tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post421200604223501253..comments2013-01-03T05:53:29.294-08:00Comments on Left Right Across and Hold: Health Care Alternative?Bernardo de la Pazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13311733730523945450noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-15226440834754030632009-07-30T12:35:35.559-07:002009-07-30T12:35:35.559-07:00Re-stating the obvious... This propsed mechanism e...Re-stating the obvious... This propsed mechanism effectively puts ANY government-run system in DIRECT COMPETITION with private systems/providers.<br /><br />As such, extreme care *must* be taken to insure the bureaucracy does not impose 'requirements' or 'mandates' that gives EITHER SIDE (public / private) an operational advantage over the other.<br /><br />Competition is a good thing: it tends to make ALL players better at the services they provide.<br /><br />By example, if government could properly handle providing services the marketplace needs and requires, the USPS would efficiently and effectively manage *ALL* mail/package handling and delivery services... and FedEx, UPS, et.al., would not exist or have a marketplace demanding their services.<br /><br />A viable (and profitable) PRIVATE alternative *must* exist and be properly protected. Relying SOLELY on the government to provide a solution for all aspects of Health Care is, by definition, unacceptable.Steve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-55532214410356434542009-07-30T12:06:10.447-07:002009-07-30T12:06:10.447-07:00Sorry for the typos - stuff happens and gets by wh...Sorry for the typos - stuff happens and gets by when you move this quickly... (grin).<br /><br /><br />Please understand I'm trying to collect aspects, ideas and concepts from all sides ('left, right, across and hold' is our blog's title, after all). There *are* good ideas all around - removing them from the ideological fluff allows one to appropriately consider their (a) reasonableness to a rational thinker, (b) relevance to addressing the Real Problem, and (c) likely outcome if implemented. Shifting through the chaff should be separate things into multiple piles, as it were. We just have to choose the right pile, no matter how bad it smells to some.<br /><br />And I'm hardly transforming into a liberal.. I merely recognize that my opinion - no matter how correct it may be - has little chance of being accepted by the great unwashed. ;-)<br /><br />That said, you won't be surprised that I think "penalties" are critically necessary to any comprehensive system. They are critical for two simple and obvious reasons:<br /><br />1. (really obvious) The demand for a Free Good is infinite. NO completely 'free' Health Care system can survive in that environment. Period.<br /><br />2. (a bit more subtle) Health Care is a SERVICE provided by one or more individuals, using their acquired skill, efforts and equipment. For anyone to receive health care, SOMEONE ELSE has to either expend their abilities, time, property or all of the above. Therefore, claiming a "right" to health care is to claim a "right" to someone else's Life (in the form of their time, skill and effort) for them to render the service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. How can any truly rational being ignore the inherent injustice of SLAVERY by allowing (a) any individual to make that (legal) claim upon the life of another, or even (b) justify the authority of some 3rd party to determine exactly what is 'just compensation' for those efforts? HINT: This way lies madness.<br /><br />Thus, the RISK (and therefore the COST) of using the system should fall upon those who DIRECTLY benefit from it: the recipients; not the PROVIDERS, and certainly not any other 3rd party, e.g., 'taxpayers'.<br /><br />Are parts of the proposal Offensive to some? Absolutely, Highly likely, and inserted into the proposal with that deliberate intention. I want people to THINK about the CONSEQUENCES of *any* action, BEFORE we go down a dangerous road.<br /><br />Personally, I don't like being forced (as a taxpayer) to provide ANY service to whoever asks (demands it) at no/little/reduced cost without SOME kind of assurance that the very real DEBT will be repaid. So, insisting on payback via mandatory Public Service is a (hopefully) effective compromise. And such a system should help prevent abuses of the system (and reduce governmental bureaucracy costs in other areas, too).<br /><br />Or, as our friend Bernardo might put it, T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. ("There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"). A truism to be ignored at our peril.<br /><br />BTW - I fully recognize that the implementation point which is most likely to raise the loudest howls of outrage is the Force Sterilization requirement. (Followed closely by the deportation of non-citizens after treatment.) If you KNOW the Risks, you are obligated to make an informed personal (individual) CHOICE - and *you* bear the consequences. What could be more 'fair'?<br /><br /><br />Seriously, I'm sincerely hoping you can help hammer out the details, especially those aspects of the Real Problem my primitive, knuckle-dragging (i.e., 'conservative') mind set inherently overlooks. ;-)<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-12042062516439993852009-07-28T14:48:33.504-07:002009-07-28T14:48:33.504-07:00First off, I hope you know this is going to take p...First off, I hope you know this is going to take precious time away from my work on a response to the spurious JoNova article you sent me. Oh well.<br /><br />You say in your initial post some things I would expect, but also some things I didn't. This is impressive.<br /><br />I'll put together a post ASAP, and this time try not to be so anal retentive about it. The one thing I've always admired about you is the way you are able to get your thoughts on paper so quickly. Being a typical liberal, I suppose I am always second guessing myself - and this leads to constant revisions. Moral: libs should never challenge cons to a game of slap jack.<br /><br />On the positive side, dealing with you has forced me towards unlikely avenues of thought. For just one instance, I wonder what government's obligation (if we consider it a mandate) is to individuals who consciously pursue extremely unhealthy lifestyles. Should government be required to mend the bones (for nothing) of some knot head who crashes into a parked car while illegally base jumping from a building down town? Hmmm.<br /><br />Oddly, some of your main points have a lot in common with what conservative pundits have been deriding as "ObamaCare". I admit it is breathtaking to witness a conservative in the early stages of metamorphosis into a liberal. <br /><br />On the other hand, the penalties prescribe you are draconian. They have the dual nature of both offending my sensibilities and being conspicuously effective. My my...<br /><br />You mispelled "approaches" in your next to the last paragraph.<br /><br />-ChrisChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.com