This is Kyle- (apologies that my initial few thoughts turned into a book)
I felt like throwing in on this one since it has gotten so many comments. I agree with Janie and others here that the government 'answer' is the wrong way to go but thought I would interject a different way to look at this whole thing.
Other programs of note - Medicare/Welfare/Social Security - noble in purpose maybe but in the hands of the government = waste/fraud/bankruptcy. Again, the answer - just add it to the debt and keep on borrowing. The image of Dory from Finding Nemo comes to mind with a slight change - 'Just keep borrowing' 'Just keep borrowing'...
Bottom line - there isn't the accountability/oversight/and talent within the government to properly handle these types of programs even if it was their job. Which it is NOT. Show me in the founding documents where government is given these roles.
That being said, let's assume for a moment this healthcare change needs to happen. We are told not to worry about the cost since it will be paid for by eliminating waste in other gov't programs. Ok, great - cut the waste now. Why do we need to wait until there is something else to throw the money into before we cut costs? Cut the waste now - prove that it can be done and proponents of this plan get a major victory.
From where I stand, universal healthcare is just another failure waiting to happen. I don't understand why there is this need to change everything right now - right away - it can't wait another minute. There are things that could be improved in healthcare, no doubt, but we have the greatest healthcare in the world. Why break the whole system just because a small percentage of people don't have it? If it is so important, take the time to do it right - don't rush something just to say there was 'change' and we aren't maintaining the 'status-quo'. Like Janie's teacher told her, once the gov't takes something over, they NEVER let it go. So even if the ultimate goal is not to socialize medicine, this is still one giant leap down that path that we will never be able to return from.
11 comments:
I agree with you Kyle. Too bad there are a few hundred yous in govt. Maybe you should run, stage a coup.
I'd vote for you in a heartbeat, Kyle!
Janie (& Kyle),
I loved that you posted these! Being over here, I feel so disconnected from all of the politics in the states. All of the tit for tat that goes on in the daily press. But now, I feel very up to date.
Seems to me that emotions are running very high and very intense over there. It was good to finally 'feel' it through the posts. I hope that you continue to broadcast your opinons!
So, these were my final thoughts on the matter. Kyle is brilliant. I've been thinking, "Give me one, JUST ONE, government run organization that is even 1/2 as successful as a privately run organization and I'll start changing my mind."
Instead, we have:
1. Social Security
2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
3. US Postal Service
4. Medicaid
5. Medicare
The list is long and lengthy. Pretty much everything that the government touches, turns to crap. No company would hire a CEO with that kind of track record to turn their company around ... so ... why would we hire our government WITH THAT KIND OF TRACK RECORD to turn our country around? We need to do it ourselves.
And ... I thought that I felt bad about my remarks, after being called a 'radical right-winged extremist' and 'scary' ... however ... I don't really feel bad ... and I'm not sorry ... so I deleted my apology AND the so-called-friend who said that. And now I'm moving on. :D
Que pasa, Kenjiko? ;) (Private joke.)
"What major program has the government embarked upon that has been a success?" Well if we go back a bit, one could say that the New Deal did pretty well. And the assistance in rebuilding Japan post-WWII certainly was more successful than what has appeared so far in Iraq.
Back to the future, I have some criticisms of cash-for-clunkers as well. I guess my "inner Pat Buchanan" thought that since the original point was to help them othe American automakers, that foreign car companies would have been limited or excluded from benefiting. Then again, I suppose that would have raised a lot of complaints from those international companies, especially from those who opened American plants.
I guess I created a book myself. I have even *more* to say...
Here's part two of what is apparently a three-part novella...
I respect your opinion on whether the majority of people who took advantage of CFC were truly able to afford it. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of people fit that profile. On the other hand, I would like to think that many people who owned cars that were 8,10 years old or more saw an opportunity that they didn't have before to buy a new car at a payment that could afford with the bonus credit. Or maybe they weren't able to buy a house in these troubled times but at least they could upgrade to a new vehicle.
One could make an argument that GM, Chrysler and Ford could have attempted to spin off their least profitable lines to interested buyers... or *something* that wouldn't have involved the government. But simply letting them to fail and close up shop would have had a ripple effect on not only autoworkers but also suppliers and whole communities that would have IMO cost more than what was received through the stimulus package.
At least with the "clunker" banks and investment firm, human and financial capital could have been transferred relatively smoothly to smaller, more financially stable entities. I don't think there are any start-up car companies (in the US at least) that are ready to step in the breach.
As it is, I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, whether it be subsidized research and development or the current stimuli. I'm as mad at the bank executives' self-interest as I imagine you are regarding auto worker labor unions. But I do recognize that something had to be done to save literally millions of lives from being affected.
Wow... I spent more time talking about cars than I planned! :^O And I only usually play Navigator/DJ in the one around here. lol
In part three, I actually get back to healthcare!
And now, the final chapter...
Wow... I spent more time talking about cars than I planned! :^O And I only usually play Navigator/DJ in the one around here. lol
As for other long-running programs...
Janie's thoughts and experience regarding Medicare were certainly food for thought. I would amend an earlier statement I made to say that maybe private insurers aren't necessarily inefficient themselves... but perhaps a little *too* efficient when it comes to authorizing costly but life-changing procedures and denying or dropping coverage to those with certain pre-existing/developed conditions.
I also agree that there should be limitations on individual welfare as well. While community and charity may be a worthy solution, I think there are other answers that wouldn't necessarily involve government funds - or at least government direction - that would allow people to help themselves.
Concerning Social Security, while I'm sure there are those drawing disability that "game the system" just as some on welfare do, I think the main responsibility of our impending Social Security crisis goes to the "Greatest Generation" for their enthusiasm in creating the subsquent Baby Boomers. I imagine the architects of Social Security did not predict such a population explosion at that time.
I admit that I haven't read any of our founding documents lately... but I think there would be a considerable amount left to interpretation, no matter the viewpoint. I certainly think this country - if not the world - would be a much different place if we still held to the norms of the 1700's.
Finally getting to healthcare (whew! LOL), I don't think it's not just that a would-be relative few don't have insurance but the cost for those who *do* have it is increasing exponentially every year. I suppose that's great for stockholders in those insurance companies, not the least of which being the CEOs, but certainly not for the vast majority of Americans.
I believe in a free market but I think there needs to be some level of accountability. IMO the government failed with the major banks and insurers. I can respect how you might think they also failed with the automakers.
Ironically, one could almost say that the most successful capitalist country these days is China. Of course, China also adheres to the communist agenda that many of us are suddenly fearing. As it is, their unchecked one-party rule has literally bulldozed over communities in the name of "progress". If you're feeling "bulldozed" yourself now, imagine how a person like myself felt for at least six of the previous eight years.
Speaking of the previous Administration, there could also be a case made on how *they* justified the deficit that was created - and the various stimuli that was employed/recycled to ostensibly stem the outflow - but that's a whole 'nother story. And I've probably always exceeded bandwidth as it is. :) (Self-editor note: It turns out I did... twice!)
As far as voting Kyle in, I'd say that he'd definitely get my vote for McKinney Father of the Year... that is, if I didn't live some 1500 miles away. I'd most certainly vote him in for Fantasy Football Commissioner! ;)
I apologize to those whose eyes may have glazed over. LOL I didn't realize how much I had written until it was done. At the very least, I hope I gave all of you something to think about from the other side of the coin, so to speak.
I don't have the time, unfortunately, to write another novella so I must keep my comments (relatively) short. (edit: apparently I lack the ability to write short comments)
One thing that is lost in the discussions I have heard on the news is that the insurance industry is a business and not a charity. These companies are in business to make money and return a value to their shareholders. They are not in business to provide everything to everyone. This can and often does lead to unfortunate and even seemingly cruel decisions. Like every industry there are good companies and bad and even dirty ones. I heard a story about a woman denied life-saving medication for cancer, I think, due to her pre-existing condition of 'acne'. This is obviously not a decision very many people would ever support and one I doubt is the norm. (on a side note the evil pharmacy company stepped in and gave her the medication free of charge)
Examples like this aside, these companies make financial decisions to be profitable while providing a needed service. Taking individual pieces such as pre-existing conditions and high premiums or deductibles, it is easy to paint every one of these companies as a vulture preying upon the weak and needy. Take a step back and look at the entire picture and you can see that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. If every company covered every condition, everyone covered would need to foot the bill and pay for these increased services or the company would fail.
This is my biggest question with the reform plan as it has been explained. Private companies will continue to exist but they will not be allowed to deny coverage. This would be a crippling blow and would lead to certain failure for each of these companies. Unable to control costs, they would be forced to raise premiums until subscribers abandoned them which would force more price increases to cover the lost subscriber... rinse and repeat until the doors are closed. This is not 'competition'. This is creating a playing field and rules where only one team can possibly survive - the gov't option.
One final thought in this not-as-short as I planned comment. Why is it that BIG-auto, BIG-banking, BIG-pharm, and BIG-insurance are depicted as these evil menacing villains while BIG-government is the angelic answer to all our problems?
Kyle, I'm glad you can see that the insurers can be imperfect themselves at times. I'm certainly not going to say that the government is always efficient, either.
Those companies that are able to self-regulate and operate fairly often operate with little government interference. Obviously the "BIG" companies you mentioned above are having difficulty doing that.
Wow, I actually sdid that in only two paragraphs! :)
y'all have more time to worry about this crap than i do-- wish i did though!
woops, I meants to say aren't a few hundred yous instead of are. Changes the whole meaning of that one.
Post a Comment