Charlie Rose

REMant  07/01/2009 06:36 PM Report

However, Jefferson was not particularly interested in educating all of the people.

We have an inverted pyramid of care distribution without a doubt, but we do because we have an inverted distribution of wealth, and we have that because of chronic overspending both public and private, which has shifted it to holders of assets and away from productive labor. That has had the effect of not only disenfranchising a lot of ppl, but also of eliminating the self-discipline required for prevention. A lot of this was done with the best of intentions by both bankers and legislators. More of it, in no matter what form, will be self-defeating, UNLESS it results in increases in productivity and character that can offset the negative effects. This has to be the criterion for any reform and dictates the budget for it. Clearly a lot of administrative inefficiency can be removed by creating a single managed care umbrella, which could allow a lot more to be devoted to care itself. But the so-called "public option" is simply welfare, and like welfare it should be made to produce results.

BTW, I read The New Yorker article on healthcare touted by the administration and while it makes good points, the doctors in McAllen could not charge what they do without someone being available to pay it, otherwise they'd move elsewhere or go out of business. If the same were true throughout the country, they couldn't go elsewhere unless it were overseas. This equity can be established, here at least, by removing the cause of the inequity, which is primarily due to the monetary and fiscal policies of insurance, i.e., to too easy Federal Reserve credit and unbalanced govt budgets. To deal with trade imbalances, a reciprocity policy is necessary. To deal with the remaining welfare issues, as well as, catastrophic health issues, a negative income tax would be most efficient. If you doubt that this would be corrective, just look at what is happening in this economic crisis. The value of labor is increasing, the trade imbalance is ended, and businesses forced to reduce their prices. That should always be the policy, and would be if bad monetary and fiscal policies were stopped. Instead of this we keep indulging the public and threatening the doctors (and others) with nationalization.

We seem also to have a moral hazard issue with Congress. That they continually act like juveniles I suppose due to the fact that for eons they have allowed themselves to be co-opted by the executive and the judiciary. Thus it should not be surprising that self-interest has taken the upper hand and legislation as a result either looks like Swiss cheese or sausage, or amounts to embezzlement.