critical thought

[John Roberts]

Re: critical thought

I wrote a long thoughtful answer and my computer ate it, so short version follows.
---
Economic growth is stalling because of uncertainty about future business costs, ranging from tax policy to healthcare. Big business is not "the" problem (perhaps "a" problem due to crony capitalism and distorted tax code that hurts small business). This uncertainty about the future impacts consumer spending as well as business investment, they feed into each other.
-----
Business would be crazy to hire and spend more right now with tax cuts set to expire in Jan, and administration calling for even more tax increases. Holding cash is just being prudent. Does anybody expect robust investment and growth until we have some more certainty about the future?
-----
We can't borrow enough water to fill the well, priming the pump is only a short term thing, and priming water must be paid back,,, ask Europe about that.
------
The economy is actually growing slowly and there is pent up demand for household formation, and replacement of major appliances, but we need to move beyond all these short term government band aids, that burn brightly then burn out, leaving less oxygen in the room.

Slow and steady, but certain will win.


Of course opinions vary and i could be wrong... But any discussion is good, we all need to question the easy answers being presented (including mine). I wasn't offering a short list, of quick fixes, but a few examples from a longer list of problems I perceive.

My primary point is to be suspicious of the persuaders trying to lead you one way or the other. If you perceive me as one of the "persuaders" so be it, I believe the BS I am peddling. You should believe what your powers of observation tell you to believe.

JR

 

[W. Mark Hellinger]

Re: critical thought

While excessive food consumption is arguably not good for mother earth I don't think it should be against the law (mayor Bloomberg). That seems like a logical connecting of the dots if government takes over all health care cost responsibility. I prefer the free market approach, you want to eat yourself to death, OK pay more for your personal healthcare, and then die. While It was hard to foresee children getting adult onset diabetes from pigging out, and they won't die quickly or well.

I'm of the impression that the general public (or some portion of the general public) doesn't particularly want entitlement to health care (socialized health insurance), what they really want is entitlement to health assurance regardless of their lifestyle, genetics, etc... (If I break it or have a run of bad luck, somebody else will pay for my misfortune.)

Putting this burden on the public, I believe, is a slippery slope resulting in lifestyle being regulated... similar to seat belt or helmet laws. I'm of the understanding that seat belt laws, or helmet laws... while the practice (of wearing a seatbelt) may arguably be a good idea, do we really need a laws to save ourselves from ourselves? Well yes, we need laws to save ourselves from ourselves if we're all paying for anyone person's reckless activities where the result of that reckless activity could cost society big bucks for the resulting aftermath care of said reckless activity... and there-in the door opens wide for passage of any and all laws (by the nanny state) to save ourselves from ourselves... unless of-course that activity could likely considerably shorten lifespan with minimal health assurance costs for society to bear (like skydiving without a parachute, for example).

 

[John Roberts]

Re: critical thought

I'm of the impression that the general public (or some portion of the general public) doesn't particularly want entitlement to health care (socialized health insurance), what they really want is entitlement to health assurance regardless of their lifestyle, genetics, etc... (If I break it or have a run of bad luck, somebody else will pay for my misfortune.)

It is hard enough to know what we think, let alone a few hundred million peeps.

In my experience, some fraction look to the government as an all-powerful protective entity. Others (like me) see a less competent group of politicians willing to promise pretty much anything to get re-elected, but limited in their ability to deliver on those promises by reality.

Putting this burden on the public, I believe, is a slippery slope resulting in lifestyle being regulated... similar to seat belt or helmet laws. I'm of the understanding that seat belt laws, or helmet laws... while the practice (of wearing a seatbelt) may arguably be a good idea, do we really need a laws to save ourselves from ourselves?

A classic question about free will and personal responsibility... I am not a fan of seat belt or helmet laws, while I religiously wear belts and helmets. My old helmet has a road rash, that would have been my head scraped along the road, so I understand the merit of prophylactic safety measures.

Well yes, we need laws to save ourselves from ourselves if we're all paying for anyone person's reckless activities where the result of that reckless activity could cost society big bucks for the resulting aftermath care of said reckless activity... and there-in the door opens wide for passage of any and all laws (by the nanny state) to save ourselves from ourselves... unless of-course that activity could likely considerably shorten lifespan with minimal health assurance costs for society to bear (like skydiving without a parachute, for example).

I am trying to wrap my head around how will we pay for the trajectory we are on. There are lots of false arguments flying around, and precious little real cost reform in health care delivery. I am weary from re-arguing the original health care debate. For now we wait on the SCOTUS, and to see how future legislatures will try to reform this, or not.

While I believe this grand experiment was undertaken with the best intentions, we are now a couple years down the road, with no apparent progress in cost reduction, just spreading the cost burden across more younger healthy people to subsidize those who aren't (young or healthy) with more government intrusion into the economy and our lives. Since I am not young I probably shouldn't complain about being subsidized by youth, but they have it hard enough with the debt bomb they are inheriting. In an interesting counter example, maine recently deregulated their health insurance industry and enjoyed significant premium reductions.

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare in Reverse - WSJ.com. I wouldn't read too much into this, as this was reversing an earlier legislative attempt by Maine that reduced insurance market competition, but the recent result does support the premise of competition as a beneficial strategy to reduce costs.

Again this is one area that certainly needs a lot of critical inspection. Don't take my word for it.

JR