Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

I really hate this Romney guy

He's a total fascist police state guy. Latest hijinks:

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=1012402

His staff impersonated police officers in order to cheat tolls and push people around.

I don't like the guy because he was behind the Massachusetts universal health care plan, which was to make it illegal not to buy yourself a health policy, even if you can't afford it. Which is stupid and unreasonable.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 20th, 2007 1:10pm
universal health care thru taxation => everyone who is able to pay is forced to pay (thru taxes)

universal health insurance coverage => everyone who is able to pay for insurance is forced to pay (*)

I'm not seeing a big difference. Except in practicality of implementation.

If you don't force the healthy uninsured to pay, you limit the pool's funds and destroy the emergent effects of insurance.


(*) The Mass plan doesn't force poor people to pay.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 20th, 2007 2:45pm
The big difference is, when everyone is forced to buy insurance, they buy it from a private industry insurance company.  Which does not provide health-care -- the doctors and hospitals they sign up provide that -- and which DOES have to make increasing profits over time to keep their stock-holders happy.

Whereas, when people pay taxes into a state-run health-care system, there IS no "Insurance" middle-man to take their cut.

This is rather a large difference, actually.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 20th, 2007 2:49pm
that's not really what i was addressing above, STH, but that's ok ... I was saying any universal plan would be fascist, under PE's comment.


> and which DOES have to make increasing profits over time to keep their stock-holders happy.

Not true. I'd be happy with a steady (non-increasing) yield return of 30% per year off an investment vehicle. As would quite a few investors. No one says returns must always go up to keep investors happy.

> Whereas, when people pay taxes into a state-run health-care system, there IS no "Insurance" middle-man to take their cut.

It's still insurance when the government does it. It's just less transparent because lines of responsibility are murkier. And no formal proof that it would *always* be cheaper.

Anyway the rationale behind a universal insurance coverage TODAY is because it's a far simpler implementation than universal care is, TODAY.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 20th, 2007 3:44pm
But the government would cover everyone regardless of risk.  And they wouldn't be beholden to stockholders or expected to generate a profit, which hurts the people who need the health care.

Fixing these two issues is central to making progress towards solving our health care crisis.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 20th, 2007 3:52pm
Right. Any universal plan forces people who would not pay voluntarily to do so. Hence my comment on PE's claim of fascism.

How about this ... there's a giant pool of basic insurance for everyone. Whether one contribute to this pool thru the government directly or thru secondary insurers doesn't matter. For a list of maladies, everyone's in the same boat (damn mixed metaphors!). But people can pay for premium insurance plans from non-government insurers which compete among themselves. The insurers put a lump sum into the basic pool, and the rest into their own premium pool.

I guess I just spec'd the Australian system.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 20th, 2007 4:00pm
Hey, he could be as sleazy as that guiliani guy, who lobbies criminal court proceedings to try to get the defendents off scot free.

>Purdue Pharma L.P., the maker of OxyContin, and three of its executives were ordered Friday to pay a $634.5 million fine for misleading the public about the painkiller's risk of addiction.

>Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani played a central role in negotiating on behalf of Purdue with federal prosecutors, but Jones said "I completely reject" suggestions that political influence resulted in a lesser punishment for Purdue.

>The coal-mining region of southwest Virginia where the sentencing took place has had a number of oxycodone-related deaths -- 119 from 2003 through 2005, according to the state medical examiner's office.

Bullshit. He bargained on behalf of limbaugh's drug supplier. Supply drugs to millions of people and you get republican't party candidates lobbying on your behalf. Sell a kilo of pot and they'll pretend you're satan incarnate. They've killed more Americans than the Colombian cartel, yet they get off with some lobbying by rudy.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/07/20/sentencing_scheduled_for_oxycontin_maker_and_executives/
Permalink Peter 
July 21st, 2007 9:41am
And Romney is going after Thompson, since it appears that Thompson really *did* lobby the whitehouse on behalf of pro-choice groups (uh, 14 years ago?). The republican't candidates are all getting into some chest-thumping dick-waving contest to try to prove who is more conservative (aka who'll outlaw more civil rights and nuke Iran harder).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?ex=1342497600&en=afcf0d16b77a1b05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story?coll=la-home-center
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19repubs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Permalink Peter 
July 21st, 2007 12:02pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics