China has much of our debt. There has been much angst about this. What I want to know is this???
How in the hell would China EVER collect if we were to default. Can you really see China's military coming over here and taking it????? No. If we default, then China is screwed. Any attempt by China to come over here to take anything would result in nuclear war. China knows this as does the USA. THIS is why China is scolding us.
China is in a rough spot. If they keep buying our debt and then we default - China is screwed.
If they stop buying our debt and it crashes our economy and we default, China is screwed.
Now I do not advocate the USA defaulting. It would destroy the USA as a secure and safe financial haven. Also, it would cause huge upheavals in this country. We would be unable to import goods for anything other than cold hard cash. It would cause enormous hardships for the citizen. This hardship would continue until our manufacturing and farming capacities were restored and back online. This country CAN be self sufficient. We do not NEED any of the rest of the world. We have the ability and resources to provide for ourselves.
This brings me to another point. This is a conspiracy theory. Could we be waging a sort of economic war?? We are going into debt. We went ever so slowly at first and each administration has slowly accelerated the pace.....the lone exception MAY have been Clinton. Are we using China and others to buy our debt...Using them and their resources .....sucking them dry....then telling the Sorry - We can't pay you. Then as stated above, China and the others cannot do anything about it without a nuclear strike against us....which will insure their own demise.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
On the Public Option in Healthcare
This is an emotionally charged issue for many. Many hope that a government health care plan with a public option becomes law. Many of these people are people unable to get insurance due to their health, or they have friends or family in such a position. A couple that I have known much of my life have cancer - both of them. Their insurance costs are rising all the time. They may not be able to afford the insurance much longer. They are fervently hoping for the passage of a bill with the public option. I can really understand. I really feel for this couple. I HATE seeing them in dire straits. Is the public option the answer????
Lets look at the pros and cons of a public option.
Pros...
1 - Everyone is covered regardless of condition or income.
2 - No 'out of pocket' costs
Cons
1 - While the coverage is equal, the tax burdens for it are not.
2 - No one can opt out of paying for it - even if they opt out of participation in it.
3 - This will have the effect of establishing government control of medical personnel's pay. This will very likely deter many of the brightest young people from entering the medical field.
4 - This is a precedent for any numbers of ever more invasive 'for the public good' legislation.
5 - If something is perceived to be 'free', then there will be no disincentive for frivolous visits to the doctor or the hospital. This will increase the traffic into medical facilities. If we have more traffic and fewer providers, then we have waiting lists and lines.
6 - A large part of the taxes that WILL be levied to pay for a public option will be absorbed by the bureaucracy established to oversee the whole thing. If demand reaches a certain point, then money becomes an issue. When money becomes an issue, there are two choices. 1 - run at a deficit. 2 - Start rationing of health care. Choice 1 is unsustainable - See medicare and social security. Choice 2 will be implemented. See Canada's, Britain's, and France's health care systems.
The above are the technical pros and cons.
Yet there is a very fundamental issue not yet discussed. That issue is the constitutional one and the systemic one.
Our financial system is a capitalistic one. The basic tenant of that system is that those with more ability are rewarded accordingly. Another way to look at capitalism is thus : 2 parties trade - each to his or her own benefit. Where that benefit does not exist for one of those parties, no trade occurs. OR - If you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread and you deem the price too high, then you do not buy the bread. If you deem the price of the bread fair - you buy the bread.
A socialist system has this as it's tenant : From each according to ability , To each according to need. Our current tax system is socialistic in nature. As an individual climbs the income ladder, he or she pays more taxes. Yet, the individual paying more does not get more from government than the individual paying less. Actually, the individual paying less or none receives the most from government. An example of this is the health department services available to those below a certain income level.
The fault of the socialist system is that it is ignorant of human nature. If someone of exceptional ability has no incentive to utilize that ability - he or she won't. This will retard the progress of our advances in every field.
The fault of a socialist system is that one person's need becomes a mortgage upon another person's life. AHA!!! You say. "How is a system socialistic when EVERYONE pays and EVERYONE benefits!!!" That would be a good point IF ...IF it were true. Everyone will not pay. Those who do pay will not pay equally. Yet all participants will get the same medical care as good or as bad as it may be. It is quite likely that it will eventually be illegal to obtain health care outside the system.
Thus arises another question. Will the public option become the only option? I think it will have to. Let me list my reasons for this belief.
1 - A public option can undercut private insurance on out of pocket costs. (Public Option has no out of pocket costs.)
2 - A public option does not have to show a profit.
3 - Everyone will pay for the public option, so why not use it.
4 - Insurance companies will shift to insuring the public option...a large group plan spread among several insurance companies...the rest go out of business.
5 - As a result of #4, Insurance companies will become essentially a government department.
The result of the points above is to make private health insurance unavailable.
NOW...This will not all happen all at once. This will slip in slowly over a period of years. The legislation to come may not even mention a public option - or it will use obfuscating language to disguise it.
Finally, we come to the constitutional issue.
NOWHERE in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is there any authority whatsoever given to the federal government to involve itself in health care. As a further matter of fact, the federal government has already FAR exceeded it's authority as laid out in the constitution and Bill of Rights.
As I have said before. The fundamental issue is just how much personal responsibility do you wish to transfer to the government? Do understand that with the transfer of responsibility comes a transfer of privacy, control, and liberty.
Lets look at the pros and cons of a public option.
Pros...
1 - Everyone is covered regardless of condition or income.
2 - No 'out of pocket' costs
Cons
1 - While the coverage is equal, the tax burdens for it are not.
2 - No one can opt out of paying for it - even if they opt out of participation in it.
3 - This will have the effect of establishing government control of medical personnel's pay. This will very likely deter many of the brightest young people from entering the medical field.
4 - This is a precedent for any numbers of ever more invasive 'for the public good' legislation.
5 - If something is perceived to be 'free', then there will be no disincentive for frivolous visits to the doctor or the hospital. This will increase the traffic into medical facilities. If we have more traffic and fewer providers, then we have waiting lists and lines.
6 - A large part of the taxes that WILL be levied to pay for a public option will be absorbed by the bureaucracy established to oversee the whole thing. If demand reaches a certain point, then money becomes an issue. When money becomes an issue, there are two choices. 1 - run at a deficit. 2 - Start rationing of health care. Choice 1 is unsustainable - See medicare and social security. Choice 2 will be implemented. See Canada's, Britain's, and France's health care systems.
The above are the technical pros and cons.
Yet there is a very fundamental issue not yet discussed. That issue is the constitutional one and the systemic one.
Our financial system is a capitalistic one. The basic tenant of that system is that those with more ability are rewarded accordingly. Another way to look at capitalism is thus : 2 parties trade - each to his or her own benefit. Where that benefit does not exist for one of those parties, no trade occurs. OR - If you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread and you deem the price too high, then you do not buy the bread. If you deem the price of the bread fair - you buy the bread.
A socialist system has this as it's tenant : From each according to ability , To each according to need. Our current tax system is socialistic in nature. As an individual climbs the income ladder, he or she pays more taxes. Yet, the individual paying more does not get more from government than the individual paying less. Actually, the individual paying less or none receives the most from government. An example of this is the health department services available to those below a certain income level.
The fault of the socialist system is that it is ignorant of human nature. If someone of exceptional ability has no incentive to utilize that ability - he or she won't. This will retard the progress of our advances in every field.
The fault of a socialist system is that one person's need becomes a mortgage upon another person's life. AHA!!! You say. "How is a system socialistic when EVERYONE pays and EVERYONE benefits!!!" That would be a good point IF ...IF it were true. Everyone will not pay. Those who do pay will not pay equally. Yet all participants will get the same medical care as good or as bad as it may be. It is quite likely that it will eventually be illegal to obtain health care outside the system.
Thus arises another question. Will the public option become the only option? I think it will have to. Let me list my reasons for this belief.
1 - A public option can undercut private insurance on out of pocket costs. (Public Option has no out of pocket costs.)
2 - A public option does not have to show a profit.
3 - Everyone will pay for the public option, so why not use it.
4 - Insurance companies will shift to insuring the public option...a large group plan spread among several insurance companies...the rest go out of business.
5 - As a result of #4, Insurance companies will become essentially a government department.
The result of the points above is to make private health insurance unavailable.
NOW...This will not all happen all at once. This will slip in slowly over a period of years. The legislation to come may not even mention a public option - or it will use obfuscating language to disguise it.
Finally, we come to the constitutional issue.
NOWHERE in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is there any authority whatsoever given to the federal government to involve itself in health care. As a further matter of fact, the federal government has already FAR exceeded it's authority as laid out in the constitution and Bill of Rights.
As I have said before. The fundamental issue is just how much personal responsibility do you wish to transfer to the government? Do understand that with the transfer of responsibility comes a transfer of privacy, control, and liberty.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)