What Ezra Klein doesn’t understand could fill a Saturn V. The man is an expert only at the self-promotion needed to be considered an expert. (Maybe I shouldn’t knock that, as it’s the same talent that got our Community-Organizer-in-Chief to where he is today.)
The comments to Bailey’s post are interesting, too. In them you can see that “rationing” is already being subjected to the same dissembling that has left the work “torture” with such a wide meaning that it is both useless and all encompassing.
So the more technically-accurate usage would be “price rationing” vs. “non-price rationing.” For example, during the first go-around of the recent swine flu, distributors of medical face masks were put on “allocation,” a form of rationing. The price from the manufacturers didn’t go up, but the distributors only got so many boxes of masks.
Even by Ron Bailey’s cramped definition, there is massive rationing in the current system. Most health insurance in this country is through employer programs which are implicitly subsidized through federal tax exemptions. Then there is the VA, Medicare, CHIP, and Medicaid. Federally, the nation deliberately rations health care to the well-employed, veterans, kids, elderly and the extremely indigent.
And implicitly, that is the option Republicans are defending – the proposed plan would actually ration less.
Federally, the nation deliberately rations health care to the well-employed, veterans, kids, elderly and the extremely indigent. And implicitly, that is the option Republicans are defending…
That is horseshit, Duncan. The Republicans (at least the smart ones) are not defending the current system, but proposing actual solutions to that particular problem, which the Democrats don’t address. They want more market-based solutions, while the Dems are proposing solutions that are even less so.
oxford english dictionary:
1. trans. To supply (a person or animal) with a ration or allowance; to limit to a fixed amount of food or other commodity. Also with to and refl.: to restrict oneself to a certain amount of something.
2. intr. To obtain a ration of food. Obs. rare.
3. trans. To restrict the amount of (a particular foodstuff, supply, etc.) available for (esp. individual) purchase or consumption to a specified amount, esp. in time of war or shortage; to divide into rations, subject to rationing; to serve out in fixed quantities. Also with to and in extended use: to restrict (an activity, etc.) to a particular amount of time or degree of frequency.
Merrian-Webster:
Pronunciation: \ˈra-shən, ˈrā-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin ration-, ratio computation, reason
Date: circa 1711
1 a : a food allowance for one day b plural : food, provisions
2 : a share especially as determined by supply
Last I heard the GOP was screaming about cuts to Medicare.
And please show me the GOP who wants to cut the VA.
Please.
Last I heard the GOP was screaming about cuts to Medicare.
And please show me the GOP who wants to cut the VA.
If I were a Republican, you might have a point. Note that I said “smart” Republicans. I don’t consider that a very large set.
The nearest thing to a “market based” solution that I’ve heard of is opening the market to interstate insurance; which basically puts the whole shebang in the hands of the North Dakota statehouse. And even then, that requires government subsidies to “high-risk pools”, which doesnt include everyone denied due to pre existing conditions.
oxford english dictionary
By my reading, all of those definitions are irrelevant in a market economy.
People who think otherwise would seem to be unfamiliar with the concept.
The nearest thing to a “market based” solution that I’ve heard of is opening the market to interstate insurance; which basically puts the whole shebang in the hands of the North Dakota statehouse.
Then apparently you have been paying no attention.
A fundamental market-based solution would be (at a minimum) to put individuals on a level playing field, in terms of income tax deductions, with employers. If we can’t reconnect the actual consumers of the service with the providers, then there is no hope of a market-based solution, nor can we solve the portability problem (short of a government program, of course, which is why proponents of the latter oppose it). It’s idiotic that we continue to live with this relic of wartime wage controls from over six decades ago.
Also, what would be so bad about “putting the whole shebang in charge of the North Dakota statehouse”? Why would that be worse than putting it all in the hands of Washington? After all, if you wanted to purchase a plan from some other state, who would stop you?
My view here is that medical care need not be in short supply and hence, need not be rationed under a true market system. I see numerous problems with current regulation that both restricts supply and encourages demand.
As I hint in another thread, I see the federal funding of “living wills” as another example of artificially increasing demand. It’s one thing to spend public dollars to educate people about the supposed benefits of living wills and another to actually pay for the practice.
I see several changes as steps in the right direction: Opening the market to interstate insurance, leveling the health care cost field between employers and individuals, health savings accounts, tort reform, reducing extraneous regulation. Each a step I can’t see the leftists in DC taking, as they tend to reduce government control over our lives. Each leaving intact what works with our current system. And each an improvement regardless of whether the others pass, so no need for a massive comprehensive bill.
Wow, reading these posts, and Karl’s plain daft and insulting ones over in another thread I can think of lots of things to say.
But Charles Stross said them more eloquently than I could.
Dave, I’ve read your link and some of the comments. Here’s what I think about being considered a merciless American.
The Lockerbie bomber was sentenced to life. Which means mercy was given in that he wasn’t sentenced to death. The fact that he was received in Libya as a returning hero emphasizes that he should have served his life term in prison.
He received mercy. He was sentenced to life and should have died in prison. How about a little mercy for his victim’s families?
Well Dave, when you start with a premise that the guy may be innocent except for a miscarriage of justice, then perhaps you think more mercy is required. Apparently Libya disagrees with you that he is innocent.
Wow, reading these posts, and Karl’s plain daft and insulting ones over in another thread I can think of lots of things to say.
Well, Dave, I just read what I can only classify as bullshit. Sure it sucks for someone who killed more than 200 people to die in prison, but that was the right thing to do. Where’s the “mercy” for the relatives of the people who died on the plane? Where’s the “mercy” for future victims of terrorism?
Oh, and the insipid and bogus comparison to health care “reform” doesn’t improve the article any. I don’t have time right now, but maybe I can elaborate on my ideas for health care. My view is that I would rather have health care that works than universal health care that doesn’t work.
I thought about this some more. Morality exercised at other people’s expense is in my humble opinion a great harm. It’s also hypocritical and perhaps cowardly. We should work to end its expression whenever it appears.
I also think there’s a false dilemma here. Not expressing the approved degree of “mercy” (as complained about in the blog post that Dave seemed to think was relevant) at the expense of others is classified as being “merciless” or without mercy.
Releasing a person responsible for the Lockerbie bombing is a particularly stupid demonstration of “mercy”. It’s one thing to release for reasons of health, someone who committed a lesser crime. The expectation was that they would be released from jail eventually and experience life again as a free person. In those cases, when it’s clear that they won’t survive their sentence, releasing them is humane. However, in the Lockerbie case, the villain was sentenced to life. There was no legitimate expectation that he’d ever be free again for any circumstance. Certainly, I believe this to be a cruel blow to the victims’ families and to any future attempts at justice for those who die from terrorist attacks.
Further, when Scottish authorities release prisoners who have killed 180 US citizens, then only the stupid could believe that the US government won’t complain. It’s not solely an internal affair of Scotland and its justice system no matter how that is spun.
Moving on to universal health care, the same false dilemma is presented. Supposedly, everyone no matter how sick or how careless, deserves health insurance at the expense of everyone else. Further, we’re supposed to trust our government to do the right thing, even though they have a long history of failure and numerous conflicts of interest. Where’s the mercy in harming everyone’s standard of living so that some people might get better health care than they currently do? It’s not mercy but craven foolishness.
Supposedly, everyone no matter how sick or how careless, deserves health insurance at the expense of everyone else. That would certainly be the Christian thing to do. Unless of course you want to see people die in the street.
> That would certainly be the Christian thing to do.
Abortion doesn’t seem to be particularly “Christian”….
>Unless of course you want to see people die in the street.
Unless Gerrib is claiming that health care will stop people from dying, he seems to be worried more about location.
Govt health care says that my overweight friends can’t choose to spend their money on their healthcare. Instead, they’re going to be forced to pay for other people’s healthcare, healthcare that they’re not going to receive because folks like Gerrib want to punish them.
Govt health care says that my overweight friends can’t choose to spend their money on their healthcare. Wrong – they can spend as much money as they want on their health care.
healthcare that they’re not going to receive because folks like Gerrib want to punish them. Wrong – I don’t want to punish them – I want them to get health care even if they can’t afford it.
they can spend as much money as they want on their health care.
…with whatever money left-over after paying for everyone else.
That would certainly be the Christian thing to do. Unless of course you want to see people die in the street.
First, I’m not Christian. Second, I don’t see that any proposals out that necessarily reduce the number of people dying in the street. For all the talk of mercy, it puzzles me where supporters expect the “mercy” to come from.
Wrong – they [refering to Andy Freeman’s “overweight friends”] can spend as much money as they want on their health care.
They can already do that now and as Titus notes, they’ll pay more under universal health care plans under the new schemes. Where’s the improvement for this class of health care victims? As I see it, Chris, you still ignore the “tragedy of the commons” problem inherent to this: 1) What is the appropriate amount of care for someone who can’t or won’t pay for it? 2) What should government do about people who behave in ways that increases the state’s burden?
To the government, Andy’s overweight friends are indistinguishable from overweight health care moochers, at least until they start drawing (or not) on health care services. You can’t assume that a 300 pound rich guy won’t manage to suck far more government health care costs than they pay in – even if they are insured now. That’d be favoritism to the wealthy and as I think is already seen with Medicare, it’s simple to become poor in order to qualify for government services. Just transfer your assets to your descendants and magically qualify for government assistance overnight.
Here’s my view. US Government default insurance and health care should be meager, but better than the current “ER” health system (that is, get sick enough and show up in the emergency room for free health care). Anyone who disagrees is free to use their own wealth to provide a better, voluntary standard of mercy. It’s not government’s job to be merciful and frankly, it puzzles me (as I mentioned before) why we should expect our cold, soulless government bureaucracies to be mercy providers?
What Ezra Klein doesn’t understand could fill a Saturn V. The man is an expert only at the self-promotion needed to be considered an expert. (Maybe I shouldn’t knock that, as it’s the same talent that got our Community-Organizer-in-Chief to where he is today.)
The comments to Bailey’s post are interesting, too. In them you can see that “rationing” is already being subjected to the same dissembling that has left the work “torture” with such a wide meaning that it is both useless and all encompassing.
Actually, Rationing: The allocation of product among customers during periods of short supply. When price is used to allocate product, it is allocated to those willing to pay the most. (May have to scroll down to the definition)
So the more technically-accurate usage would be “price rationing” vs. “non-price rationing.” For example, during the first go-around of the recent swine flu, distributors of medical face masks were put on “allocation,” a form of rationing. The price from the manufacturers didn’t go up, but the distributors only got so many boxes of masks.
Even by Ron Bailey’s cramped definition, there is massive rationing in the current system. Most health insurance in this country is through employer programs which are implicitly subsidized through federal tax exemptions. Then there is the VA, Medicare, CHIP, and Medicaid. Federally, the nation deliberately rations health care to the well-employed, veterans, kids, elderly and the extremely indigent.
And implicitly, that is the option Republicans are defending – the proposed plan would actually ration less.
Federally, the nation deliberately rations health care to the well-employed, veterans, kids, elderly and the extremely indigent. And implicitly, that is the option Republicans are defending…
That is horseshit, Duncan. The Republicans (at least the smart ones) are not defending the current system, but proposing actual solutions to that particular problem, which the Democrats don’t address. They want more market-based solutions, while the Dems are proposing solutions that are even less so.
oxford english dictionary:
1. trans. To supply (a person or animal) with a ration or allowance; to limit to a fixed amount of food or other commodity. Also with to and refl.: to restrict oneself to a certain amount of something.
2. intr. To obtain a ration of food. Obs. rare.
3. trans. To restrict the amount of (a particular foodstuff, supply, etc.) available for (esp. individual) purchase or consumption to a specified amount, esp. in time of war or shortage; to divide into rations, subject to rationing; to serve out in fixed quantities. Also with to and in extended use: to restrict (an activity, etc.) to a particular amount of time or degree of frequency.
Merrian-Webster:
Pronunciation: \ˈra-shən, ˈrā-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin ration-, ratio computation, reason
Date: circa 1711
1 a : a food allowance for one day b plural : food, provisions
2 : a share especially as determined by supply
oxford english dictionary:
Merrian-Webster:
Last I heard the GOP was screaming about cuts to Medicare.
And please show me the GOP who wants to cut the VA.
Please.
Last I heard the GOP was screaming about cuts to Medicare.
And please show me the GOP who wants to cut the VA.
If I were a Republican, you might have a point. Note that I said “smart” Republicans. I don’t consider that a very large set.
The nearest thing to a “market based” solution that I’ve heard of is opening the market to interstate insurance; which basically puts the whole shebang in the hands of the North Dakota statehouse. And even then, that requires government subsidies to “high-risk pools”, which doesnt include everyone denied due to pre existing conditions.
oxford english dictionary
By my reading, all of those definitions are irrelevant in a market economy.
People who think otherwise would seem to be unfamiliar with the concept.
The nearest thing to a “market based” solution that I’ve heard of is opening the market to interstate insurance; which basically puts the whole shebang in the hands of the North Dakota statehouse.
Then apparently you have been paying no attention.
A fundamental market-based solution would be (at a minimum) to put individuals on a level playing field, in terms of income tax deductions, with employers. If we can’t reconnect the actual consumers of the service with the providers, then there is no hope of a market-based solution, nor can we solve the portability problem (short of a government program, of course, which is why proponents of the latter oppose it). It’s idiotic that we continue to live with this relic of wartime wage controls from over six decades ago.
Also, what would be so bad about “putting the whole shebang in charge of the North Dakota statehouse”? Why would that be worse than putting it all in the hands of Washington? After all, if you wanted to purchase a plan from some other state, who would stop you?
My view here is that medical care need not be in short supply and hence, need not be rationed under a true market system. I see numerous problems with current regulation that both restricts supply and encourages demand.
As I hint in another thread, I see the federal funding of “living wills” as another example of artificially increasing demand. It’s one thing to spend public dollars to educate people about the supposed benefits of living wills and another to actually pay for the practice.
I see several changes as steps in the right direction: Opening the market to interstate insurance, leveling the health care cost field between employers and individuals, health savings accounts, tort reform, reducing extraneous regulation. Each a step I can’t see the leftists in DC taking, as they tend to reduce government control over our lives. Each leaving intact what works with our current system. And each an improvement regardless of whether the others pass, so no need for a massive comprehensive bill.
Wow, reading these posts, and Karl’s plain daft and insulting ones over in another thread I can think of lots of things to say.
But Charles Stross said them more eloquently than I could.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/08/merciless.html#comments
Dave, I’ve read your link and some of the comments. Here’s what I think about being considered a merciless American.
The Lockerbie bomber was sentenced to life. Which means mercy was given in that he wasn’t sentenced to death. The fact that he was received in Libya as a returning hero emphasizes that he should have served his life term in prison.
He received mercy. He was sentenced to life and should have died in prison. How about a little mercy for his victim’s families?
Well Dave, when you start with a premise that the guy may be innocent except for a miscarriage of justice, then perhaps you think more mercy is required. Apparently Libya disagrees with you that he is innocent.
Wow, reading these posts, and Karl’s plain daft and insulting ones over in another thread I can think of lots of things to say.
Well, Dave, I just read what I can only classify as bullshit. Sure it sucks for someone who killed more than 200 people to die in prison, but that was the right thing to do. Where’s the “mercy” for the relatives of the people who died on the plane? Where’s the “mercy” for future victims of terrorism?
Oh, and the insipid and bogus comparison to health care “reform” doesn’t improve the article any. I don’t have time right now, but maybe I can elaborate on my ideas for health care. My view is that I would rather have health care that works than universal health care that doesn’t work.
I thought about this some more. Morality exercised at other people’s expense is in my humble opinion a great harm. It’s also hypocritical and perhaps cowardly. We should work to end its expression whenever it appears.
I also think there’s a false dilemma here. Not expressing the approved degree of “mercy” (as complained about in the blog post that Dave seemed to think was relevant) at the expense of others is classified as being “merciless” or without mercy.
Releasing a person responsible for the Lockerbie bombing is a particularly stupid demonstration of “mercy”. It’s one thing to release for reasons of health, someone who committed a lesser crime. The expectation was that they would be released from jail eventually and experience life again as a free person. In those cases, when it’s clear that they won’t survive their sentence, releasing them is humane. However, in the Lockerbie case, the villain was sentenced to life. There was no legitimate expectation that he’d ever be free again for any circumstance. Certainly, I believe this to be a cruel blow to the victims’ families and to any future attempts at justice for those who die from terrorist attacks.
Further, when Scottish authorities release prisoners who have killed 180 US citizens, then only the stupid could believe that the US government won’t complain. It’s not solely an internal affair of Scotland and its justice system no matter how that is spun.
Moving on to universal health care, the same false dilemma is presented. Supposedly, everyone no matter how sick or how careless, deserves health insurance at the expense of everyone else. Further, we’re supposed to trust our government to do the right thing, even though they have a long history of failure and numerous conflicts of interest. Where’s the mercy in harming everyone’s standard of living so that some people might get better health care than they currently do? It’s not mercy but craven foolishness.
Supposedly, everyone no matter how sick or how careless, deserves health insurance at the expense of everyone else. That would certainly be the Christian thing to do. Unless of course you want to see people die in the street.
> That would certainly be the Christian thing to do.
Abortion doesn’t seem to be particularly “Christian”….
>Unless of course you want to see people die in the street.
Unless Gerrib is claiming that health care will stop people from dying, he seems to be worried more about location.
Govt health care says that my overweight friends can’t choose to spend their money on their healthcare. Instead, they’re going to be forced to pay for other people’s healthcare, healthcare that they’re not going to receive because folks like Gerrib want to punish them.
Govt health care says that my overweight friends can’t choose to spend their money on their healthcare. Wrong – they can spend as much money as they want on their health care.
healthcare that they’re not going to receive because folks like Gerrib want to punish them. Wrong – I don’t want to punish them – I want them to get health care even if they can’t afford it.
they can spend as much money as they want on their health care.
…with whatever money left-over after paying for everyone else.
That would certainly be the Christian thing to do. Unless of course you want to see people die in the street.
First, I’m not Christian. Second, I don’t see that any proposals out that necessarily reduce the number of people dying in the street. For all the talk of mercy, it puzzles me where supporters expect the “mercy” to come from.
Wrong – they [refering to Andy Freeman’s “overweight friends”] can spend as much money as they want on their health care.
They can already do that now and as Titus notes, they’ll pay more under universal health care plans under the new schemes. Where’s the improvement for this class of health care victims? As I see it, Chris, you still ignore the “tragedy of the commons” problem inherent to this: 1) What is the appropriate amount of care for someone who can’t or won’t pay for it? 2) What should government do about people who behave in ways that increases the state’s burden?
To the government, Andy’s overweight friends are indistinguishable from overweight health care moochers, at least until they start drawing (or not) on health care services. You can’t assume that a 300 pound rich guy won’t manage to suck far more government health care costs than they pay in – even if they are insured now. That’d be favoritism to the wealthy and as I think is already seen with Medicare, it’s simple to become poor in order to qualify for government services. Just transfer your assets to your descendants and magically qualify for government assistance overnight.
Here’s my view. US Government default insurance and health care should be meager, but better than the current “ER” health system (that is, get sick enough and show up in the emergency room for free health care). Anyone who disagrees is free to use their own wealth to provide a better, voluntary standard of mercy. It’s not government’s job to be merciful and frankly, it puzzles me (as I mentioned before) why we should expect our cold, soulless government bureaucracies to be mercy providers?