Health Care Spending

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Dan M wrote: > How did you get > 1.2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid? I meant to write that Medicare and Medicaid _and other government-related health care spending_ make up more than half. The biggest additional component is the tax subsidy the government pro

Re: WeChooseTheMoon

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, > but corporate interference in markets is good? Corporations do not have the power to compel people at gunpoint to do as they say. Government lawmakers do. That is a huge differenc

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > The fundamental truth behind that writing is conveniently ignored by > champions of "liberty" who insist that "freedom" frees them from a > community's obligation to organize itself to care for those in need. > > It is a strange sort of liberat

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Dan M wrote: > Agreed.  But, where he and I agree and where a John would disagree is that a > free market can be shaped by the laws within which it resides.  For example, > if you required insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, you > would get rid

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:49 AM, John Williams wrote: > > And I resent the government forcing me to spend much of my surplus > income on people like the 87-year-old so that I have much less to help > people like the child born in Niger. I believe history has clearly show the foolhardiness of tru

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Dan M wrote: > If someone pays for full ticket family health insurance with COBRA, the > price is about $12k/hear. If someone wants to buy insurance, there are a > number of possibilities. First, they can be a young person or a young > family with no history of

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

>From past behavior, it does not seem wise to expect politicians to be unselfish and to make altruistic decisions to help people. Indeed, the dramatic failure of large centrally planned economies has demonstrated that it is not wise to even expect politicians to know how to keep mundane things in a

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM, John Williams wrote: > > It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to behave as > one thinks they should behave is to coerce them at gunpoint There are people with guns showing up to demand that you pay your taxes? That suggests to me that you've

Re: WeChooseTheMoon

On Jul 19, 2009, at 2:40 AM, John Williams wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, but corporate interference in markets is good? Corporations do not have the power to compel people at gunpoint to do as they s

Re: WeChooseTheMoon

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Dave Land wrote: > Right. I'm always getting a gun pointed at my head when I go to the damn > doctor. I have posted articles that list a number of state mandates for health care plans. If a provider were to dare to sell a policy to a willing buyer, and that policy

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to mind: Indian Removal Act Legal slavery Jim Crow laws Coverture Japanese American internment Joseph McCarthy Richard Nixon I think that any system of ethics that equates legality with doing what is right, that holds that the

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

If we're going to throw out all the flawed human institutions, nothing will be left, including your ideas. I don't have to look beyond my immediate family to see the injustices that our system has allowed, but "good" isn't the same as "perfect." Argue better, please. On 7/19/09, John Williams

path-dependence

JDG posted this article on Facebook, very apropos to our discussion. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all Doug ___ http:/

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: >  If we're going to throw out all the flawed human institutions, > nothing will be left, including your ideas. Then don't throw them all out. I never suggested such a thing. I merely stated my preference for discussing ethical questions on thei

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Williams wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > > If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why > do > > other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective > > health care systems? > >

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

John wrote: Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to > mind: > > Indian Removal Act > Legal slavery > Jim Crow laws > Coverture > Japanese American internment > Joseph McCarthy > Richard Nixon > Are we waiting for historical perspective to add Bush/Cheney to that l

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:33 PM, John Williams wrote: > > Then don't throw them all out. I never suggested such a thing. I > merely stated my preference for discussing ethical questions on their > own merits rather than assuming that majority opinion is the ultimate > word on every subject. Dem