USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Yet when someone wants to die, we won't let them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
And it's the very people who want these programs destroyed that won't let people die.
Yet when someone wants to die, we won't let them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
And it's the very people who want these programs destroyed that won't let people die.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Also: when it became a middle class entitlement, the standard of what constitutes "being able to live off it" changed. It was originally intended to be a guarantee of subsistence and a basic level of dignity. But its expansion into an entitlement meant people started to think of the basic minimum as maintaining their middle class lifestyle.
Demographically, some program like Social Security became necessary when America became became more mobile and families became more atomized with the rise of the car. If you look at pre-WW2 Censuses you'll see families where the grandparents all live in the home. This also provided day care (in most poor families the woman has always worked -- Suzy Homemaker was a very brief Eisenhower middle class phenomenon) and end of life out-patient medical care. And medical care wasn't crippling expensive because it wasn't that good -- people who got sick had the good manners to die before they cost too much money. None of those things are acceptable anymore; we have moved on.
You can't just go back to 1935 and pretend nothing's changed. There has to be a way to provide for old people with no money who can't work anymore -- local church groups and private charity programs were never sufficient and the real problems areas (ghettos, rural areas) were simply hidden from view. If we would just means test everything it would be cheap and easy to have either a national or state programs, but charity programs don't have a good track record with the electorate.
It was supposed to address the problem of having elderly people in poverty who could no longer work and thus had no way of earning income. Because Americans have an almost pathological fear of welfare programs, it was packaged and sold (and expanded) as a universal entitlement. So now a large chunk of the money that goes out goes to people who don't need it.
Also: when it became a middle class entitlement, the standard of what constitutes "being able to live off it" changed. It was originally intended to be a guarantee of subsistence and a basic level of dignity. But its expansion into an entitlement meant people started to think of the basic minimum as maintaining their middle class lifestyle.
Demographically, some program like Social Security became necessary when America became became more mobile and families became more atomized with the rise of the car. If you look at pre-WW2 Censuses you'll see families where the grandparents all live in the home. This also provided day care (in most poor families the woman has always worked -- Suzy Homemaker was a very brief Eisenhower middle class phenomenon) and end of life out-patient medical care. And medical care wasn't crippling expensive because it wasn't that good -- people who got sick had the good manners to die before they cost too much money. None of those things are acceptable anymore; we have moved on.
You can't just go back to 1935 and pretend nothing's changed. There has to be a way to provide for old people with no money who can't work anymore -- local church groups and private charity programs were never sufficient and the real problems areas (ghettos, rural areas) were simply hidden from view. If we would just means test everything it would be cheap and easy to have either a national or state programs, but charity programs don't have a good track record with the electorate.
Last edited:
leswp1
New member
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Lynah you have a good point until it applies to you. The problem is that it looks good in principle but no one wants to be the person who dies. I happen to agree that we utilize way to much stuff for people who do not invest in caring for themselves (ie they do nothing to change lifestyle) or people who are terminal. There have been studies quoted before in here that show that end of life planning (which every one tried to label as death panels) actually increased satisfaction of the patient and interestingly their survival rate even with less intervention (!?). The same people that want to cut the cost were the ones howling to prevent funding for this less expensive methods.
Also- think of all the (wait for it.....) jobs that wouldn't exsist if you actually rationed these things or did not invent them. Scientists, researchers, healthcare providers etc all outta work.
The world is not in a vacuum. There are plenty of companies working outside of our system in the rest of the world that invent medical stuff and patent it outside of our cumbersome system and within the other 'socialized' systems that do ration.
I agree in part to the cost would be less but not wholey. The population is much larger. By numbers, even if you were to ration things the cost is still going to be high.
Lynah you have a good point until it applies to you. The problem is that it looks good in principle but no one wants to be the person who dies. I happen to agree that we utilize way to much stuff for people who do not invest in caring for themselves (ie they do nothing to change lifestyle) or people who are terminal. There have been studies quoted before in here that show that end of life planning (which every one tried to label as death panels) actually increased satisfaction of the patient and interestingly their survival rate even with less intervention (!?). The same people that want to cut the cost were the ones howling to prevent funding for this less expensive methods.
Also- think of all the (wait for it.....) jobs that wouldn't exsist if you actually rationed these things or did not invent them. Scientists, researchers, healthcare providers etc all outta work.
The world is not in a vacuum. There are plenty of companies working outside of our system in the rest of the world that invent medical stuff and patent it outside of our cumbersome system and within the other 'socialized' systems that do ration.
I agree in part to the cost would be less but not wholey. The population is much larger. By numbers, even if you were to ration things the cost is still going to be high.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Spot on. Idiocy and hypocrisy all rolled into one.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Very few of us are anarchists (I'd estimate 10% of single, childless males under 30 and .000001% of everybody else). Although paying taxes sucks, there are things that large majorities agree are worth paying for via government means. So it simply is not the matter of clean principle that you paint it -- it's a matter of messy political negotiation in a pluralistic society.
That is what all government expenses are, from the military to the postal service. Your argument isn't against health programs, it's against any coerced collection of government revenues.
Very few of us are anarchists (I'd estimate 10% of single, childless males under 30 and .000001% of everybody else). Although paying taxes sucks, there are things that large majorities agree are worth paying for via government means. So it simply is not the matter of clean principle that you paint it -- it's a matter of messy political negotiation in a pluralistic society.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
I promise that when I am 85 and dealing with a terminal condition, I'll be on this board telling you how satisfied I have been with my life and that I'm accepting "comfort care" only from that point on. Lots and lots of other people make that same choice (I don't have stats), so it is incorrect to say that "no one wants to be the person who dies."
Well, I guess since we've reached the point where it's okay for the government to take people's property and give it to other private individuals for the purpose of increasing taxes (Kelo), then I can't really see any arguments against the government taking peoples money and giving it to private corporations for the purpose of creating jobs. Perma-stimulus FTW.
And how do those countries' healthcare costs compare to the US?
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Because I'm against government expense A, I must automatically be against all of them? Quite a stretch, there, Mr. Fantastic.
Foxton
Banned
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Simply put, private health insurance is always going to be more expensive than public options because the pool of people paying in is smaller. The larger the pool the easier it is to absorb costs.
Because the people who need those services would have died. I agree that spending ridiculous sums of money to keep people alive for a few days or month is not worth it. But as the republicans argued so adamantly when the democrats tried to bring health care costs down, death panels are bad.
Then stop using roads or anything else that is paid for by the gov't and your tax dollars. We don't live in a vacuum, you don't live on your own private island. The cost of living in the US is taxes it's a social contract.
So you're fine with gov't spending if it directly benefits you? You realize why that's not a very good answer?
That would be called supply side economics, thanks for playing.
source
Simply put, private health insurance is always going to be more expensive than public options because the pool of people paying in is smaller. The larger the pool the easier it is to absorb costs.
leswp1
New member
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Most people in theory will have your same attitude. So will their families- until the moment. Then, even if the you are cool the family is a crap shoot. Living wills, power of attorney, healthcare proxies are all out the window if someone vociferously objects. Don't get me wrong- I am not advocating everyone has a full court press. The exact opposite is the case. I am just being pragmatic.
As to the cost- Foxy posted the graph. We are way more expensive and the quality of baseline medical care in other countries is on average much better. We have abysmal numbers for prevention, prenatal care.
One thing to consider- all these people who are without insurance cost us a boatload. They go to the ER, get admitted and treated in extremis. Until you allow hospitals to let those people die they pass the cost on to all of us. The hosp can't cover that without running in the red, jacking up price for their services to cover the expected losses.
Having worked on a floor where people told me they wanted to die, begged me to "shut off the vent and leave [them] in peace" only to have them frantically trigger the call light and hear them beg me to [ambu]bag them when the vent fails I am a bit skeptical. It is very easy to say you want to die in peace until you are in pain or distress, you feel something is left undone etc.
Most people in theory will have your same attitude. So will their families- until the moment. Then, even if the you are cool the family is a crap shoot. Living wills, power of attorney, healthcare proxies are all out the window if someone vociferously objects. Don't get me wrong- I am not advocating everyone has a full court press. The exact opposite is the case. I am just being pragmatic.
As to the cost- Foxy posted the graph. We are way more expensive and the quality of baseline medical care in other countries is on average much better. We have abysmal numbers for prevention, prenatal care.
One thing to consider- all these people who are without insurance cost us a boatload. They go to the ER, get admitted and treated in extremis. Until you allow hospitals to let those people die they pass the cost on to all of us. The hosp can't cover that without running in the red, jacking up price for their services to cover the expected losses.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Edit to add: Currently, around 60% of health care costs are paid for by the government (via medicare, medicaid, etc), and that share has been growing even as health care costs have been rising. So how large does the government's share have to be before the costs start coming back down?
How did you jump to the conclusion that I'm only in favor of government spending that directly benefits me? I honestly can't see it.
Hang on a minute. You're muddling up per capita health care spending vs. the price of private insurance, which are two completely different things. You're implying that there's something about a public option that inherently reduces cost - that if the government were running the insurance companies but people were demanding (consuming) the exact same amount and quality of care, the costs would somehow be lower? I don't understand how that could be. Why would the health care providers bother to lower their prices if the demand remained the same?
Edit to add: Currently, around 60% of health care costs are paid for by the government (via medicare, medicaid, etc), and that share has been growing even as health care costs have been rising. So how large does the government's share have to be before the costs start coming back down?
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
I, for one, don't have a fear of the programs themselves...but I have a huge concern with how much it costs to deliver the programs, the actual results of the programs and what the long-term unintended consequences will be.
We can all throw the anectdotal situations back and forth ("you are for frozen grannies eating dog food", "oh yeah, you are for people having 9 kids so they get more funding") but there is an impact if people don't perceive or actually feel the need to do everything in their power to provide for themselves. Let's say the completely uncaring population is equal in size to the scammer population. That leaves 90% in between those two poles...most people do care as they know somebody who has or does require some assistance and most people at least nod at the golden rule. And most people do want to provide for themselves and don't relish the opportunity to need help.
If you agree with most of that...is the current program(s) a good fit? In my view, which you won't/can't possibly all agree with, the benefits should be tied to something other than just being alive. We all would disagree with raising our kids in an environment in which they have few responsibilities to do anything but are given what they need. It would be nice to think that there is no temptation to remain on welfare or utilize SS even when you could pay for it on your own or get school lunch vouchers vs. looking for a better job but I don't think that is typical human behavior. Know anybody that has a handicapped pass that really doesn't need it?
So, there should be some gradual increase in expectation and accountability for those on assistance...to your point, we didnt' go from 1935 to 2011 in one day, trying to impose rapid and dramatic changes will never get enough support and would generate a host of new issues...the changes need to implement on a gradual basis so society can evolve with them.
I, for one, don't have a fear of the programs themselves...but I have a huge concern with how much it costs to deliver the programs, the actual results of the programs and what the long-term unintended consequences will be.
We can all throw the anectdotal situations back and forth ("you are for frozen grannies eating dog food", "oh yeah, you are for people having 9 kids so they get more funding") but there is an impact if people don't perceive or actually feel the need to do everything in their power to provide for themselves. Let's say the completely uncaring population is equal in size to the scammer population. That leaves 90% in between those two poles...most people do care as they know somebody who has or does require some assistance and most people at least nod at the golden rule. And most people do want to provide for themselves and don't relish the opportunity to need help.
If you agree with most of that...is the current program(s) a good fit? In my view, which you won't/can't possibly all agree with, the benefits should be tied to something other than just being alive. We all would disagree with raising our kids in an environment in which they have few responsibilities to do anything but are given what they need. It would be nice to think that there is no temptation to remain on welfare or utilize SS even when you could pay for it on your own or get school lunch vouchers vs. looking for a better job but I don't think that is typical human behavior. Know anybody that has a handicapped pass that really doesn't need it?
So, there should be some gradual increase in expectation and accountability for those on assistance...to your point, we didnt' go from 1935 to 2011 in one day, trying to impose rapid and dramatic changes will never get enough support and would generate a host of new issues...the changes need to implement on a gradual basis so society can evolve with them.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Like everything else, we'll spend money on healthcare that we don't have until we go bankrupt and are forced to spend less. It's got difference nuances, but it's like everything else: SS, defense, etc., where our spending trajectory is unsustainable. But, there's little chance it'll get fixed because pretty much every American thinks the government owes them more/should take less/etc. and won't give up whatever they can get their hands on. Not everyone is like that, and I know wonderful people who cut across this mentality, but this way of thinking is still dominant overall.
Like everything else, we'll spend money on healthcare that we don't have until we go bankrupt and are forced to spend less. It's got difference nuances, but it's like everything else: SS, defense, etc., where our spending trajectory is unsustainable. But, there's little chance it'll get fixed because pretty much every American thinks the government owes them more/should take less/etc. and won't give up whatever they can get their hands on. Not everyone is like that, and I know wonderful people who cut across this mentality, but this way of thinking is still dominant overall.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
We chose to socialize the external costs of a more mobile lifestyle. While there certainly are macroeconomic benefits from having a more mobile workforce, there's no chance that they add up to the sum total spent on Social Security...
I do not think that word means what you think it means. I think the word you were looking for was "convenient."
We chose to socialize the external costs of a more mobile lifestyle. While there certainly are macroeconomic benefits from having a more mobile workforce, there's no chance that they add up to the sum total spent on Social Security...
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Is that why polls show most Americans (as in well over 50%) are willing to have their taxes raised in order to keep at least some of the government services/entitlements? Sounds to me more that the dominant thinking is that people know they need to start paying for it, and are willing to rather than starving the beast entirely.
Again, Bob, there's only one party beholden to the Norquist "no new taxes, EVAR" pledge. And even then, it's not the entire party, just a strong segment of it.
Is that why polls show most Americans (as in well over 50%) are willing to have their taxes raised in order to keep at least some of the government services/entitlements? Sounds to me more that the dominant thinking is that people know they need to start paying for it, and are willing to rather than starving the beast entirely.
Again, Bob, there's only one party beholden to the Norquist "no new taxes, EVAR" pledge. And even then, it's not the entire party, just a strong segment of it.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Don't get me wrong - I hope it's obvious that I think the Republicans are a bunch of 'tards, too (bas- or re-, take your pick), but that doesn't mean the other guys are white as snow.
Yeah, I'm so glad the Democrats haven't come out with any blanket statements about never cutting spending, ever. I feel so much better that they've simply gone about their business of stimulus after stimulus and increase after increase without explicitly stating it as a formal policy. Actions and words, actions and words...
Don't get me wrong - I hope it's obvious that I think the Republicans are a bunch of 'tards, too (bas- or re-, take your pick), but that doesn't mean the other guys are white as snow.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
I don't buy that a majority of Americans really want to raise their taxes the necessary amount to really pay for the services that they would lose if the government had to balance its revenue and spending. To get a more accurate picture, you'd have to spell out to them how much their taxes would have to increase to provide how much funding for various services/entitlements, something polls don't generally do. You do that and your numbers would likely drop significantly, IMHO.
For once stop shilling for the Dems, and admit that you regularly do. Your usual everything is the Republicans fault is just ridiculous. The Dems didn't fix things when they had control, but rather made things worse. But, you don't take issue with them. And when the Dems have shared control, they've contributed to the problems. Even some of the liberals around here concede the problem is on both sides of the aisle.
I don't buy that a majority of Americans really want to raise their taxes the necessary amount to really pay for the services that they would lose if the government had to balance its revenue and spending. To get a more accurate picture, you'd have to spell out to them how much their taxes would have to increase to provide how much funding for various services/entitlements, something polls don't generally do. You do that and your numbers would likely drop significantly, IMHO.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
They aren't as white as snow, but they sure as hell aren't the sludge on the curbs right now, either.
When even The Economist turns on the Republicans, you know there's something really, really wrong.
Because they didn't make things worse this time around. Your protestations notwithstanding, the Dems wanted to do a traditional Keynsian stimulus and the GOP blocked it and insisted that the deficit was more important. The Tea Party is a bunch of economic dimwits who have no farking clue how to run a country.
Sure it is, on average when looking historically. Over the last 2 years, not even close.
One party threatened to default on our debt and claimed it wouldn't be that bad. One party campaigned on jobs then focused on social issues and deficit reduction. One party wants to pull a Herbert Hoover and balance the budget by cutting spending in the middle of the worst recession in years.
The problems of the last 2 years are entirely on the Tea Party, and by extension the GOP.
Your anecdote beats most major research polls. Gotcha. Living in Arizona surrounded by like minded people has nothing to do with your beliefs, I'm sure.
They aren't as white as snow, but they sure as hell aren't the sludge on the curbs right now, either.
When even The Economist turns on the Republicans, you know there's something really, really wrong.
Because they didn't make things worse this time around. Your protestations notwithstanding, the Dems wanted to do a traditional Keynsian stimulus and the GOP blocked it and insisted that the deficit was more important. The Tea Party is a bunch of economic dimwits who have no farking clue how to run a country.
Even some of the liberals around here concede the problem is on both sides of the aisle.
Sure it is, on average when looking historically. Over the last 2 years, not even close.
One party threatened to default on our debt and claimed it wouldn't be that bad. One party campaigned on jobs then focused on social issues and deficit reduction. One party wants to pull a Herbert Hoover and balance the budget by cutting spending in the middle of the worst recession in years.
The problems of the last 2 years are entirely on the Tea Party, and by extension the GOP.
Your anecdote beats most major research polls. Gotcha. Living in Arizona surrounded by like minded people has nothing to do with your beliefs, I'm sure.
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
There was never a real threat of a default. I don't believe it ever would have happened. But, you believe everything you read in the media apparently.
Citations for all your polls? I'm sure I can find ones that say that people don't want higher taxes. At least you finally didn't protest that your a liberal Democratic partisan. It works better if people are straightforward as to where their interests lie.
Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds. If you knew the people I live around, you'd know how wrong you are. So the Dems and their spending the last few years haven't made the situation worse? You are ridiculous. The Dems wanted to spend more and more and more, and thankfully after two years some folks got in that can at least keep it from getting much worse. I'll chalk you up as one of those who has non interest in the debt that's piled on future generations.
There was never a real threat of a default. I don't believe it ever would have happened. But, you believe everything you read in the media apparently.
Citations for all your polls? I'm sure I can find ones that say that people don't want higher taxes. At least you finally didn't protest that your a liberal Democratic partisan. It works better if people are straightforward as to where their interests lie.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
That's not what I said, and you know it. The terms of your argument could equally be applied to any government expenditure.
- Status