The wailing

[Neemi]

4D ultrasound is NOT covered. If a woman wants the ultra-creepy fetal pics, she pays out of pocket for them. There's a bunch of 4D ultrasound picture shops in malls - at least around here. For $50-100, you can get a couple of different non-diagnostic photos. They get around medical prices by being a photography store...

Creepy as all get out, if you ask me. I'm sticking to regular ultrasounds.

[Neemi]

*Not covered = not covered for any of my friends, and there's something in the water because pregnancy sure is going around...

[charby]

That's because Obamacare and pre-existing .gov regulations have made it prohibitively expensive for solo or even 2-3 doc/practitioner offices to continue. 
All the problems you point out that your think "need" to be solved by more .gov were in fact CAUSED by more .gov.

Allow me to by health insurance like I buy car insurance.  Look at what the free market has done there.  All you have to do is look at the TV ads, there is serious competition for my car insurance dollar.  And there is large variety of options and coverages from me to choose from.  Not only from different insurers, but even from the same insurer.  My car, home, and life insurance is not tied to my employer, why should my health insurance?

Growing up, health insurance was "Major Medical" Insurance.  It only covered things like medical treatment for accidents, major illnesses, and surgeries.   Things you went to the hospital for.   Routine doctor visits were paid out of pocket.  Then .gov started mandating "Heath" coverages.  Well-babycare, doctor visits and like.  It's like if your car insurance company had to pay for oil changes and tire rotations.   The cost of car insurance then rises and as more mandates are added (Tires, brakes, bulbs, etc.) the cost of car insurance skyrockets.   That's where we are at now.

And yes, in a hyper-competitive health insurance market, you would be able to get insurance.  Probably even cheaper then what you pay now.  Just look at the number of car insurance companies that advertise and compete for the people with bad driving records.  (Here it's called SR-22 Insurance.)     

totally agree if was a recent thing where I live but it has been this way for about 30 years in Iowa. Private GP practice is drying up as drs retire. Also 30 years ago was big movement from rural to urban in Iowa with the ag crisis. Sorry using smart phone.

[roo_ster]

totally agree if was a recent thing where I live but it has been this way for about 30 years in Iowa. Private GP practice is drying up as drs retire. Also 30 years ago was big movement from rural to urban in Iowa with the ag crisis. Sorry using smart phone.

You don't think there is a link between increasing gov't regulation of healthcare and increasing gov't funding of health care...and private GPs drying up?

My BIL is one of the best OBGYNs in his metro area and he's been trying to sell his practice for 10+ years.  He wants to get into "anti-aging" medicine, which is a euphemism for "general practice that doesn't take insurance and has little gov't oversight."  He wanted out due to govt interference before BHO was elected.  Obamacare made it worse.  But he can't find a buyer despite a booming practice in a great area.  Nobody wants to deal with the sort of interference and oversight folks like yourself seek to impose.  When you can't get care at any price, remember you were part of the problem.

[Perd Hapley]

To bring this back on track, here's some pretty good wailing:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164287/midterm-elections-2014-state-legislatures-governors-party-control

Condensed version: No fair! They're - they're winning! 

[Scout26]

If you paid no taxes, would you donate 35% of your income to charity every year?

And getting back to this.   I was truly insulted by this.  Americans give more money to charities, not only per capita, but also in total dollar amount then anyone else.  Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status.

And yes, I would much rather give 35% of my income to the Salvation Army to take care of the poor and homeless because I know that 34.99999999% will go to buying food, clothing, and shelter for people and not be wasted by bureaucrats as it is now.

Hell, if the VA did even a half-assed job of taking care of veterans there would be no Wounded Warrior Project, DAV, Homes for Heroes, or any of the other many, many veteran assistance charities and groups.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

[roo_ster]

And getting back to this.   I was truly insulted by this.  Americans give more money to charities, not only per capita, but also in total dollar amount then anyone else.  Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status.

And yes, I would much rather give 35% of my income to the Salvation Army to take care of the poor and homeless because I know that 34.99999999% will go to buying food, clothing, and shelter for people and not be wasted by bureaucrats as it is now.

Hell, if the VA did even a half-assed job of taking care of veterans there would be no Wounded Warrior Project, DAV, Homes for Heroes, or any of the other many, many veteran assistance charities and groups.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Scout

A lot of the "charity wont take care of the problem" talk comes from folk who are uncharitable.  The left just doesnt give to charity the way icky social conservatives do.   It is projection and thinking folk are as flinty hearted as they are.

"Well then why dont you give to cause de jour?"
"It wont make any difference if i give."

[charby]

You don't think there is a link between increasing gov't regulation of healthcare and increasing gov't funding of health care...and private GPs drying up?

My BIL is one of the best OBGYNs in his metro area and he's been trying to sell his practice for 10+ years.  He wants to get into "anti-aging" medicine, which is a euphemism for "general practice that doesn't take insurance and has little gov't oversight."  He wanted out due to govt interference before BHO was elected.  Obamacare made it worse.  But he can't find a buyer despite a booming practice in a great area.  Nobody wants to deal with the sort of interference and oversight folks like yourself seek to impose.  When you can't get care at any price, remember you were part of the problem.

I think in state where I live at was started by consolidation by the private sector, used to be in most of the towns over 20k people there was more than one hospital ran by different groups, some religious some private. Also private practices of GPs were everywhere, I don't think the government started the switch here, but the health insurance companies forced it to happen but only paying so much for each procedure/office visit, also the high cost of malpractice insurance didn't help either.

I'm not saying there isn't any fault by the government because they deserve a lot of finger pointing also, but the private sector greed also deserves equal amount of finger pointing.

[charby]

And getting back to this.   I was truly insulted by this.  Americans give more money to charities, not only per capita, but also in total dollar amount then anyone else.  Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status.

And yes, I would much rather give 35% of my income to the Salvation Army to take care of the poor and homeless because I know that 34.99999999% will go to buying food, clothing, and shelter for people and not be wasted by bureaucrats as it is now.

Hell, if the VA did even a half-assed job of taking care of veterans there would be no Wounded Warrior Project, DAV, Homes for Heroes, or any of the other many, many veteran assistance charities and groups.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Do you think that charity would have taken care of the nation in the Great Depression?

Private sector greed is what dictates what the government does, rich people have paid our elected officials quite well to vote in their favor.

[Balog]

Do you think that charity would have taken care of the nation in the Great Depression?

Private sector greed is what dictates what the government does, rich people have paid our elected officials quite well to vote in their favor.

Given that government intervention made the Depression worse Id take my chances on private sector "greed."

[charby]

Given that government intervention made the Depression worse Id take my chances on private sector "greed."

1929-1933 was under Hoover and Hoover had "a government do nothing policy" and the economy did get worse, why he lost the election in 1932.

I don't disagree with Roosevelt's Policies prolonging the depression, but private industry sure didn't do much to help the general economy in the Hoover years either.

[roo_ster]

1929-1933 was under Hoover and Hoover had "a government do nothing policy" and the economy did get worse, why he lost the election in 1932.

I don't disagree with Roosevelt's Policies prolonging the depression, but private industry sure didn't do much to help the general economy in the Hoover years either.

It is not what you know it is what you know that aint so.  And that ^^^ aint so.

HH and fdr had similar policies of interventionism in the economy.  Both spent like crazy and intervened like crazy and used the bully pulpit to influence behavior.  With predictable and similar results.

Fdr gets better pr because he tolerated outright fascists and marxists in his govt.

[Perd Hapley]

An honest question: Would the private sector behave differently, if it operated out of greed; or if it operated on the profit motive, w/o greed? How could one tell, and what would be the difference?

[charby]

It is not what you know it is what you know that aint so.  And that ^^^ aint so.

HH and fdr had similar policies of interventionism in the economy.  Both spent like crazy and intervened like crazy and used the bully pulpit to influence behavior.  With predictable and similar results.

Fdr gets better pr because he tolerated outright fascists and marxists in his govt.

Hoover was far from FDR in the governmental involvement during the depression. Hoover did not get as involved as FDR did.

Hoover did increase spending on public works projects, but he maintained that spending needed to stay with in a balanced budget. Hoover did not want to cause a deficient to fund "welfare".

Hoover also met with all the industry leaders to convince them to stop laying off people and keep wages the same, many of them did go along with. There wasn't any governmental actions there just some conversations with Hoover and the business leaders.

One mistake was probably rolling back taxes cuts to increase the money going to the feds (It was the Democratic controlled congresses idea and Roosevelt attacked him on this on the campaign trail as it being Hoover's fault), congress created the 1932 Revenue Act and Hoover reluctantly signed it. Roosevelt was a shifty individual that loved to blame storm, similar to a Democrat we all know about.

I'm not sure if he reluctantly signed the Glass-Steagall Act or not.

Hoover's biggest screwup was going a bit too far with Ag subsidies/commodities program where there was so much of a surplus that farmers were unable to sell their products for a profit. This is probably what caused a bad recession to go into a depression.

I'm not going to fault Hoover for attempting this because farm market was majorly depressed following WWI and Hoover looked at a subsidies program as a way to make sure farmers produced food for consumption by the American Society. Roosevelt did that this to Nth degree after he got into office.

I'm still going to stick with the Hoover didn't use that much governmental involvement to stop the depression.


************** Correction I forgot about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. roo_ster is correct.

[charby]

An honest question: Would the private sector behave differently, if it operated out of greed; or if it operated on the profit motive, w/o greed? How could one tell, and what would be the difference?

Profit is making a living, greed is driving the bus over everyone to get there.


Think of this guy

[Perd Hapley]

Profit is making a living, greed is driving the bus over everyone to get there.

Sounds more like .gov than the private sector.

Madoff is serving time for fraud, not greed.

[cordex]

Profit is making a living, greed is driving the bus over everyone to get there.

How about: "Profit is what I make for my hard work, greed is what drives everyone I buy from."

[roo_ster]

From the dawn of history, the ultimate power in a polity is the power than can kill, torture, imprison, or otherwise punish without fear of retribution.

That means they guy with the sword gets over on the guy with the plowshare.  The folks who command the guys with the guns will win in a clash with businessmen. 

That is why Martha Stewart spent time in Club Fed and Wal-mart ultimately exists because us.gov decides not to destroy it today.  Tomorrow is another day.

Today, Microsoft has hundreds or thousands of lobbyists.  There was a time, however, when MS had both the most used OS and had zero lobbyists.  They foolishly thought that there was no reason for gov't to interfere with OSes.  That changed with Janet Reno, who taught the tech sector a lesson in rapaciousness, blackmail, and raw power politics.

Yes, some of the rich figure that spending $$$ on policritters gets a better ROI than innovation & suchlike (illegal immigrant & work-visa advocates, for instance). But many of the rich are businessfolk who learn the hard way they need to spend some big bucks on defense or they will get run over / regulated into paste.

[charby]

Don't you think many of the regulations are put in place with support of the big players to keep competition out it?

[roo_ster]

Don't you think many of the regulations are put in place with support of the big players to keep competition out it?

Oh, yes indeed!

I addressed that:

Yes, some of the rich figure that spending $$$ on policritters gets a better ROI than innovation & suchlike (illegal immigrant & work-visa advocates, for instance).

Raising the barriers to entry is a goal sought by companies/folks who figure their $$$ better spent lobbying gov't than investing in their company.

Here's the thing: With minimalist gov't, gov't does not have the power to raise barriers to entry.  It takes a big, powerful gov't to do such things.  The bigger the gov't, the more of this there will be until you enter the "crony capitalist" zone.  Where we have been for quite some time.

Big gov't and big, overbearing business go hand in hand.  It is much easier to regulate several big firms than a multitude of small firms.


Private/Gov't interaction is not a one-way street and it is nothing new under the sun.  It is just human nature.
1. Self defense on the part of business owners/managers. 
Like war, it does not matter if you are not interested in bog gov't, because big gov't is interested in you.  You don;t want to be blind-sided and Lord help you if you cough up the smallest bribe or post-gov't work offer campaign donation.

2. Owners/managers see the ROI of lobbying as greater than the ROI of innovation, improved operations, marketing, or other business-oriented activity.  Contracts, barriers to entry, whatever. 
I recall a subcontractor we dealt with whose biggest expense was lobbying his state congressional delegation.  More than capital, employees, R&D, whatever.  This small business was not really an IT company.  It was a lobbying effort that did IT on the side and supported the family's lifestyle.

3. Congresscritters use regulation as a club to beat campaign donations and other considerations out of the business sector. 
"It would be a shame if we made your business illegal."

4. Political and career staffers in Congress and the executive seeking post-gov't payoffs. 
Bend a regulation when writing the details to favor one company or another...then move to the private sector.  Or, write the regs in such a Byzantine manner that when you quit gov't, you are quickly hired by industry as the expert in negotiating the new regs.

Not all-inclusive, of course.  Only way to minimize it is to minimize gov't.

[Scout26]

Compare and contrast the Depression of 1920 with the one of 1929.

By any objective measure all (first, Hoover, then) FDR did was make the Depression worse. Everything he did made matters worse. Instead of getting out the way and letting markets correct themselves FDR kept messing with thungs he didn't understand and screwing it up. 

By 1933 the ecomony was starting to recover but then FDR took office and sent the economy tumbling again.  Uneployment was falling, but rose again to a peak of 19.6% in 1938 (it had been almost 25% in 1930, but was falling as the markets adjusted.)


Charby, I would highly reommend 
http://www.amazon.com/The-Forgotten-Man-History-Depression/dp/0060936428

For better insight into the great depression.

[Perd Hapley]

USA Today piece on rural hospitals closing. I haven't taken the time to read it, but it seemed relevant to this thread.

http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/11/12/rural-hospital-closings-federal-reimbursement-medicaid-aca/18532471/

[MillCreek]

^^^The issue of rural and critical access hospitals closing is a familiar one, and it has been going on for many years.  It is picking up speed with the ACA cutting reimbursements, on the theory that the small hospitals would pick it up by most of their patients now having insurance under the ACA.  For those states that did not expand Medicaid, that has not worked.

[makattak]

^^^The issue of rural and critical access hospitals closing is a familiar one, and it has been going on for many years.  It is picking up speed with the ACA cutting reimbursements, on the theory that the small hospitals would pick it up by most of their patients now having insurance under the ACA.  For those states that did not expand Medicaid, that has not worked.

Ah, so, as expected, it is a plan to shift costs from the federal government to the states. Shell game.

[MillCreek]

Ah, so, as expected, it is a plan to shift costs from the federal government to the states. Shell game.

Actually, I would argue more that it is a plan to shift costs from the state and Federal government to the healthcare system.  The healthcare system is responding by shutting down.  We cannot keep the doors open if costs continue to exceed revenue.