Third Parties: Our Costly Curse

[82Marine89]

We complain about many things nowadays – the cost of Medicare, the cost of all types of insurance, tuition, taxes, the cost of almost everything. Seldom do we stop to think about why such costs have skyrocketed. Now, when politicians of both major political parties are adding to the list of things to which they say we are “entitled,” and blurring the line between necessary and nice to have, it’s a good time to pause and point the finger at a key factor. It has been about 30 years since I last paid a Physician directly for my or my family’s doctor’s visits, and that was unusual even then. At the time, Doctor B., let’s call him, was in his late 80s, had his commission as a Lieutenant (signed by President Woodrow Wilson) hanging on the Waiting Room wall, still made house calls, and charged three dollars for an office visit. Since then, like you, the cost of my health insurance is deducted from my salary and the doctor, the nurses, the labs and I all deal with a Health Insurer rather than directly with each other. If, despite our best efforts, we end up in an auto accident, what happens? We exit our vehicles, exchange the information on our insurers, and they handle it for us. One of us gets a check; the other gets points on the driver’s license. Despite the exchange of thousands of dollars for the vehicles (and, often, many times that for medical care) the odds are that we probably will never see each other again. In both of the foregoing cases, the total cost is somewhat hidden from us. We pay monthly; there are deductibles that are only a small part of the total cost. Most feel that “someone else” pays the total tab. If you’re beginning to see a pattern here – good. The pattern exists, it is pervasive, and it not only doesn’t save us money, in my judgment, it costs us billions of additional dollars annually collectively. The extra money results from the intervention of a Third Party in the process. If the aforementioned Dr. B. had announced to his patients that his fee was going up to four dollars per visit, an increase of one third, I may have gladly paid it. Then again, I may have gone shopping for another doctor. It is also possible that Dr. B. may have held off increasing his fee, at least for a time, rather than tell his patients of a higher cost. Regardless, the point is that the choice was his and the choice was mine, not the choice of a third party. I did not receive in the mail an announcement of an increase from an anonymous person in my health insurance premium (I don’t recall ever getting a notice of a decrease). This Third Party principle operates well beyond the world of insurance, of course. The biggest, strongest, most pervasive Third Party of all is local, state, and federal government, including public education. The latter is fast becoming the oxymoron of the century…………..again.

Click for full text... (http://www.therealitycheck.org/2007/12/18/food-for-thought/)

[typomaniac]

It's not the government, it's the money in politics. Take the money out and you won't have multinational corporations running the government.

[5stringJeff]

It's not the government, it's the money in politics. Take the money out and you won't have multinational corporations running the government.

First of all, multinational corporations don't run the government.

Second of all, if you "take the money out," how are people supposed to campaign?

[JohnDoe]

First of all, multinational corporations don't run the government.

Second of all, if you "take the money out," how are people supposed to campaign?
By using that dollar that we donate on our income tax forms....I would presume?

[5stringJeff]

By using that dollar that we donate on our income tax forms....I would presume?

Campaign contributions are a market-based signal of a politician's support. By donating money to a particular person, you can signal that you support that person. With many people doing this, you can get a general feel of how much support a politician has. Contributing to the government's campaign support fund does not accomplish this.

[typomaniac]

First of all, multinational corporations don't run the government.

Second of all, if you "take the money out," how are people supposed to campaign?

First of all, don't take everything so literally. :)

Second of all, I am completely in favor of amending the Constitution so that no candidate for a given office is ALLOWED to spend more than $x, where x is a relatively small number. Nor should any other person or organization be allowed to spend money to campaign on behalf of a favorite candidate.

And no crap about "free speech," please. Advertising is not, has never been, and never should be protected as other forms of speech.

[5stringJeff]

First of all, don't take everything so literally. :)

Second of all, I am completely in favor of amending the Constitution so that no candidate for a given office is ALLOWED to spend more than $x, where x is a relatively small number. Nor should any other person or organization be allowed to spend money to campaign on behalf of a favorite candidate.

And no crap about "free speech," please. Advertising is not, has never been, and never should be protected as other forms of speech.

You can't just tell someone they can't use a certain rebuttal. How about if I argued that taxes are always bad, but said, 'And no crap about social benefits from government programs, please.'

Anyway, as I said above, campaign donations are a form of market preference, as well as free speech. If I, as a private citizen, wish to place an ad in the paper or on TV, announcing my liking or disliking of a certain candidate, how can that be harmful in any way? That's democracy in action!

[typomaniac]

You can't just tell someone they can't use a certain rebuttal. How about if I argued that taxes are always bad, but said, 'And no crap about social benefits from government programs, please.'

Anyway, as I said above, campaign donations are a form of market preference, as well as free speech. If I, as a private citizen, wish to place an ad in the paper or on TV, announcing my liking or disliking of a certain candidate, how can that be harmful in any way? That's democracy in action!

I should think that the answer to your question is self-explanatory. In your scenario, the voters get bombarded with only the viewpoints of the very richest, and never have an opportunity to hear those of others.

Thats not democracy; it's plutocracy.

[Chessplayer]

his Third Party principle operates well beyond the world of insurance, of course

The third party that you mention is also profit-driven. IT's also fully legitimate under the guise of capitalism...do i detect a bit of socialism in you?

[5stringJeff]

I should think that the answer to your question is self-explanatory. In your scenario, the voters get bombarded with only the viewpoints of the very richest, and never have an opportunity to hear those of others.

Thats not democracy; it's plutocracy.

Enter special interest groups, which we currently have today, in the form of moveon.org, the NRA, NARAL, the Club for Growth, and a plethora of others. Groups of citizens with a little bit of money who agree on certain issues band together to make their views known. Everyone has a chance to get their views out in the public.

However, I will say that everyone has the right to speak their political views, and there are plenty of free forums, such as letters to the local newspaper, that anyone can take advantage of.

[typomaniac]

Enter special interest groups, which we currently have today, in the form of moveon.org, the NRA, NARAL, the Club for Growth, and a plethora of others. Groups of citizens with a little bit of money who agree on certain issues band together to make their views known.Most of which are completely drowned out by CNN, Fox News, and their high-budget ilk. You know that as well as I do.
However, I will say that everyone has the right to speak their political views, and there are plenty of free forums, such as letters to the local newspaper, that anyone can take advantage of.
Yes, everyone has the right to speak their views without spending money. As soon as they spend money to give themselves a "larger microphone," guess what: they're advertising.

[5stringJeff]

Most of which are completely drowned out by CNN, Fox News, and their high-budget ilk. You know that as well as I do.

That's your opinion.


Yes, everyone has the right to speak their views without spending money. As soon as they spend money to give themselves a "larger microphone," guess what: they're advertising.

Please show me in the Constitution where freedom of speech doesn't apply to paying for political advertisements, mailings, etc.

[typomaniac]

That's your opinion.Which is also an accurate reflection of an obvious reality. You won't deny this.
Please show me in the Constitution where freedom of speech doesn't apply to paying for political advertisements, mailings, etc.Why do you think I brought this up as a "Constitutional amendment" to begin with? :poke:

[5stringJeff]

[quote]Why do you think I brought this up as a "Constitutional amendment" to begin with? :poke:

So you want to amend the Constitution to take away people's liberty? No thanks, Joe Stalin.

[MtnBiker]

BUCKLEY v. VALEO
On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. .............................

Supreme Court Decision

Contribution Limitations

The appellants had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of First Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court concurred in part with the appellants' claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." The Court then determined that such restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest. ...........................


Link (http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley1.html)

[typomaniac]

[QUOTE=typomaniac;178710]

So you want to amend the Constitution to take away people's liberty? No thanks, Joe Stalin.

Nobody has ever had a constitutional right to money.

[JohnDoe]

We complain about many things nowadays – the cost of Medicare, the cost of all types of insurance, tuition, taxes, the cost of almost everything. Seldom do we stop to think about why such costs have skyrocketed. Now, when politicians of both major political parties are adding to the list of things to which they say we are “entitled,” and blurring the line between necessary and nice to have, it’s a good time to pause and point the finger at a key factor. It has been about 30 years since I last paid a Physician directly for my or my family’s doctor’s visits, and that was unusual even then. At the time, Doctor B., let’s call him, was in his late 80s, had his commission as a Lieutenant (signed by President Woodrow Wilson) hanging on the Waiting Room wall, still made house calls, and charged three dollars for an office visit. Since then, like you, the cost of my health insurance is deducted from my salary and the doctor, the nurses, the labs and I all deal with a Health Insurer rather than directly with each other. If, despite our best efforts, we end up in an auto accident, what happens? We exit our vehicles, exchange the information on our insurers, and they handle it for us. One of us gets a check; the other gets points on the driver’s license. Despite the exchange of thousands of dollars for the vehicles (and, often, many times that for medical care) the odds are that we probably will never see each other again. In both of the foregoing cases, the total cost is somewhat hidden from us. We pay monthly; there are deductibles that are only a small part of the total cost. Most feel that “someone else” pays the total tab. If you’re beginning to see a pattern here – good. The pattern exists, it is pervasive, and it not only doesn’t save us money, in my judgment, it costs us billions of additional dollars annually collectively. The extra money results from the intervention of a Third Party in the process. If the aforementioned Dr. B. had announced to his patients that his fee was going up to four dollars per visit, an increase of one third, I may have gladly paid it. Then again, I may have gone shopping for another doctor. It is also possible that Dr. B. may have held off increasing his fee, at least for a time, rather than tell his patients of a higher cost. Regardless, the point is that the choice was his and the choice was mine, not the choice of a third party. I did not receive in the mail an announcement of an increase from an anonymous person in my health insurance premium (I don’t recall ever getting a notice of a decrease). This Third Party principle operates well beyond the world of insurance, of course. The biggest, strongest, most pervasive Third Party of all is local, state, and federal government, including public education. The latter is fast becoming the oxymoron of the century…………..again.

Click for full text... (http://www.therealitycheck.org/2007/12/18/food-for-thought/)

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a bit to satisfy my curiosity on this theory above.... :)?

Why do you think that employer's would not have an influence or not have a need to keep prices down for the Health care that they pay for as a benefit for their workers?

Why wouldn't the employers that purchase most of these health care plans from Insurance Companies not have even more power to negotiate, the power of simply "bigness", on their side even moreso than the individual that was feeling the heat of the rises in healthcare costs?

----------------------------------

And

I would presume that Healthcare has at least 30% of its cost in the middle man and am not refuting this middle man phenomenon....

just wondering why, in the way the market is driven now, by the employer making group purchases of health care for their employees, and hitting their bottom line profit, why they have NOT been able to do such, even though it has been in their best interest to do such?

In other words, maybe....just maybe, the free market does not work in health care as it would with "widgets"....?

Maybe, the free market when involved with healthcare, is not always as it should be because of the urgency/emergency nature of it, the emotional aspect of it, like wanting to do all that you can to save someones life or something like that....when in a normal business, bottom line profit would make this decision with no outside consideration of such, in most cases, imo.

Not to say that in the "old days" a doctor could not be had by the regular day joe and if you didn't have the money to pay for it, one could barter for it, trade up services for it or hand over a fresh hog for it....so medicine and the medicine doctor, :) was there....for most every folk...

The middle man is a problem with today's healthcare costs, but do you really believe that we can now go back to a system where we do not have this "insurance" middle man? And how would the health care be paid by the employer...this was a part of someone's total compensation package....took less in salary in order to get the benefit via employer....do you think that if this burden went upon the worker that the individual worker would get a pay raise to compensate?

There are so many things that could be discussed on this topic! :clap:

jd

[Psychoblues]

Employers don't give a rats ass about keeping health care expenses down. They just want to be excluded from any responsibility of providing the insurance. Whatever, Americans want and deserve adequate and affordable healthcare. Given that the corporations refuse to participate in American society the government must intervene in the interests of the population. We, as Americans, are the very best, no?