Wednesday, March 24, 2010


And go read Steve Ross at Speak To Power RIGHT NOW.

You're welcome.


Mark Rogers said...


I find it humorous that the author cites the newspaper industry. If there is a modern equivalent of the buggy whip manufacturers, it is newspapers.

Technological changes and an aging base would have been serious threats to newspapers anyway but the partisanship of most papers also plays a part.

As long as the only practical option for most people who care about news was the local daily, they prospered. Papers, and their writers and editors were free to play politics with considerable impact with little fear of competition.

Now that cable tv and the internet provide multiple options for news, consumers no longer need to depend on sources that they have years of reason to believe have an agenda or certain biases.

callmeishmael said...

So we let the government make our beds? We assume it will act in the best interests of the--still undefined--"middle class?" We assume that government redistribution will be handled with rational objectivity and everyone will receive their "fair share" (as determined presumably by some government agency or office)? Institutions only do what the people who operate them direct them to do. I'm sure you would agree, based upon your correct belief that corporations are not people, right? If so, how is business then to blame for what those people who run them give direction about what to do? When will you folks ever understand that people are the problem, not the institutions we create? From what the Cracker tells me, probably never, but I'm going to keep on asking.

Steve Steffens said...

Ish, that's a helluva leap you're taking there.

Remember, gentlemen, there is no such thing as a free lunch OR a free market, because you do have to pay for the former and the latter is inevitably rigged on behalf of interest groups.

Or do you think the recent financial disaster was warranted and just a blip?

In all seriousness, there are lots of things the market does well but healthcare is not among them. Sure, I have great insurance, but too many people cannot, even if they have the money to purchase a private policy.

Now, hopefully this bill will remedy that, and I believe it is just a start.

My question is this; why resent someone getting healthcare that has not been able to get it up to this point.

Do you WANT to see them die? As reasonable people, I find that hard to believe.

Mark Rogers said...


I was just observing that the author of the article to which you linked chose a poor industry to cite. Health care actually poses exactly the opposite problem in that it is the use of new technology that drives costs rather than eliminates the need for the industry.

The financial meltdown was clearly a call for regulation. But had Congress allowed gradual changes in that area, there would never have been the growing demand for the sort of deregulation we eventually got.

I do not resent someone 'getting' health care. It does bother me when the debate gets reduced to such simplistic terms.

What will you say to those who choose not to take care of themselves and incur greater health care expenses that must be borne by the rest of us? When does society step in and say that an individual's actions must be their responsibility?

I have no problem with helping those who cannot help themselves. I have no problem helping those who want to help themselves. I have an enormous problem with helping those who will not help themselves. And if you want to look at a great example of how health care could go wrong in the same way, look at the disaster that was welfare policy up to the 1990s.

And now the same people who gave us unprecedented inter-generational poverty want to reform health care. If the results are anything like the results of the Great Society's successes with welfare, we will become the sickest society in the world.

callmeishmael said...

Cracker, there certainly is nothing free and that includes government. Taxation will take money out of the economy, but not insure its "equitable distribution." Do you want those about whom you care the most--in political terms--to be consigned to wait six months for a necessary surgery? Stand in line for hours on end to receive basic care? The market may not be in absolute terms "free," but it is better wuite dto providing the breadth and variety of services--including health care--to thee, me and all of us than government command and control.

Steve Steffens said...

Ish, talked to any Canadians lately?


callmeishmael said...

One of my colleagues here conveyed a conversation he had with a Canadian friend during the recent health care debate. My colleague's friends said "Whatever you do, DON'T get what we have." Good enough for me... :)