[liberallarry]

what sort of effect is endlessly debated by "economists" :)

I made that "remark" because I'm really not sure of what effect the 15% cut will have. Why should I be if "professionals" disagree (we'd all be lost without the quotation marks)?

In an ideal world, laissez-faire capitalism would be the best, most efficient, most honest way of making use of resources.

But this isn't an ideal world and noone knows how to make it one. So we're all floundering around ... improvising.

[Dimples]

Larry, It occurs to me that problems you've outlined facing rural hospitals stem directly from the entitlement mentality and are only incidentally related to the budget crisis.

With regard to healthcare:

- Everyone should have the best, especially if you can't afford it and even if you don't need it.

- Government should pay for it, even if government can't afford it.

- Government should control it so private sector competition can't undercut the government.

- Prices should be artificially low so that government can appear to affort it and at the same time appear to its constituents to be fighting the good fight against the evil privateer seeking profit. (After all, NO ONE should make a profit on heath care... that's imoral! )

The net result is that hospitals that eak out a living on Medicare/Medical payments are living on artifically low incomes; can't afford the latest equipment; provide services that a paying customer would otherwise avoid; and are often the only game in town since the artificial business conditions disuade competition.

Many of these same ills stem from "overinsurance" in the private sector as well. Anytime you give your market power over to another entity, you are no longer in control of your best interests. Since we've given over our health care market power to the government and private insurers, we no longer are individually in control of our best interests. We get what they give...

...and we lose what they take away.

The budget crisis is only the flock coming home to roost in the coop we've built for ourselves. With the clarity of hindsight, it's hard to see how it could have turned out any other way.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

what sort of effect is endlessly debated by "economists" :)

I made that "remark" because....

Yes. I avoided that part earlier because economists tend to be advocates of policy much as lawyers are advocates of interests. When justice is promoted by either, it is largely coincidental. Their opinions may be informatory, but too often not helpful for finding a real solution when their patrons are adamantly looking for cover.

But this isn't an ideal world and noone knows how to make it one.

This can NEVER be an ideal world. Every process entails decay, and thus is inherently inefficient.

I can even extent this idea, without being cute, to the one area where there should be total efficiency -- the idea of ideal itself, the potential to proceed toward the ideal goal.

In theory, potential is the only form of existence not subject to decay. However, even as one ponders a potential, the thinker is aging, getting closer to death. So practical potential may only be considered by a dying individual, and then passed along to the next generation of thinkers who themselves are dying. It is the idea itself which remains intact -- and in carrying an idea along throught the generatations we humans approach as much as we may the practical realization of some part of divinity.

(Ironically, unobserved potential may be the single case where the unobserved tree falling in a forest makes no sound. Yet it may be stumbled upon at any time, and then it will have always been there. It is not until it is unearthed that the potential may make its sound.) Comprendez-vous? <LOL> This is definitely NEVER an ideal world.

So we're all floundering around ... improvising.

Well, that is the impression ardent Leftists would have us believe. That they only made mistakes. They hide behind the liberals' good intentions.

You understand why I and others have been going to great pains to separate liberal thought from Leftist thought don't you? Please see fporretto here. (What he calls strategic liberals I call ardent Leftists.):

1. There are pure "good intentions" liberals who simply don't understand the destructive implications of their positions.
2. There are envious liberals whose aim is to tear down anyone who's doing better than they, or who's dared to contradict their notions.
3. There are "strategic" liberals who have concluded, correctly, that left-leaning politics is a route toward enormous personal power and perquisites.

Only perpetual optimists, morons and those who gain from the mistakes don't learn from and correct those mistakes. We don't flounder so much as we are forced to follow top-down impositions.

Larry -- you've openned a great avenue for discussion here. As you can see, we are not alone. I think too many are ready to ascribe you to groups 2 and 3 rather than 1. When you are willing to concede that group 1 provides too much cover for the other two, and especially group 3, you may find many of others (not all) becoming less harsh.

I bet you find it no surprise that I willingly break down the conservative camp much as fporretto has the liberal camp.