Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › A scholarly article on Universal Health Care
- This topic has 20 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 4, 2019 at 12:45 pm #106198
waterfieldParticipantOctober 5, 2019 at 1:12 am #106236
Eternal RamnationParticipantYawn The Manhattan Institute a free market think tank. Yes Medicare 4 All would cost a shitload which is about half what we’re already paying now.
As for The Free Market, a free market would be based on barter. Currency is not free. It is very tightly regulated .
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan’s CIA director.[1] It is an associate member of the State Policy Network.
It is actually the direct successor to the International Center for Economic Policy Studies (ICEPS) which was founded by the english chicken-king, Sir Antony Fisher, in 1977. He had previously set up the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, and before moving to the USA he had become a principle advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The incorporation documents for ICEPS were signed by the prominent attorney and Wall Street speculator, William J Casey, who also served as the first chairman. Before going on to take over as director of the CIA, be also drew up the founding documents for both the National Review and the National Strategic Information Center where he became director of the NSIC also. [1]
According to the Manhattan Institute’s own puff-piece, it is “focused on promoting free-market principles” and has a mission to “develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.”[2]
“The Manhattan Institute concerns itself with such things as ‘welfare reform’ (dismantling social programs), ‘faith-based initiatives’ (blurring the distinction between church and state), and ‘education reform’ (destroying public education),” Kurt Nimmo wrote October 10, 2002, in CounterPunch.[3] It was also recognised as leading the Republican/corporate efforts to destroy Ralph Nader and his supporters, in the 1990s.
https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research
October 5, 2019 at 10:02 am #106237
znModeratorER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
October 5, 2019 at 11:24 am #106238wvParticipantYawn The Manhattan Institute a free market think tank. Yes Medicare 4 All would cost a shitload which is about half what we’re already paying now…>
=======================
Well, the mainstream-corporate-capitalist -LA-Times is owned by a South African Billionaire who made his money in the Health Care Biz. I dont know much about him, but I imagine the Times’ views on many big-econ-power issues are influenced by Mr Soon-Shiong.
“…In early January 2017, as announced by Sean Spicer, then President-elect Donald Trump met with Soon-Shiong at his Bedminster, NJ, estate to discuss national medical priorities.[38]…” Wiki
Article fwiw:https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/20/soon-shiong-conflicts-patients/
Expanding his medical empire is good for Patrick Soon-Shiong. But is it good for patients?October 5, 2019 at 2:01 pm #106250waterfieldParticipantER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
The fact that a think tank is right or left does not immunize it from a scholarly piece of work. Your response is like so many right wing responses that cast doubt on any research by left leaning scholars as simply biased because “it’s the product of a dedicated” left leaning think tank- and not to be taken seriously. Rather than look at the author’s base one might instead look at the FACTS and then argue them as opposed to the researcher’s uniform. What always gets me is the failure of the right to listen to anything the left says and the left’s unwillingness to listen to anything the right says.
October 5, 2019 at 2:41 pm #106252znModeratorER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
The fact that a think tank is right or left does not immunize it from a scholarly piece of work. Your response is like so many right wing responses that cast doubt on any research by left leaning scholars as simply biased because “it’s the product of a dedicated” left leaning think tank- and not to be taken seriously. Rather than look at the author’s base one might instead look at the FACTS and then argue them as opposed to the researcher’s uniform. What always gets me is the failure of the right to listen to anything the left says and the left’s unwillingness to listen to anything the right says.
W “scholarly” means peer-reviewed. “Think tank” means paid for, with a pre-determined argument regardless of facts.
Go find and post a well-researched scholarly article in favor of public insurance or its equivalent and I will believe you when you say you’re neutral and balanced on this issue.
October 5, 2019 at 2:58 pm #106256
Billy_TParticipantMy view: We need to ask ourselves, as a society, do we want a system that everyone can afford, that provides the best chance for healthy outcomes, puts patients first, puts the common good first? Or do we want to put profit-takers first, and the individual chance to make one’s fortune off the pain and misery of others . . . and hope for the best when it comes to patients and outcomes?
Because you can’t do both. It’s impossible. We have to choose. Want all Americans to have access to those healthy outcomes? You can’t leave it up to profit-takers. Why? Because their goals, interests and incentives are in direct opposition to those of patients. Obviously. That’s just math. The desire to make fortunes runs counter to the ability of citizens to afford health care. No way around it.
A sane society wouldn’t even hesitate on this. It would treat the health of its citizenry as “sacred,” in a secular sense. At the very least, it would have a non-profit system akin to its public schools, where the focus is on the students, not on insuring the personal accrual of large fortunes by the few.
Again, you can’t do both. You can’t make “wealth creation” a factor while you seek to give access to all citizens. It’s mathematically impossible. You will always and forever leave tens of millions of people out, and short cuts will need to be made for everyone else but the richest of the rich. Patient health will always be at best of secondary concern.
Gotta choose: health for all or wealth for a few.
October 5, 2019 at 3:05 pm #106257Billy_TParticipantTrying to boil this down.
I doubt many Americans think this way, but I think everyone should: Inserting profit-taking, “wealth creation,” “commodification” into every nook and cranny of our lives is beyond destructive, and in all cases, unnecessary. Especially when it comes to basic life-necessities, it’s simply irrelevant and shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
Think about it. What does a corporation’s ability to make massive profits, pay its shareholders, its executives, its lobbyists, its tax attorneys, its marketing department, its golden parachute set-asides . . . have to do with whether or not little Janie can beat cancer? What do those things add to the value of her health care? What additional costs do they force on Janie and her family?
This isn’t rocket science.
October 5, 2019 at 3:43 pm #106260znModeratorTrying to boil this down.
I doubt many Americans think this way, but I think everyone should: Inserting profit-taking, “wealth creation,” “commodification” into every nook and cranny of our lives is beyond destructive, and in all cases, unnecessary. Especially when it comes to basic life-necessities, it’s simply irrelevant and shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
Think about it. What does a corporation’s ability to make massive profits, pay its shareholders, its executives, its lobbyists, its tax attorneys, its marketing department, its golden parachute set-asides . . . have to do with whether or not little Janie can beat cancer? What do those things add to the value of her health care? What additional costs do they force on Janie and her family?
This isn’t rocket science.
Yes as you know (but repeating it anyway to get it down in black and white) one of the many key arguments for universal health insurance is that (as has been demonstrated in the world) a public system has far lower administrative costs. There’s no costs for high CEO salaries, advetertizing, lobbying, campaign donations, and of course profit and payouts to stock holders.
This is to the tune of billions of dollars, not a dime of which goes to health care provision.
Meanwhile try finding affordable insurance for a 26 year old. Nada. He or she has to be employed for someone who does provide insurance. Which means employers suffer from these costs too.
….
October 5, 2019 at 4:07 pm #106261Billy_TParticipantTrying to boil this down.
I doubt many Americans think this way, but I think everyone should: Inserting profit-taking, “wealth creation,” “commodification” into every nook and cranny of our lives is beyond destructive, and in all cases, unnecessary. Especially when it comes to basic life-necessities, it’s simply irrelevant and shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
Think about it. What does a corporation’s ability to make massive profits, pay its shareholders, its executives, its lobbyists, its tax attorneys, its marketing department, its golden parachute set-asides . . . have to do with whether or not little Janie can beat cancer? What do those things add to the value of her health care? What additional costs do they force on Janie and her family?
This isn’t rocket science.
Yes as you know (but repeating it anyway to get it down in black and white) one of the many key arguments for universal health insurance is that (as has been demonstrated in the world) a public system has far lower administrative costs. There’s no costs for high CEO salaries, advetertizing, lobbying, campaign donations, and of course profit and payouts to stock holders.
This is to the tune of billions of dollars, not a dime of which goes to health care provision.
Meanwhile try finding affordable insurance for a 26 year old. Nada. He or she has to be employed for someone who does provide insurance. Which means employers suffer from these costs too.
….
We agree.
Even if we leave out issues of morality and basic human decency — which we shouldn’t, of course — and just think in terms of cold, hard cash, this is an easy call. Americans will get a far better “deal” if the system is truly non-profit and public, with no privatization and no corporate influencing. It’s not close.
The private sector simply has a far higher overhead to deal with, and that’s money that must be subtracted from the issue at hand: health care. That’s money that doesn’t go to the thing itself. It goes instead to 7 and 8 figure executive salaries, 8 and 9 figure golden parachutes, 6 to 8 figure lobbyist salaries, etc. etc. None of that adds one iota of value to patient care. It subtracts from it.
In all capitalist transactions, the business owner is trying to make money. Which means he or she needs to take more from the consumer than he or she gives them. They can’t just break even. They need to end up selling something for more than it costs ownership. And if their intention is to make their own fortune, the net result of all transactions, including payment to their rank and file, must add up to a huge gap between value received and value given.
Given the fact that the ownership class is relatively small, and the vast majority of citizens will never be in it . . . I continuously find it stunning that so many people are okay with this arrangement.
It’s all the more baffling when it’s about life and death matters like health care.
October 5, 2019 at 4:41 pm #106265waterfieldParticipantER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
OK-forget my use of the work scholarly article-score one for you. It is an OPINION piece albeit with lots of facts to support an “opinion”. The fact that it may have been written by Attila the Hun should not take away from the merits one might find in it. This is no different than a conservative putting down a written Chomsky “opinion” because it is simply from a person dedicated to leftist causes and hence agenda driven. No difference at all.
October 5, 2019 at 4:54 pm #106267waterfieldParticipantWell, the mainstream-corporate-capitalist -LA-Times is owned by a South African Billionaire who made his money in the Health Care Biz. I dont know much about him, but I “imagine” the Times’ views on many big-econ-power issues are influenced by Mr Soon-Shiong.
Well said-“imagination”. Neither you nor I have any facts to support the notion that Times ownership is dedicated to preventing universal healthcare-at least in the sense of medicare for all as visioned by either Warren or Sanders.
I find it interesting that Trump and the Republican Party -as now constituted-look at the L.A. Times as a “rag” full of “fake news” and just a bit north of the Communist party. I also find it interesting that the Times publishes many articles that argue in favor of a Sanders or Warren type of universal health care. In that respect I find coverage of the subject balanced -which in my mind means that it is more educational to the interested but possibly uninformed reader. Reading nothing but stuff that supports what you want to believe is IMO the very least educational process one can undertake when it comes to a critical analysis of any issue.
Nevertheless, I am glad you see this through your “imagination”.
October 5, 2019 at 4:56 pm #106268Billy_TParticipantER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
OK-forget my use of the work scholarly article-score one for you. It is an OPINION piece albeit with lots of facts to support an “opinion”. The fact that it may have been written by Attila the Hun should not take away from the merits one might find in it. This is no different than a conservative putting down a written Chomsky “opinion” because it is simply from a person dedicated to leftist causes and hence agenda driven. No difference at all.
W,
What’s your response to this fact:
The private, for-profit sector can not compete with the public, non-profit sector on value, on the percentage of funds going to health care itself, rather than to make a few people very wealthy. The private, for-profit sector will never, ever, not ever be able to compete with a truly non-profit, public health care system on costs, value, access, coverage or outcomes.
October 5, 2019 at 5:11 pm #106269znModerator. The private, for-profit sector will never, ever, not ever be able to compete with a truly non-profit, public health care system on costs, value, access, coverage or outcomes.
Though to clarify, this is about universal public insurance.
A fully public health care system would include de-privatizing the world of health care providers.
Universal insurance, in itself, does not do that.
October 5, 2019 at 5:15 pm #106270znModeratorReading nothing but stuff that supports what you want to believe is IMO the very least educational process one can undertake when it comes to a critical analysis of any issue.
W, the entire board here has rules against making it about the poster and about edging toward antagonistic exchanges. Nothing has crossed that line but let’s not even approach the line. We’re all friends here (you, me, everybody).
Given all that, though, to be fair this thread did move toward being about the argument and not the source of the article.
October 5, 2019 at 5:31 pm #106272Billy_TParticipant. The private, for-profit sector will never, ever, not ever be able to compete with a truly non-profit, public health care system on costs, value, access, coverage or outcomes.
Though to clarify, this is about universal public insurance.
A fully public health care system would include de-privatizing the world of health care providers.
Universal insurance, in itself, does not do that.
Correct. It’s a right-wing scare-tactic to talk in terms of “socializing health care” overall. No Dem is calling for that. Their plans involve only the funding (insurance) side, not the delivery side.
But I’m not a Dem, so I get to call for the entire shebang to be public, non-profit.
;>)
Which I do. I’d be thrilled with the funding side going all public, non-profit. But I think the delivery side has to follow suit. If left to their own devices, for-profit delivery costs will keep rising, and they’re already the highest in the OECD. Doctors, big pharma, medical machinery — they’re all paid far more than in any other country . . . and that’s simply not sustainable for any kind of insurance system.
A for-profit one increases the costs to patients, as already mentioned. But a non-profit one has to deal with those rising (delivery side) costs too. To me, it makes far more sense to attack both problems at the same time.
And we used to have municipal arrangements in America as the norm. Doctors were paid by towns, housed by the town, etc. etc. Patients paid what they could, usually in the form of food or home production stuff. We could update that for the 21st century and merge it with public, non-profit insurance. Everyone would get a card. They’d present it at municipal clinics and hospitals and local offices for GPs, etc. We could also expand the VA system to cover all citizens. And lest people argue that the VA is a mess, that mess is easily fixed via hiring enough staff.
Most recent audit places its deficit at 23,000 people. That’s where the long waits come in.
October 6, 2019 at 2:07 am #106299Eternal RamnationParticipantER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
The fact that a think tank is right or left does not immunize it from a scholarly piece of work. Your response is like so many right wing responses that cast doubt on any research by left leaning scholars as simply biased because “it’s the product of a dedicated” left leaning think tank- and not to be taken seriously. Rather than look at the author’s base one might instead look at the FACTS and then argue them as opposed to the researcher’s uniform. What always gets me is the failure of the right to listen to anything the left says and the left’s unwillingness to listen to anything the right says.
First let me say that I would be the last person to judge scholarly qualification but I can read. I did read this Sanders hit piece and just like many before it I found it lacking. The Manhattan Institute’s right bias isn’t the problem the fact that their members and as WV mentioned the paper’s owner are heavily invested in the Health Insurance industry is the problem. I will be honest and say I did use a trusted cheat code. When billionaires start worrying about our collective cost my bullshit detector goes off.An example would be the Manhattan Institute is a non profit group or more accurately a tax shelter for billionaires.
October 6, 2019 at 12:07 pm #106301wvParticipantWell said-“imagination”. Neither you nor I have any facts to support the notion that Times ownership is dedicated to preventing universal healthcare-at least in the sense of medicare for all as visioned by either Warren or Sanders.
…I also find it interesting that the Times publishes many articles that argue in favor of a Sanders or Warren type of universal health care…
========================
Well i havent seen you post a single solitary article by the LA Times that was in favor of Sanders-Health-Care. I’d be pleased to see one of those articles by the LA Times.
As far as the effects of Ownership on reporters and coverage. I recommend the mountain of research on that subject.
At any rate, I usually stay out of the nuances and algebra of the Health Care debate. Its not my thing as I’ve said before. Cause it doesnt matter to me what the algebra sez. What matters is do we want to be a country where everyone gets adequate health care or not. Should the rich get great health care and the poor get none or inadequate health care? Should their be ‘classes’ of health care the same as when we fly on planes — first class, second class, third class, etc. Should we have a health care system equivalent to the airline bizness? Or shold health care be… different. In a class all its own. Special. Beyond profit and capitalism.
For me that answers to those questions dont require a complicated algebra.
You know, usually ‘you’ are the one saying ‘dont over-intellectualize things.’
w
vOctober 6, 2019 at 5:06 pm #106311Billy_TParticipantWell i havent seen you post a single solitary article by the LA Times that was in favor of Sanders-Health-Care. I’d be pleased to see one of those articles by the LA Times.
As far as the effects of Ownership on reporters and coverage. I recommend the mountain of research on that subject.
At any rate, I usually stay out of the nuances and algebra of the Health Care debate. Its not my thing as I’ve said before. Cause it doesnt matter to me what the algebra sez. What matters is do we want to be a country where everyone gets adequate health care or not. Should the rich get great health care and the poor get none or inadequate health care? Should their be ‘classes’ of health care the same as when we fly on planes — first class, second class, third class, etc. Should we have a health care system equivalent to the airline bizness? Or shold health care be… different. In a class all its own. Special. Beyond profit and capitalism.
For me that answers to those questions dont require a complicated algebra.
You know, usually ‘you’ are the one saying ‘dont over-intellectualize things.’
w
vI think, in general, Americans have a tough time seeing class as a thing, and an even harder time thinking of class divisions and their effects. At least in the present tense. I’d imagine it’s a lot easier to do so in the past tense. With how things “used to be.” They’d probably recognize the inherent ugliness and unfairness of, say, the divisions on the Titanic that enabled the rich to escape and doomed the poor, stuck below deck. They might even thrill to a scene that showed a rich guy getting his comeuppance, sliding down the upturned ship to his death.
But it’s really tough to think in those terms about now, today, here and now, when it comes to education, health care, environmental dangers, disaster relief, etc. It’s much tougher to think in terms of a caste system, which we actually have, that largely determines what people get to be and do with their lives, simply due to the accident of their birth and their built-in networks, support systems, or lack thereof. And all around us, we’re bombarded by the message that it’s all up to us, if we just work hard and be-leeve, we can do any-thing!!
America is the only “developed” nation in the world that has an epidemic of medical bankruptcies. In the rest of the developed world, it’s virtually unheard of. There’s only one reason for that: our formalized, segregated, balkanized, normalized caste system . . . which most of the OECD, at least when it comes to health care, has largely jettisoned.
Again, this isn’t rocket science.
October 8, 2019 at 10:15 am #106385znModerator
October 8, 2019 at 10:46 am #106399wvParticipantYeah, the Mountain-Range of ‘dis-information’ on Health Care can be eye-opening.
There’s certain topics the system is insisting on: Climate-Change-Denial, Universal-Health-Care-Denial…etc.
The system, grudgingly, allows a certain amount of tinkering. But ya aint allowed to do more than that.
Once in a while though, there can be a breakthru. Now and then. Slavery ended. 40 hour work week. Child labor. Etc.
Now and then.
But those gains were made before the modern corporotacracy had all its ‘manufacturing consent’ tools in place. I dunno whats possible now. I guess we’ll see.
w
v -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
