?

Log in

When Transitions Happen! - Squirrel Rose [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
a.d.h.d ramblings and obsessions

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| Sexy Losers Comic Strip ]

When Transitions Happen! [Jan. 18th, 2007|02:24 pm]
a.d.h.d ramblings and obsessions
What seems to be the path of most democratic change, is when the liberals infilterate the conservatives and take over the status quo: this often happens later in a movement's maturity or if situations change. In different generations, there are also less animosity and old drama to overcome, neutral parties are more likely to compromise then parties who feel like they are losing and are under attack.

With this in mind: I present you Health Care. As suggested by businesses, unions, and the AARP (American Association of Retired People). If politics is like Chess, each new coalition that comes forward is a move. This move might prove interesting. Also manuvering in for the kill is Arnold Schwartzenaiger in California and Mitt Romney in Massachusettes not to mention Howard Dean: all these people made health care a priority. Big corporations who have always provided health care for their more valued employees also most likely feel that rivals that provide less coverage are free riding. Anyway: if this becomes a business investment idea as well as a liberal idea there is very little insurance companies and pharmacutical companies can do. They might be outmanuvered. I think there should definately be a push to encourage new research but there isn't all that much that I have seen that shows companies are all that interested in groundbreaking research these days (outside the stem cell debate) and I agree they should have plenty of incentives for that!!


It seems that sometimes economics is counter-intuitive. You can be doing something you think will help research but if you treat all research the same then you don't get much that spans new fields. I do believe in unintended consequences. :P
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: pstscrpt
2007-01-18 07:50 pm (UTC)
Getting everyone covered would be nice, but I don't see why the plans all seem to work within our current baroque system that's made to deal with not everyone having coverage. Why not just completely nationalize it (except for the few doctors who would rather work for cash, for people rich enough not to care that they're paying twice) and do away with all the administrative overhead?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: psych0squirrel
2007-01-19 06:27 pm (UTC)
The funny thing about people being rich enough to pay twice, that typically is the problem, they either aren't rich enough to pay twice and really resent that they can't get exactly the package they want, or scream murder about how their tax dollars are going to something they don't want. These usually aren't the people who are really manipulating things, in the past there were factions going around trying to "kill the beast" of public goods rather then just putting up with other people's desires to pool public money. Granted the people who are most concerned either make the most or are investors who are trying to be in that category.

Other then that I am not entirely sure on all the specifics. What I think is they are trying to do is scare the pharmaceutical industry and doctors into line, ie "don't just assume you're a monopoly" kind of action.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)