Rich get richer / poor get poorer

[d]

razz: did you not just confirm that it is a dangerous assumption?

 

[ktupper]

implicit here is the assumption that government can successfully address these issues without making us worse-off on some other dimension -- the assumption itself is dangerous.

Very good point. We just had many posts complaining about the government education system. Healthcare is far more complicated than education, IMO.

 

[razztazz]

razz: did you not just confirm that it is a dangerous assumption?

No. It could be a dangerous assumption. There is always potential for danger is anything But assuming it is a non-player en toto is at least equally dangerous. You can't know about these things. All you can do is assess the problem and attempt solutions. You have no way of knowing which assumption is dangerous. Reliance of what most people today call free markets as a cure-all for everything is not only dangerous it's inhuman in that HUMANS have not climbed the ladder over 40,000 yrs by NOT trying new ways at different times.

 

[d]

interesting. you state that we "have no way of knowing which assumption is dangerous" and then proclaim that free markets are worse than dangerous.

 

[ktupper]

As an aside....

I love the dialog on this board.  There are sharp minds here on the ER forum, even if we sometimes disagree.  Since the money issue is taken care of for some of us, maybe some of us should go into public service to help solve some of these issues instead of golfing, fishing, eating chocolates, and bloviating about solutions all day.  

 

[LRS]

Good post, Fire Me. You reminded me that next week I need to start volunteering in my kid's public school for another year.

 

[razztazz]

Since the money issue is taken care of for some of us, maybe some of us should go into public service to help solf some of these issues instead of golfing, fishing, eating chocolates, and bloviating about solutions all d

Can't locate the exact quotes at this time but Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith both made statements to the effect that most people can't do more important things because they are burdened by having to earn a living

 

[bpp]

Very good point.  We just had many posts complaining about the government education system.  Healthcare is far more complicated than education, IMO.

Not about "the government education system," but about the US government education system, which seems to be below average compared to the government education systems in other developed countries.

No country is perfect, but there are other countries which seem to have managed to do better than the US in educating and medically covering their populaces.  But instead of hearing, "well gosh, let's see what they have done, and see if some of their approaches might be applicable to our problems," I hear some people dismiss on theoretical grounds that there could ever be a solution at all.  It is almost as though some people are allergic to actual data, preferring their theories remain untainted.

Maybe, upon examination, the other systems are in fact inapplicable for some reason, or are not as good as appear at first blush.  But one needs data to make this determination.  Those who have actually experienced the educational or health care systems in other countries besides the US have been unanimous that there is room for improvement.  But even these admittedly limited bits of actual experience are airily dismissed by the armchair philosophers.

Ah, what's the point.  Enjoy your system.  I've got mine.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . It is almost as though some people are allergic to actual data, preferring their theories remain untainted. . .

Exactly. Don't spoil my vision with a bunch of ugly facts.

 

[d]

some people are allergic to actual data, preferring their theories remain untainted.

i too have noted that many suffer from this allergy ... most often those on the other side of the argument (whichever side that might be).  it's not so much they are concerned that their "theories remain untainted", rather that their conclusions not be questioned or, perish the thought, that any underlying assumptions be made clear.

 

[lets-retire]

Apocalypse--I disagree with most of what you wrote, but will only touch on one thing. After 15 years in the business, crime and money do not show a cause and effect relationship. I have arrested just as many rich people as I have poor people for doing the same crimes. Crime is a underlying flaw in the character, or whatever you want to call it, of a person not the amount of money they bring home.

 

[bbuzzard]

interesting. you state that we "have no way of knowing which assumption is dangerous" and then proclaim that free markets are worse than dangerous.

No, if you read carefully you will note he stated "reliance of what most people today call free markets as a cure-all for everything" is dangerous. I agree. There are no one-size fits all solutions, regardless of how many times Limbaugh, Savage and O'Reily tell you there is. While I agree that free markets are a very powerful and effective tool for solving many, many problems, this does not mean they can solve them all. For example, why don't we try free market police and military?

 

[astromeria]

Crime is a underlying flaw in the character, or whatever you want to call it, of a person not the amount of money they bring home.

I think this is way simplistic--people are more complicated than that, although I agree about income having little to do with character or crime. (In fact, didn't a recent study describe the antisocial, even sociopathic, qualities of many CEOs?) Crimes cover everything from cheating on taxes and speeding, to insider trading, counterfeiting, ID theft, driving drunk, abusing a child, robbery, disorderly behavior, and so on. And our currnet administration has intimated that voicing disagreement with their policies is tantamount to treason--a very serious crime, punishable by death. Or at least indeterminate disappearance. Thank goodness they have backtracked on that.

Surely we all know people who are considered paragons of virtue, but break the law deliberately in several ways and feel justified about it--flawed characters or fine citizens? We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Texas Proud]

Coming in late on this one and have not read the whole thread... my caveat...

But, I do agree that the US secondary education system is broken.. they do not want to teach the kids.. and I would love to get the system from some other country and try it here if it works.. and yes, other countries systems do work..

Healthcare, on the other hand, does not seem to work in the other countries as much as some people make it out as the cure all to our problems... I was in the UK for a little over a year.. fortunately I did not have to use their system, even though I had some number which would have allowed me to use it.. my point.. My company was starting to offer health care insurance outside the national system as it was slow and cumbersome... you had to wait to get procedures done.. and people died while waiting...

I had a friend come over and we were in Florida... she got sick. I said, let's call the doctor and get you in.. she said she did not want to wait that long (from experience in the UK)... well, we called up, got an appointment in a hour.. had test done.. found the 'bug', got shots, got prescription.... all within a 4 hour time frame... she was shocked it could happen so fast.. and it was covered under her travel insurance...

My point... I do not want to go to universal health care if MY health care will suffer just to get X million of people on the system... I want to be able to buy the best healthcare available... most universal plans do not offer the best..

 

[razztazz]

I want to be able to buy the best healthcare available... most universal plans do not offer the best..

Nobody ever implies that. If you cannot afford this "best" will you then agree to just die? How about if you cannot afford ANY because you're broke? Willl you then agree to do your economic duty to The System and just die? No, you will start crying "There ougtta be a law...!"

As an ex 20 yr military person some sort of Gov run Universal medical industry is NOT the way to go. It's the old "Company Store". But very few I've heard ever advocate that type of system.

 

[d]

While I agree that free markets are a very powerful and effective tool for solving many, many problems, this does not mean they can solve them all.

who suggested that they could?

 

[astromeria]

But, I do agree that the US secondary education system is broken.. they do not want to teach the kids.. and I would love to get the system from some other country and try it here if it works.. and yes, other countries systems do work..

I believe in Western Europe & Japan, weaker students get tested out periodically and shunted into non-college tracks. In the US, we treat all children as if they will catch up at any time (in theory anyway) and provide lots of remedial aid. I think we should do something in between the extremes of one bad test and yer out, and everybody taught as if ultimately becoming a scholar.

well, we called up, got an appointment in a hour.. had test done.. found the 'bug', got shots, got prescription.... all within a 4 hour time frame... she was shocked it could happen so fast.. and it was covered under her travel insurance...

Years ago when I was young and on the road and had no heealth insurance, I was unable to get a private doctor to treat my serious strep throat, even though I had money to pay and all I needed was a peek into my throat and a prescription for penicillin. I ended up at an emergency room--and they didn't seem to want my money there.

do not want to go to universal health care if MY health care will suffer just to get X million of people on the system

This IS the crux of the problem (self-reliance, selfishness, I leave judgment up to the reader). However, I think we can have a pretty good cake and eat it, too, if the govt pays for or supplies catastrophic coverage for all. And anyone is free to purchase additional coverage. So, best still available to some, and pretty good available to all.

 

[Martha]

This IS the crux of the problem (self-reliance, selfishness, I leave judgment up to the reader). However, I think we can have a pretty good cake and eat it, too, if the govt pays for or supplies catastrophic coverage for all. And anyone is free to purchase additional coverage. So, best still available to some, and pretty good available to all.

I have thought about having a plan where government provides catastrophic coverage and you insure for the day to day stuff. Generally, one thinks of catastrophic coverage as coverage for cancer, surgeries, big accidents and the like. One big issue is dealing with chronic conditions. You may need regular medical care and drugs. Does that fall within the catastrophic plan? Or do you need to buy private insurance for those costs. Self financing is going to be pricey and private insurance won't want you.

edited to fix too many typos

 

[Nords]

One big issue is dealing with chronic conditions.  You may need regular medical care and drugs.    Does that fall within the catastrophic plan?  Or do you need to buy private insurance for those costs.  Self financing is going to be pricing and private insurance won't want you. 

Especially if the "chronic condition" is judged to be a lifestyle derivative of smoking, obesity, or extreme sports...

 

[razztazz]

Especially if the "chronic condition" is judged to be a lifestyle derivative of smoking, obesity, or extreme sports...

More rolling teh dice with other people's lives.

PROVE that in THAT ONE CASE the problem is due to a "life style choice" You can't because that's not how those statistcics work. But you would kill those people because YOU THINK it was PROBABLY the cigarret he smoked 25 yrs ago or somethjing else YOU don't like. Or maybe it was the radon gas in his gandmother's house he stayed in as a child. But WTF, kill him anyway. Unless he's already born rich and can pay for it out of his "personal fourtune. (Courtesy of Gov created copyright protections and other wealth redistribution tricks) More life's lottery winnings. You cannot solve or even address a general problem with a knee jerk prejudice for anectodal solutions

WHat if his doctor caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless medical expenses due to misdiagosing a condition or the drug prescribed caused severe adverse reactions? And those reactions were ignored by the doctor?

The patient's fault? What d F? He sick and not rich. Kill 'em and save me a buck. I am omnisciemnt after all since it's my opinion. Ain't freedom great.

 

[Nords]

  More rolling teh dice with other people's lives.
PROVE that in THAT ONE CASE the problem is due to a "life style choice" You can't because that's not how those statistcics work.   But you would kill those people because YOU THINK it was PROBABLY the cigarret he smoked 25 yrs ago  or somethjing else YOU don't like. Or maybe it was the radon gas in his gandmother's house he stayed in as a child. But WTF, kill him anyway. Unless he's already born rich and can pay for it out of his "personal fourtune. (Courtesy of Gov  created copyright protections and other wealth redistribution tricks)  More life's lottery winnings. You cannot solve or even address a general problem with  a knee jerk prejudice for anectodal solutions
WHat if his doctor caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless medical expenses due to misdiagosing a condition or the drug prescribed caused severe adverse reactions?  And those reactions were ignored by the doctor?
The patient's fault? What d F?  He sick and not rich. Kill 'em and save me a buck. I am omnisciemnt after all since it's my opinion.  Ain't freedom great.

Chill out, Razz, and I mean that in the moderator's sense of the expression.

I'm pointing out one of the issues-- or flaws, if you will-- of involving the government in catastrophic health insurance. That's all I'm doing, nothing more. It's not an attack on anyone and it's certainly not intended to evoke a response like yours.

If you can't respond with a reasonable tone & language then take your outburst elsewhere.

 

[Martha]

Especially if the "chronic condition" is judged to be a lifestyle derivative of smoking, obesity, or extreme sports...

Insurance companies never care why. They only care that the condition exists.

You might have different insurance premiums depending on your lifestyle. You get a break if you are a smoker and join a smoking cessation program, if have aids and use a condom, if you wear a helmut when motorcyling, if you stick to a diet plan if you are overweight, if you get a colonscopy after age 50, . . . Too dangerously snoopy for me.

 

[razztazz]

if you get a colonscopy after age 50,

yes, And what if you vapor lock from the medication for this procedure? Or what if the guy who has no cancer and never will gets his guts perforated by a doctor and F'd up bigtime? HE CHOSE To get the colonoscopy so it's his fault.

 

[Martha]

I'm pointing out one of the issues-- or flaws, if you will-- of involving the government in catastrophic health insurance.

If government insurance or government provided healthcare isn't pallatable, I would compromise at government subsidizes. Minnesota has more people insured than any other state. You can buy on the individual market if healthy. If not healthy, the risk pool price is reasonably priced. If too poor for the risk pool there is Minnesota Care with a sliding schedule of fees(--our Republican governor keeps trying to cut this program though) and medicaid for those eligible.

Just do what we do on a national level.

The downside is some will not buy insurance or sign up even when it is free. They might not know about the programs. They might be young and consider themselves invulnerable so they don't want to spend any money on insurance. Mass. is trying to solve that issue by requiring insurance. We will see how that works.

In the interest of getting everyone covered and taxes paying for the cost, I favor a national healthcare or national insurance.

editing in an attempt to get control of my sloppy typing

 

[lets-retire]

Since we all seem to be attempting to lessen the risk of living, why don't we just kill off the youngin's while thier still small. That way nobody has to worry about working hard to succeed and obtaining enough money/knowledge/whatever to afford healthcare. Life IS risk if you don't do your best at living then you will surely fall short and have want for things. Many on this site have taken great risks and some panned out others didn't.

If you can't stand the risk stay out of the game.



Most of this post is sarcastic. I do not endorse killing anybody, let alone a child.