Massachusetts goes for rationing? Update: Incentivizing profit over care?
posted at 12:15 pm on October 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Massachusetts adventure in health-care reform will take an entirely predictable turn in the near future, say providers within the network. The state panel intends to dictate a narrower network of providers for some insurance plans, which providers insist will result in a reduction of services to patients in hospitals and clinics. Massachusetts wants its citizens to choose second-tier hospitals and clinics to save costs, and plans to eliminate choice as a means to that end (via Instapundit):
The state’s ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price for patients: Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want.
Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers.
But a growing number of hospital officials and physician lead ers warn that the new payment system proposed by a state commission would not work without restrictions on where patients receive care – an issue some providers say the commission and the Patrick administration have glossed over.
“You can’t reap these savings without limiting patients’ choices in some way,’’ said Paul Levy, chief executive of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “It’s a huge issue, it’s huge.’’ Dr. James Mongan, president of Partners HealthCare, a Beth Israel Deaconess competitor, agreed that it wouldn’t “work without some restriction on choice.’’
Remember this every time Barack Obama and Democrats insist that we can keep our doctors and our hospitals if we like them, or that ObamaCare will not limit patient choice. The end result of state intervention and price fixing is always higher costs, followed by rationing. Insurance companies at least have competitive pressures keeping them efficient, but when prices get fixed by the state, that efficiency goes out the window. As costs escalate, the state intervenes in other ways to keep subsidies from skyrocketing, and this is the inevitable result.
The other option is to cut payments to the premier hospitals, which will force them to take fewer patients. The result of that approach will be very easy to predict. The best hospitals will take primarily those patients who can afford to pay their premium prices, leaving the poor and middle-class patients to get treated elsewhere. It will stratify health care much more than before Massachusetts enacted its “reforms”, giving the rich almost exclusive access to the best care. And thanks to lousy compensation rates, fewer new providers will be around to meet the new demand in second-tier care, meaning much longer wait times for the poor and middle-class patients.
This is a microcosm of what we can expect on a national basis if ObamaCare gets enacted. Will the media start reporting this in that context?
Update: Paul Hsieh, a physician himself, notes the curious incentive being applied by Massachusetts:
What the supporters don’t mention is that it also creates a tremendous incentive for physicians and hospitals to render as little care as possible. Under the Massachusetts proposal, if your care costs less than the annual allotment, then they keep the unused portion. If your care costs more, then the difference comes out of the providers’ pockets. Such a system thus pits your doctor’s interests against your own.
For the sake of argument, suppose your annual allotment is $5000 and you’ve already spent $4500 for that year. Now you go to your doctor’s office complaining of a severe headache. He examines you and says, “No, Bill, you don’t need a $1000 MRI scan of your brain. Just take two Tylenol and call me in the morning”.
Will you be 100% sure that he’s giving you unbiased medical advice?
And even if your doctor consistently and conscientiously acts for his patients’ best interests, he will inevitably find himself at odds with hospital administrators questioning whether this or that expenditure is appropriate[.]
Read the whole post.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Sarah 1
Obama 0
Christian Conservative on October 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Liberty does’t demand that people or companies act for any reason higher than self preservation. All companies are in the business of devising methods to separate us from our money. There will always be greedy companies. You don’t get rid them by giving them taxpayer money, and you don’t get rid of them by limiting executive pay. All you do is create 3 problems, where before you had 1.
Clearly AIG deserved the money it got. It did whatever it took to get it, after all. Drug dealers, assasins, and whores all earn their money, too. It doesn’t make them GOOD. But nobody said that they were in the business of being good, any more than AIG is.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Man oh man, you really do resent the fact that some people make more than you do.
Why do you refer to them as elitist snobs? How many of them do you know. Or are you just using hollywood stereotypes instead of thinking for yourself.
As to your claims that they don’t care about the common citizen, do you have some evidence for that claim, or are you just letting your emotions and jealousy carry you away again?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Anyone who wants to control what other people earn, is no conservative.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I don’t care how much somebody else makes. If they’re rich, well good for them. They provided a good or service that someone else was willing to pay insane amounts of money for.
I also could care less if the rich give two hoots about me. They should mind their own business, pardon the pun.
I’m not claiming that the rich will become poor, either. I merely claim that stealing is a crime, and taking money from executives is stealing.
Again, if you ruled the people, what amount of money would you allow people to have? Within that question is the entire problem with limting executive pay.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
You have to read all of his statements.
His hatred of CEOs extends to all CEOs.
As I pointed out in other places, placing 100% of the blame on the CEOs is stupid. And restricting what a company can pay it’s top management is a good way to ensure that your company only gets every other companies toss offs.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
How ’bout a few ground rules we can all agree on:
We have to get out of the mindset that all businesses are large, unknowable entities with no heart and no mind. Businesses are largely the result of the dreams of individuals. They are comprised of people like you and me who just want to better themselves in their work. Conversely, we have to get out of the mindset that businesses exist to give us jobs. They exist to better themselves and their owners. The jobs are a welcome by product. If we tax them too high, we not only crush the dreams of those individuals, but those jobs won’t follow shortly afterwards. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the destruction of those ideas and dreams that made (and continue to make) us great only hurts us all and furthers the cause of socialism.
This just flows from Rule #1. There are some businesses that have done well by playing by a good and fair set of rules. There are others who have been cutthroat: some because of necessities and others because of convenience. There are others who have flat out broken all morals–with terrible consequences following shortly after. Enron comes to mind.
We need to look at all businesses individually… and not just where they are now but how they started, and more importantly where they’re going.
Lastly, some companies have skirted morals and moral judgement, only to realize their mistakes and do the right thing afterwards. Ford motor company comes to mind. Sure, they were right there with Chrysler and GM asking for bailouts… but now they’re playing clean, and are being rewarded handsomely for it.
The rules of capitalism are thus:
1)You have the right to try your ideas on the market place.
2)You have the right to freely buy and keep your own property and capital
3)You have the right to sell and dispense of your own property and capital in order to make a profit.
4)You have the right to fail if you screw things up.
Much of government regulation and litigation has done much to screw with these simple four principles. The question is this: how much can you do that and still call it capitalism?
Much of the public’s disdain for capitalism comes from the fact that governmental policies have made things difficult, but it’s still labeled ‘capitalism’ (see the healthcare industry for example). We need to work to inform the public what’s what, and why things are going well (or badly).
Our greatest enemy is ignorance. What are you doing to educate your fellow citizens?
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Man oh man, you really like shilling for the uber-rich.
As for the ‘snob’ reference, that’s due to the heavy ratio of people born into the kind of wealth we’re talking about rather than earning their way up, like it has been for most of human history.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Please understand, Dark-Star, that I do believe that corporations that break the law should be punished. And I very much understand your frustration that our money is being given to people who already have a lot of money.
But that grievance is really against our politicians, not against the businessmen. There are plenty of laws governing business, and if they’ve followed all of those laws then we shouldn’t take their money. If they haven’t, we should prosecute them.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:25 PM
It wasn’t sarcasm, it was a reflection of what you truely feel. As has been made obvious by the rest of your comments.
And the best way to make money is to ensure that your company makes a good product at a good price.
So what? Why does it piss you off that someone makes more than you do?
Once again, you aren’t bothering to think. Not that you have managed to engage your brain yet. I’m still waiting for you to provide a scintilla of evidence that what you scream is actually true. The fact that someone makes more money than you do, is not evidence that they are evil. No matter how much you wish it to be true.
As I’ve pointed out to others, your true goal is to set the salary for all executives. I’m not defending executives, I’m defending the free market. Which is what conservatives are supposed to do. You on the other hand want govt to control what people are allowed to earn. Nothing conservative about that.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM
The uber-rich have every right to their riches. And I hope to become uber-rich myself some day, or raise a child who will become uber-rich.
As for the snob part, you’re talking about a cap on PAY. Trust-fund babies are not typically found working 60-hour weeks at AIG. But your comment also indicates that you feel that people have no right to inherit wealth, or that inherited wealth above a certain point becomes evil. Is that your contention?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I’m probably walking right into a troll-trap, but…
How about this: when half your yearly net salary (after paying all applicable taxes) is enough to purchase any home for sale anywhere in the 50 United States or its territories without entailing special requirements? (things like military housing aren’t available to everyone)
The logic being that if you can afford to buy a home anywhere in the US essentially out-of-pocket, you are wealthy enough to live anywhere you please. When you’ve reached that kind of ‘ultimate mobility’, you are among the richest people on the entire planet.
And yes, I would *gladly* live by the same restrictions, although quite frankly I doubt I’d ever ‘hit the ceiling’. Quite frankly even far before getting to that point you run into some pretty serious risks associated with huge amounts of wealth.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The only companies that have broken “the rules of capitalism”, are those that have used govt to eliminate the competition.
Capitalism has no “morals”, only individuals do. If you don’t like the tactics that a company uses, feel free to not shop there any more.
There are some out there, that feel that it is immoral to not unionize your shop.
There are some out there, that feel that it is not moral to not give all of your employees health insurance.
There are some out there that feel that it is immoral to sell anything that is not organic.
Why do you feel that you have a right to force companies, and by extension, all of their customers, to live up to what you feel is moral?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM
MarktheGreat, here’s an interesting experiment to ponder.
Is it possible to raise the minimum wage to a level where the recipients are also the evil rich?
How often is compassion and empathy the agent for tyranny?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I don’t think a Good CEO making money for his company is wrong to receive a good paycheck. They’re paying him for the value of his services to the company. Good CEO’s are hard to come by. They always have been. It’s this combination of value and rarity that makes them expensive.
I’m purely thinking along the lines of supply and demand here if you don’t see where I’m coming from.
What I don’t like is a bad CEO making bad decisions and still getting paid well for it. Alas… these are mostly mistakes made by the corporations who will at some point have hell to pay because of it (one way or another… I’m not talking armed revolution or anything… but what comes around does go around… and the universe has a way of making people pay for their mistakes). If a company soon tolerates bad CEOs… or even mediocre ones, they usually see bankruptcy shortly after. I don’t think it’s something that necessitates government action (provided that they have not done anything illegal. Cross that line, and I’m all for the hammer coming down hard.) but it’s still bad for the company, it’s workers, and it’s investors.
That’s the risk you take in the private sector though. Moral of the story: learn how to spot bad companies and avoid them!
As for CEO’s taking the blame for the company’s failures, I have only this to say:
Some CEO’s inherit problems in the same way that some presidents do. This I understand. I also understand that sometimes something is completely out of your influential reach.
But no one forced you to take on the mantle at this time. Every CEO chose to be one… and every CEO chose his position at the time he took it. He can always decline if he thinks the problems ahead would be too much to handle.
And lastly, every CEO is human… just like the rest of us.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Can you for once, construct a valid argument?
You really do love living by stereotype, instead of thinking for yourself.
You actually believe that most CEOs were born into wealth? Where did you get such an incredibly stupid idea?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Hmm. I’ve clearly made a mistake in terminology somewhere. Capping pay for everyone would be incredibly unfair…I was originally referring to the capping of executive bonuses .
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Interesting. As limits on freedom go, it doesn’t sound too bad.
Let’s say that amount is $2 million dollars.
So, what do you do with the money that evil people earn above that amount?
And what makes the person he earned 1 more dollar a worse person than the person who earned exactly $2 million?
What happens if the cost of a house goes up? Does earning $2.1 million then become socially acceptable?
You could, of course, make things fairer by saying people weren’t allowed to live in a $2 million house. After all, you’re protecting everyone by limiting income, why not limit ostentatious displays of wealth? Mandate that everyone should live in a $200,000 house? That seems a lot fairer, doesn’t it?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM
When one acts like a troll, this is always a possibility.
So you honestly believe that there should be a maximum permissable salary.
Hey Chaz, do I have to repeat my point, or has D-S managed to convince you about his real goal?
Back to D-S. Once you accept the notion that it is permissible for the govt to set a maximum wage, why shouldn’t we set it somewhat lower, why not $100K.
Heck, lets just require that everyone be paid the same, regardless of what job they do.
Regardless, D-S, why do you feel qualified to determine what anyone’s wages are worth? If a person’s skill is sufficient that he increases a company’s yearly income by $100million a year, why shouldn’t he be paid $10million?
Why shouldn’t companies be allowed to bid for the services of such a person?
If the presence of a particular actor will guarntee that 50million more people will go see a movie, earning the producers 3 or 4 dollars per person, why shouldn’t that actor be paid $100 million.
Or an athlete who’se presence causes the team to win more games, and hence more paying fans?
Just because nobody in there right mind would pay you that kind of money, is not evidence that nobody is worth that kind of money.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM
But… executive bonuses were caused by government. Clinton got mad at corporate excess, and put caps on compensation levels. So, the uber-rich just shrugged and lived with the lower income, right? Wrongo. Companies came up with bonus packages, so that they could attract the best employees away from their competitors.
If you cap compensation, companies will find another perk to deliver. Maybe free cars. Or drugs. Wait, they already do that with health care, which was a direct response to FDRs war on wealth.
Gosh, this whole tyranny thing is really complicated. Too bad there’s not some system that automatically gives everyone the exact amount they deserve to get.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Yet you seem to think that by cutting the maximum allowable salary, your company will still be able to attract the kind of talent necessary to pull the company out of it’s present difficulties.
Neither you nor I have the expertise to determine whether a particular executive is worth the money he is being paid. As always, I will defer to those who’s money is on the line, instead of Washington.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Who are you talking about? No Ford or Disney or Walton or Rockefeller is CEO that I know of. Who inherited the job? Please name 1.
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
IF I projected the image that I have the right to force people to live up to morals… I apologize. I don’t think anyone has the right to force anyone to do anything.
Capitalism allows people to make the choices on where they go and how they spend their money. No other economic system guarantees that right.
The only morals I hoped to force upon anyone are the same morals that the law enforces. In short, if anyone breaks the law, he is held responsible under the law. Otherwise, it’s fair game.
Capitalism is a system. Systems don’t have minds, hearts or morals… only methods. It’s up to the individuals within those systems to uphold morals as they see fit.
No system, no matter how well built or fortified against the foibles of man, however, can stand up long against people who act in reckless abandon and disregard for morality. If you doubt the veracity of this statement, one needs look no further than how politicians have turned the government and the constitution upside down to find proof of that statement. The same thing can happen with capitalism. If enough people can’t live according to ethics and morals then the system ultimately must fail.
I don’t want the systems of Constitutional Republics and Capitalist societies to fail. If I don’t want them to fail, then I must do everything I can in order to reason with and persuade them to see what must happen in order for these systems to be preserved. I don’t want to live under socialism… only for it to be followed shortly after by communism. I don’t want future generations living as slaves. The Republic is too valuable for me to simply sit by and watch it decay.
And in order to do that, I’m sometimes a bit forceful in my words. I sometimes come off as one who wants to force people to do the right thing and I don’t… it’s just that if enough people don’t get the picture I and many others will be forced into something terrible.
And I despise that so strongly that I sometimes get over myself.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
1) Bonuses are part of pay.
2) Once you conceed the notion that the govt has the right to set salaries for executives, you have conceeded the notion that the govt has the right to set salaries for everyone.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM
The fact Romney continues to support his plan, regardless of how it was modified, shows why he should never be President. He is like Bush I&II, (who I admire as men, but not as policy experts)and will continue the same bastardized concept of big government conservatism, which is really no conservatism at all.
No thanks, been there done that.
Small government. Limited regulations. All rights belong to the citizens except those WE give to the government.
Hmm… seems I heard that somewhere before..
archer52 on October 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I hope this kills Romney’s chances of winning the nomination. Of course, I was sure that amnesty would end McCain’s.
Bill C on October 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Then we are doomed, because there will always be those who act in disregard for morals.
Heck, since we as a society can’t even agree on what acceptable morals are, then by definition, everyone is always acting against the morals of someone.
Capitalism won’t collapse just because a handfull of people refuse to follow your moral beliefs. The fact of this is self evident. The fact that capitalism has existed since the dawn of time, even though every generation has always had those who act against the moral standards of the majority.
What causes the collapse of society, is when some group of people decide that they have to right to force everyone to live by their morals.
Govt should stop people from hurting each other. Beyond that, govt has no right to enforce morals.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM
If his real goal is to limit the wages of anyone then no. I stated earlier that wage controls are in my opinion a capital offense and I stand by that statement.
I apologize if you think I think that way… I just have a lot to say…
No. I don’t think you’ll be able to attract the best talent (which is clearly in the best interest of the company btw) by cutting salary. You’ll never be able to.
HOWEVER: the value of a CEO’s talents CAN be measured… but the worth of a CEO’s talents cannot be measured by any small group of people… which leads me to my next point:
You hint at a great truth in those words. No one person can determine the value of a CEO… but the investors would have a better idea (seeing how they have a skin in the game).
The truth is, you would want to pay a CEO as little as possible while getting the best results… but because both work against each other you have to strike a compromise. Pay too little and you end up with second or third rate talent because a Good CEO won’t accept the pay. Pay too much and you risk going bankrupt regardless of how much you’re paying for a good CEO (who may not end up being worth as much as you’re paying him anyway). Investors and the board of trustees have to weigh these risks (and rewards) when hiring.
To entrust that decision to a few politicians strikes me as an idea well past ‘catastrophically bad’.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Debt Panels:
Sarah 1
Obama 0
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM
You’ve inadvertently hit on something I was initially going to leave out – what if, instead of a legal limitation on extreme wealth, there was a social limit on one?
But that’s another and very LONG discussion for another time.
Getting serious readings on the sarcasm-o-meter, but I’ll respond anyway.
First of all, ‘ostentatious displays of wealth’ are not the ultimate goal. The goal with the housing limit is simply to introduce some kind of sanity boundary on personal wealth. If you can buy a house anywhere with half a year’s wage, you can go and do pretty much anything you wish to do. (including influencing politicians and ‘news’ networks, but that’s another discussion)
Secondly assigning flat dollar values to property alone simply wouldn’t work due to inflation and many other factors, like putting a hot tub in the backyard. Again – the housing measure is merely a yardstick. If your net yearly salary is twice as much as the most expensive average house price available, it’s cut off at that level and you have the rest to do whatever you please with.
There’s even an incentive to increase the limit. Want more for yourself? Just help bring up the average value of housing. Building fancier houses just for yourself won’t influence the average all that much – but if, say, you helped a city or two clean up their neighborhoods and increase the property value, that might translate to a bit higher average.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Even if I bought the spin that Romney was ashamed of this project and had just gone along with the powerful Democrat legislature, that would tell me that Washington was the last place to trust him.
But he’s not ashamed of it.
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM
^^^ the root of the problem.
Selling one’s countrymen out to foreign labor, trying to sell cheap goods that may well be poisoned, shafting the lowest level of workers on their wages…all these problems are dirty tricks used to increase profits. All of them come from a total lack of morals.
Legal solutions are sadly only a Band-Aid – enough money can influence politics or hire fancy lawyers or simply break the law without notice and there’s only so much the law can do.
But at this point…it’s all we have.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
In fact, most criminals are mere footnotes to history. It’s the capitalists who leave an enduring legacy.
And yet, instead of honoring that legacy, we feel the need to tear down the ancestors of men who built the great engines of progress. They didn’t earn it, we say.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Hate to be a bringer of bad news, but this has always proven itself true.
However, the problem isn’t so much the presence of lawbreakers. There will always be scofflaws and criminals who break the law for their own ends. This isn’t a problem.
It becomes a problem when they’re in charge! Is it too late to save us then? I don’t think so… at least, not yet.
That’s why we have universal laws. By universal, I simply mean that these laws are applied to everyone without exception… and nothing more. I hold firmly to the belief that all men are equal before the law.
How do you think that group of people came to the conclusion that they had the right to force everyone to live by their morals?
The answer is this: that group of people came to that conclusion because they themselves have no regard for any morals. It devolves quickly into a rule by men as opposed by a rule of law. Collapse comes certainly and swiftly thereafter.
It comes from those who believe that the end justifies the means… and eventually the means justify the means. You’ve seen them before: they are the Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers of the past. They are the Alinskyites, the Michael Moores, the Barack Obamas, the Richard Daleys, and all sorts of people today. They exist today as they existed back then.
Take a good hard look at Saul Alinsky’s writings and tell me he looks like a man who has any morals. You’ll look long and hard but your search will be in vain.
My point is this: there’s a good and evil in this world and they have separate agendas:
Good has the agenda of Live and let live. To allow and support freedom for all mankind. To allow people to live the way they want to. Hopefully, we can persuade people to take the path of good in their everyday lives. To become responsible, law abiding, honest, virtuous people.
Evil has a very different set of goals. To bring people down to the level of animals. To force others to do the same. To do this until nothing and no one is left.
This conflict exists whether we would like it to or not. To put it bluntly, the devil is real.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance as Jefferson once said. It’s going to be an ongoing struggle.
But just as the Devil is Real, so is God, and he doesn’t merely sit on the sidelines.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM
And thank God for it! At least usually.
The only reason we’re still looking at Al Capone as a major figure is because we’re still fighting the machine he started.
And that is a sad fact my good man. These people did much good for us and yet the people impugn them on a daily basis.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 3:13 PM
The class envy just oozes from your prose. Not to mention the standard leftist mythology in which a vague and powerful group of plutocrats wield unearned power over the “little guy.” Life isn’t a comic book, but you seem to view it in comic book stereotypes.
Time spent resenting other people for what they have or how they got it is time that is utterly wasted. The idea that government can step in and with a few strokes of a pen make the world fair is a leftard fantasy.
Keep your head down and a goal in mind and in time, you might be one of those nasty rich people yourself.
Cicero43 on October 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM
But sanity would indicate against controlling something that’s not hurting anyone. What is the point of putting a boundary on personal wealth in the first place? Is it bad for society for people to generate wealth? Are we protecting their souls from the evils of greed? What’s the purpose of limiting a person’s possibilities?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM
You speak truth… but then again… Cicero was always good at that. /pun intended
One of my goals in life was to be rich enough to start a company big enough to hire people I knew who needed the jobs.
I do not regret the words I’ve spoken on this thread, only that I may have been associated with a troll.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM
But organized crime comes the closest to being real economic wealth-creation. The mob provides a lot of services that equate to non-criminal services. Accounting, production, shipping, franchises. For the most part, organized crime finds a way to profit in the shadow of government regulation.
Not, of course, that the services they provide are always good for society. But perceived benefit is what people pay for.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Fair enough. Your compassion momentarily got the better of you ;-) Now, to repent, act like a real conservative and go steal food from some babies, and maybe chop down a few forests!
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM
In terms of economic benefit, yes, the services they do provide are beneficial.
On the other hand, sometimes the objectives and methods are extreme. In many cases, they are illegal. In many cases, they also exact a cost on society and most certainly other people.
And furthermore, if a machine of organized crime continues, it may control a society completely. See Chicago for example.
I’m pretty sure you agree with me on that point. I’m not trying to start an argument here. I’m just trying to point out that the wealth creation you point out (and it is wealth creation. Not arguing with you there either) comes with a terrible cost.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I’ll take you up on the forests part. I’ve got to get some wood to burn for the winter.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Dark-Star won’t be happy until foreign trade is outlawed.
So hiring the lowest cost labor needs to be outlawed. So speaks the man who knows nobody in their right mind would voluntarily hire him.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Sorry, it’s never proven itself to be true. Not even once.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM
My uncle recently bought a heating unit that burns pellets of some kind. We visited him recently and boy does that thing heat the house!
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM
It was the govt that created Al Capone. By making alcohol illegal.
No prohibition, no mob, no Al Capone.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I might add, that prohibition was caused by people who think like you. People who believe that there version of morality is so superior, that they have the right to impose it on everyone else.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Our greatest enemy is ignorance. What are you doing to educate your fellow citizens?
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I show them nude photos of Lady Ogabe…
Nyssan on October 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Like most lefties, D-S believes the world is a fixed pie. He believes that by limiting the salary of others, there will be more left for him.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Outlawing foreign trade =/= shipping American jobs off by the thousands and importing cheap plastic goods tainted with lead. Or how about the little poisoned pet food fiasco? I volunteer at the local Humane Society and got a front-row seat to that heartbreak.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Prohibition…one of the noblest ideas ever, with the littlest forethought and poorest implementation given to it. Did we ever blow that chance!
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Most of the harm done by such organizations are the result of their products being illegal.
For example, if one gang has a dispute with another gang, what are they going to do? Take the other gang to court? Of course not, such an action would only result in both gangs going to jail. The only action left open to them is to resolve the issue themselves, and this usually means violence.
This is one of the ways that going legal lowers costs. Suing someone who stiffed you, is a lot cheaper than hiring a bunch of hit men. And since you can rely on the police for protection, you don’t have to surround yourself and your top guys with hired muscle. OK, top level CEO’s often have security, but the amount is much less than is needed by those on the wrong side of the law. You also don’t need to worry about paying bribes and the other costs of keeping the cops out of your business.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I think a few million parents of teenage drug addicts would disagree with you. Very strongly.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 3:41 PM
YOu really do love to show off your ignorance. There is no difference between hiring somone offshore, and just shipping in the product directly. They both result in economic activity occurring someplace other than here.
In what passes for your mind, importing means cheap and dangerous?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Either you are being sarcastic, which I doubt, or you are one of the stupidest people to populate the planet in the last 100 years.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM
1) The vast majority of people who use drugs, do so without any harm whatsoever.
2) The fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to prevent anyone who wants them, from getting them.
Why do you hate people so much, that you are willing to destroy lives in order to force everyone into the narrow, hate filled mold of your morality?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I see that you are actually stupid enough to believe that prohibition could ever have worked?
You are aware that alcohol consumption did not drop when prohibition was passed?
Or does it not matter how many lives you destroy, so long as you get to play God with other people’s lives?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I thought prohibition was a bad idea myself to be honest. What part of the constitution forbids you from buying a legal good? Now I don’t think drinking and drunkenness are a good idea (for both moral and practical reasons) but I never advocated forcing others against it.
As for bad people being the downfall of governments… it does happen when they’re in charge. The decline of the roman republic was largely a result of senators looking after their own welfare (and the welfare of their backers) than the welfare of the republic. This eventually led to several military takeovers until finally Caesar took charge.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Dark-star, I don’t see that you answered my honest inquiry.
What’s the point of controlling executive bonuses? What does that do, other than harm the companies that we’ve invested bailout money in?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Interesting name for someone who accuses ME of ‘playing God’.
Prohibition was a noble idea, but the implementation was nothing short of disastrously foolish.
Among other problems:
-Constitutionality issues were utterly ignored.
-No provision was made for financial reimbursement of businesses that depended on alcohol. Everyone from the highest-class winery down to the crudest pub was expected to take the loss themselves overnight. Absurd!
-Far too many individuals were physically addicted to strong spirits. Expecting millions to go cold turkey without any assistance…what utter nonsense.
-Law enforcement had to play catch-up to respond to the new law instead of gearing up appropriately beforehand. Although in some cases their efforts were nothing short of heroic, it wasn’t nearly enough in the end.
-’Bathtub gin’ and similar products were incredibly easy to make. Booze became the equivalent of torrented games – absent a strong internal respect of the law (which too few possessed) it became amazingly easy to get away with being a crook. What’s the old saying…”integrity is doing what’s right, even when nobody is watching.”
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Why am I not surprised that Dark-Star likes the idea of telling other people how to live their lives. And he wonders why I accuse him of wanting to play God.
Then again, he isn’t very smart.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
*facedesk*
One more time…my original issue was that when companies are using taxpayer dollars as a bailout, that is no time to be handing out bonuses to executives.
Once the company is back on its feet, it can again begin paying out whom it pleases as much as it pleases from its own pockets.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Perhaps you should argue against speed limits. Somebody else is telling you that you can’t drive your car as fast as you like.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Here’s a heads up if Obamacare mirrors this crap sandwich we have in Mass.
My wife company just got swallowed up and is now getting this plan forced on them. Our rates are going up 20%, we no longer have BCBS as an option we have to change (prob primary care physician as well) and our co-pays go from $5 to $20 as do our prescriptions.
On the life insurance side for one retiree it went from $14 per month for $18,000 up to $269 per month for $5,000. She’s 78 and had it just to pay for her funeral expenses, now she’s effectively been forced to drop it due to cost/benefit.
So, sure you still have the “choice” and “ability” to keep the same options, but they will make it so damn expensiveyou really won’t be able to afford to.
Alden Pyle on October 12, 2009 at 4:19 PM
ROMNEY! ROMNEY! ROMNEY! ROMNEY!….
Dr. ZhivBlago on October 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Great. A repeat of the tactics used on firearms and ammo.
And they know it’ll work, too, especially since we’re in a serious recession.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
So, Dark-Star, do you think its “fair” that government workers get more pay than you? How about Congressional pay? How about Obama’s pay? Are any of these paychecks based on performance?
Are you pro-government, anti-capitalist, or do you just covet everything that anyone else has?
Just curious.
landlines on October 12, 2009 at 5:06 PM
What the supporters don’t mention is that it also creates a tremendous incentive for physicians and hospitals to render as little care as possible. Under the Massachusetts proposal, if your care costs less than the annual allotment, then they keep the unused portion. If your care costs more, then the difference comes out of the providers’ pockets. Such a system thus pits your doctor’s interests against your own.
For the sake of argument, suppose your annual allotment is $5000 and you’ve already spent $4500 for that year. Now you go to your doctor’s office complaining of a severe headache. He examines you and says, “No, Bill, you don’t need a $1000 MRI scan of your brain. Just take two Tylenol and call me in the morning”.
Will you be 100% sure that he’s giving you unbiased medical advice?
And even if your doctor consistently and conscientiously acts for his patients’ best interests, he will inevitably find himself at odds with hospital administrators questioning whether this or that expenditure is appropriate[.]
–Don’t you already have the same incentives under the current system? Don’t insurance companies have an incentive to try to minimize the amount of medical care provided in order to maximize profits, especially if someone is costing much more than his/her annual premiums?
Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Sadly, liberals do not want to recognize that the Democrat party wins by appealing to our worst desires and traits as humans. Whatever your sexual proclivities might be, the Democrats will side with you for your vote. If you feel like a victim the Democrats will plead your case for your vote. They know it is our nature to be jealous of those making more money or having more than us so they try to wedge that into their politics. It also in the interest of Democrats to keep racism, whether true or perceived, out front. The last thing Demos want is for people to get along and be happy as it does not serve their needs. It used to be that Republicans could get elected by promising to lower taxes and leave us alone but now too many want government “things” so now Republicans are giving them what they want as well. There seems to be no denying that voters get what they want. I that is where we find ourselves.
artman1746 on October 12, 2009 at 5:14 PM
If 0bummer and the Congresscritters were in a business world, they would have been canned so fast their heads spun.
Translation: quit arguing and agree with us, peasant.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Notice it was Ed that posted this and not AP.
technopeasant on October 12, 2009 at 5:54 PM
For that, at least, there is a public safety concern. But I’m very much against speed limits, and could probably classify as a conscientious objector based on my driving record ;-)
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Libs’ “Good Intentions” ALWAYS leads to failure. Always. It’s astonishing that “good intentions” are praised even when they lead to more suffering and disaster. It’s a ruse masking more sinister power grabs. Keep em needy and keep em voting for the handout.
marklmail on October 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
But there’s no way that the government gives up that control, any more than they’d keep the limit strictly to companies that took bailouts.
But you’re trying to redress a wrong by committing another wrong, and it hurts the companies we invested in. AIG should be paying MORE now, because their image has been tarnished, and they have a big mess to clean up. Both are good reasons to pay a little more to get the best available talent on the case for the taxpayer.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Legal extermination.
ms on October 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Are you kidding me!
Only a moron wouldn’t have seen this deal coming!! Allowing MORE government, in any guise, is ALWAYS a recipe for huge trouble.
It’s pretty obvious Romney is a Big Government hack, and not smart enough to realize what a flustercluck anything the government touches can (and will) turn into.
Might I remind you of this:
Lets see, common sense conservative Sarah Palin or Big Government hack Mitt Romney?
mmmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmm
gary4205 on October 12, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Here’s how to ruin a health care sytem:
1. Sue doctors asses off so that they begin to practice defensive medicine, wasting enormous amounts of money doing unnecessary tests and procedures in order to protect themselves.
2. Create a general adversarial atmosphere between patients and doctors to facilitate number 1, and in the process make young doctors want to go into areas of medicine with as little real patient contact as possible.
3. Lower the status of docs in general so that it becomes just another job to them rather than a calling.
4. Make paper work and dealing with the bureacracy all consuming so that docs spend more time on paper work and jumping through bureacratic hoops than focusing on actual patient care.
5. Keep lowering docs’ reimbursements so that making a living becomes their focus instead of being excellent physicians.
6. Make the life of being a physician undesirable enough so that the best and brightest want to go into other occupations.
7. Get the government involved in reimbursement so that the price of everything medical is inflated. (Think of the price of an apple were the government to get into the food industry in a big way.)
It’s satisfying to stick it to the man (evil, rich, greedy doctors), but you reap what you sow, so to speak.
justltl on October 12, 2009 at 6:41 PM
A post for the ages, and beared repeating!
gary4205 on October 12, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Thats funny I go to Boston Medical Center for both PCP and Neurologist (epilepsy) and all they do is look in a computer and see what ever doctor I’ve gone to has noted, prescribed, and tested. I call bullshit. But hey I must go to one of those expensive providers who efficient at record keeping and providing healthcare.
Massachusettes sucks at life it really does…I’ve always said I’m going to hell…now I can say I’ve been there.
Rattl3r on October 12, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Nail meets head.
Thank you much.
Now for my own 2 cents:
Wait what?
I’m being told by the dems that private insurance companies are prioritizing profit over care… thus making them evil and thus making them worthy of government replacement.
So government does just that… and we get the same damn thing?
At least under private care, I don’t have to pay premiums for 3 years just to get coverage (like the yet-to-be-written-in-legislative-language-so-we-don’t-yet-know-what-it-will-actually-do Baucus plan) AND If I don’t get satisfactory coverage, I can always pay for more. PLUS if my insurance company legally screws with me, I can shove their contract where the sun don’t shine.
So I’m trading in an evil plan for a plan that won’t cover me for 3 years only to get similar… if not worse care?
How ’bout no.
Chaz706 on October 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM
The Future Of American Health Care — “Just Boil It and Reuse It!”
LifeTrek on October 12, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Here’s the latest British national health service success story:
Pensioner ‘left to die in hospice after doctors wrongly diagnosed him with cancer’
Sharke on October 12, 2009 at 7:56 PM
The people have spoken and we don’t want ObamaCare in ANY FORM. Obama & Congress KNOW IT. If these so-called-representatives are hell-bent on shoving ObamaCare down our throats, I say start clearing your calendar for the Bazillion-Man March-type ROLLING PROTEST. Plan for a Capitol-Camp-Out or worse.
NightmareOnKStreet on October 12, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Who could have seen this comin?
JeffinOrlando on October 12, 2009 at 8:40 PM
DarkStar…grow up
CWforFreedom on October 12, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Suspicions, CONFIRMED!!!!
DL13 on October 12, 2009 at 9:11 PM
When Bill’s sent home with some Tylenol, Hurrah! Hurrah!
Obama will give him a hearty high five then, Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Emanuels will cheer, the Kevorkians will shout
The eugenicists they will all turn out
And Good ‘Ol Bill will be dead by Christmas time next year!
Get ready for the Josef Mengele Jubilee
Hurrah! Hurrah!
They’ll give Herr Obama three times three
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Doctor of Life and Death degree is ready now
To place upon his Godly brow
And he’ll feel so gay
When Pallbearers carry Bill to the funeral home
Cheshire Cat on October 12, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Heard it all before.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Whoa, Ed. Your update headline gets it wrong. The incentive you describe would be rent-seeking, not profit. Profit comes from providing a benefit. Rents come from providing access.
Chaz on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM
It is precisely this potential conflict-of-interest that caused patients in the 1980s to reject the similar “capitated” payment systems of HMO’s (Health Maintenance Organizations). The 2009 Massachusetts proposals may carry a new name, but the basic principle is the same.
And caused most state insurance departments as well as accrediting organizations to put severe limits on this practice. At least when HMO’s used these financial incentives, they most often SPLIT the up and down side with the provider thus somewhat limiting provider incentive to limit care. Also, HMOs operate under strict regulation regarding geographic and specialty access as well as strict medical management regulations precisely to counteract the adverse care incentives inherent in a global capitation system. What are the restrictions on the government when it runs such a provider reimbursement scheme?
Tongueboy on October 12, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Capitation: In U.S. health services, capitation refers to a fixed “per capita” amount that is paid to a hospital, clinic or doctor for each person served.
Been around for a long time and it indeed creates perverse incentives as some of you may already know.
There’s even software that helps Docs “make money” from capitated plans.
TheBigOldDog on October 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM
That must have been an imported sweat lodge that killed those spirit cleansing folks down in Arizona.
Saltysam on October 12, 2009 at 10:00 PM
IMHO, that case lies somewhere between the Darwin awards and willing victims of questionable medical practice.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Somebody should go to jail!
TheBigOldDog on October 12, 2009 at 10:04 PM
You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you? I normally oppose violence, but for thieves like you, I can make an exception.
xblade on October 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Talk is cheap.Especially on the Internet.
Even IF by some odd chance we managed to recognize each other on the street corner (maybe with a burst of divine inspiration?), I rather doubt much would happen besides some tough-guy braying on your part. Unless I first tried to do something – like perhaps snatch your lollipop – I would be the winner in the end after suing you into the poorhouse for assault and battery. After that, you’d would get a little stay in the local graybar hotel, learning to play “Don’t Drop the Soap”.
In short: it ain’t worth your effort, you wouldn’t know me, and I count the squawkings of an Internet loudmouth for nothing.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »