Insurers and free speech

Originally posted by badmoon
I do really believe that you are ill advised as to your views on the health care debate. And of course the current insurance system already dictates what is ok or not. Don't drink the insurance kool-aid so robustly they are purely and only motivated by profit, not patient well being.[/b]

Do I have all the answers? No. Does Obamacare have all the answers? No. However, the difference is that Obama and company get to force their answers on the rest of all of us. As I said before, I favor state solutions over federal. In short, let America find the answers rather than living and dying by one plan by one man or group of men that will be etched in stone like that of any other entitlement policy on the books. As the saying goes, none of us are as smart as the both of us.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b] In fact, there is NO way for him to prove that the insurance companies are lying simply because I think at times it perplexes him as to what this bohemouth entitlement policy will actually pan out to be.

I think this is the root of the matter. Our current healthcare system is a complex mess that would probably have stumped Einstein. And any eff ...[text shortened]... is would also apply to those opposing reforms). But that's what we're all doing. Guessing.[/b]

Well said. Its some scary stuff, ain't it?

Originally posted by whodey
let America find the answers rather than living and dying by one plan by one man or group of men

This is Essential Whodey.

"America" *is* trying to find the answers.

It is doing so through its system of representative democracy and government.

This "one man or group of men" as you call it is in fact the democratically elected U.S. government and current administration tasked with finding the answers to your nation's problems.

You were and are unhappy with the result of the 2008 General Election. We get that.

You post prolifically and yet never ever make any credible proposal as to what the "answers" should be or how to find them.

Your schtick is a kind of defiant, monotonous complaining under a mountain of sometimes cheery waffle that's bereft of any practical suggestions. Or at least, very very few. I don't mean that as unkindly as it sounds. We can all post whatever we want here and enjoy clobbering each other's schticks - and I don't claim to offer any suggestions of my own that are particularly credible or practical - but can you at least see how your dogged, doughty, determination - as expressed here day after day - is not political activism at all, but is instead simply a sort of otherworldly carping from the fringe, unencumbered by reality or any risk of being tested for what it is actually worth?

I stress, I do not mean this unkindly. I am asking: do you see your "Obama is a liar about everything, always" mantra as a kind of activism? Or can you see how it one might perceive it to be merely a passive, negative, lack of vision, indeed a complete lack of activism, rooted in your feelings of political impotence, deep disappointment, resigned condescension, and your unwillingness to enter into a political debate that is framed by the terms of reference that the real world sets us, like them or not?

This is a genuine question.

Originally posted by FMF
This is Essential Whodey.

"America" *[b]is* trying to find the answers.

It is doing so through its system of representative democracy and government.

This "one man or group of men" as you call it is in fact the democratically elected U.S. government and current administration tasked with finding the answers to your nation's problems.

You were and rence that the real world sets us, like them or not?

This is a genuine question.[/b]

Actually, it is about the gradual realization that the progressive movement has slowly transformed the US into a centralized oligarchy. Slowly and surely the original goal of federalism set up by the Founding Fathers has been usurped, and mainly due to the acquiance and apathy of the American voter. I do realize that people like myself confound progressives. After all, people have been silent for so long, so why speak out now? Why not just shut up and get out of the way, as Obama would put it?

Having said all that, the whole health care issue is just another example of what I am talking about. Again, the federal government is attempting to grab even more control over our lives. In addition, it will have far reaching effects for generations to come. Once in place, future administrations will have to abide by the decisions that are made now their hands will be tied. There is no going back. In fact, you might even argue that we have already started down this road with Medicaid and Medicare. Perhaps that was the nail in the coffin.

As for what Obama says or you say, I will continue to speak out, so long as I still have the freedom to do so. In fact, you might as well get used to it and I plan on continuing even when the Republicans gain powier come next election. A movement has started in the US that is sick and tired of corruption and the ill effects of the progressive movement and that includes the Republican party. Just like yourself, I have a feeling they just don't get it either.

Originally posted by whodey
Actually, it is about the gradual realization that the progressive movement has slowly transformed the US into a centralized oligarchy. Slowly and surely the original goal of federalism set up by the Founding Fathers has been usurped, and mainly due to the acquiance and apathy of the American voter. I do realize that people like myself confound progressives ...[text shortened]... udes the Republican party. Just like yourself, I have a feeling they just don't get it either.

So would you propose that the federal government gets out of infrastructure?

Originally posted by whodey
Actually, it is about the gradual realization that the progressive movement has slowly transformed the US into a centralized oligarchy. Slowly and surely the original goal of federalism set up by the Founding Fathers has been usurped, and mainly due to the acquiance and apathy of the American voter. I do realize that people like myself confound progressives ...[text shortened]... udes the Republican party. Just like yourself, I have a feeling they just don't get it either.

You have written perhaps 20,000 words this year on this forum on this topic.

But where's the 'whodey vision'?

If people were talking about you at a water cooler, what ideas of yours about health reform would they be able to discuss?

It would be "whodey sure hates Obama" and "he didn't like Bush much either" and "whodey doesn't want Big Brother in his life" and "whodey trusts commercial companies more than democratic representatives" and "he's real big on the Founding Fathers, eh?"etc.

There's be nothing about health reform. No ideas to evaluate. No suggestions to ponder. No proposals to weigh. No changes to debate. Nothing about reform.

You and your "20,000 words" on this topic have, for all intents and purposes, yielded nothing proactive on health care reform.

You seem so motivated on this topic and yet proposing something deosn't seem to matter to you.

Indeed, it's as if your contributions are merely political anti-matter.

Originally posted by whodey
A movement has started in the US that is sick and tired of corruption and the ill effects of the progressive movement and that includes the Republican party.

What ideas and proposals for health reform does this 'movement' have?

Originally posted by whodey
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_medicare_6

"Republican lawmakers rebuked the Obama administration Tuesday for telling health insurance companies to stop warning elderly customers they will lose benefits in health care legislation, which some equated as a gag order."

So the quesiton is this, should insurers be censored rega ...[text shortened]... ng to be bullied into silence if they are deemed opponents of the "progressive movement"?

they may be wrong, but they should be able to express their point of view freely.

Originally posted by FMF
What ideas and proposals for health reform does this 'movement' have?

Off the top of my head, here are a few.

1. Tort reform. Alomst ALL conservatives recognize the need. If done correctly, it would reduce premiums doctors pay thus limiting the overall costs to the rest of us. In addition, they might consider moving litigation to special medical courts (much like the do tax payers) to create legal health care experts who are trained judges. This would simplify the process and help curtail frivolous law suits. Of course, this would be limited to civil suits, not criminal ones. Of course, there is NO mention of this currently.

2. Reglatory reform. Reglatory burden on health care industry is part of the problem. I am not saying reluglation is not needed, but some of the hoops that health care providers have to jump through to provide services are down right draconian. This does not just apply to doctors and health care workers, but also to peripheral industries that suppot them. A good example is HIPAA. One man wrote, "While I applaude the efforts and good intentions to try and protect patients privacy, the lengths that doctors and hospitals are forced to go through for compliance with this law are absurd. I know, as I have done some consulting for network computer security for doctors and hospitals. A review of these restrictions by people in their industries (not a politician or bureaucrat), would find thousands upon thousands of useless efficiency draining regulations that could be removed or revised" Another problem with regulation, is that the federal government restricts health care packages that cross state lines. Limiting the sale of a product (which is what health insurance is when you get down to it) across state lines is rather silly.

3. Make insurance coverage independent of employees. What used to be a way for a company to offer an incentive to attract and keep good employees has become a requirment for any company employing more than 50 people. That has become a major burden for any business. It also makes it so there is no choice for the individual. With most companies paying a portion of the health care costs, the employee does not see the complete spectrum of cost increases. If individuals had to obtain their own health coverage, it would allow them to have a real choice rather than being forced to take whatever plan the employer provides. Also, the increase in people seeking insurance would allow new market of co-ops and other voluntary group plans. If we take away the unnecessary regulations they would be able to operate more efficiently. The money saved by employers on insurance and Human Resources costs could go directly to the employers pocket.

4. Making a profit is NOT a sin. It is the profit that spurs innovation and efficiency. If there is no profit, there is no benefit of risk. Why would a pharmaceutical company invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a new drug to treat a disease if there is no benifit to succeed?

5. Flexible spending accounts. Allow employees to have their own flexible spending accounts in which pretax money can be put away for future health care needs. Of course, many have this option now, however, at the end of the year if the money is not used, they lose it. This is proposterous and nothing more than stealing. In addition, if you have no funds to use or have to pay out of pocket post tax money for medical care, make it tax deductible.

6. Let the states decide what kind of health plans people should have rather than the federal government and tax them accordingly to pay for it. So if you want universal health care, you can live in a state that has it, or if you don't want it, you can live in a state that does not have it. This way the US will have 50 different laboratories in action telling us which plans work and which do not.

7. Provide incentives for individuals to make cost-conscious medical decisions. Unless individuals face a financial penalty from their choice that drives health care costs upward, supply-side reforms will fail. This is in comparison to those on the left who think that individuals are largely irrelavent to a health care cost dynamic that is controlled by medical providers. In their view, the only way to control costs is through increased governmental regulation of how doctors and hospitals are reimbursed.

8. Focus on the economy stupid. Provide an economy that is not bogged down in taxes and regulation, thus, reducing the unemployement rate and overall government dependence. Since small businesses employs up to 2/3 of the the new work force every year, focus on measures to make their plight easier and less costly.


How's that for starters?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b] In fact, there is NO way for him to prove that the insurance companies are lying simply because I think at times it perplexes him as to what this bohemouth entitlement policy will actually pan out to be.

I think this is the root of the matter. Our current healthcare system is a complex mess that would probably have stumped Einstein. And any eff is would also apply to those opposing reforms). But that's what we're all doing. Guessing.[/b]

Here is an interesting article

http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147486771

It is an article on how both the right and left approach reform. Both sides see the need for reform, however, both approach it differently. Reform from the left approaches reform based upon the rationalistic approach to change. Beginning with the enlightenment and exemplified by the French Revolution, liberals believe that government and society, in all their complexity, can be completely managed through the power of ideas, using primarily the capability of the human mind, hence, any percieved problems can be solved by a completly reasoned, planned process. Here are the logical corollaries to the rationalistic approach to change:

1. Reform can be defined in a comprehensive plan, before any changes actually occur, even though the plan may only be a mete-narrative (a defining story) and not necessarily a detailed specification.

2. Reform can be conducted in a one-step fashion, or in a large phase connected process, even thorugh admittedly this process may be huge.

3. Reform should be planned and managed by a small, politically homogeneous group of elite experts.

So here are the dangers of this type of reform.

Unentended consequences. Government and human society are exceedingly complex systems (degree of coplexity is related to the number of seperate entities and the number and nature of interconnections). Discoveries (over the past several decades) in the area of chaos theory and fractel theory have demonstrated conclusively that even some very simple, deterministic equations can be evaluated to produce very unexpected and unpredictable results, given a specific set of initial conditions (paramaters). This, essentially mathematical notion, can be exampled as the so called "butterfly" effect in weather, discovered by Edward Lorentz.

Lorenz built a mathmatical model of the way air moves around in the atmosphere. As Lorenz studied weather patterns he began to realize that they did not always change as predicted. Minute variations in the initial values of variable in his 12 variable weather model would result in grossly divergent weather patterns. This sensitive dependence on initial conditions came to be known as the butterfly effect.

What this means, in pratical terms, is that efforts to completely and accurately compute (to know for certain) the future state, especially a distant future state, for a changing, very complex systems is not always humanly possible. The weather is one such, very complex system. Government and society provide another example. An example of a complex system that is computable with surprising accuracy, into the distant future and the distant past is the solar system. But not so the weather or governmental and social systems. (As a side note, I find it humerous that the weather is used as an example, especially in light of the controversy over the effects of our carbon footprint and global warming)

Belief in the rationalistic approach to change is the key connecting belief for all liberal intellectuals beginning with Jean Rousseau and extending through Barack Hussein Obama. All correctly identified, ideological intellectuals deeply believe that the world can, and should, be changed and managed with ideas, their ideas of course.

______________________________________________________________

Conversely, conservatives are always concerned with the known problem of unintended consequences. Conservatives believe that the human intellect alone is incapable of determining, in advance, the results of extensive reform to very complex human systems such as governmnet and society. So, since conservatives do understand the absolute necessity for change, what is an accurate label for the conservative veiw toward change? We can label it, the historical approach to change. This approach can be seen as a test-and-verify (empirical) approach that relies on the lessons offerred by history as a guide to reforms. Empiricism (related to the empirical approach) is a philisophical theory that asserts that knowledge arises primarily from experience. Conservatives believe strongly in the dictum from the philosopher, George Santayana. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Logical corollaries to the historical approach for change are as the following.

1. Reform should avoid radical change (broad, sweeping, comprehensive, rapid change) due to the known and always present danger of unintended comsequences.

2. Reform should be conducted in relatively small steps (compared with the size of what is being changed) over a period of time so that unintended consequences can be minimized, and can be corrected if detrimental.

3. Reform should be planned and managed by a large, politically diverse group of democratically selected citizens.

What are the primary dangers of this conservative view of reform?

Unintended consequences. Whereas liberals run the risk of getting ahead of the necessary change curve with reform, conservatives run the risk of of lagging behind the necessary change curve with reforms. Of course, being a conservative, I am biased, and I think that of the two options, getting ahead is much more dangerous than lagging begind. Liberals would of course, disagree.

Originally posted by whodey
Off the top of my head, here are a few.[...] How's that for starters?

Sounds mostly irrelevant to the needs and predicament of vast swathes of the hard working poor.

Originally posted by FMF
Sounds mostly irrelevant to the needs and predicament of vast swathes of the hard working poor.

Not if you give them jobs, unless you prefer them dependent on Big Brother. As I said, small business is the key to this plan. It is the little guy helping the little guy. Big Brother and his twin the Big corporation have no interest in the upward mobility of the poor.

Originally posted by whodey
Not if you give them jobs, unless you prefer them dependent on Big Brother. As I said, small business is the key to this plan. It is the little guy helping the little guy. Big Brother and his twin the Big corporation have no interest in the upward mobility of the poor.

This is the wooliest, waffliest, whinge-iest, walnut whippiest health care reform plan I've ever heard.

Originally posted by FMF
This is the wooliest, waffliest, whinge-iest, walnut whippiest health care reform plan I've ever heard.

What is? Is giving each state the right to decide for themselves crazy? Is the thought of generating as many jobs as possible crazy? I know, how about we let Big Brother and the Big corporations run things and sit around and wait till the deficit is $20 trillion? Then they can tax our economy into oblivion as we all become slaves to that debt? Then they can force us to ration our health care even more. Sound good?

Originally posted by whodey
What is? Is giving each state the right to decide for themselves crazy? Is the thought of generating as many jobs as possible crazy? I know, how about we let Big Brother and the Big corporations run things and sit around and wait till the deficit is $20 trillion? Then they can tax our economy into oblivion as we all become slaves to that debt? Then they can force us to ration our health care even more. Sound good?

Economies of scale, whodey.

And Reagan reduced taxes and virtually let the health industries write their own deregulation script. Did it result in an improvement in the health care system?

No. It did not.

You have the chance to state a detailed, practical, real world proposal for reforming health care in, say, only EIGHT points, and...? DOINGG. You've SO run out of actual right here right now ideas, that your #8 is...

8. Focus on the economy stupid. Provide an economy that is not bogged down in taxes and regulation, thus, reducing the unemployement rate and overall government dependence. Since small businesses employs up to 2/3 of the the new work force every year, focus on measures to make their plight easier and less costly.

Mmmm. Let's leave the details to whoever the details have been left to up till now.

And #6 seemed to inadvertently reveal that you actually don't have a clue of your own:

6. Let the states decide what kind of health plans people should have rather than the federal government and tax them accordingly to pay for it. So if you want universal health care, you can live in a state that has it, or if you don't want it, you can live in a state that does not have it. This way the US will have 50 different laboratories in action telling us which plans work and which do not.

Ouch! "50 different laboratories in action"?

Is this a genuine counter proposal?

So if those proverbial people were talking about whodey at the water cooler, it would still be "whodey hates Obama, he hates him, he hates him, he hates him" and "he didn't like Bush much either" and "whodey doesn't want Big Brother in his life" and "whodey's talking points are Big Brother, slaves, Nazis, Big Brother, slaves, death panels, slaves, Founders' intent, Nazis" and "whodey trusts corporations more than democratic representatives" and "whodey's real keen on the Founding Fathers, eh?" etc. etc. etc. etc.