For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance.
Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
How about his kid's lukemia treatment? Assume his kid is nice person...
Then he can ask me for a donation, and as the government has not stolen 45% of my income, I can pay for the whole first round of chemo out of the goodness of my heart. I treat people for less than what the treatment costs every day already.
Does he have a right to my property that is justified by any circumstance whatsoever?
Absolutely not.
Is this a totally separate question from the ethics of my own decision to help out?
Yes.
Human desires are infinite. Resources are finite.
A central authority deciding who to steal from and for what purpose is immoral. Coercion is violence and no more justified than outright theft.
Actually, your alternative hypothetical actually contains the explanation for how we can reduce health care costs to something approaching reason.
Who thinks an 80 year olds' stiff knees are more important to fix than a 12 year old girl's leukemia? Right now, guess which one is guaranteed to be subsidized and paid for by taxpayers and which one you might have to pass the cup for?
We have all already "given at the office" to a massive system that treats every conceivable ailment as equally worthwhile. If you were forced to pass the cup because you had no insurance, and your benefactors had not already paid for grandmas knee replacement, the pool of available money would be much larger. Of course, absent goverment subsidy of healthcare and government mandates to cover in vitro and every other thing under the sun, the father in your hypothetical could probably afford insurance for the kind of things that ought to be insured - catastrophic and rare medical events, not routine births and mammograms.
So I think my real answer is that in a scenario without coercion, there will less need for begging in a tearjerker case in the first place.
Last edited by rogermexico; November 04, 2009, 10:52 PM.
Yup, its all fine, as long as we pay through the nose for wars, military and banks but when it comes to basic health care, suddenly everyone realizes we're too broke to pay for it
I am sorry but although I kind of wish you were right, I don't think you are.
The thing is, if you look at the goverments unfunded liabilities, future health care spending ( not counting any 1.2 T reform) is an order of magnitude more costly than Iraq and Afghanistan combined
Again, please don't misunderstand me.... I want small govt, but i am not an idealist, i am a realist, our money gets (and will continue to be ) doled out to special interests and none gets left over that tax payers can really make use of, and can see actual benefit from.
Thats where i'm coming from. I fume when i see money spent on wars and banks and then when it comes to something beneficial suddenly everyone begins to pay attention and object.
If we were to say NO ONE gets money or favors from govt, then i would be a-okay with no public health care. Till then, i think its hypocritical and against our self interest not to ask to be on the dole.... Its like the sheep asking to be led to the slaughter......
All I was trying to do was blow to smitherines all this illogical, emotional nonsense about "rights". You know, that everyone has a right to "healthcare" or "decent housing" or "a college education" or "clean water" or "a reliable car" or "a sex-change", or, ... "everything that other's have or it just isn't fair"! Resources are finite - needs and wants are infinite. And having the government (all of us) provide anything as "free" brings with it another set of problems, you know, likenational bankruptcy. How's Medicare doing? Think we'll be able to continue paying for that monstrosity?
Being Conservative doesn't mean adopting a heartless, pitiless view of humanity. But it does mean rejecting emotional arguments where hard economic choices must be made. It is my considered opinion that the Left was never willing to make those choices during my adult years (the 1970s to the present) unless they involved "soaking the rich". And the present "Right" in this country was even less willing to make the choices, exemplified by their willingness to borrow us into ruin. Now the ObamaCrats are upping the ante on borrowing to the level of pure insanity!
We are in desperate need of a heavy dose of clear thinking in this country, and we aren't going to get it from the RepubliCrats!
karim0028 hit on a big part of the problem: the "Empire" we assumed during the Cold War, which should have been disbanded between 1992 and 1994 but instead was enlarged by Clinton and Bush II. The Soviet Union hasn't existed for almost 20 years - what in the hell is NATO for? Why are we members? And why do we still have troops in South Korea? They are 24 times wealthier than Kim Jong Il's feudal kingdom with almost twice the population - so if they aren't concerned enough to match his military then why should we be concerned? We must maintain a strong navy, but I'm not sure we need 11 Carrier Battle Groups! And we could easily cut our Army and Air Force by 1/3, close down 50+ military bases and it wouldn't threaten our national security in the least - it would probably enhance it!
But all of these points are mute unless the FIRE economy is killed, dead and buried. Unless our economy is restructured we aren't going to be able to pay for any of this.
Fat chance of that happening with the current residents of the brothel on Capitol Hill.
We have all already "given at the office" to a massive system that treats every conceivable ailment as equally worthwhile. If you were forced to pass the cup because you had no insurance, and your benefactors had not already paid for grandmas knee replacement, the pool of available money would be much larger.
Medical care and drugs would cost alot less too. Presently, medical care and drugs are preferred largely in proportion to what profits they can generate, not their health benefits. A $100 patented pill may be far more often recommended than a 10 cent nutritional supplement, even if the lower cost solution works better with fewer side affects. Major procedures (chemo, radiation, angioplasty, mass vacinations, ...) are recommend despite insufficient or quite controversial evidence of their safety or affectiveness.
Kellog's Cocoa Krispies cereal gets more favorable treatment from the government for its "immunity" support than sunshine and the Vitamin D in raw milk.
The big business side of our food, drug and medical institutions dominate our Congress, bureaucrats, courts and media. This is all a consequence of us American citizens granting our Federal government sufficient power to "provide us all that is our right", which is just the power needed to take from us all to which we had a right.
Actually, I think you might not have read carefully what I wrote. I included those who've experienced large rate increases or who've been denied coverage by a company due to preexisting conditions. An ABC poll says 89% of Americans with insurance are satisfied with their insurance. That means 11% are not. That would be roughly 15 million. Add that to Chomsky's 36 million and you get approx. 50 million.
I may not completely agree with c1ue that health care is a right, but there is no way we can consider ourselves a civilized country while we let the less privileged suffer and die because we are too selfish to provide health care for all.
If I misrepresented your opinion I'm sorry and do apologize.
I do not accept Chomsky's number of 36,000,000 American citizens. It is not real because almost 10,000,000 included in that number have incomes of more than $75,000/year and could carry some medical coverage if they chose to do so. The Census Bureau reported that almost 2/3rds of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34, a demographic that sees little need to carry such coverage unless it is a catastrophic policy with a very high deductible. And it also includes almost 12,000,000 people who are eligible for programs like Medicaid or State Children's Health Program but have not yet enrolled. Adding those who are unsatisfied according to ABC News just further fancifies the total who truly need help with their medical coverage.
I don't have the answer - but neither does Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. There is a very real problem with the Health Insurance Industry in this country and I believe BIG changes need to be made in that area. Why don't we attempt that before establishing another open-ended Federal entitlement that not even Congress knows how it will work?
I'm beginning to have days where I suspect that Sunskyfan might be correct. :eek:
While I certainly don't disagree with this statement, on the other hand the execution of government on the principles you espouse leads to all kinds of terrible outcomes.
For example: education
As crappy as public education may or may not be, it is far better than having an entire nation of illiterate subsistence farmers.
As EJ has alluded to - certainly one may argue that forcing the public to both partake of and finance primary school education is a usurpation of rights. But the outcome is one which both benefits the individuals and the society in question.
I fail to see why health care must be different - especially when almost every single other first world nation (and many/most 2nd world) has a clearly functional system for providing health care. ...
Thus while I understand the basis and background behind your not so unusual American Libertarian stance, I personally reject it as both being unrealistic and not beneficial for this nation as a whole.
And your assumption that in the middle of our national bankruptcy we can do all of this without mentioning the problems in Canada or even in Massachusets with their plan running $140 Million OVER budget is unrealistic and not beneficial to the nation as a whole.
Your statement also implies that the current system is fine.
But by any means imaginable, the current system is NOT fine.
Costs are escalating far beyond inflation - and the US already spends more than twice as much as the nearest other nation.
At least 10% of the US population does not have reliable access to health care - probably at least double that for people who do not have enough health care even by 2nd world rudimentary standards.
Even the ones who have good health insurance now:
Loss of job means loss of health care.
Retirement means loss of health care. (before Medicare Age of 65, of course)
Divorce means loss of health care.
Hell, death of working parent means loss of health care.
This doesn't look like a well working machine to me.
You are making assumptions without having read any other posts I've made, specifically those where I ripped the Health Insurance Cartel.
I know that care is presently being rationed by the insurance companies when they try to avoid paying for procedures at every turn. But the Feds will do the very same, and we will be left without recourse against them. (I can at least sue the insurance company.)
I don't disagree with most of the points you make here, but there is no magic in a program of Federal takeover.
You are making assumptions without having read any other posts I've made, specifically those where I ripped the Health Insurance Cartel.
I know that care is presently being rationed by the insurance companies when they try to avoid paying for procedures at every turn. But the Feds will do the very same, and we will be left without recourse against them. (I can at least sue the insurance company.)
Raz,
Perhaps we're both missing key points from each other's positions.
To be clear, I do NOT support a federal health insurance plan.
From what I see it seems what the federal government could do is offer a basic level of medical care for its citizens. This is not insurance, this is a straight provision of service as is done in most other 1st/2nd world nations.
The problems you see in Massachusetts are identical to what a federal plan would encounter: given no control over the delivery system except the blunt instrument of denial of payment and/or 'guaranteed' prices, any insurance program no matter run by whomever will eventually have to exhibit the same behavior.
Insurance is just the actuarial side; any health program must also have a delivery capability. This is one very key difference between the US system and anywhere else.
As for Canada - one specific problem is that there are no independent organizations responsible for quality control. Thus the natural tendencies of bureaucracy are largely unconstrained.
Yet this seems much less of an issue in other nations with national health care systems; I am not sure why this is so.
All I was trying to do was blow to smitherines all this illogical, emotional nonsense about "rights". You know, that everyone has a right to "healthcare" or "decent housing" or "a college education" or "clean water" or "a reliable car" or "a sex-change", or, ... "everything that other's have or it just isn't fair"! Resources are finite - needs and wants are infinite. And having the government (all of us) provide anything as "free" brings with it another set of problems, you know, likenational bankruptcy. How's Medicare doing? Think we'll be able to continue paying for that monstrosity?
Being Conservative doesn't mean adopting a heartless, pitiless view of humanity. But it does mean rejecting emotional arguments where hard economic choices must be made. It is my considered opinion that the Left was never willing to make those choices during my adult years (the 1970s to the present) unless they involved "soaking the rich". And the present "Right" in this country was even less willing to make the choices, exemplified by their willingness to borrow us into ruin. Now the ObamaCrats are upping the ante on borrowing to the level of pure insanity!
We are in desperate need of a heavy dose of clear thinking in this country, and we aren't going to get it from the RepubliCrats!
karim0028 hit on a big part of the problem: the "Empire" we assumed during the Cold War, which should have been disbanded between 1992 and 1994 but instead was enlarged by Clinton and Bush II. The Soviet Union hasn't existed for almost 20 years - what in the hell is NATO for? Why are we members? And why do we still have troops in South Korea? They are 24 times wealthier than Kim Jong Il's feudal kingdom with almost twice the population - so if they aren't concerned enough to match his military then why should we be concerned? We must maintain a strong navy, but I'm not sure we need 11 Carrier Battle Groups! And we could easily cut our Army and Air Force by 1/3, close down 50+ military bases and it wouldn't threaten our national security in the least - it would probably enhance it!
But all of these points are mute unless the FIRE economy is killed, dead and buried. Unless our economy is restructured we aren't going to be able to pay for any of this.
Fat chance of that happening with the current residents of the brothel on Capitol Hill.
Raz,
I honestly agree with you on your view points... I know it might sound like i'm a flaming democrat/bleeding heart liberal, but i think of myself as a libertarian (even that, i hate using labels, i am what i am, if libertarians start acting stupid, them i'm just me) at heart, i want to abolish the fed, get rid of the income tax, give people back their money and let the free market deal with profits and losses...
But, i'm no sucker.... I know that short of revolution, civil war or massive roves of starving people, nothing will change, all attempts will be made to keep the status quo. Once govt gets this big, the only way it will loosen its power grip is through force, and i don't think were at that point..... You have to hit rock bottom for that to be an interesting option for folks.... Its kind of similar to the 3rd generation british/french aristorcrat, who grew up in money and spent all his money on booze, whores, and gambling, mortgaged his estate to keep up pretenses, refusing to accept that he is broke until finally his creditors seize his estate and he gets evicted from his life long family estate, and realizes he really has barely enough money to rent an apartment.
Congress at this point simply does lip service around the constitution, and will continue to do so until we are broke and they have no choice but to deal with the repercussions.
Till then, i want my "free" healthcare, bc every one else is getting "there's" and i want "mine" ;) If you cant beat'em, join'em.
That's a very loaded question, GRG55. Let's try another one.
How about paying for his daughter's abortion? After all, the neonatal tests show "it" to be Down's Syndrome, and his daughter is a nice person. We don't know how nice "it" might or might not turn out to be, but we know that "it" will definitely be one hell of an inconvenience.
The very same conservatives who would mandate that women give birth to those with Down Syndrome would also do away with federal oversight of education, even though education spending is only a few percent of the federal budget (most federal education mandates are unfunded).
However it is only due to IDEA, a federal act, that Downs syndrome children now have a shot at a decent education, and are not simply institutionalized. I know because I'm raising a child who would have been institutionalized if she had been born 50 yrs ago.
My point is that we should support people to do the right thing, not simply coerce them if they happen to be low income.
I read from your posts (please correct me if I'm wrong) the implication that somehow the world would be a much better place if the federal government was extracted from healthcare and education, but in reality I think it would just be a different place ... maybe better, but also quite possibly much worse, because these complex decisions and tradeoffs would still be there to be made.
Do you let poor people die in the gutter from easily (and inexpensively) treatable diseases ? At what cost do you draw the line ?
Do you spend extra money to educate those will learning disabilities ? How much and where do you draw the line ? To what extent do you do it to make their lives more fulfilling, and to what extent does it pay for itself by reducing their future burden on society ? Or do we let non-dependant people with mental illness or developmental disabilities die in the gutter also.
These are extremely complex questions. I sense that libertarians would prefer these questions simply didn't exist because of their complexity and intractibility.
My greatest sadness is that we don't seem to be able to even have adult discussions about these issues at the governmental level. Everything has been reduced to partisan point scoring, and divisiveness. Apart from patriotism. We're all true patriots :rolleyes: whatever that means.
Medical care and drugs would cost alot less too. Presently, medical care and drugs are preferred largely in proportion to what profits they can generate, not their health benefits. A $100 patented pill may be far more often recommended than a 10 cent nutritional supplement, even if the lower cost solution works better with fewer side affects. Major procedures (chemo, radiation, angioplasty, mass vacinations, ...) are recommend despite insufficient or quite controversial evidence of their safety or affectiveness.
Kellog's Cocoa Krispies cereal gets more favorable treatment from the government for its "immunity" support than sunshine and the Vitamin D in raw milk.
The big business side of our food, drug and medical institutions dominate our Congress, bureaucrats, courts and media. This is all a consequence of us American citizens granting our Federal government sufficient power to "provide us all that is our right", which is just the power needed to take from us all to which we had a right.
Vitamin supplements in a gluten grain containing, inflammation-promoting cereal can be claimed to support your immunity?
I can't beleive they are allowed to put that on the box!
The public option is the way to reduce health care costs.
The Singapore government spends only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare while the USA spends 15 percent of GDP.
Americans already have the most wasteful health care system on earth. It is hard to image how America can waste more than they already do!
It is almost as absurd as the trillions $$ the American "free market" fools waste on military....to keep America safe.
Blows my mind that American's believe that they actually live in some free market economy, nothing can be further from the truth. Take a trip down to your local law library to see how "free" your country really is. LOL.
The price mechanism and keen attention to incentives facing individuals are relied upon to discourage excessive consumption and to keep waste and costs in check by requiring co-payment by users.
[...]
The state recovers 20-100 percent of its public healthcare outlay through user fees. A patient in a government hospital who chooses the open ward is subsidized by the government at 80 percent. Better-off patients choose more comfortable wards with lower or no government subsidy, in a self-administered means test.
More details on how Singapore's system works:
There are mandatory health savings accounts: "Individuals pre-save for medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions... Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for by deducting one's Medisave account, for oneself, grandparents, parents, spouse or children: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash..."
"The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available."
Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.
The government pays for "basic healthcare services... subject to tight expenditure control." Bottom line: The government pays 80% of "basic public healthcare services."
Government plays a big role with contagious disease, and adds some paternalism on top: "Preventing diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tobacco-related illnesses by ensuring good health conditions takes a high priority."
The government provides optional low-cost catatrophic health insurance, plus a safety net "subject to stringent means-testing."
Singapore's health care system is much more of a free market system. Try to get a price list from your local hospital. LOL.
Remember the U.S.S.R - that is America's health care system today, run by a centralized cartel. Only a retard would believe America is a free-market economy.
The public option would make things more competitive, hands down, and easily reduce costs.
The first step back towards a free market economy is for the US government (the people) to take back control of thier country from these cartels: MORE REGULATION - BETTER REGULATION
Last edited by MulaMan; November 05, 2009, 02:03 PM.
Healthcare is the most basic of all human rights. Medicare in the U.S. should be expanded to cover everyone in the country, regardless of who they are, regardless of where they came from, regardless of their age, and regardless of their pre-existing condition.
The fact that Democrats could not agree on one simple healthcare bill written in one short paragraph (just as I have written above) tells me that the Democratic Party in Congress is paid-off by the private health insurance lobby, just as the Republicans are.
One short paragraph written in short simple sentences is all that is required for a bill, not the 1050 page monstrosity now offerred by the Democratic Party to-day. And there should be zero negotiation with the Republicans about this..... Yes, or no to the bill, and that should be it; that should have been it from the start.
The fact that a simple bill such as this would not get out of House or Senate Committee in the Congress just speaks volumes to me about the fact that the U.S. Constitution to-day has to be re-written, top-to-bottom, to be relevant to the times we live in now. The Congress is operating in the 18th Century, not the 21st Century. So the Congress is corrupt.
Raz, you should not call yourself a Democrat. Very few in the Democratic Party are real FDR New Deal Democrats, and very few of the Democrats around to-day are liberals or progressives on much of anything, including the key issue of providing Medicare to all the people.
Last edited by Starving Steve; November 05, 2009, 06:14 PM.
Tweet
Comment