Its my assessment that we cannot change things that we don't take responsibility for so in the interest of understanding how we can reorient our economy to avoid further crappiness I've been thinking about how our American culture lead us to this predicament.
My conclusion is that we came to believe that no one should have to moderate their choices regarding money. Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and the Republican mainstream (as well as *ouch* current Obamites Tim Geithner and Larry Summers) all railed against the idea of government meddling in the dealings of Wall Street saying that the "system will regulate itself." The irony is that no system can regulate itself. Regulation is by nature an external force that moderates the fluxuations of a system. Its not possible for any system to always move in one direction so the wise person enjoys the ups while preparing for the downs. The anti-regulatory attitude is unwilling to risk a slowdown in growth and thus is ultimately forced into unchecked losses - no matter how far we push the notion from our minds.
American society has been unwilling to confront the flip-side of unregulated, unmoderated economic growth (especially in terms of the environment and public health) and so we've built an economy that doesn't account for the kinds of realities we're dealing with now and forcing us to remodel our economy in real time. With more and more people in the world fossil energy will be more and more expensive - both in terms of dollars and environmental cost - and our resources in general will be more greatly taxed. It is clearer and clearer that efficiency will be the key to growth.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Chapter 14: In which Shantzy Pantz Discusses our Absurd Health Care System
Once again set-off by something I read in the New York Times -this time by Nicholas Kristof- I've decided to inflict my ideas on those foolish enough not to tune me out.
My great hope in this current go-round of the health care debate is that we will finally have more simple logic introduced to replace the headache-inducing, special-interest-defending ideology that has trapped us in a shotgun marriage to a wasteful, half-effective health care system.
We spend -twice-as-much (see paragraph 10)- let me repeat -twice-as-much- as many industrialized countries. Are we twice as healthy? That would be worth a chuckle if I wasn't so frustrated. Seriously though, no seriously. Why do we do this to ourselves? We pride ourselves on being capitalists but we're being swindled. Shouldn't a true capitalist know a bum deal when they see one? Is our ideology so strong that we'd rather be idiots than socialists?
I ask because that seems to be the main argument of those who oppose a national health care system, that it seems too much like Socialism. Well in my mind paying $650 billion (paragraph 12) extra per year with nothing to show for it seems too much like Idiotism.
Where do all the dollars go?
To doctors? Sometimes. I wouldn't mind that so much since theoretically they're trying to help patients.
Big Pharma? (Not to be confused with the Biggie Smalls hit from the mid-90s). To be sure.
My biggest complaint though is that 20-25% of my insurance premiums go to pay people at my insurance company whose job it is to find ways around paying for my medical treatments.
I believe that health insurance companies have a fundamental conflict of interest. My insurance company can never be expected to have my health as their top priority since if I get sick along with too many other subscribers then the company goes out of business. They have to compromise the very services they offer -often when needed most- in order to profit and grow or avoid bankruptcy.
We should build our health care system on a stronger foundation than private corporations.
My great hope in this current go-round of the health care debate is that we will finally have more simple logic introduced to replace the headache-inducing, special-interest-defending ideology that has trapped us in a shotgun marriage to a wasteful, half-effective health care system.
We spend -twice-as-much (see paragraph 10)- let me repeat -twice-as-much- as many industrialized countries. Are we twice as healthy? That would be worth a chuckle if I wasn't so frustrated. Seriously though, no seriously. Why do we do this to ourselves? We pride ourselves on being capitalists but we're being swindled. Shouldn't a true capitalist know a bum deal when they see one? Is our ideology so strong that we'd rather be idiots than socialists?
I ask because that seems to be the main argument of those who oppose a national health care system, that it seems too much like Socialism. Well in my mind paying $650 billion (paragraph 12) extra per year with nothing to show for it seems too much like Idiotism.
Where do all the dollars go?
To doctors? Sometimes. I wouldn't mind that so much since theoretically they're trying to help patients.
Big Pharma? (Not to be confused with the Biggie Smalls hit from the mid-90s). To be sure.
My biggest complaint though is that 20-25% of my insurance premiums go to pay people at my insurance company whose job it is to find ways around paying for my medical treatments.
I believe that health insurance companies have a fundamental conflict of interest. My insurance company can never be expected to have my health as their top priority since if I get sick along with too many other subscribers then the company goes out of business. They have to compromise the very services they offer -often when needed most- in order to profit and grow or avoid bankruptcy.
We should build our health care system on a stronger foundation than private corporations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
