Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8739)	8/27/2009 12:50:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Mostly OT I am no expert on property law but a city park isn't "owned" in the same sense that the cash in your wallet is "owned." Effectively it is, its owned by the government. There is some attempt at at a theoretical distinction between "owned in common and managed by the government", or "owned by the government", but I find that pretty empty. The government typically has all the legal rights over the property that other property owners would have (with the exception of any specific legal limitations, but there are also specific extra legal powers, and in any case the government includes the legislature which can change any limitations). True commons would be land (or other property) that anyone could do just about anything they want with, other than things that are generally legally prohibited on all property including property you own yourself (except perhaps exercising permanent control because then it would no longer be commons).

To: Lane3 who wrote (8739)	8/27/2009 2:20:46 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You use the term "common funds" inappropriately imo. An insurance company's funds aren't "common funds" owned by society or even by the policy holders. They're the insurance company's funds. True, but I think they are effectively the same. The company's funds available for paying medical bills come from premiums paid by policy holders. The amount of those premiums goes up or down based on how much the company has to pay out. So the net result is exactly the same as if the company was paying with the common funds of the policy holders. The pot of company money used to pay bills is the pot contributed collectively by the policy holders. Works pretty much the same as any collective. Just has an insurance company as the middle-man. You could claim the same about any business. For example, an oil companies funds available for paying exploration, development, and production costs comes from payments by energy consumers. Doesn't mean oil companies funds are a pot of "common funds" of energy consumers. If health "insurance" operated in a true insurance paradigm like car insurance, then I would agree with you. For those of us who have individual health care policies, I do agree with you. But for almost everyone the paradigm is not one of insurance but one of the collective. Most of us get our health insurance though our employers where all parties are covered equally. I don't think it makes a difference if the policy buying is done by an individual or a corporate HR manager. You're implicitly accepting a defacto socialist outlook imo. I don't think it's socialist to recognize reality. Again, I think you're simply saying the socialist outlook is reality. Thats how the left wants people to think. There is private property and then there are resources of value that are not owned. Air, for example. A health insurance policy isn't air, isn't a fishery, etc. Its an asset of someone, not society as a whole. Nor is health care scarce. Like I said before its a manufactured service and there aren't any meaningful natural restrictions limiting how much of it we can have. Health care isn't a "scarce resource" ... Not free though. Exactly. Health care isn't scarce. Money to pay for it is. Not in any way that money for anything else is scarce. You think money is scarce because you're viewing the government as the provider of the money to pay for health care and the government has financial problems and its willingness to spend money is limited. If the government was a major provider of housing or energy or whatever, you'd have "problems" there too. Come to think of it, in both those areas the government is already distorting the market creating either unnatural surpluses or scaarcity. And those of a socialist mindset will make things worse in those areas too if they get the chance. Which means it gets rationed. It's either rationed based on the individual's ability to pay or it's rationed by the holder of the collective pot of money available to pay on behalf of the members of the collective. So we should accept government rationing of gasoline, housing, food, - after all rationing is happening so we should let the government do it "fairly". An insurance policy almost certainly isn't written to accept "anything" its almost certainly written to cover normal, effective and reasonable treatments. There may be disagreements about what is normal, effective and reasonable but thats something that can be worked out either via negotiation, arbitration, or litigation. The process of getting that "worked out" is what we're going through now. Whats happening now is the government is trying to step in and handle those issues for everyone. Some folks consider the input of bioethicists and economists factors in the determination of how best to ration the funds. Do you think that there would be no economists and bioethicists called to testify during arbitration or litigation? I would hope not. From what I've seen "bioethicists" are simply spokesmen for a brave new world of government control, deciding for us what is best for us. Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany had bioethicists too. The people who spoke for the Nazi eugenics program are essentially not different in character from Zeke Emanuel. Sure Zeke's decisions won't be identical to a Nazi eugenicist, but the principal is the same - a government appointed expert deciding for others. If we're gonna have ethical counseling, I'd rather it be done by a council of Catholic priests, Orthodox rabbis, Protestant ministers, Muslim imams, Buddhist monks etc. And people go to such folks for ethical counseling now - again giving ethical counseling to government appointed experts will be a catastrophe. As for economists, thats a politicized profession, might as well just call in folks like Carville and Begala. Speaking of which whats the difference between a Krugman or Carville anyway? Stalin had his economists too making their 5 year plans. Essentially whats going on is a movement to convert the US health care industry into a completely command driven industry just like all the former USSR's industries were command driven. There would be just as they are being called into this national dialog that's going on. National dialogue. They aren't asking us for input. They're telling us we've got a plan for you and anyone who doesn't like it should shut up. Everything that's covered by a policy is covered. Its shouldn't be an issue for "society" ie government to decide. If tax money is supporting one's Medicare policy, then who decides what is covered if not government on behalf of society--the recipients and the tax payers? Medicare is a special case. The government is stepping into a role and screwing things up. For employee plans, the employer plays a similar role. It's the employer's money so the employer makes the decisions but the employer will keep in mind the expectations and demands of its societal microcosm, its employees. If enough employees complain about something not being covered, then the policy will most likely be modified to cover it. There's no reason to look at employer provided health care differently than wages and salaries and other benefits. Sure the employer pays and he does so not because he's designated or appointed by society as a rationer of "common funds" but because he needs to give the employees something to get them to work for him. What will come next? Arguments the government should step in and rationally ration the scarce "common funds" that are payroll? Gee, we see some moves in that direction and we'd better damn well fight them. So many things start by being sold as something that will only affect the "rich" (the income tax, the alternative minimum tax) and lo and behold over a couple decades what was supposed to only affect the rich applies to the middle class and eventually everyone. Health care isn't commonly owned property like a city park. I am no expert on property law but a city park isn't "owned" in the same sense that the cash in your wallet is "owned." That is mostly a term of convenience. Private property and public property are different concepts. Public property like parks are a subset of "the commons." Huh? A city park is owned by the city. It could sell the park if it wanted and the land would then be private property. A city could pave its parks and make them parking lots. They could convert a park into the site of a concert hall, a municipal court, a city office building, whatever.