Health Care Bill in the Supreme Court

[deleted109597]

You, explicitly or implicitly, have agreed to live in a society made up of all of these people. And part of the fundamental make-up of that society is that those who "have-not" have a much greater chance to end up as "have-not's" than those who begin life as "have." It's a lovely sentiment that anybody can chart their own future, but it's just not true. Someone who must work at least full time to pay the bills to stay alive beginning in high school (or earlier) has a much smaller chance of ever "having" than someone who is able to focus on nothing but furthering their own career. Exceedingly bright children born in gang neighborhoods stand a really good chance to never discover the extent of what they can do.

I think it's disgusting that you can sit there and argue about helping the "less fortunate" in the US who are leaps and bounds more fortunate than about 80% of the world's population. Why aren't you out there doing something about those people? Aren't you tacitly implying that you're choosing which animals are more equal?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

I think it's disgusting that you can sit there and argue about helping the "less fortunate" in the US who are leaps and bounds more fortunate than about 80% of the world's population. Why aren't you out there doing something about those people? Aren't you tacitly implying that you're choosing which animals are more equal?

Despite the rather vicious tone....

That's not what we're arguing here. This is (to my knowledge) the first time the population of the world outside the U.S. has been brought up. If you want to talk about them, fine, I'll talk about them. But until you state that don't insinuate that you know what I'm doing for them and attack me, or bring up inane ramifications of a discussion that by definition excludes them.

But since you want to talk about them: I'm not implying that I'm choosing which animals are more equal. I'm choosing what the boundaries are of the group I associate with. In point of fact I think you bring up a decent dilemma - why am I concerned about the U.S. when thousands are dying? I do consider what is happening outside the U.S. heinous, and I feel it is consistent to apply the same logic I used for the U.S. to them.

But I don't see anything wrong with defining your "tribe" and caring about it's welfare above others. My issue with your point of view is not that you're doing that, but that I feel you are defining your associative group incorrectly. I see a direct connection between you and poor Americans. I think you can make a good argument for the same connection between you and starving/raped Africans, but I don't necessarily think it is as strong.

 

[GeneralVeers]

It's one thing to say "Life isn't fair - there's a lot of suffering" but it's a completely different thing to say "Life isn't fair - there's a lot of suffering, and I'm not going to do anything about it because my family is protected from that suffering." The first is a statement of fact, the second is one of intent. Let's not confuse the two.

I never said the second part. I simply said it wasn't the government's job to do it. If you wish to give to charity, or if I want to, that is different. Instead you would have the government forcibly take money from people to give to the less fortunate. That is morally wrong.

You, explicitly or implicitly, have agreed to live in a society made up of all of these people. And part of the fundamental make-up of that society is that those who "have-not" have a much greater chance to end up as "have-not's" than those who begin life as "have." It's a lovely sentiment that anybody can chart their own future, but it's just not true. Someone who must work at least full time to pay the bills to stay alive beginning in high school (or earlier) has a much smaller chance of ever "having" than someone who is able to focus on nothing but furthering their own career. Exceedingly bright children born in gang neighborhoods stand a really good chance to never discover the extent of what they can do.

America has been the country where you can make something of yourself with hard work, and ability. That has been true moreso for us than any other country. Much of that was done in the 19th century before any of your beloved social handout programs. Not everyone who is poor will succeed. So what? You're argument is that since there are poor disadvantaged people who will be shut out, the government should take over all private wealth and redistribute it to those who you feel need help.

Why should that matter to you? Because whether you like it or not, you're part of that system. I'm not suggesting you give them "special advantages" (and I would argue that what you're going to identify as doing just that are merely poorly implemented), I'm just suggesting you don't give yourself (or your children) "special advantages". Otherwise we're just setting up a more or less permanent lower-class - something that doesn't really seem all that "American".

You are completely advocating for "special advantage" be it for tax credits, handouts, welfare, social programs or other means of wealth distribution. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality". We have a permanent lower class. Despite the "war on poverty" for the last 40 years, the poverty rate has remained remarkably stable at round 10-15%.

As you said in the first paragraph there - life isn't fair. So why should you expect fair taxation?

Because a government that treats some groups differently than others is not a government of the people and by the people. When you have arbitrary government it is tyranny.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

I never said the second part. I simply said it wasn't the government's job to do it. If you wish to give to charity, or if I want to, that is different. Instead you would have the government forcibly take money from people to give to the less fortunate. That is morally wrong.

You're right about my misrepresentation - sorry to distort what you said.

You and I disagree on the fact that you can make it on hard work and ability. I suppose I'd be willing to go so far as to say that those are necessary but not sufficient conditions. And that you're luck in being born to the right class/family is quite nearly a sufficient and necessary condition.

Not everyone who is poor will succeed. So what? You're argument is that since there are poor disadvantaged people who will be shut out, the government should take over all private wealth and redistribute it to those who you feel need help.

Not all private wealth - that's distorting what I'm saying. But some of it, yes. Mainly because of:

You are completely advocating for "special advantage" be it for tax credits, handouts, welfare, social programs or other means of wealth distribution. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality". We have a permanent lower class. Despite the "war on poverty" for the last 40 years, the poverty rate has remained remarkably stable at round 10-15%.

No, I'm not advocating for a "special advantage". I'm advocating for a lack of social handicap. The idea that if tax credits (to choose only one of your examples) if used correctly would be an "advantage" is ludicrous. Ludicrous at least in the relative sense of supplying some sort of superior positioning. It would be rectifying an unfair disadvantage. I don't understand where this "fair is fair" idea comes from. The world is not that black and white. To mandate "fair is fair: is....unfair. Annnd that no longer sounds like a word to me.

When you look at this you have to consider both relative income (% on the dollar) and absolute income (total amount you have). It really doesn't seem "fair" to tax people the same relative income (let's just say 25%) if that means that someone does not have enough absolute income to feed themselves.


By the way, I don't necessarily disagree that what we're doing isn't working. I'm disagreeing with you on the principle behind those programs.

 

[deleted109597]

That's not what we're arguing here. This is (to my knowledge) the first time the population of the world outside the U.S. has been brought up. If you want to talk about them, fine, I'll talk about them. But until you state that don't insinuate that you know what I'm doing for them and attack me, or bring up inane ramifications of a discussion that by definition excludes them.

You've never brought them up. I admit that I don't know if you are or aren't doing anything about the rest of the world's situation, but I find it disgusting still that you speak about the "poor" in the US as if they're destitute, when in reality, they're still better off than most of the world. I'm just showing you the holes in your logic.

But since you want to talk about them: I'm not implying that I'm choosing which animals are more equal. I'm choosing what the boundaries are of the group I associate with. In point of fact I think you bring up a decent dilemma - why am I concerned about the U.S. when thousands are dying? I do consider what is happening outside the U.S. heinous, and I feel it is consistent to apply the same logic I used for the U.S. to them.

Good. Then you should realize that we can't fix everything. And while I'm not advocating doing nothing, I'm not saying the government should pick and choose for me who to take care of, even in my own country. There are millions of Mexicans who are closer geographically and racially to the area I live in. Why should I care about poor people in New York or Los Angeles?

But I don't see anything wrong with defining your "tribe" and caring about it's welfare above others. My issue with your point of view is not that you're doing that, but that I feel you are defining your associative group incorrectly. I see a direct connection between you and poor Americans. I think you can make a good argument for the same connection between you and starving/raped Africans, but I don't necessarily think it is as strong.

Sorry, but I'm a conservative white male. If I define my "tribe", I'm accused of racism. So I'm not allowed to do so by the current post modern mentalities. That is, unless I include people who I actually wouldn't include in my "tribe", such as poor inner city people of any race. Or those with different cultural/religious beliefs.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

You've never brought them up. I admit that I don't know if you are or aren't doing anything about the rest of the world's situation, but I find it disgusting still that you speak about the "poor" in the US as if they're destitute, when in reality, they're still better off than most of the world. I'm just showing you the holes in your logic.

That's not a hole in my logic - the discussion had nothing to do with them. And to be clear, there are destitute people in the US. That does not preclude anybody else in the world being destitute as well. I find it a sad piece of logic to suggest the person in this thread who is advocating for institutionalized help for those who need it is "disgusting" you.

Good. Then you should realize that we can't fix everything. And while I'm not advocating doing nothing, I'm not saying the government should pick and choose for me who to take care of, even in my own country. There are millions of Mexicans who are closer geographically and racially to the area I live in. Why should I care about poor people in New York or Los Angeles?

Okay, I agree with you about not being able to fix everything. But why shouldn't the government choose who to take care of? We've defined ourselves as a collective unit (a unit that the Mexicans you mention are not a part of), you're part of that collective unit, so you don't have to care about poor people in NY or LA, but you should be expected to help them if they absolutely need help. [Note: just so you don't get any ideas, where you define that line of needing help - destitution vs. not being able to afford college vs. not having to work after 60 - is debatable]

Sorry, but I'm a conservative white male. If I define my "tribe", I'm accused of racism. So I'm not allowed to do so by the current post modern mentalities. That is, unless I include people who I actually wouldn't include in my "tribe", such as poor inner city people of any race. Or those with different cultural/religious beliefs.

This is my point: your "tribe", by choosing to continue to live in the US, is the US. You may choose to have narrower sub groupings, but I don't see the argument that you don't owe any allegiance to everybody in the US. You are actively choosing to be a part of this group. My contention is that the minimum expected of the group as a whole is to make sure there is no destitution, which I believe health care is a part of, and, a particularly American notion, to attempt to ensure the continuance of the "American Dream" - that through hard work and skill someone can make their way (this seems to be what GeneralVeers and I are arguing).

 

[deleted109597]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[UnderwaterDoc]

You and I disagree on the fact that you can make it on hard work and ability. I suppose I'd be willing to go so far as to say that those are necessary but not sufficient conditions. And that you're luck in being born to the right class/family is quite nearly a sufficient and necessary condition.

Not that I even pretend to understand this Health Care "debate", but I completely disagree with this statement.

I'm an immigrant, came here 12 years ago with nothing, worked pretty much since I got here and went to school at the same time, I did that until medical school started. I received no "freebies" ever (unless you count academic scholarships as freebies), and I made it through ok, I am obviously in debt up to my eyeballs but not much more so than my colleagues.

The biggest problem that I find with US-born people, be it from immigrants or not, is the lack of adversity. They are used to having everything handed to them from birth, and when the dookie hits the fan they are like deer caught in the headlights.

I am all for charity, I give some of my meager salary away and I have worked in soup kitchens and the like. What I don't agree with is forced charity, I want to give because I want to and not because I am being stripped monthly by the government.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Not that I even pretend to understand this Health Care "debate", but I completely disagree with this statement.

I'm an immigrant, came here 12 years ago with nothing, worked pretty much since I got here and went to school at the same time, I did that until medical school started. I received no "freebies" ever (unless you count academic scholarships as freebies), and I made it through ok, I am obviously in debt up to my eyeballs but not much more so than my colleagues.

The biggest problem that I find with US-born people, be it from immigrants or not, is the lack of adversity. They are used to having everything handed to them from birth, and when the dookie hits the fan they are like deer caught in the headlights.

I am all for charity, I give some of my meager salary away and I have worked in soup kitchens and the like. What I don't agree with is forced charity, I want to give because I want to and not because I am being stripped monthly by the government.

Same for me and my family. I wasnt born here. My parents didnt speak a lick of english. My dad delivered pizza, fixed acs and drove a cab for a while. He worked his way up and is now a stock broker. My mom worked in retail and went to school and is now a nurse. My parents make good money now. I grew up in the hood.. for real. I know people who have been shot, had guns pulled on me 2x etc..

Dont give me this crap about their being no opportunity in this country. Thats a liberal s**t cop out.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Same for me and my family. I wasnt born here. My parents didnt speak a lick of english. My dad delivered pizza, fixed acs and drove a cab for a while. He worked his way up and is now a stock broker. My mom worked in retail and went to school and is now a nurse. My parents make good money now. I grew up in the hood.. for real. I know people who have been shot, had guns pulled on me 2x etc..

Dont give me this crap about their being no opportunity in this country. Thats a liberal s**t cop out.

It comes down to your view of government. I believe that government is there to give you a hand-UP not a hand-OUT. It should make sure you are safe from crime, safe from foreign invaders, and promote the easy flow of goods and services. The Libs believe that government should be activist in correcting past social inequities. To do that it's perfectly fine to steal from one person to give to another. I wouldn't have a problem with taxes if they were going to fund the operation of the government for the above things I've mentioned. It becomes stealing when you take my money in order to give free stuff to others who didn't necessarily earn it.

This healthcare bill does not provide "insurance" to people. What it will do is put approximately 30 million people on Medicaid, which is just a welfare program.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[8654Marine]

Hand up, not a hand out.

Amen.

Don't give fish, teach to fish.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

1. Hand-up not a hand-out...it seems like we're disagreeing on the idea that there are current social inequities. Because if I have to reduce my stance to something, I think that's it. That there are for some people current social inequities and that's why some (but by no means all) of the hand-outs you're talking about seem to me to be hand-ups (to borrow your phrase). Let's ignore whether there actually are current social inequities: imagine for a moment that I had some magic evidence that would make you say "yep, there are current social inequities". Would that do anything for you?

2. For the couple of you who posted that there are opportunities in this country - I'm happy for you and your families. It certainly sounds like you have some of the happiness that people want here. I was born here. I'm not going to pretend I know what your life was like, but my family was very, very poor. I remember food stamps. I remember what government cheese tastes like. I'm not sure that my neighborhood was overly violent, but my home certainly was. The point is, I got out of that (somehow) but I know plenty of people who didn't. And it's not because they didn't try hard, and it's not because they didn't have any skills. Yes, there are opportunities - more than a lot of places in the world [read: I'm not suggesting that people outside of the US do not have it rougher]. But there are those in the US who can't take advantage of those opportunities. So don't give me anecdotes about your life and how you/your family made it and expect that to be the end of the discussion because I have anecdotes of my own. In both cases the plural of anecdote is not data.

Gah, I was going to continue this, but I just don't have it in me, at least tonight. Having said that I actually appreciate the (mostly civil) debate. Part of the problem for me is that every time I find myself talking about this, I find it very enticing to cede most of my points. Especially to GeneralVeers who sounds (to make a generalization) libertarian - no offense intended if you're not.

Since I lost the seed a bit ago and someone brought it up, I'm not a fan of Obamacare. Don't get me wrong there: when I'm talking about this stuff I absolutely don't mean it to comment on Obamacare. I'm talking in generalities.

 

[ManBroDude]

Just heard from a nurse that WA and OR have implemented a mandatory $5 copay at triage for people with Medicaid if the doc deems the visit a non-emergency. How I wish we had this here....

 

[GeneralVeers]

Just heard from a nurse that WA and OR have implemented a mandatory $5 copay at triage for people with Medicaid if the doc deems the visit a non-emergency. How I wish we had this here....

It still depends on your hospital. Mine for example will not allow us to do an MSE and kick people out. Something about "customer service" for people who aren't customers and aren't paying.

The other thing to consider is you are still liable if you kick them out. Doing an MSE gives you no protection.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Just heard from a nurse that WA and OR have implemented a mandatory $5 copay at triage for people with Medicaid if the doc deems the visit a non-emergency. How I wish we had this here....

WOuld you feel this way if you could see that patient and bill a level 4? Or even better repair the lac /drain the I&D and get $200 for a 10 minute visit?

It the no pays that are a total killer. 100% of the liability but not just NO PAY.. it costs me money to bill and code the chart and per CMS guidelines I cant even CHOOSE not to do this.

 

[deleted65604]

For the couple of you who posted that there are opportunities in this country - I'm happy for you and your families. It certainly sounds like you have some of the happiness that people want here. I was born here. I'm not going to pretend I know what your life was like, but my family was very, very poor. I remember food stamps. I remember what government cheese tastes like. I'm not sure that my neighborhood was overly violent, but my home certainly was. The point is, I got out of that (somehow) but I know plenty of people who didn't. And it's not because they didn't try hard, and it's not because they didn't have any skills. Yes, there are opportunities - more than a lot of places in the world [read: I'm not suggesting that people outside of the US do not have it rougher]. But there are those in the US who can't take advantage of those opportunities. So don't give me anecdotes about your life and how you/your family made it and expect that to be the end of the discussion because I have anecdotes of my own. In both cases the plural of anecdote is not data.

So, you are a success story of the "American Dream" that you want to downplay, right?

 

[WilcoWorld]

So, you are a success story of the "American Dream" that you want to downplay, right?

I must say that these success stories are quite impressive, but let's also recognize our spectrum bias here: we wont see any posts from the kid with a 150 IQ who got a 20 year prison sentence for selling weed for his uncle at the age of 18 (which he was doing industriously and with a lot of hard work), because he wont be reading SDN.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I must say that these success stories are quite impressive, but let's also recognize our spectrum bias here: we wont see any posts from the kid with a 150 IQ who got a 20 year prison sentence for selling weed for his uncle at the age of 18 (which he was doing industriously and with a lot of hard work), because he wont be reading SDN.

That's an exception, and our drug policy definitely needs to be re-tooled.

I reject the notion that there are people who CANNOT take advantage of our system and better themselves. Even if it's getting a job, moving off of welfare/food stamps and making a modest salary. Every day I see a procession of people through the ER who WILL NOT improve their own situation. They blame everyone else but don't take responsibility for their own bad choices, and gladly take handouts for doing nothing.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

So, you are a success story of the "American Dream" that you want to downplay, right?

.......well, yes. I suppose you have me in the grips of irony there. I got lucky. And I mean lucky in the random chance way, not in a "I'm very fortunate" way. But the real point is the people I knew who weren't so lucky.

That's an exception, and our drug policy definitely needs to be re-tooled.

I reject the notion that there are people who CANNOT take advantage of our system and better themselves. Even if it's getting a job, moving off of welfare/food stamps and making a modest salary. Every day I see a procession of people through the ER who WILL NOT improve their own situation. They blame everyone else but don't take responsibility for their own bad choices, and gladly take handouts for doing nothing.

It doesn't seem like you intend "taking advantage" to convey something bad, but correct me if I'm wrong there. I'm absolutely with you - there are people who not only do nothing to help themselves, but also take a perverse pride in wallowing with the help of our system. But there are also people I know that would have (in all likelihood) died without some sort of safety net that


....and I just got it. You're going to say that it's not up to us to provide the safety net. That is to say, if people want to provide it, then fine, but we should be leaving individuals free to make their own decisions about helping others even if we don't like the decisions. If we live in a country of jerks, then people will probably die. We likely don't, but that's a possibility and I shouldn't impede what would be the will of the people.

Hmmm.....I have to get back to work. But something to think about.

 

[GeneralVeers]

If[/I] we live in a country of jerks, then people will probably die. We likely don't, but that's a possibility and I shouldn't impede what would be the will of the people.

Hmmm.....I have to get back to work. But something to think about.

I'm glad you finally got my point of view

History is on my side. America went from 1783 to the 1930's without a real saftey net. People didn't die in the street and Americans were some of the most charitable in the world. I think if we got rid of the social welfare programs we'd probably go back to being a generous caring society, and it would be better for everyone.

 

[wobit]

Though the American Dream of hard work is alive and well, it seems that it's more and more something that Hollywood and the pundits sell us. We have less social mobility than we did in decades past and less than they do in Europe.

http://www.economist.com/node/15908469

If this weren't true I'd have more sympathy for the idea that we didn't need to provide an equal footing for children of unsuccessful parents. Maybe it's a problem with the way we communicate industry or entrepreneurship, or maybe it's better science in schools, or maybe some solution that I don't know about but we are headed in the wrong direction for "good hard work" to be an effective path.

 

[GeneralVeers]

If this weren't true I'd have more sympathy for the idea that we didn't need to provide an equal footing for children of unsuccessful parents. Maybe it's a problem with the way we communicate industry or entrepreneurship, or maybe it's better science in schools, or maybe some solution that I don't know about but we are headed in the wrong direction for "good hard work" to be an effective path.

You used a code word again. Equal. The problem with trying to provide an "equal footing" is that not everyone has the same ability, talent, intelligence. No matter how hard you try, and how many resources you give, not everyone will be equal or have an "equal footing".

Therefore, given that fact, the government should apply the law equally to everyone, and let those who are going to excel do so. No matter what you do, there will always be failures in society.

I would submit to you that the welfare state is responsible for the decrease in social mobility. It has led to apathy, poor work ethic, and higher taxes on business which leads to less hiring and fewer opportunities for small business.

 

[medicsb]

I'm glad you finally got my point of view

History is on my side. America went from 1783 to the 1930's without a real saftey net. People didn't die in the street and Americans were some of the most charitable in the world. I think if we got rid of the social welfare programs we'd probably go back to being a generous caring society, and it would be better for everyone.

I guess America just had a funny way of showing its charity then.

 

[SepulvedaMD]

I reject the notion that there are people who CANNOT take advantage of our system and better themselves. Even if it's getting a job, moving off of welfare/food stamps and making a modest salary. Every day I see a procession of people through the ER who WILL NOT improve their own situation. They blame everyone else but don't take responsibility for their own bad choices, and gladly take handouts for doing nothing.

I see these folks all the time, and it's quite sad. Especially because it taints two whole perception of some of these programs. What's worse is that some people who could really use the help cannot get certain benefits. Contrary to popular belief, it's not always easy to access the safety net.

Therefore, given that fact, the government should apply the law equally to everyone, and let those who are going to excel do so. No matter what you do, there will always be failures in society.

I would submit to you that the welfare state is responsible for the decrease in social mobility. It has led to apathy, poor work ethic, and higher taxes on business which leads to less hiring and fewer opportunities for small business.

This is true, despite giving all children equal opportunity the cream will rise. Some don't have the brains, others the will. That's all fine, but it's the intent and commitment to have a more level playing field.

I'm not so sure that 1783 to 1930 is the best period for America. We could debate it, but I think scholars would cite the time from the New Deal to the 1960s, when we made completion of high school mandatory and started investing in college education.

 

[GeneralVeers]

This is true, despite giving all children equal opportunity the cream will rise. Some don't have the brains, others the will. That's all fine, but it's the intent and commitment to have a more level playing field.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to confiscate private wealth by force in order to redistribute it, knowing that it won't achieve the ends you want but it's okay as long as you mean well?

I'm not so sure that 1783 to 1930 is the best period for America. We could debate it, but I think scholars would cite the time from the New Deal to the 1960s, when we made completion of high school mandatory and started investing in college education.

[/QUOTE]

1783 to 1930 had unparalleled industrial growth and rapid improvement in standard of living for the average person. Perhaps the most drastic improvement in the history of the world.

 

[deleted65604]

1783 to 1930 had unparalleled industrial growth and rapid improvement in standard of living for the average person. Perhaps the most drastic improvement in the history of the world.

Very true. Throughout history, the people who were considered rich were those that weren't hungry, who had warm clothes, and a clean, warm, dry place to sleep consistently, and who were unlikely to be killed by intruders at night. Fast forward a few decades, and we are defining rich as a nice car, in a nice part of town, with cool vacations, and fun toys to play with. The "99%" look at the rich, and say, that isn't fair, they are consuming too many resources. The "99%" who want redistribution of wealth are chasing the false dream that if they just had more stuff, they will have more happiness, not realizing that "stuff" doesn't lead to happiness. The constitution of our country (unlike European countries) doesn't promise happiness, only the freedom to pursue it.

The false premise of the left is that wealth is a zero-sum game, where if I consume too many resources, you can't consume as many. Quite the opposite is true. The remodels on my house employee a hard working entrepreneur that would have been idle. My meal at a fancy restaurant employees cooks, waitresses, busboys, etc. My new car gives commission to a salesman that puts food on his table.

At some point, you should worry about the loss of freedom on the part of the wealthy just as much as we worry about the loss of freedom by the poor. Both lead to misery, decreased productivity, and ultimately to a degeneration of society.

 

[deleted65604]

.......well, yes. I suppose you have me in the grips of irony there. I got lucky. And I mean lucky in the random chance way, not in a "I'm very fortunate" way. But the real point is the people I knew who weren't so lucky

Hmmm.....I have to get back to work. But something to think about.

Thanks for admitting the irony. I bet you would love the book "Outliers". It was a fascinating read, and really had me captivated until it started drawing conclusions about the data. Namely, it argued that we should level the playing field so that there could be thousands of wildly successful people like Bill Gates, not just one.

At that point, I believe they made a logical fallacy, comparing the (failed) economic model socialism to accomplishments in life, not just economics. They show the series of random events (there are dozens) that it takes to produce somebody wildly successful, for example, professional hockey players. It was good to teach me humility about my accomplishments, and empathy for the lack of accomplishments of some of my peers. However, unsaid explicitly in the book is the belief that wild success is somehow evil, and a detriment to society.

This belief is wildly held in the occupy movement, who fail to see the irony in them complaining about evil corporations, and the selfish rich as they tweet each other on their iphones, using the internet, wear Nike shoes, and distribute literature printed at Kinko's, and spout obscenities on Sony sound equipment.

 

[SepulvedaMD]

The false premise of the left is that wealth is a zero-sum game, where if I consume too many resources, you can't consume as many. Quite the opposite is true. The remodels on my house employee a hard working entrepreneur that would have been idle. My meal at a fancy restaurant employees cooks, waitresses, busboys, etc. My new car gives commission to a salesman that puts food on his table.

And the false premise of the right is that if we only let the highest keep their wealth, they in their benevolent ways, will create industry, jobs, and make the economy boom. It has been tried again and again over the last 30 years and it use doesn't work. People like to keep their money, which is fine because they have that right, but don't call it an plan for economic growth. Just come out and say that it's wrong to redistribute, not that these are the "job creators". Because that's not true.

At some point, you should worry about the loss of freedom on the part of the wealthy just as much as we worry about the loss of freedom by the poor. Both lead to misery, decreased productivity, and ultimately to a degeneration of society.

This is true. There must be balance between funding programs to allow people to move up in SES, but no so much as to significantly inhibit liberty (I assume you mean with regard to wealth). People have to feel that there is a benefit to working hard and earning wealth, and that the government won't take it all. I'm cool with that, but what does that balance look like? Dunno
BTW, it is implicit in the social contract that your tax dollars may not be spent in ways you intended, e.g. wars, private military, etc. That is why we have the democratic process. If you don't like things, vote (which I'm sure you do).

 

[deleted65604]

And the false premise of the right is that if we only let the highest keep their wealth, they in their benevolent ways, will create industry, jobs, and make the economy boom. It has been tried again and again over the last 30 years and it use doesn't work. People like to keep their money, which is fine because they have that right, but don't call it an plan for economic growth. Just come out and say that it's wrong to redistribute, not that these are the "job creators". Because that's not true.

Did the economy boom under Carter or Reagan?

My point wasn't an attempt at an economic recovery plan. It was an observation that my wealth doesn't hurt other people, on a micro-economic level.

Do you believe the Laffert Curve is true? Please support your opinion one way or another.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Just come out and say that it's wrong to redistribute, not that these are the "job creators". Because that's not true.

Never heard of a poor person hiring someone.

 

[GeneralVeers]

And the false premise of the right is that if we only let the highest keep their wealth, they in their benevolent ways, will create industry, jobs, and make the economy boom. It has been tried again and again over the last 30 years and it use doesn't work. People like to keep their money, which is fine because they have that right, but don't call it an plan for economic growth. Just come out and say that it's wrong to redistribute, not that these are the "job creators". Because that's not true.

It does work, just not in the way you expect. Capitalism produces an upward trajectory of wealth and productivity, but it's not linear. The typical cycle is a long boom, followed by a short bust, followed by a long boom. Liberals always interpret the bust portion as a failure of capitalism, when in fact it's a normal part of the cycle, and is necessary to continue the next boom. The bust (like we're in now) is supposed to provide creative destruction by getting rid of the companies that are inefficient or poorly managed in order to make way for better companies. Unfortunately government tries to prevent these busts (which is impossible) then puts in regulations to try to get us back into boom times without really understanding the cyclical nature of it. The end result is typically a prolonging of the bust period (like we're in now) as labor, capital, and talent is misallocated to non-competitive industries.

This is true. There must be balance between funding programs to allow people to move up in SES, but no so much as to significantly inhibit liberty (I assume you mean with regard to wealth). People have to feel that there is a benefit to working hard and earning wealth, and that the government won't take it all. I'm cool with that, but what does that balance look like? Dunno
BTW, it is implicit in the social contract that your tax dollars may not be spent in ways you intended, e.g. wars, private military, etc. That is why we have the democratic process. If you don't like things, vote (which I'm sure you do).

That only works when the majority have a stake in not having their wealth squandered by the government. We are at the 50% tipping point whereby more people rely on government than pay into it. Right now most people get free goodies and expect ever more free goodies as long as it's paid for by someone else.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Did the economy boom under Carter or Reagan?

I think it boomed under Clinton.

However, I think that Presidents' affect on the economy is greatly overestimated.

 

[deleted65604]

I think it boomed under Clinton.

However, I think that Presidents' affect on the economy is greatly overestimated.

You are right... Clinton had a Republican Congress.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Clinton's most successful period of his presidency was when he and Newt (who I am not a fan of) worked together.

 

[SepulvedaMD]

I think it boomed under Clinton.

However, I think that Presidents' affect on the economy is greatly overestimated.

This is probably true in almost all cases.

It does work, just not in the way you expect. Capitalism produces an upward trajectory of wealth and productivity, but it's not linear. The typical cycle is a long boom, followed by a short bust, followed by a long boom. Liberals always interpret the bust portion as a failure of capitalism, when in fact it's a normal part of the cycle, and is necessary to continue the next boom. The bust (like we're in now) is supposed to provide creative destruction by getting rid of the companies that are inefficient or poorly managed in order to make way for better companies. Unfortunately government tries to prevent these busts (which is impossible) then puts in regulations to try to get us back into boom times without really understanding the cyclical nature of it. The end result is typically a prolonging of the bust period (like we're in now) as labor, capital, and talent is misallocated to non-competitive industries.

I agree that capitalism exists as a cyclical phenomenon. The question is, is it wise as a nation to allow its economy to have wild fluctuations every so many years? Are the "high highs" worth the "low lows"? Also, if we let the market have these periods of boom and bust, doesn't it make sense to have a reasonable safety net, like unemployment and non-employer based healthcare? So people are freer to pursue endeavors without worry of having the family's healthcare tied to an employer?

Never heard of a poor person hiring someone.

Hyperbole, but that wasn't my point. My point was not to try and justify a tax cut as a job creating measure, when the actual goal is to allow wealthy americans to keep their money.

Did the economy boom under Carter or Reagan?

Clinton v. Bush

My point wasn't an attempt at an economic recovery plan. It was an observation that my wealth doesn't hurt other people, on a micro-economic level.

And in this regard you are absolutely correct. In fact, the economy needs you to have disposable income to fuel various industries.

Do you believe the Laffert Curve is true? Please support your opinion one way or another.

I like the theoretical concept of the laffer curve. It seems somewhat intuitive that at some taxation rate, people will be more interested in keeping their capital out of the system and hidden from taxation. Conversely, at lower rates there won't be enough revenue. Thus, there must be some sweet spot where the economical effects and arithmetic effects meet. The question is and continues to be, are we to the right of the curve or not? I would say no

 

[SepulvedaMD]

You are right... Clinton had a Republican Congress.

So did W.

 

[bravotwozero]

Did the economy boom under Carter or Reagan?

Reagan raised taxes. A lot. So that example is neither here nor there.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I agree that capitalism exists as a cyclical phenomenon. The question is, is it wise as a nation to allow its economy to have wild fluctuations every so many years? Are the "high highs" worth the "low lows"?

I think it could be argued that this recent set of highs and lows were artificially high and low given the various manipulations.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I agree that capitalism exists as a cyclical phenomenon. The question is, is it wise as a nation to allow its economy to have wild fluctuations every so many years? Are the "high highs" worth the "low lows"? Also, if we let the market have these periods of boom and bust, doesn't it make sense to have a reasonable safety net, like unemployment and non-employer based healthcare? So people are freer to pursue endeavors without worry of having the family's healthcare tied to an employer?

Is it wise to "allow"? You come from the supposition that we can do something about the cycles without negatively effecting growth. Many Progressives have tried over the years...and failed to do that. I don't think the fluctuations are harmful as a whole, and if people took the steps to save during good times and not pretend that it would be forever, they would be fine during the short periods of bust.

Hyperbole, but that wasn't my point. My point was not to try and justify a tax cut as a job creating measure, when the actual goal is to allow wealthy americans to keep their money.

Why is a wealthy American any less entitled to keep their own property than a poor person? Americans are Americans and we should all keep what we earn, and what we own.

Clinton v. Bush

Any Conservative who defends Bush is a lunatic. In some respects Clinton was more fiscally hawkish than Bush especially after the Republicans took the House.

And in this regard you are absolutely correct. In fact, the economy needs you to have disposable income to fuel various industries.

Which is why the Laffer Curve is correct. The more money the government takes, the less there is to fuel the economy. Money that goes to the government is effectively "destroyed" as it doesn't typically spur economic growth, productivity, competition or innovation.

I like the theoretical concept of the laffer curve. It seems somewhat intuitive that at some taxation rate, people will be more interested in keeping their capital out of the system and hidden from taxation. Conversely, at lower rates there won't be enough revenue. Thus, there must be some sweet spot where the economical effects and arithmetic effects meet. The question is and continues to be, are we to the right of the curve or not? I would say no

What is your evidence that we are not? We shall see if the Bush tax cuts expire. My prediction is a stock market "correction" followed by more economic stagnation and high unemployment as businesses, most of whom file using personal income tax rates. If I'm a business and you sock me with an extra 5% taxes, I probably am not going to hire.

 

[Tiger26]

Does anyone else notice the irony in the American Left that Darwinism is the predominant teaching in education regarding human existence, yet their entire economic agenda is the complete opposite--a central body (deity) picking and choosing who wins and looses with artificial manipulations of the world.

For what it's worth I believe in near-total fiscal Darwinism. I had to join the Army to pay for school and then took a substantial risk in terms of both time and further loans to make things happen.

 

[wobit]

... The problem with trying to provide an "equal footing" is that not everyone has the same ability, talent, intelligence. No matter how hard you try, and how many resources you give, not everyone will be equal or have an "equal footing".

The idea is to provide more similar "footing" in terms of education and health, so that the differences in ability, talent and intelligence can really shine. If a kid is brilliant and industrious but is using all of that raw material to get an afterschool job to help his mom pay the electric bill, or is brilliant and industrious but doesn't have access to basic dental care and ends up with a gnarly smile, that's the part of the uneven playing field that I want evened out a bit.

I would submit to you that the welfare state is responsible for the decrease in social mobility. It has led to apathy, poor work ethic, and higher taxes on business which leads to less hiring and fewer opportunities for small business.

This wouldn't explain why there is currently greater social mobility in Europe than in the US.

 

[wobit]

This thread is so intriguing because the "liberal" viewpoints are all med students and perhaps a resident or 2. The more "conservative" viewpoint are the attendings. Just something I am sure others noted that I find highly amusing.

My real world experience is actually quite relevant. I worked as a veterinary nurse for 3 years in a teaching veterinary hospital, the kind that staffs a DVM 24 hours and has fresh-minted docs training in veterinary residencies for surgery, ophtho, derm, etc. 2 of those years I worked in the department delivering mostly primary and urgent care, and 1 year I worked the overnight shift staffing the ICU and seeing the middle of the night emergencies. This is in a large, mostly not wealthy city.

Ten years ago, we only very rarely saw a pet with insurance. Nearly every single case was paid for out-of-pocket, sometimes with payment plans. Every shift I had difficult conversations with owners about how they their financial situation would limit the extent of care. Many many times an owner would carry in a dog hit by a car or mauled by another dog, and we couldn't even provide analgesia until we had a deposit. We would negotiate elective surgeries (total knees, cataract) while costing out the various analgesia plans for the owner to mull over. We would try empiric treatment to avoid expensive echocardiograms or MRIs. We would see owners skip important preventive care because, what nonmedical person thinks about epidemiology?

That experience of having the finances loom larger than the medicine in every interaction was a large factor in driving me into human medicine. It was grueling and heartless and it made you resent the wealthy clients coming in for cesarean deliveries of breeds that can't have vaginal deliveries any longer, while other animal died of treatable conditions. Its not that I think we should never consider finances, it's that for such complex and inherently non-transparent issues there needs to be a little more experience, education, and wider view going into it or else it's a relentless misery for the front line personnel delivering the care AND for the blindsided individual trying to learn all about medical finances at 2:15am while holding their mewling dog.

I agree that EMTALA is ridiculous, as long as it is in place we are inexorably headed to wrack and ruin ... until we find a way to have some reimbursement for all this stabilizing care. We either need to go to the veterinary model (no care until deposit paid) or have universal care. Guess which I'm in favor of. I'm all for the libertarian experiment of allowing people to choose to not have insurance and then be turned away from EDs. I cannot imagine it would last long, we'd have some kind of universal coverage instituted quickly.

As far as how it's done, I honestly don't care about the constitutionality. Yes, gasp and clutch your pearls. The Founding Fathers apparently didn't think the thing would last this long in the first place.

 

[EctopicFetus]

My real world experience is actually quite relevant. I worked as a veterinary nurse for 3 years in a teaching veterinary hospital, the kind that staffs a DVM 24 hours and has fresh-minted docs training in veterinary residencies for surgery, ophtho, derm, etc. 2 of those years I worked in the department delivering mostly primary and urgent care, and 1 year I worked the overnight shift staffing the ICU and seeing the middle of the night emergencies. This is in a large, mostly not wealthy city.

Ten years ago, we only very rarely saw a pet with insurance. Nearly every single case was paid for out-of-pocket, sometimes with payment plans. Every shift I had difficult conversations with owners about how they their financial situation would limit the extent of care. Many many times an owner would carry in a dog hit by a car or mauled by another dog, and we couldn't even provide analgesia until we had a deposit. We would negotiate elective surgeries (total knees, cataract) while costing out the various analgesia plans for the owner to mull over. We would try empiric treatment to avoid expensive echocardiograms or MRIs. We would see owners skip important preventive care because, what nonmedical person thinks about epidemiology?

That experience of having the finances loom larger than the medicine in every interaction was a large factor in driving me into human medicine. It was grueling and heartless and it made you resent the wealthy clients coming in for cesarean deliveries of breeds that can't have vaginal deliveries any longer, while other animal died of treatable conditions. Its not that I think we should never consider finances, it's that for such complex and inherently non-transparent issues there needs to be a little more experience, education, and wider view going into it or else it's a relentless misery for the front line personnel delivering the care AND for the blindsided individual trying to learn all about medical finances at 2:15am while holding their mewling dog.

I agree that EMTALA is ridiculous, as long as it is in place we are inexorably headed to wrack and ruin ... until we find a way to have some reimbursement for all this stabilizing care. We either need to go to the veterinary model (no care until deposit paid) or have universal care. Guess which I'm in favor of. I'm all for the libertarian experiment of allowing people to choose to not have insurance and then be turned away from EDs. I cannot imagine it would last long, we'd have some kind of universal coverage instituted quickly.

As far as how it's done, I honestly don't care about the constitutionality. Yes, gasp and clutch your pearls. The Founding Fathers apparently didn't think the thing would last this long in the first place.

Yawn... comparing caring for dog (nearly all of which show the owner has some expendable income) to the care of humans isnt even remotely the same.

There are 2 issues which are separate. 1) EMTALA 2) me paying even more in taxes to pay for others getting health insurance..

No thanks. If you so wish do your part. Take 2 families under your wing and pay for their health insurance. I would commend you for this action. It is easy to spend others money but things are quite different when the money is your own.

 

[8654Marine]

...
This wouldn't explain why there is currently greater social mobility in Europe than in the US.

I'm assuming you're referring to this recent study from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that many folks are citing: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

As for your assertion, I think it needs to be clarified.

That article (see Fig 5.1 as well) shows that Great Britain & Italy are slightly worse that the US. In fact, the article states that Canada, Aust, and northern Europe tend to be more mobile and that the UK, Italy, US, and France share the bottom.

I haven't studied the methodology, but I believe it's a meta-analysis from data published 2005 and 2006.

That article seems to indicate that education plays an important part in mobility.

Thus, it's not so simple, i.e. US vs Europe.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Lastly, I would say simply EMTALA is not ridiculous. Some of the extent the hospitals and their legal teams make us go through are ridiculous. I know if I were in a car accident and my wallet was lost in my car I wouldnt want to wait to prove I would pay for meds before someone gave me some pain meds.

 

[WilcoWorld]

The Founding Fathers apparently didn't think the thing would last this long in the first place.

Nor did they have any idea what % of GDP healthcare could cost nor how much bankruptcy it could cause.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[8654Marine]

Heck, we should have universal housing, burial insurance, food, water, education, money, retirement, life insurance, and anything else that folks deem a right.

And someone else to pay for it. Cause I'm oppressed.

 

[SepulvedaMD]

I think it could be argued that this recent set of highs and lows were artificially high and low given the various manipulations.

Artificial how? It actually happened, an lots of people lost a lot of money via markets or job loss.

Is it wise to "allow"? You come from the supposition that we can do something about the cycles without negatively effecting growth. Many Progressives have tried over the years...and failed to do that. I don't think the fluctuations are harmful as a whole, and if people took the steps to save during good times and not pretend that it would be forever, they would be fine during the short periods of bust.

Failed how and when? Though I do wish people were better about saving for lean years.

Why is a wealthy American any less entitled to keep their own property than a poor person? Americans are Americans and we should all keep what we earn, and what we own.

Agree. My comment was in reference to policy makers when they are trying to sell tax cuts to the public. It is totally acceptable to be self-interested and try to keep as much of your own money as you can, especially from the government. I get it from wealthy folks, they can be seen as "golden geese", but I will never understand how poor people can vote this way (while accepting whatever hand up/out is available).

What is your evidence that we are not? We shall see if the Bush tax cuts expire. My prediction is a stock market "correction" followed by more economic stagnation and high unemployment as businesses, most of whom file using personal income tax rates. If I'm a business and you sock me with an extra 5% taxes, I probably am not going to hire.

This is part of the problem with the curve, there is little if any agreement about its composition (midline v right shifted). Originally, it was supposed to be 70%, now were at ~35% for the top. Are we saying it's now a leftward curve. Conservatives will want to race to the bottom, while liberals will go the other way (though nobody will suggest even going back to 70%)

That article seems to indicate that education plays an important part in mobility.

Thus, it's not so simple, i.e. US vs Europe.

Higher education is heavily state subsidized in the UK. So maybe that has an effect?

Heck, we should have universal housing, burial insurance, food, water, education, money, retirement, life insurance, and anything else that folks deem a right.

And someone else to pay for it. Cause I'm oppressed.

Healthcare is different. It's one of the few markets that does not obey supply and demand economics. If you don't buy in and I do, the price goes up despite lower demand. If you don't buy a house, and I do the price is unchanged. If we both decide not to, the price will go down for next guy because the demand has decreased.

We do have universal retirement, it's far from perfect but it's there.

Also, burial insurance is a bad analogy because the cost of a burial is rather predictable, constant, and a one time cost. As opposed to the cost of health care, e.g. one may need to have a nail put in for a femur fracture v another who develops a cancer with a long but treatable course. It's not apples to apples.

BTW, apparently the framers weren't too concerned about passing mandates requiring citizens to enter a market against their will:
Militia Act of 1792
"...And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years ...enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges..."