Again I must stress, there’ s been a lot of anxiety among some people in the fighting game scene lately, there’ s been a million threads going,“ Why doesn’ t the mainstream industry recognize X game over Y game?”, or“ why do a lot of tourney worthy gam…

Soon enough, there will be the kind of inflation and currency chaos that normally requires everyone to cash out and sleep the auto-beating off. At that juncture, an Uncle Joe or two generally arises and then, Cheeks, we’ll really have a problem or two on our hands.

Welcome to the lapsed republic, where a few political consultants decided that there was money to be made in the gutting of the Separation of Powers under cover of factional identity politics. This Factionalalapalooza has been building for some time and is about to unfold its crowning achievement: The Screw-Up of a One Car Funeral Procession.

Thank you, D.W., I needed that. All’s better, ready for the wars! RE-Cheeked!

I do like the cheekiness though, calling this debate a discussion of “health care”. Obviously, health has little to do with it.

I guess one of the problems I have with health care reform is the concept of “providing equality and fairness.” Before we even get into the question of which way is the best way to ensure good health care to Americans, I feel we’ve already lost because we’ve bought into a bargain that requires massive government to provide, which to me, and I say this as a Federal bureaucrat, is a guarantee of failure.

I’m curious about this statement of yours, Steve. Do you say that “I feel we’ve already lost” because of your belief that the concept of “equality” in opportunities for health and medical care will inevitably require a “massive government” to deliver it, or because of your problem with the concept itself? I don’t see this as a pedantic point; I think it’s a crucially important one. It’s one thing to disagree with my claim that local and populist provision of medical insurance and care could be better sustained when undergirded with broad, egalitarian actions, because you see such actions as creating bureaucratic monstrosities. But if that is your disagreement, then we only have a disagreement about means, not ends. However, it’s a very different thing to disagree with my claim because you think that any talk of “equality” in health and medical is itself flawed. Which is it? I’m not trying to be harsh here; I’m honestly curious. If it’s the former, then there is room for argument and critique over various plans and ways of overseeing the distributing and delivering medical care. But if it’s the latter, then we have much more fundamental disagreement, as one of us (me) believes that access to medical care is something of a universal Christian principle (or a human right, if you prefer), and you may believe otherwise.

I guess one of the problems I have with health care reform is the concept of “providing equality and fairness.” Before we even get into the question of which way is the best way to ensure good health care to Americans, I feel we’ve already lost because we’ve bought into a bargain that requires massive government to provide, which to me, and I say this as a Federal bureaucrat, is a guarantee of failure. Such a venture would be too large and too much money involved, believe me the time from establishment to corruption and transformation to a self-licking ice cream cone is very short. And this quite besides the fact that these “who, whom” questions are poisoned by the seething class, race and sex divisions and tensions in this country which will only make things worse. This may be one of the problems that has no good solution, under our current form of government. You just can’t get there from here, no matter how you try, and trying may make things even worse.

In any case, to the particularities of our place and time, I also do not trust, in any way, the current government, Executive and Legislative branches together, to do this without ruining the country and increasing misery and resentment. Given this and our dire financial situation which robs the government of the means to really do this without it coming at the expense of our future, makes me an automatic and incorrigible opponent of any government health care initiatives. At least until 2012 (and probably after then even if the other side wins, I hold them in scarcely higher regard).

I am for coops, but coops will be equally powerless in the face of monopoly suppliers.

Monopoly markets have another characteristic: the more money you supply, the more costs rise. So far from controlling costs, any plan that doesn’t address the monopoly problem will merely drive costs up. There is no fix without either ending the monopolies or imposing price controls. If you don’t do this, no plan can work; if you do, nearly any plan will work.

If public policy was that auto mechanics had to have ten years of schooling and only use $500 wrenches to save your car at all costs, the auto insurance companies would not give a hoot. I believe that the only reason that the medical insurance industry has allowed congress to consider this question is that they see a way to force everyone to buy their product further ensuring a radical monopoly.

In another thread you pointed out Lloyd’s of London as a different model. Excellent! In my opinion the co-op is the only model that holds any hope of controlling costs. However, the charter of the co-op must be strictly written to avoid playing both sides of the coin or cost will spiral upward.

(I am going to sound pedantic, but please don’t call it health insurance, it is medical insurance.)