Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Williams wrote: > > >>> If less government regulation is better, why do are national health >>> systems prevalent in many parts of the world? >> >> Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world? > > Why do women love shoes? 3 answers in one: Because people don't always make rational decisions leading to the best or most efficient outcomes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))
John Williams wrote: >> If less government regulation is better, why do are national health >> systems prevalent in many parts of the world? > > Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world? Why do women love shoes? Doug non sequiturs r us ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~)
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Insurers routinely deny claims for > no good reason except that they know a certain percentage of people won't > fight them. Sounds like you need to switch to another provider with better service. Although that might be difficult, since all the government restrictions hinder a competitive market to meet consumers' needs. Let's increase the government interference so that there is only one alternative for everyone! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Which is a big reason why some (including some who do not get health > insurance through their employers and cannot afford to purchase it > themselves) are so leery of putting the government in charge (either > directly or indirectly by holding the purse strings) of anything as > important as medical care. First, that's not what is on the table. Obama hasn't proposed using tax dollars to pay for medical care. That would be socialized medicine. That's not his proposal, despite his opponent's success at convincing some people that he is some sort of socialist. Second, a lot of us are pretty darn unhappy with the current system, in which insurers consistently misbehave. Insurers routinely deny claims for no good reason except that they know a certain percentage of people won't fight them. This has happened to us twice in the last year. I had surgery that my insurer said did not need pre-approval. Then they denied it. My wife's insurer denied payment for an ambulance trip despite the fact that on their very own web pages, they describe exactly her symptoms and instruct to call 911 immediately. What, we were supposed to call 911 and then refuse medical care??? I'm a former paramedic -- I knew, absolutely, that the ambulance trip was appropriate. So all the talk about the government screws everything up, is inefficient, etc., holds no water for me. Supposedly the argument is that big is bad or civil service leads to laziness, etc. But I don't see human nature being any different in the insurance industry. I'm quite happy to see government out of any affairs that can be run more efficiently without it. That's common sense. But I'd also be happy to see an end to the knee-jerk reaction that says government is bad and private industry is good. Private industry commits plenty of sins, too and government does well when it is held accountable. Come to think of it, perhaps the knee-jerk reaction is little more that laziness on the part of people who are unwilling to do their jobs as citizens and voters to hold government accountable. They seem to be a lot of the same people who are unwilling to hold the GOP accountable for what their party has led us into over the last eight years. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))
At 08:55 AM Saturday 11/1/2008, John Williams wrote: >Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If not government, then what can be brought to bear to counteract the > > tendency of human beings to be bad actors? > >I think there is a greater chance that God will make us better people than >that the government will. Government doesn't even have a prayer! . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))
Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If not government, then what can be brought to bear to counteract the > tendency of human beings to be bad actors? I think there is a greater chance that God will make us better people than that the government will. > The health system we have today is broken in many ways. I don't see how > removing more regulations from it will make it better. That only gives > the existing bad actors more leeway to continue their activities. The existing bad actors dominate government. I don't see how their regulations are going to make the health system better. > If not the government, who upholds the social contract? What social contract? Who signed this contract? What state is it legal in? > I believe everyone deserves healthcare, education, and other basic > services needed to live a productive, healthy life. That's interesting. What does it mean to deserve healthcare to live a productive, healthy life? How will you make sure that someone with, say, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) can live a productive, healthy life? > If less government regulation is better, why do are national health > systems prevalent in many parts of the world? Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))
Ronn! Blankenship said the following on 11/1/2008 12:24 AM: > At 11:05 AM Friday 10/31/2008, John Williams wrote: >> Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to >>> manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain without >>> regard to long-term consequences. >> Definitely. Such actors exist in government, as well. In fact, they dominate >> government. > Which is a big reason why some (including some who do not get health > insurance through their employers and cannot afford to purchase it > themselves) are so leery of putting the government in charge (either > directly or indirectly by holding the purse strings) of anything as > important as medical care. If not government, then what can be brought to bear to counteract the tendency of human beings to be bad actors? The health system we have today is broken in many ways. I don't see how removing more regulations from it will make it better. That only gives the existing bad actors more leeway to continue their activities. If not the government, who upholds the social contract? I believe everyone deserves healthcare, education, and other basic services needed to live a productive, healthy life. I don't believe free markets will choose to provide those services to all people willingly. If less government regulation is better, why do are national health systems prevalent in many parts of the world? --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~)
At 11:05 AM Friday 10/31/2008, John Williams wrote: >Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > John Williams wrote: > > > there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. > > > You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. > >By no means is everyone a rational actor. People make mistakes, act >emotionally instead of rationally, and generally tend to screw things up. >Politicians especially. > > > You argue that diverse decentralized systems work better because > > mistakes are uncorrelated and failures are localized. > >This is too strong, sorry if I overstated. Mistakes are less correlated >and failures are more localized, relative to government control which >tends to create strong, long-range correlations. > > > Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to > > manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain without > > regard to long-term consequences. > >Definitely. Such actors exist in government, as well. In fact, they dominate >government. Which is a big reason why some (including some who do not get health insurance through their employers and cannot afford to purchase it themselves) are so leery of putting the government in charge (either directly or indirectly by holding the purse strings) of anything as important as medical care. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
