Washington Protests

[Rincewind]

OK, I was hearing about these massive anti-Obama protests in Washington, and I have just one question- what the hell?

First, there's the ones equating us to Russia for working on universal health insurance coverage. Ooookay. Yes, not at ALL like, say, Canada, Britain, most of Europe, etc. I'm more than a little tired of people whose bright idea is trying to scare people by comparing us to Russia. The 1950's are over. Deal with it. And anyone who doesn't think that health insurance needs some reform hasn't had to deal with it. I buy my own health care. My family is on a different plan that I wasn't healthy enough to qualify for. I process people's insurance every day at work and it's a nightmare of different plans, payments, etc. Making that simpler would be SO much easier on everyone, except the insurance execs, I suppose.

Tax tea parties- I'm not entirely sure what they're upset about, given that I don't think any participants have had any tax increases themselves. I think they see which way the wind is blowing with the deficit and see that some increases will be needed in the future. But I think most participants misunderstand what's going on. In any event, I'd like to see them really talk with the next group's people.

People worried about the deficit. These are smart people with a real, intelligent concern. I am one of them. I have only one question for the protesters today. WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN??? You people let a president go from a surplus to the largest deficit the USA had EVER had and didn't make a peep. Now the next guy comes along and you're blaming him for it all. Are you on drugs?

OK, had to get that all off my chest, I'd appreciate any other views on this, since I can't figure it out myself.

[Dmitri]

I think this might make a little sense:

re: Russia - OK, so it doesn't scare you anymore, but it still is a real part of most people's memory and identity who are 40+. You can sub in whatever other nation seems most frightening to you, and it oughta work. Personally, I still identify with the old threat of the USSR, coming from a real hardcore Cold Warrior family, but hey, whatever.

I think that many people miss this part of it too - we live in the US and many people like the way we do things better than the way they do them in Europe. Mandatory universal healthcare is undeniably a socialistic concept; this isn't any more arguable than the sum of 2 and 2. Doesn't necessarily make it bad, but we gotta be real with our definitions. Some people simply find all things born of socialist leanings to be scary - read Fredrich Hayek for some insight into the mentality. Not everyone believes that healthcare is a right, some call it a privilege. I may disagree... but such is democracy. If you and I think that everyone oughta have universal coverage, than let's go convince enough other people and elect folks who will make it happen. For those who disagree, let them do likewise.

re: Deficit and Teabagging - I know you hate GWB, but come on... healthcare and military spending are different things. Many conservatives (which is the group you are dealing with, along with the always unhappy - at least in our country - libertarians) are willing to allow the government to fulfill its duty pursuant to Article 1.8.1 of the Constitution. Military spending is also justified further in Article 1, as well as in Article 2 under the powers of the President. To the best of my knowledge, their is no enumerated power granted to any branch of government that gives the power require healthcare coverage. If anyone knows of this "mandatory universal healthcare clause" and its location, let me know.

Let it be said again - I like the idea of universal healthcare. But it is not difficult to see how someone who wants a tight reading of the Constitution in purely domestic issues will have trouble swallowing it. GWB could justify (in some people's view of constitutional interpretation) extended powers during the days following 9/11 by raising issues of national security and the historical precedent of many presidents, including Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. Obama has no such thing going for him - healthcare is not quite the same as wiretapping for terrorism and extraordinary war powers.

So yes, they are worried about the deficit for something that is not a major national security issue (in their view). There was something about 9/11 that made people willing to fight and borrow to do so. You remember in the few years after, the feeling of the nation. It's not like we were fighting a war (or two, actually) or anything.

As for me, I say "hurrah" for single payor, universal healthcare, so remember that I am trying to explain the psychology of others, and not my own.

[Rincewind]

There's just one problem with that, Dmitri- GWB had the country running an unnecessary deficit (down from a record surplus) BEFORE 9/11, BEFORE any wars. The wars only made this worse, and realistically, one of them really didn't need fought. So it was discretionary deficit spending to go to war with Iraq for their WMDs. And I didn't hear any fiscal conservatives complaining.

We've got a deficit now because the government is trying to keep the economy afloat. The current deficit doesn't have anything to do with health care- apart from the very large percentage of the budget that goes for Medicare/Medicaid etc. Keyneian economic theory says that this is just when the government should be running a deficit, not that I like it. It's right out of the Bible with Joseph in Egypt- in the seven years when the country was doing well, he raised taxes and the government built up a surplus. When it was doing badly for the next seven years, the government went into deficit spending used that surplus to keep people alive. Unfortunately we're dealing with some nimrods who saw the good years and said "Laissez les bon temps roulez!" (let the good times roll in creole) and dropped taxes in the good years... this utterly screwing over anyone who has to deal with the bad ones.

[Dmitri]

I'm not saying that I like it, Rince - but it is the way they see it.

Whether or not the war in Iraq was a good thing is something that can be debated; it's not a given or anything.

Like I said, it is just the way they see things. And we have to remember where the economy was in 2000 - tax cuts operated according to a supply-side theory of economics (in contrast to the Keynesian demand-side formula). There are plenty of economists who believe that the tax cuts kept us afloat through much of the 2000s, and that without them we'd have been in this mess long before. Not saying they are right, but saying that there is not the widespread agreement on this that you seem to be looking for.

Anyway, I kinda like much of what Obama is talking about - my fear is that he is going to compromise on important ideas like the "public option" for insurance, or other key economic and domestic issues.

[grond]

Dividends. Period. Exclamation point.

I finally found out the dirty truth (or supposed truth) of this investment tool of the dark side, and have heard a number of voices (probably not credible, but none imaginary) blame our economic decline on these forms of non investment that were outlawed in the early part of the 20th century, and then legalized again recently.

As for health-care? I seriously doubt a minimum wager could afford any form of coverage. It also seems as though the insurance industry is not interested in providing care and support for people as much as they are interested in a lucrative business. This seems to cross the line into a form of profiting from the suffering of many, a thing I think of as immoral.
Anyway, rant off. I forgot what I was driving at. Oh yeah, government healthcare would be non-profit, lowering the cost and removing the incentive for profit related rate hikes, at least that is the thought.

The side that is expressing concern has one very valid fear in my opinion. The government is not practiced and experienced in any field other than government. Anytime they involve themselves in ventures normally managed by the private sector, they are taking up the reigns with virtually no experience and only (maybe) the best intentions.
Just my thoughts, hope they're coherent.

[Dmitri]

Yea, the problem of government intervention is sticky at times. We have seen it in education, when a bunch of lawyers get together and write education proposals and the like. No Child Left Behind suffers from this syndrome, for sure. But I agree with Grond - the current system is broken in foundational ways.

[Dragonsrule]

The healthcare protesters, must all have pharmacutical stocks and insurance stocks, as these will take a hit under Universal coverage. For all those who think we have the best system, ummm the USA ranks #1 in cost but #37 in actual quality of service. For me I want to know exactly what is wrong with those who do have "Socialist" health care, if it's ranked ahead of ours, in quality of care.

[Steve]

I can't really give my opinion on socialized healthcare, since I don't exactly have a hand in my own health insurance policy or any experience with the industry. However, I consider myself a very moderate republican (in favor of low gov't intervention, but this includes leaving abortions, drugs, and gay marriage alone), so I don't like the idea of government-owned industry outside of unprofitable sectors like recycling and road work.

As for the protestors, I have a theory.
Obama has a strange quality about him that so strongly polarizes the nation that it takes an incredibly strong will to not either hate Obama for the sake of hating Obama or hang on his every word. Most everyone I know has gone from a moderate to one of these two extremes. It's actually kind of sad.

[Rincewind]

I actually am concerned about a government option, if they don't fundamentally change the way health insurance works. Note that I didn't say health care- it's the insurance. The public option is supposed to be heavily based on Medicare to save money. Problem is, medicare reimbursements suck. Bad.

So why, you might ask, do doctors take it? Well, some just to get patients, any patients. Others know how to work the system and bill for their services in such a way that they're not getting hosed. There are classes on this, and I've heard lecturers talk about how to get good money out of medicare patients for years.

How? By doing EXACTLY what the president and other people have been saying needs to change about medicine. Do lots of tests. Do them on different days so you can bill for each one, sometimes multiple times. As many procedures as you can cram into a bill, and if you can't fit in more you have them come back.

Because this system pays for procedures and not results, it is those people who are making good money off Medicare- and NOT the doctors who are just treating those patients the way they'd treat anyone else. If you could figure out a way to pay based on results and not on procedures, you'd have a good plan going. But if you base it off Medicare- I think we're better off without it.

Just some thoughts from someone who has sat through WAY too many medical billing lectures.

[Dragonsrule]

How about making Primary care Doctors, actually get paid more per patient than Specialists. I think it's a little messed up that a Family Dr. has to see about 4x the patients as a specialist, just to get close to the same pay scale. If you have more Dr's willing to go into family practice, then they won't feel rushed and take more time per patient.

[Rincewind]

I do think saying the protests are racially motivated is a bit silly. While there is certainly some of that present (The Daily Show's interviews of people from West Virginia before the election were... interesting....) I don't think it's the motivation for most of the sentiment. It's more or less the same sort of thing that Clinton had to deal with while he was in office. I think people just have short memories.

They are pretty damn boring protests, though. I mean, you learn about the reasons behind them and it nearly puts you to sleep. You'd think it was a Democratic protest. They don't have the fire of an end war protest or the outrage of a "keep yer bits in yer pants" protest. It's one of those ones where you need to give a good detailed explanation of why you're protesting- and sadly, that's something most of the people doing them can't provide.

[grond]

I have to agree that the reasoning behind the protests is a little bit more than absurd. "What? You're going to give everyone a more equal chance of good medical treatment? Not just the few who can afford the currently staggering costs of good medical treatment? You want the less financially advantaged to be healthy too? WE"RE PUTTING OUR FOOT DOWN!!!!"
However, in our incredulity, we should be sure not forget that protests are one of the only ways that everyone can manage to voice an oppositional opinion in this country, since after we elect officials they seem to be free to break or keep any promises they feel like, until the next election comes up. What you are seeing is people exercising what should be a universal right, and in some countries is an execution worthy offense. We do live in a country where a voice isn't limited to the witty, well educated or socially affable (even a serious coke head can get a heavily influential talk show without any real talent for speech). Everyone who has one is free to use it, and should remain so without too much ridicule. I know everyone knows this, but I just felt it important to recognize for a moment the rights of the perpetually tongue tied. (Rare moment of respectful social sensitivity ended) GROND SMASH SOCIETAL AND POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO CURRENT REGIME!!!!!!!

[Dmitri]

I do think, however, that we have to remember that the idea of "healthcare as a right" is not a given - there is massive debate on this. I may think it is a good thing... you may think it is a good thing. But a heck of a lot of very intelligent people think otherwise - check out the writings of some pretty smart cookies like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, et al.

I have my reasons for believing in universal healthcare - I am interested to hear other people's reasoning.

Last question - can anyone think of a good way to constitutionally justify a requirement that everyone in the nation carry health insurance? Cause that one could get sticky, especially given the makeup of the Supreme Court.

[grond]

The universal right I was speaking of was the right to object.
I don't think of health care as a universal right, but I do believe that the health and well being of a nation's people will go a long way towards ensuring the continuity of that nation's way of life. Also, many states, if not every state, already require auto insurance for all who own cars, this ensures that anyone who is inconvenienced or worse by a motor vehicle accident will be compensated appropriately for the damages. Health insurance likewise ensures that any doctor performing his duty will be compensated appropriately for his efforts.
In many fields, we have the right to refuse a customer, but in some branches of the medical field (unless I sorely miss the mark here) refusal of a patient is not an option. If the service must be performed, doesn't it stand to reason that the fee must also be paid?
As I said before, our people's health effects the lifespan of our nation. If we were so concerned about communism destroying our country in the middle of the last century (and still seem to be today) then why isn't there the same concern for growing health concerns that could well threaten to destroy us now? Heart disease, obesity, diabetes all seem to be more and more prevalent. Universal health insurance, or a subsidy option or anything else that gives everyone access to health care could go a long way keeping us healthier, stronger and longer living. Our country does go to great lengths to find ways to equalize the lives of people born with all sorts of challenges, why shouldn't general medical problems like small kidneys, or cancer be on that list? Without universal healthcare, how can we claim to be a land of opportunity?
Ok, that was a little dramatic, but children at least, have no independent opportunity to acquire health care unless a universal option is offered (I believe some states have options like these). A child should NEVER die because a particular treatment was too expensive to try.

[Dmitri]

The difference between car insurance and health insurance at least twofold. First, car insurance is required and administered by the several states, not by the federal government - thus circumventing issues of constitutionality. Next, car insurance protects the other guy - the one I hit - while health insurance is supposed to protect me. If all we were going to require was some form of catastrophic insurance for ERs that might get stiffed, I think it might not be as hard of a fight.

As for children, we already have a state administered national program - CHIP. Children's Medicaid, too.

The rest of your reasoning is generally collectivist - anathema to the conservative mindset. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, mind, though my reasoning is very different. I guess what I am trying to point out is that issues with universal health care are far from ridiculous, and far from unreasonable. There are very legitimate philosophical reasons why people oppose it, and it is not just out of mean-spiritedness. The liberals need to keep this in mind, and stop demonizing those who disagree - isn't intolerance one of the main critiques that liberals levy against conservatism?