Maybe, maybe not. It's harder than ever to know what's what. It's more popular than ever with me. But, then again it's the only way I can afford health care at the moment.
Huh, sorry, I just followed the link to Salon and read the opening paragraph. I'm glad you now have health care insurance. I would note that you have, right now, better insurance than I do, for less money. When we had an more open market, I chose a lower cost, higher deductible plan that pays for less. So, in essence, I'm flying middle seat coach back by the toilets and helping pay for other people to sit in a premium aisle seat up towards the front. Which, I think, is not a good thing. Next month my current plan will end and I will have to have a slew of government mandated benefits that I don't want, don't use, don't need, and don't want to pay for. But I will have to pay for them in order to subsidize other people's access to these services. Which, I think, is not a good thing. -XC
I can sympathize with that. Believe me, I don't like the idea of causing other people extra financial burden. Also, though I have signed up for the program, my application has had a "status pending" tag for over a week. Once that gets approved, then I will be able to choose a healthcare plan and apply for one. Also, I was required to agree to inform the site if my financial situation changed so that I could begin to pay back what I may owe and also what I can contribute to my coverage, which I think is a fair requirement for someone on my side of the fence. I would prefer an open market system, but I think for that to work for everyone then things like the crazy prices set by medical suppliers need to be addressed. Not only that, but I really think that under this new model, people in general will start going to the doctor more. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but if doctors are inundated with people that don't really need doctors, well then that's no good either. I wish a better solution was available. Hopefully the program will prove to be responsive and adaptable, but then again, those are not generally words that one associates with government programs.Next month my current plan will end and I will have to have a slew of government mandated benefits that I don't want, don't use, don't need, and don't want to pay for. But I will have to pay for them in order to subsidize other people's access to these services.
So, did you know, that it is impossible to bring out a new replacement hip, for example, unless you can prove to the FDA that it is a significant improvement on the hips already approved? So, by government regulation, we have prevention of better/cheaper/faster options. Everywhere you look, the cost is caused by the government - either through malice, ignorance, or in response to rent seeking by incumbents. I get a 50% discount on my pre-negotiated Blue Cross costs by paying the doctor in cash so he doesn't have to deal with the insurance company at any point. He's delighted because his costs are actually higher than that. Think about what that says. -C PS - I'm glad you think your situation will get better. Don't worry about paying back what you owe, it won't ever be required. Think about the votes that would cost.....
Yeah I was gonna say, that should be way down at the bottom of the priority list. Rational egoism.PS - I'm glad you think your situation will get better. Don't worry about paying back what you owe, it won't ever be required. Think about the votes that would cost.....
I had that about the FDA, among other less than positive things. In the end, it all works because of incentives, which is also why we have the problems that we do. It seems to me that we need to find better ways of providing incentives or better incentives so that the government functions in a way that is less aligned with the accumulation of power and wealth and more in line with ensuring that things are running smoothly. But, that's not likely to happen.
Oh no, I'm talking about incentives in a different sense. For example, a politician's incentives for satisfying their constituents is that they get to keep their job. Then there are the personal incentives, for example, one might get into politics because one is interested in gaining power or influence within the political system or over people. So what I'm saying is that I don't think that the current incentives that entice people to become politicians are necessarily the best ones as I'm not sure I like the kinds of people that become politicians. To adapt your analogy: if your boat is taking on water, then maybe you should maneuver it on to the ice.
I don't know. I haven't read Plato except in passing. I'm not really sure what a good beginning point would be. Any suggestions? I just don't know that what we've got going on will best serve us as is. I am not advocating for broad experimentation with different political structures though. It would be nice if there were some reliable and safe way to test out political structures in the real world, but again, that's a pleasant fantasy.
Oh, I was referring to Plato's "technocrats raised to rule" plan. I read Plato about a thousand years ago when my brain was more flexible, I'm sure it would kill me now. I am sure there are better translations now. We started with "The Republic" and went onto his essays. Don't say I didn't warn you. -XC PS - There is a way to test out different political structures. It's called federalism and is why California is so fundamentally different than Texas, or Delaware is different than New Hampshire. Brill!
Badged. Why? Because you and humanodon are on two sides of the most contentious topic in the US and neither of you are being dicks about it and because I enjoyed the airplane seat analogy. Good luck to both of you navigating your healthcare needs. While flag may have better healthcare than you, that you (and I) subsidize, I'm just glad he has care. It's a good thing that could have been designed and implemented much better. Edit: accidentally shouted out to flagamuffin instead of humanodon.