Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
I'm talking about the "pregnant teen who delivers a baby and then leaves it in the bathroom during the prom" scenario. Does anything happen to the father of that baby?

Ah, okay. I'll buy that. It would be more fair if dads got pregnant, too, so they would be faced with that situation.

(ETA - I re-read this, and it sounds snarky, which I didn't mean. I just mean that we're back to one of those factorsunavoidably linked to biology.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The crazy, crazy thing about the economics of the health-care industry is all of the cross-subsidization. Everything and everyone is subsidized by someone else, and they're all working the system to improve their position. It's enough to drive anyone insane.

I think the worst thing about our health care system is that we get our health insurance through our employers. If we could change that one thing, it would be a tremendous help towards making the system better.

The other thing that would help is to mandate that you buy it, just like you have to pay taxes or register for the draft if you are male. Vouchers to buy health insurance for the working poor could be issued. Means testing for medicare is a good idea, too. Those with higher incomes could still be on Medicare, they would just have to pay a premium each month that was some amount based on income.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Iraq: Graves of dead children found. What a great idea -- another 15 years of sanctions which were "working" because they allowed for "containment". Containment of the Iraqi population (especially Kurds) that is. I'm sure going to miss reading about thousands of dying children each month. Yeah, it's sad and all, but at least I felt safe because danger to me was "contained" and no US soldiers were getting killed. Ah, Sanctions. The Good Old Days.

Are you crying for the Iraqi civilians whom we have killed, too? It is absolutely undeniable that our tactics in Iraq -- aimed at force protection -- have resulted in more "collateral damage," and yet I don't recall you complaining about this.

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, okay. I'll buy that. It would be more fair if dads got pregnant, too, so they would be faced with that situation.

(ETA - I re-read this, and it sounds snarky, which I didn't mean. I just mean that we're back to one of those factorsunavoidably linked to biology.)

Not really. Why can't the father be held to some level of accountability in this situation?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think the worst thing about our health care system is that we get our health insurance through our employers. If we could change that one thing, it would be a tremendous help towards making the system better.

Doubtless that market is distorted by the tax benefits to employers of providing health insurance. But not for those incentives, employers would be relatively different. Except that consumers have more power in the marketplace when they pool, as through an employer. If everyone was left to purchase health care individually, you'd see a lot more cream-skimming, to the detriment of many of us.

The other thing that would help is to mandate that you buy it, just like you have to pay taxes or register for the draft if you are male. Vouchers to buy health insurance for the working poor could be issued. Means testing for medicare is a good idea, too. Those with higher incomes could still be on Medicare, they would just have to pay a premium each month that was some amount based on income.

Instead of mandating that people purchase it, and struggling with the resulting enforcement/gap-filling problems, why not provide basic coverage through the government (directly or indirectly) and "make" people pay for it by taxing them?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Means testing for medicare is a good idea, too. Those with higher incomes could still be on Medicare, they would just have to pay a premium each month that was some amount based on income.

You mean, in addition to the fact that throughout their working life they paid more in medicare taxes?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
Not really. Why can't the father be held to some level of accountability in this situation?

I think it has to do with immediacy. If I arrange for the care of a newborn baby, and then leave town, the baby doesn't die, and I probably don't get charged with a crime. But, because it's the mom who is pregnant and gives birth, it's the mom who has that opportunity, at the moment of birth, to deliver and walk away, leaving kidlet to die. I imagine if dad was in charge of the baby, and then left it in an alley to die, dad would be charged, too. It's just that the greater opportunity for that kind of thing lies with the mom.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I think what she's saying is that it is de facto the woman's burden exclusively if the man is not there to share it. I didn't get anywhere from her post that the raising of a child is biologically the woman's burden.

GWNC -- I'm not sure you're qualified to speak on these issues, given that your avatar has obviously never borne a child.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Instead of mandating that people purchase it, and struggling with the resulting enforcement/gap-filling problems, why not provide basic coverage through the government (directly or indirectly) and "make" people pay for it by taxing them?

Aren't we at that point, finally, where we can admit that we misuse the concept of "insurance" when looking for a healthcare fix? The ultimate destination of this discussion isn't that we're going to pool our money to buy insurance, but that we're simply going to fund the basics through taxation and government payments. It does appear to be the logical next step, but I would feel better if someone could point to such a system that isn't as horribly flawed as most I've seen.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you crying for the Iraqi civilians whom we have killed, too?

Absolutely. I cry for them too.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It is absolutely undeniable that our tactics in Iraq -- aimed at force protection -- have resulted in more "collateral damage,"

Our tactics in Iraq caused *more* dead kids than what, Ty? Than sanctions? Are you out of your mind?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You mean, in addition to the fact that throughout their working life they paid more in medicare taxes?

yes. I know it isn't fair, but we are stuck with this Medicare monster at least in my lifetime and we have to figure out a way to pay for it. The only other way will be to increase taxes on those who are working now and paying the medicare tax. Given the fact that there are fewer and fewer workers per medicare recipient as the baby boomers age, there would be devastating effects on the economy to keep upping the medicare tax.

Anyone else have any better ideas for how we are going to be able to pay for the baby boomers medical care?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Aren't we at that point, finally, where we can admit that we misuse the concept of "insurance" when looking for a healthcare fix? The ultimate destination of this discussion isn't that we're going to pool our money to buy insurance, but that we're simply going to fund the basics through taxation and government payments. It does appear to be the logical next step, but I would feel better if someone could point to such a system that isn't as horribly flawed as most I've seen.

You are better informed than I am. I can't stand to educate myself about the subject because it's all so fucked up.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me

It certainly is a happy Wednesday. With all the momentum Kerry has gained from the debates, W will have to make a spectacular showing tonight in order to prevent his defeat. Not much chance of that happening, though I'm sure he's working really, really hard to prepare.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Doubtless that market is distorted by the tax benefits to employers of providing health insurance. But not for those incentives, employers would be relatively different. Except that consumers have more power in the marketplace when they pool, as through an employer. If everyone was left to purchase health care individually, you'd see a lot more cream-skimming, to the detriment of many of us.

True, but you could regulate the insurers more.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Instead of mandating that people purchase it, and struggling with the resulting enforcement/gap-filling problems, why not provide basic coverage through the government (directly or indirectly) and "make" people pay for it by taxing them?

I would not be for the government directly providing it. Just look at the VA system if you need more of an explanation for why.

As for indirectly providing it, we do that already through medicare and medicaid. There is just a gap in there for the working poor. I'd be for a tax increase to provide vouchers for the working poor to buy healthinsurance - but only as much as is necessary. And if it includes mandatory purchasing of heatlh care to get these young people who have the money to buy it but choose to spend their money on other things into the system.