Neo-Libs on their last legs

[newnewthing]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

From a purely efficient POV the government (aka taxpayers) should pay for whatever baseline of medical care maximizes the net taxpaying capabilitiy of its citizens. Under this policy Medicare (socialized medicine for the elderly) wouldn't exist.

Soylent Green just suffers from bad press.

[MarkL]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

As a former Marine reservist, who was never mobilized,
And as a Ph.D. in a field having nothing whatsoever to do with economics or foreign policy, yet who frequently offers opinions on same,

Great post! Lol!

[raja]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

I lean more toward the thinking that society owes me nothing and it's up to me to make my way through this life as best I can. I wish you felt the same way rather than whining about your right to have someone else protect you in your neighborhood and your right to have someone else educate you and your right to have someone else provide your health insurance. Man up or move to Cuba. I hear they have everything you're whining for.

Think about it, rjwjr . . . you are dependent on society for so many things that you don't provide for yourself:

* Garbage collection
* Road maintenance
* Police protection
* Fire protection
* Growing food
* Educating your children
* Etc, etc.

What kind of a world would you live in if you were truly independent? Pretty rough, I imagine.

If the society is not set up to take care of it's members, then the services you've come to rely on may not be as readily available and your quality of life might decline.

So you don't even have to care if other people are poor and suffering . . . think of it from a totally selfish perspective. Like it or not, you are part of the big human family . . . let me give you a hug, big fella ;)

[raja]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Tooth loss is the result of a poor diet, not the lack of health care. Prior to the introduction of processed foods and sugar, humans did not experience tooth decay. The dental industry is completely unnecessary. Ignorance is also unnecessary. Excellent information is available on this subject if you know where to look for it. Inform yourself. :cool:

http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm

I don't have time to get into this discussion (although it is tempting), but just a fact check . . . .

Dr. Price's research found that average of one cavity per three adults in "primitive" tribes, so it would be incorrect to say that they "did not experience tooth decay".

But your point is still valid . . . .
The need for orthodontics and dentistry would be vastly reduced if people ate a "natural" diet.
Unfortunately, virtually no one knows this or believes it, so don't expect any sudden changes. Perhaps the coming poverty in the US will lead people to rely on themselves for health care and provide the motivation to learn and change . . . but I'm not holding my breath.

[ASH]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

From a purely efficient POV the government (aka taxpayers) should pay for whatever baseline of medical care maximizes the net taxpaying capabilitiy of its citizens. Under this policy Medicare (socialized medicine for the elderly) wouldn't exist.

Soylent Green just suffers from bad press.

I pitched the strictly utilitarian "let granny freeze" angle here about a year ago, to something less than universal acclaim. Well, that argument lacks empathy, although I stand behind my statement that if we can't agree upon subjective values, there is some merit to restricting the goals of policy to strictly practical calculations. That said, I think it's reasonable that empathy trump a cost/benefit analysis so long as we're a rich society. The problem is that we're not actually as rich as we think, once you take the national credit card away. We'll be making some interesting compromises when/if we're no longer able to close the budget gap with credit.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Always enjoy your post whether marine or PHD ...

I find it fascinating that often military types who depended heavily on the most communal socialized culture in the military world reject such when in the non-military world. Why?

[ASH]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Always enjoy your post whether marine or PHD ...

I find it fascinating that often military types who depended heavily on the most communal socialized culture in the military world reject such when in the non-military world. Why?

Thanks!

In all seriousness, I think the most likely reason military types seem to dislike "socialism" despite the military being a more tightly integrated and communal culture than the civilian world, is that obligations between the individual and the communal organization flow in both directions in the military. I think military types are likely to make a distinction between benefits provided by an institution as compensation for work performed for that institution (earned benefits), as distinct from benefits provided by an institution without any obligation of the individual who receives those benefits (entitlements).

Marines are required to follow the lawful orders of their superiors quickly and with enthusiasm. There is no comparison between a military working environment and a civilian office. The obligations of a Marine to our Corps and country are explicitly spelled out in a contract (one of my favorite jokes is that USMC stands for "U Signed Motherf*cking Contract"), and there is always a representative of the organization -- a superior -- there to remind you of what those obligations are. As I have noted elsewhere, being a Marine is pretty bad-ass, but it is an awful lot of work for very little pay. However, the benefits are actually pretty good -- medical care, housing, and for career Marines, retirement at half pay. Not only that, but some services provided by the military community -- such as access to the chow hall -- are explicitly deducted from a Marine's pay in certain circumstances. Since Marines aren't paid much in terms of salary to begin with, they become experts at knowing where their pay is going -- especially when some of it is paying for services that are organized by the Corps. All this combines to make a Marine associate his pay and benefits very strongly with the work he performs. Since the organization constantly reminds a Marine of his obligations to the Corps, it isn't surprising that he makes the connection to the organization's obligations to him.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Think about it, rjwjr . . . you are dependent on society for so many things that you don't provide for yourself:

* Garbage collection
* Road maintenance
* Police protection
* Fire protection
* Growing food
* Educating your children
* Etc, etc.

What kind of a world would you live in if you were truly independent? Pretty rough, I imagine.

Not all things that we rely on others for should be done by government and not all things that should be done by government should be done by the federal government.

If the society is not set up to take care of it's members, then the services you've come to rely on may not be as readily available and your quality of life might decline.

So you don't even have to care if other people are poor and suffering . . . think of it from a totally selfish perspective. Like it or not, you are part of the big human family . . . let me give you a hug, big fella ;)

Please don't confuse big U.S. federal government programs with compassion.

[raja]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Not all things that we rely on others for should be done by government and not all things that should be done by government should be done by the federal government.



Please don't confuse big U.S. federal government programs with compassion.

What did I say that led you to respond as you did?

I did not use the word "government" in my post . . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

In theory perhaps, and even in the possible examples of some other nations or more limited health care programs the U.S. has now, such as for veterans and seniors.

However, here and now, in these United States, any massive new program, no matter how constituted, will be formulated as or soon become another example of regulatory and government capture by some powerful interests, leading to (1) less service, (2) higher taxes, (3) more regulations and (4) less personal liberty.

TPC,

I don't disagree that the track record of major government programs is not good.

However, I would like to point out again that what could be done could be as simple as a requirement for catastrophic health coverage combined with an opening up the actuarial tables for review and discussion.

It may not be necessary that the government subsidize the actual cost of said insurance outside of existing programs.

What comes to mind is an example I've personally witnessed in senior care: present Medicare coverage only pays for nursing homes. In practice this means low income seniors are allowed to deteriorate in health until they qualify for nursing homes. Given that nursing home costs run $5K/month or more - there is a program in SF which seeks to benefit senior health via activity and education programs, including transportation and hands on non medical care, which has shown clear health (better) and fiscal benefits (spending down).

For that matter since few if any insurance companies have business models predicated on catastrophic health, there is still plenty of scope for said companies to demonstrate their 'expertise'.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

What did I say that led you to respond as you did?

I did not use the word "government" in my post . . . .

Ah - ok then. I made a perhaps incorrect implication.

I thought this was a discussion of whether we should have a major (federal) government healthcare program that somehow provided for everyone (perhaps via government socialized care, perhaps in concert with private insurance companies.)

I took your comment listing important areas of shared responsibility to be advocating such an increased (federal) government role in healthcare.

P.S. By now, noting shared needs, as you have done, has become a mechanism that is commonly hijacked by those seeking to expand federal power, conveniently overlooking the important question of who best to meet the need. This hijacking has become so common that (in my view) it is worth noting explicitly if one prefers meeting the listed needs some other way.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

However, I would like to point out again that what could be done could be as simple as a requirement for catastrophic health coverage combined with an opening up the actuarial tables for review and discussion.

What you suggest seems reasonable to me, offhand.

If we had a semi-trustworthy government, I can imagine supporting your suggestion.