Ask Not What You Can Do For Your Country, Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

[Katyusha]

Americans are spoiled and ignorant, no doubt about it. Fat, dumb and happy (they are fairly happy, too - in international happiness surveys. More so than Latin-language European countries, but less than the Nordics).

I disagree with those surveys. I think most Americans are miserable and won't admit it to themselves, let alone others. Most Americans work their tails off for forty years to make someone else rich, and they know it. Most Americans are going to have problems come retirement and they know it; they'll either be working until they're dead or they'll be living with their children because they'll have no money. Most Americans refuse to take good vacations from work by choice, yes, but know that in reality they don't have a choice because their boss won't look favorably on them if they do take that vacation. Most Americans are increasingly angry with their government, either because they feel the government's too big or not big enough.

Most Americans are NOT in control of their lives or their destinies, and they know it but feel powerless to change it.

And you have people like me, who are ever-more pissed off at society BECAUSE we see that most people are unhappy and deluding themselves about it, and that's due to the cutthroat society we live in. Happy? Most definitely we are NOT.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Instead of making the government responsible for providing healthcare, why don't we put our best minds and problem-solvers (not necessarily government employees or officials) in a think tank and have them come up with a solution that might actually be workable, that would make healthcare available and affordable AND sustainable?

It's been done. There are a ton of very constructive proposals for consumer-based health care coming from institutions like the Cato Institute and individuals like Regina Herzlinger, John Goodman, Charles Murray and many more. Odds are none of it will be enacted into law for two reasons. The main one is that the political class senses that it can get control of (the rest of) this sector that consumes 17 percent of the US GDP, and they are drooling at the prospect. It's mostly Dems, but plenty of Republicans share the fatal conceit that wise central planners can make better decisions for you than you can for yourself.

The second reason relates to the rant of the OP - those same pols are telling the population that not only can they have something for nothing, but that they won't have to take any responsibility for their own health care. Sadly, both of those resonate with all too many people - back to the rant that launched this thread.

I disagree with those surveys. I think most Americans are miserable and won't admit it to themselves, let alone others.

There is a spectrum and you describe one end of it . That doesn't mean the empirical research that's been done is wrong. Edited to add: There does seem to be an increase in middle class anxiety; it's related to changes in the economy that have been happening for decades, resulting in the end of the "one job for life" world of the past. But that is not the same as "happiness."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ten years ago we approved a sales tax increase to fund medical care for the indigent. The tax produced millions for the fund. All you needed was proof of residency in the county and a ride to the health care centers.

But two things happened.

The healthcare center's business hours were an obstacle to working poor (9-5), and the county commission used the millions to keep a private hospital from closing due to mismanagement.

We still assess the tax, but I think all the healthcare centers are closed up.

 

[Katyusha]

It's been done. There are a ton of very constructive proposals for consumer-based health care coming from institutions like the Cato Institute and individuals like Regina Herzlinger, John Goodman, Charles Murray and many more. Odds are none of it will be enacted into law for two reasons. The main one is that the political class senses that it can get control of (the rest of) this sector that consumes 17 percent of the US GDP, and they are drooling at the prospect. It's mostly Dems, but plenty of Republicans share the fatal conceit that wise central planners can make better decisions for you than you can for yourself.

What are they saying?

I find it interesting that Hillary considers her healthcare plan to be "universal" when what she's really doing is trying to force all Americans to carry health insurance that they still have to pay for. Universal, sure. We'd all have coverage. But it's still coverage we have to pay for, even though it'd be a "limited percentage" of our incomes (I have a bridge to sell if people actually believe that percentage would be any less than what a lot of us already pay, and for many it might actually be more, it would just show up in the form of other taxes). She says she's giving Americans a broader range of choices, but she wants to take away one of our biggest choices...which is whether to have coverage at all.

About the only thing I agree with is doing something about insurance companies refusing coverage to people with preexisting conditions...in other words, the people who need it the most. What do these institutions say about that issue?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What are they saying (about consumer-based health care)?

I sum a lot of it up in this post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=24207721&postcount=135

(the universal insurance voucher in that is Murray's alone, but the pre-conditions he describes are shared by most market-based health care reformers - scope of practice reform, binding waivers of liability, eliminating coverage mandates, etc. Plus making it possible to buy insurance from companies licensed in other states, making insurance purchased by individuals tax deductable (as it is when purchased by employers) and capping the size of the deduction, etc.

Regina Herzlinger is very interesting; she very graphically describes the skewed incentives and dysfunctions created by a third-party payer system.
Excerpt from her "Who killed health care?" : http://www.manhattan-institute.org/healthcare/Who_killed_healthcare_excerpt.pdf
WSJ op-ed by Regina: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-where_are_the_innovators_in_health_care.htm


~~~~~

PS - added to my response to your response about "happiness" surveys: There does seem to be an increase in middle class anxiety; it's related to changes in the economy that have been happening for decades, resulting in the end of the "one job for life" world of the past. But that is not the same as "happiness."

 

[gauchecritic]

But - the specific problem you cite - inflation, and to some extent debt - are largely the fault of the Federal Reserve keeping the money-creation spigot wide open for way too long. And not keeping control of innovative new ways the private sector found to create money

See, without getting into a big arguement about commodity money, representative money and fiat money this is where the US falls short (dragging the world with it).

The great depression brought a monetarist dislike of gold (for various reasonable economic reasons [reasonable if you think that economies can be controlled rather than just measured])

Money can't be created, only wealth. (I'm sure you know that) But the adoption of fiat money (promises and trust rather than actual goods) is why China now owns the largest dollar reserve in the world. they make things that you need to buy and they control what you pay for them.

This has an effect on how people behave. If you have money you don't need to know how to fix your car, how to plant potatoes or how to point up the chimney of your house.

It's not just governments that take away your freedom. money does too.

You may be rich, you may be powerful but your life is dependant on children working in sweatshops. How much real freedom do you think that gives you?

 

[kendo1]

I am Number 7.