Tuesday, October 27, 2009

billionaires for wealthcare presents.....

19 comments:

ChargingKing said...

Can't wait till this public option gets shredded! Democrats can't even agree on it!

dp said...

For whatever it's worth:

Since you are a public school teacher I assume you are a member of a public employee's union of some sort (perhaps the NEA or the ATF) and as such I further assume you've got quite a good benefits package (paid for on the taxpayer's dime, but that's another matter). IF these assumptions are correct then you do realize, don't you, that your healthcare coverage will become considerably worse under any of the national health care plans being proposed. It's got nowhere to go but down, and likely a lot further down than you imagine.
Add to this the fact that (I assume from your posted photos of yourself) you're somewhere in your mid thirties so in just a few years time you can start to expect for things to start to go wrong, healthwise (happens to most of us in our 40's).
Just some food for thought.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

I don't think my healthcare will get worse. I know my employer (and therefore also me) is being overcharged for my health plan-- it costs the city around $14,000/year and I go for a checkup once a year. I believe a public option will reduce those costs.

Even if it would cause a decline in service, I am willing to sacrifice part of my standard of living to increase the general welfare and to live in a more compassionate society.

Anonymous said...

Stick to chess. there's nothing "compassionate" about government force, redistributing wealth based on emotional beliefs and magical thinking. Medical care is a commodity like any other; to pretend or wish it wasn't, that the laws of economics won't apply when you subsidize a good, is foolish. Stick to chess.

Jay said...

Anonymous 10:44AM :

Despite trying to sound authoritative, you're really not making any argument whatsoever.

The US ranks far, far behind many countries (e.g. most Scandinavian countries) in terms of health care quality & availability. Many of those countries that rank better than the US employ models that would fall under what you call "redistribution of wealth". Go figure.

It's a sad state of affairs if the most powerful economy in the world has health care standards that are surpassed by dozens of other countries.

Anonymous said...

Jay,

How do your wonderful studies wish away the longer times for care found in Canada and Britain? Where people need to pay for private care in addition to the "compassionate" socialized care that ensures everyone is equal by providing subpar services. Which should not surprise anyone who knows what happens when price is manipulated away from supply/demand concerns. When the price drops (from the perspective of the customer) because it's being subsidized, demand increases (go to doctor for free visit because my nose is dripping), and you get shortages (which translates to longer waiting times and poor availability of specialized equipment). It's common sense, and it happens anywhere you force the productive to pay for the care of everyone.
Scandinavia is a funny example, since it's a fairly homogeneous population of limited size. Transplant Detroit to Norway and see what happens.
Also, find where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to socialize medical care. Hint, it's not in the 9th or 10th amendments, and since health was an issue back in 1770s (people died!), it's not like the founders forgot about it.

Be compassionate with your own money. And allow others the freedom to make their own choices with the money they earn.

ChargingKing said...

Even thought this claims to be a chess blog it seems like its more a place to push partisan political dogmas.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

that's why it's called lizzy knows all. :)

Anonymous said...

"How do your wonderful studies wish away the longer times for care found in Canada and Britain?"

If you can't afford a medical procedure, the wait time is pretty damn long.

"Where people need to pay for private care in addition to the "compassionate" socialized care that ensures everyone is equal by providing subpar services."

You mean people might have to pay their own money for emdical services? That's so completely different from the way it is now!

"When the price drops (from the perspective of the customer) because it's being subsidized, demand increases (go to doctor for free visit because my nose is dripping)" ...

I'm going for a colonoscopy today! Just for fun! Who's with me!

"It's common sense, and it happens anywhere you force the productive to pay for the care of everyone."

Except for Scandinavia, and England, and Canada, and everywhere.

"Scandinavia is a funny example, since it's a fairly homogeneous population of limited size. Transplant Detroit to Norway and see what happens."

I really hate it when people fly off the handle and accuse people of racism for no reason. The only thing I hate worse is completely blatant and transparent racism, which this is.

"Be compassionate with your own money. And allow others the freedom to make their own choices with the money they earn."

Have the compassion to allow people the choice to either get their cancer treated or to send their kids to college. It's pure cruelty to allow them to do both.


Rick Massimo

ben daswani said...

as a canadian, i can assure you all that socialised healthcare is horrid bullshit.

example: in canada, if you have strep throat, you can go to the doctor for FREE (!) and have him/her tell you what you already know. but if you want the appropriate antibiotics, you have to pay......

dp said...

There are essentially three issues in healthcare:

1.) Providing universal coverage.
2.) Keeping costs manageable.
3.) Providing top quality medical treatment.

You can have any 2 of the 3.

We can argue as to which 2 of the 3 are most important but those (like, apparently, our host) who believe that under Obamacare things will be exactly like they are now (or even lower in terms of cost) only everyone will be covered simply don't understand basic economics.

Elizabeth Vicary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elizabeth Vicary said...

You can't just say "This is my opinion. Anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand (insert topic of discussion)."

Or at least, it doesn't qualify as "making a logical argument."

Anonymous said...

The government should just give everyone 10 millions dollars. That will solve everything!

Anonymous said...

"There are essentially three issues in healthcare:

1.) Providing universal coverage.
2.) Keeping costs manageable.
3.) Providing top quality medical treatment.

You can have any 2 of the 3."

I pick Nos. 1 and 3, since "unmanageable costs" is code for "OMG if my taxes go back to what they were in 1999, I might have to wait another year or so before I buy that fourth house or that third Lamborghini."

Seriously, the western European countries provide universal health care for about 60% of what we pay per capita. Nothing unmanageable about that.

Rick Massimo

dp said...

Rick, Europe (and Canada) do this by rationing care (very long waits for treatments, some conditions not treated at all). So in other words they choose options 1 and 2 and forgoing # 3.

Elizabeth: allow me to rephrase: anyone who believes you can have all 3 believes in the principal that you can get something for nothing. For example, you can not cover 40 million plus people not currently covered at no additional cost without drastically reducing services. Likewise you can not cover 40 million plus people not currently covered and maintain the current level of coverage (for the people who currently have coverage but now expanding that coverage to everyone) without the costs spiraling out of control. Is this close enough to being a logical argument to pass muster?

dp said...

Sorry. Meant to type "principle", not "principal".

anjiaoshi said...

Rick, Europe (and Canada) do this by rationing care (very long waits for treatments, some conditions not treated at all).

Hey, guess what? That's what private insurance does right now in the United States. And we pay twice as much for it.

Why do so many people have such a mental block against recognizing that the single largest chunk of waste in U.S. health care spending is made up of insurance company profits and executive salaries?

We already waste money.
We already ration.
We already limit choice.
We already interfere with doctor-patient decision-making.
We already write people off as not worth saving.

How, seriously, do you imagine that "Obamacare"* could make things any worse than they are now?


* You may not be aware of it, but using this term marks you as a Foxbot and prompts people to write you off as beyond reasonable discussion. Consider your audience when choosing your words.

Ben said...

Your blog is so great Liz.

Obviously everyone should have health care. Conservatives fight tooth and nail over people's rights. People's health and lives are so much more important than money.

With Obama as president, maybe things will FINALLY get reasonable for people who are less fortunate.

BPF