What Battlestar Galactica Taught Me About Healthcare "Reform"

http://bytestyle.tv/node/46

"The politicians tell us free market health care doesn't work, but we haven't had a free market in decades."

PLEASE READ:
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/you'll+regret+it+for+the+rest+of+your+shor...

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/we-already-know-the-results-of-one-so-called-h...

http://www.breakthematrix.com/blog/10813




New Report from the Congressional Budget Office:

* Enacting this proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion

* According to the CBO, this legislation will leave at least 36 million Americans uninsured

* It will force at least 23 million Americans to give up the health coverage they have.

* There would be no change from current law regarding Medicaid or the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

CONTACT YOUR REPS:
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/114

From DownsizeDC.org:
The government already pays for nearly half of all health care. This means we're half-socialized already.

Starting with depression era wage and price controls, and continuing with government tax policies, the politicians have made Americans dependent on their jobs to get health insurance.

State government policies have made insurance too expensive by piling on special interest mandates dictating specific types of coverage.

Medicare and Medicaid have fixed the prices we pay for health care, causing the extraordinary paradox of both price inflation and shortages in areas like primary care.

* * * * *

This alert was made possible by my awesome sponsors:

Midas Resources: http://bit.ly/MidasResources

The Leadership Institute: http://leadershipinstitute.org

Berkey Light Water Filters: http://directive21.com

More info: http://bytestyle.tv/sponsors

* * * * *

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• obama
• healthcare
• medicare
• medicaid
• congress
• news
• politics
• budget
• economy
• deficit
• shelly roche
• breakthematrix
• ron paul
• medicine
• doctor
• AMA
• malpractice
• battlestar galactica

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit Just to illustrate my point, just look at the 1.2 trillion "bailout" the Fed gave the banks on which they made 13 billion of free money. Such isn't inhibiting, it is enabling. Give me a 1.2 trillion loan with 0.01% interest and I too could pocket 13 billion with ease, so such practices aren't just artificially propping up the economy - I would contend it's also highly immoral. Though, I'm aware that pulling in morals in a discussion about free market is pointless.

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit ... this does not inhibit their business freedom, in fact it makes them much freer to run their business however they please. If they did not have the Federal Reserve to fall back on, this would have demanded much greater care when constructing their business models, as each of the previous mentioned phone calls then would have implied the bank hitting the ceiling of their potential.

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit So I agree, this is a problem which only got worse after Goldmen Sachs successfully lobbied for banks getting to take even higher risks with even more leverage. However, I will contest your assertion that the centralized banking system inhibits the free market, and contend that it does quite the opposite. When banks running out of cash merely needs to pick up the phone and call Freddy Reserve, from that gaining an even higher leverage on which they can make money...

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit I do see the problem of the Federal Reserve, though your description of fractional-reserve banking (which I also do not defend) is a bit too simplistic. What you are describing is in essence the concept of leverage, and the problem you highlighted wouldn't really apply unless there was a bank run. This is a central part of what lead to the great depression, and GS did ensure commercial banks couldn't gamble with exuberant amounts of leverage.

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit Secondly, if there was some type of truth to the notion that competition would keep them honest, three rating agencies does imply a level of competition being present, though ALL still did this. Seeing the number of bank participating in the sub-prime CDO debacle it is also evident the number of competitors is irrelevant when the circumstances are right.

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit Furthermore, it would be stupid to not participate in such a "scam" when the payoffs are so great, as that literary would mean you letting the competition getting ahead of you. This is true regardless of there being three or hundred rating agencies. It is abundantly clear by now that all manners of businesses are not particularly reluctant having their reputations scarred, as long as the payoff is great in relation to the risks they take.

[jaxeedcom]

@CrackedBiscuit No need to apologize, we both have other things to do too. In regards to rating agencies, if your contention is that competition would have kept them honest, I highly doubt it. Firstly, if there is a "scam" that to be had and there are little to no risk of consequences, it will always be done in any risk benefit analysis. Sure, there might be some investors getting angry after relying upon false ratings, but that is a minor consequence weighed up against the other benefit.

[CrackedBiscuit]

@jaxeedcom: The introduction of financial deregulations and the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act changed all that. The deregulated environment resulted in fierce competition between banks.

The previously fixed margins were severely curtailed. This in turn called for an increase in volumes of lending in order to maintain the level of profits.

[CrackedBiscuit]

@jaxeedcom: I apologize for the pause in my argument. I spent the last seven hours working.

Moving on, I'll lend a more cogent perspective on Glass-Steagal. Prior to the financial deregulation of the 1980s, we had controlled banking. Banks' conduct was guided by the central bank. Within this type of environment, banks' profit margins were nearly predetermined, because the Fed imposed interest-rate ceilings and controlled short-term interest rates.

[CrackedBiscuit]

@jaxeedcom: Obviously, the existence of the Federal Reserve protects this dishonest fractional-reserve banking system. If Bank A is short of $50, it could borrow from the central bank. Where does the central bank get the money? It actually generates it out of thin air. The modern banking system can be seen as one huge monopoly bank, guided and coordinated by the central bank.