Ayn Rand Was a Socialist

Where did she live?

Hmmmmmm....I would take money from a Saudi Prince even though I think they are a brutal dictatorial family and I am an Atheist. I would take money from all sorts of people and organizations I hate. Because I like money a lot.

Good for you.

If a system is set up, then regardless of the fact that someone thinks it is a bad system it is still ethical for them to benefit from that system.

I am against Rent Stabilization. I also live in an RS apartment. But given the choice of voting for or against the system I would vote to end it. It isn't unethical of me to do so. I believe, argue, and vote for an end in the RS system. But if the system is still in place, and distorts the market in ways that do not benefit me, I would be an idiot to not take advantage of that system so long as it exists and so long as I am working to end it.

If Ayn Rand is against SS, and she is doing everything she can to reform it, I don't see a reason she shouldn't still use it. And regarding Medicare, it is almost impossible for a senior citizen to get an insurance policy that doesn't look to Medicare as the primary insurance. And if you know anything about insurance you know that someone who doesn't pay via insurance will be ridiculously overcharged as per contractual agreements between the insurance companies and the providers. There is no way to buy health care in this country via the free market.

Don't forget, she did pay in to SS and Medicare as well.

(while I don't believe in the "I paid into it already" argument, it is certainly someone like Socialist would make. What has been paid in bears no relation to the benefits currently being drawn by the current generation of beneficiaries.)

AvUWS, in general I agree with you that it's reasonable to operate within the system that exists.

BUT Ayn Rand wasn't just against these programs, she accused recipients of being "kleptoparasites". That would be roughly like you saying that everyone in a rent stabilized apartment is stealing from their landlords, but then living in one despite this fact. (Or, as a more extreme example, for someone who decries abortion as murder to have one themselves and justify it because the current law allows it.)

MOst so called libertarians are hypocrites. I have yet to see one teabagger turn down their Medicare or Social Security. And only 2 Republican members of Congress have turned down their govt. subsidized health insurance. One actually had a fit during orientation when he found out he would have to wait 30 days for it to go into effect.

Do you know which member of Congress received $250,000 in farm subsidies? Michelle Bachmann.

Jordyn, I didn't steal from my landlord since the apartment I rented had minimal services, no doorman, (P/T doorman paid by tenants), a flaking sink and bath, etc. The apartment the landlord had to offer was a lesser apartment, and the building (a magnificent pre-war built 10-20 years before most in the area) was a lesser building, than it could have been had better care been warranted. But under RS system the landlord will only do the very minimum that is required so long as the apartments are below market.

I am moving in a couple of weeks and the landlord is sending in contractors to improve the apartment. This does not have to be done as the rent is already over $2000 and subject to de-stabilization, but the LL knows he will get a couple $100 more with a newer bath and kitchen.

I agree that if someone says not to take social security then taking it is hypocritical. But most libertarians do not fit into that category. They want a smaller safety net and they would like more freedom to control what is there.

Socialist - I don't believe you actually believe in socialism. You sounds EXACTLY like someone would if they were trying to parody the socialist argument. More the fool you if you don't see it.

By the way, you cheapen every argument you make with every disparaging label you use like "teabagger".

TOP is silly. This is the same argument a Fox News pundit would say about taxes. Liberal rich people (Hollywood types, Bill Gates, etc.) should donate money to uncle sam if they like high taxes so much. Its dumb.

"They want a smaller safety net" ... until they NEED a great big safety net.

And that's exactly what this article states: Rand didn't simply take what was coming to her because she had paid in; she took it because as a little old lady, she couldn't make ends meet and pay her own healthcare. What a surprise!

Sign the petition!

Alan - it is relatively impossible for a senior to use "their own healthcare". Such things barely exist in our market. They aren't sold because any insurance company selling it wants to only be the secondary insurer with Medicare as primary.

And to argue as to the size of the safety net is completely acceptable. SS was created as just that, a safety net. Remember, the age of 65 was created in the first place because the people who were likely to need such a net (laborers for the most part) weren't even expected to LIVE THAT LONG. It wasn't a retirement fund, it was an old age workman's comp.

AvUWS, I don't know of a single doctor or hospital who won't take a personal check (assuming no history of NSF) for services.

Why do you assume I was referring to socialized, collectivist medical insurance?

Of course they will take a check. But out health system today is completely distorted by the (heavily state regulated) insurance system. Health providers, in order to obtain whatever contracts they have with the insurance companies, have to sign contracts with those insurance companies obligating them to certain pricing structures. Quite simply, an individual has to pay according to a different, and contractually obligatory, higher price structure than the insurance companies. So few people in this city actually ever encounter this that they don't even know it exists.

So a doctor is contractually obligated to charge a private client a higher fee than that doctor would choose to charge that private patient absent the contract?

alan, you are one of the smartest guys around here. Rephrase the question: The doctor is contractually obligated to offer its insurance client at least __% off its standard bona-fide rates. Bona-fide in that it actually has to charge someone that rate.

"So few people in this city actually ever encounter this that they don't even know it exists."

Huh? What about people with no health insurance?

Jordyn - please tell me who has no health insurance in this city. I have Dr.s in my family and the simple matter is that most people here, if not already covered by their job, are either covered by public insurances (medicare/medicaid/etc.) or are in low risk groups like single young adults for whom it is a choice.

Remember that the 47 million of uninsured Americans touted was always a political figure. It included upwards of 10 million illegals, ALL of the people on Medicaid, and voluntarily uninsured like young singles. So the actual number of people that they wanted to talk about, those who needed insurance, wanted insurance, were not already covered by work or family health insurance, but could not afford to get it, was really in the 5-15 million range. But a figure of 5% or less of the population is not a good number for the politics.

I'll grant that a lot of the people who don't have health insurance are young, but do you really think all of the people who work as, e.g, waiters or bartenders get health insurance through their jobs? Same goes for freelancers, artists, etc. This article asserts 25% of New York City residents don't have health insurance, and it's clear from the context that public health insurance counts as insurance for the purpose of calculating this figure:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/iotw/20051205/200/1669

(Similarly, the 47 million number certainly excludes people on Medicaid or Medicare--there's 100 million people on those programs, so that sets the floor for a figure that counts them as being uninsured.)

The City puts the number of adults without health insurance at more like one in six, but still over a million people:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/hca/hca-nyc-adults.pdf

I have no idea why you think your list of exclusions is relevant to the conversation, in any case--illegals, young people, etc. would still presumably have to pay the higher rates you referred to when they seek medical care, no?

I don't have health insurance. And I'm "rich".

I know for a fact that sh!tloads of people in NYC don't have health insurance. Tons of frelancers don't have health insurance. Tons of lower-income people don't have health insurance.

And tons of people take jobs that don't pay very well simply because they are scared of being uninsured.

Alan is 100% correct - but its often not that the insurance companies have to get X% off - its that they get a SET price for specific services (i.e. the doctor gets $100 for an office visit, 20% paid by the patient, $1,000 for an MRI, with a co-pay, or % paid by the patient, etc.)

It is sometimes a discount to list.

In 100% of the cases, the list price is 10%, 100%, or even 10,000% higher than either the cost or the insurance company price. Therefore, a band-aid applied in an emergency room visit to an uninsured person may be billed $10 per band aid (literally), while the insured patient next him is charged 25 cents.

Having BEEN unemployed with no insurance, this is not a hypothetical. Twice I had to brave the emergency room, while unemployed, and the itemized bills were absurd. Literally, $10 for a band aid.

i have high deductable hsa insurance and few of my doctors take any insurance at all

if i choose that my brain tumor afflicted child have surgery at columbia pres (as I would, their pediatric neurosurgery is acclaimed) i would have to put up a large (say 250K) deposit to get her admitted (my insurer has no contract with columbia pres)--my deposit would be debited for charges around 30% more than would be billed an insurer with a contract--if i had no insurance and my daughter were admitted through the emergency room (only way to get in if not insured by a co with a contract, or if one cant make the deposit), i would owe the hospital this greater amount at the end of her care---if i didnt have the money, the hospital would sue me and take my coop (cept that i rent!)

isnt it great that uninsured subsidize the insurance companies--what a load of shit

alpie/socialist please take over now

child has no tumor thk god

The matter is that the debate is not between single-payer vs. free market. There is no such thing as a free market in our system. Between the insurance contracts and state mandates there are naught but highly regulated and highly skewed pricing structures to choose from.

And no, single payer will be no answer either. It will only means goldplated health coverage for everyone in the fantasies of the socialists. What it will mean instead is huge amounts of missallocation of resources and ever increasingly inefficient use of those resources, rationing, and some smattering of great health care for the well connected.

Not to mention an ever decreasing rate of innovation.

And yet a majority of Candians in survey after survey, including the overwhelming majority of Conservatives and PQs (like 70%) say they would not trade the Canadian system for the American one, and ALSO the majority of Candians say they would prefer to reform their system by making it MORE socialist (i.e. services, not just insurance) rather than LESS. And despite the Faux News talking heads, the vast majority of Canadians have never sought out US hospitals, even among the wealthy.

NYC Matt -- You admit to that? (The lack of health insurance, not the "rich" part.) That's like saying you enjoy putting wet forks into electrical sockets.

"TOP is silly. This is the same argument a Fox News pundit would say about taxes. Liberal rich people (Hollywood types, Bill Gates, etc.) should donate money to uncle sam if they like high taxes so much. Its dumb"

agreed, d u m dum

"NYC Matt -- You admit to that? (The lack of health insurance, not the "rich" part.) That's like saying you enjoy putting wet forks into electrical sockets."

I'm healthy and rich. I can pay my own way, which given my good health (knock wood), is very little.

what happens if something goes wrong?

I negotiate with the doctor/hospital and I write a check.

Is this before you go in for surgery or after?

>> The matter is that the debate is not between single-payer vs. free market.

Show me where there is a free market anywhere. It doesn't exist. This is always the pathetic excuse of the glibertarians.

The last time this discussion came up with the large one -- her shining example of free markets that came up was cell phones!

I just spoke with one of my relatives who is an MD. He stopped taking Blue Cross Blue Shield because they owed him $15,000 and refuse to pay. He tells me that medicine has gone down the toilet and does not want any of his kids to beome doctors. The free market is destroying medicine.

"what happens if something goes wrong?"

Matt then goes on Medicaid, of course.

"He tells me that medicine has gone down the toilet and does not want any of his kids to beome doctors. The free market is destroying medicine. "

Funny, because this has been happening as the government has taken more and more control...

you keep arguing with yourself.

What does the govt. have to do with re-imbursements from a PRIVATE for profit insurance company? Please explain.

What kind of question is that? The government customizes its policies to please those private for-profit insurance companies, in exchange for promotional support for the government's representatives.