Social (in)Security and who did what.

I have no idea what "announcement" you're referring to Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually Tush, this was the one thing Lazurus has said in this thread that's correct.

The UK has just put some incredibly deep cuts into parts of their health care system - and those cuts do include significant reductions in end-of-life treatments.

This is, of course, a whole different debate and I completely agree with your comment but I at least gotta give Laz some credit for getting at least one thing right.

Cheers!
Mazo.

How's that Great Society working out now, 45 years later? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Oops. Almost forgot to respond to this . . . .

Actually the Great Society programs are working pretty damn good, thank you very much. Some of the programs were failures. Some were tremendous successes. Some were a mixed bag that brought new problems while curing others.

Overall, though, the general consensus (at least among non-radicals who actually look at it with an open mind) is that the Great Society as a whole did what it intended to do: it put American society on the path towards ending poverty, eliminating racial and gender bias, and solidifying the middle class.

Perhaps you should take some time and read the excellent review by Irwin Unger in The Best of Intentions: The Triumphs and Failures of the Great Society Under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Unger is a noted economic historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, and highly regarded expert on LBJ. I found this book to be a very balanced representation of what actually happened with the Great Society programs. As stated. it's clear from Unger's work that the programs as a whole made this country a much stronger and better place for all.

Be careful if you actually go out and read it, though. It may just change your mind about some things. God forbid that should happen. If it turns out that things aren't as horrible in this country as you think they are you'd have to go out and find a whole new subject to bitch about.

Cheers!
Mazo.

Then why does the current SS Trust Fund have a $2 trillion surplus?

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Reti...s6-25-2008.pdf Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Apples and Oranges. That is a reserve -- which is inadequate compared to the actuarial liability i.e., the present value of expected benefits payments minus the present value of future contributions.

I have no idea what "announcement" you're referring to, but we ration health care. We ration it to people who have insurance or are otherwise wealthy. Seems like a more logical way to ration it would be by need, by whether the care will do any good, whether a disease is curable, etc., rather than allow our fellow citizens to go without and die from lack of routine medical care. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well we ration TV's too -- to people that can pay for them. Health care is another consumer good. It has never been a right.

Health care is another consumer good. It has never been a right. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well, I think the consensus is that it should be a right. If 3rd world countries can do it, certainly the greatest country on the face of the earth can do it. And let's don't get in a "quality of care" argument. The minimal care that 3rd world countries offer is much better than the "kick them to the curb" care we offer here.

Well we ration TV's too -- to people that can pay for them. Health care is another consumer good. It has never been a right. Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, then why when Obama appoints a person that is upfront about end of life care the people on the right (Tea Party) cry about a move that is really about getting cost under control and cry foul with this Death panel shit. Sara Palin and her minions come to mind. You are quick to always blame the left and give those cats a free pass!

Well, I think the consensus is that it should be a right. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

No that is not the consensus that it is a right someone else should pay for. Maybe in your mind, but not mine.

Well, I think the consensus is that it should be a right. If 3rd world countries can do it, certainly the greatest country on the face of the earth can do it. And let's don't get in a "quality of care" argument. The minimal care that 3rd world countries offer is much better than the "kick them to the curb" care we offer here. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Agreed. We SHOULD be able to do that for ourselves. Instead we prefer to send bags of money over to other countries so they can establish a minimum standard of allowing healthcare for all, but we don't offer the same here. I worked in the Dominican Republic for two months with a crew sent there by the U.S. govt in 2009. We were paid by Uncle Sam, transported with supplies paid for by Uncle Sam, and then taught other "professionals" there how to provide adequate basic care to those who came into the new clinic (built by Uncle Sam). The purpose was to increase the availability of healthcare to the citizens of their country. Awesome, no?

Meanwhile, I've come back and I work two "jobs" so that I can put 1/4 of my dough away for when I'm old and still randy. Some of the rest pays for my private health insurance, which if I may say, is quite a doozie.

PJ, then why when Obama appoints a person that is upfront about end of life care the people on the right (Tea Party) cry about a move that is really about getting cost under control and cry foul with this Death panel shit. Sara Palin and her minions come to mind. You are quick to always blame the left and give those cats a free pass! Originally Posted by WTF

If its your responsibility, there is no need for death panels.

Well we ration TV's too -- to people that can pay for them. Health care is another consumer good. It has never been a right. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The problem with this argument is the societal effect of inadequate health care.

It doesn't mean shit to you if the neighbor doesn't have a TV. Doesn't affect you in the least.

It does mean shit to you if your neighbor doesn't have health insurance and gets sick. You pay for it when that happens. We all pay for it when that happens - both directly through tax burdens and indirectly through secondary economic effects of that person not being a productive part of the economy.

This is not to say that rationing isn't an appropriate and fair model for health care delivery. As with all policy choices you have to balance the moral aspect with the economic ones. That's why we have representative government; so that the people can make that choice.

Despite your personal belief that the scales should tip 100% to the economic end its pretty clear that people in this country and all over the world take a more balanced view of the situation. Health care may not yet be a "right" in the traditional legal sense but it's certainly no longer considered a privilege that should only be enjoyed by the rich.

Somewhere along the line we decided that people should die because they couldn't afford food. We've also now made the decision that they shouldn't die because they can't afford health care. It's time to face up to that fact no matter how much it runs counter to your own personal philosophy.

The problem with most libertarian approaches is that people like you take them to the extreme. It may make sense for micro-scale issues like televisions, it's a house of cards when applied to societal problems like health care delivery. As with all socio/policio/economic philosophies you need to apply libertarianism in a properly moderated dose.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Despite your personal belief that the scales should tip 100% to the economic end its pretty clear that people in this country and all over the world take a more balanced view of the situation. Health care may not yet be a "right" in the traditional legal sense but it's certainly no longer considered a privilege that should only be enjoyed by the rich.

Somewhere along the line we decided that people should die because they couldn't afford food. We've also now made the decision that they shouldn't die because they can't afford health care. It's time to face up to that fact no matter how much it runs counter to your own personal philosophy. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Which is not what I said at all. You don't have to be rich to get health care, you have to be responsible.

Yes, we provide free food to people who are starving. That is humanitarian and there should be a humanitarian component to health care as well. But last I heard, we don't provide unlimited steak and lobster to the hungry. There are limits to anything -- and there should be limits to free health care. Which is where the death panels come in, and limited access to some facilities and other cost saving measures. The problem with these vehicles under "government auspices" is that instead of being honest about what is happening we are going to fuck the system up even more for the responsible among us. But i realize the word "responsible" is a nasty word for Liberals (excuse me, you are Progressive these days.)

If its your responsibility, there is no need for death panels. Originally Posted by pjorourke

It still is our collective responsibility.....we need to confront the Sara Palins of the world when they distort out of control cost with Death Panels. There is no law that staes you will not be able to buy insurance in old age but we can not continue to break the bank on old folks. They need to take some responsibility. This will not happen until we have frank discussions on the subject.

If your neighbor doesn't have a TV and kicks in your door while you are watching that 52" LCD HDTV you bought a week ago and picks it up and carries it home, then it sure as hell does concern you! That neighbor might not care that YOU saved up for 18 months or maybe worked an extra job to earn the money for the TV while he sat on his lazy ass doing nothing but now you left your window shades open and he saw that YOU have a new TV and he wants it. Sucks to be you in this country today. Go save up again and hope the guy living on the other side doesn't see the 2nd one you buy....

Socialism is just that. Taking from the high producers or earners and "sharing" with others against the others will.

Social Security quickly became one of the largest socialistic programs ever started in this country and has only led to more and more of our lives by the government than ever before.

Social Security quickly became one of the largest socialistic programs ever started in this country and has only led to more and more of our lives by the government than ever before. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

PJ, I know this is not your usual thing but can you refute this one? You described social security as a defined benefit program which would lead me to believe that it describing it as socialist is incorrect.

It is a DB plan that the sponsor (Congress) has fucked with to make it not equal for all participants. It does in fact spread the wealth, hence LL thinks it is socialist -- and in that regard I would agree with him. The SS formula is very progressive -- someone making at or above the SS wage base gets about 28 cents on the dollars they put in when compared to what a minimum wage employee gets for their contributions.

Yeah, yeah WTF I know low income people have higher mortality. If it was three times that of high income folks (which is an absurdly high multiple) it would only change the 28 cents to 38 cents.