US Politics

[Battra92]

Also, Ethan I wasn't referring to everyone who hit hard times as being lazy, just some fat assholes who sit online all day whining about how they don't have a job and how they might lose their unemployment or government services.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit. There's no place for personal attacks here.

 

Personal attacks at people I know from college who whine on facebook from their iPads that they have no job?

[Johnny]

Don't even try. Everyone who's seen us talk before knows who you meant.

[SixTwoSixFour]

Battra, how can you say that they would never use food stamps when there were "times when the church food basket kept us fed"? Your parents clearly aren't above taking a freebie when it's offered.

 

Simple, it's not the government's job.

 

It's all the government is for! The government is there to help people who others won't or can't. I hesitate to do this, but...

 

Take a theoretical person. Let's name him Steve. Steve works minimum wage, full time, in order to pay his bills. He has a few technical luxuries- the internet, and maybe a game once a month (if there are no surprise expenses), but mostly he barely manages rent, power, student loans, and food, alongside a few credit card bills from his past. Then Steve has a medical emergency, he spends a month in the hospital, and leaves a disabled man. He's physically no longer capable of working full time- he can manage 20 hours a week before his body starts to fail him. He has tons of medical expenses to treat his condition, and he can't earn enough money to cover his expenses of his normal life, let alone the medical costs.

 

And since I'm not all that subtle, here's the very obvious kicker: there's nothing theoretical about that, except that my name's not really Steve. And if the government didn't help me out with medical bills, and give me a little bit of disability, I would not be able to afford life.

[Yantelope V2]

I don't believe it's the governments job to help people. I believe that's the responsibility of each individual to help his neighbor.

[deanb]

Then what do you believe is the governments job?

[Yantelope V2]

Keep the peace, maintain order. Also perform some functions that are probably not best left to private enterprise such as transportation needs like roads etc.

[deanb]

Why are roads not best left to private entities? (Same with keeping the peace)

[Johnny]

I believe it's the governments job to do all the things that needs doing but can't or won't be done by individuals and corporations, who usually serve their own interest.

[Mal]

The government can also serve their own interests or the interests of others that may not be positive to individuals and/or groups. The government isn't immune to being heavily flawed, as everybody knows. People are people.

[Johnny]

True, Malicious, but in the end their job is to serve their people, and they will only be elected to do so if they manage to convince enough people that they are serving the people's interests.

It's not completely water-tight, but it's a hell of a lot more water-tight than expecting companies to serve the public interest in all things.

[Yantelope V2]

Edit, Malicious beat me to it. I forgot to refresh

Edited May 18, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[TheMightyEthan]

Of course it does, but part of its own interest is keeping the people happy, which involves serving their interests (or at least making them think that you are).

[Yantelope V2]

Why are roads not best left to private entities? (Same with keeping the peace)

Some things can't really have market forces applied to them to create competition. You can't really have competing roadway systems. You also probably shouldn't have competing police forces that individuals need to contract. Probably wouldn't work very well.

True, Malicious, but in the end their job is to serve their people, and they will only be elected to do so if they manage to convince enough people that they are serving the people's interests.

It's not completely water-tight, but it's a hell of a lot more water-tight than expecting companies to serve the public interest in all things.

 

I think it's pretty easy to come up with millions of examples of people who aren't acting in their own self interest. Furthermore, sometimes companies and people acting in their own self interest still help others. You see it all the time when companies give money to charity or "go green" to promote their image. It's in their own interest but they're still doing good.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

This is vague and unnecessary at this point. Everyone take a breather.

[Mal]

Of course it does, but part of its own interest is keeping the people happy, which involves serving their interests (or at least making them think that you are).

**insert conspiracy theory**

 

Which brings me into this point: The government is the law. Things can turn really sour if they misstep or get manipulated. A group or company misstepping or being manipulative? You smack them. You can do the same with the government but the damage can be so much more severe. With this in mind, I can see why some folks want a more hands off government.

 

Personally, I am wary of big government (Gift from my family who came from China) but I can see its uses and important role. I also see how groups and companies can do good and be of use for the people since they can be quite powerful and they can have more leeway to do things than the government can. Some off the top of my head is Virgin, perhaps Redbull and David Cameron.

 

This is will be hard to think about and put into words if I go on further so I'm just going to cut it short:

Balance is my point and goal. I like to make choices that can bring balance to things so at times I will do a thing one way one time and the opposite another time. Balance can be hard (Look at this thread, yeesh.) and tough choices will be made. It also fucking hard to keep to.

 

And yeah, what FDS said. Its tiring to even read some of the stuff in this thread. Go out and have a smoke or something.

[Luftwaffles]

Keep the peace, maintain order. Also perform some functions that are probably not best left to private enterprise such as transportation needs like roads etc.

 

Has somebody been playing Civilization?

 

EDIT: Grammar. Ugh.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Sporkwaffles

[TheMightyEthan]

I want to make clear that I am not in favor of government replacing private industry or anything like that. I think we're all in favor of balance, it's just we differ on where to strike that balance.

[Chronixal]

I can't say I've been watching this thread too heavily, only watching the last few pages or so but some of the double-speak, misdirection and outright ignorance, willful or otherwise, is simply breath-taking. Or rather, would be, were such qualities so neatly defined by the right wing.

 

Anyone who spouts that Government does nothing for them/their family/whoever is full of shit. Born in a fucking manger, were you? Never went to school? Drove on those road or walked on those streets? From the fucking moment each of us were born, we've been cradled by the State and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best and outright deceptive at worst.

 

Believe me, I know the Civil Service is far from perfect; I work for a public utility company that's contracted to a UK Gov. agency. They can pull some pretty sick maneuvers and whatnot but I'd trust them more than my lot in the private sector, who's only priority is the bottom line. I could tell you some horror stories but it's more than my job's worth.

 

I really don't get this idea that anyone who has the supposed temerity to receive any form of benefit should be locked up in their houses (preferably groggy shitpits, according to the right) and never have any form of life or fun. Ever. "Omg, you're on disability but you went out the house the other day! You fraud!". Guys, it's called quality of life. I'd rather there were thousands of people playing the system than 1 person die in misery because someone decided £60 a week (!) was too much to give someone down on their luck.

 

I'm not a religious man (hell, I'm atheist) but isn't the term 'But for the grace of God go I?'. For all those who sit in their Ivory towers and look down upon the rest, could do well to remember we're all 3 paychecks away from destitution. It's very easy criticise gov schemes to which we don't benefit.

[Yantelope V2]

@Chronixal: I think you're falling into the same trap that Dean is by saying that we're all cold and heartless jerks in our "ivory towers". It's not about which way to run your government works. Clearly they both seem to function to some degree. I think what we're all discussing is what the best way to run your government is. I think that universal healthcare is wasteful and expensive. Johnny and Dean think that universal healthcare provides a solid baseline and supports quality of life and is worth the expense (forgive me if I'm misstating your position).

 

So, at least in America the history of medicare and medicaid is that they were started in 1965 under the social security act to provide medical insurance to the elderly and the poor. I think most people in America are in favor of these programs but there is some discussion on how best to run them and who should or shouldn't receive care etc. I am fine with these programs for the record although I think they're probably in need of some additional reforms. Now, the cost of these programs has been escalating in conjunction with the overall rise in healthcare costs in America. The overall rise in healthcare costs can be attributed to numerous factors and the extent to which those factors affect the cost is of some debate. The factors include: legal liabilities, tax incentives, insurance regulations, availability of healthcare, illegal immigration, and the cost of providing stabilizing healthcare to those without insurance who can't pay. There's probably some factors in there additionally which contribute as well.

 

Typically people in america get their health insurance through their employer. The reason for this (Ethan might know the legal stuff better) is that the government began offering tax incentives to businesses who provide healthcare for their employees. As a result companies found that they could increase their total compensation to their employees by offering benefits packages while lowering their total tax burden. Say for example you are going to pay a person $75,000. If you can deduct $10,000 of that compensation because you're using it to pay off their health insurance that they probably would have purchased anyway then it saves your company money. The problem with this is that individuals in America have become disconnected with the costs associated with health insurance and additionally, because every individual has been on insurance they have become separated from the costs of individual treatment. What has resulted is a system where patients freely visit doctors and hospitals with no regard for the cost of treatment. Doctors futher more provide additional testing and other procedures that may not be necessary because of legal liability reasons. As a result the only cost controls and price negotiation happens on a large scale between health care providers and insurance companies and again between insurance companies and employers. As a result individuals are separated by three levels of high business and are completely unaware and incapable of measuring the cost of health insurance. As a result market forces are completely separated from costs and they have continued to rise.

 

Obama and the democratic party proposed a solution to the rise of healthcare in the form of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This new plan offers many reforms which are not necessarily targeted at reduction of cost including requiring health insurance companies to accept new customers regardless of previous condition. The main provision that the bill includes to address the rising costs in healthcare is called the individual mandate whereby all citizens must provide proof they have insurance or they must pay a fine(tax). The underlying idea is that if everyone in America is paying into the healthcare system there will be enough funding to cover the medical care needs of every individual solving the problem of people who do not pay into the system but still utilize services.

 

The problem with PPACA is that it does nothing to actually restore market forces to reduce the overall rising cost of healthcare. It does infact make the problem worse. The burden on insurance companies will rise as people who have had chronic illnesses can now apply and must be approved for insurance which means that the cost of treating these people will have to be passed on in the system making insurance more expensive on average. Additionally, it does nothing to reduce demand or create supply which is the only economic way to reduce the cost of a good or service. As such the demand for healthcare systems will continue to increase as everyone will be covered and the only way to control the costs of the systems will be fore the government to begin choosing what services it will or wont provide. Private pharmaceutical companies will cease development on expensive and unprofitable drugs as they will only be able to produce items which the government or health insurance companies can afford. Wait times in doctor offices will increase. When taking a look at the effects of the universal healthcare system in Canada it was found that doctors were being paid by the patient instead of by the visit as a way to control costs. What resulted is that doctors have very little motivation to see more patients every day and wait times have skyrocketed.

 

If your sole motivation is to expand coverage then universal healthcare systems have been successful. Since we're only expanding coverage to people who are wealthy I'm not really sure why this is a good thing. As early stated the poor are covered under medicaid already. If your motivation is to provide better care, more options, and shorter wait times while reducing costs then universal healthcare is a universal failure.

[deanb]

Medicare only covers the actual costs though does it not?

 

Also as for the closing remark I thought we'd already covered that ours was cheaper, we have options, and your'e gonna have to throw out something to back up the better care(though off the bat I know US is 38th in life expectancy with UK in 20th). What solution would you suggest given that it's rather clear from your mini-essay that the capitalist driven health insurance system in the US isn't really working. It's supply and demand, and the demand is for health care, and my god is that a huge demand (being a human right n all) so of course folks can charge what they want. It seems a bit like the rental issue over here. If you can pay it yourself, then fine. But if not then the gov't will cover you for housing benefit(in this analogy, Medicare), so landlords push the price up and up n up. But that's not really possible with the NHS since it's all owned and ran and funded by the gov't. Unlike a private hospital, insurance firm, doctors etc the NHS isn't really going to be charging itself anymore than required. Which in turn reduces the overall cost for everyone (as you saw with the NHS costing half the GDP as medicare & co does for the US)

[Chronixal]

Unlike a private hospital, insurance firm, doctors etc the NHS isn't really going to be charging itself anymore than required. Which in turn reduces the overall cost for everyone (as you saw with the NHS costing half the GDP as medicare & co does for the US)

 

Funny that PCT's have the gall to not only charge the patient but so so after being heavily subsidised by the Gov. Bit like the utility companies. And British Rail. Hmm, seems like the private sector can't do without the big, bad government after all.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Chronixal

[Yantelope V2]

There is a line to draw between letting people die in the street and providing health care to everyone. I think if you can eliminate the laws limiting insurance companies selling across state lines that would create more competition. Tort reform would limit doctor liability and help doctors to not order useless tests for legal purposes. Eliminating tax breaks for corporations and passing them to individuals would allow people to chose their own medical coverage creating more competition. There are many many ways we can reduce the cost of medical care. Socializing medicine only eliminates the laws of supply and demand and creates a welfare state in which demand skyrockets and costs go up and quality goes down.

[deanb]

Why the hell do you carry on repeating this whole "and the costs go up" bull shit when we've already shown that the US costs are astronomically high compared to socialised medicine and those charts only show stuff like Medicare not the health insurance costs too. The demand doesn't sky rocket either, it's not like going to universal health care means that there's suddenly a doubling of the population and everyone gets cancer and broken bores 20% more often than before. What does change is the supply as I've already stated, in which case it's all supplied by a single entity: the government. And in a monopsony the buyer dictates the costs and thus has the power to keep them down.

[deanb]

 

lol.

[Battra92]

Why are roads not best left to private entities? (Same with keeping the peace)

 

There are such things as private roads. There are plenty of them in your parts: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Private_road

 

I know you're not a fan of the Founding Fathers but I'm going to use the words of Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 

I agree with Jefferson's notion here on the purpose of government: to secure our sacred and undeniable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit (not the guarantee) of Happiness. Protecting life, liberty and property is something very basic to us as humans. Whether you are the richest of the rich, or the poorest of the poor: you receive adequate protection by the police. Police are normally paid through local property taxes (which even renters pay, although indirectly) so all are covered.

 

In the end, we all surrender a certain level of sovereignty towards our government in return for some basic mutual protections. The issue comes down to the fact that many of us do not feel it is the government's right to intrude upon our Liberty in order to provide for someone else's comfort. The safety net is no longer a net, it's really a hammock to many people.

 

I'm immune to the "sad sack" stories about people who are sick and dying in the street. What then of the man and wife who worked hard and saved. They paid their way through school and made risks on the future and would forgo luxuries to save for a rainy day. Why is it fair that the people who make the right choices should see a third or more of their income taken away by the government (Federal, State, possibly County and Local) when you have 47% of the country not contributing a dime and always demanding more. You get really annoyed when you hear some politician saying that you can afford to cut out a little more for your budget or work a little more overtime to pay for the student loans of some snot-nosed ironic kid who got themselves $50,000 in college debt by studying Nineteenth Century Feminist Literature.

 

Really, at what point does it stop? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

 

I feel very assured that the line should be closer to Liberty than to that of oppressive and prohibitive taxation.