Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm healthy. It's not a problem for me, personally.

kina hara!
and i'm not trying to argue, i want to be educated. If what you say is true, one must make lots (over 150K?) to be able to afford full coverage, then things are fucked. Are there sicker GA's you've seen who were denied coverage? I've just never seen it. I grew up lower middle class, and we always had good health care- am I just isolated?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The United States could surely pay the price for those things (i.e. universal health coverage and much higher minimum wage) if the nation was willing to raise taxes significantly and sacrifice a percentage point (or two ) of GDP growth each year. Our economy would be less dynamic, and look much more like Europe than it does now. So, there would be less wealth creation -- and undoubtedly other social costs, expected and unexpected.
S_A_M

Again those things have costs/effects that are dyametrically opposed to what you are trying to achieve. Raising minimum wage would be great, except that businesses would have to cut workers. So while those who were productive enough to keep their jobs would make more, there would be a net job loss. And of course, those that did make more would take home LESS because their taxes have been raised to pay for health care, the quality of which would surely decline to a level similar to Canada and Europe, not to mention the negative effect the large tax raises would have on the economy, which would mean even less jobs available.

I could go on and on but my keyboard is about to rupture because I am so agitated.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Again those things have costs/effects that are dyametrically opposed to what you are trying to achieve. Raising minimum wage would be great, except that businesses would have to cut workers. So while those who were productive enough to keep their jobs would make more, there would be a net job loss. And of course, those that did make more would take home LESS because their taxes have been raised to pay for health care, the quality of which would surely decline to a level similar to Canada and Europe, not to mention the negative effect the large tax raises would have on the economy, which would mean even less jobs available.

I could go on and on but my keyboard is about to rupture because I am so agitated.

Fewer, not less. You can count jobs.

[Say_hello_for_me]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...epagenews2-utl

(today's Kass column was using her polygamy-extension etc. arguments against gay marriage)

Chicago tribune, reg'n required

Hi!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Health care? all you have to is come visit a clinic or pharmacy or hospital in Metro Detroit, they are littered with Canadians trying to get basic health coverage that your panacea will not provide.

Yep. And Americans bus into Canada to buy drugs they can't afford in America, and Canada provides at least basic levels of health care to everyone -- which is absolutely not true here inthe U.S. As you so fondly note, its all about choices.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Was it Oregon that made a list of prioritized medical treatments, then would say "we'll cover 1-1876 this year." If you need a treatment numbered 1877 you're fucked.

Yes, which is a perfectly rational and defensible policy approach for a government-sponsored health care system based on a basic social utility or cost-benefit analysis. Don't worry Hank -- those with the dough could still get treatment No. 1,877. Those without the dough probably aren't going to get it anyway.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We now provide very good health care for a very high percentage of people. I have no problem extending very basic coverage to all people, I just do not want my coverage lowered as occurs in all single payer systems.

What do you mean "very good" and "very high"? I'd wager that the correct statements are more like:

"Some" for "very high", and
"decent" for "most", and
"very good" for "a minority of the population."
{Qualitative judgments based on modern U.S. standard of care}

If you have no problem extending basic heatlh coverage to all -- then your party leadership is not representing your interests.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Had dinner with a Canadian potential client a few weeks ago, a guy about 30. He had his leg amputated last year to remove a cancerous tumor. This was a professional guy, with a decent income. He had waited months (up to a year at one stage) to be seen/evaluated then treated. in the states he'd have much more immediate treatment, and probably still have his leg.

Damn tough break. Sounds like that system needs some work. So fucking what? OTOH -- given the cost of treatment and frequency of occurrence of certain cancers -- the system could be making rational choices about the allocation of societal resources.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your little perfect visions are sweet, but anyone who knows reality will avoid single payer health care like anthrax. The only way you can be for single payer health care, if you realize the truth, is to be for true socialism across the board. turn in your Beamer Sam, give the money to a poor family then bring your argument back- until you do this you've no credibility.

Listen, you pathetic bitch --

(1) When did I ask for or support a single payer health care system? Stop reading your own policy phobias into my posts. OTOH -- whose to say that such a system couldn't make things better/cheaper for most?

(2) I said its a Benz.

(3) How dare you?



S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Again those things have costs/effects that are dyametrically opposed to what you are trying to achieve. Raising minimum wage would be great, except that businesses would have to cut workers. So while those who were productive enough to keep their jobs would make more, there would be a net job loss.

That makes intuitive sense, club -- and comports with the theory. I think, though, that not all studies support that premise.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aniacs19m.html

Dean bloggers bemone demise, not just Hank Chinaski has less to do today-

My favorite?

Victor in Illinois" urged people to campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize for Dean. And "balconycollapse" wondered if they could all just secede from the nation "and start a small country in vermont supported by several casinos?"

But maybe the best part is a little sex rap (love talk) that sounds quite familar to those of us who read Mr. Atticus Grinch:

Posted by donovan in SF: "Off Topic: There are no longer topics!!! If you have a secret crush on another blogger get moving! You're opportunity to find love on DFA might be fleeting This is not romantic or anything, but I love you Howard Dean! The best medical advice ever!"

Maura in VA's reply: "Donovan in SF. (Um....My crush on you is not so secret anymore. Now what? ;-) PS. My crush on Dean has never been a secret! Howard's still as much of a hottie as ever! (And thanks to organizers of Crushies for Dean who made this one of the fun parts of the campaign.)"

To which donovan in SF replies: "Maura in VA, I can't tell if your teasing me; But you can meet me at deanstock!"

but who's Maura?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aniacs19m.html

Dean bloggers bemone demise, not just Hank Chinaski has less to do today-
but who's Maura?

The WSJ editorial page today contains an homage to Dean, calling him the most significant loser since Goldwater. Very interesting reading.

[sgtclub]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...onaccomplished

[Secret_Agent_Man]

. . . it would be better than the vigorous rogering the Democrats have been taking for the past 3+ years.

Speaking of the WSJ -- a recent column by Pete DuPont:

OUTSIDE THE BOX

The Bush Paradox
Wasn't the era of big government supposed to be over?

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

"'We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over.'

--Bill Clinton, State of the Union, 1996
President Clinton was wrong, of course; big government is alive and well and stronger than ever.

"President Bush would agree with Mr. Clinton's first two sentences, but he has not worked to achieve the last three, a less bureaucratic government with reduced costs. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill (or any other bill). Meanwhile he has advocated larger and more intrusive government through steel tariffs (since repealed), increased farm subsidies, a $540 billion Medicare expansion, a 70% increase in education spending, and most recently an omnibus spending bill that funds 8,000 pork-barrel projects around the country.

"Total federal government spending in the final year of the Clinton administration was $1.864 trillion. The budget President Bush just proposed for the coming fiscal year is $2.4 trillion. That is an annual federal spending increase of 6.5% a year on Mr. Bush's watch while inflation has been running at 1.9%.

"Yes, a lot of Mr. Bush's spending is for the war and domestic security, but the increase in nondefense discretionary spending--spending on things that the Congress and the president do not have to do but have chosen do anyhow--has exploded: 9% a year in the Bush administration, the fastest such spending growth of any president in the lifetime of the majority of Americans.

"And therein lies the Bush Paradox. On the one hand, his administration is committed to expanding the freedom and resources of individuals to make their own choices. The president believes that parents should have the power to select the best schools for their children, and that workers should be able to manage their own Social Security retirement accounts and health savings accounts.

"On the other hand, Mr. Bush is rapidly growing the size and reach of the federal government. The Medicare expansion will add $8 trillion to a program that is already $38 trillion in debt, as the government begins paying for senior citizens' (probably price-controlled) prescription drugs. The Bush administration and Congress decided in 2001 that although farmers get one-third of their income from government subsidies they need more, and so enacted an $85 billion increase in the farm subsidy program. Cotton, soybeans, livestock, apples, mohair, wool and honey all get increased subsidies, and a monster new national dairy price-regulation and subsidy scheme was created. And an additional $500 million sugar subsidy while the administration continues to protect producers from less expensive imported sugar.

"Then there are the 8,000 earmarked appropriations in the recent $820 billion omnibus spending bill, things like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, blackbird control in Kansas, a sidewalk in Thomaston, Maine, and a nice floodwall mural in Cape Girardeau, Mo. Shouldn't the governments of Ohio, Kansas, Maine and Missouri handle these matters? Local responsibility for such things would have saved the federal government about $11 billion.

"Last week the Senate passed its $318 billion highway and mass transit bill, a 47% increase over current spending, rejecting the president's $256 billion request, which would still have raised spending by 21%. It then voted 72-24 against requiring the bill's spending to fall within the congressionally approved budget for the year. The Republican House wants more--$375 billion and a gasoline tax increase. The president's spokesman pleaded for Congress "to hold the line on spending." But shouting at the deaf doesn't work; only a veto will change congressional behavior.

"Granted, the Democratic Party wants to spend even more. Mr. Bush proposed a $400 billion Medicare bill; the Democrats wanted $800 billion. Mr. Bush may have increased federal education spending by 70%, but John Kerry says it should be $11 billion higher. Mr. Kerry also wants to send $50 billion to the states to help them with their budget deficits, something they--not the federal government--created and are responsible for. The Democratic Party is not the party of spending reductions; it is the party of tax increases to expand the spending, power, scope and reach of centralized Washington government.

"Yet being slightly less reckless with the taxpayer's money isn't a responsible strategy for the GOP. The president must resolve the Bush Paradox by beginning the fight against growing government and making a passionate case for an ownership society.

"A veto of whatever inflated compromise highway bill comes out of Congress would begin a serious debate about government spending. Then make the case for a constitutional amendment requiring a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress to spend more than last year's spending adjusted for population growth and inflation. And the amendment should also give the president a line-item veto and spending reduction power to help control congressional appetites.

"Then the president should expand his school choice program beyond the District of Columbia to other low-quality urban school districts. Introduce legislation to create individually owned retirement accounts that would create wealth among and bring resources to lower income Americans. Vigorously make the argument that having the resources to buy drugs through one's own health savings account is better than having the government tell us what drugs we may use and at what price.

"These are not easy things to do; the two constitutional amendments may be impossible to enact. But having the arguments is the only way to resolve the Bush Paradox.

"The era of big government is surely not over. But there is not a government program for every problem, and bureaucratic control of prices, markets, trade and incomes is worth fighting against. Especially since a Bush loss in November would accelerate government control of all of them."

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That makes intuitive sense, club -- and comports with the theory. I think, though, that not all studies support that premise.

S_A_M

If you are talking about a raise in the minimum wage large enough to pull people above the poverty line, I don't think you could find a study that didn't support it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...onaccomplished

Fine. Doesn't change the fact that she's a vicious, raving commentator with little to no redeeming literary, political, artistic, or scientific value.

Why doesn't she write about Rush's anal cysts -- that's the real story?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yep. And Americans bus into Canada to buy drugs they can't afford in America, and Canada provides at least basic levels of health care to everyone -- which is absolutely not true here inthe U.S. As you so fondly note, its all about choices.

You are making my point, and I thank you- I'd forgotten this.
Americans go to Canada to buy drugs since the Canadian gov't artificially keeps the price down. Ain't no drug research going on there- so if the drug companies can't pay for research here- Guess what? NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

Yes, which is a perfectly rational and defensible policy approach for a government-sponsored health care system based on a basic social utility or cost-benefit analysis. Don't worry Hank -- those with the dough could still get treatment No. 1,877. Those without the dough probably aren't going to get it anyway.

Again, exactly. The problem is that currently those without extra $$$, but nominal coverage get to treatment no. 2243. YOU WOULD LIMIT THAT WHICH THE MIDDLE CLASS NOW GETS.

What do you mean "very good" and "very high"? I'd wager that the correct statements are more like:

"Some" for "very high", and
"decent" for "most", and
"very good" for "a minority of the population."
{Qualitative judgments based on modern U.S. standard of care}

okay- all subjective- the point is your proposal gets to "worse" for most.

Damn tough break. Sounds like that system needs some work. So fucking what?

the point is whats your predicator of sucess. A better educated country with a smaller percentage living in poverty and 1/10 the size of the States CAN'T PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The dems will do better? Do you double promise?

Listen, you pathetic bitch --

I tried to make a reasoned analysis of some shortcomings in your ravings, and you hurl invictive? Was this a homage to Govenor Dean? If we can't have rational, non-personally insulting exchange of ideas, I'm not sure further conversation with you is in order.

((2) I said its a Benz.

Whatever- sell it and buy a yugo- take the money and give it to the poor, once you've done that you can ask me to risk my children's medical health on some hair brained campaign issue.

(3) How dare you?

I must dare to challenge all is passed as "new ideas" but merely seeks to place our great country into the inevitable decline that is old Europe;
I must dare to challenge when you seek to risk my children's future, and the future to which our poor brethern citizens seek to work to attain, such that when they arrive that do not find you've ruined that future; and finally
I must dare challenge SAM when you lay out this poorly reasoned drivel- surely a client or reviewing partner would not have approved or paid you for similar "work" How would it be fair to you to let this pass?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Americans go to Canada to buy drugs since the Canadian gov't artificially keeps the price down. Ain't no drug research going on there- so if the drug companies can't pay for research here- Guess what? NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

Well, that kind of mischaracterizes the situation. It's US drug companies that are selling, so it's not an issue of R&D in Canada vs. the US, it's an issue of total R&D. It's not like drug cos. have fled canada since the government put in price controls.

LIke any co, Drug companies generally need to recoup their R&D somehow. The US market is one of the wealthiest, so they do it here by charging high prices. They sell at lower prices overseas where there's less income to afford the drugs. This type of price discrimination works so long as reimportation rules are enforced. Which the drug cos. are generally able to do, but less easily with Canada. And that's mainly because driving to Canada from detroit is a lot cheaper than flying to, say, London.

Now, one reason Canada's prices are lower is because the government is a bulk purchaser, so can insist on bigger discounts. But it's not like those discounts are limited to drugs. Check out car prices. Most of them are cheaper there--compare, e.g., BMW prices. About 10% cheaper in Canada. Why don't folks in the US buy Canadian cars? Because the warranty doesn't transfer and you have to leand to convert kph into mph, because the dealers aren't allowed to swap out the speedometer plates absent special approval.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You are making my point, and I thank you- I'd forgotten this.
Americans go to Canada to buy drugs since the Canadian gov't artificially keeps the price down. Ain't no drug research going on there- so if the drug companies can't pay for research here- Guess what? NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

There is no doubt that Americans pay higher drug prices in part because of the price controls in Europe and Canada.

However, your point rests on the assumption that drug companies will not accept any less profit than they now make in order to remain in business, but will instead wither up and die (or take their money and run away) in the face of price resistance from the U.S. government. The complete lack of proof for this proposition fatally undermines your argument.

I'll assume that you intended to post a more nuanced and credible argument, but were typing quickly.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Again, exactly. The problem is that currently those without extra $$$, but nominal coverage get to treatment no. 2243. YOU WOULD LIMIT THAT WHICH THE MIDDLE CLASS NOW GETS.

I honestly don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. However, I will point out that there are many reform options which would or should not eliminate the ability of folks with money to buy insurance and get to treatment no. 2243 [or just to buy treatment no. 2243].

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the point is whats your predicator of sucess. A better educated country with a smaller percentage living in poverty and 1/10 the size of the States CAN'T PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.

As a side note, Canada has a lower percentage of population living in poverty precisely because of the social policies you deplore. On the main point -- Who sez? and acceptable to whom? With what costs and trade-offs?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I tried to make a reasoned analysis of some shortcomings in your ravings, and you hurl invictive? Was this a homage to Govenor Dean? If we can't have rational, non-personally insulting exchange of ideas, I'm not sure further conversation with you is in order.

I hurled invective, after you may have tried, but miserably failed to perform as advertised above, and did indeed insult me.

J'accuse!

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Whatever- sell it and buy a yugo- take the money and give it to the poor, once you've done that you can ask me to risk my children's medical health on some hair brained campaign issue.

This is reasoned analysis?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I must dare challenge SAM when you lay out this poorly reasoned drivel- surely a client or reviewing partner would not have approved or paid you for similar "work" How would it be fair to you to let this pass?

You'd be surprised. My poorly-reasoned drivel sells rather well.

S_A_M