Healthcare is not a right!?

[KSMountain]

[quote=CA renter][quote=NeetaT]”Specifically, individuals with annual incomes more than $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.”

I can now commiserate with people who try to hide income. Let’s punish initiative. This is truly socialism in its most profound form.[/quote]

You say they have “initiative.”

I say they have “the right connections.”

Just look at who makes the most money: executives and people in the financial industry. These are industries/positions where connections mean much more than intelligence and productive capability. Wealth and hard work/productivity are not directly correlated, IMHO.[/quote]

Well, let’s see CA Renter. I was just hearing something like 800 cops in LA made over 200k last year with OT. With a working spouse it would be pretty easy to go over the limit in one of the bills that is 250k. Those OT working cops are not fat cats milking their connections…

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
Really? No services distributed? Who would pay the doctors? Who would set their salaries? Who would pay for the medical care? What would your medical card say? Those would all be *services* provided by the government. Like the VA, only bigger.

If I go in and get a knee replacement, isn’t that a “good distributed by the government”?

Hasn’t there also been talk of setting the prices for medications? Doesn’t that become control over “production” because the prices are not market-driven?

Under the public option the government would make huge purchases of medicines, equipment, etc. At some point say a few years from now, might some wise guy congressman (or president) say “Damn those fat cat pharma companies, let’s just make the drugs ourselves”?[/quote]

No, under the proposed (though unlikely to pass) public plans, as with Medicare and Medicaid, it is NOT, under any circumstances, a good or service being provided by the government. And not anything like the VA. The service is being provided by the doctor. The doctor is not employed by the government any more than they are currently employed by Aetna or Blue Cross. Salaries would not be set by the government any more than they are currently set by Aetna or Blue Cross.

And not like the VA, only bigger. The VA IS socialized medicine for the eligible population. The VA owns hospitals. The VA employs physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacies.

And there is no mechanism under any proposed public option for the government to make huge purchases of medicines or equipment. I’ve read the bills. Maybe before coming to conclusions about their content, others should to.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Wealth and hard work/productivity are not directly correlated, IMHO.[/quote]

I will agree that they are not PERFECTLY correlated. I might also agree that they are not DIRECTLY correlated (or is that a distinction without a difference?). However, will you at least acknowledge that in a large population wealth and hard work/productivity are GENERALLY correlated? That is if you were to run a regression of hard work/productivity units (independent variable) versus wealth units (dependent variable), the resulting R-squared would be at least 60% or so? (Such that wealth is in a meaningfully positive manner a function of hard work/productivity.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Taleb and believe that most successful folks underestimate the role of luck in their success… but I do believe that there’s a significant positive correlation between wealth and hard work/productivity. Although certainly not nearly as positive as most would like.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Wealth and hard work/productivity are not directly correlated, IMHO.[/quote]

I will agree that they are not PERFECTLY correlated. I might also agree that they are not DIRECTLY correlated (or is that a distinction without a difference?). However, will you at least acknowledge that in a large population wealth and hard work/productivity are GENERALLY correlated? That is if you were to run a regression of hard work/productivity units (independent variable) versus wealth units (dependent variable), the resulting R-squared would be at least 60% or so? (Such that wealth is in a meaningfully positive manner a function of hard work/productivity.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Taleb and believe that most successful folks underestimate the role of luck in their success… but I do believe that there’s a significant positive correlation between wealth and hard work/productivity. Although certainly not nearly as positive as most would like.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Wealth and hard work/productivity are not directly correlated, IMHO.[/quote]

I will agree that they are not PERFECTLY correlated. I might also agree that they are not DIRECTLY correlated (or is that a distinction without a difference?). However, will you at least acknowledge that in a large population wealth and hard work/productivity are GENERALLY correlated? That is if you were to run a regression of hard work/productivity units (independent variable) versus wealth units (dependent variable), the resulting R-squared would be at least 60% or so? (Such that wealth is in a meaningfully positive manner a function of hard work/productivity.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Taleb and believe that most successful folks underestimate the role of luck in their success… but I do believe that there’s a significant positive correlation between wealth and hard work/productivity. Although certainly not nearly as positive as most would like.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Wealth and hard work/productivity are not directly correlated, IMHO.[/quote]

I will agree that they are not PERFECTLY correlated. I might also agree that they are not DIRECTLY correlated (or is that a distinction without a difference?). However, will you at least acknowledge that in a large population wealth and hard work/productivity are GENERALLY correlated? That is if you were to run a regression of hard work/productivity units (independent variable) versus wealth units (dependent variable), the resulting R-squared would be at least 60% or so? (Such that wealth is in a meaningfully positive manner a function of hard work/productivity.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Taleb and believe that most successful folks underestimate the role of luck in their success… but I do believe that there’s a significant positive correlation between wealth and hard work/productivity. Although certainly not nearly as positive as most would like.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Wealth and hard work/productivity are not directly correlated, IMHO.[/quote]

I will agree that they are not PERFECTLY correlated. I might also agree that they are not DIRECTLY correlated (or is that a distinction without a difference?). However, will you at least acknowledge that in a large population wealth and hard work/productivity are GENERALLY correlated? That is if you were to run a regression of hard work/productivity units (independent variable) versus wealth units (dependent variable), the resulting R-squared would be at least 60% or so? (Such that wealth is in a meaningfully positive manner a function of hard work/productivity.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Taleb and believe that most successful folks underestimate the role of luck in their success… but I do believe that there’s a significant positive correlation between wealth and hard work/productivity. Although certainly not nearly as positive as most would like.

[KSMountain]

I thought I had heard credible talk about setting doctor’s salaries. Certainly the government would be establishing prices for certain services on a vast scale.

But I guess you’re right, the public option (this year anyway) is a govt. “insurance” company, not govt. provision of the actual health care.

You’re right I should read the bill, but not today or tomorrow. 🙂

[KSMountain]

I thought I had heard credible talk about setting doctor’s salaries. Certainly the government would be establishing prices for certain services on a vast scale.

But I guess you’re right, the public option (this year anyway) is a govt. “insurance” company, not govt. provision of the actual health care.

You’re right I should read the bill, but not today or tomorrow. 🙂

[KSMountain]

I thought I had heard credible talk about setting doctor’s salaries. Certainly the government would be establishing prices for certain services on a vast scale.

But I guess you’re right, the public option (this year anyway) is a govt. “insurance” company, not govt. provision of the actual health care.

You’re right I should read the bill, but not today or tomorrow. 🙂

[KSMountain]

I thought I had heard credible talk about setting doctor’s salaries. Certainly the government would be establishing prices for certain services on a vast scale.

But I guess you’re right, the public option (this year anyway) is a govt. “insurance” company, not govt. provision of the actual health care.

You’re right I should read the bill, but not today or tomorrow. 🙂

[Author]

Posts