![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hubris
Among those who think independently, this Camille Paglia column is making the rounds. I think she's exactly right.
The Administration has given too much deference to Congress and bollixed up every major initiative as a result. A shocking lack of concern for financial discipline, coupled with what amount to lies and evasions about the stimulus bill, the budget, the cap-and-trade fiasco (which even Greenpeace disavows as having all the costs without most of the benefits to the environment) and this current disastrous healthcare effort, which fails to address the underlying issues driving up costs and pays off all the major healthcare-providing interest groups at the expense of young people and taxpayers. (One example: younger people will be forced to buy policies, but since the rates for older people are capped at 5x the rate for younger people when the true cost of their healthcare is much higher, younger people's rates must be that much higher to cover the difference. So, as with Social Security, young people with modest incomes will be forced to subsidize older people with, in many cases, far greater financial resources.)
The Administration gets that Medicare is a financial time bomb that will bankrupt the country unless costs can be controlled, but in pretending that they can save $billions on it while no one will have any of their care reduced and only a few wealthy people will end up paying for it, they sink their credibility. It does not help that Democrats in the past demagogued efforts to cut Medicare costs and reform Social Security as threatening to the helpless elderly -- now those old folks think any change to anything that benefits them is a plot.
Is it too late to fix this reform? Probably. It's very complicated, with many moving parts and many ways people can be hurt. Trying to rush it through without majority public support will not work.
The Administration has given too much deference to Congress and bollixed up every major initiative as a result. A shocking lack of concern for financial discipline, coupled with what amount to lies and evasions about the stimulus bill, the budget, the cap-and-trade fiasco (which even Greenpeace disavows as having all the costs without most of the benefits to the environment) and this current disastrous healthcare effort, which fails to address the underlying issues driving up costs and pays off all the major healthcare-providing interest groups at the expense of young people and taxpayers. (One example: younger people will be forced to buy policies, but since the rates for older people are capped at 5x the rate for younger people when the true cost of their healthcare is much higher, younger people's rates must be that much higher to cover the difference. So, as with Social Security, young people with modest incomes will be forced to subsidize older people with, in many cases, far greater financial resources.)
The Administration gets that Medicare is a financial time bomb that will bankrupt the country unless costs can be controlled, but in pretending that they can save $billions on it while no one will have any of their care reduced and only a few wealthy people will end up paying for it, they sink their credibility. It does not help that Democrats in the past demagogued efforts to cut Medicare costs and reform Social Security as threatening to the helpless elderly -- now those old folks think any change to anything that benefits them is a plot.
Is it too late to fix this reform? Probably. It's very complicated, with many moving parts and many ways people can be hurt. Trying to rush it through without majority public support will not work.
no subject
I haven't read the article in your link yet, but for some reason that name brings up the S&M bisexual woman from the 80s who wrote sex columns for the advocate. No, that can't be the same person.
no subject
no subject
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
no subject
Young people are bound to subsidize old people in any health insurance scheme. The paradox of middle income subsidizing upper income is disturbing. Ideally something (more socialist and redistributive?) would be done to counteract that. Means testing would make sense.
But then it would be socialist and redistributive, which sends too many people into fits of frothing at the mouth, at the thought of their money going to "those" (wink wink) people.
I don't give too many hoots about majority public support. The majority has been bamboozled by a grotesque McCarthy-style disinformation campaign. Obama needs to provide some leadership and turn the polls around, not follow them.
The idea of pushing something through without dealing with cost containment is the main vulnerability as I see it. That would make no sense.
/rant. I give you your journal back now.
no subject
no subject
Don't confuse intergenerational transfers within families with government schemes that take from all young to give to all old regardless of need or ability to pay.
Healthcare economists have a long list of reforms that should be tried to improve efficiency and access, but these bills don't have most of them. The bills are being written by the industries supposedly being reformed. No increase in supply of doctors or opening up of national markets for basic catastrophic care insurance is included.
no subject
First of all, there is no guarantee that a young person will have small medical bills, they could get hit by a truck (or MUNI) while on their motorcycle (or Segway).
Secondly even if most young people are not immediately the beneficiary of paying their premiums, their families may be, and someday if the young payers get good health care, they will be older too. At that point they reap what they have put in.
Do not think in terms of where the money comes from, but in the overall costs which go way down when you eliminate the insurance company as middlemen. Take veterans' hospital cost as an example or Medicare.
It is best during a recession/depression to keep taxes low and run a deficit that stimulates the economy. Inflation could be a problem but could also be checked by the Fed removing liquidity from the system when needed.
Part of the reason for the deficit spending is that the consumer generally pulls in spending for fear of losing their job , or if they have lost their job, and the government must keep the economy going by itself for awhile until the fear levels subside and the consumers come back.
There are 40,000,000 uninsured in this country. Through no fault of their own, many of them can't get a job in this economy, some are well educated.
I know a few. How can they take care of their health needs?
For those really rich people who say "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps". I offer this thought: If we have a public option and detatch the need for employers to directly offer healthcare, people who are holding onto their jobs for fear of losing this benefit, may then join startups, or become entrepreneurial, this will create a surge in creative new businesses and employ more people.
There, I've had my say.