…here’s a handy-dandy little graphic which touches some of the bases here in the US. This I found referenced in an article by Jim Demaine MD, which is itself worth a read;
In our country, we’ve built up a huge medical-industrial system that can do lots of good but at a huge cost. It seems that we are on the brink of a “health care-cost bubble” because we are now dragging down economic growth with continued double digit rising insurance rates. Individuals, small businesses, corporations, and government entities are all crying for relief from this health care cost burden.
I’ve yet to hear or read a compelling argument for why the whole business of health care delivery needs to be a profit making enterprise at its heart anyway. If the argument is simply an ideological conviction that the private for-profit sector just “does things better”, always and everywhere, than the public sector then how come its apologists are not campaigning fiercely to privatize the Veteran’s Administration? Would they be willing to make the argument that only the best is good enough for our military veterans and their families, and that it’s scandalously un-American for them to be at the mercy of a socialized healthcare delivery system?
The political institutions are colonized, the polling on the issue is distorted, and the whole damn situation is now so polarized that it’s impossible to have a sane national conversation about any of it. I mean, come on, look at that one stat toward the bottom there; insurance premiums have risen 131% in the last decade. Uninsured patients drive just 8% of that increase.
Created by: MedicalBillingAndCodingCertification.net
(h/t Newshoggers)
EP
I’m bewildered too, unless you’ve been slumming over at Lew Rockwell’s place.
I didn’t know that “action” (you mean government action, I’m assuming) and “harm” were synonymous anywhere else. Cato Institute, maybe, but even they’ve been making timid noises about the current GOP madness.
How else do you explain our current situation? The “rules” are frustratingly preventing action until there is a resounding majority in favor of a particular action. Nothing to do with slumming, Rockwell, Cato or other bogie men.
Expat: I get it. You’re right, there is a lot of nothing happening.
Apparently.
But it all looks a bit like swans: nothing apparently going on above the surface, but a lot of shit being stirred up underneath ready to float up from the bottom of the canal . . .
(Acqua Sccoiattolo’s had to be washed again. She still smelt of bloody oil. Oh, and, for Bluthner: no, we won’t joining in the river parade on the Thames . . .)
Expat –– Natasha is not ignoring you, he’s just tied up with his Dominatrix at the moment.
I hadn’t noticed Madame – or should I say Ms. Pearl mwha ha ha – but regardless be gentle and have fun
Nat, well, yes, I was, but it is about both. So Romney pals up with Trump. Releases a copy of a birth certificate immediately. Why?
He’s also doing electioneering calls with Perry. Why?
And he’s palling up with Sheldon whatsisname (the Newt financer). Why?
Sullivan comes up with (to me at least) a significant bit of Mormonry that could explain something about Romney’s bedding down with the religious right, and it really does raise questions about what sort of beliefs might motivate him. But. . .nothing.
What we get is just a bit of the same old rubbish about birthers, Trump’s wig, something located in Poland mustn’t be Polish . . .and . . . nothing.
As I said Squirrel – it will be a long – and incredibly entertaining – 5 months
Splain my red fuzz butt friend?
Expat –– Oh yes, fun will be had.
I’m traveling for a few day – have fun folks
…..something located in Poland mustn’t be Polish……
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/30/the-worst-thing-obama-has-ever-said.html
Glad you guys are entertained by the current election freakshow. I’m bored silly.
I’m bored silly too. But that was a good piece by Squirrel earlier. Quite good.
But what’s this about you not being in journalism any more Squirrel? Are you ok?
Senate rules have recently been used in a way they were never designed to be used to stop the Congress dead. It’s not the system doing it. Its the Republicans preventing the system from working.
But that really is the way the baggers see the constitution: a scheme designed to prevent the Federal government from, well… governing.
None of that ‘promote the general welfare’ crap.
I don’t really get Mike’s umbrage about the ‘Polish Death Camp’ quote either. Seems on about the same level as people getting worked up about JFK claiming to be a doughnut in Berlin. Whoopdeedo.
Red I’m really disappointed that you won’t be barging down the Tames with Liz. I’ve had to fish a dog or two out of that canal, and if you think cleaning the oil off the bottom of a boat is a bother….
I had an exchange with Waco on a CIF thread, and he asked for the address here, so I sent it to him privately. I hope he shows up.
I hope he shows up.
Me too, that would be a treat. 9 used to show up here but no longer does, dunno why. The address is right in Gunny’s profile too.
Took me a long while to figure out that there might be a clue to the whereabouts of the site in Gunny’s profile. I never look at anyone’s profile. Assuming, I suppose, that they contain just as little information as my own!
I remember when i first found out Natty was a guy. He said he didn’t know why people were surprised, it was right in his profile. I said even i wasn’t gullible enough to believe anything people put in their profiles.
Leigh: “Retired” now; no longer work for money. Became too crippled/too much pain to do things like work to deadlines. Still do a bit of reviewing work just for my own pleasure now and then, though I couldn’t do that last year.
TPM: Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who has very conservative politics [skinhead neo-fascist, practically [knew that: sq.] and a habit of playing in US politics, has taken the opportunity to attack the President for his “ignorance and incompetence,” in other words, playing from the GOP
playbook. (Sikorski is a one time columnist for the National Review, fellow at AEI.)
[Didn't know that.]
Like that “hero’ thing. If everyone is a hero, there can be no cowards. There was a news item here last night; a young guy originally from Bulgaria died rescuing a child from the river. Brave; yes. Courageous; yes. Altruistic and selfless; obviously. Foolhardy: possibly. Heroic? Ah.
Ah – a Bushism
Rules are rules Bluth. Anything else is subjective and arbitrary. Besides they work well with anything close to a vague consensus – and stifle action with anything less. If you don’t like them work to change them.
Bluth – This seems like the ultimate “get out of jail card” for federal legislation and yet much of it seems to hinge on the commerce clause and other tenuous arguments while on the face of it “Promote the General Welfare” could be used to justify almost anything. Is it just because it is in the preamble?
Well cheers, Squirrel. Glad to hear you out kayaking (spelling?). And glad to read your posts too, as always.
Expat,
So no surprises. You come out with an assertion that the government is ‘designed’ to prevent action.
I point out that the document upon which it is based, in the bit that explains what its purpose is, suggests the opposite, ie the positive promotion of the general welfare.
You dismiss this as ‘merely the preamble’ and a bagatellish ‘get out of jail free card’.
‘Cause it’s a long sloppy document, right? And they tossed in all kinds of fluff.
Or it’s just the part you don’t want to hear about.
And then I point out that the largest obstacle to responsible functioning government these days is a rule of procedure that the designers never included, didn’t intend and never contemplated. In other words NOT part of the DESIGN. But rather an accretion, that for most of its history was never used the way it is used now.
But now you say, that’s just the way things work.
If we’re going to talk about things, let’s at least talk straight.
I thought i asked a serious question Bluth. Why isn’t the common welfare clause used more often to justify legislation?
Expat,
If you asked a serious question before, you sure buried it well.
The short answer to your new question is, the court has often referenced the preamble. And often in commerce law cases. The preamble does not grant any specific powers that are not enumerated in the body of the document, but the court has always recognized it as useful when they are charged when determining the legitimate objects of the form of government as set out in the constitution.
So if a case is a commerce clause case, for instance, then the power granted to the Federal government will be described as rising from the commerce clause, but the preamble may be cited as explicatory.
On the subject of negative v.s. positive powers of the Federal Government:
Thanks for the information Bluther – and forgive my occasional flippancy.
Forgotten the details, but congress did once make insurance compulsory for merchant seamen, didn’t it?
So I’ve never understood what the fuss is about. Or why the emphasis is always just about this regulating commerce thing and states’ rights. If you can do it once, and it was never questioned, nor ruled unconstitutional, there’s a decent precedent for doing it again. But virtually no-one mentions it. I think that’s the “Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen” signed into law by John Adams in 1798. An unless I’m wrong, it mandated every seaman to contribute.
So there’s not only a precedent, it was even signed into law by one of the TP’s favourite ‘founding fathers’ (who, presumably apart from something like health insurance) can do no wrong.
Squirrel,
You misunderestimate the Founding Fathers. They were so sublimely wise that it often takes a couple of hundred years before their wisdom solidifies into the public domain. Here, since you asked, is an article by Andrew Koppelman on the recent discovery of the Founders’ proscription of mandates.
Fill in the blank.
Bluth,
The word you’ve forgotten is probably “originalists.” I may not be a lawyer myself but I did manage to get divorced once, you know.
It would all be so much less tortuous if a working majority could be convinced that an agreed minimum level of universal health care be provided and funded through general taxation.
The problem is that those currently paying as much as they can afford – the majority – will want to maintain their existing minimum level of health care. Hence: “If you like your plan you can keep it.”
But if you add people who can’t afford to pay, and all things being equal, you either have to reduce the average level of care or increase what those who can afford it pay.
I have heard much about this new book by Stephen Prothero on the topic of the American constitution and other revered documents. Might be worth a read at $25.49
The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation
Expat,
How is it you still don’t understand that those who have plans they like are already paying for the healthcare of those who have no plans. And paying in the least effective, most expensive way possible? How do you not know that the very idea of the universal mandate was invented by the Heritage Foundation as a SOLUTION to the problem of free riders?
And the word I was looking for? It’s Salafist.
How is it that after all I have written here and on CiF you don’t understand I would be very happy with a universal US health care system?
The question is how do you get there from here?
For sure there are free riders in the current system but they don’t have the same benefits as those who are paying. If they were they would surely lose their victim status and value in the argument.
You need to make a case for universal health care funded from general taxation.
A good start would be to tax the insurance / healthcare provided to those via jobs. As, like, income, which it is.
That would be a start Amy – but – there is 75/80% of the population with good health care – perhaps the best. They pay dearly for it. How do you provide the same to the other 20/25%? Or persuade the rest to accept less?
I believe quite a few of them are being forced to accept less, not persuaded to.
Employer-based insurance expenses rose 43 percent from 2003 to 2009, while deductibles on these plans increased 77 percent, Collins said.
(source)
At least 30 percent of employers are likely to stop offering health insurance once provisions of the U.S. health care reform law kick in in 2014,
(source)
pornamy;
Couldn’t agree more, and there’s gonna be more where that came from too. The fight now, both here and in the EZ is about stripping the public sector, the commons. This is an ideological battle, and not amenable to “making a case” for anything at all.
With the current crop of consiglieries for the right it is axiomatic that health care is simply another product, not substantively different from cars or toasters, and it belongs in the private sector. Period. As does everything else that’s not in a military context. For this bunch of atavistic clowns a return to the days when the Federal Government did nothing but maintain the military and deliver the mail is what it’s all about. The fact that we did just about exactly that for almost 50 years already, with predictable results, means nothing at all.
It’s no coincidence that talk of abolishing the EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Health and Human Services, SEC, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, OSHA and all the rest has not been limited to the loony fringe. It’s mainstream now, and they ain’t kidding. Child Labor Laws, even.
I starting to think that electing Romney might speed that process up. We’re at a point now where nothing is going to change without massive citizen unrest, and in situations like that there’s no telling how it might play out. I’m really kinda liking the look of all that pots and pans banging though—it looks like such fun. Until they send in the drones, of course.
Really, the more I think about this, the more I’m leaning toward the idea that we really are on the leading edge of a meltdown that will make the 30′s look like boom times. And unlike then, a good big war won’t pull us out of it and slingshot us into explosive growth. Baseline conditions are dramatically different now. As is war itself.
I got one more riot in me, I reckon, before shuffling off. Not if this drags on for too long though. Getting too old for that shit.
Said I’d have a look at that health care poll:
Strike down individual mandate: 74% for; 23% against;
Strike down the new pre-existing conditions clause: 51/44
Uphold Medicare: 70/25
If the ACA was struck down, would you respect Congress more (13%) less (31%); make no difference (53%): Supreme Court: 22%; 29%; 45%; Obama 14%; 15%; 67%.
(That’s odd; so Obama won’t really be damned by association if the ACA is struck down? I didn’t think that’s what the pundits have been saying. The other two I’m a bit mystified by. Can’t really make sense of the question as it applies to Congress. And I can’t make sense of the SC ‘approval/disapproval’ either: they don’t fit with other responses. All I can interpret of that one, really, is that at least half of Americans must assume that the SC acts politically, not impartially. No surprise to Squirrel, here, but that’s rather depressing, too, isn’t it?)
And, if it’s struck down, should there be another that would guarantee insurance for (oops, “nearly all” — wtf does that mean?) Americans (for: 46%:) never (for: 28%) do something to give some uninsured something (18%).
So: 74% want the individual mandate struck down; but, 64% want something that effects the same thing?
And over 70% don’t just want to keep Medicare, they also want it expanded?
But that political polarisation 50-50 split (that seems to bedevil absolutely everything in the US now: hardly any issue seems to be viewed on its individual merits or without red or blue glasses) is still there.
What it tells me (and there’s been damn all that’s changed my opinion since the pandemonium got going) is that a lot of Americans haven’t really been paying enough attention to what they’re getting, but my god, they’ve taken the Repug’s propaganda on the individual Mandate hook line and sinker.
I’m not surprised; long ago (it seems) I moaned that the US media had (was, and still is) doing a crappy job at explaining the damn thing itself; but oceans of ink and kilowatts of electricity publicising the rows about it. (Still without explaining.)
More: number of people on food stamps up from 32m to 46 m during Obama’s presdency. Because it’s too easy or a fiddle (12%); because of the recession (45%); (Ah-ha, thought squirrel, there is at least some common sense still around . . .though you’d think that ought to be a bit more obvious to rather more people, wouldn’t you?) . . .
But . . .because of both: 39%.
As they say, it’s the rich wot gets the pleasure, it’s the poor wot gets the blame . . .
And Squirrel is being given food again tonight . . .(he heard a whisper of champagne, oh, happy, joyous squirrel! . . .)