It so happens that the very first HMO in Minnesota, Group Health, was in fact a co-op just as you describe. And indeed, when we were with them they were pretty decent overall.
But then they merged several times with other HMOs and became what is now known as HealthPartners, and are just as shitty as any other HMO.
All I can say is, I continue to be very thankful for the German health care system and our insurer here.
Cheers,
Ethelred
The point that went sailing over your head (and, by the way, is the core of the Fourth Amendment) is that no one has the right to demand any such personal information from you, for any reason, without legal due process. If you wish to share your private information with the world, that's your business. If you don't, that's your business, too. And since Obama hasn't been charged with any crime, there is no reason for him to appease the likes of you hounding him over trivialities.
If you want to try and file and press charges, go ahead. But insinuation and innuendo is about as dirty pool as it gets (this is why libel and slander are still on the books). Though since you apparently don't "mind" people doing the same to you...
Cheers,
Ethelred
As far as I know, there's no other acceptable reason to work so hard to hide that information.
It's so nice to see freedom-loving conservatives standing up for the right to privacy.
So, my dear Timex, just what little skeletons are you hiding in your closet? And why are you hiding them?
Cheers,
Ethelred
I would actually agree with you that federalism has suffered, and should be resurrected somehow.
Having said that, it still remains practically a tautology to say that if anyone's gonna do that, it's the Feds. Short of an armed overthrow of the government, or the (rather unlikely) sudden massive involvement of the Supreme Court striking down scads of legislation, Congress is only thing with the legal power to do so.
The good news is that we still have the ballot box to do something about it, and things like the Internet to raise awareness. The elite certainly no longer has a monopoly on the public's attention.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Where have I ever claimed you have?
Oh, maybe here:
'Like statism being necessary because of some "chaos" bogeyman as you see it I guess.' (Hint: I don't support "statism".)
Or here: 'And then I guess an attempt to trick me out of my opposition/resistance to socialized medicine by suggesting that it's already arrived.' (Hint: I'm not asking you to support socialized medicine, just that the status quo can't continue.)
Or here: 'your (typical Liberal) crazed looniness doesn't change the fact that there's a rather large difference between *some* govt. regulation, and govt. running the whole show...', strongly implying that I favor the latter. Nice straw man there.
Or your continued attempts to deny that taxes pay for most people's health insurance, which they demonstrably do -- even though that premise is actually tangential to the whole discussion, because once again I regard that as a weakness of the existing system contributing to the problems. Yet you keep assuming I'm trying to get socialized medicine through the back door. *shrug*
You'd save yourself a lot of trouble if you'd actually bother to find out more about what it is that I do favor in the end. Even if you'd bother to read up on how the German system works (rather than letting your knee jerk so hard you're hitting yourself in the head with your foot), you might start to grasp that it actually is something a lot of Republicans could happily support and has a lot going for it -- not least the basic fact that it isn't anything like the kinds of socialized medicine that liberals generally do prefer...unlike yours truly.
Where have I ever claimed that? You said the U.S. health care system is already paid for by our taxes. That's certainly true of things like Medicare, but that's hardly well over 80% of the population.
By claiming that the money to pay for people's health care in the US isn't paid for by tax revenue. Well over 80% get their health insurance either by virtue of a tax deduction by their employer, or via Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP. You've tried to distract from that by redefining the word "pay", just like a certain William Jefferson Clinton you loooooooove to hate.
Dang, talking with a Liberal about politics is like trying to converse with a drunken chatterbot -- besides not at all following along, prone to schizo outbursts. (...) How about you go fuck yourself with your lame little con games.
The more aggressive and scattershot you get, the more I laugh at you. Keep up the good work! Show us some more of that renowned BillDawg intellekshul ability!
Y'know, the funny thing is that unlike liberals, I'm not advocating single-payer or government insurance or any of those other things. I'm also not arguing for tax breaks (in fact they're one thing that has contributed to the current situation). Like I said above, you're not only barking up the wrong tree, you're not even...hell, you're not even in the right solar system.
And health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone, not just somehow magically only the American auto companies. It's only been lethal to them because it's been magnified by the unions.
Funny, they aren't skyrocketing in zut-alors-socialieest-Gitanes-smoking-Gallic-shrugging Europe. Now why is that, I wonder?
It's perfectly true that that's your opinion.
Ahhhhh yes. In my "opinion", only the US Federal Government is capable of repealing or changing laws passed by that same government. Well, I'm still waiting on your "opinion" of who else can do so.
Upper 50th in what, the Ozarks?
Cheers,
Ethelred
And the smashing successes of Social Security and Medicare afford confidence how, exactly?
Where did I say I was confident they would get it right?
I have repeatedly asked what your alternative is. I'm speaking from a purely practical legal standpoint: The Feds have contributed to the current mess by the existing hodge-podge of regulations. In other words, Federal laws (particularly the tax deduction for health benefits, but many other things besides) are a major part of the problem. Now, answer this simple question: What entity is capable of changing Federal law? Anyone? Bueller?
We've just seen that giving any sort of power to the 111th Congress is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys (O'Rourke).
Nowhere have I made any statement of support of any particular policy currently proposed by this Congress or this President. You're still projecting and knee-jerking.
But to throw you and BillDawg a bone, I never supported Obama in the election. Maybe it will finally start to sink in that I'm not automagically in support of whatever utterance The One has put forth.
The least worst answer to the question would be for the federal government to define requirements, and for the 50 States United to implement them, with the federal government monitoring.
And I would happily agree that that would be a nice model.
It so happens that the German and Canadian systems both work that way -- both are mandated by the federal government, but managed and regulated by the states or provinces. (No, I'm not saying I favor a single-payer system like Canada's. I don't, in fact. But it does work just the way you describe.)
Cheers,
Ethelred
Where have I ever advocated "the government running the whole show"? Matter of fact, one of the strengths of the system in Germany is that it is essentially market- and competition-based. You're not only barking up the wrong tree, you're not even in the right forest.
You exhibit the familiar psychoses so characteristic of Liberals: Thinking in only ludicrous extremes
Paging Dr. Jung, Dr. Jung, come in please...
Project much? Nah.
A tax deduction is not the govt. paying for something, because the govt. can't pay for anything, it doesn't earn money. If I work and earn a dollar, and buy something with it, it is me who paid for it. If I coerce someone else to give me a dollar that they worked to earn, and then I buy something with it, it is they who paid for it. A tax deduction is just more redistribution -- raise mine or someone else's taxes to give extra to someone else, as a reward for engaging in behavior that the govt. wants of its subjects. And a con for the stupid who can be tricked into paying more to get it back for being a good sheep.
Yawn. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter where the Feds got the money from. The point is, they already do the redistribution you claim they don't do. Fine, you don't want to call it "paying for". What-the-fuck-ever. They do already "redistribute other people's money" to the tune of many billions for health care purposes, exactly like I claimed. Well over 80% of the US population gets their health insurance through that very payment/theft/redistribution...which is the same process as socialized medicine, except in name.
Your arguing over the meaning of the word "pay" is downright...Clintonian.
Health care benefits are a portion of what sunk GM, but this portion is only one of a larger pattern, that is of a larger overall problem. Their workers' (and non-workers') total compensation packages are what sunk GM, because they were completely out of touch with reality.
Then how is it that the likes of Fiat, VW and BMW are doing just fine, while offering their workers even more generous pay and benefits than what is common in the US?
Then how is it that Opel, GM's (now former) subsidiary in Europe, outperformed the mother ship, in spite of offering higher pay and benefits? In fact, the only reason Opel was doing poorly at all was because GM was plundering it of its profits. If high benefits and pay were such a problem, it should have been the opposite situation. But it wasn't.
Then how is it that Europe's and particularly Germany's supposedly oh-so-socialist economy has broadly paralleled America's growth for the past 60 years?
And meanwhile, now that you've finally gotten around to conceding that health care was part of the reason GM went blooey, if benefits were the root of the problem, what was the single largest component of those benefits, and which part of those benefits were skyrocketing each year? Yup, health care. Health care costs are central to why Chrysler and GM failed. No amount of harping on the unions changes that.
Even if you don't want to take my word for it, read any given issue of The Economist on the topic. They've been saying this for years, and they're hardly a left-wing rag.
And even if the federal govt. made some mess, that's doesn't mean then only the feds are capable of cleaning it up.
I didn't say they are capable or especially talented or really good at macrame. I said they are the only ones in a position to do anything useful to resolve the problems that exist, which is perfectly true. Their mess, they get to clean it up.
Even if we both agreed the best thing would be to clean the slate and start over (and in fact I'd happily entertain the idea), the only people who can clean the slate and start over are...wait for it...the Feds. Just who else is going to repeal Federal laws, pray tell?
Yup, hysterical all right. Hysterical laughter. Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Ethelred
Us on the "wingnut fringe" define socialized medicine as govt.-run.
Then you are just plain wrong. Defining "socialized" that way pretty much means the moment the government exercises any role as a regulator, no matter how small, you can conveniently scream "socialism". Well, I guess that makes Adam Smith (who spoke of a "well-regulated market") a socialist.
Furthermore, nothing is paid for by the feds, directly or indirectly
You're either trolling or a total fucking moron.
A tax deduction is by definition the government paying for something, by reducing the tax bill (meaning: less money for the Feds) to compensate someone for a cost incurred. Where else does the money come from? Magic?
(Even if that were not the case, there's still roughly a third of the population on some form of direct government insurance, be it Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, SCHIP or some other program. I'd like to see you try and define that away.
And GM tanked for the primary reason why my state of California is tanking, because of labor union obligations grossly out of whack with market conditions and the times.
Oh right, and the $51 billion in obligations for the health care of GM retirees and the $5 billion per annum in health care bills had nothing to do with it. Once again, you're either trolling or a total fucking moron.
German car manufacturers offer their employees more generous benefits than Ford or GM do in the States, and unions here are much stronger than they are in the States. Yet they're all doing fine, in spite of the fact most of their production is still in Europe, where labor costs in general are higher than they are in the US. I don't see Peugeot-Citroën, VW, BMW, Renault, Fiat and company failing, but two of the American Big Three are at death's door.
Do try again. Your flailing around amuses me.
In general, that a societal problem exists, even a big one, means that federal-level govt. intervention is called for, is just not something I'm going to agree with you on.
Translation: LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
The Federal government made the mess over decades, and it's only the Federal government that is capable of cleaning up said mess (unless you think states can suddenly trump the Feds). It's really not that hard a concept.
Cheers,
Ethelred
By what definition of 'essentially'?
By the definition that the bits and pieces of the system are in private hands. Hence...private. You know, private ownership, market economics, all that boring drab stuff.
If Germany had socialized medicine, then I couldn't use the word "private" at all. It doesn't have socialized medicine, because the government does not own the bits and pieces. Doctors are sole proprietors. So are pharmacies. Hospitals are run by private trusts and charities. Some insurance companies in the statutory system are essentially chartered for-profit or non-profit corporations, others co-ops, still others wholly-owned subsidiaries of major corporations (it is common for major employers to own their own health insurance company, called Betriebskrankenkassen or BKK). And so on.
My understanding is that the state manages the economy to a nearly GDP-crushing degree across the board (father-in-law's bizarre retirement restrictions being a case in point), as compared to what we (at least used to) have in the US.
Ummm, if Germany's government supposedly "manages the economy to a nearly GDP-crushing degree across the board", then why is it that Germany is the world's leading exporter, has the world's fourth-largest economy by nominal GDP (in spite of having a population of only 80 million and in spite of having to absorb the decrepit former East German economy) and has generally had GDP growth at least as good as the US throughout the postwar period?
As for "bizarre retirement restrictions", once again you're making vague statements that have little to no basis in fact or reality. I bet if you tried looking at American retirement restrictions and compared them to Germany's, you wouldn't find much difference. At least Germany's retirement system is solvent...unlike America's.
After decades of intellectual sapping at all levels of the education system, the US sheeples have been whipped into voting in favor of European stagnation.
Well, that's odd, because higher education happens to be one of the few things America has done pretty well in international comparisons over the years. As for "European stagnation", there is no evidence of any such thing. Europe's economy continues to perform at least as well as America's. The Euro has been outpacing the dollar for years just for that reason (it began at roughly 1:1, but the dollar has been stuck at around 70 Eurocents for some time). If the European economy was so crappy as you claim, the dollar should be doing far better.
It takes a special kind of devotion to Cthulhu to take a functioning free market economy, bastardize it as has been done through excessive government interference, and then blame the damage on the free market economy.
And where, pray tell, did I blame the free market economy for much of anything?
I merely pointed out that the government made the mess, and it is the government that is in the sole position of being able to clean up said mess, not least because the government helped make it in the first place.
The "free market" doesn't enter into it at this point. In fact, I pointed out my support for the German system precisely because it has the basic form of a market economy, albeit regulated (hello Adam Smith). Other than that, you and BillDog are both projecting left and right, to my great amusement -- and to your great discredit.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Maybe you'll understand this better: Your reasoning comes across as a bunch of hand-waving and lame excuses.
GM tanking largely because of ballooning health care costs? The US spending (or rather, wasting) more of its GDP on health care than any other country in the world, while not even covering a sixth of its citizens at all? This is somehow not a problem? You can't be that clueless. I had you pegged for being rather more intelligent and sensible than that, but...
Like statism being necessary because of some "chaos" bogeyman as you see it I guess.
Maybe you'll understand this better: I never once advocated "statism". Do try again. (Matter of fact I've gone to great lengths to argue for a system that is still essentially private. You know, Germany's.)
And America's rankings on lists that reflect your values and priorities, not mine.
Oh good, spending a sixth of the economy's output on health care is just dandy, rising to a fifth by 2017? Just who is supposed to pay for all this?
No wonder the right wing is completely out of power these days. Y'all are so far out of touch with reality that you can't even shoot straight.
Be that as it may, the system is horribly broken, and causing havoc in the economy (hello GM) and any idiot ought to be able to see that fact. Even the Republican Party has generally come around to the idea that some sort of reform is necessary. But deny the necessity of reform at all? What's the weather like over there on the wingnut fringe?
And then I guess an attempt to trick me out of my opposition/resistance to socialized medicine by suggesting that it's already arrived. Weak.
OK, I'll spell it out for you, since you apparently have difficulty thinking. The US health care system is divided into four groups:
So when roughly 87% of the US population (more if you count those using emergency care) gets health insurance that is paid for directly or indirectly by the Feds, in whole or in part, how the hell can you not admit that it's already paid for by the government? Surely you can't be that much of a moron.
No amount of calling it "weak" changes that, nor does peevishly calling it a trick. Look it up for yourself, rather than lobbing insults like a spoiled brat off on a sulk. But hey! Yo, freedom, dude! *pumps fist*
Cheers,
Ethelred
The US health care system is already paid for by your taxes (through employer and employee tax deductions). The US health care system is already essentially a creature of the federal government and has been for many years. It evolved that way as a hodge-podge of short-term measures. IOW you already have all the disadvantages of socialized medicine or government-managed health care with none of the benefits (way to go!). It seems blindingly obvious that that should be remedied, and hiding behind freedom-loving rhetoric doesn't do a thing to make a difference, neither to solve the problem at hand, nor to actually further freedom in any meaningful sense of the word. In the end, those are entirely empty and meaningless words. Try again.
Cheers,
Ethelred
I don't understand your "it must be the feds, not the states" line of reasoning
I think I provided a pretty good reason why -- avoiding increasing chaos in an already chaotic situation. "Too many cooks spoil the broth", to phrase it in a more proverbial way. Somebody has to take the lead on the issue, and other than the Feds, just who else do you expect to do it?
It's arguably more business-friendly to have one regulator clean up the mess and try and resolve the contradictory morass that is the American health care system, rather than have state regulators try and do it their way without any central coordination, which would only increase the current chaos. The banks were pretty happy about the Feds doing the same with the states in their case, and I bet the health care industry would be happier as well -- not to mention it would make things a hell of a lot easier for those moving from state to state in terms of portability of coverage. (Just by way of comparison, I can see any doctor or other health care provider across Germany using the exact same insurance card I use anywhere else, and it's all transparent. I don't have to change insurers or worry about out-of-area coverage, because it's all nationwide. It is exactly the same as if I was seeing my own doctor at home.)
The thing is, America ranks near the bottom on OECD and WHO comparisons of health care in industrialized countries, no matter how you slice it. Infant mortality, life expectancy, heart disease, you name it. Meanwhile the US ranks in the top of the list in one and only one area -- being the most expensive on both a per capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. Those at the top of the first lists have -- wait for it -- government-managed health care of some kind. Those at the bottom of the latter list have -- wait for it -- government-managed health care.
For that matter, name a major industrial country aside from the US that does not have government-managed health care of some kind. Go ahead, just try. (I'll help you out. There is only one -- South Africa. Woo-hoo!)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the trend here. Read this to see just how shittily America compares to the rest of the world. Best health-care system in the world, my ass.
What baffles me is how Americans are usually so rah-rah-we're-number-one, bragging about American ingenuity and all that, but when push comes to shove (like oh I dunno, coming up with a sane health care system that works) they suddenly get all doubtful that their government can bang two bricks together. It's not as if the US can't benefit from the experience of well over a century of government-managed health care in other countries (such as Germany's, which went so well that several European countries copied it, and frankly I think it's as close to a gold standard as there is). Nor do I think just letting the market take care of it is going to work, because the market in America is already so poorly designed that it is contributing to the problem. Quite frankly, the US health care system is so bad that it has nowhere to go but up.
The other thing is that there is no particular reason why Canada's or Germany's systems (both of which would be an improvement on America's!) wouldn't work in America. Both countries are in fact in many ways more federalist than the US is, so the federalism issue just doesn't enter into it. In both cases, the health care systems are actually largely managed by the provinces or states, not by the federal governments, though both federal governments do coordinate a lot and set the basic policies. No reason that couldn't work in America, either.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Are you possibly mixing threads? At no point would I begin to claim that either is more virtuous than the other.
When you write that you think the notion of "the government will save us" is a crock and take a position that business interests are more important, it sure as shootin' sounds like you're trying to say the federal government can't be trusted and business is indeed more virtuous.
Right now the Feds are the only serious game in town to untangle the mess. Complaining about it is utterly useless and misses the point. Drastic action is necessary to try and prevent things from getting even worse than they have already -- or else a lot more than just GM is going to go south. The only rational choice left is to try and reform things at the federal level as best as possible -- leaving it to the states would only exacerbate an already chaotic and self-contradictory system.
Does that mean the Feds will get it right? Nope. Never claimed anything of the sort. But are the Feds the only route we have left that stands a chance of making a difference? Yup.
Cheers,
Ethelred
The concept that the doctors, big pharma, lawyers, and insurance companies are the Bad Guys, and that government will Save Us From This Mess is a pile of shinola.
The government happens to be the only institution that 1) has the ability to change the system (for better or worse) and 2) can make a reasonable claim to being more impartial than doctors, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and so on.
What makes you think your interests align more closely with the big business interests in health care than with the governments'? At least you can elect your government, call your Congressman, etc., but you have virtually no influence on the policy of big business whatsoever. They're out to make a buck off of you any way they can. Helping you is only tangential to the issue as far as they are concerned, and if telling a pack of lies in the media helps that goal, so be it.
This is not to say the government's a bunch of angels, or that they should be given carte blanche. But the notion that private business is somehow more virtuous than government is just plain nonsensical. Neither is virtuous, let alone altruistic. No institution interested in self-preservation is.
Cheers,
Ethelred
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
