I don't post on here rarely ever, but thank God for the rest day. Very hard 3 days.

Happy Rest Day CF Family!

Need the rest, Question. The data I have been posting last three weeks, is it used for anything?

Go Erin !!!!

thank jesus

I am glad everyone is in agreeance , this is a well deserved rest day . I will though go for a 8 mile run tomorrow nothing long or hard. The thing i have always loved about crossfit is i am excited about what is going to come up on friday, even though i am sore.

Mackey compares the human need for health care and the need for food or shelter, but the analogy is a poor one.

For food, I pay my vendor directly. For medical care, it's an insurance company that pays the doctor, not me. That's why free-market incentives work well for food but are broken for health care. The free market inevitably biases doctors and patients to use expensive or unnecessary treatments and biases insurance companies not to pay for treatments that are actually worth the money.

When I go to a restaurant, I tell the waiter what I want and he gives it to me. For health care, my doctor tells me what treatment I should get--I don't tell him.

With food, it's clear what quality I'm getting. With medical care, it's not clear at all.

I eat every day, and I can get many different types of food from lots of different places. I only get medical treatment rarely, I can only get one or two kinds of treatment, and there's only a few providers I can get it from.

Food is cheap. Medical care is expensive.

The free market is a superb tool for allocating resources in many contexts of our economy, but like any tool, it has its limitations. I'm not prepared to make free-market capitalism my one true religion any more than I'm prepared to throw out my hammer just because my screwdriver works so well at driving screws.

Nice Picture

I DID IT!!!! I F%€@ing did it!!! I beat my last PR

"NATE" as Rx...22 rounds +2 muscle-up +handstand push-up btw american style KBswing...i feel good!!!

Carlox is an awesome coach thanks my brother!!!

PROPS TO THE FRAT!!!

How 'bout treat the problem, not the symptom!

John Mackey is absolutely right. Capitalism is what we need, not more government. Liberal's claims that capitalism hasn't worked are right, because REAL capitalism hasn't existed in the health care market for decades. We need more capitalism, NOT more government.

***NOOB POST***

If you're new here, welcome aboard!

Today is a rest day, so don't work out. Seriously, just rest. The time you give your body to recover is just as important as all the weight lifting and gymnastics stuff that you've been doing lately.

What you can do is read the article that's posted, think about it and then share your thoughts. Trust me, a spirited debate is brewing...

Speaking of brewing, have a beer while your resting...unless you're doing the FRAT Paleo Challenge of course ;-)

See you all tomorrow!

can anyone tell me the best way to tape up my hands. my hands are torn up from this week. anyone got any good ways to tape them?

Dan P. is only partly right. Yes, the problem is that the insurance companies are between us and our doctors. We don't need the government to replace the insurance companies.

We need health savings accounts to pay for all of our basic care and use insurance for what we cannot afford. Our tax system is structured so that we have too many layers (employers and insurance companies) between us and our doctors.

Comment #2: Joe, get your facts straight. The evidence is undeniable. Tax cuts increase individual spending and in return increase government revenue. The historical numbers are there to prove it. It doesn't matter if Bush, Cheney, or Reagan said it. Government spending has created the budget crisis. No one is preventing you from paying more taxes if you believe increased taxes are the answer. Write the IRS an extra check and see what happens. I promise that they won't send it back.
You might be right about tax cuts not being the solution to the health care problem. I can promise you that more government regulation will only make it worse. Historical facts show this to be true as well. Create a graph with health care cost and government intervention in health care over the past 60 years, and you will see that they rise with one following the other.

This is the type of problem solving we need to solve health care issues. Not government. Government backed systems whether they're health programs or any other, are failures around the world. We as Americans can solve the problem with innovative ideas like whole foods has done. I heard Singapore has a great health care account system. Also, the new Canadian health minister says that their system is not working. We should not support government health care.

Dan, if my medical treatment and costs are too complex for me and my doctor to figure out, I do not need a governmental agency to dictate that for me.

Too many 'layers' or do you mean too many LAWYERS? What is the last successful goverment lead/ran/created program?
(welfare,TSA,Border Patrol,INS,IRS, food stamps, war on drugs, no child left behind, HUD, FEMA..)the list goes on and on. This will be no different.

FrankyTyler, you forgot Cash for Clunkers.

thetruth, why be an idiot?

Mackey on to something:I have found Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" to be the best info out there for real truth on how to solve and debate the health care problems or solutions-- However,All I really wanted to say was this rest day is well deserved but I am excited to see what waits on Friday..

Matt comment 14

check out the link for taping your hands(wfs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWu53GsVQug

matt comment 14
check out the link for tapin up your hands.(wfs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWu53GsVQug

Did anyone else notice the last paragraph? "Recent scientific data promotes plant based, nutrient rich, LOW FAT etc...." That sounds very pro vegggie to me and not very pro paleo. I had expected the meat of this article (ha, ha) to be about avoiding health care by eating differently. I see that some of that is in there, but I got lost in the rest of the details.

Oh, and the comparison of health care as a right vs. shelter and food is very poor. I can make shelter out of nature and almost nothing. I can grow/hunt/forage for food. I CANNOT provide myself with "modern" health care. Yes it's not an explicit right, but without basic health care ALLOWING someone to create their own quality of life- then no other rights are useful. It doesn't matter how hard I work- if I get hit by a car my quality of life turns to very little and the right to free speech doesn't help me much. If I work at a gas station to make enough money to feed myself and can't afford insurance I can still get hit by a car- and then spend the rest of my life paying for bad luck (provided it was a genuine "accident")

Although lots of the article points are valid I don't buy the "corporate entities will do it best". Government should at least provide MEANINGFUL oversight- and in turn should have some oversight upon themselves by an unrelated agency. This is unfortunate but science has caused healthcare to become too profitable to trust to any single coin counters.

#10 s'more,

Congrats on the monster PR dude, you are a beast!

Man hugs to you Carlos and Nelson, my Crossfit brothers in Ecuador. Keep up the strong work down there :-)

A comment and a couple of questions on healthcare:

* We have an access issue here in the U.S., period. My wife is on my insurance, but has a pre-existing condition that our carrier has refused to cover. It probably won't bankrupt us, but could. Before you ask, we're in pretty good shape - we hold our own in the WODs (though we won't be making the Games anytime soon!)

My mom, at age 60 and out of work, has no insurance at all and is uninsurable. She'd pay if she could, but she can't. I understand Econ pretty well, but I don't understand how the free market solves this issue.

* For those of you that do have government run/sponsored healthcare via the government - like Tricare and Medicare - would you give it up for a private solution if you could?

* Crossfitters overseas, would you trade your healthcare system for our system here?

John Mackey studied religion and philosophy at Texas, which explains this article. I especially liked the brilliant argument for giving tax cuts for individual insurance: "this is not fair"

Jesus H Christ, read an economics textbook.

Voodoo Medic:
#1, I accidently paid my taxes twice last year and got a check a few weeks ago from the treasury department for the amount I overpaid.
#2, Reagan believed that cutting taxes would increase tax revenue because of an economist named Laffer who drew a bell curve on a napkin with the x-axis as taxes and the y-axis as tax revenue and said that at the THEORETICAL climax of the curve, tax revenues would start going down because taxes would be so high that people would begin evading taxes and decrease spending disproportionate to the tax increases. Regardless of whether or not Laffer's theory was right, Reagan thought that in the 70s, we had surpassed that climax. He was proven wrong by the fact that tax revenues did not increase as a result of his tax cuts. The reason the economy started to recover was because of the HUGE increase in military SPENDING. Even then the economy did not fully recover until the early 90s.

The problem I see with this artical is that I read many of these same solutions 10 years ago but the powers that be WON'T LISTEN! They are power hungry and these solutions would put more power in the hands of the individual citizens. We have developed such an entitlement mentality in this nation that we have finnaly elected a socialist government and now we get to pay for it. I fear there is no turning back.
Maybe I'm just letting my fatigue get me down but it's painful for me to watch my country being sold down the river.

I would rather pay for people who need health care to get it under a socialist government than pay for a war under a conservative government

MP, we can have safety nets without gutting the entire system. If we can have a more efficient health care market, prices will come down. If you, not your employer owns your policy, you will not lose your coverage when you change jobs. Once we have a more efficient market, the safety nets can be much smaller.

That is a smoking hot picture Erin!!

Looks like I have to add you into my screen saver rotation!

since it's bed time I'm just going to say I agree with Mr. Mackey and recycle recycle post #18 from a previous discussion.

http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/004824.html

Paleo folks, please address paragraph 18 (2nd from bottom).

Joe # 2

See the work of Arther Laffer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

If we want to get into a behavioral economics conversation we can do that tomorrow.

first time doing this with ring muscle ups. Did 15 1/3 rds. got my first 2 muscle ups ever a couple of weeks ago and now it's on. it's a long way down from up there! Can anyone tell me how to find where the regional qualifier locations are for the crossfit games next year, or dis it not known yet? Where were they for the 2009 games? With about a year to train, my friends and my wife are planying that seed in my brain. Thanks to all of the crossfit family for all of the info and support!

#20 thetruth, sir you are an idiot...

i believe erin has had multiple kids, and it's quite possible her belly button has stretched because of a past/ or existing hernia...which by the way doesn't detract from how good looking she is. my wife has the same issue and needs to have surgery to fix it...whom by the way finished 3rd in this years games, and had to put up with same childlike comments on her profile because of her "outy" belly button pic.

**crossfit should require an age limit for access to the site, it might help keep idiots like you off it!

oops, forgot to mention that I only had 50# db for kb swings instead of 2 pood. building my own 2 pood for next time!

#35...amen!

Ed, thanks for the reply, but I don't think it's a question of price or efficiency. Insurers use exclusions or refuse coverage because they think there's an unacceptable probability that a customer will be unprofitable. Unfortunately, I don't think increased efficiency will make insurers compete for customers they think will be unprofitable.

As to our coverage, I do actually own the coverage. I'm a small business owner in Georgia, but I can't afford coverage for all my employees - the group policy would be too expensive, so I opted for an individual policy with my wife on my policy. I could go into details about individual vs. group, but this would get to be a really long post!

ChicagoSchool: "I would rather pay for people who need health care to get it under a socialist government than pay for a war under a conservative government"

But paying for a war under a socialist government is probably just fine.

also, I am not suggesting that we lower the individual tax rates any lower than they are now. If we want to lower a tax that is likely right of the peak of the curve, lower taxes on corporations.

As it stands right now the USA has the second highest combined corporate tax rate in the developed world. Only Japan has higher. According to KPMG's 2007 Global Tax Rate Study, US corporations pay at a rate of 40%. An absurd number considering the that same study cited an average global rate of 26.8%.

This measure of effectively increasing the tax rate on any company who does any global business would do nothing but raise the price of goods in America. The reason for this is that corporations don't pay the taxes imposed on their profits, the consumer pays the taxes imposed on corporate profit. Lets say XYZ corp makes soup, and it costs XYZ corp fifty cents to make a can of soup. XYZ corp then sell the soup for one dollar, giving XYZ corp a profit of fifty cents per can. Now lets suppose that the government wants to impose a 10% tax on soup companies profits. XYZ corp isn't going to take that hit to their bottom line. XYZ corp will simply raise the price that it charges for a can of soup, in order to keep the same margins. So instead of XYZ corp charging $1.00 for a can of soup, XYZ corp would charge $1.05* so as to keep it's fifty cent per can profit intact. This would decrease the number of cans of soup bought, which would cause XYZ corp to be forced to decrease the cost of making a can of soup by either paying people less or laying off a few workers. Either way a bad situation for anyone working for XYZ corp.

* to keep profit at exactly $.50 XYZ corp would have to sell their product for $1.0454545454545etc but fractions of cents aren't that easy to carry around so they would round up.

now off to bed

(aside)
if anyone is a teacher at a Dayton Public School, I may get to see you soon, I have become your 403(b) guy.

#35 can I hear another Amen!

#33 Mike Morgan, from the article you just posted:
Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."

Having a government plan increases competition in the health care industry, which creates incentive for more efficiency and lower prices. THIS IS A LIBERTARIAN/FREE MARKET/CAPITALIST CONCEPT. If the private insurance companies cannot compete with a plan that provides health care to those who need it at a lower cost, then they will go out of business. This is called "creative destruction," another libertarian/free market/capitalist concept. I'm going to stop reading these posts because it's just going to frustrate me even more when someone who knows nothing about economics tries to make an economic argument on either side.

MP, you should not have to buy your insurance for your employees, they should be able to buy it for themselves. If you would like to contribute to a health savings account, great, that would be a nice benefit. Having a health savings account, they can then purchase catastrophic coverage, which would be much less expensive. Also, as you know, you and they, can only buy your insurance from companies in Georgia. How is that competition. Let's give the free market a real chance before we kill it.

Great photo, Erin! Looking strong, girl!

Ed, seriously? like, really? bush started the war. we're pulling out now? redeploying to afghanistan because that's where the troops should've been all along? watch the news much?

ChicagoSchool, no one can compete with the government. The government does not even need to break even. Over time, everyone would end up in the government plan, by default. In the end there would be no competition.

what is this FRAT paleo thing. I understand what the paleo diet is but I guess I'm missing out on the frat bit

This Mackey guy says his employees like a high-deductable/HSA plan? Bull. Anyone with half a brain takes a look at that plan and knows it's crap. I have to assume it's either the Whole Foods way or no insurance at all. I do respect their covering such a large part of their workforce, though, that's something many chain retailers don't even begin to attempt.

As for our current system, please, someone go down to the county hospital and tell me how well that's working out. There is no free market when a vendor is coerced by the government into taking customers, whether they pay or not. To bandy that term about is misleading at best.

I believe some of the ideas in the post are worth a shot. It can't hurt the situation especially since we have issues with a very small portion of the citizens of the US. Remember 85% of us have insurance and 75% are satisfied with it. Minor tweakings are warranted but not a hammer to the whole process. And some lefty blogs are going nuts over Mackey's piece. They are trying to create a boycott of Whole Foods. What happened to free ideas in this country?

ChicagoSchool, that a whole new argument. I'll save it. But thanks anyway.

One of the best sites to read about free market health care is NCPA.org.

cam #3

they are for your use only. next time the workout comes up, there will be a Compare To link. click it and it will take you to the comments page the last time the workout was posted. that way you have a score/weight/time you can measure up against and you can see how much you improve. use ctrl + f to search for your name.

#46-

The paleo frat reference is, I believe, referring to a 30-day paleo challenge that the FRAT is doing. A couple of weeks back it was discussed on a Crossfit radio episode (Bingo was a guest, I believe) and there is a blog or website online for people involved or wanting to join. If someone could help with a link to refer to, that would be great.

I apologize in advance if I am wrong.

Erin, yes, you DO look great.

New gym in my garage. Me and the fellas are about to start a f*ckin revolution. I don't think the neighbors are ready haha.

10 pull ups
20 push ups
5 single kb push press (each arm) (55#)
10 kb squats (55#)
Approx. 200m sprint

10 ROUNDS FOR TIME - 28:31

Feels good to be outside and not stuck in globo on a treadmill. Happy rest day all!

Here's the link for the FRAT paleo challenge:

http://crossfiteclipse.typepad.com/the-frat-paleo-challenge/

(boy, am I looking like an idiot if I am wrong about this...)

#41 just pointing out who Laffer is.

Also, points from that

1) I suspect that we are not right of the curve in personal income tax. We may be right of the curve on corporate income tax. Only Japan has a higher marginal corporate tax, and look how their economy has done in the past decade or so.

2) A government health insurance option cannot compete with private insurance because the government writes the rules. You cannot have a player on the field who has the power to make something illegal just because it hurts an opponent.

3) If you want competition, allow everyone to compete, and allow insurance companies to sell actuarially (sp?) fair products (individual rating), and allow them to sell these products across state lines.

4) If anyone does not believe that the government will turn a public option into a single payer system they need to re-read "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie."

now to bed

I been to Europe and I have been treated by doctors in Europe and their Health Care System is just better than ours.

Plus how many people receiving health care thru the Government Run Medicare System are willing to give it up. None that I know.

The problem with Health Insurance is Health Care isn't the goal, but rather profits. Insurance Companies can just make more profits denying care rather than providing care.

End of Story.

#27, MP, answer to last point: no.

I live in Central Europe. Sometimes waiting for hours for doctor's appointments, sometimes I get fed by paperwork, but we all have basic family doctor's, dentist's, Ob&G's care. And all treatments or tests those three decide patient needs.

I can pay for my medical care (for the time being!), but I do care about those who can't.

Comment #20 & 23

I have never met Erin but from what I have heard and seen on videos, she is an outstanding athlete. I believe she has 3 kids. Ever seen the video of her do FRAN?? Bet it beats your FRAN times. Your comments are rude and uncalled for. Erin, you are an inspiration!!

But there's so much more to the health care discussion than a public option! Look at all his other points - health care portability, capping liability lawsuits, etc. I've been on Tricare, and I now have private insurance. Yes, Tricare was great, it was free (great way to have kids!). But you can't always just scale a program caring for 1-2 million people (once you count vets) to a program that needs to take care of 300 million - unlike Crossfit, it doesn't scale that well. Also, look at your population base. 30 some-odd percent of Americans are obese - and I seriously doubt 30% of service members are. Service members are going to require lower health care costs, because they are healthier as a population. Additionally, SERVICE MEMBERS CAN'T SUE THEIR DOCTORS. On top of that, military doctors are paid their salary, plus a bonus based on their field of medicine. So, unlike most doctors who get paid by how many prescriptions they write and how many tests they run, military doctors get paid the same - so they can focus the treatment on the patient, not on the billable charges.

So, would a public option work? Maybe. But unless we're going to make PT mandatory for each and every able American, it won't and can't get to the level of efficiency of a Tricare-style system.

"First they came for our light bulbs, next they came for our SUVS, now they are coming for our senior citizens..."

Thanks Playoff Beard!!! Big man hugs from Ecuador!!!

I'm not a fan of public healthcare but I don't think the author made any convincing arguments. FWIW I'm unemployed and recently had to get my own insurance. I opted for the high-deductible (because I'm just fulfilling a requirement for school) but to me it's next to useless. I have a $2500 deductible and I can tell you that never in my life have I spent anywhere near that in a year, so its the same to me as having no insurance at all.

Sure some people do and sure I'm covered in case something really awful happens, but that's not really the problem with the uninsured, is it? Or at least its only one of many problems tyring to be addressed.

Oh and FWIW after reading Pollen's book I'm not convinced at all that food is anywhere near being subject to free market forces.

Just curious. Would the recent Crossfit Insurance drive qualify as a co-op?

Mercifully!

#64 - high deductible so you pay for office visits but if something really bad happens you're covered....isn't that the whole idea of insurance? But I get your point since you're probably paying a good chunk for the premiums since you don't have an employer paying a share of it.

I like the idea of being responsible for what we eat. Most of us here do a good job of that already, we just need to infect more of the population with good eating and exercise habits. My grandmother was one who exercised, and grew and raised most of her her own food. She lived to be 101. My father is another example. He has been healthy all his life (1 kidney stone) and has never been on medication, and he is 80. Exercise and a good diet reward those who follow it.

As far as Health care goes, it is not a right. It is a luxury. Those who work hard and save, have it, those who work, and don't save, probably don't have it. It is not up to the rest of us to provide for their health care. America is free, and it rewards those who are free to work hard, and it punishes those who don't work. Those who can not work due to physical handicap should be cared for by their family, and not the government. And those who have no family, should be cared for by the church, and or those who want to, again, not by the government.

Its interesting that a good majority of the people I hear promoting socialized health care, are the same people spending their extra money on excessive alcohol, cigarettes, and dope. They drive expensive cars, and have expensive toys, but no money left over to buy health insurance. That is their choice, but I should not have to fund their health insurance through increased taxes for socialized universal health care!

Obama care is nothing but socialism, but then what would you expect from a communist like Obama? At least Obama was honest about what he stood for before he ran for president, except that he is probably not a US citizen, seeing how Hawaii was not a US state when they "supposedly" issued him a birth certificate.

"Obama care is nothing but socialism, but then what would you expect from a communist like Obama? At least Obama was honest about what he stood for before he ran for president, except that he is probably not a US citizen, seeing how Hawaii was not a US state when they "supposedly" issued him a birth certificate."
Jajajaja!
Greg, but srsly, you are a hoot! :D

on a more serious note, I hope you never have to rely on the kindness of a church to wipe your bum!

Went for a nice easy 2 mile run this morning and then followed that up with a lot of stretching....felt really good. Anyone know a good lower back stretch?

If anyone is interested in what the government really has planned for us check out the book eco science written by obama's science czar John Holdren. It was written in 1977 and deals with forced abortion and putting infertility drugs in the water supply. They now put sodium fluoride in 67 percent of tap water(nazi were the first in concentration camps) it also makes you docile and is a main ingredient in pozac and rat poison.

Both republicians and democrats are not looking out for you, and if you think this health care bill is going to make things better i got a bridge
to sell you. Also is anyone talking about the cap and trade(carbon tax) bill. This will tax everything you buy essentially turning the U.S. into a feudalistic society. STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICIANS, WAKE UP!!!

Agree with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. I 'fired' Kaiser as my health care insurance provider one open enrollment period. My wife later 'fired' Kaiser when her employer had an open enrollment period. Would have been nice to 'fire' the provider sooner but mortals can't do that, nor can Canadians under single payer.

I thought it was an Urban Legend that Congress was exempting itself from health care reform. Turns out Congress is exempting itself.

When I got to page 113, line 22 of SENATE version of the Health Care Reform Bill (http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf), it starts to describe who will be/not-be covered by health care reform.

If you are NOT eligible for Federal employee health benefits (i.e. most cross-fitters), as described in US Code Title 5 Chapter 89, then Health Care Reform _WILL_ apply to you.

If you ARE eligible for Federal employee health benefits (i.e. Congress, civilian feds, some crossfitters) then Health Care Reform will _NOT_ apply to you.

Now surf over to US Code Title 5 Chapter 89 Section 8901 … http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00008901----000-.html

Looks like Congress is exempting itself from Health Care Reform. Seems like a good enough for the goose but not goo enough for the gander kinda thing. Screw them. Put me in control.

DELIBERATE INTERRUPTION!

Man alive, I am happy for the rest day today. In fact I'm so happy that I'm gonna celebrate with a 10 km run ... or perhaps JOG is the right word ...!

LoL Wayne I tried that and it kept going a little maybe the insanity will stop haha

On a side note: I'm really pissed off at my car insurance. Can we do something about that? The MF'rs make me pay for my GD oil-changes, brake repair, transmission work, etc. What the hell am I paying my premium for if I pay the bulk of my car costs for a year. The guy at the garage laughed a me when I asked for insurance forms to fill out at my 30K scheduled maintenance for my Prius. SOB. Why is it my responsibility to pay for THAT. I'm going to sue the garage AND the Insurance company, that should get those bastards under control and bring the price down.

OR shouldn't the government be taking care of this car stuff? I mean really. I'm sick of paying 40 bucks for an oil change. How am I supposed to pursue happiness with this kind of financial burden? Tax the crap out of the BMW crowd so I can get free oil changes. And brakes. Wonder what that will do to the cost of those parts and services? WHO CARES it'll be free to me because the gov's go it covered. Ok maybe not free. Can't piss of the conservatives off too much. Gotta be bipartisan and all. I can deal with a 10 dollar copay. That's reasonable. For now. Somebody needs to get on this.

I see by the comments that the original #20 and #23 have been removed... rightfully so by the sounds of it. I don't know what they said but if it was anything other than "amazing photograph" then the people making the comments should be banned from this site.

To anyone who has a body like Erin AND the athleticism to be competing at the CF Games, congrats. You've obviously worked hard - not just for looks but for function as well - to be where you're at.

The continued march of the progressive movement to coerce and control the free will of the people through gov't run health care should scare all of us. It cuts deeply into and touches all of us more than just about any other issue. This is why the citizens of our great nation have been so vocal towards our reps and senators at the hundreds of townhall meetings over the past few months. There's no easy answer to health care reform, but the current administration wants to ram their bandaid healthcare bill through as quickly as possible. I believe the president is correct in setting a target date to keep the process rolling (80/20 rule at work here) and keep up the intensity, but pushing as hard as he is is like running an out of shape, 60 year old newbie through Murph with a weighted vest and expecting him to finish in under 30 minutes. The end result will be an incomplete product that resembles a heaping mess that will require a huge fix on the back end.

Can we as a nation fix healthcare? Absolutely, but it must be done incrementally. Start with fixing the insurance companies and their control over doctors and the system as a whole. Insurance should be treated like a means of last resort, not the first line of defense. In other words, much like having a warranty for your car, you still pay for most "things" that go wrong with your car up to a certain point. But you also must do the required preventive maintenance along the way or you void the warranty in most cases. Humans are no different and we all need preventive maintenance (healthy diet, exercise, etc.). Why should I, a healthy 44 year old, subsidize a fat, out of shape, POS 44 with high blood pressure, Type II diabetes, and other health problems because the POS 44 year old won't treat his body right? He deserves to pay a higher premium, if insurance is available at all.

The article is right that there is no right to healthcare. The HSA option is a happy medium between paying your way for routine expenses and costs, yet covering you for catastrophic medical care. I have an HSA now and it's awesome! If we could couple HSA-style health insurance with limiting medical liability for doctors, it would lower their liability insurance premiums and in turn reduce medical costs. Next, eliminate the burden insurance providers place on doctors and us for their services and limit insurance claims for only those catastrophic medical events. Third, make all payments for routine exams, medical costs under the high deductible coverage, and prescription/non-prescription drugs a tax write off as an above-the-line deduction. Fourth, include healthy food, memberships at gyms, and other healthy lifestyle activities as tax deductions to add incentives for improved health. Fifth, allow further tax deductions for healthy markers based upon annual physical results so that healthy people pay less.

Granted, this will help a large number of people, but there is also a large part of our population that doesn't pay taxes anyway, so incentives won't help or hurt them in any way. For these people, the poor on welfare, the system already provides a net for them. They are never denied care when they show up at a hospital.

Again, there's no easy fix. But there's also no need to rush a fix without working through a lot of the issues that will affect all of us greatly and not for the better.

Mackey is a bright guy - a libertarian who would almost never be mistaken for a conservative.

Although I disagree with some of his points (unfettered free markets will never fix health care in the US) he is correct in saying that the present "debate" (it's mostly political posturing on both sides) needs a strong injection of fiscal reality. Health care needs to be fixed because it's impossibly expensive and neither side of the old guard in Washington is proposing a workable solution.

What a great week so far. They say the body is a wonderful thing, well this one needs some rest.

Playoff Beard thanks for the kind words the other day. It's you're posts as well as all of the other great people in this community that help keep those like me motivated. Rest Hard today, Friday will be here soon enough. Fit at Fifty.

A friend of mine had an interesting idea: how about a public option with tax breaks if you do Crossfit? (Or tax hikes for overweight/lazy individuals).

But seriously, I find the constant references to the waiting times and poor treatment in the British health care system to be amusing. I've only lived in the UK for two years, but all of my experiences with the system here have been very positive. Yes, if something is not serious you will have to wait a bit to get it treated... that is if you want to get it treated for free. You have the option of going to a private doctor of any stripe and getting immediate treatment. Some of the public practitioners run private practices on the side. The crucial bit though, is everyone has access to medical care here. This is certainly not to say that there aren't problems with the NHS, any bureaucracy of that size will have its problems (an aging population increasingly reliant on immigration to fund the system to name just one...). I'm also not saying it would necessarily work in the US, maybe at the state level but probably not nationwide. But it is definitely not the horror story portrayed in the US media.

#66 Greg/M2

Hawaii was admitted to the union on Aug 21, 1959.

Obama was born August 4, 1961.

So, Hawaii was part of the US when Obama was born.

ChicagoSchool,

Just because you are affiliated with an economics department at some prestigious school does not make you smarter than everyone else. I studied economics (briefly) at a less than prestigious school and the one thing that I can tell you about economists is that they are always wrong. How many economic theories have been introduced in the last 100 years that have not been discredited within 10 years? It seems like every time there is a different economic event, there is a new theory to explain it. Well, guess what, hindsight is 20/20. Until there is an economic theory that holds at least a little water as a predictive paradigm, it's all hind sight explanation and pretty much worthless. How many different economists are there out there from different Ivy league schools (who are all super intelligent) with different theories? That's all economics is, theories. Please spare me your intellectual elitism garbage. You are not smarter than everyone on the boards and if your chosen field is economics than you are a "guesser" and little more.

Nate - Subbed 4 Pu's and 4 Ring Dips all else as Rx'd - 10 Rounds even.

(Yesterday)

AMRAP 65 # all
5 thruster
7 hpc
10 sdlhp
= 8 R + 5 thruster, + 7 hpc, + 4 sdlhp

Was shooting for 9 R, so close! Love the “amrap” wods.

Erin

#40, Chicago School, writes,

"Having a government plan increases competition in the health care industry, which creates incentive for more efficiency and lower prices."

Of course this is only true if the government does not dictate the exact terms on which all entrants must compete. If for example, the government said that Federal Express and UPS need to provide the exact same coverage as the US Postal Service, those companies would not exist.

Right now, it is not possible for an insurance company to provide basic catastrophic insurance to people across the country, or even in many states. Politicians pander to special interests by requiring that anything and everything be covered. The result people have no real choice. They either over insure or don't insure at all.

the problem with government run healthcare and "tricare" is that the government won't compete, and by refusing, will not create efficiency in the system, only more spending.

Tricare is basicly a failure, constantly needing congressional votes for money to keep it afloat.

Don't forget the national defecit is both the republicans and the democrats fault!

This whole health care debate seems to always dance around the idea that health care is supposed to make us healthy. While I agree we need health care/insurance reform it is a mistake to think that this will make us healthier.
* Most Americans already have health insurance
* America spends more money per capita on health care than any country (by far).
* Yet we rank very poorly on the life expectancy ranking. (around 17th last time I checked)
* THe number one killer in America is heart disease- a life style disease...in other words people, through their actions, choose to get heart disease.

So, despite all our insurance and all of our money and all our technology we are still a sickly country that dies young and the reason for it is we are fat and lazy.

HOW WILL MORE INSURANCE FIX THAT?

hint: it will not.

#56, Steve, writes,

"The problem with Health Insurance is Health Care isn't the goal, but rather profits. Insurance Companies can just make more profits denying care rather than providing care."

Let's assume this is true. Then all the excess costs (and reduced coverage) come in the form of profits, and since the government wont make a profit, the savings will go to the public. But the same thing would happen if the government could mandate that 100% of all insurance companies' profits are rebated to the customers. Right now, if that were to happen, policy holders would get a 3% rebate.

Of course, if this could happen, insurance companies (like the government) would have no incentive to make a profit, they would stop controlling costs (i.e., making hard choices, denying coverage), profits would go to zero and then negative, and rebates would turn to price increase.

If your life depended on a particular package being delivered on time the following day, would you send it via the money losing US Post Office or profit making Federal Express?

Sorry to interrupt the political discussion, but regarding the Kelly Starrett video, doesn't this seem to contradict what we see in many videos regarding the front squat, and particularly the overhead squat.

It seems like the emphasis on the front squat (particularly in the clean) is to keep the torso upright to save the back, but keeping the torso upright necessarily brings the knees forward to keep from falling backward. And with the overhead squat, I was never able to do one until I started doing CF - and now I can do them but only because I've developed enough ankle flexibility to let get down into that position with knees forward. It seems to me nearly impossible to perform an overhead squat to any depth with vertical shins. Look at any competitive O-Lifter, and you'll see the knees way forward. Is that necessarily going to lead to knee problems? I don't know, I'm asking anyone who does.

And on the flip side, by keeping the knees back, it would seem to me you shift a lot of strain to the back, thus leading to back problems (which I have, but no knee problems). Is this just a trade-off, or is there a "perfect" squat that won't lead to either? I'd like to believe there is.

Someone Please name one government program that is a success by any business standard.
Free markets and limited government are the only answer!

Thankful for the rest day. too much AMRAP if you ask me. glad i got through it though.

Joe at August 26, 2009 6:27 PM

He proposes small tax cuts (some of which already exists, he just suggests moving them from one recipient to another) and a HUGE reduction in proposed spending. A penny saved is a penny earned.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Dan P. at August 26, 2009 6:56 PM

Are you certain you read the article?

"For food, I pay my vendor directly. For medical care, it's an insurance company that pays the doctor, not me. That's why free-market incentives work well for food but are broken for health care. The free market inevitably biases doctors and patients to use expensive or unnecessary treatments and biases insurance companies not to pay for treatments that are actually worth the money."

His point exactly, we should be paying the vendor directly for anything short of catastrophe, so we know where the money is going. And if you think the medical care system is run under free market economics now, you haven't been really looking. In this article alone he lists multiple government interventions which separate us from the real cost of our care, and which limit our access to good insurance. That isn't the free market.

"With food, it's clear what quality I'm getting. With medical care, it's not clear at all."

It is? So why do people get salmonella? And if you aren't clear on what medical care you are getting, get clear. It's important, and i have yet to go to a doctor who won't explain my treatment to me.

"I eat every day, and I can get many different types of food from lots of different places. I only get medical treatment rarely, I can only get one or two kinds of treatment, and there's only a few providers I can get it from."

I don't understand the relevance of that statement.

"Food is cheap. Medical care is expensive."

Yes, and what the author is trying to do, is to show you a way medical care could be made cheaper while maintaining the quality. But even so, didn't you say above that you eat every day and visit the doctor rarely? Considering volume, which costs more year-to-year?

"The free market is a superb tool for allocating resources in many contexts of our economy, but like any tool, it has its limitations. I'm not prepared to make free-market capitalism my one true religion any more than I'm prepared to throw out my hammer just because my screwdriver works so well at driving screws."

I think this is an Obama-ism.* I also have both a hammer and a screwdriver, but they are cheaper than medical care, I use them much more often, I know what quality I am getting, and they don't allow me to pick other people's pockets to pay for my healthcare.

*Obama-ism: Where a general statement seems to convey wisdom, buy when applied directly to the subject being discussed, really says nothing at all.

#88 H.E.

The military

NeedSleep at August 26, 2009 7:42 PM

Yeah, I noticed the plug for a high-carb diet. He'd keel over if he saw the way I eat. I have about an average of 45 grams of carb a day.

I disagree with what you said about providing for your own health. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I think the diseases which most poeple worry about are cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer's. These are the biggies, and there is good reason to think that they all can be controlled or prevented with a healthy diet (just not the one the author recommends, hehe).

expat at August 26, 2009 10:01 PM

Actually, expat, in many ways that IS the problem with the uninsured. Many States do not allow that kind of coverage to be sold, and for people like you and me who are healthy and don't make many trips to the doctor, that is the preferred coverage.

I am also recently unemployed, and I am uninsured. I wouldn't want the total coverage I had as an employee, in fact, I lobbied my H.R. department to get rid of it and pay me my money directly. Never worked. But keep in mind that many of the complaints the government-care advocates have about the current system are manufactured by lay, a.k.a., by government.

Strong picture Erin and happy rest day for all but me.

I'll be making up Cindy for earlier in the week.

"Politics is applesauce." - Will Rogers

Erin, you are gorgeous. Props to the strong sisters! Proud to belong to the same tribe as you...

The funny thing about health care reform is that no one is trying to get people off their tail and exercise and eat right. That would prevent a lot of aliments.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/five_myths_about_health_care_a.html

wfs

another view point to add different fuel to the fire.

Figured that since its a rest day (a much needed one at that) then people might not mind doing some more reading...

Don't want to talk politics today fellas- I am trying to recover from 3 straight AMRAPs. I don't know about ya'll but there are quite a few aching muscles.

-From the Crossfit group at NCSU

Dizzy

God bless

You want to 1) make people healther (#1 priority), 2) Lower the cost of care and 3) Get more people insured/access?

Here you go:
1) Get rid of community pricing in health insurance. The healthier you are the lower your premiums are. If you are a lazy fat turd that smokes 4 packs a day then your physical will show it and your premiums go up. THIS WILL CREATE A STRONG INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH. As behaviors change, the society will become healthier and the cost for everyone will go down. Also, American work force will become more productive/efficient.
2) Allow people to customize their insurance product. Example- I am young and healthy therefore I want a high deductable and low monthly premiums...or I have a large family with some special medical needs so I will pay a higher premium for a lower deductable and will opt for a generic medication option.
3) Transfer farm subsidies for corn, grain and soy to fruits, vegtables, poultry, fish and nuts. This will make processed foods more expensive and healthier foods less expensive.

Done and done!!

Steve- CF Ocean City at August 27, 2009 4:08 AM

My only critique is with the suggestion that there be a tax deduction for healthy food. The problem is that the government would define "healthy", and we all know how well they do THAT. They would end up encouraging many, especially those with lower incomes, to eat poorly, and then say, "See, the system is broken!", and try to take over.

Now I know someone will roll his eyes at that statement. Keep in mind that someone apparently isn't paying attention to what is going on RIGHT NOW.

Anyway, better to do away with income tax entirely, and remove all the laws governing health insurance. It's radical, but no more so than the current bill, and it would actually allow so many people to afford both insurance and even health care WITHOUT insurance.

#91 MartyAl

Please describe your definition of "success by a business standard."

The military I served in was anything but fiscally efficient. The use it or lose it policies, enacted by every command I every served in, at the end of a fiscal year were outrages. The procurement policies comical and the utilization of manpower and civilian contractors appalling.

I would be interested in knowing how many of the people speaking in opposition to government run health care on this web site are in fact recipients of it.

I may be misinformed on the matter but, isn't the military health care system, for active duty and retires, a single payer system with medical professionals being paid salaries and tests being dictated by pre established protocals? Also, as I recall your pay grade and job description provided for faster access to health care profesionals. As an aviator, I rarely had to wait to see a doctor while I watched my enlisted troops wait for hours to be seen.

# 40 says "If the private insurance companies cannot compete with a plan that provides health care to those who need it at a lower cost, then they will go out of business."
Sure it's easy to have lower cost and drive private companies out of business when you're subsidized. The costs would be lower for the consumer, sure, but at what cost for the government? The government wants to keep getting bigger and bigger with more and more programs taking away more and more freedoms and telling us how to live our lives because apparently we don't know what's best for ourselves. How long till the majority of Americans are working for the government? Then who's left to pay for that government? How is the government stepping in and competing with/taking over a private sector market considered free market/capitalist in any way?

and # 43 says "watch the news much?"
The same news that keeps reporting how bad meat is for us and how we should all be eating "healthy whole grains"?

I agree that the best thing the government can do for health care is to change it's stance on what's considered healthy eating, get out of bed with agribusiness, and start educating people about whole food made by sustainable means. This picture says it all http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg158/MDA2008/MDA2009/PostIt-Entry.jpg

Andre at August 27, 2009 7:27 AM

While your #3 would probably have the desired effect, keep in mind that those subsidies come out of my (and others') pocket, and I didn't want to give it up. I was threatened, prison or my money, and I chose money. The moral choice here is to do away with the subsidies entirely, rather than using other peoples' money to create even more distortions in our economy by supporting one grower over another.

Regarding military health benefits. Since salaries are generally lower your health benefits are part of your total compensation. And if you had a choice which would you choose; Military health or private health?

Regarding today's pic. Glad the heinous idiotic post was deleted. In my opinion any female working out is more attractive than the general public.

Andre nailed it above. Le the customer choose exactly the type of coverage. Isn't Crossfit about taking personal responsibility for our bodies? do we want government dictating what exercises to do? i don't think it will get that far, but we want to be responsible for ourselves and others to do the same.

I'm tired of hearing about the "lower cost" of the public alternative. Anyone who thinks that costs can be lowered by legislation really needs to find the "START" button for his brain. Costs are real, and while they can be lowered, they have to be lowered in the real world, not by fiat.

A "public option" isn't low-cost, or free, it's a hidden cost. It shows up in your taxes, it shows up in reduced access to treatment, it shows up in reduced quality of care (price-fixing will reduce incentive for the best and brightest to enter the field). How can this be anything other than obvious?

I am by no mean a supporter of subsidies but if they are going to exist they shouldn't be to lower the cost of things that are bad for us. I would love if we got rid of them all together but by shifting them it would help drive down the cost of the healthy stuff.

The WSJ article is missing the point and is arguing that failures in the Canadian and UK models are inherent with all government funded programs. This is simply not the case, and uses self-interested reason to make that argument.

The most frequently used, and most oft-cited argument against government run health care is that it reduces "competition" and thus results in higher costs and longer wait times. However, consider the following:

1)Those on waiting lists for admission into hospitals and specialized treatment in Canada are on those waiting lists because they can afford to be. Triage for the use of specialized services (MRI, etc) is no different than for those that arrive at an Emergency ward. Those requiring care immediately, get it. Those that don't will have to wait until they are next on the list. It's only those that want to jump queue that use this argument.
2)Under the "competition" argument is often lost the reality that doctors in the US have little "incentive" to reduce costs and provide only required treatment. This is due to the fact that they can be "fired" as a health care provider. As "customers" come into their health care clinic looking for something to make them feel better, there's no incentive for the doctor to turn them away and tell them that all they need is bed rest, etc. Rather, the incentive is to needlessly prescribe medications that cannot actually fight the common cold, etc. but have contributed to drug-resistant illnesses. This in turn has exacerbated the problem of the pharmaceutical lobby in Washington, who by the way, fund a significant proportion of the media attacks against universal health care.
3)Those that argue against universal health care do so from a position of privilege, not knowledge. How many people are refused coverage in Canada/UK on a daily basis for lack of insurance? None. If you're a Canadian citizen, you have health coverage that is provided by your province. How many US citizens have been asked for their health insurance provider before receiving care? How many of those citizens have been turned away. I lost count too.
4)The most important argument for universal health care is that of social productivity. The number of days and years of lost productivity by workers is necessarily lower when everyone has access to even the most basic health care. Further, when you examine the number of individuals who will not seek treatment for relatively minor injuries (sprained ankle, sprained knee) but who see more serious problems occur later on in life (sprained ankle/knee leads to back problems for example) due to lack of initial care, than you are actually paying twice for one injury. In the end, healthier people work harder, are more productive and are better contributors to society. Sociologists have long argued that one of the key limitations to positive school habits and long term success is illness and malnutrition during childhood. Imagine being able to afford food because you didn't have to pay the doctor your deductable this month after breaking your leg.

The question of universal health care is a moral question, not a political question.

Yes, Andre, I agree that the effect of what you propose would be as you say. I just think we should be able to make our own food decisions without being financially "encouraged" by government, especially since the encouragement costs all taxpayers.

#88 H.E.

USPS.

Comment #110

Is that a joke? Have you checked their bottom line...they lose money better than they deliver mail. What's your next example? The DMV?

dan m at August 27, 2009 8:33 AM

Seriously, giving the answer which supports your case rather than being honest doesn't contribute to a meaningful discussion. If you choose to say whatever it takes to prevent someone else from making a good point, then why bother becoming involved in the first place? It isn't about "winning".

The USPS and Military are not successful by any business standard but it illustrates an important aspect of the debate.

The public option is not intended to be the most efficient or profitable option. It is, however, derived in the same philosophy that the USPS and Military are.

That certain services, such as delivering mail and defending the country and, yes, ensuring baseline medical treatment of our citizens, supercedes ideals of profitability and efficiency.

Can you imagine if we had no public option for delivering the mail or defending the country? If those services were left solely to Fed-Ex, UPS, Blackwater and Haliburton?

Oh.. wait.. you'd probably have a situation like you do with the insurance industry.

Years ago I heard a speaker list other ways to address health care costs, one of which was creating more medical schools to help relieve the shortage of doctors. Is increasing the number of medical school slots part of this health care reform?

That sounded like a good idea to me although it would take 20 years to get the money for it, build the schools, train the doctors, and get them into the jobs.

I also heard an experienced nurse talk about how he sees men getting their 4th heart surgery now, at $100K per surgery (or more!). In the past they would have died, now they can get surgery forever and keep ticking. That is a radical cost increase that society has to bear, but you can't let someone die, so the cost is bourne. What used to kill people now can be worked around, but at a huge cost. Maybe diet and excercise can address that with 50 years of hard work.

Check out my girl Glory's story if you missed it...so inspirational, she definitely should've been at least considered for the "Spirit of the Games" award.

http://games2009.crossfit.com/competitors/glory-dawson-both-competitions.html

Sometimes you have to ignore the critics.

But sometimes, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

This is one of those times.

http://www.canada.com/health/Exercise+fads+outlive/1935353/story.html

The author of this article includes Crossfit (along with Strip, Pole, and stiletto aerobics ... Hula Hooping ... and Hot Yoga) as being a exercise fad you'll outlive.

Pathetic article.

I'd love other CF'ers to join me in helping this author see the light.

I was surprised to see so many people angrily boycotting Whole Foods just because Mackey dared to present alternative ideas for debate.
What's wrong with free speech? Why should his company be punished because he had an opinion and happened to be a ceo?

"The problems of our economy have occurred not as an outgrowth of laissez-faire, unbridled competition. They have occurred under the guidance of federal agencies, and under the umbrella of federal regulations."
-- -- -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, defending trucking deregulation in 1978. Link here ... http://blog.american.com/?p=4328 Ted was also instrumental in airline deregulation.

I would be very careful on 'reforming' health care if it entails more regulation. Otherwise, we may have to suffer for 40-years before it gets deregulated. Same/similar happened with trucking, airlines and, most importantly, beer.

In any case, Mary Jo Kopechne still remains unavailable to comment.

Government has zero business providing insurance.

Mr. Mackey shows the danger of any entity defining "healthy food" or "healthy lifestyle". The government food pyramid is a screaming example of what is wrong. However, I agree with some of his points/perspective. I am not, nor will I ever be, a fan of the nanny state.

#28 - "Rather... a socialist.." Really? Are you serious? If so, move to a socialist country and see how you like it! The freedoms we have been given should not be taken lightly or unappreciated for what they provide and what they allow.

While I approve of Mr. Mackey's alternative plans for healthcare reform.. I suggest you all read this one. It's rather long-- but very much worth every word. The article is written by David Goldhill, another businessman, who's offered his alternatives to the proposed healthcare reform bill.

Enjoy...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Comment #113

Best post in this whole thread!

Solid post RK!

RK at August 27, 2009 8:59 AM

You ignore the fact that the problems with health care that I hear the reformists complaining about are enshrined in law. They are problems created by government intervention. The free market wouldn't look like what we have today because what we have isn't the free market.

To everyone: The argument that the free market is screwed up and we need intervention is bogus. Please stop using it. It has been many decades since we had a free market in health care. It doesn't exist in the U.S.

Paul_C m/39/6'/175 at August 27, 2009 9:09 AM

The number of medical schools in existence in the U.S. is regulated by the A.M.A. with the express purpose of keeping the number of doctors relatively low, thereby keeping their incomes high. The A.M.A. has this power granted to them by...*drumroll*... the Federal Government. It can argued convincingly that there would be more schools (and more hospitals, which are also limited by law in many States) in a free market.

I have written extensively on this topic. It would be impolite to fill up space here by copying/pasting. It would also be redundant.

I am a practicing physician. I own a small business that purchases "health insurance" for roughly 11 families. I am a patient (actually on my was to my OWN doctor right this minute), married to a patient, with three children who are patients. I am a consultant for other medical practices and large medical device/pharmaceutical companies" providing consulting services in the area of the business of medicine. I am as "in the game" as anyone you may read here or elsewhere.

Here is a sampling of my thoughts on the topic raised in the Rest Day article, an article which I read on publication:

An (Im)Modest Healthcare Proposal" http://skyvisioncenters.com/blog/?p=94

"The American Health Crisis" http://skyvisioncenters.com/blog/?p=74

"Tort Reform Equals Healthcare Reform" http://skyvisioncenters.com/blog/?p=44

37/M/5'7"/189
missed yesterday so did nate today.
subbed 8/8 pu/dips for muscle ups and 70lb DB for kb.

4 rds
+ 8/8 pu/dips
+ 2 hspu

first workout for me doing hspu. mad props to you guys/gals getting high rounds. the hspu killed me last 2 took me 3+ min with a couple of failures mixed in.

glad to not have to sub the hspu. will be glad when i can do muscle ups.

Sorry Goat, #122, the AMA has no such power. The AMA is nothing more than a trade organization, not unlike that which lobbies on behalf of the makers of high-fructose corn syrup, stripped of its only real power when it lost the right to censor physicians for ethical and other lapses when this was deemed restraint of trade. The AMA has no say whatsoever in the number of either medical schools or number of medical students. This number is regulated by state and federal agencies empowered to fund, or decline to fund, medical education.

Nor does the AMA have the power to license physicians. This is a state-level power held by each individual state. The AMA can neither grant nor withdraw a medical license.

Specialty governing bodies, for example the American Board of Ophthalmology, do have the ability to regulate the number of specialists trained by granting or withholding Board approval to training programs. Dermatology and Neurology have done a notably effective job at holding down the number of said specialists trained, thereby reducing competition and increasing demand. Incidentally, the fact that this has not increased the COST or PRICE of visiting one of these specialists is proof positive that there is NOT a free market in healthcare, all prices/fees essentially set by third-party payers (Medicare, for-profit insurers like Aetna, etc) for ~99% of these scarce resources.

No, Goat, invoking the AMA Boogie Man here is worse than a Strawman, it is no man at all.

Full-disclosure: I am not a member of the AMA. I am a fully Board-certified Ophthalmologist.

Bingo, normally I would take your word as gospel in your field of expertise, but Henry Jones seems to know his A.M.A. history, and I agree with his conclusions:

http://mises.org/story/1749

Ah, more delightful misinformation from the 'Haves' trying to keep the 'Have-Nots' satisfied with what they have...not. As long as customers have no rights or bargaining abilities with their providers, there will always be treatments and diseases not covered by the profit-mongers.

Capitalism does NOT work for social programs. There is a reason why Fire and Police departments, the post office, and the military are NOT privatized concerns, and health insurance is the same. Its nowhere in the Constitution that we have a right to the FD coming to put out a fire at our house, but I'd say we still take it for granted, no?

Bingo, also this article: http://mises.org/story/3657

Now, certainly the AMA couldn't do any of this without government intervention. Government is once again the root cause, the AMA is more of a large limb. But the fact remains that they act successfully to limit the number of MD's in the U.S. Good for them, bad for everyone else.

dk m/32/6'0"/223 at August 27, 2009 10:53 AM

My dear dk, I am a Have-not. I am broke, unemployed, uninsured, and unconcerned. And my local fire department is 100% volunteer, funded by donations. Society taking care of itself without the intrusion of government, thank you very much. Seriously, do you really think a community would allow it's buildings to burn down if government didn't step in? How silly they would be.

dk m/32/6'0"/223 at August 27, 2009 10:53 AM

Also, you contradict yourself, back to back:

"As long as customers have no rights or bargaining abilities with their providers, there will always be treatments and diseases not covered by the profit-mongers."

I agree, but then you say:

"Capitalism does NOT work for social programs."

So which is it? Should we bargain directly with providers, or should we have government intervention? You are confusing me. And please, tell me, in a socialist society, what is NOT considered a social program?

The military does not work to make profit.

USPS is a flop by any business standard. FedEx and UPS would not be around if not for the substandard performance of the USPS.

Deadlifts
10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1

I chose weights for unbroken sets
215, 225, 235, 245, 255, 265, 275, 285, 295, 305

Fun Fun Fun

H.E. 35/170/6'0 at August 27, 2009 11:01 AM

The law setting up the USPS disallows any other entity to carry letters. This is government's idea of fair competition. Start by making ANY compeition illegal, then do a poor job at a high price and tell the customer to go fly a kite if he doesn't like it.

FedEx et al exist only because of a loophole. The law says specifically "letters". Maybe you've noticed that the private carriers always refer to the shipments as "packages". They aren't letters, therefor it's legal to carry them. As Ron Paul says, if something seems fishy here, you understand it perfectly. I've often wondered when Congress will get around to closing that little loophole.

#116 Crossfitter

Who really cares what the author thinks.... CrossFit is contrarian by nature and may appear to be a trend to those who don't drink the koolaid.

I have shown CrossFit to friends who I thought would love it and they all think it is too intense or hard or just not their cup of tea.

From my own experiences, it is something you get or you don't. As Coach alluded to in yesterdays CFJ link, certain types of people are drawn to CrossFit. The author of this article is not one of those people. I can accept that.... no problem.

Goat,

The articles speak truthfully about the ORIGIN of state Medical Boards, but now, and for many decades now, the American Medical Association has had nothing whatsoever to do with licensing physicians at the state or national level. I stand by my statement: invokingthe AMA Boogie Man in the present healthcare economics debate, indeed invoking the AMA at any time since the since well before LBJ's Great Society with regard to supply and demand, is meaningless. The AMA is nothing more than a trade organization with little else but name recognition and some residual goodwill from the days when it DID mean something regarding standards, ethics and the like.

While I grant the historical link, the AMA is now a non-entity with regard to licensing, credentialling, or regulating the supply of physicians.

Seems to me that we'd all at least be getting somewhere by sticking to the ideas which are easy for anyone (well, maybe except litigators) to support.

If Congress & Obama were to follow through on the portability, the tort reforms, the personal tax deductible premiums, and the removal of caps on high-deductible plans ("catastrophic care"), then at least we'd be down the road to some savings and simplicity. Sure, there are other issues as well. But politicized debate with everyone choosing sides is unsustainable, as it only leads to inaction when nobody is willing to lose or even compromise.

Wouldn't it be great if politicians actually got something done?

And on a lighter note, how about a truly amazing demonstration of the 10 physical skills? (WFS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IggFUVO4UA Go Bears!

This bill scares me to death, I attended a town hall meeting in my district regarding health care reform. This is being deemed urgent mearly to push ahead this power grabbing fascist agenda. I used the word fascist deliberately, Obama has more in common with a fascist than a communist. If passed, this bill will open the door to the gov't owning your life, literally.

I will fight it tooth and nail, my children will live free. Anyone who believes this "reform" is about helping people is insane.

Congrats erin you always look awesome!

Congrats Erin looking awesome as always!

M/22/5'8"/160

First time ever to do "Nate"

Got 8 rounds, and 8 pullups and 8 dips into the ninth round.

Definitely will be resting tomorrow.

#127: Alinsky used a third term: "have a little, want mores." The technical terms, as you know, are Capitalists (for have's; synonyms includes parasites, leaches, rats, running dogs, imperialists, and, today, Reaganite Zombies), Proletarians (Have not's), and Bourgeoisie (for "have a little, want more's).

If you're going to use Marxist terminology, please be clear about it.

Us and Them would likely do, although I'm quite sure you're not a "worker". You are enabled in Leninism to speak on their behalf. Hell, to regulate on their behalf, and to kill them for their own good.

I will do 20 burpees for that, before anyone asks. I'm out for the rest of this. I just won't read. It's the only option.

I rarely see this many comments on a rest day, but this just shows how important and divisive this issue is.

Health Care Reform cannot happen without serious tort reform first. Tort reform will drive down costs in two major ways: costs from malpractice insurance will no longer be passed on to the patient and doctors will no longer "over-test" to cover their hide in the case of a malpractice claim. Tort reform is the forgotten component of this argument.

Secondly, social programs have taken the place of the sense of "community" that thrived 50-100 years ago. In times of physical need, job loss, or retirement; one's family and friends took care of them (financially and physically). Now we have replaced that with medicare, welfare, and social security. The only remnants of that sense of community are at weddings and births when the friends and family come together to help people through a financially crippling time (wedding gifts and baby showers). The more we ask from the federal government, the more we will be asked to give. Lets put the brakes on new government "social" programs and turn them back over to the non-profit organizations, because I am not willing to work so that half of my wages go to the wasteful federal government.

“Nate”
Sub 6 pull ups/ 6 dips
45# KB
= 10 R + 6 pull ups

Usually use 50# db but gym got in KB and I was real excited to try them out. 45# was the biggest. It was soo much nicer than crushing my hands to hold the db.

Real tired out, no gas in tank. Looking forward to active rest tomorrow.
Erin

#117: Sure Mackey has the right to say what he wants, but what about the free speech rights of the boycotters? Free speech is a two-way street and the traffic moves in both directions.

bingo at August 27, 2009 11:10 AM

Considering that the AMA was the original source of the state medical boards, considering the influence that it exerted over them for so long, considering the influence it still exerts in government on the federal level (it's influence over dietary guidelines is one example, the AMA doesn't write the government ones, but they are regarded as experts), considering all of that, I find it hard to imagine they have been defanged in the area of licensing. They are more subtle than the UAW, but I don't think that makes them less dangerous.

Bingo, a question. Who is on State medical boards? All doctors? If so, what percentage belongs to the AMA? Serious question here, I don't know.

Re: the military being an efficiently-run government program...haha. You've obviously never served. Fortunately, we provide a valuable service that no one else is willing or able to provide, so we can receive the funding and support we need in spite of our wastefulness. But it's pretty clear that we're not privately run by anyone concerned with efficiency or making a profit.

Actually, Eric, I am willing and able to provide it. It's just that I cannot seem to convince anyone that I really am a one-man army!

Goat,

I'm usually in-line with your posts anyway, but you are SO on the money today.

It shouldn't be a surprise then that Bingo's another favorite of mine. It's cool to see you two setting the example for debating a disputed point.

Comment #150 - Posted by: hoodoo at August 27, 2009 1:04 PM

Terrible...F.

Mmmmmm......Erin is yummy!!! Grrrrowwwlll.....

Every wealthy developed country besides the United States provides health care to all of its citizens. No wealthy developed country provides basic health care with for-profit insurance companies besides the United States. Isn't it a bit arrogant to think that every other developed country has gotten it wrong and we got it right?

We don't need to create government run health care to provide universal coverage. Germany provides health care to all of its citizens with non-profit health insurance companies. The problem with our system is that there is no system. Depending on your status you may have government paid health care, private health insurance, or 3rd world style out-of-pocket health care. It's time that the US chose a coherent system of health care, whatever that is.

IanG at August 27, 2009 1:14 PM

When the founding fathers decided to form a Constitutionally-limited Republic, it was the only one on the entire planet. How arrogant were they?

I have a question for you. If you don't know, no problem, I will just have to research it on my own. Does the U.S. have non-profit health insurance companies? If not, why not? If so, are they subject to the same legal limitations as for-profit insurance companies? Okay, sorry, that's three questions

hoodoo at August 27, 2009 1:04 PM

Actually, I thought the navel was kinda cute.

ksan at August 27, 2009 12:53 PM

Thank you very much. It's good to know that what I say resonates with people.

As for my debate with Bingo, it helps that I have the highest respect for him, both personally and as I doctor.

I'm Canadian and from my perspective anyone that thinks that single-payer insurance is a bad thing is out of their freaking mind.

There are very few Canadians who don't think our health care system could be improved, but there are almost none who believe that it should be replaced with a private system. Outside the US, your health care system is widely viewed with horror.

The idea that a cartel of profit-motivated private insurance companies will serve your best interests better than the government (which, for all it's bureaucracy and BS is ultimately you, the people...) is incomprehensible to me.

Chicago School -

Capitalism is defined as an economic system with a PRIVATELY controlled means of production in which individuals are free to exchange property rights without coercion from each other or by government. For you to claim that public healthcare, which is funded by theft and bolstered by heavy regulation on private individual rights to enter into their own agreements free from government control or oversight, has anything to do with capitalism is downright blasphemous. I highly doubt that you know much about the Chicago school, and I suggest you read Capitalism and Freedom before attempting to associate socialist ideas with that particular school of thought.

NeedSleep -

Yes, you can grow/forage your own food, so in that sense the analogy is slightly different. You need other people's labor to provide healthcare. To say that other people's labor without due compensation is your right is to endorse slavery.

Erin Cianciolo = Beauty!

Goat,

Non-profit health care co-ops exist and have been doing well for decades, like this one in Wisconsin:

"Group Health in Madison owns five clinics. It pays its doctors a salary, instead of having them bill per procedure, so they are encouraged to provide the appropriate amount of care, Zanoni said. The 62,000 members have a say in operations by electing the board of directors, primarily made up of other members, he said."

Paul_C m/39/6'/175 at August 27, 2009 2:06 PM

That makes me wonder why more of those don't exist. Perhaps regulated to death, or outright banned in most States? Perhaps not very effective? That is the first one I have heard of, maybe I'm just out of the loop.

Do you think the Congressmen have explored this option (that's a joke, by the way).

I crushed the WOD today!
A well deserved break

so much for a rest day.

I just finished reading all the posts and my head is spinning. I now have to read the associated links.

My body has enjoyed the rest but my brain is looking forward to another three days of AMRAP.

Awesome debate everyone. This is what should be in the news.

Probably the easiest solution to health care (and social security for that matter) is to make sure all our congress men and women were mandated to be a part of it.

Love the Whole Foods article!

What a day to be underwater at work - c'est la vie. Looks like there were plenty CFers to stand up for the virtues of liberty.

Erin's photo - stunning example of CF results. Congrats. I'll show it to any gal who's worried she's going to 'bulk up.'

Paul

Much needed rest day. Can't wait to see whats on tomorrow's menu.

Did CFE - 15 min run - didnt go full out 3.2k

Did workout that Kimberly made up for us:

CAMRAP in 20 minutes:
3rounds of 1 squat clean + 3 push jerks @ 135#
20 situps (I upscaled to GHD situps)

Got 8 rounds plus 1 clean + 3 push jerks

The ghd was the worst part! Fun workout.

Hi Everyone,

I am from CFBoston and have written a paleo cookbook to raise funds for FGB4. The book will print in 8.5 by 5.5 inches, wire bound, over 100 pages in full color with over 60 recipes from poached eggs on collard greens to paleo carrot cake. I would love it if anyone wanted to support me in my efforts, you can advance order a book at my site

http://sites.google.com/site/paleopantry/home

books are $20 plus shipping and there is also a sample recipe up there for you to see what types of pictures to expect. Sorry if anyone sees this as spam :)

Bingo appears to do a not-so-subtle subject change from Medical School ACCREDITATION (AMA involved) to Medical LICENSING (AMA _not_ involved) at the state level

Medical School ACCREDITATION is described here ... http://www.lcme.org/start.htm ... The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) is the nationally recognized accrediting authority for medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree in U.S. and Canadian medical schools. The LCME is sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

Want to restrict the supply of physicians? Then restrict the source of physicians. Create a monopoly, a collusion of suppliers (a la OPEC), to conspire to set barriers to entry (tuition & fees extremely high, can't be a doctor without Med School, make it difficult for new med schools to open, etc)

Knowing the facts, the readers might now accuse both the AMA and existing Medical Schools of engaging in 'unfair' trade practices that injure/kill humanity. Perhaps this AMA/AAMC behavior is a 'crime against humanity'

P.S. Over 8-years in Navy. I do NOT want to inflict military medical care on anyone. I have too much humanity.

around here it's called Whole Paycheck...wondering who's fitter: republicans or democrats?...or green partyans

Teddy-Care Now!!!

RM3 wrote at 3:58:
"Knowing the facts, the readers might now accuse both the AMA and existing Medical Schools (sic) of engaging in 'unfair' trade practices that injure/kill humanity."
Or they might be glad that there aren't incompetent doctors out there injuring and killing humanity. Unless, of course, you see any sort of standard-setting as inimical to free markets.
Also, on tort reform: does anyone know the proportion of medical costs attributable to frivolous lawsuits in states that have capped non-economic damages? I don't, and would be curious to hear the answer. Maybe Bingo knows? The article calls for us to "[e]nact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care." I agree that courts should toss out frivolous suits (and they usually do), but it's hard to believe that all of these costs are based on nothing more than that. In what way have tort reforms passed in various states actually impacted awards? Will there not be more impact (i.e., more cutting of awards) in the most egregious cases of medical negligence? Which case is more likely to hit a $250,000 cap: a knee operation that wasn’t entirely successful, or an operation where a doctor cut into a major artery with no idea what he was doing?

#142 Barry, sorry you won't see this, but it was the best option. Opinions are like a-holes...

All of these arguments about the merits of government-provided health care in the US are irrelevant. The federal government cannot afford to create a large new entitlement program right now. That is an irrefutable fact, and any attempt to argue otherwise is foolhardy.

My statement re: standards for admission to the medical profession isn't meant to imply that there are no incompetent doctors. Some are amazing, some are awful, many are good. However, to open the doors of the profession wide to any quack that wants to call him or herself a "doctor" and run in, scalpel in hand, maniacal grin on face, hardly seems a sound plan.

#148/Eric: I think you're misunderstanding this aspect of the debate.

I wasn't claiming that the U.S. Military is a model of efficiency. In fact, the opposite. It's large, bureaucratic and wasteful. HOWEVER, no one on this board would ever dare propose that it be privatized and its duties be handed over to a collection of for-profit, privatized companies (even though this is becoming a more feasible and present option in the way the DOD is run)

No one would accept this because it is a generally held belief that defense of the nation from external agents and forces is inherent in the duties and expectations of the federal government.

My argument is that defense of the nation against internal agents and forces (i.e. disease), should be viewed no differently.

I guess if you want your company stock to rise, write a WSJ article to start a liberal boycott.

Goat,

Yes Congress has explored the option. I was listening to a radio show about co-ops this morning, and the head of the Madison one said it is difficult to scale nationally since health care is a local issue. So many different rules, licensing, insurance commissioners, etc., all by state or locally, so scaling something that would work everywhere is not currently possible.

Seattle and St. Paul have large working co-ops as well.

drbeau at August 27, 2009 2:51 PM

HA! That WOULD be interesting. I wonder what kind of "social programs" we'd see if there were an amendment stating that Congressmen must use them and get no better quality out of them than anyone else.

RM3 Frisker FTN at August 27, 2009 3:58 PM

I am remodeling to sell my house, and didn't have time to do proper research. Thank you for covering my lapse.

Nick at August 27, 2009 4:40 PM

Honestly, I don't see this happening. It's pretty easy to know who is a good auto mechanic, carpenter, voice coach, trainer, etc. Simply ask them questions, ask their other clients questions.

Also, having cheap "quacks" available may mean, for poorest of the poor, the difference between crappy medical care and NO medical care. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't say this like it's a good thing, I say it like it's a less-bad-than-now thing.

All that being said, I thing real, aggresive competition would do what it always does. Drive out the poor performers and leave the best competing for your dollars. It would be nice to have my doctors answering to me for once.

The health care debate in America right now basically began with the recognition of the "need" to provide insurance for those who do not have it.
I wonder this. There are 45 million uninsured people in the US. How many of those people are uninsured because of a circumstances that are genuinely out of their control? I know a commonly-cited figure (obviously doesn't mean it's true) is that 1/3 of the uninsured (15 million) are healthy young people who would rather not pay the high premiums. Who are the other 30 million who don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare?
If you want to feel sick to your stomach, walk into a McDonald's or a Burger King. Look around the restaurant. Imagine subsidizing the health care of the people eating there more than you already do. Seriously, try it. 75% of health care outlays are for conditions that are in large part (obviously not 100%) preventable: diabetes, heart conditions, many cancers.
I am willing to bet that there are millions of people in America at whom "bringing down the cost" of health care is aimed who require large amounts of medical care as a result of personal negligence. I do not mean for this to degenerate into a Freidman/Keynes, Atlas-Shrugging, bootstraps kind of argument, but I think it is immoral to force citizens who are diligent about their diet and fitness to subsidize their slothful counterparts who eat poorly and neglect exercise of any kind.

#76 carl

Excellent, well poised, even and intelligent comments

Thank you, my sentiments exactly.

Paul_C m/39/6'/175 at August 27, 2009 4:49 PM

Cool, good info. I think I did not make myself clear, though. What I meant is, do you think Congress considered the idea that charity actually CAN provide services to the poor, when you don't tax people to death.

It was a joke, but it's also an interesting question. Consider this:

1: The average American loses appoximately 40% of his income to direct taxes, payroll taxes, and the higher prices that result from regulation and excises and fees and sales taxes, etc. That's within spitting distance of half.

2: Many, many people, some who live on very little, still give money and volunteer time and expertise for charitable causes, both in the U.S. and abroad.

How much more would we as Americans be giving to charity if we had back all the taxes taken from our paychecks, AND were paying less for most of the products we buy? For that matter, how much better off would those in the lower income levels be, just from lower taxes and lower living costs alone? For THAT matter, how many more jobs would be created by businesses large and small who suddenly had much more money to spend on actually doing what they set up shop to do in the first place, and selling to people who had more money to spend?

Imagine that world.

#168 RM3 Frisker FTN:

I respectfully disagree; I did not change the subject. Read what I wrote again, please. Once upon a time the AMA may have had a role in "sponsoring" the LCME (whatever sponsoring might mean; I think it's like being "sponsored" by AARP), but as of now, and for that matter as of my year of matriculation and every year since, the AMA has had no role in the accreditation of of medical schools. Nor has it had a role in determining how many students each school may graduate--they are accredited for a certain number and funded for a certain number, the numbers. usually coinciding.

The supply of AMERICAN TRAINED physicians is de facto restricted by the fact that a finite number of schools is accredited to graduate a finite number of physicians. In order to sit for you licensing boards you must graduate from an accredited school. OR, you can graduate from a foreign medical school, pass your ECFMG exam, and then sit for your licensing boards. There is no restriction on the number of foreign trained physicians who can sit for licensure. There IS an immigration policy that limits the number of foreign BORN/foreign trained physicians.

The number of Board certified physicians is strictly controlled by the ABME, another group that is not controlled by the AMA. Being Board certified is generally required in order to participate in third-party payer contracts (excepting Medicare and Medicaid).

I'll say it again, the American Medical Society is now little more than an trade organization that represents less than half of American physicians. While it does provide some services to the U.S. government (coding, for example), it has no role in licensing physicians, accreditation of medical schools, or determining the number and type of physicians practicing in the U.S. In its heyday when >75% of doctors belonged and it had the power to publicly censure physicians and to declare behavioral policy (no advertising, for example) it was a significant force in determining all types of policy. Having lost countless antitrust/restrain-of-trade suits it is now little more than a lobbying outfit with a very high "Q" rating.

Ya'll need to move on from this one.

IanG #154:

Sweden and Denmark have very successful health care systems built around for-profit health insurance companies, albeit with significant federal regulation. You over-reach in your statement.

One other thing. According to Tom Mullen:

"...Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and the Department of Education combine for over 55% of our $3 trillion budget (The Department of Education is only 2%, but after that no other expenditure has a significant percentage at all). Without them, there would be no deficit. Without these programs we could eliminate the income tax and begin paying down the national debt at the same time. The financial benefits to our country would be staggering."

As you can see these are pre-Obama numbers, but the gist of it is still the same.

The entire blog post:

http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-freedom-movement-really-ready-for.html

Thank God for WOMEN like Erin! HOTTT!!!

bingo at August 27, 2009 5:06 PM

Okay, I will concede this issue to you. But I have to say that your explanation of how it works doesn't really change my point, it just takes the letters AMA out of it. It's still artificially limited by regulatory organizations.

Nick #171 and others,

The cost to the system of runaway tort abuse is really not either the cost of malpractice insurance (although it must be tough to be an OB/GYN on Long Island with $200,000 med-mal premiums; that's 200 Large before you turn on the lights), nor is it the cost of lost lawsuits. Some bright light did an analysis that showed that the total of premiums and settlements was something like 0.5% of medical expenditures, or some such ridiculously low number.

Doctors do not pass on the cost of their malpractice insurance to patients. Doctors really have no pricing control. A doctor's fees are set for the most part by insurance companies, which in turn usually set their fees based on Medicare rates. A doctor is contractually not allowed to pass on a premium increase, and legally not allowed to do so for any patient over the age of 65.

As I wrote in my link above, the true cost of runaway tort abuse is twofold. Firstly, it has been estimated by economists of all stripes that anywhere from 15-25% of all healthcare expenditures are for defensive medicine, medical care that does nothing to improve outcomes but is done solely for the purpose of avoiding or winning a lawsuit. Please don't insult me or anyone here with the canard that doctors do the extra tests in order to make more money--most defensive medicine does not contribute to the bottom line of the doctor playing defense.

The second "cost" is the lost opportunity to perform a root cause analysis to find the underlying causes of recurring errors in order to create a safer system with more uniformly better outcomes. Who in their right mind will admit to an error when such an admission will generate a lawsuit? Medical tort reform = healthcare economic reform.

Simple as that.

I predict some heavy lifting is headed our way. Tick tock, tick tock...

Anybody ever give any thought to the effect on the U.S. economy is we start spending less money on healthcare?

Gotta be a couple of jobs out there, you know, people making a living providing all of that care. Spending their salaries on cars, food, flat screen TV's the like.

Just a thought...

I am definitely going to be spending more money at Whole Foods after reading that.

RK at August 27, 2009 4:48 PM

What happens if we run the "national defense" against disease like the military?* Well, we would all be subject to orders from our ranking officers, just like military personnel. Even if you could convince me that a state-run system would work better**, you couldn't convince me to give up my freedom to get it. Really, give me liberty or give me insurance? Not a tough choice.

But if the health care industry is nationalized (and nobody should be fooled into thinking that isn't the end-game of this legislation), wouldn't we have the food pyramid as our official, healthy diet? I wonder what would happen to those of us who refused to stop eating fat and red meat. Gotta ration that care somehow, right?

*I find it amusing my that my health is a national issue. It isn't, of course, but teaching that mindset to people makes the removal of personal freedoms hurt just a little less. It's like lube, I guess.

**Go ahead and try. I will listen.

bingo at August 27, 2009 5:20 PM

I have never gone on the record saying this before, so I will now. Bingo is 100% correct on this, medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control, and in the end it hurts the consumer, badly.

Our foreign oil invasion has cost us over $900billion dollars. Health care is the least of this countries concerns. America is screwed plain and simple. Vote for Ron Paul next time.

Goat: you seem pretty entrenched in your views but I'll give this a go.

I think having a government run option that serves as a baseline safety net for all citizens would not equate to a state-run system. I'm not sure why instituting this option would equate to a loss of personal liberty.

If you base your opinions on assumptions like nationalized-healthcare being a sinister back-room goal of reform, then I don't think we're in a position to debate the facts. Only hysteria and hyperbole (which I find in large amounts on both sides of the political spectrum).

#158- Neil,

I said nothing about not having "due compensation". Slavery and completely unregulated costs and payments are two opposite ends of a long spectrum. I think that one of the largest issues in my Canadian health care system is the inability of the system to retain our Doctors and Nurses because they can be easily attracted to higher paying US jobs. I don't blame the US for this, but I am certain that it causes a problem which needs to be corrected in our system. I don't like slave wages and I don't think they encourage good performance- but to say that "for profits" should make all the decisions seems very dangerous in the long run.

F5 is my greatest friend right now...

i like this WOD!

RK at August 27, 2009 6:17 PM

It's neither hysteria or hyperbole. Obama himself has stated that as a goal of his administration. But if you can overlook the fact that the feds attempt to control everything they touch*, you're likely to overlook things like that.

As for forcing me to pay for other people's health care, how can that NOT be a loss of liberty? Seriously, please explain.

NeedSleep at August 27, 2009 6:17 PM

Slavery doesn't exist on a continuum. It either is or it isn't.

Nobody is more directly answerable to the consumer than people with a profit motive and no ability to call upon the force of government. Tell me why having the medical community answerable to consumers is very dangerous in the long run, please.

*and the Supreme Court has supported them in this, saying that everything funded by government, in whole or in part, is controlled by government. Hysterical, no?

RK at August 27, 2009 6:17 PM

It's neither hysteria or hyperbole. Obama himself has stated that as a goal of his administration. But if you can overlook the fact that the feds attempt to control everything they touch*, you're likely to overlook things like that.

As for forcing me to pay for other people's health care, how can that NOT be a loss of liberty? Seriously, please explain.

NeedSleep at August 27, 2009 6:17 PM

Slavery doesn't exist on a continuum. It either is or it isn't.

Nobody is more directly answerable to the consumer than people with a profit motive and no ability to call upon the force of government. Tell me why having the medical community answerable to consumers is very dangerous in the long run, please.

*and the Supreme Court has supported them in this, saying that everything funded by government, in whole or in part, is controlled by government. Hysterical, no?

Hello CrossFit family! I'm at the beginning stages of doing all the "Girls" in alphabetical order. I noticed that there are girls missing from the demo list like Barbara. Is there any way to get a comprehensive list without leaving out anyone? Thank you!!!

SCOTT 28/M/6'0"/189# at August 27, 2009 6:55 PM

I think this may help:

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/faq.html#WOD0

It's been swell everyone. Good night. I won't be online much tomorrow, so if you want to tell me what an extremist I am, feel free to e-mail me.

"I would rather pay for people who need health care to get it under a socialist government than pay for a war under a conservative government"

-ChicagoSchool...1 you must have grown up in Russia or 2 you must have attended Cal Berkley...Is this what america is made up of anymore. Do we really need a paternal nanny state that provides everything for us or are we allowed to make decisions on our own. Besides that hiccup Mackey's points are valid and some of which aren't even being discussed in Congress.Why? Because they allow people to think for themselves.

1. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. That would create competition without any government taking my money and "redistributing" it elsewhere

2Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits, another great point. How many people lose their job and lose their health insurance as well. This law was created in the 40's and needs to be changed so that we the individual can have some say in what we want.

3.Tort Reform- no explanation needed.

The Mackey article is junk. A public option is necessary to fix health care.

I enjoy the input from folks from away. It annoys me that as a nation, we tend to assume any foreign alternatives must be bad. On the other hand, I can only imagine the pushback if Bernie Sanders was able to get a serious coalition to create a single-payer system, which would require phasing out the insurance industry as we know it. On the third hand (which I'm assuming would be considered a pre-existing condition), since some people are already throwing out terms like "fascist" and names like Hitler, I'm not sure where they could go. Hopefully not to their gun cabinets.

NeedSleep -

If you labored for years developing a drug and risked capital that you labored to earn, the government could not possibly regulate the cost of the drug and at the same time allow you due compensation (as only you and the consumer can come to an agreement on what this is). I'm not saying that Obama is currently proposing price caps like they have in Canada. I am saying that the regulation of costs must involve some individual handing over his labor at the point of a gun.

The existence of a profit motive encourages risk-taking, innovation, and a customer-oriented business model. The rule of law can be used to punish fraud. People balk at pharma/insurance profits and blame the companies without asking why they are so high in the first place. A large part of it has to do with the heavy regulations that create high costs, barriers to entry, and limits on competition. It makes no sense to limit private competition in the way the goverment does and then to turn around and claim that the problem is not enough competition and that a public option is the solution.

Goat-
"Slavery doesn't exist on a continuum. It either is or it isn't.

Nobody is more directly answerable to the consumer than people with a profit motive and no ability to call upon the force of government. Tell me why having the medical community answerable to consumers is very dangerous in the long run, please."

Perhaps I was unclear in my comments. My point was exactly that slavery exists or it doesn't. But there are levels of poor payment and poor recognition which lead up to slavery. My statement was that having some oversight- VERY GENERALLY- in the health care system does not automatically equal making doctors slaves to someone's idea of how they should work or be payed.

Secondly, I will very much admit that I don't know the inns and outs of the insurance system- but largely I think that many consumers are not able OR not informed enough (yes it could be their own fault) to adequately hold the current insurance system to account. If there is a specific and direct and open accounting of all the practices of 100 different insurance companies (which will never happen) then consumers can easily shop and rate them- but currently I see this as rather difficult.

I am not saying "down with insurance" I just see that ONLY
private companies having oversight into their practices as dangerous in that they can more readily mislead people for the purpose of making a profit. I simply don't see why some oversight - IF IT ALLOWS FOR TRANSPARENCY- can be anything but positive. (oversight does not equal socialist control, and I will never agree that "it's a slippery slope", because if it was then everyone would have fallen down one of the other 100 slippery slopes that are out there to get us all.)

Why do liberals say that universal coverage is a moral obligation but then, when it comes to abortion or gay rights, say "You can't legislate morality"? Let's set up a government run health care provider run by private donations and see how important universal coverage is to liberals.

did Cindy 18 rounds in 20 min as rx'd

Goat: If you pay any health care premiums and/or taxes, you are already paying for other people's health care. The cost of providing coverage to the uninsured is a burden most taxpayers already shoulder.

If you consider the act of paying into the care and protection of other citizens a "loss of liberty" then you have already lost your liberty by paying into programs such as Medicare, the VA, the military, state/local police and fire, etc.

So yeah, when I hear words like "slavery," "Personal liberties," "You must have grown up in Russia" bandied about in a policy discussion that honestly rests on the minutia and details... yeah I think that qualifies as hysteria and hyberbole.

I think that many citizens who have a distinct right-leaning bent are using this issue as a proxy for a multitude of other policy grivances. This, in turn, is leading to the type of hysterical, shrill response we're witnessing.

RK- fantastic analysis.

I read the article. Some valid points. I started to read all the comments and decided to make this one statement. I keep reading our "healthcare", new "healthcare" system, curent "healthcare" system, health this, health that.

I don't think we have a "health" care system at all, it is a sickness care system.

CrossFit is a HEALTH care program with an occasional adjustment from my Chiropractor.

Hello Bingo,

You are wrong again, unless I completely misread the website of the committee that ACCREDITS Med Schools. Maybe they are lying?

In my opinion, you owe Goat an apology wrt your remarks in Comment #126

From my reading of the Med School ACCREDITATION website here ... http://www.lcme.org/overview.htm ... the AMA appoints 6+1 (~ 41%) board members and the AAMC appoints 6+1 (~ 41%) board members to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). This is the only Med School Accreditation body in the USA per US Congress. The 17-member LCME decides whether or not a Med School is or is-not accredited

Again I may have completely misread the content of the website of the committee that actually accredites Med Schools; however, I thought if I was going to argue about who is or is not involved with Med School ACCREDITATION then I might want to visit the ACCREDITATION body's website. I did this as soon as I saw how you, in Comment #126, changed the Comment #123 subject from Med School ACCREDITATION to Medical LICENSING.

Let me repeat what I wrote in comment #168: You keep changing the subject from Medical School ACCREDITATION (AMA involved) to Medical LICENSING of Doctors (AMA _not_ involved) at the state level.

Long story short:
The AMA directly picks ~ 41% (7/17) the board members of the Committee responsible for accrediting medical schools. The AMA indirectly picks 2 more members.
Therefore the AMA shares the responsibility for restricting the supply of doctors in the USA.
Therefore the AMA shares the responsibility for maintaining the monopoly that conspires to set barriers to entry (tuition & fees extremely high due to lack of competition, can't be a doctor without Med School, make it difficult for new med schools to open, etc)

Knowing these facts, the readers might now confidently hold the opinion, based on objective quality evidence, that both the AMA and existing Medical Schools engage in 'unfair' trade practices that eventually cause injury and death to the American public - a 'crime against humanity'?

This might be why most doctors are not members of the AMA.

FM3 Frisker FTN

I'll take a look this afternoon.

Best day yet! I went 1 round of rest finished in about 23 hours flat. lol

Seriously though I needed a break big time.

One issue I have with subsidiesing someone elses health care is the morality of it. As a person that spends the money and time to eat well, cook my own meals, pay for the fresh fruit and vegetables and quality meats and workout, why should I pay for the health care of someone that spends a good portion of their disposable income on fast food and cigaretes and couldnt do a sit up?

If you could get the poor uninsured people (that happen to be fat...which mean they arent that poor) to make a half hearted effort at being healthier then maybe I and others wouldnt be so opposed to helping them. Is it really too much to ask that they do their part?

201 GOAT: YOU'RE THE BEST! THANK YOU! EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR!!!

NeedSleep at August 27, 2009 7:36 PM

Okay, I did not understand what you were saying about slavery.

On the rest of your post, you say, "If there is a specific and direct and open accounting of all the practices of 100 different insurance companies (which will never happen) then consumers can easily shop and rate them- but currently I see this as rather difficult."

It is difficult. I don't want to sound like an a-hole, but I and several others covered this above, repeatedly. BY LAW, we are not allowed to shop across State lines for health insurance. BY LAW, many are not allowed to buy catastrophic coverage. BY LAW, rates for many are set higher than they would be in a free market, so that those young, healthy people can pay for other peoples' insurance. The lack of clarity, the inability to shop around, is caused by the very oversight you are calling for. The oversight exists. It is used to PREVENT us from getting the insurance we want directly from the insurer.

Now I guess it's your turn to call my hysterical.

RK at August 27, 2009 8:59 PM

Yes, I am already having my money taken from me against my will. I am aware of this. I have said it many times, complained bitterly of it quite often.

I will never understand the many people I see who do this same thing you just did. You readily admit that my freedom and my property are being taken by the state to either be wasted or given to others, and then you call me hysterical when I say, "Hey, these guys are stealing from me!" It's simple. If you admit it is being done, then you don't have any reason to act like I am crazy when I say it is being done.

However, no, I do not consider the act of paying for the care and protection of others to be a loss of liberty. I consider being threatened with violence unless I do what someone else wants me to do to be a loss of liberty. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THAT THE CURRENT EXCUSE FOR THREATENING ME IS THE SUPPOSED CARE AND PROTECTION OF OTHERS.

Please, this is simple and I am tired of repeating it. It is not the helping of others I object to. In fact, despite being laid off and uninsured, I STILL give to charity. What I object to is being told I will hand my money over or do time in prison. Really, this is not a complex or confusing distinction. I don't like to be a victim of violence. Why does that confuse so damned many people?

Now, if I were to say to you, "give me money to refurbish my house or I will lock you in my basement", you would rightfully call this theft, an illegal threat, and take action against me. But, when Joe Congressman says, "give them money for 'urban renewal'", you do NOT call this theft. Why not? Because he is elected? So what? By whom? I sure didn't vote for him to take my money. Somehow you make this weird and nitpicking distinction between voters stealing from each other directly and voters stealing from each other via their elected officials, and then you have the temerity to call me "entrenched", and suggest that there is something mentally wrong with me. What gives?

You're welcome SCOTT. Have fun.

NeedSleep and RK, I replied to you both but it got held. Might have been the amount of all-caps.

Andre at August 28, 2009 5:15 AM

Morality requires a great deal of mental strength, and few of us can resist the extreme temptation of other peoples' money, especially when brought up in a society where it is considered perfectly acceptable to get stolen goods because you voted for someone who will take them instead of taking them yourself.

Understand, I agree with you. It is immoral. I just don't think that matters to most people.

On a side note, it is quite possible to be malnourished and fat, if one's intake consists mainly of refined carbohydrates. This has been observed throughout the world in impoverished areas. It's particularly unhealthy, because even the few calories that these people are eating are unavailable to them as fuel, because they are locked away in the adipose tissue. Next time you donate canned goods to the poor, buy them some almond butter instead of the spaghetti. You will be doing them a huge favor.

CFSBII wk 1; BP 5x3, 150, 160, 170, 180, 180; 8x140 (shoulder)

60 secs, single unders, 151; 157; 164

60 secs, double unders, 17.

ChicagoSchool at August 26, 2009 8:16 PM

"Having a government plan increases competition in the health care industry, which creates incentive for more efficiency and lower prices. THIS IS A LIBERTARIAN/FREE MARKET/CAPITALIST CONCEPT."

I don't know how I missed this post my first time through. Sir, you are, for lack of a nicer word, a phoney. You are not what you claim to be. A Chigaco School economist would know better than to say any of this. A Keynesian might be foolish enough to believe the first sentence, but even he wouldn't make the claim that it was a free market concept.

ral at August 27, 2009 6:02 AM

I don't know if anyone answered you. Pardon me if someon already did.

My interpretation of the video is that he is talking about having people with pre-existing knee conditions squat with vertical shins. I do NOT think he is suggesting that the slightly knees-forward low-bar back squat or the knees-forward front squat WILL cause knees problems, just that these are not good squats to prescribe to someone with a knee injury.

What I took away from the Dave Tate squat video is that the vertical-shin squat pretty much requires a box to land on, due to balance issues in the bottom. So yes, the knees-forward squat favored by Olympic lifters is a necessary position, and it MAY be a bit harder on your knees than one with vertical shins, but it won't necessarily lead to injury.

Let me temper this by saying that I am in no way an expert, I just responded because it seemed nobody else did.

RM3 Frisker FTN #213

Sorry, you misread, or more precisely read what you were looking for into the web site. The AMA and the AAMC "sponsor" the LCME. I could find no place that describes what "sponsor' means, but let's assume the most influential type of sponsorship, financial, OK? The AMA (docs) and the AAMC (med schools) might financially support the institution that accredits medical schools, thereby permitting the federal funding of the medical schools. Cozy, to be sure. A "crime against humanity?" Hardly.

The AMA and the AAMC each appoint 7 or the 17 members. These members are presuably baholden to the AMA and the AAMC for their appointments, but they are neither "sponsored" nor are they employed by either the AMA or the AAMC to perform their LCME duties. Sorry, no institutional control found, not even on your preferred link.

The LCME offers guidelines for class size, and guidelines for increasing class size at med schools, but I can find no place in which it is granted license to regulate that number. MY reading is that the LCME will accreditate a school that meets the appropriate guidelines. Again, no formal or informal, direct or indirect control of the number of physicians educated in U.S. medical schools by the AMA.

So no, Frisker, I am not wrong. I am also not confusing licensing with accreditation, nor am I in any way purposely using them interchangably for the purposes of confusion. I am discussing BOTH in the same conversation as part of the same topic. I apologize if I have benn inartful in my prose.

Post in response to Frisker in the filter...

RM3 Frisker FTN accuses the AMA and American medical schools of "crimes against humanity" for "unfair trade practices that eventually cause injury and death to the American public."

I accuse RM3 Frisker FTN of libel.

In order to assert the above one must first prove that, over the many decades since 1890, the AMA and the AAMC have limited physician supply, and that they are the sole limiting factors. One must then prove that this limited supply has limited access to physicians, and that it is the "unfair trade practices" that caused the limited access. One must then prove that this limited access was in and of itself the cause of "injury and death to the American public."

Hmmm...what about foreign medical grads? Or access to physicians relative to geographic or population-based physician density? Or the glaring absence of studies that show any lifespan differences between populations with high or low physician density?

Careful not to fall on a doctor getting off that high horse...

#213, RM3 Frisker FTN, writes,

"Knowing these facts, the readers might now confidently hold the opinion, based on objective quality evidence, that both the AMA and existing Medical Schools engage in 'unfair' trade practices that eventually cause injury and death to the American public - a 'crime against humanity'?"

What licensure mechanism does not restrict the number of entrants to a given profession (law, engineering, hair dressing)?

Is it your position that any mechanism for licensing professions is, per se, an "unfair trade practice;" that there should be no standards for medical schools? Is it a crime against humanity that only licensed engineers can sign off on bridge designs?

Hari at August 28, 2009 11:08 AM

He isn't talking about licensure. But to answer your questions, in order

None. Of course, the licensing of hair dressers can be defended on the grounds that it is necessary to the health and safety of all Americans. Without that the fabric of our entire way of life would disintegrate.

That is my interpretation, and I am in agreement.

I don't know if he means that, but I would not agree with him if he did. Now if you added the word "state" between the words "no" and "standards", I would agree with it.

Yes. Certainly, it's a crime against a limited segment of humanity (anyone who funds the building of a bridge, pays for the use of a bridge, builds a bridge... meaning, I guess, anyone who works or moves around, and anyone attempting to enter the field of engineering who cannot and otherwise could in a free society), and merely an insult to the rest of us.

My CrossFit journal subscription is about to expire. Anyone wanna buy my old exercise bike so I can renew it?

Nah, didn't think so.

Sorry Goat, I missed your previous post. I’ll respond in line:

“You readily admit that my freedom and my property are being taken by the state to either be wasted or given to others”

No. I illustrated how your definition of “liberty being taken away” applies to almost any federal/state/local service. You readily claim that the funding and execution of these services qualify as a limiting of your personal freedom. I would say this qualifies as hyperbole.

“However, no, I do not consider the act of paying for the care and protection of others to be a loss of liberty.”

Yes you do. You wrote as much in earlier posts. Direct quote: “As for forcing me to pay for other people's health care, how can that NOT be a loss of liberty?”

“I consider being threatened with violence unless I do what someone else wants me to do to be a loss of liberty. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THAT THE CURRENT EXCUSE FOR THREATENING ME IS THE SUPPOSED CARE AND PROTECTION OF OTHERS.”

If your claim is based on the idea that any action of the federal government carries with it an inherent threat of violence (I assume you mean that you can be jailed for tax evasion), then in my book this qualifies as both hyperbole and hysteria.

“In fact, despite being laid off and uninsured, I STILL give to charity.”

I’m sorry to hear that and I think it’s admirable that you still give to charity. However, I take this to mean that you are in fact not paying federal income taxes and therefore are not under, as you put it, “threat of violence.”

“What I object to is being told I will hand my money over or do time in prison. Really, this is not a complex or confusing distinction. I don't like to be a victim of violence. Why does that confuse so damned many people?”

This term you keep using “threat of violence”, is it meant to refer to “rule of law?”

“Now, if I were to say to you, "give me money to refurbish my house or I will lock you in my basement", you would rightfully call this theft, an illegal threat, and take action against me. But, when Joe Congressman says, "give them money for 'urban renewal'", you do NOT call this theft. Why not? Because he is elected? So what? By whom? I sure didn't vote for him to take my money. Somehow you make this weird and nitpicking distinction between voters stealing from each other directly and voters stealing from each other via their elected officials, and then you have the temerity to call me "entrenched", and suggest that there is something mentally wrong with me. What gives?”

Your argument seems to be with the concept of a representative democracy and not specifically “health care reform.” I return back to my previous statement that health care reform is being used as a proxy for a host of other policy and political grievances. This is unfortunate as it pulls the debate off the rails.

Yes, I have the temerity to call you “entrenched” as you’ve shown no signs of having a willingness to consider points of view counter to your own. And yes, any person who would claim to have been “threatened with violence” because a large group of citizens favor a public option or choice for their health insurance qualifies as hysterical and promoting hyperbole.

*My response to your earlier comment seems to be tied up.*

By the way, my house is on fire... can any like-minded individuals start a private charity to fund the purchase of firefighting equipment and the hiring /training of privately employed firefighters so that my house doesn't burn down?

RK at August 28, 2009 12:17 PM

Ironically enough, that's how it works in my town. Except they started the (well, both) fire departments BEFORE the buildings burn down. All volunteer, fully funded by donations and fund-drives. I donate every year.

Have you not heard of charitable hospitals? Church-sponsored hospitals? It's not like they don't exist. I just learned the other day that charitable insurance companies exist, think about that.

I suppose you would be supportive of government supplying all your wants, and perfectly willing to give up everything important in your life to get that. Shameful.

Goat:

Nope. I work hard. Earn a damn good living. Pay a lot in taxes. bitch about it. recognize waste and am repulsed by it. But I stand by the idea that the greatest empire to have sprouted in mankind's history should be able to defend its citizens against threats both external and internal, and provide a baseline of services that serve as the stable foundation for our civilization.

Just because you want to be able to pick and choose via charitable donations that which is normally provided for within the municipal structure of a representative democracy makes you no more self-reliant than me.

Doesn't it, though? I choose not to take from others what they won't give me of their own free will. Whether that can be defined as "more self-reliant" matters little to me. What matters is that it is more ethical.

RK at August 28, 2009 12:50 PM

As a side note, Congress has disposed of the illusion that we live in a democracy. Not that I liked the idea of a democracy to start with, but even that little charade is over. They never represented us*, now they don't even pretend.

*Look up the definition of "represent" to see what I mean. Better yet, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

Pending the publishing of my respone, I"ll just refer back to the idea "Hyperbole" and "Hysteria"

RK, you have consistently failed to raise any argument I have not countered, and just as consistently failed to counter any argument I have made. You are basically stomping your foot, insisting that you are right and I must be crazy to disagree. Until such time as you feel like participating in a real debate, our conversation is over.

I'm waiting for a comment where I respond to your arguments in line to be published.

In the meantime, you've argued that the U.S. is not a democracy and that you've been threatened by violence due to the push for a public option.

If anyone is stomping their feet, Goat, I think it is you. But perhaps we can reconvene once my original post gets published.

RK, I already dealt with everything you said in your "original post", earlier. Ignoring my points and name calling don't count as effective counter-arguments. Of course I am not willing to consider you counter argument, you haven't expressed one. "I want it this way and if you don't you are nutty" doesn't count. It isn't an attempt to convince anyone of anything. It isn't an explanation of how you came to your conclusions. It doesn't show me why you think I am wrong. It doesn't facilitate communication.

What I said before stands, our conversation is over.

Disagree but sorry you feel that way.

CF Day 3

Much needed rest after first two days of CF. Pretty intense but definitely enjoying it. Traps are absolutely killing me.

This summary of the last week of the Glenn Beck show is a MUST READ. If you love this country, read this. I absolutely, categorically insist that is one of the most important sets of information you will ever read. EVERYONE in this country needs to know this, and they further need to know that they can't trust ANY of the major networks to provide the information they need to make intelligent decisions on almost ANY major issue.

Here's the link: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29831/

Forward it to ALL your friends. Make sure this thing saturates this nation, top to bottom.

Keep in mind, the White House has not denied ANY of this. ANY of it. They just don't like the word czar.

Socialism doesn't work:
Just look at the VA, interstate highways, The armed
forces. All failures IMO. We should let the insurance companies dictate our outcomes, I trust
them over We The People

Glenn Beck is an idiot. Also in regard to anything which attempts to make an arguement using "it hasn't been denied" by someone else is pointless. That is a very simple view which avoids debate.

We are American expats living and working in socialized Europe. Americans have no idea how little return they get from their government. We have been living here for the past 6 years and benefiting from a wonderful socialized medicine system (my first doctor appointment here for a general checkup with my compassionate, well tranined English speaking doctor was nearly an hour long and cost me 20 euro). The safety net here covers not only health care, but education, social services, transportation, childcare...the list goes on and on. If you haven't gotten out of the country and seen it, you wouldn't believe it. But the quality of healthcare and life is overwhelmingly positive. It is far safer, cleaner, more relaxed, better quality food, more vacation time, better highways, healthy citizens (healthier weights, more physical exercise) lower divorce rates......Europeans have found a way to do it (yes, the taxes are higher), but it can work. Our people and policy makers need to objectively look at why it does, and implement what works for Americans, because the system is broken for millions of Americans, and needs to be fixed. I applaud Obama for trying to do so.

Propaganda ends where dialogue begins. Conversely, where dialogue ends, propoganda begins.

Consider the claims Beck made. Let's just look at one: he has employed a man, Van Jones, who as recently as 2002 was openly trying to overthrow our Constitutional Republic, and implement Maoist Communism. The same one regime that killed 50-70 million people (we'll never know the true number), and the same one which still commits itself to the ideals of Mao by keeping his picture displayed prominently everywhere, which STILL maintains concentration and reeducation camps, and which is STILL a Fascist tyranny in every sense. Hitler, too, allowed some free enterprise, with the understanding that he could interfere wherever and whenever he wanted.

Van Jones has been given a multi-billion dollar budget. The so-called "Stimulus"--how many of you know this?--runs to 2015. Their only real mission is to SPEND MONEY. The thing was passed in a week or two, and the primary author was the Apollo Alliance, on the board of which sits the OTHER founding member of the Weather Underground. You know who the other one is.

Thus, our PRESIDENT has empowered a man who has made NO EFFORT to hide his overtly authoritarian, Communist roots, to spend billions of dollars in Community Organizing. He claims he wants to create Green Jobs in the ghettoes, but I think anyone with half an ounce of sense can see that is not the most obvious place to start in the process of creating HIGH TECH jobs. This is simply "social justice" spending, that will cost money, and give us virtually nothing useful in reward.

I have lived in Europe for an extended period of time. It is nice. It differs from America in three important ways: size, race, and commitment to defense.

With respect to size, the simple fact is that the larger any bureaucracy is, the less it serves the needs of the people within it. They have 5.5 million people in Denmark. We have 300 million here. I am not opposed to a type of Socialism based upon the individual States. That is the focal axis of the Constitution, and should be for policy development and implementation, not Washington.

With respect to race, what people need to understand is that RACE SERVES THE ROLE OF CLASS FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES IN THE US. What do I mean by that?

Simple: first, we can posit that radicals are not really trying to help anyone but themselves. If they claim they care about oppressed nations in the Empire, that is a lie. Lenin gave Central Asia it's freedom as a temporary political necessity, then they were reconquered, against their will, when it served the needs of the Party.

If they claim they care about the "workers", the Proletarians, that is a lie too. Lenin sent people to concentration camps for being late twice to work. Once he had power, he eliminated their unions, so they could not organize. Any organizing that happened in response to the horrific abuses of the labor force he imposed, were dealt with with mass violence. Many murders, many sad lives spent in cold places far from family.

And if they claim they care about the plight of African Americans in this country, that too is a lie. The standard of living for African AMericans was rising steadily in the 1960's. They had strong nuclear families even in conditions of poverty, and valued education. All that changed when the so-called "War on Poverty" hit.

You must keep in mind that this "war" was accompanied by a community organizing propaganda offensive. They were told that no longer did they need to be personally or communally responsbible for themselves. They were told it was the JOB of the STATE to take care of them. Period. And many believed this. For some years, this promise actually could be funded.

But the money, inevitably, ran out, and they were left having abandoned the core values of self respect, sense of communal responsibility, and self reliance that are NECESSARY to make it anywhere, not just here.

Thus, there is a STRONG correllation between long-term Democrat control of cities, and their poverty and crime rates. Put Republicans in, as New York did with Giuliani, and crime and poverty go down. Avoid Republicans like the plague, like Detroit has, and you get their coming bankrupcy, still coupled with a LOT of crime.

Europe, by and large, does not have this problem to the extent we do. Yes, there are parts of London much like Detroit, and France has their ill-conceived banlieus, or however you spell it, but Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, have much less of this. And what they do have, they are managing poorly.

Finally, Europe has by and large abandoned any pretense of being anything but under the de facto military protection of the US. We are the only nation in the West remaining that is capable of credible force projection, within our own borders, or outside of them.

Defense costs a lot of money. It is a significant part of our budget. That money ,if not taken in taxes, would enable a much higher standard of living. Yet, it is necessary. There remain nations out there--like China and Russia, not to mention the extra-national Al Queda extremists--who want to overturn our order. We need to stop them, and effective diplomacy must ALWAYS be backed by a credible possible use of force. History is exquisitely clear on this.

Now, the healthcare non-debate should show anyone with eyes that the goal is not a policy which is best for Americans, but one which is best for (some) Democrats. It furthers their radical agenda.

Wake up, America. It's later than you think.

Propaganda ends where dialogue begins. Conversely, where dialogue ends, propoganda begins.

Consider the claims Beck made. Let's just look at one: he has employed a man, Van Jones, who as recently as 2002 was openly trying to overthrow our Constitutional Republic, and implement Maoist Communism. The same one regime that killed 50-70 million people (we'll never know the true number), and the same one which still commits itself to the ideals of Mao by keeping his picture displayed prominently everywhere, which STILL maintains concentration and reeducation camps, and which is STILL a Fascist tyranny in every sense. Hitler, too, allowed some free enterprise, with the understanding that he could interfere wherever and whenever he wanted.

Van Jones has been given a multi-billion dollar budget. The so-called "Stimulus"--how many of you know this?--runs to 2015. Their only real mission is to SPEND MONEY. The thing was passed in a week or two, and the primary author was the Apollo Alliance, on the board of which sits the OTHER founding member of the Weather Underground. You know who the other one is.

Thus, our PRESIDENT has empowered a man who has made NO EFFORT to hide his overtly authoritarian, Communist roots, to spend billions of dollars in Community Organizing. He claims he wants to create Green Jobs in the ghettoes, but I think anyone with half an ounce of sense can see that is not the most obvious place to start in the process of creating HIGH TECH jobs. This is simply "social justice" spending, that will cost money, and give us virtually nothing useful in reward.

I have lived in Europe for an extended period of time. It is nice. It differs from America in three important ways: size, race, and commitment to defense.

With respect to size, the simple fact is that the larger any bureaucracy is, the less it serves the needs of the people within it. They have 5.5 million people in Denmark. We have 300 million here. I am not opposed to a type of Socialism based upon the individual States. That is the focal axis of the Constitution, and should be for policy development and implementation, not Washington.

With respect to race, what people need to understand is that RACE SERVES THE ROLE OF CLASS FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES IN THE US. What do I mean by that?

Simple: first, we can posit that radicals are not really trying to help anyone but themselves. If they claim they care about oppressed nations in the Empire, that is a lie. Lenin gave Central Asia it's freedom as a temporary political necessity, then they were reconquered, against their will, when it served the needs of the Party.

If they claim they care about the "workers", the Proletarians, that is a lie too. Lenin sent people to concentration camps for being late twice to work. Once he had power, he eliminated their unions, so they could not organize. Any organizing that happened in response to the horrific abuses of the labor force he imposed, were dealt with with mass violence. Many murders, many sad lives spent in cold places far from family.

And if they claim they care about the plight of African Americans in this country, that too is a lie. The standard of living for African AMericans was rising steadily in the 1960's. They had strong nuclear families even in conditions of poverty, and valued education. All that changed when the so-called "War on Poverty" hit.

You must keep in mind that this "war" was accompanied by a community organizing propaganda offensive. They were told that no longer did they need to be personally or communally responsbible for themselves. They were told it was the JOB of the STATE to take care of them. Period. And many believed this. For some years, this promise actually could be funded.

But the money, inevitably, ran out, and they were left having abandoned the core values of self respect, sense of communal responsibility, and self reliance that are NECESSARY to make it anywhere, not just here.

Thus, there is a STRONG correllation between long-term Democrat control of cities, and their poverty and crime rates. Put Republicans in, as New York did with Giuliani, and crime and poverty go down. Avoid Republicans like the plague, like Detroit has, and you get their coming bankrupcy, still coupled with a LOT of crime.

Europe, by and large, does not have this problem to the extent we do. Yes, there are parts of London much like Detroit, and France has their ill-conceived banlieus, or however you spell it, but Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, have much less of this. And what they do have, they are managing poorly.

Finally, Europe has by and large abandoned any pretense of being anything but under the de facto military protection of the US. We are the only nation in the West remaining that is capable of credible force projection, within our own borders, or outside of them.

Defense costs a lot of money. It is a significant part of our budget. That money ,if not taken in taxes, would enable a much higher standard of living. Yet, it is necessary. There remain nations out there--like China and Russia, not to mention the extra-national Al Queda extremists--who want to overturn our order. We need to stop them, and effective diplomacy must ALWAYS be backed by a credible possible use of force. History is exquisitely clear on this.

Now, the healthcare non-debate should show anyone with eyes that the goal is not a policy which is best for Americans, but one which is best for (some) Democrats. It furthers their radical agenda.

Wake up, America. It's later than you think.

Since I've gone and engaged--that damn Beck thing kept me up half the night, since he presents a nearly airtight case, and any White House that gave a damn about the will of the People would care--I may as well post my own proposal:

1. Eliminate the need to buy insurance from your employer. If your HR manager is making the decision, you aren't. Make health insurance a personal contract between the insurance company and the individual. Keep both employers AND the government out of it.

2. Eliminate the preferential treatment some corporations get in some states by opening up the floodgates to national competition for all carriers. Let all reputable (and we can pass laws regulating required cash reserves or whatever) companies sell wherever they want, without restriction.

3. Reform our Tort system by giving the AMA the legal authority is all States to suspend and revoke the licenses of physicians for misconduct. Limit tort liability to some number, like $250,000, while retaining the possibility of criminal prosecution for MAJOR derelictions of duty.

4. Require all carriers to offer low cost/high deductible plans. Many people are uninsured now simply because they never get sick, and see no reason to pay a lot of money for something they never use. If the plans were $50/month, they could afford it.

5. Require all American citizens to carry health insurance. This would, over time, eliminate the possibility of a "preexisting condition", since no one's coverage would ever lapse. Right now it lapses either because they get fired and in their State you can only get insurance through your job; or because, again, it costs more than they want to pay. This would also reduce the added premiums added by hospitals to our costs to cover the uninsured. The logic here is the same as the logic requiring citizens to carry minimal car insurance. If everyone has it, everyone's costs go down.

6. Allow everyone to establish tax-free or tax-deferred health savings accounts. These are allowed in many but not all States. If you take a current $12,000 health insurance expense, and reduce it to $1,200, you can put aside the $5,000 or $7,500 deductible in less than a year. You encourage savings, and you get FULL COVERAGE. No deductible that would create ANY strain on any consumer, and VASTLY REDUCED COSTS.

Maybe it's just me, but it would seem basic economics would be invoked on a debate about how to lower costs. That hasn't happened on the Democrats side.

Why not?

Couple added points: Tort Reform is negotiable. It just isn't clear what is "defensive medicine", and what is meticulous doctors orderings tests simply because they can, and they might be useful. Arnold Kling did not think this was a huge issue, but I'm open to debate on that, as well as AMA involvement.

Second, for those (undetermined) number of people who let their coverage lapse, and got sick with things nobody wants to touch with a ten foot pole now, fold them into Medicaid. They are asking for charity; Medicaid is a charity.

To be clear: the ONLY reason people with preexisting conditions (diabetes, cancer, chronic heart disease, leprosy) want insurance is IT WILL SAVE THEM MONEY. Where do the savings come from? Duh. It's charity.

Conversely, contract law is an integral element of free enterprise, and if insurance companies are defaulting on contracts, this SHOULD BE PUNISHED, AND THE LAW MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR. I have no issues whatever with actual abuses being curtailed.

This plan creates 100% coverage, lowers costs, and preserves the spirit of freedom and choice we expect from everyone but Washington radicals.

BTW: some 10-15 million of the often cited 45 million are not here legally. If we are talking about 10% Medicare cuts at a time the enrollment is GROWING, we can surely see our way to not including non-tax payer law breakers.

>> RE: Comment #226: "Careful not to fall on a doctor getting off that high horse..."

Hello 'Bingo',

Apologies for falling off a high-horse. The two MD Doctors who wrote these articles ... http://mises.org/story/3657 ... AND ...
http://mises.org/story/1749 ... put me up on that high-horse. Recall that 'Goat' recommended these articles. Have you read them yet?

Again apologies if I am completely off-base by virtue of reading possibly misleading information on the internet.

>> RE: Comment #227: "Is it your position that any mechanism for licensing professions is, per se, an 'unfair trade practice;' Is it a crime against humanity that only licensed engineers can sign off on bridge designs?"

Hello 'Hari',

YES ... seems as though most if not all of the software and hardware you are currently using to surf the web, make phone calls, nuke food, travel to/from work in a car or bus, fly, measure your pulse, scan your body, etc ... is designed and manufactured by 'unlicensed' engineering professionals. About nine-years ago the license monopoly crowd, working with the rent seekers in California state government, tried to restrict who could use the title "Engineer" here in California. Needless to say, the Silicon Valley chipmakers/coders and the Los Angeles aerospace crowd told the rent seekers to drink their acai berry flavored colon cleanse after it had been used.

None of the innovators (Steve, Woz, Bill, Howard, Burt, Larry, etc ) associated with Silicon Valley were 'licensed' ... what benefit derives from licensing? Do you double check that the barber/hair-dresser is 'licensed'? You know, compare the name on the 'license' to the name on the driver license? What about the plumber?

FWIW, a licensed 'professional engineer' signed off on the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis St Paul Minnesota. Ditto the Tacoma Narrows bridge. I am not impressed they passed a multiple-choice exam, had two recommendations, and (most importantly) paid a fee to the rent seeking state.

Like most recent college grads I wasted some time studying for the PE exam, realized it matters not a bit for chip design, embedded firmware development, or designing some bent metal for a nasty-gas etcher in a FAB. Still have the PE cram book. Time to put it on eBay.

It's worth pointing out as well that Obamacare, likewise, plans to MANDATE universal coverage. They will REQUIRE employers who do not currently offer health insurance--like Joe's Corner Drugstore who employs two part time workers to work the register--to offer health insurance.

They are doing this to take a load off the back of small business--which is "suffocating", we are told--and help them CUT COSTS.

If you believe we are not nearly surrounded by and saturated with self serving, dishonest PROPAGANDA, you probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I've presented a coherent plan. If you agree with it, find the email addresses of your Senators and Representative (you have two Senators, and one Representative), and email it to them. If you want to tweak parts of it, do it.

But above all remember the DEMOcracy depends on the People. Revolutionaries invoke the People constantly, but they RELY on a small cadre of professionals, who are more than willing to sacrifice the actual People whenever there is any mild benefit in doing so; they are gangsters, who can be trusted only as far as their own self interest, and right now their self interest and YOURS are quite different.

Make noise.

Erin is beautiful

practiced. difficult.

30 steps lunges, 21-18-15-12-9-6 pushups + situps