We all need health care, but, somewhere along the line, we started confusing “health insurance” with actual health care. The insurance industry is no different than the mob asking you to pay protection.
Congress is off on a wild goose chase, ignoring the fact that we don’t have open competition in health insurance either, with most markets dominated by two large insurance firms. Go figure.
We may not have the answers- but, if you want to hear our take on “health insurance” and “socialized medicine” sit down, relax and push play for 6:30 minutes of Greg Hunter and David Esrati on “Obamacare”
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bDhS5jcAPA[/youtube]Love to hear your opinion.
If you enjoyed reading true breaking news, instead of broken news from the major media in Dayton, make sure you subscribe to this site for an email every time I post.
If you wish to support this blog and independent journalism in Dayton, consider donating [1]. All of the effort that goes into writing posts and creating videos comes directly out of my pocket, so any amount helps! Please also subscribe to the Youtube channel for notifications of every video we launch –
including the livestreams.
Greg:
Nope; buying insurance is not philanthropy, it is a simple economic transaction. Your side: Is my marginal return on this money better paying a premium against a possible catastrophe or sitting in another investment? The insurance company’s side: Is the marginal return on taking this premium higher than the expected cost of the catastrophes I’m going to have to cover? When the answer to both questions is yes, then a <i>mutually beneficial</i> economic transaction occurs in the <i>marketplace</i>. The insurance company makes a profit, and you get protection from a catastrophe that you couldn’t afford to self-insure against. How is this socialism?
David’s point about the oligopoly is a good one, more competition is almost always a good thing. The government <i>cannot</i> provide that though, because they can run at a deficit indefinitely which no business can do. Perhaps there is some ‘trust busting’ that would be helpful, but that doesn’t seem to be the way our current crop of politicians wants to deal with those ‘too big to fail’.
Lieberman is a sell-out on a vendetta? What a silly, partisan hatchet job. Thank goodness for Independents, big party group think is not good for the Republic.
jstults, good post.
Insurance like the mob. …Wrong, that is forced, as jstults pointed out, risk leveraging happens between 2 mutually agreeable people. Anyone genuinely interested in this topic should really check out a couple of articles. This one is the damaging effects to the insurance market……..which means removing risk leveraging:
http://mises.org/daily/3914
Here is the calculation on why it is a regressive tax:
http://mises.org/daily/3855
Here is a philosophical viewpoint on making people less productive:
http://mises.org/story/3647
Reasons why government intervention into insurance is driving up the cost of leveraging risk:
http://mises.org/story/3727
Price is typically affected by 2 things. Supply and Demand. To bring health costs down you either have to increase supply or decrease demand. Forcing everyone to buy insurance is going to do nothing to the supply and drive demand through the roof. Costs will increase dramatically.
Aside from being an attack on our freedom as individuals (read the first article, as it sites the pages in the bill), it is economically destructive. This plan is anti-freedom and far outside the bounds of our constitution.
In my opinion, Obama proved his ignorance during the presidential debates by declaring that healthcare is a right. Healthcare is the culmination of doctors, entreprenuers, investors etc. to provide someone else with insight into their health. It is the division of labor amongst mankind and healthcare is the labor of many people. To declare one group of people’s labor as a right of another group is basically slavery.
Greg, you just posted here: http://esrati.com/?p=3881#comment-51441 about the American ideal. Maybe you should revisit that thought.
for nearly a decade, lieberman advocated for the very thing he says is making it impossible for him to vote for cloture. (medicare buy-in). what happened? oh yeah, he’s getting his revenge at the expense of his contituents.
To declare one group of people’s labor as a right of another group is basically slavery
A right that’s pretty well accepted in the United States is that to a free public education for grades K-12. Are you suggesting that public school teachers are basically slaves because of this?
And just how would making access to health care a right enslave doctors, nurses and other health care workers? Did I miss something and is someone suggesting that these people will all have to work for free? Are citizens going to be selected by lottery, forced to go to med school and nursing school and then work as slave labor in health care?
DL@ What is a right? Right to speech, to carry arms, to equality before the law. These are all things that a person may inherently have without affecting another individual. The labor of one individual cannot become the right of another. Whether it is direct, by means of forcing someone to work for another, or whether it is through taxation. I am suggesting that I am a slave to the state to pay for public education in which I do not believe. I am forced to work for several institutions in which I do not believe. However, education is at least written into our state constitution, whereas the power that the federal government wants to exert is not written into our constitution.
Do you understand? Did you read the articles? I would be happy to continue the conversation, but I suggest you read the articles as you are likely thinking with your heart and not with your head.
I am suggesting that I am a slave to the state to pay for public education in which I do not believe.
Sorry, I completely misunderstood. I’d thought you were suggesting teachers were slaves because we have a right to free public education and that doctors, nurses and other health care workers would become slaves if we got the right to public health care, not that you were a slave because you have to pay taxes. Now I get what you’re saying, although I disagree with you and think calling yourself a slave is overstating things.
Did I read the articles? Do I think it’s worth continuing the conversation? No, and no. Whether I’m thinking with my heart or with my head or with some other part of my anatomy, there’s not much point in my debating someone who thinks even the streets on which we drive should be private property. Your clarification as to who’s enslaved by our present system was somewhat helpful, but frankly I’ll never really understand you or agree with you, nor am I much bothered by that since I think you have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting your beliefs put into practice.
WOW! Two way street there, Mr. Pro Gay Marriage. You fight the fight with philosophies, and he trumped yours and you take the ball and go home. Good job Robert.
I really do not get the argument. Do you want to abandon the Constitution? If not, then we are having a discussion about this Preamble. I have different beliefs on how to promote this, but as a country we seem to have a problem remembering history and continue to adopt the Insanity Proposition.
The Preamble? Come on, that doesn’t lay out who gets what powers, that’s some inspiring language to tell people why the founders wrote the document.
I’m sorry, but if the legal support for your idea is some personal interpretation of the Preamble, that’s a fail. It’s pretty clear from reading the rest of the document that limiting the power of the federal government and reserving rights / powers to the states and the people were the most fundamental parts (along with balance of powers at the federal level) of achieving the purpose set forth in that Preamble.
Some of us happen to like the results we’re getting enough that Revolution isn’t desirable (evolution might be thought).
David Lauri:
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t realize how hypocritical that would come off when you wrote it. All Robert did was provide some background links that support his views, instead of taking the trouble to read them so you could understand what he’s arguing, you wrote him off as some sort of weirdo. I understand nobody has time to read everything, but if you just don’t have time to read every little article on economics and insurance, just say so, no need to take that parting shot.
I’m sorry Greg, I was calling out DL for not clicking RV’s links, and I didn’t really click on the ones you included:
Good point.
@DL: Mentioning that you think with your heart is a complement. I think most people would agree that if healthcare could magically be provided to everyone, we would all be for it. The point is there is a cost. There is a cost to our freedom and a cost to our wallets. That cost to our wallet will be covered by levying a tax on everyone. That tax may be the equivalent of 2% of my income which translates my 60 hour work week into 1.2 hours working for someone other than me. Now, I do not have the option to go without healthcare, because as this bill states, I will be subject to a fine & Imprisonment if I do not purchase healthcare. Therefore, my options are work 1.2 hours for someone else OR go to jail. Has my freedom been preserved?
If you read the articles, especially the regressive tax article, you will see that it is a labor tax. The results of such a bill will increase unemployment and costs. Making the projected tax levy way to low and creating an unsustainable program. Costs will increase and services will decrease.
Barring what I may have to say on other topics as far as roads etc. It does not discredit the thought and logic that I bring to this argument. My beliefs are shared by many and frankly, helps to preserve and advance your freedom.
The part that you should find disturbing DL, is that by means of a vote, the majority will get to force this on the minority. As I understand it, you belong to a minority. Do you want your rights, your freedom to based on convincing the majority that they should exist, our would you prefer that your freedom and rights are inherent and protected against all………..majority or other?
@Greg and Jstults. …
Greg, the preamble is often the most mis-interpreted portion which people want to believe creates an opening for government to do as they see fit. Jstults rebutted your post very well and pointed out the definition of welfare via your own link runs contradictory to what you implied.
@Greg, the rest of your post seems interpretative and not very clear. I would encourage you to elaborate as I find discourse on this topic very interesting. I am curious if you find the preamble to mean the following:
Word Definitions:
General: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/General That you would choose only the one that meant the majority
Welfare: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare That you would ignore the historical context of the word.
Combining these together, do you think the constitution means “As long as the majority approves and is benefitted”? And it is acceptable to remove this part of the preamble for the minority: “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves”?
Also, what history do you speak of? What do you find insane?
At Tuesday’s TEA Party Laura Ingraham paraphrased the famous poem about the Holocaust:
You can view a Daily Show clip of Ingraham and other TEA Partiers.
The New Republic’s Jon Cohn notes this is the first step, but the biggest to fixing our health care mess. Not perfect but a start. He notes that we need to view the latest compromise through this lens:
…this measure is going to make life better not just for millions, but tens of millions of people. Those without insurance will get it; those with it will have guarantees of financial security they never had before. The government will begin creating an infrastructure for making our health care system focus on better quality care, even as it tries to make the system less expensive.
And that’s not the end of the story. There will be opportunities to improve this law even after it becomes law. Social Security evolved that way. Medicare too. Health care reform can too.
No, this legislation is not everything it could be. But Iowa Sen. Harkin is right: It’s also not everything it will be.
http://mises.org/daily/4276
Medicare is not a right. Property (both wealth and land), and personal protection (bearing arms) are inherent natural rights.
Health care may not be a natural right but it most certainly in most western democracies is a legal right.
Of course the difference is, as Rob already explained, that with Natural Rights they come free from demands on any other person for action. You don’t have to do anything and I can still have property. You don’t have to do anything and I can still have a gun. However, for you to have the “right” to healthcare, someone must provide it and someone must pay for it. That means that they have no choice but to fund your healthcare. Positive rights can only exist for some at the expense of negative rights for others. Negative and Positive rights are mutually exclusive. You must choose either freedom from compulsion or compulsion. Calling compulsion a “positive” or “legal” right doesn’t make it other than compulsion.