Obama plans to charge wounded military members for health care.

[ikaris]

This is essentially a precursor to remove the profitability of insurance companies that try to screw over people that are trying to get better.

By having the military veterans use the pathetic private health insurance system, it will further expose the ridiculousness of having a health care system that is based on profit.

As people get outraged, Obama could suggest that we should have a single payer, universal health care. Problem solved.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm "throwing it at us libertarians" because wanting vets to have the government pay for their health care is, as has been said, a moral argument and not an economic one. It's perfectly possible to have them pay for their own health care, so why not do it?

To be clear, I am in full agreement that the gov't should be liable for all the costs here, but that's because I don't think that economic rationality trumps all else. The libertarian position, though, is that it DOES, so arguments that resort to what the government "owes" its employees fall down before the fact that it would undoubtedly cost them less money to either force the soldiers to buy their own health insurance or have them co-pay at least some of the costs instead of getting a socialist free ride.

Once you admit that not every issue involving spending money can be reduced down to what is most economically efficient, then you start looking at comparing what's best for society vs what's best for the economic actors within society, which is anathema to the libertarian idea that what is best for the economic actors is necessarily also best for society.

That's a moral argument. Again, I'm fine with it, but to expand on IFF's question, why is a moral argument allowable for soldiers with expensive and debilitating wounds but not for children with expensive and debilitating illnesses? We're not disagreeing with the argument, we're disagreeing that libertarian premises can support such an argument and - critically - we're saying that such premises are invalidated precisely because such arguments can and should be made.

The libertarian position would be that soldiers were fraudulently enlisted if their promised benefits are withdrawn. That is not a moral argument.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by badnarik

The libertarian position would be that soldiers were fraudulently enlisted if their promised benefits are withdrawn. That is not a moral argument.

So grandfather the current enlistees' benefits and screw over the new recruits, if you really believe that changing benefits (which isn't what they are doing, anyway - they are changing who PAYS the benefits) is some kind of fraud. That's not a moral "argument", that's not really an argument at all - it's more like really, really stretching the definition of "fraud" to avoid an inconsistency in your worldview.

Should I have sued Bell when they switched insurance companies and some of the benefits changed or were reduced for me? I think libertarians as well as everyone else would have laughed me out of court, and rightly so.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ikaris

This is essentially a precursor to remove the profitability of insurance companies that try to screw over people that are trying to get better.

By having the military veterans use the pathetic private health insurance system, it will further expose the ridiculousness of having a health care system that is based on profit.

As people get outraged, Obama could suggest that we should have a single payer, universal health care. Problem solved.

So wounded soldiers are the vehicle for Barack Obama's political ambitions? That's even worse than mere callousness!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

So wounded soldiers are the vehicle for Barack Obama's political ambitions? That's even worse than mere callousness!

Somehow I'm unconvinced by the sincerity of your outrage. In any case, Obama's overall plans for the health care system in the U.S. are an entirely separate topic.

What's weird to me is how everything gets exaggerated with this guy. He wants to raise taxes on the top portion of income for the wealthiest Americans by 3%, and suddenly "he's a socialist!" (never mind that that same rate was 11% higher under Reagan!) He proposes a pragmatic (overly so, in my view) solution to an obviously broken health care system, and "he's a radical!" He ask private insurers to take on some of the health care costs for veterans and "he's a callous fiscal conservative!" He proposes spending money on the ailing infrastructure to stimulate the economy and "he spends too much money!"

For some people, he can't win. I guess for others, maybe he can't lose. My own view is that he's just a guy trying to govern--an exceptional person in many ways, but in every sense an imperfect human being doing his best to do what he thinks is right. But then I think that about most politicians.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that we all be a little less trigger-happy about judging Obama's character until we've seen what he's capable of.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by ikaris

This is essentially a precursor to remove the profitability of insurance companies that try to screw over people that are trying to get better.

By having the military veterans use the pathetic private health insurance system, it will further expose the ridiculousness of having a health care system that is based on profit.

As people get outraged, Obama could suggest that we should have a single payer, universal health care. Problem solved.

I really think this is the avenue he's going down.

"Vets can't afford their healthcare premiums!"
"Vets aren't being reimbursed for their treatments because they were preexisting conditions!"
"Everyone is paying higher premiums because of the price of treating Veterans!"

Obama: "I have a suggestion, how about universal single payer healthcare, hmm?"

Personally, I have nothing against a single payer system, as long as it can be shown to be effective with the large population in the U.S. The only experience I had with a similar system was in the Marine Corps. It was nice not to expect a bill in the mail, but the level of care was not as high in my mind.

I'd be concerned about the red tape you'd have to cut through to see a doctor of your choice, or for a non-emergency. I imagine on a smaller scale, my Canadian brethren could relate and possibly educate me.

All I know is that if I had to have my family under my wife's insurance plan, the $580 a month premium would be a tough pill to swallow. I'm fortunate to have the lower premium of being in a large pool of workers to defelct some of the cost of insurance.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Somehow I'm unconvinced by the sincerity of your outrage. In any case, Obama's overall plans for the health care system in the U.S. are an entirely separate topic.

What's weird to me is how everything gets exaggerated with this guy. He wants to raise taxes on the top portion of income for the wealthiest Americans by 3%, and suddenly "he's a socialist!" (never mind that that same rate was 11% higher under Reagan!) He proposes a pragmatic (overly so, in my view) solution to an obviously broken health care system, and "he's a radical!" He ask private insurers to take on some of the health care costs for veterans and "he's a callous fiscal conservative!" He proposes spending money on the ailing infrastructure to stimulate the economy and "he spends too much money!"

For some people, he can't win. I guess for others, maybe he can't lose. My own view is that he's just a guy trying to govern--an exceptional person in many ways, but in every sense an imperfect human being doing his best to do what he thinks is right. But then I think that about most politicians.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that we all be a little less trigger-happy about judging Obama's character until we've seen what he's capable of.

It was meant to be a slight parody of outrage directed at the poster.

To be honest, the guy is just a run-of-the-mill Keynesian Liberal. Nothing more or nothing less. In terms of domestic policy, he has been incredibly mediocre so far.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

I really think this is the avenue he's going down.

"Vets can't afford their healthcare premiums!"
"Vets aren't being reimbursed for their treatments because they were preexisting conditions!"
"Everyone is paying higher premiums because of the price of treating Veterans!"

Obama: "I have a suggestion, how about universal single payer healthcare, hmm?"

So, provided Obama accomplishes that you, as a former military member, have no problem screwing over disabled and wounded military people?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was meant to be a slight parody of outrage directed at the poster.

To be honest, the guy is just a run-of-the-mill Keynesian Liberal. Nothing more or nothing less. In terms of domestic policy, he has been incredibly mediocre so far.

Nowadays everyone's a Keynesian!

I'm not convinced that the petulant demagoguery of supply-side ideologue John McCain would have been better. And in any case, that ship has sailed. Most people with any sense agree that a Keynesian model is what's needed in the short term anyway. The others are trying to revise history and claim that the New Deal failed (see Rush Limbaugh)--but you and I both know that history ain't on their side.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not a big fan of putting the welfare of war vets and soldiers in the hands of private insurance. We've seen how they operate before.

Premiums will increase especially for military members, even moreso for members who have a better chance of being deployed into battle zones.

Soldier A gets severly wounded, Insurance company pulls the whole 6 bullet wounds to the chest aren't covered, or they make recommendations to control the costs of treatment.

Soldier A gets wounded, his family can no longer draw on the family life insurance because they've reached their limits.

We've seen what happens when private for profit corporations get involved in health care, I cringe at what happens when its trauma based health care.

I have to wonder why the U.S. government continues to give free health care to illegal immigrants, that to me is leaking more money then wounded soldiers.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Nowadays everyone's a Keynesian!

I'm not convinced that the petulant demagoguery of supply-side ideologue John McCain would have been better. And in any case, that ship has sailed. Most people with any sense agree that a Keynesian model is what's needed in the short term anyway. The others are trying to revise history and claim that the New Deal failed (see Rush Limbaugh)--but you and I both know that history ain't on their side.

Well, you used several convenient strawmen to bolster your position.

There is significant economic/historical evidence that the New Deal and Second World War only prolonged a financial bubble from the 1920s and instilled false consumer confidence until the 1970s when it all broke to pieces.

Keynesian theory is a somewhat effective criticism of neo-classical economics (which is probably the majority of opinion among actual economists) until you get to the actual long-term outcome of financial stimulus packages on consumer confidence and recovery of activity.

It doesn't matter what John McCain or Rush Limbaugh think, the Keynesians are just as, if not more, politically motivated to increase public sector spending.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Azure

So, provided Obama accomplishes that you, as a former military member, have no problem screwing over disabled and wounded military people?

Of course I have a problem with that. I certainly don't approve of the tactic, if that truly is the means to the end. Veterans should never bear the brunt of anyone's desire for political gain. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for ages here in the States.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

Of course I have a problem with that. I certainly don't approve of the tactic, if that truly is the means to the end. Veterans should never bear the brunt of anyone's desire for political gain. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for ages here in the States.

Well, there is always the chance of being injured in a training accident too....although that doesn't happen near as often, but I get your point, and agree.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, you used several convenient strawmen to bolster your position.

There is significant economic/historical evidence that the New Deal and Second World War only prolonged a financial bubble from the 1920s and instilled false consumer confidence until the 1970s when it all broke to pieces.

Keynesian theory is a somewhat effective criticism of neo-classical economics (which is probably the majority of opinion among actual economists) until you get to the actual long-term outcome of financial stimulus packages on consumer confidence and recovery of activity.

It doesn't matter what John McCain or Rush Limbaugh think, the Keynesians are just as, if not more, politically motivated to increase public sector spending.

50 years is a very long bubble. One almost wonders if the term "bubble" is applicable when a "Bubble" is decades longer than the downturn that follows it.

In any case, that's not the right's argument--their argument is far more nonsensical. In essence, it's that World War II, not the New Deal, ended the recession.

That's not a straw man--that's the real alternative to Obama in the last election. A Republican party so unable to adapt to the changing realities that they're willing to revise history in order to claim that their obviously failed policies are still right. Every historian worth their salt knows that the New Deal has a massively stimulative effect up until the second Roosevelt recession--which was shallower than the Hoover recession, and had complex causes of its own. Prior to that, Roosevelt's policies cut unemployment from 20% to under 10%.

Claiming that WWII was the real reason actually isn't an argument at all--it's pointint to an even bigger government spending program as having lifted the U.S. out of recession for good, pushing unemployment down under two percent.

All of which is not really relevant anyway, because Obama is very different from Roosevelt. It doesn't sound like you and I disagree much about him, except that I see him as the clear lesser of two evils, and even his half-measures are surely better than the nothing-at-all offered by his opponent. But he's more like Clinton than Roosevelt--a centrist, a pragmatist--certainly not the leftist ideologue that he's made out to be.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by ikaris

As people get outraged, Obama could suggest that we should have a single payer, universal health care. Problem solved.

I think that's his goal, part of his "yes we can" campaign.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

I think that's his goal, part of his "yes we can" campaign.

"yes we can"(screw over military members in order to achieve our objective)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

50 years is a very long bubble. One almost wonders if the term "bubble" is applicable when a "Bubble" is decades longer than the downturn that follows it.

In any case, that's not the right's argument--their argument is far more nonsensical. In essence, it's that World War II, not the New Deal, ended the recession.

That's not a straw man--that's the real alternative to Obama in the last election. A Republican party so unable to adapt to the changing realities that they're willing to revise history in order to claim that their obviously failed policies are still right. Every historian worth their salt knows that the New Deal has a massively stimulative effect up until the second Roosevelt recession--which was shallower than the Hoover recession, and had complex causes of its own. Prior to that, Roosevelt's policies cut unemployment from 20% to under 10%.

Claiming that WWII was the real reason actually isn't an argument at all--it's pointint to an even bigger government spending program as having lifted the U.S. out of recession for good, pushing unemployment down under two percent.

All of which is not really relevant anyway, because Obama is very different from Roosevelt. It doesn't sound like you and I disagree much about him, except that I see him as the clear lesser of two evils, and even his half-measures are surely better than the nothing-at-all offered by his opponent. But he's more like Clinton than Roosevelt--a centrist, a pragmatist--certainly not the leftist ideologue that he's made out to be.

Yes, but insinuating that the activity and opinions of partisan politicians amounts to a reputable and dominant theory of economics is a strawman. Meanwhile, Keynesianism depends upon political partisanship to be a viable economic theory!

I do see your point about WW2, it is a fallacy. In fact, both the New Deal and the WW2 expansion of manufacturing are both examples of an increasing public sector and massive state spending.

As well, financial bubbles can last as long as the reality of economics is shielded by either dishonesty or interventionist government policy. That's the problem with Keynes' theory as postulated by his current followers. It only looks at the short-term, measuring trends in the period of years, instead of decades.

As for Obama, we'll see. I think his pragmatism is already getting him into a heap of trouble as his muddled domestic policy is showing. It'd almost be better for an ideologue to be in office right so there would be some decisive and non-hesitant action. We saw that with Reagan (and I am no Reagan fan boy) and his decisive tax policy which certainly pulled the US out of an inflationary mire.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Most people with any sense agree that a Keynesian model is what's needed in the short term anyway. The others are trying to revise history and claim that the New Deal failed (see Rush Limbaugh)--but you and I both know that history ain't on their side.

Wishful thinking.

New Deal did more harm than good (and I don't care for Rush Limbaugh). It made the recession worse and it prolonged the recovery.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Wishful thinking.

New Deal did more harm than good (and I don't care for Rush Limbaugh). It made the recession worse and it prolonged the recovery.

Unemployment rates by year during the first Roosevelt administration:

1933: 20.6
1934: 16.0
1935: 14.2
1936: 9.9
1937: 9.1

Sorry--I guess you had some kind of a point, but I couldn't hear you over all the facts.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Azure

"yes we can"(screw over military members in order to achieve our objective)

It actually demonizes insurances companies more so then affecting military veterans. The veterans will receive the care that they require, and then it will become a massive PR issue for insurance companies that try to raise rates.

Many people have been aware of all the loopholes insurance companies and HMOs have been using to ensure that they don't have to pay for the proper care for the ill. No one seems to care because the majority of people are healthy and do not have to experience this problem.

Let's see the insurance companies try to do this to veterans. The outrage will expose the hypocrisy of the system for all to see because no one can ignore those who have served their country and performed the ultimate sacrifice.

Pretty shrewd move by Obama.