Posts Tagged ‘health care’
what will it be worth? »
Wednesday, October 20th, 2010
My father’s habit of listening to Clark Howard convinced me to snag a few podcasts. The man isn’t so much a financial guru as a commonsense voice. (Things like avoiding pyramid schemes or not using a computer if you’re old.)
He does tend to be thorough, though. Unfortunately, one he breezed over was the oft-repeated tale of how only a few hundred dollars invested early will make you a millionaire.
It goes like this: investing $2k every year from 16 years old to 21, you’ll have a million when you retire even if you don’t invest more. After so much depth in other areas, why is this never expanded to what that million will buy you? (more…)
the scene, politically speaking »
Friday, March 26th, 2010
Okay, so we have health care reform. It’s change, maybe, but more like my changing from jeans to khakis after landing a contract position than overhauling my wardrobe (which, admittedly, may need some work).
Where does that leave us? Here’s a look at the political climate as I’ve gleaned from lack of insight and caring very little…
Republicans:
Are idiots. But, with this new bill and some other factors (complete dolts as base; distaste for facts, reality and history; a powerful but shrinking upper-upper-upper class; etc.) they may balance things come fall. They’ll maintain their hate-speak to ensure their ignorance aligns with their ignorant base.¹
Democrats:
Are morons. They could have pushed through real reform but were distracted by sand in their vaginas (I imagine). They forfeited nearly all of their ideas (and all of their good ones) and still barely eked out a majority. They’ve weakened their position, which is apparently how they like it.
The President:
Belligerence is tossed in his face and he wants to sit down and talk about it. Then he agrees with most of the poorly-formed points and suggests changes. That sort of discussion is thoughtful, constructive and progressive but he’s the only one who believes in such things. (More sound-bites, sir. Please. The idiots are confused.)
Pundits: (err… “Media”)
They play both sides against each other in a battle of sound bites. While a battle of wits would be more suiting and could benefit us in the long-run, wits are hard to find just now. They’ll go the easy route and let stupid people verbally wail on each other betwixt commercials.
Ron Paul:
With all of his ideas stolen by the Tea Party, then by Fox News and still being shunned by Fox News, he’s fading. Expect him to only last another seven or twelve terms before he retires. (Career politics, while ineffective and regressive, is incredibly gracious.)
Tea Party:
If anyone from this movement is elected, all members (are we calling them “colonists” yet?)² will become infertile like that one country in Children of Men. (::fingers crossed::)
Health Care Industry:
Two words: Cha! Ching! With all the forced profits enhanced enrollment, without any substantial regulation, revoked exemption from trust laws or rejection of the pay-per-service model, things are looking good. (If you have any health stocks, keep them. You’ll need them.)
… That said, the Blues could add functioning health reform to their bill with a series of amendments. The media could shift focus (with the iPad reminding people how to read and all) to collaborative and comprehensive coverage of issues. The Colonists could merge their message into coherent and realistic complaints, sparking debate and true compromise.
Of course, I could also grow my hair into dreads and start working for a hedge fund. Now that I’m eating vegetables and riding my bike to work, anything’s possible.³
¹ I don’t mean “ignorant.” I mean ignorant or grotesquely rich. It’s easier to lump them together.
² Wait, why aren’t we calling them Colonists? They’re racist, abysmally educated and misinformed, not unlike those that lived three centuries ago. The name fits.
³ This is not possible.
market health care != reality »
Monday, September 14th, 2009
Being the only thing taught in public schools since the Red Scare, most of you probably know of and think highly of a “Free Market.” This blanket assumption has many, many flaws and worse, we’re trying to apply markets where they don’t fit.
Market assumptions are simple. Supply of a good is tracked against the demand for that good and where they intersect is the price. Ignoring for a moment this ignores cost, depletion or waste (as so many do) how does this apply to health care?
A market needs two things: something of value (sometimes tactile) and consumers with choice. Whenever a market is artificially added to a sector without these things, disaster (exploitation, Enron) ensues.
Health care is one of these sectors. Consumers (used generally to label the 98% not able to buy specialist care out of boredom) don’t have choice. They’re sitting across from their doctor and being told their options. If they need an MRI they don’t check the going rate in China or on NewEgg, for instance.
Insurance, medical practitioners, pharmaceuticals and many others are all under the blanket label of Health Care and it’s also something everyone needs. This not only depletes consumers’ choices further but confuses any market assumptions.
Applying a market to a natural monopoly (built, in this case, on high cost, low access and government assistance) never works. When the idea hit the electricity sector manipulation, artificial scarcity, high profits, unreliable supply and scandal were the natural results.
Health care in this country boils down to two things. On one side, you’re for single payer reform and believe health care is a right. On the other, you want to paint a market over a monopoly and see health care as a privilege (though few will admit that).
On whichever side you fall, take a look at Frontline‘s look at six democratic countries with state-backed health care. Ask yourself, why can’t we have a system like Taiwan? Or Switzerland? Or the best parts of both?
In both cases they’re trying to force a market into a sector it doesn’t belong but it’s working for the people, not the companies.
Photo courtesy: SFGate.com
health care and the end of civilization »
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008
I think we can all agree on a few things. Health care, if supplied by the government, would make us Nazis. Universal health care would lead to bureaucracy and inefficiency before it killed our children, one by one. (Those are givens.)
There are issues, but it’s the best we’ve got. It’s expensive but you get what you pay for. In the wake of providing medical care to the less fortunate we’d go broke, society would unravel and very-pregnant teens would fall down comically long flights of stairs. (Take a second for that image to sink in.)
That’s all duh right? (Obviously.) But… um… it brings up a few questions.
Why are doctors complaining about the current bureaucracy? Why (considering we’re rich as fuckall) aren’t we ranked even top twenty in health care? Why does out system provide health care for those that can already afford alternatives? Most importantly, why do I get three non-bills before I get something I have to pay?
The cost of health care is outpacing the economy like a race between Usain Bolt and Dave Matthews. We’re going to run out of primary care physicians. We advertise drugs to people that voted for Palin (like treating obesity with M&Ms and hot wings).
This the best we can do? America? Most advanced nation ever at all in forever?
S’no wonder we keep hearing about foreign countries failing under the weight of their health care systems. It’s much easier to vilify the alternative than to take the benefits, compromise with common sense, and produce an actual solution. Thanks Congress, smile bright for your reelection.