9 ms·

For the first section of the article, I was rather annoyed. The entire premise of the argument is that healthcare "reform" is progress, it is our destiny, and t

For the first section of the article, I was rather annoyed. The entire premise of the argument is that healthcare "reform" is progress, it is our destiny, and that anything standing in its way is wrong by definition. This is most certainly not the case, and reflects that as much as we have problems with our government, the foundations are still working. The compromises inherent in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college are there to protect from the problems that an unchecked majority might lead to. Our system is designed so that even popular ideas backed by a "mandate" (an invention of the media; who actually voted for the supposed underlying initiative?) can -- and should be -- blocked if it's so thoroughly repugnant to others. At the risk of skirting up against Godwin's law, the idea that this "progress" is destined, part of the inexorable evolution to a higher social order, sounds decidedly Marxian. Frankly, I find such an attitude every bit as alarming as these "reforms" to which it refers. That said, the article really does even out and put this all in perspective. If you can make it through the whole article, I think that the picture you wind up with is a pretty fair picture. [Edit: fix bad phrasing in next-to-last para]

cschneid 17y ago
It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes. Many states have been taken over by handcuffs of strict tax limitations (which is why california is screwed, and my own colorado is screwed to a lesser degree). Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I'd say that the super-limited federal government only worked when states had a counterbalancing ability to get things done. I'm not sure why states power has fallen to so low a level (popularly elected senate, ability for citizens to push through restrictive state constitution amendments, massing of federal money that forces policy decisions [like highways & drinking age].... etc).
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before attempting something federally would be far superior. But I disagree that States can't do so now. Certainly where I live now (New Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare (certainly not a strict tax limitation!!). Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct one, and thus everyone must be forced to "benefit" from it. I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone else.
  - cschneid 17y ago
    The kind of laws I'm referring to are like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights Basically, it limits the ability to tax, so a new program (say, single payer health care for the state), that would require a tax, requires massive public approval. Which stops progress as much as the federal government gridlock. Your last line betrays some of your political leanings. In my view there are two major competing ideals of government. There's your "live & let live" ideal, and there's the "we're in this together" ideal. Neither is wrong, and both have a pretty strong argument behind them. But it leads to totally different policy decisions that are at odds. So yeah, that's what happened to it, there's a competing ideal.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      OK, I'll accept that criticism. It's clear that we have different outlooks, and while I disagree strongly with yours, I understand that there is a legitimate philosophy that leads to it. Best, then, to take our heads out of the sand and address the divide directly. Otherwise we will have the same conflicts over every issue, arguing over surface details without ever really resolving anything, all the while building more and more acrimony.
jbooth 17y ago
Healthcare insurance rates have been going up 15% a year for a decade. As in, they've almost tripled in the last decade. That's a staggering amount of money and I personally have only the faintest understanding of where it's going. I'd that pretty much dictates that "reform" of some kind is necessary. Whether you disagree with a given set of reforms or not is another discussion of course.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Personal computer and cellphone spending has probably increased by a larger amount than that, though I'm not sure where to find exact statistics. If spending on computers and cellphones has increased by 15%/year, does that also necessitate PC/Cellphone reform? If not, why not?
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Is that a serious comment? I'm typing this on a quad core with 2 21" monitors. My cell phone has more capabilities than my computer did a decade ago. Way more people have computers, smartphones, etc than 10 years ago. Bodies haven't double transistor counts. More to the point, there are actually fewer people insured as a % of the population than there were a decade ago, and the population has certainly not been growing at 15% a year. You're probably big on curbing gov't spending.. go walk down to your local town/city hall, get a copy of the budget now and 10 years ago, take a look at the difference in healthcare spending.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Today, medicine has more capabilities than 10 years ago. There are all sorts of medical technologies today which were available to few/no people 10 years ago. Roughly 10/17 of all non-generic drugs were invented in the past 10 years. It's more or less the same situation: new technology creates more features, and people are willing to spend more on those features. So yes, it was a serious comment. You stated a criteria which should trigger reform, namely 15% growth/year. Are you willing to apply this criteria uniformly, or is it really just a made up post-hoc rationalization for your already existing beliefs?

cschneid 17y ago

It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes. Many states have been taken over by handcuffs of strict tax limitations (which is why california is screwed, and my own colorado is screwed to a lesser degree). Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I'd say that the super-limited federal government only worked when states had a counterbalancing ability to get things done. I'm not sure why states power has fallen to so low a level (popularly elected senate, ability for citizens to push through restrictive state constitution amendments, massing of federal money that forces policy decisions [like highways & drinking age].... etc).

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before attempting something federally would be far superior. But I disagree that States can't do so now. Certainly where I live now (New Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare (certainly not a strict tax limitation!!). Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct one, and thus everyone must be forced to "benefit" from it. I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone else.
- cschneid 17y ago
  The kind of laws I'm referring to are like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights Basically, it limits the ability to tax, so a new program (say, single payer health care for the state), that would require a tax, requires massive public approval. Which stops progress as much as the federal government gridlock. Your last line betrays some of your political leanings. In my view there are two major competing ideals of government. There's your "live & let live" ideal, and there's the "we're in this together" ideal. Neither is wrong, and both have a pretty strong argument behind them. But it leads to totally different policy decisions that are at odds. So yeah, that's what happened to it, there's a competing ideal.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    OK, I'll accept that criticism. It's clear that we have different outlooks, and while I disagree strongly with yours, I understand that there is a legitimate philosophy that leads to it. Best, then, to take our heads out of the sand and address the divide directly. Otherwise we will have the same conflicts over every issue, arguing over surface details without ever really resolving anything, all the while building more and more acrimony.

jbooth 17y ago

Healthcare insurance rates have been going up 15% a year for a decade. As in, they've almost tripled in the last decade. That's a staggering amount of money and I personally have only the faintest understanding of where it's going. I'd that pretty much dictates that "reform" of some kind is necessary. Whether you disagree with a given set of reforms or not is another discussion of course.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Personal computer and cellphone spending has probably increased by a larger amount than that, though I'm not sure where to find exact statistics. If spending on computers and cellphones has increased by 15%/year, does that also necessitate PC/Cellphone reform? If not, why not?
- jbooth 17y ago
  Is that a serious comment? I'm typing this on a quad core with 2 21" monitors. My cell phone has more capabilities than my computer did a decade ago. Way more people have computers, smartphones, etc than 10 years ago. Bodies haven't double transistor counts. More to the point, there are actually fewer people insured as a % of the population than there were a decade ago, and the population has certainly not been growing at 15% a year. You're probably big on curbing gov't spending.. go walk down to your local town/city hall, get a copy of the budget now and 10 years ago, take a look at the difference in healthcare spending.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Today, medicine has more capabilities than 10 years ago. There are all sorts of medical technologies today which were available to few/no people 10 years ago. Roughly 10/17 of all non-generic drugs were invented in the past 10 years. It's more or less the same situation: new technology creates more features, and people are willing to spend more on those features. So yes, it was a serious comment. You stated a criteria which should trigger reform, namely 15% growth/year. Are you willing to apply this criteria uniformly, or is it really just a made up post-hoc rationalization for your already existing beliefs?