, just fuel for the argument.
The market is not able to bear it, that is why this is a major issue for employers.
And the healthcare industry is one of the most regulated of all industrys, not the least.
You seem to intertwine the idea of free markets with what you believe are examples of free markets operating in this country today. There are no legal free markets ming operating in this country, and deregulation is not truly deregulation, but a modified form of market control.
I agree that the idea of operating a not-for-profit or non-profit insurance company has great merit, but I know it would fall short of your expectations, and fail if it were run be the Republicrats.
If they could make a healthcare system work well, why haven't they made any of the numerous government program run well?
Can you name one thing that government does more cost effectively and effciently than the private sector does?
I took some more time to think about your last comment, and the statement that really bothers me is "in a morally consistent way"
Who's idea of morality? The Fundalmentalist Christians? The Talibans? The Klu Klux Klans? How about NAMBLA as a model for morality?
Invoking the morality argument is a very dangerous one.
The Fundalmentalists would argue that birth control, abortion, prayer in the schooler are all morally consistent.
If you want to protect your rights, you must be consistant, and if you let morality be the basis for doing something, then you have to define who's morality we wish to use as the touchstone.
Many things would be nice in a perfect world, but we never have had and never will have perfection. What we should be working towards is making the world better, and this can only be done if individual rights are vigorously defended, all rights not just the ones that are easy to stomach.
The market is able to bear it, or all the insurance companies would be out of business. Healthcare doesn't have to be affordable for everyone to be part of a market economy. I can't afford a Bentley either, but that doesn't mean "the market can't bear" the cost of one.
My point is that the closer we get to a free market in this country, the worse off the people who are already poor are, and the better off the people who are already rich are. Taken to its logical extreme, a totally free market will always result in this hyper-stratification of society.
As for things that the government does better than private enterprise, there are plenty (for one, law enforcement). Not only that, there are things which the governement can do that private industry could never do. Two examples: the interstate highway system and the Internet. Both of which I am sure I would miss, and I assume you would, too. In fact, the creation of those two systems by the government allowed many businesses to flourish. A free market by itself would never have created a Henry Ford or a Bill Gates.
As for morality, I do believe that you can make moral choices and judgements without having to cede authority to wackos like the funamentalist right. I said in one of my first posts here after the election that I would not grant those people the deed to the moral high ground, they don't deserve it. I can say, and mean it, having arrived at the statement in a rational way, that NAMBLA is not moral, Bob Jones is not moral, GWB is not moral. Slavery wasn't moral either, and a lot of people claimed it was. Does that mean I have to give the pro-slavery arguments equal moral weight, hell no!
Calm down fighter, you know I have a lot of respect for you and your ideas. All that I was trying to show you is, who's idea of morality shall we follow? Morality, like something because of National Security is a shield that has been used time and time again, and We the People always seem to come out on the short end of it.
You however, are wrong what you say we are getting closer to a free market based economy in this country.
We are moving further and further away from it.
Deregulation is a game they play against us. Deregulation of an industry does not mean that it is operating in a free market, all it means is that one or more of the player in that market have found a way to take advantage of their competitor using the government force.
Let's take a look at NAFTA. NAFTA was called a free trade agreement, so then why does it take 10,000 pages to explain free trade? I can explain free trade in one paragraph.
Please do not believe what I say, sit down with it and read the original agreement, you will be amazed at all the protectionist crap in it, and guess what? It is all for corporations deeply involved in politics.
Clearly, I can only argue for the form of morality which I think makes the most sense, a secular, rational, humanist morality. Luckily for me it happens to be the form of morality which the founders of this country subscribed to and which they incorporated into the Constitution. Unluckily for me, and everyone else on the planet, it also happens to be the most maligned and ostracized form of morality at play in the U.S. today. I try not to be too strident about this, but the fear triggers the adrenaline which runs right to my fingers on the keyboard. :)
The path by which we are approaching a freeer market in the U.S. is not without it's hairpin turns and switchbacks. That said, there is serious deregulation which has taken place, like in the airline industry, the telecommunications industry (including the media), and the banking industry. And I think that so called "tort reform" is a backdoor to achieving the effects of dergulation in the healthcare industry by limiting the consumer's recourse to regulations, such as those about malpractice.
But deregulation is not a move to free market economies, it is a move to protect certain companies, or sectors FROM having to operate in a free market.
In a truly free market our ability to redress greivences could not be taken away. '
You mentioned banks and telecommunications, can you start a bank, how about a telecom company?
Who controls both these industries? The government, and who controls the government? Certainly not We the People, but the banks and the telecoms.
Are you seeing a pattern develop?
As for what you call morality, it is really not morality, but a steadfast respect for basic individual rights.
And remember that as hard as some try to change it, words do have meaning.
BTW have you seen "The Philosophy Of Liberty" flash I have on my blog? I wanted your take on it.
9 comments:
I would be for any private, non-profit solution. But the real reason healthcare is so expensive is due to regulations that add nothing to the process, but allow the government to control the system.
Insurance companies have to comply with arbitrary rules, and cannot just offer policies targeted to personal needs, so I have a feeling that it could not be done.
The reason health care is so expensive, is that that is what the market will bear. This is why unrestricted free market economics will never manage to provide for people in a morally consistent way.
The concept of operating a not-for-profit health care system has merit. And so I ask you, what is the largest not-for-profit organization in existence today? The government. Not a perfect solution, just fuel for the argument.
The market is not able to bear it, that is why this is a major issue for employers.
And the healthcare industry is one of the most regulated of all industrys, not the least.
You seem to intertwine the idea of free markets with what you believe are examples of free markets operating in this country today. There are no legal free markets ming operating in this country, and deregulation is not truly deregulation, but a modified form of market control.
I agree that the idea of operating a not-for-profit or non-profit insurance company has great merit, but I know it would fall short of your expectations, and fail if it were run be the Republicrats.
If they could make a healthcare system work well, why haven't they made any of the numerous government program run well?
Can you name one thing that government does more cost effectively and effciently than the private sector does?
I took some more time to think about your last comment, and the statement that really bothers me is "in a morally consistent way"
Who's idea of morality?
The Fundalmentalist Christians?
The Talibans?
The Klu Klux Klans?
How about NAMBLA as a model for morality?
Invoking the morality argument is a very dangerous one.
The Fundalmentalists would argue that birth control, abortion, prayer in the schooler are all morally consistent.
If you want to protect your rights, you must be consistant, and if you let morality be the basis for doing something, then you have to define who's morality we wish to use as the touchstone.
Many things would be nice in a perfect world, but we never have had and never will have perfection. What we should be working towards is making the world better, and this can only be done if individual rights are vigorously defended, all rights not just the ones that are easy to stomach.
The market is able to bear it, or all the insurance companies would be out of business. Healthcare doesn't have to be affordable for everyone to be part of a market economy. I can't afford a Bentley either, but that doesn't mean "the market can't bear" the cost of one.
My point is that the closer we get to a free market in this country, the worse off the people who are already poor are, and the better off the people who are already rich are. Taken to its logical extreme, a totally free market will always result in this hyper-stratification of society.
As for things that the government does better than private enterprise, there are plenty (for one, law enforcement). Not only that, there are things which the governement can do that private industry could never do. Two examples: the interstate highway system and the Internet. Both of which I am sure I would miss, and I assume you would, too. In fact, the creation of those two systems by the government allowed many businesses to flourish. A free market by itself would never have created a Henry Ford or a Bill Gates.
As for morality, I do believe that you can make moral choices and judgements without having to cede authority to wackos like the funamentalist right. I said in one of my first posts here after the election that I would not grant those people the deed to the moral high ground, they don't deserve it. I can say, and mean it, having arrived at the statement in a rational way, that NAMBLA is not moral, Bob Jones is not moral, GWB is not moral. Slavery wasn't moral either, and a lot of people claimed it was. Does that mean I have to give the pro-slavery arguments equal moral weight, hell no!
Calm down fighter, you know I have a lot of respect for you and your ideas. All that I was trying to show you is, who's idea of morality shall we follow? Morality, like something because of National Security is a shield that has been used time and time again, and We the People always seem to come out on the short end of it.
You however, are wrong what you say we are getting closer to a free market based economy in this country.
We are moving further and further away from it.
Deregulation is a game they play against us. Deregulation of an industry does not mean that it is operating in a free market, all it means is that one or more of the player in that market have found a way to take advantage of their competitor using the government force.
Let's take a look at NAFTA. NAFTA was called a free trade agreement, so then why does it take 10,000 pages to explain free trade? I can explain free trade in one paragraph.
Please do not believe what I say, sit down with it and read the original agreement, you will be amazed at all the protectionist crap in it, and guess what? It is all for corporations deeply involved in politics.
Stay cool.
Clearly, I can only argue for the form of morality which I think makes the most sense, a secular, rational, humanist morality. Luckily for me it happens to be the form of morality which the founders of this country subscribed to and which they incorporated into the Constitution. Unluckily for me, and everyone else on the planet, it also happens to be the most maligned and ostracized form of morality at play in the U.S. today. I try not to be too strident about this, but the fear triggers the adrenaline which runs right to my fingers on the keyboard. :)
The path by which we are approaching a freeer market in the U.S. is not without it's hairpin turns and switchbacks. That said, there is serious deregulation which has taken place, like in the airline industry, the telecommunications industry (including the media), and the banking industry. And I think that so called "tort reform" is a backdoor to achieving the effects of dergulation in the healthcare industry by limiting the consumer's recourse to regulations, such as those about malpractice.
But deregulation is not a move to free market economies, it is a move to protect certain companies, or sectors FROM having to operate in a free market.
In a truly free market our ability to redress greivences could not be taken away. '
You mentioned banks and telecommunications, can you start a bank, how about a telecom company?
Who controls both these industries? The government, and who controls the government? Certainly not We the People, but the banks and the telecoms.
Are you seeing a pattern develop?
As for what you call morality, it is really not morality, but a steadfast respect for basic individual rights.
And remember that as hard as some try to change it, words do have meaning.
BTW have you seen "The Philosophy Of Liberty" flash I have on my blog? I wanted your take on it.
Thanks
"A steadfast respect for basic individual rights," is a part of morality. It's just not the full extent of morality.
Post a Comment