Isn’t that what we really mean by freedom?

The popular logic suggests that if “the brain is the end all be all” of cognition and decision making then there cannot be free will. The arguement goes that if there is no spritual soul, then the decisions are made by a piece of meat, and the decisions are simply the computed output of a stimulis through an admittadly complicated machine. However, since it is no more than a machine, it cannot have “free will”. Ultimately, to have free will, decisions must not be the necessary outcome of ecents. To be “free” the same exact situtation at the same point in time must be able to occur differently.

However, to take that postition means what? If to be free requires a seperation between cause and effect then nothing is free. Since all thing are the direct and necessary result of their conditions, the entire of concept would be meaningless.

Yet, “freedom” is not a meaningless word. “Free will” means something. It is something worth dying for for many. “Free will” is then likely a concept created by humans to explain the non-understood portions of other’s, and I suppose even our own, decisionmaking.

But why would this be necessary? If it is an abstract term such as ‘i’, then it must serve quite the purpose. We assume that an organism’s will is what they want. Thus this magical thing making decisions is, while incomprehensible to us, is what the organism wants. It would help as, even your prediciton of their behavior turns out to be wrong then it shows your perception of their wishes, or free will is wrong. Just the same though, it works if it’s just a chunk of meat. The chunck of meat is deciding based upon it’s history and what it has been conditioned to respond to. It is acting on, essentially, what it wants.

At the end of the day I callenge the assumption that the necessary result of stimuli is not a free response. I challenge the assumption that the whole of something cannot be more than the sum of it’s parts. Rather, if something can act in such away that nothing at or below it’s level can effectively deal with it’s actions, then that capable body is it’s own being. It is an entity acting beyond the control of others. It is, while recieving stumulis from others, not controlled by others. It makes decisions, and acts, in a fasion no one truely knows.

Isn’t that what we really mean by freedom?

The Real Goals of the So called Public Option

The foremost problem with the Public Healthcare Debate and propositions is that they do not seem to have a goal in mind. They have a problem which they wish to address. Everyone knows what they don’t want, but few are saying what they do. They just don’t want what we have. Of course, they can’t even elaborate on what we have.

The goals I’ve heard are as follows:

1. To get everyone insured.

2. To decrease the price of insurance.

3. To decrease the public expenditure on healthcare by doing preventative treatment.

It is clear, that an insurance program which does not aim to turn a profit should have an advantage against those that do. Just like how credit unions have an advantage over profit-run banks.

Theoretically if a “Public Option” were implemented, it would serve as competition. If companies are making more profit than they need, then they would lower their profit margins to prevent customers from switching to the public plan.

To promote such an option assumes that the market is not working. It assumes that there is either no effective competition and/or that buyers are not acting rationally.

The argument has been suggested that the latter is true. Specifically the author of one article stated that when healtcare is in question, and therefore people’s lives, those people are willing to pay any amount for care. Hospitals and doctors are thus able to charge whatever they want because people cannot and will not negotiate. So the argument concludes that a middleman is needed, such as insurance companies, to decide what is a reasonable price. I suppose insurance unions could work just as well, where profit is not the goal.

While this could explain why prices are high, it doesn’t because middlemen are in place. We’ve gotten so far away from the capitalist system of paying for goods and services that we’ve just about let the terms “Health Insurance” and “Health Care” become synonymous.

The prices that insurance companies pay are not the high prices that are in question. The prices in question are the premiums for insurance. So it appears that the market is not keeping the price of insurance down.

To decide exactly how the market is failing, we must determine a few things. First, is there a monopoly? As far as I believe, not quite. There are not a whole ton of providers, but there are several. Secondly, is there price collusion? Very likely. In fact, that’s certain. For it there wasn’t then someone would undercut the other and it would decrease. Assuming it’s not already at the bottom.

However, why is a government run plan necessary? This is a question I do not have an answer to. USAA for example does not make a profit for its owners. Its members are the owners and excess funds are reimbursed back to them. Thus they are negotiating with hospitals and doctors to provide the lowest possible rate. They are not making a profit. I am unable to see how prices could be any lower. In all honesty this suggests that the price of Health Insurance from USAA is the lowest that level of care can be, and that the market is working properly. A government plan will not make USAA’s expenditures lower. It will not scare them into living with fewer profits.

The third goal could be relevant here. While although “free” public health care would not decrease the cost of insurance for those with the plan or with their own private plans, it could decrease public expenditures on emergency care if preventative treatment was implemented.

Yet, while it ‘could’, I’m not convinced it would. Rather, while it may do so when compared to traditional private health insurance which charges deductibles for doctors visits, it would not when compared to non-insured individuals. For an individual who must pay for their own care, the cost of treatment provides a great incentive to stay well. It provides a reason not to take risks with your health, if any more were needed. However, if one argues that all actions are already taken to prevent further injury, then allowing for more doctors visits will not bring that level of protection to above 100%.

Ultimately, it seems that there is only one way where a “Public Option” will save anybody money.  Specifically, of the cost of care is paid out of the general revenue of the government, then the premiums will be paid based on tax rates. As a result those who make more money would pay more for the same level of care as those who make less.

This train of thought indicates that the first goal is the real one at issue here. Specifically, if it were to be paid with general taxes or other non-flat taxes, then the public could not be allowed to opt out. If they were allowed to opt out, then those who make more money would opt out and rather than paying the government to insure them and another individual, would pay another company to just insure them and would pocket the difference. This would mean that those who made less money would end up having to pay for their own care.