Health Care Reform
Not only has it been a surprise to have such an extended lull on this blog, but it is even more surprising that no one here has brought up the most debated and controversial subject being addressed in the media today: health care.
Well, I’d like to play some catch up today. I’ve been dialoging/debating on a mass email with my wife’s family on this issue for the last month or so. The topic of health care reform has proven rich in bringing up all kinds of underlying presuppositions that I am ashamed we haven’t yet hashed out here.
The issue as I see it is that a type of reform is needed (few seem to argue that point), some are concerned that having a national option would increase the government’s role in our lives, and some think the current administration isn’t going far enough and should develop a single-payer plan.
So what say you?
Wednesday, 7. October 2009 17:02
I’m against the reform because I don’t think there’s a chance of getting a bill that is better than the status quo.
Ideally, I would like to see a change in the tax structure that would encourage employers to stop offering healthcare insurance and pay their people more money instead, so they can purchase insurance individually.
We might also benefit from a tax incentive to purchase plans with higher deductibles and co-pays, but I would want that incentive to have a built-in expiration date. This would be a corrective action that just recognizes that government interference has been in the direction of too much coverage, which needs to be remedied in order to bring prices to a reasonable level.
There might also be some tort reform measures that could help, but that is a very difficult problem that I’d like to be more familiar with. One suggestion I heard was to make it easier for negligent doctors to lose their license.
Wednesday, 7. October 2009 20:13
How about viewing health care as a human right?: http://blog.sojo.net/2009/10/06/health-care-human-right-civil-right-privilege-or-market-commodity/
Thursday, 8. October 2009 2:02
Hey Jeremiah,
Thanks for posting.
I’m busy studying for the biggest test of my life (Professional Engineering Licensing Exam) which I will take two weeks from Friday. Oh yeah, and the birth of my second son is due near the end of the month.
Hence why I’ve done so little here as of late.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 12:35
Jeremiah,
Everybody has a right to eat, but we only give food stamps to people who really have trouble affording food. Healthcare is a little more ambiguous because it involves new technology, (why would we have a right to something nobody had 10 years ago?) but in fact we already have a program to provide medical care to those with very low incomes. If you are truly poor in America, we will help you get food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This comes at significant expense – the programs we already have are nearing bankrupcy.
The real question people are dealing with, whether they put it this way or not, is whether people who can afford medical insurance ought to have to be poor in order to get it. I don’t think anybody has the right not to be poor. Some very-low-middle-class folks go without health insurance because they would rather be very-low-middle-class than be poor and insured. I don’t feel obligated to those people.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 13:29
Nothing about this statement is true. My job exists partially as a result. As a social services professional, I can testify to the fact that Medicaid is available for pregnant women and babies, and Medicare is available for the elderly. So to get coverage if you fall in that middle ground — which is the most of us — you have to have a severe disability (and even then it may take a few years to get).
The problem is that leaves a whole lotta folks with nothing. It’s not because they’re not working. It’s not that they’re lazy. I know plenty of examples where people just don’t make enough money, but unfortunately for them, they’re not disabled enough to get the coverage they need. They just may be really sick.
This is where a universal plan is needed. In other words, where a single-payer plan like Medicaid needs extended to the rest of the population.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 13:44
The states have some flexibility in setting the eligibility requirements, but for instance in New York, the first state I came across via google, there is a certain income level below which anybody is eligible, regardless of age, and I expect that will be true in general. Which state do you work in?
Thursday, 8. October 2009 13:57
One thing that puzzles me is why you are arguing that we need a single payer system instead of arguing that the medicaid eligibility requirements need to be tweaked?
Thursday, 8. October 2009 14:00
I work in Missouri. And I wonder even if it says income is the only criteria on paper, if that is how it really fleshes out. Perhaps New York is an exception. But what about the rest of us? Perhaps Missouri is the exception. But still, what about us?
Obviously, we’ve brought up some problems: it sometimes taking a few years to acquire Medicaid coverage, things on paper reflected differently in reality, etc.
So why would I want to expand this mess? Well, my proposal for reform would not include doing away with the program but instead expanding it and cleaning it up. To me, reform should mean helping more people by spreading to those not being currently served AND making it all less convaluded.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 14:11
That’s basically the same thing. Medicaid is single-payer.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 14:14
I wouldn’t really mind expanding medicaid to cover people that are really in need, but univeral coverage is completely unnecessary. Most people have coverage and they are happy with it. Most people who don’t have coverage really could afford to get it, and chose not to.
For instance, suppose you are making $7.25 an hour and working 30 hours a week in the St. Louis area. You can afford coverage if you can overcome the mental hurdle of chosing to be poor in order to do so. Get yourself in a studio apartment with a roomate, and your half of the rent is $225. Your health insurance premium for the month is maybe $360 you have $358 left over for food & other expenses. The vast majority of people are doing far better than that. There’s no need to do something more drastic that a slight change in the medicaid eligibility requirements.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 14:15
I mean, why should the government pay for people who can afford to pay for themselves?
Thursday, 8. October 2009 14:20
At this point, all we are discussing are those who cannot afford to pay for themselves.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 14:30
Okay, this paragraph is a bit ambiguous to me, however, I am starting to sense in it those deep presuppositions I mentioned in the original post. These are the sort of sentiments that define which side we will take.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 15:01
I don’t think that is what is meant by “single-payer”. I mean, in some sense medicaid is a “single payer” system for those who are eligible, the same way a private insurance company is a “single payer” for their customers. But when the phrase is used to discuss healthcare reform, “single payer” means the government covering everybody: poor, rich, and in-between.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 15:21
Okay, point taken. So let’s see if I understand you. You are opposed to the government covering everone. But why? Because you don’t want to help cover those who can pay for their own private insurance? What I don’t understand is why private insurance is seen as preferable. Why make health care a for-profit arena?
Thursday, 8. October 2009 16:49
A couple relevant posts:
http://forums.jesusradicals.com/showthread.php/healthcare-legislation-3727.html
http://forums.jesusradicals.com/showthread.php/missing-piece-healthcare-3685.html
Thursday, 8. October 2009 17:09
Fly-by comment:
I’ve heard big name economists argue that a single-payer system is simply a more efficient system – and is thus desirable regardless of your view of “rights”. Canada, for example, receives more health care services for fewer dollars spent. There are trade-offs, of course, but the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 19:41
Kevin, I think your St. Louis example is too simplistic. Not everyone is able to work minimum wage and have a roommate. What if you and the rommate don’t work out? Too many scenarios like these for this issue to be cut and dry.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 19:46
Also, my wife and I, only by virtue of a small savings, are able to make it by. We typically have, after paying bills and trying to pay for my master’s degree, have less than $75 a month leftover. This doesn’t lend itself to having any decent health coverage for her. Major medical at best, and we know that it isn’t worth the money spent on it.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 21:17
Michael,
-If you and your wife really tried, could you find a housing situation that was significantly cheaper than what you have right now? Do you have kids? How many and how old? If not, are you in a studio apartment?
-If you stopped working on your Masters, and possibly changed jobs to the maximize your income, could you then afford health insurance? If you both work and both have cars, does each of your jobs bring in enough income (over the alternative) to justify the vehicle?
Thursday, 8. October 2009 21:24
Re: Trevor & Jeremiah
In general, when the government tries to do something the public sector is doing, it is much less efficient. If this wasn’t true, socialism would work great, instead of bankrupting every economy it infects. There’s a variety of reasons for this, but I think the generality is unassailable. The burden of proof is really on you guys to show why health care is different from a typical market, and why that means centralized control would work better.
Thursday, 8. October 2009 22:09
Kevin, we are a family of four who live in a 1200 sq. ft. home. I’ll actually agree with you that a smaller house is desirable, both for my living style and economically. I actually spoke with a realtor and he said it wouldn’t be smart finacially. He said the payments wouldn’t be much smaller and we couldn’t afford to pay the closing fees on our current house we own. While you may say we made the wrong decision by buying this house, it is irrelavant because this is the situation we are in.
When it comes to cars, both of them are payed off and I carpool to work, so I have minimized my costs there.
I really don’t understand the suggestion to change jobs and quit my master’s program. If I could find a better paying job in ANY field I would be working on acquiring it. I don’t stay at my job because it relates to my degree, it doesn’t, but because it was the only one that payed decently and offered health insurance.
Friday, 9. October 2009 12:46
True in its own way, but actually it is completely relavant. Why? Because this conversation is about what people can afford, specifically whether they can afford health insurance. I am arguing that many people could afford health insurance if they made better choices about how they spend their money. In other words, if they make it a higher priority. You can’t object to that by saying “But what about somebody who doesn’t make better choices?”
There’s also tons of different options available to you even now to rearrange your situation. Does your wife work? If so, maybe she could sell her car and get a different job she could walk to. If that’s not available, you could sell a car, use the proceeds to cover the closing costs, and move to somewhere where she could find a job within walking distance. If she doesn’t work, sell a car and let her run errands during nights and weekends. We’re doing that right now (also with two kids) because we lost one car to an accident, and it’s not that bad. Etc etc. And don’t take your realtor’s word for it that you can’t do better — get online and look for cheaper housing. If you’re in the St. Louis area, there’s tons of cheap houses for sale.
Friday, 9. October 2009 13:50
You are only thinking of the two polar extremes of a consumeristic capitalistic system or a totalitarian state socialistic system. What about all the third way options? Mutualism, geoism, libertarian socialism, distributism, anarchism? All of these avoid what I see as the negative extreme of capitalism and what we both see as the negative extreme of state socialism.
So the question remains if universal health care can be achieved for the citizens of a given nation were they to adopt one of these decentralized third way systems. I don’t think allowing the government to provided health care is intrinsically going to screw stuff up. My family’s personal Medicaid experiences, for instance, have been great (not forgetting the negatives we mentioned yesterday). But decentralization may be the key.
Friday, 9. October 2009 14:44
Universal healthcare would mean:
-High income earners would heavily subsidise the health insurance of the middle class. (Big wealth transfer)
-Lots of people who only do their current jobs for the health insurance would quit their jobs. (Productivity loss)
-Government bureaucrats who are expensive and basically can’t be fired would work less efficiently than insurance company employees, making costs go up. (Higher costs)
-If more care is actually provided, we would have to raise doctor & nurse wages to attract more people to the medical field. (higher costs)
-Government would have a vested interest in denying expensive treatments for the elderly or encouraging them to “do the right thing for society”. (Creepy)
-All those savings from “waste, fraud, and abuse” would fail to materialize and we’d have another big government entitlement program on the quick road to bankrupcy, only on an even bigger and grander scale than ever before! (Death and taxes)
-The last free market economy in healthcare would disappear. Innovation and development of new treatments would slow to a dribble in the absence of price signals. Free-riding quasi-socialist Europe would suddenly discover that the steady flow of new drugs and techniques has dried up. Sure, we’d still have all the information that has already been discovered, but there would be a large, unknown amount of avoidable suffering as people endured the things that would have been cured otherwise. (atlas shrugs)
Friday, 9. October 2009 14:56
I should certainly hope. I see nothing wrong with this. It’s called justice.
You act as if this is a new idea never tried before. It has been and has been proven to work well elsewhere. We are the only industrial yet backwoods nation left to employ it.
Halleluja!
Friday, 9. October 2009 15:04
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Friday, 9. October 2009 15:06
Kevin,
All great reasons why universal health care costs more per capita in other countries than America.
Oh, wait a sec…
Friday, 9. October 2009 15:14
We’re not talking about poor people, we are talking about the middle class in the richest nation on earth!
Wealth is not a privilege or a right. It is created by hard work and risk-taking.
If you punish success, gifted people will work less. Less will be created and there will be less to go around.
I don’t know what else to say. I can only imagine working many years in an anarchic society to create a homestead and with a nice big house and ample crops and grapes for wine. Then along comes Jeremiah who says “Hey, some of you kids have moved out, and you have extra room here. You don’t need it. You have more food than a person really needs. I’m going to move in and share this with you. And if you don’t like it, I’ve got a gang of meat-heads here with clubs that say I’m right. They’re thinking of calling their gang ‘the government.’ What do you think? Don’t complain, this is called justice!”
It’s a lie, what you are talking about is greed and envy and laziness.
Friday, 9. October 2009 15:20
Trevor,
Not included in other country’s healthcare costs:
1 our doctors’ student loans because we don’t have government-funded university educations.
2 our doctors’ higher cost of living because they are in the united states (along with the higher cost of living of the nurses, the janitors, and everybody else involved right down to the guy that waters the plants at the insurance company.
3 the portion of our doctors’ salaries that are due to the fact that we can compete for the best doctor by paying more. (doctors overseas have less prestige and the best & brightest are attracted to other fields if not to America)
4 the fact that healthcare treatment is actually a better quality here, as evidenced by the survival rates for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, MRI machines per capita, etc.
5 the higher cost due to American lifestyle differences, especially our smoking and eating.
Friday, 9. October 2009 15:23
6 preventative medicine & checkups are better here – in Europe it is much more common to discover that somebody died of undiagnosed cancer.
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:03
Oh, Kevin, you’re cute.
This is the great capitalistic myth. Somehow, the wealthy think they do not need to think of others that have less (except for giving occasional charity, of course).
Yeah, you don’t get it. My proposal is not the conservative-induced fear of archaic Cold War nightmares; it is the hope for a balanced existence. Violence is not included in that vision. Mutual aid excludes force.
But, of course, what we are dealing with today is less than ideal. No one is placing a single-payer plan in the congressional bill. And even if they did, that is still a big bovernment approach that may be less than desirable when one wishes for decentralized, anarchistic/libertarian forms.
So what I have to struggle with is the obstensibly paradoxical situation of striving toward decentralization while calling for universal care. And what I’ve found is that many anarchists have struggled with the same issue. Many of them still stick with the call for a single-pay plan realizing it is the lesser of all the other evils.
The Jesus Radicals links I posted above demonstrate such conversations. Also, the great anarchist/folk singer/activist/cool guy Utah Phillips has claimed universal health care the only sensible plan (http://hvmusic.com/article/alexander/utah_phillips).
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:05
7) The FDA, which basically requires that Pharmaceutical companies spend 3-4 times the amount they would have to otherwise to bring a drug to market
Medicare/Medicaid — actually forces prices up, due to laws requiring that what Medicare pays out for a service is the MINIMUM that can be charged
9) US court system, allowing anyone to sue anyone else without any real consequence, which leads the US populous to be very sue-happy, which in turn leads to costly malpractice insurance.
10) American cultural overconsumption of health care. People in Europe don’t go to the doctor if they have a cold.
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:08
> This is the great capitalistic myth. Somehow, the
> wealthy think they do not need to think of others
> that have less (except for giving occasional
> charity, of course).
And because you state it makes it so?
Why don’t I run my own business? Because of the taxation and oppressive paperwork and government regulation involved, particularly when you have employees. This is exactly why I’m not growing the economy by starting an IT services firm. There is no financial incentive for me to do so. There are PLENTY of others like me.
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:23
If violence is not included in your “vision” then you will have to give up wealth redistibution. I mean, you can ask for people to give up what they have, but you’ll have to be willing to hear “No”. Those with something to gain from wealth redistribution are free to hope that it will occur willingly. But those with something to lose or else a well-developed understanding of human nature know that’s a pipe dream.
More fundamentally: In today’s society, government wealth redistribution only occurs when backed up by violence. Tax evasion means jail time, violence will be used to enforce that. If it usually doesn’t get to that point, that is only because everybody knows that the violenced threatened is real and carried out efficiently and surely. You can’t agitate for wealth redistribution through taxation and then wash your hands of coercive force by telling me that it’s not in your “vision”. You know exactly how these things will be carried out when you promote them.
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:25
Google “chavez land confiscation video”.
Remember, what you are seeing is only conservative-induced fear!
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:34
You’re right. If we go to a universal health care model, we will become a totalitarian dictatorship like — well, ya know — those horribly oppressive communistic countries, such as England. Ooo, and Australia.
Friday, 9. October 2009 16:44
You’re missing the point entirely. Taking somebody’s property under the threat of violence is not morally superior to actually using violence to take it. It is just as wrong even if no violence takes place. But you’re willing to engage in this form of violence on a massive scale, for no particular reason that I can discern, other than vague claims about efficiency and that the rich should “think of” those with less.
We’re not even talking about meeting people’s needs! You could give healthcare to everybody that legitimately needs it by slightly altering the eligibility standards for medicaid. You want to deliberately go beyond that just to stick it to the rich, just because you have a taste for class warfare.
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:05
To sum up, suppose you are asking me to give you something that is mine. I say “Why do you want it?” What do you say?
If you say “I need it in order to have clothing, food, shelter, and medical care,” then I generally will recognize that your need creates an obligation on my part.
If you say “Because you have more stuff than I do,” then I’m just going to tell you to get over your envy and live your life.
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:10
Altering eligibility standards for Medicaid may simply be what single-payer health care could be.
And like Dorothy Day, I am “a pacifist even in the class war.”
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:15
If by more stuff you mean you can afford a life essential such as health care and I can’t, then I see nothing wrong with those who can provide doing so for those who cannot. Saying that is simply me being envious and that I should just go live my life is simply displaying a high tendancy toward a selfish and greedy materialism that I can have no respect for.
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:48
You’re ignoring that I deliberately and explicitly ruled out that scenario in the comment you are responding to.
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:53
I’m afraid the ignorance is not on my part. The problem is that you have no idea what who can and who can’t even means.
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:54
When pressed, you do not defend your enthusiasm for wealth redistribution, hiding behind the red herring of “life essentials” and “needs”. But the American middle class is richer than almost anybody in human history, and has everything it needs to meet its essential needs if it doesn’t act foolishly. Yet when you consider the prospect of using coercive violence to take from the prosperous in order to give the middle class even more, your first response is:
Friday, 9. October 2009 17:56
I’m not sure what the italicised phrase refers to.
Friday, 9. October 2009 18:07
Here’s the entire comment you’re purporting to respond to:
Here I am setting up two scenarios in order to distinguish between them. What is the distinquishing factor? In the first scenario, there is a real need. In the second scenario, there is not. If there is not a real need, I’m suggesting that there exists envy. You respond by saying,
Now do you see why this doesn’t make sense?
Friday, 9. October 2009 18:18
You seem to think you understand who can and cannot afford health care. But I have a slight inkling that you have a very limited grasp on all this. And besides, let’s say you are Mr. I-Get-It Extraordanaire, that still doesn’t mean that health care isn’t something that could (or should) be provided for all.
I know you don’t like to be taxed for the sake of others, but Robin Hood that I am, I see nothing wrong with the simple axiom, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Sounds rather Gospel-esque.
To think this requires violence (and I understand this doesn’t necessarliy mean bloodshed but simply forced oppresssion of any kind), seems to be a bit of a stretch. My wealth distribution is precisely for “life essentials” and “needs” — but of the libertarian socialistic model, not the state socialistic type.
Friday, 9. October 2009 18:23
The only way that universal healthcare is required by people’s essential needs is if you are talking about need irrespective of their ability to provide for themselves. For instance, Bill Gates needs healthcare because he is a human. Without healthcare he might die of a treatable illness. Therefore Bill Gates needs healthcare. Therefore the government is justified in taxing people to give Bill Gates healthcare.
But Bill Gates doesn’t need the government to do that. He can pay for his own healthcare. Therefore I say that the government would not be responding to a “need” in his case, whereas you say that they are. We can both be right in our own way.
But you rule out that interpretation when you say, “You seem to think you understand who can and cannot afford health care…” So you contradict yourself. If that is what we are discussing when we say need, then most people in America don’t “need” health insurance – they already have it. You want to redistribute wealth even to the people who are already paying for their own healthcare right now.
Don’t call that Robin Hood. You’re not robbing the rich to feed the poor. You’re robbing the rich to give leisure and consumables to the middle class who already have their needs met.
Friday, 9. October 2009 18:43
Ah, now this is getting at something. Because you think those classified “middle-class” are getting their needs met. And I differ on this point. This is where I say you do not understand who needs what.
The lower middle-class, the working poor, they are the ones really hurt by this, as well as the ones I mentioned before: those who are as low as low can be but still not eligible for health care because income is not an element taken into account. (Then you have the local free clinic at your disposal, but as a poster on the clinic’s wall declares, “Single-payer health care: The only way to achieve justice in this country”, or something like that.)
But your term “middle class” includes these working poor types, I’m afraid. And they simply cannot afford it. I’m telling ya. Some folks might place me in that category, some wouldn’t. Some would place my parents there, some wouldn’t. And my household has trouble with health care. My parents have never had any kind of insurance.
Point is, there are so many factors that I fear are not being taken into consideration on your part.
Friday, 9. October 2009 18:55
What do you think a family of 4 in St. Louis needs, not counting health insurance?
What do you think health insurance costs for them?
Friday, 9. October 2009 19:08
If you want to discuss some of the real issues of this topic, then fine. But I’m not playing speculative number games.
Friday, 9. October 2009 19:30
Here’s my speculative number game anyway: (last comment of the week) Suppose you are a hardworking father with a family to support. You only make $8 an hour and work two jobs for a total of 75 hours a week. Or maybe you put in 60 and your wife does 15 hours on the weekends. Now, I claim it’s easy to find an $8/hr job within walking distance of most large apartment buildings so I will leave transportation out. You have $800 rent for 3 bedrooms and another $200 in utilities. You spend $120 a week on food. The Missouri average healthcare premium for a family is $11,500 a year. Then throw in an extra $1000 a year in miscellaneous expenses like clothes and whatever else.
Earnings: $31,200
Expenses: $30,740
Poor? Yes.
Unmet needs? No.
Friday, 9. October 2009 23:15
Whether or not this will lead to a totalitarian regime across all aspects of society, it will certainly lead to such a thing within the sphere of healthcare. Currently, in order to reign in the spending of Medicare and Medicaid (which have already proven themselves unsustainable), the government, to this point, has simply cut reimbursement rates to doctors. Doctors, then, have either limited the number of govt sponsored patients they see, or/and pass along any unmet costs to the rest of their practice. This then gets passed along to those with insurance. If single payer is instituted, there will be no other insurance company upon whom you can dump the cost. It is at this point where you will begin to get see the dying of the medical ingenuity and talent we have in this country. Nobody will want to be a doctor if it pays $30k a year.
You will also get ‘land grabs’ of each person’s share of the healthcare pie. Every socialized nation does this. Some better than others. All have scary stories.
You will also have the government artificially limiting technology spending. This is already included in the current bill. Under these programs, anything that the government has deemed “comparatively ineffective” (read: too expensive) will be essentially illegal, even for those with private insurance. The aim of this legislation is not for the public’s well being, but simply to control Uncle Sam’s pocketbook. The problem is that a broadsword is being used across the entirety of the industry, which will affect us all.
Friday, 9. October 2009 23:38
Kevin’s previous post unrealistic? Yes.
Is this how life works? No.
Saturday, 10. October 2009 3:36
Who are all these spambot mothaz that keep inserting their two cents hours after we post ours. Drones from the conservative oligarchy, that’s who.
Saturday, 10. October 2009 14:44
Yeah, I’m too slow at approving their posts…so they come in late.
I’m too slow…or maybe you all are too fast. Geez. 55 comments!
Saturday, 10. October 2009 22:56
I know one of the authors personally and he does not vote for either major party so “conservative oligarchy drone” misses the mark.
Saturday, 10. October 2009 23:08
Michael I’m waiting for you to tell me how life works.
Sunday, 11. October 2009 16:05
“spambot” and “Drones from the conservative oligarchy”
Wow… that’s a new accusation. Never heard that one before. Ad hominem == fun!
As Kevin rightly claimed, I haven’t voted for either republican or democrat for president or governor in over a decade. I’m actually a Catholic monarchist who’s realistic that our nation will not, within our grandchildrens’ lifetimes, have the cultural trappings necessary for such a thing to occur, so I want this secular, modernist government to take the form where it would cause the least harm: one where it doesn’t do much at all. I tend to vote/argue toward libertarian/anarcho-capitalist directions, as I believe that no government that does not explicitly confess faith and obedience to Christ and His one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church cannot be trusted with any real power over peoples’ lives.
I cannot, and will not trust any large, secular government that wishes to redistribute wealth in any way. It will never be done in a way that is even slightly just.
Want to solve the problem of lack of access to healthcare:
1) Reform patent law (i.e., remove the existence of patents)
2) Abolish the FDA
3) Remove all laws on the books regulating medicine
4) Evangelize to the populace; an educated, Christian populous as wealthy as ours will be willing to give charitably.
I work in pharma. My company (who does market research for companies like Novartis, Genentech, Pfizer, etc.) has had to change its buisness model 4 times in the last 6 years, because of the rapid and oppressive legal changes. For instance, we can no longer pay doctors to take our surveys and participate in our research initiatives.
Because of the state of Medicare and insurance, many pharma companies stay afloat and finance their actually helpful and useful drugs because of cash-cows like Viagra and Botox, which aren’t covered by insurance, so they can actually charge for it enough to make a profit for the FDA certification, SOX compliance, and droves of lawyers they must employ.
Big pharma isn’t angelic, by any means. Typically, quite the opposite. But they must behave in an evil, parasitic manner in order to make a profit at all in this legal environment.
Monday, 12. October 2009 13:43
Kevin, although your last statement was sarcastic, judging by your previous posts on this thread and others in the past you actually need someone to tell you how life works. I don’t know if your bubble you live within in the fair northeast allows you to see actual life. The poor begets the poor, the addicted the addicted, the criminal the criminal, and so on and so on. Sure, there are exceptions to this rule, but that is exactly what they are, exceptions. When you begin to wear a lens that allows you to see people as problematic and lazy I fear you begin to veer away from what your religion teaches you. As a professing Catholic, I would assume you state that you love the meek, poor, and disadvantaged, but on this thread you seem to abhor them. I’m sure we would both agree that the Church should step it up some, but until that point we only have our government, whether perfect or imperfect.
Monday, 12. October 2009 13:57
“Vox victimarum, vox dei.”
Monday, 12. October 2009 14:28
Michael, I don’t really understand what it is you disagree with. I’m arguing that you can afford to support a family of 4 on approximately 30k, which would mean only about 30% of households would need assistance (based on the 2007 census). Secondarily I’m arguing that pretty much anybody can make that amount of money if they want to, but the government assistance would just be based on their actual income, not what they are capable of.
Are you saying that some people won’t do what it takes to make that amount of money? Are you saying that those who do won’t spend their money wisely? I rather think that both are true, but I don’t see how that invalidates my argument.
One of the problems we run into is that people don’t make health insurance a priority. Somebody who makes 30k is rarely going to spend a third of their income on health insurance, because they are already exposed to so many kinds of risk — risk of losing their job, risk of inflation deteriorating their income, etc — that a little more risk is certainly worth taking on for a 50% increase in their spending ability. I think there is a large category of uninsured who simply chose not to buy insurance because they’d rather spend the money on other things.
The question is, how do we help these people? A single payer system would confirm and institutionalize their choice, taking from the wealthy to pay for the healthcare of not only those making $30k, but those making 40, and 50, and 60 as well. I don’t see that as a good (or fair) solution, even setting aside the harmful affects it would have on the quality of care and on the economy as a whole.
Maybe a better solution would be to force them to buy the insurance. Anybody who didn’t maintain insurance could have their wages garnished to cap their income at $20k, with the excess (up to the normal premium amount) going to pay for a policy with an insurance company. Unfortunately this would mean people making approximately $20k would have absolutely no inclination to work harder to increase their pay.
How do you react when people do not act in their own self interest? Do you help them out, teaching them that it is ok to be irresponsible? Do you let them alone and hope they figure it out before it kills them? It’s a tough question and there are no easy answers. As an anti-utopianist, I lean toward letting people screw up their lives. I’m not going to pick the pockets of the successful to subsidise bad behavior. Where there is real need, I am willing to see government action to help out. But I’m going to define “need” very strictly, mindful that I didn’t earn the money I’m proposing to spend.
Monday, 12. October 2009 15:38
And what happens when your guinea pig loses his job due to being so sick because he worked 75 hours a week. So he was able to afford healthcare, but in return he lost his job, as well as spending precious time with his children and wife. Guess what? Now he has no healthcare becuase he has no money. Lazy bastard.
I agree priorities is the issue, but you and I differ on what the higher prioritiy is.
Monday, 12. October 2009 15:39
Our jobs as social service workers exist because of the ideology that is against “letting people screw up their lives.” And the reason is because no one chooses to do such a thing to themselves. There are deep, underlying histories, psychoses, and innumerable circumstances that have brought such down-and-out folks to their a lot in life.
It is your ignorance of the causes of poverty, homelessness, addiction, abuse, etc. that places you on the other side of the fence from Michael and I. I suspect this is at least part of what he was referencing when he challenged your knowledge of how life works. This is also what cripples your understanding of “need.” You admittedly define “need” strictly, but I believe your strictness is not the virtue you wish it to be but is rather the outworkings of an unknowledgable authoritarian.
Monday, 12. October 2009 15:43
This debate is akin to civil rights. The only difference is that it is between classes and not races.
Monday, 12. October 2009 16:23
Gosh, sounds like he developed a “need”, doesn’t it? Now, I forget, did I say I was for or against providing help to people with real needs? Somebody remind me.
BTW, 75 hours a week comes out to under 11 hours a day, which isn’t going to make anybody sick. If he gets up at the same time I do, he’ll be home before 5. He can play with his kids, eat dinner with them, play some more, put them to bed, and get 8 hours of sleep.
Monday, 12. October 2009 16:36
What’s your point? Look, I am arguing that an income three times higher than the world GDP per capita puts you out of the range of “real need”. You guys aparently think that even that is not enough. So what is enough? How much? America is only 5% of the population of the world. Do you have to be in the top 3% not to be in need of government assistance? The top 1%? Where do you draw the line?
Monday, 12. October 2009 16:48
Obviously the “need” was already there it just took the family becoming homeless for YOU to see it.
So you’re saying getting to work at 4am and working until 5pm seven days a week provides a quality life for him and his family. I bet his wife and children would disagree.
Monday, 12. October 2009 17:01
Nope, check your math.
Monday, 12. October 2009 17:09
How about this? He generally leaves for work at 6 and is home by 5. However, Mondays and Wednesdays he works until 9:30. Then he has Sundays off.
Monday, 12. October 2009 17:47
My point is that you accept governmental assistance for “real need,” but I question your criteria of who is needy and who is not.
Monday, 12. October 2009 17:54
Sorry, I included getting ready and travel time.
-This bantering back and forth about made up scenarios is exhausting and pointless. The point you and I can’t agree on is whether this is feasible for a family living in poverty. And seeing that I work with these families daily and know more about the obstacles and struggles that face these marginalized peoples more than you do, I think I probably have a better grasp of what is possible and what is probable.
Monday, 12. October 2009 18:06
Well that and the fact that I’m probably pretty darn close to being part of one of those families gives an interesting perspective as well.
Monday, 12. October 2009 18:14
Something we have to acknowledge, not only for the poor, but the middle class as well, is that if we encourage people to work entirely too hard and neglect their families, just to provide healthcare or something like it, the rates of these families being broken and needing assistance can and, most definitely, will increase.
Monday, 12. October 2009 18:26
It’s a little weird that you guys are appealing to your extensive personal experience dealing with people in similar situations to what I described, but the extent of your argument is basically to call me ignorant and say $30k a year isn’t enough.
What I am taking away from this is that people making 35 or 40 grand a year need to raid my paychecks to pay for their health insurance, and if I ask why, the answer is: Shut up.
Monday, 12. October 2009 18:45
I think what Jeremiah and I are arguing for is that the poor aren’t the only ones disenfranchised by the current healthcare in America. Even the middle class is suffering from losing jobs, thus losing healthcare, not being accepted or having to pay more because of “pre-existing conditions,” or simply not being able to afford a decent healthcare plan for their wives because they are too busy “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps” and trying to advance their position by gaining an advanced degree.
Why shouldn’t the son of a carpenter be afforded the same privledges as the son of Bill Gates? The latter was only born into a more affluent family. He didn’t work any harder.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:00
Well, the folks we work with make much less than $30k; they ususally make $0. Even we make much less than $30k, so the reason you keep sticking to these numbers, I suppose, is because your scenarios have created them. And, of course, you want your scenarios to serve your political purpose.
So I am going to presume, based on past statements, that you are okay with our clientele recieving governmental assistance. Maybe you would even be okay with us recieving it. Except you would probably want to know that we “need” the assistance. Our income would probably not be enough to convince you, so you would likely want to know that we are unable to work (in the case of our clients) or would like to see us work more (in the case of us).
In the case of our clients, and for folks in similar situations, they are in that place because of circumstances outside their control. They are the victims — either of mental illness, abuse, addiction, neglect, or birth into generational poverty and all the negatives that brings with it.
In my case, I was born lower-middle class/poor working class and still am. I don’t see that changing any time soon, and I am okay with that. In fact, I have no desire to be otherwise. There’s a dignity in it that I embrace.
So to think that the issue is your fellow citizens raiding your paycheck reveals a wrong way of thinking of this issue. Were we to go a universal model, by consent of the majority, you would be living in country that wants to help its own. It you don’t like it, you can move.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:02
I would prefer if there were no lines.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:12
Well, as you will recall, I started my contributions to this discussion by suggesting ways that health insurance could be de-coupled from employment. As to why people with pre-existing conditions have to pay more, it’s because they cost more. Believe it or not, doctors and Nurses and people who manufacture medical equipment and hospital janitors all need to make a living. If you need more medical care, they are going to charge you more money. If they are going to charge your insurance more money, your insurance company is going to pass that on to you. It would be nice if it was all free, but somebody has to pay for all of this. You want to make the rich pay for all of it. Why? Your only answer seems to be, why not? But why not have the rich pay for our food too? Why not tax the rich to pay for our clothes? Our schools? Our homes? Our cars?
I keep hearing about privilege and enfranchisement, as if earning a lot of money is a special right that some people don’t have. Look guys, socialism doesn’t work. If you’re allowed to just argue that I’m ignorant of the situation of poor people, it is no less true that you haven’t the foggiest notion of how and why wealth is created. If you look at the standard of living and technology and productivity of Americans 200 years ago, you won’t see any particular reason why over the following centuries America became the richest and most powerful nation in human history. To see the seeds of that, you have to look at the legal and political climate. The free market, including the freedom to keep most of the money you earn, is the reason we have so much. It is the reason we can be having this preposterous discussion about whether $30k a year is “enough”, when it wasn’t too long ago that same income adjusted for inflation would have been upper-middle-class.
You don’t get it. If we keep going down the road of socialism by increments, I promise you, it will never, ever, be enough. People will always be struggling. The only question is whether we will cook and eat the goose that has been laying the golden eggs.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:18
You are just saying, lets close our eyes and cover our ears and try to forget that our plan involves picking the pockets of our neighbors. We will call this “helping our own” and accuse anyone who objects of being heartless and cruel.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:24
I guess one breakdown in comunication here is that I see America’s wealth as a bad thing. It was created (even though you don’t think I could understand such things) through industrialism, imperialism, and oppression. You are against state socialism, but wholeheartedly embrace state capitalism.
The reason I see no problem with the wealthy helping out the not-so-wealthy is because it just makes good human sense. The fear of such a system being abused is real, but with proof of eligibility to receive such services we can hope to weed out the bad apples.
We have a lot of polar presuppositions to work through that gets in the way of our dialogue, but these are those deep, underlying issues I said this conversation tends to bring out.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:29
Sorry about the pun, but this is rich.
If your aim was to make money, you almost certainly could do better by doing something else, (starting by majoring in something different in college,) but you are content with your situation. You’ll sit back and vote to take from me to better your situation but you won’t actually, you know, change what you’re doing.
My friends, there are plenty of careers I could have chosen that would have been more enjoyable and provided me with more leisure time. Instead I chose one that would provide me with a larger paycheck. I am putting in the hours and putting up with the drudgery, so that my labor is more productive to society than otherwise. I do this for the money. The idea that you think you’re entitled to my money precisely because you don’t care to do hard and unpleasant things to earn your own is obscene.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:44
Ah-hah. Now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty. See, you have hit on another presupposition, one I think deeply flawed. My major in college, for instance, is one that I chose based on love, not a paycheck. That, to me, is the way to behave, not planning on getting rich. Your admitting to having chosen one so you’d get payed more just makes you look like a passionless wage-worker.
But you think my choice is an avoidance of “hard and unpleasant things.” Not only do you not know what I do or have done in any way, you presume things that are highly insulting. You think your work is more productive to society? That’s because you are blinded by dollar signs.
You make no distinction regarding the fact that some people are wired to do certain things. Perhaps, you’re technical where I am artistic. Perhaps, you are analytical where I am creative. And on and on. One may make a great architect, another a wonderful filmmaker. Point is, living in an increasingly technocratic society makes some folks’ strengths devalued.
Thus, your math degree is seen as a great way to promote the industrial-military complex of capitalistist technocracy, whereas my English degree is seen as a nature-loving, artsy-fartsy, pussy pursuit that is worthy only of fast food workers.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:49
Besides, if we all received a math degree it would be a drab world.
Monday, 12. October 2009 19:53
Yeah, that too.
Monday, 12. October 2009 21:29
The morality of stealing from the rich through taxation should be weighed against the morality of stealing from workers, future generations, and the natural world through monopoly, cartels, pollution, copyrights, patents, and other forms of economic injustices.
Just saying.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 11:07
> The reason I see no problem with the wealthy
> helping out the not-so-wealthy is because it
> just makes good human sense.
No one here is arguing that the wealthy cannot, or even should not, help the poor. They absolutely should.
What Kevin and I are arguing against is whether they should be forced to at gunpoint.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 11:19
> In my case, I was born lower-middle class/poor
> working class and still am. I don’t see that
> changing any time soon, and I am okay with that.
> In fact, I have no desire to be otherwise. There’s
> a dignity in it that I embrace.
I was born lower class. My parents were decidedly below the poverty line. They were until about the time that my brother and I started college. I worked my butt off to pull myself into the middle class, and hopefully higher.
So you are telling me because you have “no desire to be otherwise” (i.e., no desire to financially pull yourself up with hard work, even though you have the ability), you are going to force ME to subsidize YOUR healthcare? Really? When I could otherwise allocate such funding to charitable giving that I think is more worthy?
I hate to break it to you, but there’s very little real poverty in the US. Have you ever done foreign service work? The experience that changed my understanding of poverty was a service trip to a slum on the outskirts of Mexico city. There, families of 8 were living in a 9×9 cinder-block room with no running water built literally on a toxic dump. The entire families, from the ages of 10 and up, would work at a waste processing plant for 70+ hours a week. They were paid just enough so the couldn’t afford to leave. Most of them stayed their whole lives; the few that were healthy and enterprising learned other professions on the side so they could afford to leave (like the lady that cut my hair down there).
I’m sorry, but if I have the choice of subsidizing an American lower-middle class family, or a family that is actually poor, I’ll choose the latter. I posit that it is YOU who do not understand poverty.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 11:27
> Perhaps, you’re technical where I am artistic.
> Perhaps, you are analytical where I am creative.
There’s still plenty of things you could have done to make more money. I work at a marketing firm. Who, other than the executives, get paid the most? The writers. Creative work. The designers and animators don’t have it too bad either — certainly earning more than lower-middle-class income.
You’re more than welcome to do what you love; that’s your right. But don’t tell me that because you love doing something that isn’t profitable, I need to pick up your slack. That’s bull. I chose difficult work and long hours, so someone else who chooses not to can benefit? If I were going to choose a profession based on enjoyment, I’d work at the local brewpub or gaming store for
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 11:34
> Besides, if we all received a math degree it
> would be a drab world.
Then get a degree in tech writing, computer science, design, electrical engineering, biomedical engineering, law, business management, etc., etc., etc.
And while you’re at it, don’t go into 6 figures of debt. And don’t be lazy on the job. Most people are lazy; if you work hard and perform, you’ll very quickly be noticed and compensated. And if your bosses are too stupid: quit and work somewhere else.
(I disagree; mathematics is a deep subject of great beauty. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone knew just basic probability and statistics.)
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 12:50
That’s fine as long as you’re willing to take the consequences like an adult. I don’t see why it means I have to labor for your benefit.
I wasn’t aware we were having this conversation to compete for the affection of an audience. But in fact, if you must know, I am very passionate about mathematics. So passionate that I would very much like to still be at the University learning and teaching. However, I decided to get a higher paying job so that I could more easily raise a family. My family is more important to me than mathematics. Is that passionless?
I have no doubt you’ve done some hard and unpleasant things, but there are specific hard and unpleasant things you’ve been unwilling to do.
I said it’s more productive than the things I would rather be doing with my time, which is true. You know, it’s telling that you can’t argue your side of this without continuously making me out to be blinded to any value higher than money. And yet you’re the one who is trying to argue his right to get his hands on other people’s cash.
Baloney. I never said you could do my job. You couldn’t. But I know you’re smart enough to do something more lucrative than social work. And that is why I say you’re unwilling to do hard and unpleasant things. You’re admittedly not willing to make earning money a high priority. Well, that’s a trade-off. I’m sure you wouldn’t mind the money per se, since you’re willing to take mine. So there must be something else about earning it that you think makes it not worth doing. Maybe it’s leaving a job that makes you feel like you are a good person. I don’t know.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 13:14
Even granting your world view, when have I personally stolen from workers or future generations? What monopoly do I have? What cartel am I a part of? What pollution do I engage in? What copyrights or patents are in my name?
If you think these things are injustices you should try to get the government to act directly. I don’t see why any of these injustices should have any bearing on whether Jeremiah is entitled to a share of my income.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 13:42
Very little real poverty in the U.S., huh? A couple things not being considered. I have seen third-world poverty, AND I work with poverty here in my own American town. Both are real and both are debilitating. Does that mean they look the same? No. Are the third-world varieties more impoverished? Maybe. But that doesn’t mean that our versions aren’t still in true poverty. If I drown in a cup of water instead of the sea, that doesn’t make me less dead.
Also, money-making is not a priority to me. Not because I am lazy, unwilling to work, or any of that. In fact, it is because I do not want to even live within the wage system at all. Ideally, I would be self-sufficient, living on a farm off the grid. And it is a goal I am working toward. Higher-paying job be damned. So my insistence upon single-payer health care is purely one of social justice. Because there are those who do not have the capacity to self-sufficiency.
And just for the record (if we must keep playing these “my job’s harder than yours” baby games), social work is hardly a job less worthy than another. It isn’t easy, it requires constant critical and creative thinking, and it is emotionally tolling. And it doesn’t pay much. It’s one of those jobs you don’t do to make a lot of money — kinda like teachers and the police (but I guess they should be pursuing more lucrative jobs, eh?).
On a daily basis, I come to work and have to deal with mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, homicide, overdoses, and occasionally having a gun pointed at me. Now, I know I love avoiding the hard things of life (lazy bastard that I am), but sometimes all that shit can get to a feller. And then I have “hard-working,” responsible types like you fine gentlemen show me the error of my ways. Well, I currently have both middle fingers stretched firmly in your direction.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 13:52
Kevin and Aaron,
I think you guys tend to put more value in making money than what we do as a career. Remember, social workers exist because there is a real need. And it is people like you two that takes the value away from it. This is caused by greedy corporate bodies spreading their worldview that the dollar is the only thing that matters, and you two have ran with it. Along with the police, social workers help protect society by attempting, and succeeding at times, to rehabilitate “delinquent” individuals, so they aren’t sleeping on your lawn, stealing your property, or assaulting you in public.
Sure, these things still happen, but they happen as a result of greed produced by “the haves” creating a wider gap for “the have nots” to cross.
P.S.-You say we work in our jobs because it makes us feel like good people, as far as I can tell you make money for this same reason.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 15:07
I wrote a long comment trying to explicate the various misunderstanding that I think are occuring. But what’s the point?
You could make more money if you wanted to. You don’t. And you think that choice gives you a right to a cut of my paycheck? Middle fingers, backatcha.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 17:05
> Does that mean they look the same? No. Are the
> third-world varieties more impoverished? Maybe.
> But that doesn’t mean that our versions aren’t
> still in true poverty.
What third-world poverty includes air conditioning, running water, cable TV, internet access, and cell phones? People who live under the poverty line in this country, for the most part, have all of these things. And don’t tell me I don’t live around it either — I lived in Newark, NJ for 8 years. I frequently go through Patterson. My confirmation retreat was in Camden.
> Also, money-making is not a priority to me. Not
> because I am lazy, unwilling to work, or any of
> that. In fact, it is because I do not want to
> even live within the wage system at all.
> Ideally, I would be self-sufficient, living on a
> farm off the grid. And it is a goal I am working
> toward. Higher-paying job be damned.
Bravo! I have no problem with this — knock yourself out.
I just don’t understand why I should have to subsidize these choices you make. You have the opportunities, right now, to make enough money that you can get health insurance without having a third party rob me at gunpoint, yet you insist that this happens anyway.
Could you possibly be more entitled and self-centered?
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 17:41
Yes, I could be you and your ilk, working for your own wealth while neglecting the poor through self-induced ignorance.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 17:52
Why all this talk about gunpoint? Remember, if any such proposal passes it would be by majority vote, exactly how every other law/proposal is passed. If you and the rest of your clan don’t like it you can start a grassroots movement to lobby congress or try to secede.
I’d prefer the latter.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 18:31
> Yes, I could be you and your ilk, working for your
> own wealth while neglecting the poor through
> self-induced ignorance.
Really? Do you know how much, if any, of my time and money I give to charity? Of course not. You make assumptions. Just like you make assumptions that you know how to better spend my money than I do.
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 18:35
But you can’t deny that this is the context of the debate: whether it is worth using irresistible coercive force to implement universal health care. Unless you believe that the majority can never be wrong, your argument for the curtailment of liberty must be along the lines of: “Yes it is coercion, but it is worth it to coerce even those who disagree and here’s why…”
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 18:36
> Why all this talk about gunpoint? Remember, if
> any such proposal passes it would be by
> majority vote, exactly how every other
> law/proposal is passed.
It’s not how the law is passed, it’s how it is enforced. All laws must be enforced by threat of death. All of them. Here’s how it works:
1) I choose to not pay my taxes
The cops shoot me
2) The IRS informs me that I need to pay my taxes
3) I still refuse
4) The IRS sends the cops to make me show up in court
5) I still refuse
6) The cops force me
7) I still refuse
If the cops weren’t willing to shoot me to enforce the law, I could do anything I wanted. Therefore, the only way law can be enforced is by threat of lethal force. Absent that threat of force, I could use everything at my disposal to resist the law, and win.
Thus, we really should think long and hard about EVERY law put on the books… is it worth killing someone over?
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 19:30
Smiley face gnome strikes again! (please limit your lists to seven items on this blog)
Tuesday, 13. October 2009 20:05
Kevin, I agree, but let’s turn down the rhetoric.
Wednesday, 14. October 2009 2:06
Alright, let’s see if I can try and clear up what I percieve as being some misconceptions in this conversation. The fact may be, I admit, that I have been less than clear, that I have left something out. I say this because I think if we truly heard each other we would be less hesitant to oppose.
To no one’s surprise and to my oft-said stance, I am an anarchist. Call it what you will: left-libertarian, libertarian socialist, mutualist, decentralist. Point is, I like things small and beautiful. And I also identify well with those movements that value self-sufficient living, like the back-to-the-land, agrarian, bioregional, simple-living, distributist, localist, and Catholic Worker movements.
Check out some E.F. Schumacher, John Seymour, Bill Kauffman, or Gary Snyder if you care to know what I’m talking about.
Now listen, I don’t expect everyone or anyone to agree with those positions or find the same affinity with them that I do. I mention them simply to lay some groundwork. And I recognize what may appear to be a striking contradiction between those and my advocacy for universal health care. I mean, why identify with small, anti-statist positions while at the same time calling for what seemingly smacks of big government control over the health care system?
My reasoning — while admittedly sounding initially inadequate — has its thought-out conclusion.
It starts something like this: Ideally, I would like to see bigness broken down to small entities. This applies whether we are discussing big business, big government, whatever. I think America is too big and would prefer if there was more of a weakened, limited central government with stronger rights for soverign states. In this, I consider myself an Jeffersonian decentralist.
In fact, I would update this attitude by being informed by the contemporary bioregionalist movement, where we do away with current arbitrary boundaries and instead reformulate them to respect the many and various bioregions throughout the land. So instead of being a Missourian, for instance, I would be an Ozarkian.
The decentralist position I adopt because of my belief that small is best, and big is scary and oppressive. The bioregionalist position I adopt due to my education in ecology, which shows eco-regions being best served (environmentally, culturally, etc.) by being soverign in adopting practices and policies unique to that particular locale.
Okay. So with all this localist mumbo-jumbo, why universal health care? The reason is because of two things:
1.) I see corruption in the current system of for-profit health care, where more concern is placed in making money on behalf of the insurance companies (and, yes, I realize the skewed nature of this dialogue in that a social worker is talking to an actuarian. So be it.). Think, for better or worse, of Michael Moore-style Sicko complaints.
2.) Although I have espoused some very obscure, utopian-sounding movements, I realize most of them are very far from being reality at this time. So what can person do in my shoes? My approach is to say, “What would be the next best step?” In other words, thinking incrementally, where can we go from here?
You point out that pushing off healthcare onto the government is to give up personal responsibility. And obviously, none of us are doctors or nurses and could only indirectly provide such things. But there is a good point there in general. The more the state provides for people, the more dependent and invested in its strength they become.
But then again, the insurance companies are probably worse (sorry, fellas!). They are ultimately backed by violence as well, as they have recourse to the law courts to force people to pay, bankrupt them, etc. In addition they have less scruples and accountability than elected officials. Their only and sole reason for being, even under the law, is profit-making.
By law, corporations have to do what is best for their shareholders. So insurance companies have to maximize profit. The current “universal” proposals do not address the capitalist underpinnings of the entire for-profit medical system in the United States. Only a single-payer system like the Europeans have could address that.
So in this case, I fear justice lies in what appears to be the governmental route. Note: not only am I an anti-statist, I am also an anti-capitalist.
Now, under my proposed notions of how I would like the world (or at least my own land) to look, small communities would take care of eachother. I imagine this would still be a universal model, but it would be on a much smaller, local level. There have also been suggestions of cooperative systems that I have open ears to hear about. Just today, I read apiece about “open-source” health care that I’d like to learn more about.
Anyway, I’m exhausted, and I hope if I haven’t cleared anything up I have at least cleared the air.
Wednesday, 14. October 2009 4:15
The difference with your proposal vs. the current system is that with the current system, I have a choice. I can pay for health insurance, or not. I can get annual checkups, or not. There is much corruption in health insurance companies, but a sizable percentage of that is due to government interference. They cannot make a profit at all without being bastards. They are forced, by law, to insure anyone during open enrolment periods. They are not allowed to charge based on their costs. They are not allowed to negotiate payment options with health organizations for less than medicare pays. Medicare pays a fixed percentage of what the doctor/hospital charges uninsured patients. In turn, the only way for hospitals to make a profit is to inflate their costs to the uninsured.
The government also incentivizes employer payment of insurance of particular kinds of policies, which artificially increases price, and decreases the potential audience. Because of the existence of low copays, people over-use the medical system — going to the doctor for every common cold.
When I was single, if I had the option, I’d go for a cheap, emergency-only plan, with a high deductible. I’m young(ish) and healthy. I would have then upgraded the plan upon marriage. Instead, I had to pay high premiums for a plan I basically didn’t use.
Imagine if health insurance was dealt with more like life insurance — multitudes of providers offering multitudes of plans and various price ranges tailor-made to the needs of the individual.
I lean towards anarcho-libertarianism not because I think it is the best way, but because I think it is a far more likely reality than a strong Catholic monarchy, which Pius IX refered to as the best form of government. Though, honestly, part of what I like about more traditional monarchies is that the highly stratified society and rigid hierarchy had the side effect of small government. Even if the king was corrupt and greedy, he would not require taxing his people nearly as much as the sheer volume of bureaucrats that modern democratic republics create. The British royal family, which lives a rather lavish lifestyle, costs the average British citizen about 5 pounds a year, whereas Parliment’s huge expansive, socialist programs cost many, many times more. After both the American and French revolutions, taxes skyrocketed (Although the Americans took a bit longer to get there.)
Thursday, 15. October 2009 13:27
FYI
State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)
by Benjamin R. Tucker
http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm
Thursday, 15. October 2009 17:12
Trevor:
That was a really interesting read. It really made me think, particularly about ownership of land.
It may be possible to convince me that, with the exception of a monarchy, land ownership is a bad idea. Even if unconvinced, I think I know where you are coming from now — I “get” rents.
Thursday, 15. October 2009 20:04
I love this quote from the piece: “The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.” I dig it.
Thursday, 15. October 2009 23:22
I’m neither a spambot or a drone. (Isn’t that what the number addition in the ‘reply’ is supposed to prevent?) I’m a friend of Trev, Kevin, and others here. I apologize if I treat this site like a blog, and not a web forum.
Friday, 16. October 2009 3:56
Sir Omer,
Not that I’m accusing you of being a spambot, but the number addition thing is a pretty easy Turing test to crack. I could write a parser in about an hour or so that could handle just about anything that this test has thrown at me…
Friday, 16. October 2009 12:30
There are a hundred or so comments a week that get past the math but nailed by the spam catcher – which is much better than 1000 a week before the math was added.
By-the-way Chris, bad-ass Megan McArdle challenges (in-part) the cost transferring phenomenon you mentioned in your former post. See here: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/do_private_insurers_subsidize.php
Lastly, given how scared you sound of socialized medicine, I’d like to hear you comment on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html?_r=1&em
And, no offence, but you do come across very “spambotty” sounding in some of your posts.
Friday, 16. October 2009 15:25
Trevor,
I didn’t say there was no value in the math filter; it gets rid of the simplest spambots, which is the majority of them. I was just implying that getting past it was not proof that a post is not from a spambot.
If you want something a bit more bulletproof, however, I suggest using reCAPTCHA (http://recaptcha.net/) — it’s free, and very little can get past it. It’s also slightly more annoying to the user; it’s a trade off.
And were you saying my posts come off as spam-botty, or Sir Omer’s?
Friday, 16. October 2009 15:45
The biggest problem with the math filter is that if you take too long to compose your comment, the math problem will have expired, so even if you type in the right answer, it rejects it … and deletes the long comment you too so long to type!
Friday, 16. October 2009 16:54
Aaron, I was talking to Chris, aka “Sir Omer”.
Kevin, I didn’t know that! Hmmm….
Friday, 16. October 2009 17:31
Trev,
As to McArdle’s blog (which I regularly read, btw), she’s more cogitating rather than truly positing. The only real variable she discusses is time. If Medicare patients are an increasing percentage of the total healthcare industry, and the government continues to cut reimbursements, the money has to come from somewhere. All of theose ’somewhere’s eventually lead back to you and me. Otherwise hospitals could simply run their businesses like the federal government does, and simply roll over their debt every year until THEY need a bailout/takeover. Then we’ll really have a socialized system.
On the Swiss system, there are parts I like. I’m a big advocate of catastrophic insurance, which plays in well with their higher rate of out-of-pocket costs. I could deal with a regulation to make a govt defined high-deductible catastrophic plan on a non-profit basis. Current plans, though, all seem bent on forcing coverage of basics such as preventative care and prescriptions, which are going to drive up costs. Surely you’ve heard the analogy about car insurance being used for oil changes.
I could deal with the subsidy for health care costs being more than X percent of income IF there was no universal mandate. They both tackle the same problem. The universal mandate takes away the very concept of insurance, which is defined as requiring payments for coverage of an unlikely event. To have “insurance,” one must have odds. If everyone is covered, no matter what, then you’re buoying every serious medical event on the insurance industry. A private business should have the right to charge higher prices or refuse service to someone who is high risk. I certainly grant that this must be legitimate, and not abused.
I’d be curious to see some of the fine print. What penalties are imposed for those who refuse insurance? What affect has fixing drug prices had on medical innovation? How have the other regulatory practices put strains on the system (the article mentions a few – can we imagine these issues on a much greater scale?)?
Friday, 16. October 2009 17:33
Jeremiah, the only assertions in your recent long comment that aren’t statements of personal preferences are the ones about the insurance companies.
and
A company that doesn’t concern itself with making money isn’t going to be around long enough to help anybody. I can assure you, right now I’m studying the mathematical derivation of the portion of premium that is the “profit margin”, and the whole process is based on finding the exact return to shareholders that will keep the company viable. If a company could, right now, change what they are doing and charge 10% less, without going bankrupt, they’d be fools not to do it, not to mention they’d be violating their obligation to their shareholders. That kind of difference in cost structure could give them a huge advantage over their competitors and initiate rapid growth.
I don’t watch Moore’s films, but I can imagine this has to do with denying coverage to people with policies. I’m sure it happens, and sometimes it is not just a mistake – it might be a company trying to screw somebody. But:
1) Every state has an insurance commissioner whose job it is to hear these complaints and act on them. And believe me, these commissioners aren’t impotent. You need the state’s permission to sell policies there, and the insurance commissioner has broad discretion to revoke that. If you upset the commissioner, he or she can pretty much unilaterally shut you down. In some states, the insurance commissioner is even elected by the public, so you can imagine they want to appear to be on the consumers’ side. (The same is still true in other states where they are usually appointed by the governor.)
2) If they are denying legitimate claims, it is mathematically infeasible to discover what the claim costs “should have been”. Companies have to file their rates with the state, along with documentation showing how they are derived from the actual losses they paid. In other words, if they are denying legitimate claims 5% of the time, (which I highly doubt) the premiums people pay really are 5% lower, and people are essentially getting what they pay for.
3) People are generally happy with their healthcare insurance. If the insurance companies are screwing people, it is rare. Not only that, but they are taking a huge risk with their brand reputation. Nowadays dissatisfied customers can make a website about the experience in minutes, and popular news sites like consumerist.com are happy to spread the word about bad corporate behavior. (The voyeurism of reading about bad customer service is pretty adictive, I can testify. That means they have a lot of readers, and smart companies respond to their inquiries real fast.)
In sum, arguing that insurers have an institutionalized, deliberate strategy of not paying legitimate claims is not convincing.
Here I think you must be mixing up the insurance company with the healthcare provider. When coverage is denied, (legitimately or otherwise) it’s not the insurance company that you owe money to — it is the hospital or the doctor.
(And even then, the worst they can do to you is ruin your credit score. The only debt I’m aware of that will send you to jail is child support payments. And if you want to reform something, lets talk about that system!)
You are pretty quick to characterize my arguments as “capitalistic myth”. I think you are suffering from the “anti-capitalistic myth”. In reality, the insurance companies are not the evil villain-scapegoats you make them out to be. It would be nice if they were, because then there might be a simple solution. But the underlying truth is: There is no free lunch. Healthcare is damn expensive, and rising, and no public policy change is going to have much of an effect on that. The overall cost of healthcare is an intractible problem. The best we can do is ensure that incentives for efficiency are in place and grow the economy so that we can continue to be able to afford to do all the amazing, life-improving things that we have accumulated knowledge of.
Handing the whole thing over to the comically bloated bureaucracy that brought you social security, medicare, medicaid, and cash for clunkers isn’t going to help. All those programs are bankrupt. My health insurance company, on the other hand, is not.
Friday, 16. October 2009 18:17
Let’s just start with this:
You must live in a different universe than I do.
Friday, 16. October 2009 18:47
Source
Friday, 16. October 2009 18:50
…and if you read the rest of the article, it’s by somebody who supports the healthcare reform bill. It’s not controversal that people are generally satisfied with their insurance.
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:13
After all these spambotic like posts and discussion about people who “like” their insurance plan, I think we aren’t focusing on who is being disenfranchised by the current system. The un-insured and under-insured.
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:26
Michael, you can post a comment about whatever you want. Knock yourself out.
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:31
FYI: the last 1200 vertical pixels worth of comments are cut off in Firefox 3.5/Win32. I was able to solve this by disabling the “overflow: auto” CSS element around line 194 of your “styles.css”. This also broke the layout a little. You could probably fix it by following the last comment with a <br style=”clear: both” /> or similar. I’d have to play around to see. Stupid browser bugs…
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:35
Oh man I remember that bug from another super-long discussion thread back in the day. Maybe that is the cue for somebody to make a new post.
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:38
Michael,
What does “underinsured” mean? If someone who is uninsured doesn’t have insurance, and isn’t disabled, why don’t they do what they need to to get it? They can make more money, or not spend as much by relocating, and getting rid of all non-essentials (cars, cell phones, land lines, internet, food that costs more than $1/lb, air conditioning, consumer electronics, cable TV, etc.)
If someone chooses not to forgo these things, which are all, by definition, luxuries, and are unwilling to seek greater income, how can anyone say they cannot afford insurance?
I personally can’t afford an smartphone with a data plan without changing my spending or making more money. Does that mean that I should have the government steal from you to provide it for me? Since health insurance is not, by definition, a fundamental human right, why should the case of a fancy phone be any different?
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:40
That was my post, bastard.
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:46
Aaron’s disagreement aside, this strikes me as kind of beside the point if it responding to myself. After all, I have agreed that we should help those in real need. But when I asked,
…you responded:
So if you want to discuss the area on which we actually disagree, we should be talking about whether the government should provide health insurance for those who already have it and are happy with their insurance. Or else we might discuss where the line defining “need” really is. But you seem to want to continue to imagine that I am saying something different than what I have said.
Friday, 16. October 2009 19:47
Underinsured-having insufficient health coverage.
This could be caused by poor decisions made by the underinsured or their parents. Maybe even caused by having bills from college and only being able to afford major medical. Whatever the cause it is still an issue. And to simply say that they need to reallocate money to a different area isn’t a reasonable argument.
Friday, 16. October 2009 20:03
Kevin(and maybe Aaron),
You don’t realize that “need” is also defined as being middle class and having bills or being injured on a vacation. Your definition of “need” consists of what you’ve seen on mission trips and in movies.
Friday, 16. October 2009 20:05
Keep in mind, the people with great insurance wouldn’t have it if it weren’t for the ones with bad or no insurance.
Friday, 16. October 2009 20:14
Not related, but this may become the longest thread on this site.
Friday, 16. October 2009 20:42
If you point me to the site admin, I may be able to lend a hand. This HTML/CSS *is* an area where I’m extremely competent.
I’m likely going to submit this site to the Gecko developers; hopefully they’ll be able to fix it by the release of Gecko 2.0.
Friday, 16. October 2009 20:51
Michael,
To clarify my position vs. Kevin, I don’t think that the government should provide any care for anyone, other than people who incurred injury/illness due to fault of said government, and perhaps its employees.
Many people purchase vacation/travellers policies. They’re quite affordable. If you choose to go on vacation without doing so, that’s your choice. But seeing as a vacation is far from a necessity, one can’t claim that the government must provide people with healthcare while on vacation.
Why should I be *forced* to pay for someone else’s bad decisions? Mind you, I don’t mind such people being the recipients of charity — that is the proper place of humanitarian aide. There is much grace to be sought in giving willfully of oneself, particularly if it is sacrificial.
Friday, 16. October 2009 20:52
> Keep in mind, the people with great insurance
> wouldn’t have it if it weren’t for the ones with
> bad or no insurance.
Please elaborate? I’m sorry, but I simply don’t follow.
Friday, 16. October 2009 21:03
BTW: setting
#content {overflow: hidden; }
works well. If this breaks IE, I’d suggest conditionally including an IE-specific stylesheet.
I did it myself with a Greasemonkey script. If anyone’s interested, here it is:
// ==UserScript==
// @name AtomsAndIdeas
// @include http://atomsandideas.thefriars.net/*
// ==/UserScript==
var d = document.getElementById( ‘content’ );
d.style.overflow = ‘hidden’;
Friday, 16. October 2009 22:54
Does “need” mean you aren’t able to pay the bills, or just that you have bills? Also, what is your definition of middle class for, say, a family of 4? What kind of budget do you have in mind? Can you elaborate and demonstrate the “need”?
Saturday, 17. October 2009 1:25
Aaron, although not traditionally considered vacation, I am most familiar with considering visiting my parents and my children’s grandparents just two hours away a vacation. This may seem unnecessary to you, but to me it is very important and meaningful. With my current work provided insurance plan, if I go out of network, charges are extremely expensive and hard to afford. I remember my wife, who worked for a public school and had great insurance, having an intense migraine and chose not to go to the urgent care just two hours away because we wouldn’t be able to pay for out-of-network care.
Also, what I meant by the post you couldn’t follow was that the rich make their money by paying their workers a low wage, thus they are able to afford premium healthcare and provide poor or no healthcare for the wage slaves.
Saturday, 17. October 2009 2:04
Kevin, “need” could also mean making enough money to pay bills, but unable to cover healthcare premiums and co-pays.
Definition of middle class in Springfield, MO(where I live)-a family of four earning a gross income of 35,000 a year, having college loans, and paying for everyday living expenses, such as rent, utilities, food, and gas. Although you say I can make more money working at another job, in Springfield jobs are scarce, especially jobs that pay a good wage. This is exactly why I am working on my master’s degree. My hope is that with my degree I will be able to make more money, so I can provide for my family and contribute, through taxes, to my neighbor’s healthcare. I’m not a numbers guy, so I won’t waste time putting a detailed budget on this post that you’ll just pick apart.
Saturday, 17. October 2009 2:08
Aaron, I find your view of a Catholic Monarchy interesting. If this system exsisted in America, would the government provide healthcare and other services since the land is owned by the king. What is the actual advantage of this system?
Saturday, 17. October 2009 23:06
Michael,
I’m on the road right now — only have a few minutes. I’ll answer your questions at a later time, if you’re patient. It may take upwards of a week, depending on my internet connection.
Sunday, 18. October 2009 20:44
Maybe start a new thread or something. It could be another interesting topic.
Monday, 19. October 2009 14:05
Then you’re just making unsupported claims.
I looked at Springfield homes for sale online and there are a bunch of 3 and 4 bedroom houses in that area going for less than $50k. I redid my budget based on that, throwing in the cost of owning & maintaining a car for good measure. For total expenses, I’m getting $33k.
Monday, 19. October 2009 14:21
… and yes, that includes healthcare insurance and student loans even though less than a quarter of the Springfield population has a Bachelor’s degree.
Monday, 19. October 2009 15:48
Yeah, I think there was a shooting on that street this weekend.
Monday, 19. October 2009 15:53
Speaking of shootings, I’ve been thinking about urban pioneering again lately. If I could get three families together to move into a sketchy neighborhood in KC we could have pretty nice digs for not much money. There’s this historic neighborhood in KC called Pendelton Heights that would be perfect…
Monday, 19. October 2009 16:26
Kevin,
I actually wrote down a budget based on my housing and salary, and it didn’t work out with affording one’s own healthcare. You live in a fantasy world where everything is black and white, and you have the final say.
You’re asking people with established homes to jump up and sell their houses and move into a dilapidated home in a dangerous neighborhood. They would have to have great healthcare because of the black mold and physical violence they would encounter.
You simply can’t see the other side because you want to win an argument about economics, but the issue is simply a social justice issue. You know social justice, an issue that American Bishops and the Pope support.
Monday, 19. October 2009 16:41
See, I knew exactly where this was headed in the very beginning. My second comment contained this:
Monday, 19. October 2009 17:17
Look, the only way you have a right not to live in a poor neighborhood is if everybody has a right not to live in a poor neighborhood. But then where are the poor people going to live? What it comes down to is this: You are a poor person who thinks they are middle-class. You say that social justice means you deserve health insurance. But you can afford health insurance. What you can’t afford is to live in a middle class location. This has nothing to do with health insurance.
There was a good homily at church this week by a Deacon from Haiti, where people have real needs. I’m getting a little tired of arguing with educated Americans who think they are victims because they chose to go into social work.
Monday, 19. October 2009 17:33
Don’t talk to me like you know anything of Springfield, MO. In Springfield, I am considered middle class. Don’t project your New Jersey standards onto me. It makes you look like an ass.
Oh yeah, whether I went into social work or not, somebody will still have to fill the position that I currently occupy. My leaving and becoming a rich son-of-a-bitch, like you, doesn’t change the fact that someone would still be in my position, careerwise. This person would still be in the same situation as me, working to better humanity, while making a meager wage and having school debt.
Monday, 19. October 2009 17:50
You’re averaging close to one gratuitous insult per paragraph at this point. You’re obviously too angry to carry on a constructive debate on public policy. My advice is: don’t make your life the topic of an internet debate unless you can handle hearing other people’s opinions about it.
Monday, 19. October 2009 17:57
I love that my friends are poets.
Monday, 19. October 2009 18:12
Average? Did you punch those numbers in your calculator?
It isn’t your opinions on my life that make me upset. It is your overall lack of understanding of what “need” is. You profess knowledge, but show ignorance by not being able to see the other side of the debate. The human side. Also, it kinda makes me sick to think you are professing Christ and taking care of the unfortunate, but when you have a real chance to do just that you stand up for the Bill Gates and Ted Turners of the world.
You may not know this, but they have you where they want you, blinded to their greed and power.
Also, you may say charity is what Christ speaks of, but he also spoke of community. Our community is so big(the nation) that it is impossible for all unfortunate humans to be cared for through alms that aren’t state issued. While I wish I could live in the fantasy world, in which we all care for each other without anyone telling us to, the fact is we don’t.
Monday, 19. October 2009 18:49
[disclaimer: not a spambot- I am a co-worker of Michael and Jeremiah]
Gratuitous insults aside, which clearly both of you are guilty of throughout this thread, it would be a drab debate if each party involved refused to recognize the personal undertones to these issues. For some the choice to pay for health care is easy, and for others it is much more complicated [financially &/or ideologically].
“Oh yeah, whether I went into social work or not, somebody will still have to fill the position that I currently occupy.”
“…the rich make their money by paying their workers a low wage, thus they are able to afford premium healthcare and provide poor or no healthcare for the wage slaves.”
Kevin, I would like to hear your response to both of these previous comments made by Michael. I feel like both may be very relevant to the core difference in your opinions on this issue.
In a previous post you mentioned that you would enjoy being a professor, but instead are at your current position for financial reasons. You are critiquing those who take lower paying positions, and are then left underinsured or uninsured [which I understand you believe is a choice... but go with me] My question is who will take the plethora of positions that pay a middle class wage? Are they all fools making poor decisions?
This leads to the next quote I posted from Michael. Do you disagree with his statement, that without a lower class the upper class would not exist in the same way it does today?
Monday, 19. October 2009 19:04
Yet another comment full of personal invective and no real explanation of why I should see things your way.
No, what upsets you is the fact that I dare to disagree with you. You are full of claims of authority on the issue, as a social worker, as somebody with “experience”, etc. But when pressed, you are short on details. You expect your opinion to be accepted by me as a revelation from on high. How many times have you given me variations on “you just don’t get it” and “that’s not reality” without any substantive contribution to the discussion? When that doesn’t seem to be working, you turn the argument towards your own particular circumstances so you can speak with absolute authority. You are hoping that I won’t be presumptuous enough to make my own independent assessment of your life, since I don’t know anything about you. (And besides, it’s not like you give any details.) How you imagine this playing out, I can only imagine. Maybe I’m supposed to say “Oh I had no idea” and “You don’t say” and then change my opinions to match your own. Because after all, if anything is true, it’s the fact that any person who disagrees with universal health care only needs to speak briefly with a person of low-to-moderate income in order to have their mind changed. Just a few repetitions of “you live in a fantasy” and “your opinions are based on ignorance” are all that is required. And since that isn’t what happened here, the only conclusion can be that I am not a person whose mind can be changed — I am fallen so deep into the pit of my idealogically driven ignorance that I am incapable of seeing the truth, no matter what you say. I mean, who else could fail to be convinced by an argument of such brilliant clarity as when you type “because I say so”? No one could fault you for being upset when that doesn’t end all opposition!
Monday, 19. October 2009 19:38
I have some lingering questions for Kevin. Here’s the first one:
As a Catholic, what is your take on the Church’s support of universal health care? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated:
Dang, the bishops sound kinda like stinkin’ social workers.
Monday, 19. October 2009 19:45
This is an extremely tangential topic. I’ve expressed frustration that the same people arguing that they have “needs” admit that could be earning more money if they wanted to, but my belief that 35k a year is plenty of money isn’t based on the idea that they should have done something different with their lives. Indeed, there are a lot of people who are making less than that amount, who are nonetheless doing everything they can to support themselves by their own labor. My position is that the proper definition of “need” doesn’t include things like living in a middle class neighborhood, and that people who make enough money to meet all their needs shouldn’t be getting help from the government just because they are spending their money in a counter-productive fashion. I think they should be left to experience their “need” until (if ever) it motivates them to reorganize their situation.
Economically illiterate. There’s different ways you could argue against this, but it depends on what precisely he means. Does he think that with universal healthcare there wouldn’t be any rich people? That’s kind of far-fetched, but then what is he trying to say here, specifically? I can’t tell.
Monday, 19. October 2009 20:30
Also, an official from the Vatican itself — Cardinal Martino, who is head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace — has said this in support of universal health care in the U.S.:
Monday, 19. October 2009 21:11
Kevin, you claim you have kept your cool, but reading past posts the opposite is present. You just fluff it up with numbers and what you think are big words.
Why don’t you try to be more direct? Don’t worry Kev, we all think your smart, maybe TOO “smart” for your own good and others.
P.S.-I use humanity, something I think we all have, to approach an issue, and you continuously throw mathematics into the equation, like it really matters. Once again, this ISN’T an issue that economists can figure out, but one that MORAL people have to.
This would probably be the better post from you:
I believe that it is because f our greedy ways that Americans from all walks need and deserve the same healthcare as Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush. While I want this to happen, we should figure out how to do it without overspending and raising taxes too much. Also, I hope that congress would be lobbied and reform tort law.
Monday, 19. October 2009 21:48
No I didn’t. Is making things up to support your argument one of those things involved with the “human” side of things? Because I wouldn’t really know, obviously.
Monday, 19. October 2009 22:24
Jeremiah: If I always agreed with the Bishops, well, I’d be totally schizophenic, because they don’t always agree with eachother. Nevertheless I don’t find anything to disagree with in the first quote you offered. As for the second, Martino is a little bit notorious for his liberal views (and his willingness to air them). I’d be shocked if he didn’t vocally support universal health care.
Monday, 19. October 2009 22:28
Deanne,
Thanks for your attempts to resteer the conversation. Maybe what you should ask next is whether Michael really thinks he has a “need” not to live in a poor neighborhood. And if he does, does everybody have that right? What does he propose we do with such neighborhoods? Shut them down and kick everybody out? How high is the crime rate allowed to get before we need to bulldoze the neighborhood?
Monday, 19. October 2009 22:30
On a serious level, if you will not appeal to either the humanity Michael spoke of nor the faith I mentioned, then your mathematics are all that’s left to reference. And that, as has been already said, is neutral, with experts on both sides.
Monday, 19. October 2009 23:25
I reject both these ideas:
That disagreeing with one Cardinal is a dismissal of faith.
That disagreeing with Michael is a dismissal of human values.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 0:06
“You’re obviously too angry to carry on a constructive debate on public policy.”
This quote implies that you have not gotten too angry because you think you can carry on a constructive debate, thus “kept your cool.”
Whether you said it or not, you inferred it. How’s that for support.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 0:12
I may have gotten angry, but I wasn’t repeatedly posting whole comments with zero content that just served to insult my opponents.
I see that as an important distinction.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 0:17
or as you might say, I always “fluff it up with numbers and what you think are big words.”
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 0:19
The post you are speaking of does have merit. Granted, I did curse at you, maybe I should have held my tongue, but the first paragragh addressed your seperation from our situation in Missouri, which you thought you had expertise in. The second paragragh addressed an important reality that these positions that aren’t respected by you will have to be filled by some dope.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 0:29
It’s not enough to just say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about”. How is that supposed to change my mind?
And as I explained in my post to Deanne, even though I think you and Jeremiah are full of baloney, some people can only earn incomes in the 20s & 30s no matter what they do, so complaining that you chose social work is not really an important piece of my argument. If anything, it is just a little way to illustrate how nutty you guys are about your idea of what a “need” is.
If you want to get back on track, explain why you “need” to live in a middle class neighborhood.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 2:01
I don’t necessary desire to live in a middle class neighborhood, although Springfield doesn’t have as distinct division as other cities would. I simply desire to live. I don’t think it would improve my position in life to sell my house and move to a poorer neighborhood at this point. I actually think I live in a neighborhood that would be described a lower middle class, maybe lower class since we have subsidized housing two streets down. As I stated before, to sell my house I would lose money. Maybe more than I could save for the two years I would live in another house or pay rent in an apartment. Also, getting a house in selling condition requires precious money and time, which at this point I don’t have. These are choices, but these are choices we have to make in order to improve our lives. I made the choice to get my master’s because I know it will improve my life when it comes to finances. I think this is what you want, right? I know you will dissect my choice of going to school and say that I should work my ass off and get a second job. But what happens when I spend all my time working my ass off to afford healthcare and then in two years I am back in the same position. It is silly to work two or more jobs to be able to afford healthcare temporarily when I can go to school for two years and afford it the rest of my life. It’s the whole teach a man to fish scenario.
Let us be clear, I actually don’t care about my situation because I know it will improve, but I am more concerned about the people who are truly being oppressed by the current system, both poor and middle class. I am more concerned with justice. And I would be willing to pay more taxes so others will have improved lives. You may call this stupid, but I believe the only way any type of justice can occur on this scale is through the state. On the issue of caring for widows and orphans, the church and Church have failed miserably.
Also, if what I make makes me poor than teachers, nurses, and most workers for the state of Missouri are considered poor or lower class, as well.
I just argue the side that, as I stated previously, the son of a carpenter deserves the same treatment in a hospital as the son of a millionaire. Neither have done anything to earn their position in life, but one will be treated worse than the other when it comes to healthcare.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 2:43
Kevin, I agree with you that we do not need to live in a middle-class neighborhood (except some would certainly think it lower middle-class). In fact, several times over the last few years I have looked into trying to move out of this haven of the wannabe-bourgeoisie (wannabe being the key).
Granted, my reasons were not simply economic. I was initially motivated when becoming aware of issues regarding city planning and desired a pre-WWII section of town due to its community-oriented design, as opposed to the later models we are surrounded by, where the individual is the focus and knowing one’s neighbor is a novelty.
Not to mention the architecture of those older homes (especially the Arts & Crafts-inspired bungalows) are far superior to our 1960s ranch houses.
We have faced some deterrents in moving, however. We have not had success in finding a home that would be worth the move because of all the work we would have to put into it. Both the time and the money has seemed rather overwhelming. Even our current house still needs lots of work that we have no money to improve, so imagining doing so to an older one seems implausible.
And although I made the joke above about the shooting, I don’t actually consider safety to be an issue in most of the areas I’ve looked at. I work in that part of town, and I know where the cops say is “bad” and where is “good.” Of course, I work there because that’s where the homeless are, but their presence does not necessitate the presence of crime.
But the real problem is, in reference to this conversation, that the price still wouldn’t be worth it. I mean, we cannot currently afford to have my wife on my company’s insurance plan. But if we moved to any of the houses in the lower-class neighborhoods, the lesser amount we would have to pay in rent or whatever still wouldn’t be small enough to then allow us to pay for her insurance. We’ve done the numbers. So as it is, she has no health insurance because the cheap plan she was on really didn’t cover anything.
So the extra costs of repairs like poorer insulation, busting pipes, blah, blah, would just increase our living costs. I guess this is why I “need” to live in a middle class neighborhood (although I will continue to keep my eyes and ears peeled, because the sound of me having just said that thoroughly disgusts me!).
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 12:41
Michael,
To the extent that we are considering your situation, it is to shed light on what level of income would define “need”. That means certain things shouldn’t be taken into account. Some of those things are in your favor, and some are not. I think we should ignore your future earning potential, because many folks don’t have that. We should also ignore your situation of being stuck in a mortgage, because again, that doesn’t describe everybody. If we are crafting public policy, we can’t say: “Go ahead and commit all your income to a mortgage instead of health insurance, and we’ll treat that as if you can’t afford health insurance.”
Jeremiah,
There are certainly financial risks to home ownership, but I poked around the web and found that my estimate of mortgage + property taxes came out to approximately the same as rent on a 3 bedroom apartment, so we could revise the discussion based on that, instead. As a tenant, your landlord is basically responsible for when big ticket items break down.
So here is a revised budget for a family of 4. This is not my definition of where need begins. This is a starting point for the discussion. I think you could reduce the spending here quite a bit in various ways, but let me just give you the starting point:
Monthly Totals:
Health Insurance: $958
Rent: $485
Utilities: $275
Food: $520
Transportation: $260
Student Loans: $150
Clothes Etc: $83
Total Yearly Expenses: $32,780
The “clothes etc” is basically just the margin, which I estimated at $1000/yr off the top of my head.
The transportation item breaks down like this:
-Buy a used car every ten years for $9000
-Gas is $30 a week
-Oil changes are $25 every three months
-Vehicle Registration is $50 a year (based on NJ)
-Additional repairs average $500 a year (a pretty liberal estimate)
Now, again I want to emphasize that I haven’t yet begun to dig into this budget to look for opportunities for savings. This is just a basic starting point. I want to give you guys time to point out anything you think is unrealistic in those numbers before we really begin.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 13:47
Yawn, are we really going to do this again?
Okay, let’s say your budget is correct. What happens when the family has to use their healthcare? When they have to pay the deductible? Pay the 20/80 split? Because we have forced them to spend one thousand dollars a month on healthcare we have caused them to not be able to pay their bills when they use it.
This is one of many reasons making a budget scenario isn’t effective and is unrealistic. Every family has bills and debt we may not be able to figure into a budget.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 13:57
I would first rather deal with previous posts. Let me readdress the Catholic stance on health care. While I understand the concept of personal liberty of conscience under the umbrella of the Church on certain issues, I think this one may be more than you make it out to be.
You say that disagreeing with one Cardinal is hardly a dismissal of faith; and that is certainly true. But what about what seems to be the overall consensus, or at least the general spirit, of the Church in regards to the good of universal health care. You say you agree with the first quote I gave, the one from the American bishops, but say you need not agree with the bishops.
I’m just curious, how do you handle a consensus statement by our nation’s bishops, as well as the appearant general understanding of the Church worldwide?
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 14:11
Jeremiah, the perspective of faith on this topic is that those who are able have an obligation to help those who are in need. All conclusions follow from that principle.
A univeral single-payer system goes well beyond that. It’s not even obvious that the federal government should be involved at all. What about subsidiarity? Why not organize to help those in need at the county level? What about the state level? And why are we making the program bigger than it has to be? Why are we talking about providing something that most people in this country already provide for themselves?
The argument for universal single-payer healthcare as opposed to other charity-based ideas is at root an economic argument about efficiency, morality aside. The Church has no special competence in this area. I daresay, as an educated citizen who studies economics and works in insurance, I am personally in a better position to judge the matter than most Bishops.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 14:24
Michael, this budget represents the long-term average. Everybody should be saving as much as possible to prepare for unexpected problems. I would personally recommend keeping 3-6 months worth of savings in an emergency account, for cases like the loss of a job.
In addition, a healthcare insurance plan with a premium over $10k is going to be a little more generous than what you are used to. My plan costs much less than that, even including my employer’s portion, and our copays are very low. The only real expense we’ve seen is when we had our second kid, and it was $250 that could have been avoided because we didn’t ask if the “extra nice” rooms cost more.
That said, even if you don’t have savings and you go into debt, this budget contains plenty of breathing space: On a yearly basis you have $1000 for clothes, $500 for car repairs that may not occur, $900 toward savings to buy your next car. If you are contributing two grand a year towards medical debt, the hospital is going to be thrilled. I bet most of the low income folks that owe them money don’t even do that.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 15:37
What about diapers? Car insurance? These can be debilitating cost in a tight budget.
And to touch on the Bishop agrument. I’m sure there are plenty of educated citizens and economically intelligent Bishops within the American Catholic Church. Granted, they don’t work in insurance, but that can make you bias and side with the insurance companies, just like us working with the homeless makes us bias toward them and their needs.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 15:43
I could post a website:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php
But even I would argue that these numbers could be turned around to suit your needs, as well. And you could post just as many websites that back you up.
This is why numbers cannot win this argument.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 16:38
Of course, I agree in the principle of subsidiarity, and as I have stated in previous posts, universal care on more of a local level is precisely what I would like to see. I just wonder if the bishops — like me — would at least like to see an improvement, which would be care on a national level.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 17:44
Michael, good catch! I totally forgot auto insurance. I’m not at work right now, so I will add that to my little spreadsheet when I get back.
Diapers would presumably be under “clothes etc”.
Tuesday, 20. October 2009 18:43
Jeremiah, one problem with that is: establishing a “solution” on the federal level is really the best way to ensure that local solutions will never, ever get tried.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 0:52
Diapers could cost around 500 dollars. I think with that cost the clothes line item may have to be increased. Also, I think rent needs to go up if we are renting a two bedroom apartment in Springfield, MO. Maybe to $550.
The issue I have with this way of thinking is that it puts families into this cookie-cutter mold. Every family is different, for example, my wife’s school loans alone are around $400 a month. I understand that this was a decision she made, but it was fostered by her parents pushing her to go to the school she went to. And lying about paying for it all. After all, when she started school and up to the time I met her, she was still a dependant of her parents, and they had final say in what she did. They wanted her to attend the expensive Assembly of God school because they thought it would improve her spiritual life. Thank goodness she escaped that.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 13:26
Diapers will squeeze the budget, temporarily, but I think the remaining $500 is still more than adequate. How often do you really need to buy clothes? Most of that is going to be kids’ clothes, which you can get used very easily, because other kids grow out of their new clothes long before they wear them out.
Actually that figure is the rent for a three bedroom apartment. You can look them up yourself at springfieldmo.apartmentfinder.com. Even if most people chose to pay more, our budget should be based on what is available to somebody who is trying to spend as little as possible.
And remember, I haven’t yet begun to slash up this budget. I’m just making sure we all understand the starting point.
Gosh, if she had an extra $400 a month, she could probably get herself some good health insurance right there! I don’t want to stick my nose in your business any more than I already have, but maybe it’s time to revisit this issue with her parents. How would they react if they were told that their unkept promises are the only thing preventing their daughter from having health insurance? Might be worth a shot, the worst they can do is say no.
But in a larger sense, it is important not to make those kinds of allowances in our “model budget”. People get into debt for all sorts of reasons. Most of the time it is just a lack of foresight, and the easy availability of credit cards. We make decisions all day long that affect our financial situation. Our subconscious is always adjusting and optimizing our behavior, to make the most of the resources at hand. And deep down, most people’s subconscious minds are at war with responsibility. The natural thing to do is live for today and only adjust your behavior in proportion to the consequences you actually suffer. If we protect people from the consequences of their behavior on a societal level, we should expect that protected behavior to become ubiquitous in a very short time.
And this is an important distinction: I think it is a very good thing to help people get out of the trouble they get themselves into. I’m not opposed to mercy. Mercy must be a part of our society. But standardized handouts from the government are not mercy. If you live in a society where you can run up a debt of a given amount without having to experience the consequences of suffering in order to pay it back, you don’t have mercy. You have an entitlement — you have a right to spend money that isn’t yours. It’s only in the society where you must repay your debts that a helping hand is really a helping hand. It’s only when you do expect to suffer the consequences looming over you that being whisked away and placed on your feet again retains the human quality of charity. That is the situation in which the person who is saved will be thankful and vow never to get themselves into that kind of trouble again. Entitlements are a different experience altogether.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 13:34
Next, I am wondering if you can anticipate my budget-slashing suggestions.
Suppose your aim was to meet the needs of a family of 4, while spending as little as possible. What are the easiest parts of the budget to shrink? Can any parts disappear altogether?
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 15:24
I still think it is an important thing to focus on where people are right now. Mercy doesn’t require people to do everything right. I think mercy/social justice should be dispensed and then we could work on educating Americans more thoroughly. Maybe by requiring families and individuals to take budgeting, parenting, and other courses, in which we see negative trends. We all will agree that no one will ever make any budget changes without any type of instruction or direction.
And I do think that in a proposed budget by you, you would need to include some type of debt payments because most American families have some type of debt. It would be impossible to ignore. I would rather people work to pay that off than pay for healthcare. If they ignored their debt payments it would cause all sorts of financial problems in the future.
Without this addition, it wouldn’t have any merit to me. I think it would a waste of time on your part.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 16:06
First of all, everybody’s debt payments are different, so there is no way for us to know ahead of time what kind of payment to include. No matter what we pick, there’s going to be somebody out there whose debt payments are even higher. That doesn’t mean everybody needs to be able to make those high payments before they become ineligible for aid.
On the other hand, you might be tempted to work this into the eligibility requirements: Maybe you could take their income and subtract their debt payments from that to see if they qualify for help. But that’s going to have all kinds of bad results. In essense, you’re saying to people: if you spend a bunch of money on credit, the we’ll pay it back for you. Let me use an example to illustrate this:
Suppose you have a guy with no debt and he makes $20,000 a year. Our estimate of his “need” is $26,000. He gets $6000 in aid. Then he spends a bunch of money on credit and now he has $4000 a year in debt payments. Well, if we are subtracting those payments from his income, now his eligibility income is $16,000 (20k – 4k), and he gets $10,000 in aid to get him up to his level of “need”. In other words, his aid has increased by the exact amount of his debt payment – he is free to spend money on credit cards, knowing the government will pay it back.
A better solution might be to base the aid only on what people earn not counting any overtime. For instance, if you work 60 hours a week, only two thirds of your income is coming from your “normal” work week of 40 hours. The last third of your income is extra. So if you make $30,000 and your “need” is estimated at $26,000 then you would get $6000 in aid, based on the $20,000 you would have earned if you only worked 40 hours a week. This would allow you to have your needs met by working full time, with the option (or responsibility) to put in extra hours to pay off debt or to enhance your standard of living. I like this a lot better than the first idea, but it is still going to incentivise people to take lower-paying jobs with less stress so that it is easier to work extra hours and come out ahead. And it doesn’t actually help people who are in debt and can’t find enough work to put in over 40 hours a week.
There are no easy solutions. Government programs that allow people to make bad choices without experiencing the consequences are a recipe for disaster. Programs that do any less than that will never be enough to satisfy everybody’s “needs” if we accept them where they are today. If we accept the premise that debt payments are a “need” that the government should meet, then the assistance people require will snowball until it bankrupts the nation. There’s no question of any other outcome unless you have some plan to replace human being with some other kind of angelic or robotic citizen. People respond to incentives, even perverse ones.
And all that extra help will really end up in the pockets of the credit card companies and the other debtors, anyway.
There’s no law of physics or of human nature that tells us there must exist a good solution for the sort of problems we are discussing. I think the current compromise is close to as good as it is going to get: If you really are so desperate that you’re willing to take on hardship in order to escape your debts, the government will step in and protect you from your debtors. The hardships you must endure for that protection are bankrupcy and a trashed credit score that will make your life a little tougher for decades, maybe the rest of your life. But we have no slavery and no debtor’s prisons, and that is a mercy we forget to appreciate sometimes.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 16:21
There’s always bankruptcy.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 17:17
Anyway, here’s a revised budget that represents a more heroic effort at cutting expenses.
At this point our family of four is in a two-bedroom apartment. If they are lucky, they have two boys or two girls. If there is one of each, you run into problems when the kids get older, but you could always have a fold-out couch in the living room for mom and dad if you want the kids to each have their own room. (Although honestly I’d probably just give one bedroom to the girl and make the boy sleep in the living room.)
There is no car. One of the reasons I think this is plausible is that very low-cost apartments tend to be within walking distance of a lot of resources such as groceries and places to work. If dad has a bicycle, he could easily work anywhere within a 5 mile radius or even farther. To make up for the lack of a car I have included a $40 a month transportation allowance for bus rides — to be used only when absolutely necessary. This would also include bicycle repairs if the distance to work was more than, say, two miles.
The clothing allowance is down to $500 a year. During diaper years, this may mean no new clothes, but cloth diapers are still an option if that becomes unworkable.
The general idea is that you have one working parent, so I am expecting the mom to be spending a significant amount of time duing due dilligence with coupons and such to minimize the food spending: Let’s be optimistic and say $100 a week. That’s hard to do, but I think it still allows for a relatively healthy diet if you have someone who can spend the time planning ahead. Lower than $100 is certainly possible, but I think at that point you run into unhealthy diets. (Obviously you could spend tons of money if you make up rules based on trendy health fads, but I am just thinking of getting a good variety of food groups.)
And of course we can shrink the utilities budget as well. Every building is different, but I think if you were very careful you could reasonably get the utilities down to an average of $200 a month in any situation. I’m willing to allow them to go without air conditioning, or with minimal air conditioning, to achieve that.
I haven’t actually researched what you might be able to do to lower your health insurance premium, so that estimate won’t be changing.
Monthly Totals
Rent: $300
Utilities: $200
Food: $433
Clothes Etc: $42
Transportation: $40
Healthcare: $958
Yearly Total: $23,680
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 18:26
Not feasible. Rent usually hovers between 375-500 for a two bedroom, especially if it is within any kind of walking distance to amenities. Remeber, Jeremiah and I help people find apartments and housing everyday. You’d have to include a car or more money for the bus. What about phones? Maybe a cell phone won’t be needed, but definitely local and long distance. I actually would prefer my wife to have cell phone if she is walking around the town with my two children. Also, a lot of our residential streets lack sidewalks and are filled with college students driving to class, not very safe for a person and two children making a trek 52 times a year.
What happens when you need to pay co-pays for doc visits or meds? What about toilet paper? Shower products? Luandry detergent and services? If you give someone cloth diapers the laundromat bill will increase. They need to be washed every three days. I know this from experience because both of my boys wear cloth diapers and always had since my first was born.
You used the term “lucky” in your first paragraph, and our example would have to be just that. I side with the thought that most humans are unlucky.
With this said, if our guinea pig was “lucky” then your budget would work, but if he were truly “lucky” then he would’ve been born to Donald Trump.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 18:27
Also, why don’t the Swiss or the French complain about healthcare?
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 18:33
Cuz they like taking it in the butt (i.e. having their money stolen for the sake of others).
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 19:37
AR Wilson Realtor are listing 2-bedroom apartments starting at $275. Woodgate apartments offers 2BR apartments for $400. Ok, suppose you got a place at Woodgate. Now your yearly expenses are $24,880. If you get a bike, you can work within a 5+ mile radius. My friends, there’s not much in Springfield that isn’t within that distance.
I would actually recommend you get only a cell phone – one of the pre-paid plans from TMobile, which is exactly what I use. There is no monthly bill. If you don’t use it, you don’t pay any money. If you do use it, it is 10 cents a minute. If you only use it when you really need to, that is not going to have an impact on your budget worth considering – maybe $100 a year.
The ones in the Woodgate area have a sidewalk on one side, and wide areas of grass on both sides.
My budget deals in broad categories. I would consider laundry fees part of the utility bill. (And you can always skip the drying part by investing in clothesline.) Soap and toilet paper can be thrown in with food or with the clothes/etc category – they’re not going to bankrupt anybody. Doctors visits are pretty inconsequential too — $20 here and there isn’t going to wreck the budget. These are the things that are contemplated in the “etc” part of “clothes etc”. You’re meant to save that portion as an emergency fund for unexpected occurrences. You can get into all sorts of special pleading with people who are on expensive medication, but I don’t think that represents a normal situation, and you would think an $11k health insurance plan would cover quite a bit.
So: one objection sustained, six denied. If you want we’ll pad the budget a little in the “etc” category and call it an even $25,000.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 19:43
Socialist idealogical leanings, I would guess. But who says they don’t?
In any case, the European nations have much higher taxes, and that’s despite the fact that they hardly spend anything on their military — they are free-riding on American power, not to mention medical innovation developed because of American markets.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 20:43
No, Kevin, it’s because they like taking it in the butt.
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 22:08
Drunk?
Wednesday, 21. October 2009 22:24
No, they’ll do it sober too.
Thursday, 22. October 2009 0:43
Jeremiah, you were right all along. Your poetic words have finally pierced my selfish lies. long live the revolution!
Friday, 23. October 2009 14:32
Kevin, I think your scenarios are too picture perfect. Yes, someone could pay one thousand dollars a month for healthcare only making $25,000 if they have all their ducks in a row. They can’t have debt, can’t be stuck in a previous lease, or can’t own a home that costs more than $400 a month. Your scenario only works if you transplant a family into your guidelines and ignore what they had or did before. It doesn’t work with real life, thus unrealistic.
Friday, 23. October 2009 14:58
“the rich make their money by paying their workers a low wage, thus they are able to afford premium healthcare and provide poor or no healthcare for the wage slaves.”
“Economically illiterate. There’s different ways you could argue against this, but it depends on what precisely he means. Does he think that with universal healthcare there wouldn’t be any rich people? That’s kind of far-fetched, but then what is he trying to say here, specifically? I can’t tell.”
What I meant by this statement, which I thought was obvious, is that capitalism has created the problems we have with healthcare. If the commoners were paid what their value really is then they would be able to afford healthcare. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I don’t that think having universal healthcare will usher in a golden age of social justice and all the rich will disappear. But I do think that the commoner will be able to have an easier shot at life by taking away the stressor of no healthcare.
Friday, 23. October 2009 15:55
Seems to me that people always had health problems, and capitalism has created amazing solutions to improve people’s lives. How many of the medical breakthroughs of the last 100 years have come from non-free-market areas? I’d be surprised if there was one. Before the modern free markets, health care quality was very poor, and ordinary people in most places still couldn’t afford it. How many people saw doctors in feudal Europe? How many received any care that wasn’t charity provided by monks & nuns?
Like I said, economically illiterate. There is no such “value”, even in theory. No object or action has any inherent monetary worth except what someone else happens to be willing to pay for it. It’s that or nothing. Letting people sell their objects and actions for whatever others are willing to pay for it is called capitalism.
Absolutely untrue. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. These so-called poor people are generally making many times more than the average GDP per capita in the pre-capitalist days. In fact, the poor become the rich. How many people today with $5 Million in the bank received any inheritance, do you think? Very few.
A mutually exclusive proposition anyway. A golden age of social justice could never exist without the rich. Not on this planet, not with this species.
Hell, if that’s what you want, why not just go full communist? Why not have the government provide everything we need? What could be less stressful? What could be easier? As long as we’re ignoring pesky ideas like “We can’t afford it” and “the government ruins every industry it takes over” and “people aquitted of responsibility for themselves will act like children”, I don’t see any reason not to dream big!
Did you ever stop and try to understand WHY twentieth century communism was a big disaster? Did you ever wonder why America is so rich? Did you ever consider that socialist-style programs might be structurally doomed to fail, by definition? Ever consider that the only thing preventing government programs like medicare and medicaid from blowing up in our face is the robust private healthcare market offering it the right price data? Ever wonder what would happen to those European schemes if they had to stop piggy-backing on our defense budget and actually use some of their tax dollars to defend themselves?
Friday, 23. October 2009 16:48
What about the idea of “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?” Here we see the rich running to the state to receive help, but they abhor the poor for receiving “bail outs.” Some argue that the state has kept the “free-market” afloat by acting favorably toward the corporations.
Friday, 23. October 2009 16:55
Sure, we’ve had medical breakthroughs, but many can’t afford to access those breakthroughs because of the same system that created them.
Friday, 23. October 2009 16:57
“Did you ever wonder why America is so rich?”
Yes, because corporations have profitted on our greed as humans. This is the very heart of capitalism, thus, in my eyes, making it inherently evil.
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:11
“Bailouts” are just as foolhardy and damaging to the economy as other socialist programs, although they are on a somewhat smaller scale, since they aren’t a recurring entitlement. They encourage excess risk-taking in the future, they reward failure, and punish (by ommission) the responsible businesses that didn’t need government help. If we had let every one of those banks fail without help, we would be in a better economic position today.
On the contrary, we’re only now seeing the damage the bailouts did as the economy continues to waver, and government realizes it now has an excuse to order those businesses around indefinitely — and we’re seeing the futility of the bailouts as idiotic government interference like compensation caps is causing the best talent to leave for other opportunities.
A huge majority (90% at least) of people have health insurance or could afford it if they really wanted it. The rest could be helped without having to create a universal single-payer system or even a “public option” plan.
I thought you were trying to set yourself up to earn more money. Why is it ok when you do it?
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:23
Well, presumably they don’t have health insurance today, right? Maybe they could put if off a little longer? If you transitioned into this lifestyle without the health insurance, you would have, lets see, about $11,500 a year to put towards your “other problems” and get your ducks in a row, as it were. How long could it take?
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:45
“I thought you were trying to set yourself up to earn more money. Why is it ok when you do it?”
I don’t think having money is inhererntly evil. It is the way most money is made. Most money is made, on a corporate level, through materialism.
I realize that I have debt to pay off, through college loans, and I want to be able to pay them off in full. I do intend on trying to be as self-sufficient as possible, but until then I have to work with what I am given. I don’t desire to be rich. It is foolish to equate corporations to an individual who wants to pay bills, so he can attempt to exist outside of capitalism.
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:46
“How long could it take?”
Depends on the individual or family and their debt.
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:50
“A huge majority (90% at least) of people have health insurance or could afford it if they really wanted it.”
I am one of those, and I am not satisfied. I bet there are plenty of people who feel the way I do.
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:54
“like compensation caps is causing the best talent to leave for other opportunities.”
These execs ran companies that were headed into the ground. Why should they deserve millions? I think execs at any company bailed out by the gov. should have compensation caps. No one needs over 300 thousand a year.
Friday, 23. October 2009 17:58
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/are_people_satisfied_with_thei.html
I think this hits the nail on the head when talking about people being satisfied with their healthcare.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:19
Is that where they provide people the material things that people want and need?
First, corporations are groups of people, so equating corporations with people makes a certain amount of sense. I mean, if it’s not the people, then what is it?
Second, you will never “exist outside of capitalism”. Not even Chris McCandless was existing outside of capitalism when he walked into the Alaskan wilderness to live in the wild and turn his life into a warning for others. (See “Into the Wild” the book or movie.) The guy was wearing boots he didn’t know how to make, carrying a gun he didn’t know how to make, and brought with him a bag of rice that was probably shipped from another continent by capitalists to sell it to him.
It’s nice that you think your actions are purified by your intentions, but the fact is, if there is something wrong with trading goods and labor for a profit, you are just as guilty as the rest of us.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:34
Ok, so you admit you could afford health insurance if you really wanted it. But you chose not to, and you’re not “satisfied”? Why should we restructure the economy to satisfy you?
Not all of them — we’re talking about a lot of people in upper management, many of whom had nothing to do with subprime loans which were just one part of the business. Are we going to blame everybody for the sins of their “class”? And if the ones responsible for the mess are still working there, well stockholders in that company deserve what they get. It’s not my job to tell them how to run their company.
They don’t deserve millions any more than you deserve government funded healthcare insurance. They happen to provide a service for which the stockholders were willing to pay millions, but that has nothing to do with “deserve”.
I think they should be required to liquidate their company’s assets and pay back every penny to the extend possible. That said, if you accept the premise that we want these companies not to go bankrupt, then compensation caps are ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that huge companies don’t exactly like the idea of throwing away millions of dollars for no reason? If you could run a bank well with a compensation cap in place, um, wouldn’t that improve the bottom line? Wouldn’t that be a competitive advantage? Do you think people are so dumb that this never occured to anybody before? To imagine, all this time they could have run the same business and had millions less in expenses, if only they were privy to the business insights of Michael the social worker who hates capitalism!
If some other person is willing to pay them large sums for their products or labor, what business is it of yours?
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:37
“Is that where they provide people the material things that people want and need?”
Need? Does having a Lexus constitute a need?
Also, I never said I would completely live outside of capitalism, but I would attempt to. I realize that as long as the current system is in place it is harder to escape.
“It’s nice that you think your actions are purified by your intentions, but the fact is, if there is something wrong with trading goods and labor for a profit, you are just as guilty as the rest of us.”
Intentions accompanied with how you treat your fellow human beings are what define morality.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:42
“Ok, so you admit you could afford health insurance if you really wanted it. But you chose not to, and you’re not “satisfied”? Why should we restructure the economy to satisfy you?”
I have health insurance and I’m NOT satisfied.
“If some other person is willing to pay them large sums for their products or labor, what business is it of yours?”
Because this causes our society to be decadent. And I am part of this society.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:43
“To imagine, all this time they could have run the same business and had millions less in expenses, if only they were privy to the business insights of Michael the social worker who hates capitalism!”
Amen. I knew you’d see the light.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:44
Re: Ezra Klein’s little article, I respond thusly:
Most people have cars and want to keep the car they have. That doesn’t mean a car isn’t difficult to maintain. It’s complex, expensive, and many people that work on cars or sell cars sometimes do immoral things! Many people don’t properly maintain their car, letting it run with the engine light on, or letting it go too long without changing their gas. Many people with a car would lose it if they lost their job and couldn’t afford to keep up the payments on it. Many people have very old cars and don’t have any savings to buy a new one when the one they have breaks down. Some rich people have dozens of expensive cars while poor folks go without one!
So if I’m you, I clearly think everyone should be driving a government-provided car, and there should be fines for not properly maintaining it. I’m sure government bureaucrats won’t find a way to make that system even worse than what we currently have.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:48
You are so full of it.
I hate to break this to you, but many business owners believe that the free market is what is best for everyone, and that the best thing they can do for their country is to work hard and be as productive (ie as profitable) as possible.
So I guess if I’m you I conclude that their actions toward other human beings are by definition morally good.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:53
LOL I guess we’ll be cancelling human freedom altogether. So long, bill of rights, it was nice knowing you. From now own, we are going to have government enforced morality. If you need me I’ll be with the principled folks, in the forced labor camps.
Friday, 23. October 2009 18:56
But those business owners aren’t treating many of their fellow human beings with dignity.(i.e. low wages, sweat shops, etc.)
Friday, 23. October 2009 19:04
“LOL I guess we’ll be cancelling human freedom altogether. So long, bill of rights, it was nice knowing you. From now own, we are going to have government enforced morality. If you need me I’ll be with the principled folks, in the forced labor camps.”
Now you sound like the fear-mongers, Michael Savage and Mark Levin.
Friday, 23. October 2009 19:33
If good and bad intentions make morality, then you have no way of knowing, do you? Because you have no idea what their intentions are. You may not like what they are doing, but you can’t object on moral grounds unless you’re willing to say that what they are doing is wrong regardless of their intentions. And if that is true, then intentions don’t matter, and I think you’re forced to conclude that there is nothing inherently wrong with making money. Sure, you can do it in an immoral way, but that has nothing to do with making a profit per se — you might as well say that using knives is immoral because sometimes people intentionally stab eachother.
Friday, 23. October 2009 19:37
The fear of forced labor camps is only ridiculous because there are not more fundamentalists like yourself out there who think government should curtail freedoms in order to remove things that might make people decadant.
Because if that is your goal, you’re going to have to arrest a whole lot of people, way more than the prisons can hold. And if you’ve got them incarcerated, they might as well do something useful, right? Ergo, prison camps.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is the road to totalitarianism.
Friday, 23. October 2009 19:44
I never said intentions are the only thing that define morality. Read closer.
I, also, never said making money is inherently wrong. Again, read closer.
Friday, 23. October 2009 19:46
I find it hilarious that YOU call me a fundamentalist.
Saturday, 24. October 2009 0:32
related
Saturday, 24. October 2009 3:24
You are so narrow minded to the point where you only see black and white in a gray world.
Sunday, 25. October 2009 13:37
“You are so narrow minded to the point where you only see black and white in a gray world.”
Michael,
It’s really troubling how many of your posts are like this. The burden is on you to show HOW Kevin is narrow-minded, rather than declare it so and expect him (and everyone else) to somehow believe it.
Yes, Kevin argues much with math, and even if you are bad at math, use deductive logic, not ad hominem.
Monday, 26. October 2009 2:06
Aaron, I have no real problem with Kevin’s math, just his philosophy and the lack of a realistic setting for his math to truly work within.
And the narrow minded statement was only intended toward the previous post with the link, but it could be applied to his worldview. He, and maybe you, seem to not understand that not everything is as black and white as you may want it to be. Most, if not all, things fall into the realm of gray.
I feel my appeal to reality and approaching people where they are in life is using logic, but at the same time using compassion and mercy.
Monday, 26. October 2009 12:13
Michael, spend a few years arguing about everything under the sun with random people on the internet. You’ll get it eventually. When you’ve heard “You disagree with me because you are stupid/narrow-minded/whatever” enough times, it starts to sound really naive and silly.
Monday, 26. October 2009 14:28
“When you’ve heard “You disagree with me because you are stupid/narrow-minded/whatever” enough times, it starts to sound really naive and silly.”
Kevin, if you have heard this plenty of times, maybe it has merit. And if being called naive or silly means not agreeing with you then I embrace those terms whole-heartedly. I’d rather being accused of being “naive’ or “silly” than uncompassionate or selfish.
Monday, 26. October 2009 14:38
Taken from this article:
http://byzantinechristian.blogspot.com/2009/10/health-care-reform-in-light-of.html
Monday, 26. October 2009 23:00
> I feel my appeal to reality and approaching people
> where they are in life is using logic, but at the
> same time using compassion and mercy.
You “feel” your “appeal to reality” is logic… probably because it seems logical in your mind’s eye. That doesn’t make it a logical argument, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
By arguing with deductive logic, I do mean deductive logic — step by step, showing how, in painstaking detail, one step follows from another. More importantly, you have to show that one step is the necessary (or at least, likely) result, rather than making post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments.
Most of your arguments take the form of straw man, ad hominem attack, and appealing to common practice. Those are all logical fallacies, and really useless for use in argument. Again, this has nothing to do with who is right and wrong; you simply are not in any effective way arguing your case.
Monday, 26. October 2009 23:07
> Kevin, if you have heard this plenty of times,
> maybe it has merit. And if being called naive or
> silly means not agreeing with you then I embrace
> those terms whole-heartedly. I’d rather being
> accused of being “naive’ or “silly” than
> uncompassionate or selfish.
You completely mis-read everything he said. He never accused you of anything, only that ad hominem such as yours sounds naive and silly.
YOU are the one accusing everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being “uncompassionate” or “selfish” or “narrow-minded”. Is it possible, in your mind, that people like myself have these debates exactly so we can hone in on the truth? That’s my stance. I’ve changed my political thought by leaps and bounds over the last 5 years, precisely by debating points (or observing others doing so) to their logical ends, and filling in the gaps in my mental model. This is the point of debate.
Seriously, read Plato some time — though one may criticize his results, he does take great length to hear out his opponents’ every last objection and countering them with exquisite detail.
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 1:41
Aaron, I can read exactly what he said. He may not have been directly calling me any of those things, but it is clear that he thinks it. I understand the feeling of wanting to stand up for your friends, but come on it is apparent he meant I was silly and naive. Anyone could pick it up in the tone of his syntax. This is the same way that you picked up on me calling him uncompassionate and selfish. I never actually called Kevin these, but by my syntax it is apparent.
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 2:12
“Again, this has nothing to do with who is right and wrong; you simply are not in any effective way arguing your case.”
How can my case be effective when he brushes off plenty of important points.
Exempli Gratia (by the way, that’s Latin too)- Saying he couldn’t listen to the American Bishops or he’d be schizophrenic — won’t include any type of debt in his budget models, even though most American families have plenty of it — and expects his models to work, when its obvious they can only work if someone was given a clean slate.
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 2:15
“Could you possibly be more entitled and self-centered?”
Aaron, speaking of ad hominem. I believe this was at the end of one of your previous posts.
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 11:30
> Saying he couldn’t listen to the American Bishops
> or he’d be schizophrenic”
That’s a valid complaint. Should we listen to the USCCB, as Catholics, in everything? They teach that homosexuality is sinful, yet give Brokeback Mountain a more positive review than Passion of the Christ. They put out various conflicting statements on the liturgy — most notably the new translation.
A bishop’s ordinary magisterium is only infallible when teaching in full communion with the pope, and only in the realms of faith and morals. Economics, health insurance, etc. are outside the area where they can teach with any *special* competence. This is not to say that their words can be ignored completely; they are heirs to the apostles, and they should be listened to, and their words analysed, especially in light of tradition. Their every utterance is not, necessarily, correct. The topics of discussion are that of purely practical matters.
Kevin dealt with this statement in not so many words. Just because you do not like his answer does not mean he brushed them off. If you do not like his answer, counter his answer.
> won’t include any type of debt in his budget
> models, even though most American families have
> plenty of it
He explained exactly why he would not deal with debt, in great detail, on a post on on 21 Oct 2009 at 1:26 pm. You may not like his answer, but that’s not brushing off.
> expects his models to work, when its obvious
> they can only work if someone was given a clean > slate.
Then show exactly *why* his models don’t work.
That being said, anyone can have a clean slate — it’s called chapter 11 bankruptcy. That’s always an option to anyone. It’s the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. Also, his models are for the minimum — you could, like me, seek out consulting work or part-time work on the side to pay off debt faster. Or change career. It’s your *choice* not to make more money. You have the option. You don’t want to take that option, therefore, you want the government to force me, at gunpoint, to subsidize your lifestyle choice. What is the justification for this?
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 11:50
> Aaron, speaking of ad hominem. I believe this was
> at the end of one of your previous posts.
Read the context — I wasn’t attacking character, I was questioning motive. In retrospect, I concede that I used more aggressive language than is necessary. I’m sorry.
I don’t ask perfection, Michael, I ask genuine debate. I want to give you the chance to change my mind — honest. If you are entering debate, I ask that you do the same.
I’ve spent much of the past 3 months arguing on other locations about the anarcho-capitalist understanding of property rights, a view which I now reject, even though it resonates well with my mental model. Since 2005, I went from becoming an anarcho-libertarian to a minimalist monarchist, and I’m leaning more and more towards feudalism these days. Trevor recently opened the door to the possibility of my rejecting land ownership. I have a very open mind. I’m more than willing to reject deeply held beliefs, other than articles of faith, if they appear closer to the truth than my previous ideas.
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 15:57
Michael, I have heard it from people on all sides of many issues saying it to their opponents, whether they were talking to me or not. When people I agree with say it to their opponents, I cringe. It’s easy to posture yourself as the enlightened one surrounded by idiots, but it doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
If you truly believe that people who disagree with you do so out of narrow-minded ignorance and bigotry, then you are the narrowminded one. Specifically, you are suffering from an acute lack of imagination. You inhabit a world where the solutions to all controversial problems are as clear as the light of day. That’s a small place to live and it doesn’t resemble reality very much, if you ask me. I think honest people of sound mind and good judgment can disagree on many things. Understanding the world is difficult.
Again, I’m expresing the hope that you will develop the same distaste for abusive rhetoric that I have.
I think after all of our conversation, if you still think my views are based on selfishness and a lack of compassion, that is very sad. There is someone very close to me that is an alcoholic and a drug addict who has trouble keeping any job for more than a few months, and believe me, I would like to help this person. If giving them money and help would actually improve their life, I would do that. But I don’t think it will. I think they have to experience the consequences of their self-destructive behavior. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I would not give this person a dime. If I did set them up with some money, I’m pretty sure it would kill them in a short amount of time. So my refusal to provide the specific kind of help that they desire is not based on selfishness or a lack of compassion, quite the contrary. It would be easier to give them what they want.
Tuesday, 27. October 2009 16:30
Maybe we can just start out again where we left off discussing the budget. Let’s bracket the question of debt and healthcare. Can we agree on the basic cost to a family of 4, not including healthcare or debt payments?
If you subtract the Healthcare premium ($11,500) from my debt-free budget ($25,000), you get:
$13,500
Wednesday, 28. October 2009 16:44
related
Wednesday, 28. October 2009 20:25
The current healthcare reform plan isn’t something I support. I will say it may be a start in, what I see, the right direction, but it isn’t worthy of my support as is.
Thursday, 29. October 2009 13:43
Just curious — under what form would you like to see socialized healthcare? How would it differ from the current proposals?
Thursday, 29. October 2009 14:29
Single-payer universal healthcare.
Thursday, 29. October 2009 16:08
I wouldn’t be opposed to a two-tier system either.
Thursday, 29. October 2009 17:17
Is that not what is being proposed? Single-payer healthcare?
Thursday, 29. October 2009 18:43
H.R. 676 is the single-payer proposal, but there are three other proposals. The bills getting the most attention are the ones coming out of the Senate and House and the insurance co-op bill. The House and Senate bills are the bills we hear that talk about the “public option’ and labeled “ObamaCare.”
Actually, as I am writing this post news reports are coming out saying that the House has annouced their bill. What I can tell of the quick reading I did, it seems to be a mix of some bills, but not a completely universal single-payer bill. Of course, more will come out about what it entails.
Friday, 30. October 2009 12:34
I don’t think any of the plausible reforms are a single payer universal healthcare system. What they are mostly discussing is instituting a “public option” that allows people to buy insurance from the government. However, the public option is a backdoor way to set up universal healthcare — it is designed to torpedo the current healthcare insurance market, forcing everyone to “chose” government insurance.
Friday, 30. October 2009 12:35
Michael, what don’t you like about the current proposals?
Friday, 30. October 2009 15:27
It is true that I don’t like any of the current “Obama” proposals, but it is only because they don’t go far enough. I acknowledge that the chance of any type of universal healthcare or single-payer being passed at this moment is slim to none, but this is what I think would improve America’s healthcare problems. I too am concerned with costs and taxes and I don’t feel these current proposals would actually save money for anyone. And I think it could cause further confusion within our healthcare system.
With this being said, I also acknowledge that these proposals may be necessary to open the door for single-payer healthcare to pass in the near future.
Friday, 30. October 2009 17:33
heh
Friday, 30. October 2009 18:21
Amen.
Friday, 30. October 2009 18:25
High school teacher made the list? I guess they must have excluded Jersey. High School teachers in Jersey almost always start over $50K. In either extremely rich or extremely poor towns, that can be upwards of $75K. Plus they get tenure, better healthcare than anyone else in the state except politicians and state troopers, and guaranteed raises every year.
Talk about a hard life…
Friday, 30. October 2009 18:50
My wife, who worked up until this year as a high school teacher in the largest school system in SW MO, started at only $28K. Yes, she did have great insurance and recieved raises every year, but it was extremely stressful. I definitely received an earful every evening when she got home about students, policies, and politics of the job.
Friday, 30. October 2009 19:03
I think the high school teachers that care about their students and care about whether they do a good job are probably pretty stressed out. I definitely had some that were not stressed, and they were the worst teachers around
Friday, 30. October 2009 19:05
Depends on the students, also. If you are teaching kids from a high-crime area with a lot of discipline problems, along with the school administration tying your hands when it comes to disciplining, that could get stressful, and/or dangerous.
Friday, 30. October 2009 19:14
“Depends on the students, also. If you are teaching kids from a high-crime area with a lot of discipline problems, along with the school administration tying your hands when it comes to disciplining, that could get stressful, and/or dangerous.”
This is also why I’d suspect that teachers in Jersey make more.
Friday, 30. October 2009 19:21
Didn’t argue anything about the stress — teaching, if done right (i.e., the teacher actual cares about students), is stressful. Particularly today, with how bad the average parents are. It’s not a job I’d want in a public school. The only way I’d EVER consider taking a teaching job is in a school with rigid discipline and willingness to expel students who are consistent trouble-makers (i.e., talking in class, bullying other students, don’t do their homework, etc.)
I Jersey, the average teacher works hard until they get tenure, and then don’t really work any further. There are certainly some good ones, but they are in the minority. Tenure is perhaps the third worst thing to happen to education. The first would be state-funded education, and the second would be making it compulsory.
Friday, 30. October 2009 19:36
I don’t want to argue the stress of teaching, but in my defense Aaron you did say this:
“Talk about a hard life…”
I hope you can see why I assumed you were arguing stress.
Friday, 30. October 2009 19:41
Aaron, when are you going to start your Catholic Monarchy thread?
Saturday, 31. October 2009 12:33
I was specifically talking about NJ teachers, not teachers in general.
Saturday, 31. October 2009 13:01
Well, I’m not really a member here, and can’t start a thread.
My premise for supporting a monarchy over a republic is as follows:
1) The Church has held, by (arguably non-binding) tradition that Monarchy is the best form of government. Monarchs are used as symbols in the bible. God instituted the ancient line of Hebrew kings, and Jesus was born, quite significantly, of the house of David. Christ is the King of kings, not of presidents and prime ministers.
Hereditary monarchs are typically on the throne for life, and thus can make real, meaningful changes to the long-term benefit of his people. He has a strong vested interest in leaving the nation in a better state than he received it, because his family’s name is synonymous with the nation.
2) modern liberal democratic republics justify themselves by claiming that the power to rule is derived from a mandate of the masses. We know, as Christians, that this is not so. Power comes from God, and God alone. To reject this is offensive.
3) A proper Catholic monarchy is held in check by the church. For instance, the election of the Holy Roman Emperor can be vetoed by the pope. In many kingdoms, the monarch would be deposed if apostatized or excommunicated, thereby giving the bishops authority to keep the monarch in check.
4) Monarchies tended to be smaller governments that taxed it citizens less than republics. Even if the monarch and his family were greedy, it doesn’t take nearly as much theft from the populous to satisfy his ambitions, compared to the ambitions of the president, his cabinet, 104 Senators, 500+ congresscritters, their staff, lobbiests, etc., etc., etc.
5) Monarchies tend to have very little control over the day-to-day lives of its citizens. Society was very tiered; a monarch didn’t directly tax his citizens, but instead demanded tribute from his dukes, who demand it from the tier under them. Life from one community to another could be vastly different; if one marquis was charging too much in taxes, they could move over to the next town.
6) In hereditary monarchy, the most important unit of government is family. This communicates to society, by example, the importance of the nuclear and extended families, from the top down.
7) The fact that rule monarchy is de jure exclusive, rather than de facto in a republic, it quells political ambitions of men. Peasants know that they can never be king, and thus will not try. This quells the problem of an ever-growing leech-like political class we see in modern republics.
9) Most monarchs actually have less real power than modern bureaucrats, even though they had real authority. To get anything big done, like a war, they would have to convince the nobles under them, who in turn would convince the peasants to follow them. Thus, the monarch needed a fair degree of consent to get anything really big done.
There’s many more points that favor monarchy, but that’s on the top of my head.
Saturday, 31. October 2009 13:28
How does this apply to something like health care? Well, it’s a more tiered, subsidiary society. The monarchy supports the church, and the church supports the monarchy.
A local hospital would, ideally, be run by the church, and have thus have no real profit motive. The local magistrate typically funded the salaries of clergy, and helped religious orders out with projects such as hospitals. This was seen as a gift from his personal wealth. He could also keep tabs on the order, and choose to withhold funds if they were wasteful. If the hospital was short on resources or services, the local parishes could ask for donations at the pulpit.
The key here is personal involvement by members and the head of the community, as well as charitable giving, which is in all ways better than taxation.
Saturday, 31. October 2009 17:12
“However, the public option is a backdoor way to set up universal healthcare — it is designed to torpedo the current healthcare insurance market, forcing everyone to “chose” government insurance.”
I call bullshit.
Monday, 2. November 2009 14:44
Here is the argument, in brief:
The “public option” is supposed to make healthcare available for those that don’t currently have it. But everyone could be insured privately, at the right price. Those who aren’t insured today aren’t willing or able to pay the fair market price that the insurance companies would charge them, or else the insurance companies aren’t allowed to charge enough to make covering them worthwhile to their bottom line. In either case, it is obvious that the public option will cover these people by charging them less money than it costs to insure them. (It’s not politically feasible that anyone will be charged more than they can “afford” to get their public option coverage.) They will not pay the full cost of their medical care, and therefore the public option will not be self-funding. We will run a deficit or raise taxes or whatever.
It should go without saying that savings from cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” will retain their mythological status.
The program will therefore manifest itself as a big wealth transfer. At a certain level of income, the public option may transition into charging people full cost rates, but by definition those are going to be people who can afford to get their own insurance. The insurance companies aren’t going to be able to compete for anyone that qualifies for a subsidized rate, and that is going to be roughly everyone who doesn’t have insurance today, plus those who are added over time as our definition of “need” expands. Don’t forget, those with subsidized rates are going to spend their savings on housing and other cost-of living items, bidding up prices for those who don’t qualify and putting more pressure on the eligibility requirements to include ever more Americans.
Then one day when the eligibility requirements for subsidized rates haven’t been tweaked in a few years, and pendulum of political power has swung to the left as it has today, they are going to announce another “crisis”, and “solve” it by instituting a single payer system, which at that point will be considered a moderate expansion of an existing program.
That the public option is a trojan horse for single payer coverage has been admitted by Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Ezra Klein, and Paul Krugman. Interestingly, those last two are precisely the people whose arguments for reform have been cited on this website.
Wednesday, 11. November 2009 18:08
“Then one day when the eligibility requirements for subsidized rates haven’t been tweaked in a few years, and pendulum of political power has swung to the left as it has today, they are going to announce another “crisis”, and “solve” it by instituting a single payer system, which at that point will be considered a moderate expansion of an existing program.”
This is no argument. I still call bullshit. It does not follow from this that a public option is a legitimate “backdoor way to set up universal healthcare…designed to torpedo the current healthcare insurance market, forcing everyone to “chose” government insurance”. A future left wing administration could just as easily expand medicare/medicaid to accomplish the same thing in the even of a “crisis”. The public option is no trojen horse as you claim.
Thursday, 12. November 2009 20:19
You have to consider the whole reform. They are going to make a mandate that everyone must be insured. They are going to prevent insurance companies from charging different rates based on your risk profile. They are going to decide what the required level of coverage is going to be, in all the details. It’s all going to very standardized. That will allow the prices to be very competitive, and of course the best price will be from the government, which doesn’t have to earn a profit in order to stay in business. They don’t even have to subsidise your rates to compete unfairly. All they have to do is charge at the exact breakeven price.
See, insurance companies have to keep a lot of cash in reserve in order to safely gard against risk. That money belongs to the stockholders. It can be invested, but it has to be fairly safe, low-yielding investments. If the premiums from the policies can’t make an additional contribution to the return on those investments, stockholders will simply take their money elsewhere.
They can claim all they want that “you can keep your current insurance”, but the public option is structurally going to cause your insurance company to withdraw from the market eventually.
At least Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein think so.
Thursday, 12. November 2009 21:46
But only a small minority have the option of choosing a public plan.
Friday, 13. November 2009 13:31
-WSJ
That’s not trivial. And it’s only going to be the beginning.