About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Health Care Again

And Also: The blog is getting too crowded and Paul Campos has too many just plain awful comments, but Scott again provides a reason to go to LGM (if there are more than three involved, even the name no longer works!) ... anti-child rape defense edition. OTOH, recently TalkLeft specifically RIP-ed someone involved in the murder of his wife. Absurd.


Roads, schools and universities, sewers, police, fire departments, libraries, weather reporting, parks, science and medical research, courts to process criminal and civil issues, hospitals and emergency rooms, power, drinkable water, worker safety laws, food safety, irrigation systems, public records, emergency aid, social security, disability insurance, veteran's care, student loans, natural resource protections, farm aid, investments in technology, bank deposit insurance, animal control, disease and poison control, disaster relief, building codes, product safety, patent protection, flood control, space exploration.

-- Things Your Taxes Pay For (comment)

A few Democrats of one committee of one body of Congress voted with the Republicans against the public option, two versions. Four of five committees support it. But, a few conservative Democrats refuse to join with their party and the majority of the public to vote for sanity. So be it. Get the damn thing out of the damn committee, and let's see if these same Dems will join with the Republicans to block health care writ large. For what does government do for us to trust it, anyway? It after all allows people like you to the party.
[T]he problem that health care reform was meant to solve is not that costs are too high, but that millions of Americans lack health insurance. You know, health care is a right, middle class security, dynamic economy and competitiveness, etc.

An interesting argument that too much wonk is self-defeating can be found here. We now have the absurd debate going on about "mandated" health insurance ... in fact, some argue it is unconstitutional. The fools errand of bipartisanship (well, it did work above ... the wrong way) has been shown. The use of a means as an end itself has its limitations. So is focusing on costs or details, and now putting forth the bottom line -- health care is a right. People basically think of it that way already. It is like time old privileges and immunities of Englishmen that in time were seen as basic rights, rights that amounted to self-evident truths. Even if the details might be tricky.

This has to be kept as a basic sentiment here. Oh, the need for a sound economic system will help, and will help convince those whose insurance is not at risk or who might have some sort of doubts on the right side. Governmental power alone provides too much flexibility really, talk of ideal policy in a tone that in effect damns it to defeat even (sigh) though it's a good idea with majority support. Still, pragmatics often help the cause. But, the basic justice of it has special force. We have to pay for the services cited above -- we cannot "opt out," even if we might not need one or the other thing. And, we also realize that even if we might not, others will, and how they go, we as a nation go. We are in this together. Not that some Dems appear to care.

I don't know what the final bill will amount to, so I do not talk of details as such here. Oh, some like to pretend as there are clear lines of what "Obamacare" (as if it was his bill, as if he was Congress) will be. But, the wonkish details are not as important as the basics. Still, this talk of mandates is b.s. From my understanding, the idea appears to be that if you don't get insurance, you need to pay a tax. SFW!!! It is absurd that people have problems with this. Any number of things, let's say environmentally ideal homes, provide tax breaks. Why is having health insurance, particularly when even those who cannot pay still have a legal right to basic care, so different? Still, if health care was simply a right, like police services, we would think nothing of charging people. Even if they aren't themselves robbed. Are those services above pro rata? Or, is it no substitutions?

People argue you need not have car insurance since you don't need a car, ignoring all for which it is a necessity, the remainder who pay for the insurance of those who drive to provide them various goods and services. But, push come to shove, I bet few really are against mandatory car insurance, even if they realize a majority find a car a necessity. It is not seen as a burden as such, but a logical path, a means to provide a public good -- safety from uninsured drivers. Why is health care, ever so more basic to our well being, so understood by so many sane nations, different? Yes, unprincipled hackery helps.

Well, Detroit won and the Jets are 3-0. Life is full with possibilities with the right approach.