A man was going from New York City to Washington when he got into a bad car wreck.
The ambulance came and could not take him to the hospital since it was out of his insurance network.
A doctor stopped to see if he was ok, but since the doctor's malpractice insurance had lapsed he did not treat the man for fear of lawsuits and losing his license to practice medicine.
A congress woman stopped to take him to her hospital. The people at the front desk asked her for the man's proof of insurance. She told them that she did not know, but that she was working on a plan that would get this man the correct coverage he needed to get back to health as long as the votes passed later that afternoon. They could only admit the man to the overcrowded ER where he waited four hours to get help.
When the congress woman went outside she was chastised by many other townspeople with shouts of disdain at how expensive this plan would cost them. They shouted that she was promoting fascism, taking away their freedom, invading their privacy, and handing their children and parents over to death.
Who is this man's friend?
Related posts:
drew, I wouldnt have a problem with the healthcare thing if this were the way it was going, with people volunteering to pay others' bills. that's not what we're talking about, though. what it is, is congress essentially putting a gun to my temple and forcing me to pay someone else's bill. it encourages abuse and fraud. it creates–similar to the bank bailouts and their high-risk investments–moral hazard: why should I worry about my health or lifestyle choices when I can just rely on the government to pay to have me fixed?
a little vignette: not long ago, there was a bill before congress to award rosa parks with a congressional medal for her service in the 60s to the cause of civil rights. ron paul stood up in (shockingly) opposition to the bill because he felt it was a misappropriation of tax dollars, not because he felt she didn't deserve recognition. he suggested, ala davy crockett, that the house members pool their own money and purchase the gold medal for ms parks, offering $100 from his own pocket. nobody else was willing to spend a cent of his own money on the award.
your average congresscritters are all about charity and social justice when it costs them nothing. but ask them to bear even a tiny fraction of the cost themselves, and they scatter like cockroaches when you turn on the lights.
i want to hear more about a sustainable non-profit cooperative plan. i was reading what scant material there is about it, but this would seem like a decent way to go.
i have no problem with that… in fact, if congress would explore several trial versions of the 'big plan,' it would stick in my craw less. multiple competing systems would by definition (assuming none was politically favored over others) expose the best possible system, but any cooperative system would by definition have to be voluntary on all sides–voluntaryism, in fact, should be the standard, not coercion.
but i dont get the aversion to profit motive, drew. smith's magnum opus discussed the positive (unintended) consequences of profit motive, and post-keynesian austrian and even (less robust) chicago school economists have further dealt with it. since it goes against human nature to be altruistic, profit is the best motivator there is. self-interest (when not mandated into mono-/oligopoly by complicit government) benefits everyone in a given economic landscape.
Not for nothing Big Pharma is out there promoting Obamacare… they stand to make hefty oligarchic gains there. less government, not more, will improve everything, including your 'sustainable non-profit cooperative' plan.
(btw, i seem to recall hearing radio ads in the last few years for a 'proverbs 22' [2? 9?] ministires,' a group like what you've been talking about: members contribute into, apparently, a pool of funds and settle medical bills as needed from the fund. of course, this is the way that insurance companies are supposed to work.. 'comprehensive medical' pretty much killed that, tho)
drew, I wouldnt have a problem with the healthcare thing if this were the way it was going, with people volunteering to pay others' bills. that's not what we're talking about, though. what it is, is congress essentially putting a gun to my temple and forcing me to pay someone else's bill. it encourages abuse and fraud. it creates–similar to the bank bailouts and their high-risk investments–moral hazard: why should I worry about my health or lifestyle choices when I can just rely on the government to pay to have me fixed?
a little vignette: not long ago, there was a bill before congress to award rosa parks with a congressional medal for her service in the 60s to the cause of civil rights. ron paul stood up in (shockingly) opposition to the bill because he felt it was a misappropriation of tax dollars, not because he felt she didn't deserve recognition. he suggested, ala davy crockett, that the house members pool their own money and purchase the gold medal for ms parks, offering $100 from his own pocket. nobody else was willing to spend a cent of his own money on the award.
your average congresscritters are all about charity and social justice when it costs them nothing. but ask them to bear even a tiny fraction of the cost themselves, and they scatter like cockroaches when you turn on the lights.
i want to hear more about a sustainable non-profit cooperative plan. i was reading what scant material there is about it, but this would seem like a decent way to go.
i have no problem with that… in fact, if congress would explore several trial versions of the 'big plan,' it would stick in my craw less. multiple competing systems would by definition (assuming none was politically favored over others) expose the best possible system, but any cooperative system would by definition have to be voluntary on all sides–voluntaryism, in fact, should be the standard, not coercion.
but i dont get the aversion to profit motive, drew. smith's magnum opus discussed the positive (unintended) consequences of profit motive, and post-keynesian austrian and even (less robust) chicago school economists have further dealt with it. since it goes against human nature to be altruistic, profit is the best motivator there is. self-interest (when not mandated into mono-/oligopoly by complicit government) benefits everyone in a given economic landscape.
Not for nothing Big Pharma is out there promoting Obamacare… they stand to make hefty oligarchic gains there. less government, not more, will improve everything, including your 'sustainable non-profit cooperative' plan.
(btw, i seem to recall hearing radio ads in the last few years for a 'proverbs 22' [2? 9?] ministires,' a group like what you've been talking about: members contribute into, apparently, a pool of funds and settle medical bills as needed from the fund. of course, this is the way that insurance companies are supposed to work.. 'comprehensive medical' pretty much killed that, tho)