Healthcare, like any good or service with a limited supply, in an efficient “free market” is rationed based on the capacity and willingness of consumers to spend money on healthcare. Because money is the basic unit of the economy, the mechanisms of an efficient free market must either increase the cost of healthcare in the face of a limited supply or translate robust demand into cost-cutting competition and/or cost-cutting innovations. Unfortunately, the innovations, which allowed radical advancements modern medicine, also make modern medicine very expensive to deliver. As an unnecessary necessity, demand for healthcare will almost always outpace supply, especially when more people have the means to access healthcare, so competition alone is not enough to drive down prices in the healthcare field.
This means “free market” modern medicine is expected to be priced at the same level as luxury goods and services, which modern medicine, truly is priced above anything average consumers would, or could, buy without health insurance. Fortunately, mechanisms, such as health insurance, were devised. Not only has health insurance made modern medicine accessible to average consumers, instead of providing wealthy consumers sightly better medicine, it has helped change how the healthcare market works by refining efficiency in terms of access to healthcare, instead of money. Because a critical mass of the population has had access healthcare, healthcare has become a well-funded commodity capable of spurring cost-cutting innovation. Regrettably, health insurance has grown cost prohibitive for individuals and businesses, which is an issue efforts like the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a Obama and, now, the American Health Care Act seek to address.
Comments
Nuclear weapons make North Korea a potential threat to US allies South Korea and Japan, China, and the rest of Asia. The insecure and hostile psychology of the totalitarian Kim regime makes the North a time bomb that will devastate all Asians when it explodes. Pyongyang’s advancement in ballistic missile technology also makes North Korea a growing problem for the United States. News that the North has launched ballistic missiles into Japanese waters raises concerns for everyone within the reach of the oppressive Kim regime. Recognizing the Japanese culture has already been traumatized by nuclear strikes, which makes it particularly sensitive to the nuclear issue, and America has a tendency to take a strong offensive posture, a confrontation with North Korea is nearing. If the North responds with a nuclear strike, a massive retaliatory strike against Pyongyang is inevitable.
The US has spent decades trying to appease the Kim regime in a vain effort to avert the potential for a nuclear conflict by building some kind of working relationship with the rogue state. In recent years, appeasement had to be abandoned in favor of pressing North Korean ally China to keep the Pyongyang in check. As this approach has largely been ineffective, preparations, including the deployment of anti-ballistic missile defense systems, to minimize the threat posed to South Korea and Japan have become necessary, which has angered China as these efforts represent potential threats to China. Where China is responding to the situation as though it is mainly an attempt by the US to balance Chinese military might, the more imminent threat to the US and its allies is actually the North’s expanding nuclear capacity. The imminent threat for Beijing is not, however, the US as the Communist government appears to believe. Hypocrisy is the privilege of the powerful. It does, however, always come at a cost. For those who criticize others the loudest, the price is always the highest. The failure of of US Attorney General Jeff Session to offer forthright testimony during his confirmation hearings in regards to meetings with Russian officials and the use of personal email by Vice President Mike Pence during his tenure as Governor of Indiana represent only the latest high profiles scandals originating from the Trump Administration. To summarize the news coverage of the highly critical Trump team, which has thoroughly demonized the Obama Administration, the Press, the intelligence community, the US Judicial System, and many others to gain power: hypocrites.
In turn, the Press has also been continually accused of having a liberal bias and failing to scrutinize Obama Administration officials as closely. Quite frankly, hypocrisy is plentiful in Washington and beyond. It is just as plentiful in the governments of all nations and in all positions of influence. Just as there are plenty of Trump supporters whose instincts are to defend the President no matter what he says or does, most affluent individuals enjoy the same level of undying loyalty from their proponents, yet such blind “support” only fuels hypocrisy and corruption. The power to constrain the behavior of others and do as one pleases , i.e. hypocrisy, is the precursor to worse abuses of power. As such, hypocrisy from all must be confronted in order to ensure the power of government is used for the common good instead of corruption. The President of the United States and his opinions matter, but Trump’s opinions on subjects like the Oscars are not exactly critical to public debate nor are articles on whether or not he sounded Presidential during an address to a joint-secession of Congress. In fact, it might be argued that a highly-polished speech that panders to the political class, which is what most Presidential speeches to a joint session of Congress or any other political group do, has little value outside of what policy agenda the President might choose to pursue. This is particular true when that speech lacks actionable policies and/or there is a lack of sufficient support from the Legislative Branch. At any rate, most of what the President says and does is not important enough to flood the headlines day in and day out, yet the news continually features coverage about the President that is far from newsworthy.
With that in mind, the opinions of political figures like former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush matter. Selectively highlighting their dissent from the current President when it comes to issue like Trump’s war on the Press and illegal immigration is, however, an obvious attempt to use news events to rationalize the presentation of the views of the journalist writing these stories and the news outlets publishing their articles. It is, therefore, essential to ask what makes news actually newsworthy as well as whether or not the stories professional news outlets present actually offer anything of value to the public. After all, there is a vast difference between news coverage, which sparks constructive public debate, and propaganda that pushes the political views of those who happen to work in the news industry. Because journalists, editors, and other “experts” determine what is newsworthy, it is also useful to ask what criteria writers and editors use to pick a newsworthy story. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|