Satirical Statists

The right wing in NC is moving even farther right. Today I wrote a pretty conservative op-ed for the News and Observer where I discussed the problem of skyrocketing health costs and how all the (mostly) private parties involved should work together along with government to start to contain health care costs. Mitch Kokai, a right-winger typically overstating the case, lost no time in thundering on a blog about my use of “The statist ‘we’.”

Kokai’s ultra-right John Locke Foundation blog doesn’t allow for commenting, a peculiarly centrally-controlled, anti-democratic, anti-free flow of ideas stance, so I’ll rebut him here. (As we are proud proponents of the American ideals of democracy coupled with debate, Kokai can feel free to respond below in our comments section.)

Webster defines statism as “a concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.” I hardly think a health reform bill that relies on vastly expanding the role of private health insurers, private health clinics, private hospitals, and private doctors qualifies. Much less my call for private players to work together along with government to contain health costs we all know we can’t afford.

4 Comments

  1. Mike.

    October 13, 2010 at 3:31 am

    To say…”Private Health” anything, is to also believe in Private Banks. They don’t exist anymore. Corporations control the Government. Government controls the Banks, Banks control the People. Sad, but true. No turning back now. Even Woodrow Wilson understood the danger of a Credit Society. Credit has just finally brought down the Health Care system as well.

  2. Mike.

    October 13, 2010 at 3:48 am

    First you say…”First we make it make it much more lucrative to go into speciality[sic] care than we do primary care.”

    That is a free market force. “We” didn’t necessarily do that on purpose. It just so happens, that it takes more skill to operate on a heart than it does to just diagnose a tummy ache. Hence the term “Specialty” not “speciality”. You insinuate that this makes more doctors go into specialty, therefore Healthcare becomes more expensive, without factoring in the simple economic fact of Supply and Demand.

    Without a thorough discussion about Supply and Demand as it pertains to our Health Care System, all you’re doing is trying to sound like Keith Olberman.

  3. R

    October 13, 2010 at 10:04 am

    “It just so happens, that it takes more skill to operate on a heart than it does to just diagnose a tummy ache.”

    I think that’s a little oversimplification.

    First of all, you’re comparing the treatment process in one profession with the diagnosis process of another. The process should be diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for both fields.

    It takes great skill for both to identify problems and solve them. A specialist in one area may or not know the solution to problems that face a generalist, and vice versa. It’s like saying that it takes more skill to be a CEO than to be a farm worker. That’s not true, it takes different skills in different areas. It’s not all supply and demand. While S&D does play a part, it’s also kind of like a chicken and the egg process that feeds off of society’s notions of what is better, what should pay more, what is more prestigious, etc. There are many professions and jobs that have a high demand for workers, but that doesn’t mean everyone is racing to get those jobs because of pay, reputation, location, working conditions, etc. Farm workers is one such example, as are, to a lesser extent, nurses and general practitioners.

  4. Mike.

    October 14, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Mr. R. says my statement is an oversimplification.
    Only a Progressive says this is too complicated for you to understand.
    He says…”you’re comparing the treatment process in one profession with the diagnosis process of another.”

    No I’m not. What I’m saying is it takes MORE skill to preform in one field than it does in another. That’s a fact…not and oversimplification. You’re just trying to distort the argument.

    Mr. R. also says, “…process that feeds off of society’s notions of what is better, what should pay more, what is more prestigious, etc. There are many professions and jobs that have a high demand for workers, but that doesn’t mean everyone is racing to get those jobs because of pay, reputation, location, working conditions, etc.”

    How is being a heart surgeon easier than being a farm worker? Asinine analogy, considering people with NO education can grow food, whereas someone with only a high school diploma can’t just decide to be a Doctor, and open a practice the next day.

    Mr. R. used the analogy of the Chicken and the Egg. So I ask you, Mr. R., which came first, the GP or the Brain Surgeon?
    Which is more plentiful? If there was 10,000 brain surgeons and only one GP, who would be in demand, and therefore make more money?

    But…I’m never going to get a Liberal to admit everything they’ve done in the past 100 years has been proven wrong. They never take responsibility for the things they cause. LBJ is proof.
    Enough said.
    The future will also prove Mr. R. as wrong as “two boys kissing in church!”