?

Log in

No account? Create an account
No time for debate; just an observation - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Zoethe

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

No time for debate; just an observation [Sep. 1st, 2009|09:33 am]
Zoethe
[Current Mood |confusedconfused]

After the complete bank collapse and the securitized mortgage fiasco of last year? After Enron? After the S&L crisis?

How can conservatives even manage to say, "If we just open up to the free market, the health care crisis will take care of itself!" with a straight face?

(And, yes, I know that a "real" free market wouldn't have bailed out AIG and all those banks. That we've taught these big industries to rely on the government because they are "too big to fail," and we should never have gotten started down that road. Whatever; imagine that it's you or your kid lying in the hospital when the free market in health care "adjusts" itself.)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: iscari0t
2009-09-01 02:01 pm (UTC)
I saw this the other day, and liked it enough to put it on my fridge.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-09-01 02:27 pm (UTC)
Heh. Yeah.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wdomburg
2009-09-01 02:04 pm (UTC)
The counter argument being, "With the looming bankruptcy of Medicate, Social Security and the post office? After the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after they fueled the housing bubble by providing a market for mortgage base conservatives? After a $2.1T miscalculation in the ten deficit? How can liberals even manage to say, 'If we just add more bureaucracy, the health care crisis will be taken care of' with a straight face?"

One of the key conservative arguments is against sudden, drastic changes specifically because legislators are terrible about predicting second and third order effects. And there is far more to conservative proposals than "just open up the free market". I'm going to be doing something of a run down as soon as I can find a chance, but there are several bills that have been introduced in the legislature, numerous op-eds by people like Romney and Pawlenty who have had experience tackling health care issues on the state level as well as independent commentary and analysis.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kibbles
2009-09-01 02:18 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure how much more bureaucracy would be added. I know both private and public very well. Not just my private, and working in HR, and the way plans have been done, but with public. I have a disabled child, and was a military dependent, and I've also dealt with POA for medicare and VA stuff.

As far as $ goes, are you aware of premium prices for single or family insurance where you are?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-09-01 02:37 pm (UTC)
I have objected strenuously to the bailouts, and I think that there are real flaws in a bureaucratic solution. Fixing this is not going to be easy. But the people who pretend that the only problem is regulation drive me crazy.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: ccr1138
2009-09-02 03:18 pm (UTC)
This.

But the liberals who are bent on a public option (with a not-so-secret hope that it will lead to single payer) are too busy setting up straw men to look at the OTHER plans on offer. It's easy to win a debate if you can successfully mis-state and twist your opponent's side of the argument to make them look unreasonable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wdomburg
2009-09-02 03:37 pm (UTC)
Man, just noticed while looking at a reply the typos in this entry. That should be Medicare, not Medicate. And "mortgage based securities" instead of "mortgage base conservatives".

I'm embarrassed now. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: kibbles
2009-09-01 02:24 pm (UTC)
Not everyone would pay Dr. Bob, even if he gave his services away. Dr. Bob could be a complete idiot. Medicine isn't entirely price driven. Maybe for people who have a physical a year, but the reality for a huge number of people is that they go with the doctor that doesn't piss them off.

The OTHER reality is a lot of communities have only a Dr. George. Or no doctor. I have to travel 90 miles to see one of my son's doctor's. Oh, another one I have to get a special waiver from our insurance company. The local one is not in our network, and the nearest one is over 45 miles away. If we had single payer then I could use any of that specialist I wanted, right? I *should* have more options because my son has both private (which we pay $9 an hour for. Every hour my husband works, $9 goes into his medical fund which requires he works 800 hours a year) and public, because of his disability. So that is two different networks (public surprisingly covers a LOT that private doesn't, for example most of his physical therapy, all of his speech and occupational).

Anyways, medical care is not like buying milk or gas. A lot more than price is in the decision making process.

Funny thing is I know lots and lots of doctors that change their prices...I wonder what insurance company won't allow your doctor to do what others do.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: phillipalden
2009-09-01 05:15 pm (UTC)
Remember these are the same people who are still seriously considering running Sarah Palin for President in 2012.

Most of them, especially the Radical Religious Right (RRR) are so deluded the truth totally escapes them. Many of them believe the whole housing crisis was caused by Black and Hispanic people buying houses they couldn't afford.

Yep. Blame it all on minorities. That's how these people roll.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-09-01 05:24 pm (UTC)
Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.

And you can't argue them out of it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: roaming
2009-09-01 08:26 pm (UTC)
They can say it with a straight face because they're bought and paid for by the "free market" Too Big to Fails.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ccr1138
2009-09-02 06:51 am (UTC)
Is anybody actually saying this? I smell a straw man.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-09-02 11:26 am (UTC)
I've heard it, though I don't have sources I can point to.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: lordindra
2009-09-02 08:18 pm (UTC)
I'm willing to buy that less overall regulation might help, but these idiots seem to want to just throw out regulations just because they restrict business.

What should happen is a comprehensive review of the laws and regulatory policies that regulate businesses. See what is working, and what isn't. If a regulation isn't working, maybe throw it out. But some of them are probably not working because they don't go far enough, in those cases, they should be strengthened.

Overall less, possibly good. Assuming the same results, definitely good. But that shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be more intelligently targeted regulation. If that happens to mean less, great, but less should not be the goal.

Health care might start correcting itself if such a project was done. That said, there needs to be some way to ensure that everyone can afford at least basic preventative care. I don't see how this guarantee could be achieved without some degree of government involvement.
(Reply) (Thread)