Comments on: Health coverage http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/health-coverage/ Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/health-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-813 Anonymous Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:28:32 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=610#comment-813 nifty article. the model continues to work after the big change is enacted, in a minority's ability to starve a popular program to death by obstructively debating its funding stream, staffing requirements, eligibility requirements, etc etc etc.<br/><br/>the cultural discussion seems strange for leaving out what right wingers harp on, that guaranteed payment would encourage bad care (something like how tips encourage better service at restaurants). in that argument, which many people accept, government waste (however it came to be) is proof that the private sector's (stated) quality advantage only exists because it gets paid for services rendered.<br/><br/>the variety of twists there are tough to follow. built in of course is an attack on collective bargaining and individual recourse which are the righties' real enemies. and an assertion, virtually incontestable because of the depth of its embedding, that salaried workers are less productive. AND the unbelievable assertion that markets deliver better prices to the services buyer not "even" but "ESPECIALLY" when the buyer is at a severe power disadvantage in the negotiation.<br/><br/>so there's a big part which is "i don't trust doctors" which the article doesn't address. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>hibiscus nifty article. the model continues to work after the big change is enacted, in a minority’s ability to starve a popular program to death by obstructively debating its funding stream, staffing requirements, eligibility requirements, etc etc etc.

the cultural discussion seems strange for leaving out what right wingers harp on, that guaranteed payment would encourage bad care (something like how tips encourage better service at restaurants). in that argument, which many people accept, government waste (however it came to be) is proof that the private sector’s (stated) quality advantage only exists because it gets paid for services rendered.

the variety of twists there are tough to follow. built in of course is an attack on collective bargaining and individual recourse which are the righties’ real enemies. and an assertion, virtually incontestable because of the depth of its embedding, that salaried workers are less productive. AND the unbelievable assertion that markets deliver better prices to the services buyer not “even” but “ESPECIALLY” when the buyer is at a severe power disadvantage in the negotiation.

so there’s a big part which is “i don’t trust doctors” which the article doesn’t address. 

Posted by hibiscus

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/health-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-812 Anonymous Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:33:06 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=610#comment-812 good post.<br/><br/>i (unsurprisingly) wholly agree with this:<br/><br/>"Every American attempt to improve the condition of health insurance makes me want to throw men in suits from rooftops."<br/><br/>My suspicion is that it's gotten to a point where we're going to have universal or near universal health care within about 10 years--perhaps much sooner, but it's going to be shoddy, in many pieces, and enormously more expensive and complicated than need be. The only way we would get a good plan is if there's a massive upsurge in truly progressive--and not just liebral--activity on it, rather than a response to the economic conditiosn that are making it inordinately expensive for either states or companies to want to bear the burden.<br/><br/>Also, since you're interested, if you haven't ever read the Steinmo and Watts article <a HREF="http://stripe.colorado.edu/~steinmo/stupid.htm" REL="nofollow">"It's the Institutions Stupid"</a>  about why universal health care consistently fails in the Untied States, you might want to take a look. I'm inclined to lend more weight to the culture argument (or rather the complicated dynamic between culture, politics, and institutions) than they do, but it's a good starting point. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://darkdaysahead.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sendyourspamhereifyoumust at gmail dot com">mfermndfq</a> good post.

i (unsurprisingly) wholly agree with this:

“Every American attempt to improve the condition of health insurance makes me want to throw men in suits from rooftops.”

My suspicion is that it’s gotten to a point where we’re going to have universal or near universal health care within about 10 years–perhaps much sooner, but it’s going to be shoddy, in many pieces, and enormously more expensive and complicated than need be. The only way we would get a good plan is if there’s a massive upsurge in truly progressive–and not just liebral–activity on it, rather than a response to the economic conditiosn that are making it inordinately expensive for either states or companies to want to bear the burden.

Also, since you’re interested, if you haven’t ever read the Steinmo and Watts article “It’s the Institutions Stupid”  about why universal health care consistently fails in the Untied States, you might want to take a look. I’m inclined to lend more weight to the culture argument (or rather the complicated dynamic between culture, politics, and institutions) than they do, but it’s a good starting point. 

Posted by mfermndfq

]]>