I promised yesterday that I'd explain what I meant when I called poor whites who vote republican, "stupid." Now, some of you may not think it needs an explanation, LOL, but I can assure you that's not what I'm talking about! "Stupid" often has a very specific meaning when I use it, and this is one of those times.
To understand fully, first you have to read THIS. Don't worry it's only about 3 or 4 pages, with illustrations, and it's a really fun read anyway. If you want to skip to the part that's relevant to this discussion, go to the THIRD (AND GOLDEN) BASIC LAW section. Read at least that, and maybe the FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION part as well.
Now... There are four quadrants: Intelligent, Helpless, Bandit and Stupid. Here's how I see the political spectrum breaking down...
At their best, Liberals are intelligent. They pursue policies that benefit others and do so because they recognize that it will come back to benefit themselves. This is why, for example, they support labor unions and minimum wage increases. Other people benefit will make better wages, which in turn supports consumption, which in turn benefits everyone else. (This is the basic idea behind Keynesian Economics, which I'll have to explain at some point, because it's fascinating stuff, and most 'fiscal conservatives' have absolutely no idea how any of [macroeconomics] works.)
At their worst, one could say that the Liberal might act helplessly. After all, he might accept higher taxes (hurts himself) and the benefit (of increased spending) just might not work it way back to him. While this does not follow the laws of economics, we're assuming the worst case.
Now take the Conservative. The rich conservative clearly belongs in the Bandit quadrant. Between tax cuts for the rich, destroying labor unions, their desire to deregulate industries that act like THIS... it's clear that the rich conservative is in it for himself, and cares little how much others are harmed. The motto of these guys is, "I've got mine, screw the rest of you." Grab the money and run.
So why would I conclude that the working class conservative/Republican would be in the 'stupid' quadrant? (Besides process of elimination! LOL) Well first off, he support polices - the very ones I named above - that screw him over financially. Free trade, no unions, no minimum wage, lax labor laws, lax regulatory policies, no social safety nets... There's really nothing in the conservative agenda that helps the workin' man. So why do all these salty white guys keep voting Republican?! (No, it's not racism!) (Shame on you!) It's for the sake of SOCIAL conservatism. Basically? Religion. No abortions, no gay marriage, and for that matter no right to die, no legalized pot, no porn, no heavy metal/rap/rock-n-roll/dancing/etc, no this, no that... They vote that way because they think Republicans will force everyone to pray and live a good, clean Christian life, and eliminate all manner of harmless vice in the name of family values. (Now excuse me while I go vomit.)
OK... first off, YEAH RIGHT! Secondly, there's that whole 1st amendment, church and state, thing. Thirdly, of course, is their asinine assumption that anyone outside of their particular brand of medieval superstition actually thinks that everyone living that kind of life would even be a good thing; that anyone else would actually want to live in such an uptight, boring world.
But just look at from the standpoint of the stupidity argument laid out in Dr. Cipolla's article: They support economic policies that harms themselves, just so they can take away rights and freedoms from other people, thus harming them.
My friends? That's the DEFINITION of stupid.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label guy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guy. Show all posts
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
My Position on Torture
I thought I would post about this, as it's something that been generally well received, though still a bit controversial, over on MediaMatters.
There is a lot of controversy over whether or not to prosecute those responsible for torturing terror suspects as part of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, rest assured, that, for me, it would be unthinkable to prosecute the low-ranking grunts that actually carried out the 'enhanced interrogations.' Liberal though I may be, I firmly believe that soldiers in the battlefield must follow the orders given by their superiors, and that it should not be up to the soldier to figure out whether a given order is legal or not. If you tolerate that, you will have chaos in the battlefield, people will die, and ANY war effort will crumble. No, soldiers and low ranking intelligence agents MUST carry out their orders, as given. It therefore falls onto the officers and the executive branch of our civilian government to GIVE THEM LEGAL ORDERS, and to be held accountable when they do not. It is therefore the limit of the scope of this discussion as to whether on not to prosecute the high ranking officers, CIA directer George Tenet (and any high ranking subordinates who were the architects of this policy), Attourney General Alberto Gonzalez for crafting the Administration's pseudo-legal reasoning on torture and both former President George W. Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney.
And (surprise, surprise) to me there is no question. These men MUST stand trial. The use of torture is both illegal and immoral and profoundly un-American. Is this just my own personal opinion? Hardly. This position is informed by two clear statements in our founding documents:
The Sixth ammendment to our Constitution guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. It is clear that the terror suspects have had these rights denied them.
The Eighth Amendment to our Constitution forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. If TORTURE is not "cruel and unusual" then the words have no meaning.
It is therefore pretty hard for anyone to argue that picking someone up, imprisoning them indefinitely without trial or due process and torturing them, is somehow "Pro-American" when these acts are expressively forbidden by our founding document.
"But Eddie," says the bed-wetting Right-Winger, "These rights only apply to Americans! The terrorists aren't Americans!"
You're WRONG, but nice try. First off, there HAVE been American Citizens who have become victims of these circumstances. Second, how, pray tell, DOES the Constitution protect OUR rights? It does this by limiting the actions that our Government may take; by limiting its authority. Its authority is further limited in these matters by the Geneva Convention. And neither that treaty nor the Constitution of the United States gives any exceptions to the limits placed on our government that they should not apply to non-U.S. citizens. And if any court should say they do, I will find this a profoundly un-American interpretation. Only by PROHIBITING these practices are our rights defended. For, once you allow loopholes, those in power need only find a way to apply the loop hole to anyone they deem inconvenient and YOUR rights are GONE. We mustn't allow this. We mustn't tolerate this at all! (Come on Conservatives! Why do you try actually sticking to your principle of 'limiting' the 'power' of government for a change?!)
"But Eddie," continues the cowardly right-winger, "The enemy is so savage! They BEHEAD people! Without trial! They give no quarter! They offer no rights! They're BRUTAL!"
To which I ask, "If they're so horrible, why on earth should we aspire to become MORE like them?"
"But, but, but Eddie," continues the now trembling Conservative, "Those people (Bush/Cheney & co.) Were trying to save America! They were trying to save YOU!"
OK. First things last. This argument is utter bullshit, and I'll explain why. There is simply no way that Al-Quaeda can destroy AMERICA. In their single biggest battlefield victory, the killed 3000 civilians, and knocked down a few buildings. Not bad, but it cost them their entire air capability a the time do it, and in return we overthrew two sovereign governments within 18 months of the attack. Bottom line? Al-Quaeda poses no threat to my COUNTRY.
You want to know who poses a threat to America? To the American way of life? To American values? Cowardly conservative who, out of either fear or a lust for power or vengeance, will destroy the Constitution, and destroy the very values that made America worth defending in the first place. They're not saving the COUNTRY! OUR GOVERNMENT is the only real threat to this COUNTRY! And only by letting them set aside those values that make US the GOOD GUYS. By setting aside those quintessential American values in order to... what? Save some buildings and save a few lives.
Now... I don't want to seem callous about the loss of life. It's tragic, and I truly mourn every American civilian and every American soldier lost to this enemy. But the bitter fact remains that we will all eventually die. And nothing can stop this. You will die. I will die. (Hopefully later, rather than sooner!) But we WILL all DIE. Period. What must LIVE ON... What must outlive us and our great-grandchildren by centuries and more are the freedoms and liberties that made American the greatest country in the history of the world. It is our FREEDOM that makes us great. And Al-Quaeda can simply NOT take that away. Only OUR GOVERNMENT can. And only if we, in our fear, let them. And this is the ONLY thing worth defending, the only thing worth fighting for in the first place.
And should I die because our government refuse to torture, will my death be taken bitterly? Not at all. In the extremely unlikely event, the utterly minuscule chance that I should be killed in a terrorist plot that could have been prevented if only were we willing to trash our values, then I will have dies in defense of those values, in defense of FREEDOM, every bit as much as those Soldiers dying in the fields of Afghanistan, and arguably MORE so than the Soldiers dying in Iraq.
We must not let our FEAR allow us to permit our government to do the unconscionable. We must not betray our values, or sacrifice our freedoms, just to save our skin. To do so is both cowardly and traitorous. To do so is to give in to fear and hate and to lose sight of what it is we are actually fighting for.
America stands for human rights, the due process of law and, above, all for the freedoms laid out in our Constitution. These are what make us the 'good guys' in this fight. These are what make this land and our way of life worth defending. If we, in our fear and in expediency, allow those things which make this country great to die, then we are no better than our enemy. And THIS liberal will not sit idly and watch his country brought so low. No one who would can do so and still call themselves PATRIOT.
-----------------------------
You may notice that my argument focuses entirely on the MORAL and PATRIOTIC implications of allowing torture. The opposing arguments might carry some weight IF torture was ever shown to be effective, but it hasn't. It fails every common sense test under every scenario. I may take up the more PRACTICAL arguments against torture at a later date, though I personally find them to be moot. Regardless of the [largely imagined] results, torture remains illegal, immoral and Un-American.
There is a lot of controversy over whether or not to prosecute those responsible for torturing terror suspects as part of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, rest assured, that, for me, it would be unthinkable to prosecute the low-ranking grunts that actually carried out the 'enhanced interrogations.' Liberal though I may be, I firmly believe that soldiers in the battlefield must follow the orders given by their superiors, and that it should not be up to the soldier to figure out whether a given order is legal or not. If you tolerate that, you will have chaos in the battlefield, people will die, and ANY war effort will crumble. No, soldiers and low ranking intelligence agents MUST carry out their orders, as given. It therefore falls onto the officers and the executive branch of our civilian government to GIVE THEM LEGAL ORDERS, and to be held accountable when they do not. It is therefore the limit of the scope of this discussion as to whether on not to prosecute the high ranking officers, CIA directer George Tenet (and any high ranking subordinates who were the architects of this policy), Attourney General Alberto Gonzalez for crafting the Administration's pseudo-legal reasoning on torture and both former President George W. Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney.
And (surprise, surprise) to me there is no question. These men MUST stand trial. The use of torture is both illegal and immoral and profoundly un-American. Is this just my own personal opinion? Hardly. This position is informed by two clear statements in our founding documents:
The Sixth ammendment to our Constitution guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. It is clear that the terror suspects have had these rights denied them.
The Eighth Amendment to our Constitution forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. If TORTURE is not "cruel and unusual" then the words have no meaning.
It is therefore pretty hard for anyone to argue that picking someone up, imprisoning them indefinitely without trial or due process and torturing them, is somehow "Pro-American" when these acts are expressively forbidden by our founding document.
"But Eddie," says the bed-wetting Right-Winger, "These rights only apply to Americans! The terrorists aren't Americans!"
You're WRONG, but nice try. First off, there HAVE been American Citizens who have become victims of these circumstances. Second, how, pray tell, DOES the Constitution protect OUR rights? It does this by limiting the actions that our Government may take; by limiting its authority. Its authority is further limited in these matters by the Geneva Convention. And neither that treaty nor the Constitution of the United States gives any exceptions to the limits placed on our government that they should not apply to non-U.S. citizens. And if any court should say they do, I will find this a profoundly un-American interpretation. Only by PROHIBITING these practices are our rights defended. For, once you allow loopholes, those in power need only find a way to apply the loop hole to anyone they deem inconvenient and YOUR rights are GONE. We mustn't allow this. We mustn't tolerate this at all! (Come on Conservatives! Why do you try actually sticking to your principle of 'limiting' the 'power' of government for a change?!)
"But Eddie," continues the cowardly right-winger, "The enemy is so savage! They BEHEAD people! Without trial! They give no quarter! They offer no rights! They're BRUTAL!"
To which I ask, "If they're so horrible, why on earth should we aspire to become MORE like them?"
"But, but, but Eddie," continues the now trembling Conservative, "Those people (Bush/Cheney & co.) Were trying to save America! They were trying to save YOU!"
OK. First things last. This argument is utter bullshit, and I'll explain why. There is simply no way that Al-Quaeda can destroy AMERICA. In their single biggest battlefield victory, the killed 3000 civilians, and knocked down a few buildings. Not bad, but it cost them their entire air capability a the time do it, and in return we overthrew two sovereign governments within 18 months of the attack. Bottom line? Al-Quaeda poses no threat to my COUNTRY.
You want to know who poses a threat to America? To the American way of life? To American values? Cowardly conservative who, out of either fear or a lust for power or vengeance, will destroy the Constitution, and destroy the very values that made America worth defending in the first place. They're not saving the COUNTRY! OUR GOVERNMENT is the only real threat to this COUNTRY! And only by letting them set aside those values that make US the GOOD GUYS. By setting aside those quintessential American values in order to... what? Save some buildings and save a few lives.
Now... I don't want to seem callous about the loss of life. It's tragic, and I truly mourn every American civilian and every American soldier lost to this enemy. But the bitter fact remains that we will all eventually die. And nothing can stop this. You will die. I will die. (Hopefully later, rather than sooner!) But we WILL all DIE. Period. What must LIVE ON... What must outlive us and our great-grandchildren by centuries and more are the freedoms and liberties that made American the greatest country in the history of the world. It is our FREEDOM that makes us great. And Al-Quaeda can simply NOT take that away. Only OUR GOVERNMENT can. And only if we, in our fear, let them. And this is the ONLY thing worth defending, the only thing worth fighting for in the first place.
And should I die because our government refuse to torture, will my death be taken bitterly? Not at all. In the extremely unlikely event, the utterly minuscule chance that I should be killed in a terrorist plot that could have been prevented if only were we willing to trash our values, then I will have dies in defense of those values, in defense of FREEDOM, every bit as much as those Soldiers dying in the fields of Afghanistan, and arguably MORE so than the Soldiers dying in Iraq.
We must not let our FEAR allow us to permit our government to do the unconscionable. We must not betray our values, or sacrifice our freedoms, just to save our skin. To do so is both cowardly and traitorous. To do so is to give in to fear and hate and to lose sight of what it is we are actually fighting for.
America stands for human rights, the due process of law and, above, all for the freedoms laid out in our Constitution. These are what make us the 'good guys' in this fight. These are what make this land and our way of life worth defending. If we, in our fear and in expediency, allow those things which make this country great to die, then we are no better than our enemy. And THIS liberal will not sit idly and watch his country brought so low. No one who would can do so and still call themselves PATRIOT.
-----------------------------
You may notice that my argument focuses entirely on the MORAL and PATRIOTIC implications of allowing torture. The opposing arguments might carry some weight IF torture was ever shown to be effective, but it hasn't. It fails every common sense test under every scenario. I may take up the more PRACTICAL arguments against torture at a later date, though I personally find them to be moot. Regardless of the [largely imagined] results, torture remains illegal, immoral and Un-American.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Glenn Beck's newfound principles on racism
"This president I think has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, with a deep seated hatred for white people, or the white culture..."
~Glenn Beck, 7/28/2009 on Fox & Friends
"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."
~Glenn Beck, 7/28/2009, later that episode
"When somebody cries fire, why do they cry fire? Because it's dangerous. Kind of like racism. It's dangerous, okay?"
~Glenn Beck, 9/16/2009, on the Glenn Beck Program
"If we really felt racism, which I do, if we really felt racism was bad and harmful, we would ask more questions about it when we heard those cries. And we decide which was the truth and then we do something about that truth."
~Glenn Beck, 9/16/2009, later on that same program
OK. We all know two things here...
1) That Glenn Beck's absolutely batshit insane.
2) That conservatives are not known for their tolerance of cognitive dissonance
So... Knowing that he's already teetering on the brink, how can Mister Beck possibly hold both of the above thoughts in his head at the same time?
How does one man reasonably accuse the President of the United States of racism...
...And then turn around and declare that "false accusations" of "racism" are "dangerous"?
Well...
I see three possible reasons...
1) In the mind of the Right Wingers, you can pretty much say anything you want about liberals or Democrats. And if you do so on a Right Wing show, you pretty much know that NO ONE will ever ask you to back it up. But the "false accusation" was made against Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R), so... well... you just KNOW that's gotta be false!
2) Since making the statement, he's had a crisis of conscience and decided that you can't just throw the term "racist" around willy-nilly. It's a serious accusation and requires some serious evidence to not be considered slander. And... It's just a coincidence that the first beneficiary of these new-found principles just happens to be a Republican who, both loudly and baselessly, accused the [Racist] President of lying, right in the middle of his televised address to a special joint session of congress.
Yeah, I supposed that's possible...
Or (3) JUST MAYBE these new "principles" have more to do with the SIXTY-TWO advertisers who have decided that they no longer want to have their customers paying this clown's salary, and have pulled their support of Glenn's program, costing the Fox News Channel as much as $1,060,000 at the peak of the boycott, and it's really more about self-preservation rather than any idealistic principle.
Just sayin'.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
DIVERSITY is NOT the new RACISM... COLORBLINDNESS is!
"Diversity is not the new racism, colorblindness is."
(that one's mine)
I had planned on just doing a quick piece tonight about one of my favorite websites, but I think I'll do that tomorrow instead. I posted the above statement in a Media Matters piece today, and I'd like to expand on it a little bit here. Rush Limbaugh was whining about all the "sensitivity training have we had about racism, starting with the Civil War," to which I thought, well let's see...
In the 1860's we had legalized slavery. That ended with the Civil War.
In the 1960's we had Segregration, Fire Hoses, Attack Dogs, Lynchings, Anti-Miscegeny Laws, and Assassinations. That ended with Civil Rights.
WOW. And that only took A HUNDERED YEARS!!!
At the rate were going, we'll have this whole "racism" thing licked by the 2060's!
And that's when I made the point that "Diversity is not the new racism," as Limbaugh, and his ilk, often claim, but rather "colorblindness is [the new racism.]" And I'm not talking about FAKE colorblindness, now. I don't mean when a scumbag like Limbaugh uses token examples like Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell to prove that he's not racist. (Christ, if those three were the extent of my experience with Black people, I might be inclined to think less of the whole race as well! But I digress...) Basically, there's three kinds of racism.
The first - outward and overt, viscious, agressive 1940's Southern, Conferderate-style Racsim. THAT kind of racism is pretty much dead and gone these days, save for Right Wing corners of the Blogosphere. And even those people wouldn't spew their racist nonsense so boldy if they were face to face with another person, especially a stranger... Even if it were someone of the same race! No, for the most part, almost anyone left with any racial prejudice at all falls into the second type...
Secret Racism. This is the kind of racism that no one will ever admit to, but when you hear them speak and get to know them a bit, you just know they have a chip on their shoulder. Oh, they'll have Black friends, and work well with Black co-workers (or Asian, Hispanic, etc...) and their negative feelings are obviously diminished from the ones described above. These are the people that will say controversial things about race (or miscegeny, affirmative action, racial profiling, etc...) and then feel the need to remind you that "they're not racists." You know what? I talk to people all the time about these things and never feel the need to point that out to them. I once had a Black co-worker who was annoyed at another co-worker (white, Christian and conservative) who had a habbit of using fancy words. (I mean, like, words that no one really uses anymore. Word-of-the-day-calendar type words.) So I asked him, "Is [the other guy] ever a cheapskate?" He said, "Yeah, well, you know [so-n-so], right?" So I said, "The next time you catch him being cheap, tell him not to be such a niggard. See how he reacts to that!" Now, obviously I had to clarify the meaning, spelling and precise pronuciation of the word 'niggard'... But once I did, my co-worker found it hilarious. And at no point did I ever feel the need to tell this man, this 6'4" 220+ pound BLACK man, that I "wasn't a racist." I knew him, he knew me, and we both knew we were all cool with it. Bottom line? If you feel you need to remind people that you're not a racist after you say things? You just might belong somewhere in this category. And there's a spectrum. Some hide it better than others and some simply have more to hide. BUT AT LEAST WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE REALIZE THAT WE SHOULD HIDE IT! The fact that blatant racism is no longer acceptable counts for progress in my book.
Finally, we have what I believe to be the newest and possibly most common form of racism: colorblindness. Not the colorblindness claimed by people in the above group, but serious, well-intentioned colorblindess possessed by very enlightened people who truly do not believe that any race is inferior to any other. (And the same point can apply to Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Age, etc...) Being BLIND to those things when interacting with someone, THAT'S the 'new racism' (sexism, etc...) in my mind. THAT is the next great social hurdle we have to cross.
I'll explain...
Let's say you've got two college applicants. Same SAT's, Same GPA's, similar extra-curriculars, etc... But one's white, with parents making over $100,000 combined, from an middle to upper-middle class suburb with very little crime. The other's black, with parents making under $50,000, combined, from the inner-city where they were faced with crime and drugs and violence every day. To say that these candidates are "equal" is colorblind. It's also horribly unfair and unjust. And THAT'S what I'm calling out here, as the new racism.
To not recognize someone's race, gender, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, etc... to just flatly assume "we're all equal" (and truly act accordingly) despite these things, is to ignore the fact that this person grew up in a world that percieved them according to their [sub-group,] and treated them accordingly. And those perceptions and experiences shaped who they are, every bit as much as our (different) experience shaped us. A white person and a black person; a man and a woman; a muslim, jew, christian, hindu or atheist; a gay or a strait; cannot walk the same path though the same world and come away with the same experience from it. To dismiss that, to not respect that fact, to be truly colorblind, is every bit as damaging to them as simply judging someone for the color of their skin (gender, etc...) When someone decides that, in achieveing colorblindess they have gone far enough, and will progress no farther, they are now among the new racists.
And colorblindness comes faily easily to a lot of people these days. But being colorblind is only the first step. It a place we can START FROM. Wipe the slate clean, sure, but then start to understand how the world's perception and treatment of us shapes who we become. Appreciate that no two people percieve things quite the same way, and when you take a huge factor like RACE (or GENDER, SEXUALITY, RELIGION, etc...) into account, and how that affects how the world percieves and treats THEM, it's almost wrong to say that they're even IN the same world, even if they're standing right next to each other. And doing this is a lot harder, and throughout your life your neverquite done. Because you will always be meeting new people, and you will of course keep changing yourself. We must rid ourselves of the last remants of outright racism, to be sure, and to be sure, we've made tremendous strides in doing that. But we can't stop at colorblindness. We must strive for a greater understanding of one another, and our varied experiences than that.
That's what I believe anyway.
...
(Hey Joy, I guess I did learn something in your class, huh?)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Some Strengths & Benefits of my health care plan
Question: How does giving everyone everything LOWER costs?!
A big way that the cost of any given procedure will be result from the hospital KNOWING that when they treat someone, they WILL get paid. So they won't have to bake-in extra costs assuming a certain percent loss, based on a bunch of patients NOT paying. (Why do YOU think it costs $10 dollars to get an aspirin in the hospital?) Also, the Hospital won't get low-balled anymore for medicaid patients. Since EVERYONE will be in the same plan, the hospital will get paid the same for any given petient they take. Again, this reduces the unreimbursed costs that they currently pass onto everyone else. (And why should it matter WHO the hospital is treating? From their perspective, does a triple bypass cost less to give a poor person than a rich person? They should get paid for the SERVICE not the PATIENT!)
Another way costs are lowered is by providing people with incentives (or at worst removing the disincentives) to make the kinds of decisions that benefit the system, namely: GET TREATMENT EARLY! For example: Right now, if someone gets an earache, and they don't have insurance, they don't go to the doctor; not today, not tomorrow not next week, even when the pain gets worse. A month later, after the infection has spread, they show up in the ER; unconscious and on death's door with 105 degree fever. After spending the night in the ER, they're moved to the ICU. Then they're there for a week, getting exotic, aggressive anti-biotics intravenously, after which they either DIE (and likely don't pay) or LIVE, but declare bankrupcy because they can't pay. Ten's, maybe Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of unreimbursed costs (and possibly a patient death) now get s passed onto everyone else over something that could have been solved with a single course of simple $10 anti-biotics if it had been treated early.
Because, with health care, sometimes giving MORE in the right place at the right time cost a LOT LESS. This also frees up the ER, ICU and Specialized resources that would otherwise be consumed, thus lowering the cost for THOSE resources. (See? My plan just keeps WORKING!)
Getting people to go to their primary care providers at the first sign of trouble lowers the overall cost of treating any given condition AND improves the likelyhood of a positive outcome. Putting of treatment for lack of coverage ALWAYS costs more, can only INCREASE to chance of a negative outcome, thus leading to more costs being passed onto to those who CAN and DO pay. This is also the answer to the concern (of many Conservatives) that the RICH will SUBSIDIZE the POOR. Well... they may, but no more than they already are, for the very reason I've just laid out. The thing is, under my plan, they'll do a LOT LESS of this. The theory here is NOT to have the RICH subsidize the POOR, but rather to have the HEALTHY subsidize the SICK.
This is the one part of our current system that actually works very well, and it works better the more people you have in a given risk pool. So how about... ALL OF AMERICA?! That should make the cost per person as low as possible.
Question: SO... who pays more and who pays less?
An individual who currently buys insurance, though an employer's benefit program, will pay almost the same as he does now, but get better coverage. Someone who buys insurance ON THEIR OWN will pay a LOT less.
Someone with NO INSURANCE? Yeah, they'll pay more... But they'll get coverage. Let's say your in this group and making OVER median income (about $50,ooo for an individual) but you work for a small company and they don't offer health care. What you'd pay in increased taxes is roughly what your share of the premium would be if your employer DID offer health insurance. If you make LESS than median income, we can cut you some slack. Since you're probably paying NOTHING now (and we're subsidizing you anyway, as I've explained above) ANYTHING would be better than NOTHING. So you'll pay some greatly reduced amount. Below the poverty line? (for example) You'll pay nothing, just as you do today, but you'll get better coverage than medicaid currently offers.
You might ask: Why shouldn't healthy people be allowed to opt out if they choose?
Simple: It doesn't work. First of all: How do you how long you;ll be 'healthy'? Young people all think they'll live forever and we (adults) all know that just ain't true. And besides: a lot of 'healthy' exercise. Which means they can be still be INJURED. So what if they're not sick? If they blow out their knee or rupture a tendon, their will still be COSTS, and that will be more than they can afford. And if they don't pay, THE REST OF US END UP PAYING! So no: EVERYONE puts in who can. Period. It compulsory. Same goes for the whole lower premium / higher deductible argument. It doesn't work our form most in the long run, and if you can't pay the difference, WE end up paying. NO. EVERYONE puts in. DONE. That's the only way it works for EVERYONE.
What about those small companies that can't afford insurance?
Well, if they make a PROFIT, they can always afford a 2% or 3% tax increase. If you make a dollar, after all your employees and other costs are paid, you can afford 3 cents. If you make $100 you can afford $3 and if you make a $Million you can afford $30,000. You see? If you small and don't make enough to afford the HUGE FIXED cost of health insurance, you'll pay a much smaller amount. And if you do make scads of money, then you have no excuse. And below a certain amount (and amount that most all small companies will never meet) you'll still be paying less. But employers pick up about 80% of the tab now, and they'll need to continue to do so. But if it's a TAX, they'll get a break exactly when they need it. (Unlike with private companies who'll want to be paid whether you made a profit or not!)
The other benefit is that the cost of retaining an employee is less, so companies can afford to hire more people, since their health care tab will be a function of the money (profit now, not revenue) they make rather than the number of employees they have. This will increase the number of decent paying jobs, and thus also increase the number of people paying into the system!
SO IT'S SUSTAINABLE! The more you look at it the more you realize that all the right incentives are there!
In my next post I will take on some of the more controversial questions about my Health Care Plan.
A big way that the cost of any given procedure will be result from the hospital KNOWING that when they treat someone, they WILL get paid. So they won't have to bake-in extra costs assuming a certain percent loss, based on a bunch of patients NOT paying. (Why do YOU think it costs $10 dollars to get an aspirin in the hospital?) Also, the Hospital won't get low-balled anymore for medicaid patients. Since EVERYONE will be in the same plan, the hospital will get paid the same for any given petient they take. Again, this reduces the unreimbursed costs that they currently pass onto everyone else. (And why should it matter WHO the hospital is treating? From their perspective, does a triple bypass cost less to give a poor person than a rich person? They should get paid for the SERVICE not the PATIENT!)
Another way costs are lowered is by providing people with incentives (or at worst removing the disincentives) to make the kinds of decisions that benefit the system, namely: GET TREATMENT EARLY! For example: Right now, if someone gets an earache, and they don't have insurance, they don't go to the doctor; not today, not tomorrow not next week, even when the pain gets worse. A month later, after the infection has spread, they show up in the ER; unconscious and on death's door with 105 degree fever. After spending the night in the ER, they're moved to the ICU. Then they're there for a week, getting exotic, aggressive anti-biotics intravenously, after which they either DIE (and likely don't pay) or LIVE, but declare bankrupcy because they can't pay. Ten's, maybe Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of unreimbursed costs (and possibly a patient death) now get s passed onto everyone else over something that could have been solved with a single course of simple $10 anti-biotics if it had been treated early.
Because, with health care, sometimes giving MORE in the right place at the right time cost a LOT LESS. This also frees up the ER, ICU and Specialized resources that would otherwise be consumed, thus lowering the cost for THOSE resources. (See? My plan just keeps WORKING!)
Getting people to go to their primary care providers at the first sign of trouble lowers the overall cost of treating any given condition AND improves the likelyhood of a positive outcome. Putting of treatment for lack of coverage ALWAYS costs more, can only INCREASE to chance of a negative outcome, thus leading to more costs being passed onto to those who CAN and DO pay. This is also the answer to the concern (of many Conservatives) that the RICH will SUBSIDIZE the POOR. Well... they may, but no more than they already are, for the very reason I've just laid out. The thing is, under my plan, they'll do a LOT LESS of this. The theory here is NOT to have the RICH subsidize the POOR, but rather to have the HEALTHY subsidize the SICK.
This is the one part of our current system that actually works very well, and it works better the more people you have in a given risk pool. So how about... ALL OF AMERICA?! That should make the cost per person as low as possible.
Question: SO... who pays more and who pays less?
An individual who currently buys insurance, though an employer's benefit program, will pay almost the same as he does now, but get better coverage. Someone who buys insurance ON THEIR OWN will pay a LOT less.
Someone with NO INSURANCE? Yeah, they'll pay more... But they'll get coverage. Let's say your in this group and making OVER median income (about $50,ooo for an individual) but you work for a small company and they don't offer health care. What you'd pay in increased taxes is roughly what your share of the premium would be if your employer DID offer health insurance. If you make LESS than median income, we can cut you some slack. Since you're probably paying NOTHING now (and we're subsidizing you anyway, as I've explained above) ANYTHING would be better than NOTHING. So you'll pay some greatly reduced amount. Below the poverty line? (for example) You'll pay nothing, just as you do today, but you'll get better coverage than medicaid currently offers.
You might ask: Why shouldn't healthy people be allowed to opt out if they choose?
Simple: It doesn't work. First of all: How do you how long you;ll be 'healthy'? Young people all think they'll live forever and we (adults) all know that just ain't true. And besides: a lot of 'healthy' exercise. Which means they can be still be INJURED. So what if they're not sick? If they blow out their knee or rupture a tendon, their will still be COSTS, and that will be more than they can afford. And if they don't pay, THE REST OF US END UP PAYING! So no: EVERYONE puts in who can. Period. It compulsory. Same goes for the whole lower premium / higher deductible argument. It doesn't work our form most in the long run, and if you can't pay the difference, WE end up paying. NO. EVERYONE puts in. DONE. That's the only way it works for EVERYONE.
What about those small companies that can't afford insurance?
Well, if they make a PROFIT, they can always afford a 2% or 3% tax increase. If you make a dollar, after all your employees and other costs are paid, you can afford 3 cents. If you make $100 you can afford $3 and if you make a $Million you can afford $30,000. You see? If you small and don't make enough to afford the HUGE FIXED cost of health insurance, you'll pay a much smaller amount. And if you do make scads of money, then you have no excuse. And below a certain amount (and amount that most all small companies will never meet) you'll still be paying less. But employers pick up about 80% of the tab now, and they'll need to continue to do so. But if it's a TAX, they'll get a break exactly when they need it. (Unlike with private companies who'll want to be paid whether you made a profit or not!)
The other benefit is that the cost of retaining an employee is less, so companies can afford to hire more people, since their health care tab will be a function of the money (profit now, not revenue) they make rather than the number of employees they have. This will increase the number of decent paying jobs, and thus also increase the number of people paying into the system!
SO IT'S SUSTAINABLE! The more you look at it the more you realize that all the right incentives are there!
In my next post I will take on some of the more controversial questions about my Health Care Plan.
The Solution to the Health Care Problem
The health care debate rages on. President Obama took yet another opportunity to make his case, and yet all the media can focus on was Representative Wilson's outburst, "YOU LIE!" (Never getting around to letting there audience know that Rep. Wilson (R) was, in fact, LYING.) So Democrats keep trying to compromise, the Republicans keep trying to obstruct and the media remains complicit with the RIGHT WING but still refusing to inform people about the ACTUAL BILL, in favor of repeating RIGHT WING LIES... like those death panels on page 425? Yeah: THEY AIN'T THERE! But you won't get that form the media who would rather report on a fight than actually INFORM people.
So once against the media's forfeiture of credibility, the Republican's lack of brains and the Democrat's lack of balls have doomed us all. And that's not even to say that I LIKE Obama's bill, it's just better than anything ELSE I've seen so far...
Except for MY SOLUTION. Which would solve everything, and satisfy everyone. Over on MediaMatters, even the conservative posters had to concede to it's quality. So here's MY PLAN:
PART ONE: The Government's Role
The primary role of the GOVERNMENT, meaning the LEGISLATURE is to DEFINE the COVERAGE. Put in the simplest terms: Everyone & everything is covered. You could make this 100%, with NO out of pocket expense or could have a SMALL (~$20) co-pay, just to deter some idiot going to the ER for a hangnail.
Now... Just some common sense details: No, I wouldn't cover elective/non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery. I wouldn't cover any 'alternative medicine' (which is all BS anyway!); and I'd also be sorely tempted to exclude lifestyle drugs (Cyalis/Viagra/Levitra?) but I guess I could be persuaded to include those. Abortion would be covered. If you don't like that? Grow up. Seriously. (I'll address why this is the case in another post, "Questions Answered about My Plan, because people have asked.) And mental health would get the same level of coverage as everything else. There's no reason to treat the brain any differently from any other organ that has something go wrong with it. (Currently most Ins.Co shaft mental health drugs big time.) Many things not currently covered, like Speech therapy to treat Autism, would also be covered.
The exact details on every little things can be worked out later, but the GUIDING PRINCIPLE is: If you're sick, and we can heal you, your healed. No fuss, no muss and little to no out of pocket expense! No one dies of anything we can fix, and no one EVER goes bankrupt for getting sick. Period.
PART TWO: So who actually RUNS it?!
Utilizing the enormous network of health care cast negotiators that already exists, the program will be managed by the insurance companies, much in the way they do now. The big difference is that they can't refuse coverage. Everyone gets treated, and the hospital (doctor, etc...) gets paid for everyone they see. DONE.
They will adjust their premiums to figure out what it would cost and then bill the government for that service. What stops them from just GOUGING the government? Simple: COMPETITION. They will have to bid to cover people. And once they get someone they have them for LIFE. SO: Every time a baby is born, they will want to snatch up as many babies as they can since, once born and vaccinated, most babies represent about 30 years of little to no cost. Since they'll be paid to cover them ANYWAY, they'll want as many of those babies as they can get. If their price is to high, their competitors will snatch them up and their current case load just gets older. (Which in the health care world is a disaster! If you can get paid the same for babies as for the over 65's, YOU WANT THEM!)
So they will negotiate prices. The difference between what they negotiate and what the government pays - THEY KEEP. So there's still a profit motive and opportunity. (But for PROVIDING care, not DENYING it!) Going back to PART ONE, to maintain "universal coverage" and to avoid both rationing and robbing people of control over their own care, they will be required to reimburse doctors/hospitals/etc... at a level that (for example) insures that any given person will have a choice of at least three doctors within 50 miles of their home (100 miles in rural areas) that will perform a given test or procedure at no additional cost to the patient. (Save for ~$20 co-pay, if applicable.) Some Doctors can still charge more, if they think the market will bear it, but the difference will have to be paid by the patient. But the standard payment will have to be enough to make sure I have at least three Doctors to choose from with no additional expense. This gives doctors an incentive not to gouge insurance companies because there will be great pressure for them to be among the "free" providers - or at least very close to "free."
Now - I've also thought about how to reimburse at a higher level for specialists. First off, we'll need some way of identifying who the specialists are. It could be years of service, education, experience... whatever. The HOW isn't really important. It would likely been done however it's done now. So let's say someone has a complicated case and needs a specialist. Teh specialist won't be working for the regular rate. So does that mean that the patient now has to pay? NO. Here's how it would work: Specialists get reimbursed at a higher rate, to the point where the "choice of three" doctrine is maintained. So who decides is you get to see the specialist? Not the government (as you may be suspecting, but) YOUR DOCTOR. That's right. You see the regular doctor. When he sees your complicated case, assuming he's not a specialist himself, he'll think "No way am I dealing with THAT, for what they're paying me!" (Since he's only getting the base rate) and he'll refer you to a specialist or three. If a doctor is willing to give up the chance to make a little money (because he judges that what's really needed is beyond what he's getting paid, and thus he'll be at a loss) that's good enough for me. Off to see the specialist!
PART THREE: So how do we PAY for it?
OK, you guessed it: The government will pay the insurance bills with increased taxes. But stay with me now! It's not nearly as bad as you think. In fact, YOU MAY NOT EVEN NOTICE. And corporations may even prefer it!
The increased taxes will be offset by the fact that you're no longer paying premiums. This new tax would be structured such that most people's take home pay would not be affected + or -. This tax would be partially based on income (to give a break to anyone making under median income) but would also vary with martial status and number of children, much the way your premium does now. But the guiding principle here is that your take home pay will be as close as possible, to what you're taking home now.
Corporate taxes increase will increase to, such that the revenue generated will be the same as what is currently being paid in premiums - this is meant to be revenue-neutral. The benefit of this is that in the form of a tax, it will not have to be paid by struggling firms, who would otherwise still have huge, fixed health care costs, and more of the bill will be footed by companies doing really well. Who could just as easily have a tough year next year, and be in the other boat themselves. (Don't believe me? As late as the 1990's it was UNTHINKABLE that GM, still the worlds largest and richest corporation at the time, would EVER declare bankruptcy.) So while ExxonMobil might not like the increased taxes now, 5 years from now (let's say) when they're approaching red ink, rather than BIG FIXED COSTS for health care, their cost will be... NOTHING! And that can easily be the difference between making a profit and taking a loss!
PART FOUR: So what controls costs?
Cost are controlled automatically, through market forces in a more functional manner than they are today: Doctors will charge what the market bears, but will have an incentive to be among those that are "free" to the patient. Insurance companies will be in competition with each other to bid for new babies to cover. Free market principals apply, but will be used to insure coverage, as well as control cost. But rather than let supply and demand drive price, we'll use price to drive supply, and competition to keep Price down.
YOU see a DOCTOR. The DOCTORS deal with the INSURERS. The INSURERS deal with the GOVERNMENT. And the GOVERNMENT bill YOU (and your EMPLOYER.)
That's the basic structure. I'm going to do a separate post on strengths and benefits and also for any questions I get here, and for questions I've gotten from the MediaMatters posters.
So once against the media's forfeiture of credibility, the Republican's lack of brains and the Democrat's lack of balls have doomed us all. And that's not even to say that I LIKE Obama's bill, it's just better than anything ELSE I've seen so far...
Except for MY SOLUTION. Which would solve everything, and satisfy everyone. Over on MediaMatters, even the conservative posters had to concede to it's quality. So here's MY PLAN:
PART ONE: The Government's Role
The primary role of the GOVERNMENT, meaning the LEGISLATURE is to DEFINE the COVERAGE. Put in the simplest terms: Everyone & everything is covered. You could make this 100%, with NO out of pocket expense or could have a SMALL (~$20) co-pay, just to deter some idiot going to the ER for a hangnail.
Now... Just some common sense details: No, I wouldn't cover elective/non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery. I wouldn't cover any 'alternative medicine' (which is all BS anyway!); and I'd also be sorely tempted to exclude lifestyle drugs (Cyalis/Viagra/Levitra?) but I guess I could be persuaded to include those. Abortion would be covered. If you don't like that? Grow up. Seriously. (I'll address why this is the case in another post, "Questions Answered about My Plan, because people have asked.) And mental health would get the same level of coverage as everything else. There's no reason to treat the brain any differently from any other organ that has something go wrong with it. (Currently most Ins.Co shaft mental health drugs big time.) Many things not currently covered, like Speech therapy to treat Autism, would also be covered.
The exact details on every little things can be worked out later, but the GUIDING PRINCIPLE is: If you're sick, and we can heal you, your healed. No fuss, no muss and little to no out of pocket expense! No one dies of anything we can fix, and no one EVER goes bankrupt for getting sick. Period.
PART TWO: So who actually RUNS it?!
Utilizing the enormous network of health care cast negotiators that already exists, the program will be managed by the insurance companies, much in the way they do now. The big difference is that they can't refuse coverage. Everyone gets treated, and the hospital (doctor, etc...) gets paid for everyone they see. DONE.
They will adjust their premiums to figure out what it would cost and then bill the government for that service. What stops them from just GOUGING the government? Simple: COMPETITION. They will have to bid to cover people. And once they get someone they have them for LIFE. SO: Every time a baby is born, they will want to snatch up as many babies as they can since, once born and vaccinated, most babies represent about 30 years of little to no cost. Since they'll be paid to cover them ANYWAY, they'll want as many of those babies as they can get. If their price is to high, their competitors will snatch them up and their current case load just gets older. (Which in the health care world is a disaster! If you can get paid the same for babies as for the over 65's, YOU WANT THEM!)
So they will negotiate prices. The difference between what they negotiate and what the government pays - THEY KEEP. So there's still a profit motive and opportunity. (But for PROVIDING care, not DENYING it!) Going back to PART ONE, to maintain "universal coverage" and to avoid both rationing and robbing people of control over their own care, they will be required to reimburse doctors/hospitals/etc... at a level that (for example) insures that any given person will have a choice of at least three doctors within 50 miles of their home (100 miles in rural areas) that will perform a given test or procedure at no additional cost to the patient. (Save for ~$20 co-pay, if applicable.) Some Doctors can still charge more, if they think the market will bear it, but the difference will have to be paid by the patient. But the standard payment will have to be enough to make sure I have at least three Doctors to choose from with no additional expense. This gives doctors an incentive not to gouge insurance companies because there will be great pressure for them to be among the "free" providers - or at least very close to "free."
Now - I've also thought about how to reimburse at a higher level for specialists. First off, we'll need some way of identifying who the specialists are. It could be years of service, education, experience... whatever. The HOW isn't really important. It would likely been done however it's done now. So let's say someone has a complicated case and needs a specialist. Teh specialist won't be working for the regular rate. So does that mean that the patient now has to pay? NO. Here's how it would work: Specialists get reimbursed at a higher rate, to the point where the "choice of three" doctrine is maintained. So who decides is you get to see the specialist? Not the government (as you may be suspecting, but) YOUR DOCTOR. That's right. You see the regular doctor. When he sees your complicated case, assuming he's not a specialist himself, he'll think "No way am I dealing with THAT, for what they're paying me!" (Since he's only getting the base rate) and he'll refer you to a specialist or three. If a doctor is willing to give up the chance to make a little money (because he judges that what's really needed is beyond what he's getting paid, and thus he'll be at a loss) that's good enough for me. Off to see the specialist!
PART THREE: So how do we PAY for it?
OK, you guessed it: The government will pay the insurance bills with increased taxes. But stay with me now! It's not nearly as bad as you think. In fact, YOU MAY NOT EVEN NOTICE. And corporations may even prefer it!
The increased taxes will be offset by the fact that you're no longer paying premiums. This new tax would be structured such that most people's take home pay would not be affected + or -. This tax would be partially based on income (to give a break to anyone making under median income) but would also vary with martial status and number of children, much the way your premium does now. But the guiding principle here is that your take home pay will be as close as possible, to what you're taking home now.
Corporate taxes increase will increase to, such that the revenue generated will be the same as what is currently being paid in premiums - this is meant to be revenue-neutral. The benefit of this is that in the form of a tax, it will not have to be paid by struggling firms, who would otherwise still have huge, fixed health care costs, and more of the bill will be footed by companies doing really well. Who could just as easily have a tough year next year, and be in the other boat themselves. (Don't believe me? As late as the 1990's it was UNTHINKABLE that GM, still the worlds largest and richest corporation at the time, would EVER declare bankruptcy.) So while ExxonMobil might not like the increased taxes now, 5 years from now (let's say) when they're approaching red ink, rather than BIG FIXED COSTS for health care, their cost will be... NOTHING! And that can easily be the difference between making a profit and taking a loss!
PART FOUR: So what controls costs?
Cost are controlled automatically, through market forces in a more functional manner than they are today: Doctors will charge what the market bears, but will have an incentive to be among those that are "free" to the patient. Insurance companies will be in competition with each other to bid for new babies to cover. Free market principals apply, but will be used to insure coverage, as well as control cost. But rather than let supply and demand drive price, we'll use price to drive supply, and competition to keep Price down.
YOU see a DOCTOR. The DOCTORS deal with the INSURERS. The INSURERS deal with the GOVERNMENT. And the GOVERNMENT bill YOU (and your EMPLOYER.)
That's the basic structure. I'm going to do a separate post on strengths and benefits and also for any questions I get here, and for questions I've gotten from the MediaMatters posters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)