Socialist Security
Another good one from Alex Epstein at Ayn Rand Center, on how virtually no one questions the need for the Social Security program, but...:
"How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirement, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves. And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?"The answer lies in the program's ideal of 'universal coverage'--the idea that, as a New York Times editorial preached, 'all old people must have the dignity of financial security'--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of 'guaranteed' collective plan--no matter how irrational.
"Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.
"Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures."
It's not going to happen -- but I like his thinking.
A favorite tripwire in these discussions is the use of the word "coverage", as in 'All Americans deserve health coverage'.... It's more palatable than saying "health care", which reminds everyone that there's going to be some work involved... That the the people being cared for are going to given value. Made wealthier etc. Pelosi would have a much rougher go of it if she had to say that everyone in the world deserved to have their food brought to them and their bottoms wiped and Lord knows what other comforts provided until death takes them.
It's a tough bluff to call call when mouths are in motion during an argument, but never forget that the word "coverage" is obfuscatory.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 31, 2010 2:09 AM
I think one simple step that would alleviate so many of our government's spending problems would be to quit exempting people from being taxed.
I'm not saying to over tax lower income earners--that would also rob them of their ability to get out of poverty and to plan for the future.
What I am saying is that when you have a large constituency that pays no tax but gets a disproportionately large percentage of the benefits of high taxation and spending, you've created a base of voters that is always for more spending and it is suicide for legislatures to reign it in.
I know, dream on.
Trust at January 31, 2010 7:24 AM
I'm 29 but I'm pretty much counting on there being no social security in any form by the time I hit retirement. Anyone my age who is in any way counting on SS being there for them is a fucking moron.
There are no words for how pissed off I get every time I get that little envelope that tells me how much I've "invested" in my social security "account" to date.
Elle at January 31, 2010 7:26 AM
@Crid at January 31, 2010 2:09 AM
________
True.
We also have a dunderhead as president that actually compared requiring health insurance to requiring car insurance.
No one is required to buy car insurance to protect themselves, they just have at least liability to protect the other drivers.
Not to mention, minimal car insurance is required as a condition of driving a vehicle. Whereas, Obama would make purchasing health insurance a condition of being a US citizen. The fact a man like him -- with a degree in constitutional law who doesn't understand the constitution -- has ascended to the presidency is mind-boggling.
Trust at January 31, 2010 7:29 AM
I agree with Alex Epstein and have taken that same train of thought myself. This inevitably leads me to the question, "But what about all the stupid people?"
We're not really going to let the stupid people eat cat food in their old age.
Tyler at January 31, 2010 8:03 AM
@Tyler: ""But what about all the stupid people?"
We're not really going to let the stupid people eat cat food in their old age."
_____________
What about children, siblings, other family, community, friends, charity, church, etc? It's not like government is the first and only option.
Trust at January 31, 2010 8:42 AM
If the economy tanks, SS may go away no matter what the political issues are, and no matter waht the need may be.
A fellow worker told me 15 years ago, the only way welfare would ever truly stop is the cameras have to be there, focusing in on a person's face as he/she dies of hunger.
As long as the government blinks first, there are people who will refuse to work, and dare them not to take care of her and her children.
SS is a mess. As he says, the government took enough over the years we older folks have to count on it. I have thought a lot about what might happen if my wife and I suddenly get no SS check. Here in Mexico, I could get by, not happily, but I could get by on just the small pension check. My only problem would be keeping legal residency, because they have a minimum income level required. I would have to apply for residency as spouse of a Mexican, I guess.
I worked with a man in the ole' radio factory who hailed from a place called Audubon, Iowa, It is apparently a small town. In the 40's, when he was a kid, they noticed one day that the old neighbors' house did not have smoke coming out of the chimney, so finally they went to investigate.
They found the old couple both dead, obviously of hunger. She had been dead quite a while, he had just died not long before.
They ran out of money, and were too proud to beg, so they stayed in the house and slowly starved to death, rather than admit to anyone they were out of food and money.
That's the way it was back then, and probably why they came up with the SS program. If is likely they had been frugal, but the depression, also caused by evil speculators just as this one was, destroyed everyone's assets, so even the frugal who tried to be self-sufficient ran out of money.
There are no easy answers.
irlandes at January 31, 2010 8:53 AM
Unbelievable! Irresponsible?? What about those of us who dutifully "invested" in our 401k's, sensible mutual funds only to have them degraded at best or failed because of reasons toally out our control. You call that irresponsible?? Capitalism in its purest unbridled form is flawed just like pure Socialism or pure Communism. The fact that it is self-defeating should be obvious as is demonstrated by our current state of affairs. Better is a hybrid model such a Germany and other Euro countries taking the best of what works. I don't get why Socialism has taken on the same connotation as Communism. We have SOCIALIZED police force, fire department, AND schools. We accept these services as our "RIGHT", yet you are saying that health care and retirement benefits is a PRIVILEGE that only a select portion of the population who can afford it are entitled to have. The rest of you $10/hr peons be damned...tough shit. Is that really okay with you??
We don't question taxes taken out of our paychecks that are spent on providing police or fire protection. We wouldn't like having to pull out our proof of fire extermination coverage when our house is burning down, or our policy that entitles us to police response when we are being robbed. Yet we are all bickering amongst ourselves on having basic universal health coverage. We can't seem to see that fundamental health coverage is a right not a privilege. No wonder Americans are perceived as idiots on this subject in Europe! We are so busy being divisive, and maintaining our individual "rights" to dumb down our country that we can't see that we are falling off the cliff.
cb at January 31, 2010 9:44 AM
I have to agree with Elle, I'm not counting on social security. I invest heavily & save heavily. I don't trust that social security will be there, or if it is, that it will provide an adequate level of support for my desired level of lifestyle.
I don't call social security "immoral" because in principle it means you put into the system and you get something out of the system later. It was a great idea at the time.
But the bottom line is that it is now a money pit.
The number of people putting in is, in my lifetime, going to be smaller than the number of people taking out.
The people taking out moreover, will be doing so for as long as they were putting in.
At social security's inception you were expected to live maybe 67-70 years, which meant you had 2-5 years pulling out of the system.
But we're living longer, and unless Obama's health are plan is designed to prevent that (maybe?), we will continue to push back the length of our lives.
Even now, my grandparents lived into their 90s, my grandfather died when he did only because the asbestos from his days on a navy ship during WWII finally caught up with him. My grandmother, well she did not survive him by more than a year.
Most of us probably have at LEAST one relative in their 70s-90s or even more. SO...HOW, will social security remain sustainable, when people collect at 65 only a decade after their peak earning years, and do so for 40-50 years, with fewer people putting into the system?
Either the benefits will have to be cut so drastically that the program becomes useless for its intended purpose, or taxes increased so drastically that we have no other means to retire ourselves because they ate up any savings we might have otherwise managed.
I suggest that we eliminate the program and replace it with a simple substitute requiring minimal oversight.
First I suggest that every job a person holds have a simple question as part of one's employment:
What percentage of your income would you like to contribute to your retirement?
The amount should be required to be greater than 0%, but otherwise left entirely to the individual.
Say someone makes 2,000 per month, and they decide they want to save 10% of that. Well the 200 per month they put into the savings account at their bank is not taxed. They are taxed as if they only made 1800 per month.
The trade off there is that they can't touch what they've saved.
Its basically an unbreakable trust.
When they hit retirement age, the entire sum of that trust is given to them, tax free, to do with as they like for the remainder of their lives. If they want to put it all on red 23 at the tables in vegas, that is up to them. If they want to play shuffleboard in Florida and leave it as a tax free gift to their grandchildren, they can.
The point here is that the only oversight required is to make sure that every employer abides by that deposit program, and that the FDIC remains able to insure those accounts against loss.
This would provide a tremendous boost to the ability of Americans to take care of themselves, AND it is a huge economic boost, since banks have additional funds to invest, lend, and provide in venture capital or student loans etc.
Social Security HAS no benefit except to create a dependent class for the government to call on to increase government authority over our lives. And need I add...a much POORER dependent class.
Robert at January 31, 2010 9:45 AM
Fundamental health care coverage is NOT a right.
Find me one single word on the subject in the constitution.
It is not a right mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights, nor is it described as being in the duties of the federal government. Not once.
If we want to make it INTO a right, yes we can do that, we have a process to amend the constitution for just that purpose, the framers were very wise men, who recognized that they could not address then and there every circumstance that might occur in perpetuity, and so they gave us a means to change the constitution to enable us to cope with new issues.
But I don't see one proposal to amend the constitution, I don't hear one constitutional argument that isn't waffer thin that enshrines health care as a right.
Comparing police & fire departments to health care is just stupid. Those are services which exist to protect the community as a whole, not any one person. Health care coverage as a universal right does not, it is meant as a nanny state hand holding big brother will protect you poor little individual protection. I don't feel the least bit bad when some cheese burger munching three pack a day smoker whose idea of a snack is a six pack & a pound of tacos from taco johns, dies of a heart attack because he couldn't get someone to take care of him. Guess what, MOst health care problems are preventable. I'd support a government provided gym membership for every American before I'd support government health care, it'd damn sure be cheaper.
I have NO obligation to pay for YOUR poor health. zip, 0, zilch. You want to clog your arteries, that is your right, but if the only sit up you do in a day is the one when you rise from bed, don't tell ME that I owe you squat to take care of you when, big surprise, you get sick!
Government health care DOESN'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT COMES FROM ME! It comes from every taxpayer's pocket, it comes from MY ability to provide for my children, to save for their schooling, it comes from MY retirement, it comes from MY work.
In sum cp:
TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF, LEAVE MY WALLET ALONE!
Robert at January 31, 2010 9:59 AM
Hey Robert,
You are missing the point on several fronts. With regard to our Constitution--you will read in the Preamble "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,...promote the general Welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." And in Section 8 in states that "The Congress shall have the Power To...collect taxes...To pay for the...general welfare of the United States". Welfare in this instance was meant to be health, happiness and well-being. I'm not making this stuff up. Read it for yourself. The Government does not only have the right, but the obligation as stated in the Preamble. Secondly, if you or your employer is paying health insurance premiums now, you are in fact paying towards the coverage of EVERYONE covered under that policy, even those Freedom fry lovers of grease who smoke 3 packs/day as well as the ones that eat healthy and go to the gym. That is called the Law of Large Numbers in insurance lingo. Look it up. You have been BRAINWASHED by the opponents of health care reform (read this as being for-profit insurance companies) and you don't even realize it. You are already doing the very thing you say you don't want to do...PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S COVERAGE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU USE YOUR POLICY OR NOT! It's just that the INSURANCE COMPANY is your Big Brother. If you ever lose your policy (read get laid off) AND you have a pre-existing condition (or worse yet, your child has a pre-existing condition) you just might not EVER get that covered by an insurance company and then you will PAY out of your own pocket for treatment, maybe for the rest of your now shortened life. Out health care system is so screwed up in that it is a FOR-PROFIT system, and if you or someone you love doesn't fall into the profit model, then too bad for you.
cb at January 31, 2010 11:52 AM
Odd how these Ayn Rander types get their panties in a kerfuffle over Social Security, but never about the $60 billion a year in crop subsidies, or the huge income redistribution that happens every year from urban blue state to rural red states.
And the ossified lard, patronage, and waste that defines our defense budget? Off-limits baby.
Yeah, let's beat up on old ladies getting Social Security.
BOTU at January 31, 2010 11:59 AM
Someone always comes by and makes this assertion, but there's never any evidence, because in fact there aren't any "Ayn Rander types" who like Social Security, corporate welfare and income redistribution. Your attempt to paint fiscal conservatives as hypocrites has failed.
Our health care system is screwed up because the government has imposed perverse incentives on it. We don't have a health care "market" in the way that people think of a market, where customers choose between goods provided by multiple suppliers. Instead, insurance companies are the sellers, companies are the buyers and health care providers are the subcontractors. That whole paradigm needs to be tossed out, not "reformed" to be even more perverse than it already is, as Congress is in the process of attempting.
Pseudonym at January 31, 2010 12:33 PM
Estimates are that need for medical treatment would be cut at least in half, if everyone ate a healthy diet and exercised reasonably.
The problem is called the AMA. These, um, er, idiots tell us we need to cut back on fat, and eat lots of carbs. This directly links to heart disease, diabetes, and increased odds of cancer. The more obediently the population follows those instructions, the fatter we get, and the worse our health gets.
For those who wonder about the statement on cancer, it has been known since the 1920's, that most cancer gets its nutrition in the form of glucose.
So, we are on a high carb ergo high glucose diet. Good job, idiots. Is everyone aware that cancer grew rapidly in the 20th century? Gosh, I wonder why?
Several years ago, a study was done on terminal cancer patients. I say terminal because the Doctor Gods would not allow them to enter the project until they were declared as terminal, that is, beyond hope with chemo et al.
They took 25 terminal cancer patients, and put them on a ketogenic diet. Think phase 1 of Atkins, with very low carbs. Which means very low glucose.
These poor wretches were so sick that several died within 72 hours on the project.
Several said they couldn't do without their carbs. Blecchhh!!!!
Even with all this, five went into "remission". Even doing their darndest to kill them, 20% were saved.
irlandes at January 31, 2010 12:40 PM
I would abolish Social Security, including disability and SSI. It is an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme forced upon the American people. Not only would abolishing Social Security end a major plundering of the young, it would immediately do away with tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities, putting the country on a more solid fiscal footing.
I would abolish Medicare and Medicaid for similar reasons. The ending of the corresponding payroll taxes would also be a plus for employers who need to hire people. So would ending unemployment insurance.
Disability and unemployment insurance can be perfectly well taken care of at the state and/or local level, hopefully through fees taken from people's paychecks, rather than from payroll and corporate levies.
mpetrie98 at January 31, 2010 12:51 PM
We're not really going to let the stupid people eat cat food in their old age.
A lot more people wouldn't be stupid, if they knew they would end up eating Fancy Feast or Meow Mix in their old age.
mpetrie98 at January 31, 2010 12:53 PM
There are multiple factors for our health care system being screwed up. Sure, some factors listed above contribute.
But, one major factor is that we are increasing the number of female med students in the name of gender equality, not maximum health care.
Roughly half of female doctors are not in full time practice within five years after graduating from med school. They are off doing their mommy thing. So, though the number of med students seems to be limited, perhaps artificially, who knows, over 1/4 of them aren't working 40 hours a week, within 5 years after graduation.
The answer seems to be increase the number of female students some more. Hohohohahahaheeheehee.
Was it Einstein who said only crazy people continue to do the same thing while expecting different results?
As far as profit health care, here in Mexico are a few of the best hospitals in the world. Sure, what you hear about is the poor health care, but that is the government, non-profit system. If you can afford it, you go to a private profit system for the best medical care.
In the US, two years ago, my little grandson started vomiting with a fever Thursday afternoon. His parents called the doctor who said, gosh, he could squeeze him on Monday. Wonderful!
I called a med student I knew, who told me it was almost certainly roseola. Sure enough, on Saturday he got the rash on his back and the fever went away.
Here in Mexico, if your kid gets sick at 2 am, you jump in the car, go to a private for profit doctor, ring his door bell, he comes out looking half asleep, examines your kid, and gives him medicine. I know because my best friend runs a private clinic. It costs maybe $15 plus meds, instead of $500 at the emergency room.
As far as I am concerned, the answer on a personal basis is something the doctors hate, it's called self-treatment. You can change your diet to maximize your personal health.
You can take supplements. Note several years ago, they tried to change vitamins to controlled substances, and you would have been unable to buy vitamins without a prescription. And, I suppose cops would be able to confiscate your car if you imported them from Mexico.
Prostate swelling so common in Mexico is easily treatable at modest cost with Spring Valley saw palmetto standardized extract softgels 160 mg from Wal-mart, around 8 cents a day, or an equivalent brand. The doctors want to prescribe ten dollar a day stuff.
With the Internet, you have access to most of the same information that doctors do. Take charge of your life.
irlandes at January 31, 2010 12:59 PM
>>A lot more people wouldn't be stupid, if they knew they would end up eating Fancy Feast or Meow Mix in their old age.
I understand what you are saying, but I have a different viewpoint. Yes, most people would still be stupid. A lot of people simply can't handle long time periods, and make their decisions based on the emotion of the moment.
irlandes at January 31, 2010 1:02 PM
We can't seem to see that fundamental health coverage is a right not a privilege. No wonder Americans are perceived as idiots on this subject in Europe! We are so busy being divisive, and maintaining our individual "rights" to dumb down our country that we can't see that we are falling off the cliff.
The reliance on insurance coverage for most, if not all, of our health care needs is part of what makes health care so expensive, IMO. When the medical establishment can simply reach into the deep pockets of insurance companies and taxpayer funded insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, etc.), there is less of a need to lower prices to compete for customers. The avalanche of frivoulous medical lawsuits, and the protecting of American drug companies from overseas competition do not help either.
As far as the western Europeans thinking that we are idiots, some of their countries had unemployment rates of 10 percent or higher BEFORE this major recession hit.
mpetrie98 at January 31, 2010 1:08 PM
Odd how these Ayn Rander types get their panties in a kerfuffle over Social Security, but never about the $60 billion a year in crop subsidies, or the huge income redistribution that happens every year from urban blue state to rural red states.
And the ossified lard, patronage, and waste that defines our defense budget? Off-limits baby.
Yeah, let's beat up on old ladies getting Social Security.
Hey, Butt-Breath, as I believe I told you before, I actually support getting rid of the Ag Department. Any other income redistribution to the red states should be abolished as well. The liberal blue-staters who actually support this stuff have as much a right to their considerable income as the rest of us.
So, do you like little old ladies taking your income and pissing it away at the tables in Atlantic City?
mpetrie98 at January 31, 2010 1:28 PM
I agree with those who vote for taking care of our own health. And especially with irlandes who emphasizes over consumption of carbs. You are so, so right. I would add to your list of disorders high cholesterol. Many think that it is the high carb diets that drives the bad cholesterol moreso than fatty foods. Regardless, it only makes sense to put our health at a high priority. Even if you have the best health insurance in the world, medical doctors can not completely undo the years and years of poor lifestyles of their patients.
I also lived in a country (Ireland) where no one was turned away for medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay. AND at that time (1990's) a family of four could get a very good private health insurance plan for even more comprehensive care for about 600 euros. And that's per year!!
irishtexan at January 31, 2010 1:28 PM
I understand what you are saying, but I have a different viewpoint. Yes, most people would still be stupid. A lot of people simply can't handle long time periods, and make their decisions based on the emotion of the moment.
I'm guessing a good education in personal finance would help that out. As I understand it, not many kids have that opportunity in school.
mpetrie98 at January 31, 2010 1:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/01/31/socialist_secur.html#comment-1692340">comment from irishtexanIrishtexan, I would caution you against making statements about high cholesterol. The chain of evidence between cholesterol and heart disease doesn't actually exist. You're just parroting what you've read here and there -- which is quite different from an actual evidence-based perspective. For the record, I have relatively high cholesterol now -- and very high HDL, and the blood pressure of an elite athlete. High cholesterol appears to be protective for women in cases like mine (very low triglycerides, very high HDL, and large, fluffy LDL particles as opposed to small dense ones). This is not my research -- but that of Gary Taubes and Dr. Michael Eades, who have researched the best science out there on diet (or, in many cases, the actual science on diet -- while vast numbers of doctors practice what I call hearsay-based medicine). Which is what you're putting out here. For an excellent resource on this, see Dr. Eades' blog: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2010 2:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/01/31/socialist_secur.html#comment-1692341">comment from mpetrie98I've gone after crop subsidies, which I'm against. At some point, I'd like to shame the Rockefeller who lives on lower 5th Ave and gets crop subsidies. Sorry that you don't have a better argument available to you. Perhaps Dear Abby's site is more your speed?
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2010 2:26 PM
Corn subsidies aren't just wasteful, they're bad for your health! The subsidy has distorted the market for corn such that high-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar. Consequently, there's liquid corn is more kinds of processed food than you would possible. There's also an unsurprising correlation between calories from HFCS and obesity. But I'm preaching to the choir, aren't I?
Tyler at January 31, 2010 3:18 PM
"...than you would THINK possible."
Tyler at January 31, 2010 3:19 PM
Amy,
You're right, I've read that re: cholesterol in relationship to carb intake in a medical article. Not exactly comprehensive info. However, I've always had high cholesterol. Even in my 20's it was 300+ even though I was a "normal" 125 lbs. But I was on a pizza and Southern fried diet then. In recent years I've changed my diet for the better, and in fact in the last two years have eliminated high glycemic carbs nearly 100% (only have 1/4 c oatmeal/day). All other carbs comes from salads and low glycemic veggies. Last time cholesterol was checked last summer, it had come down to 225. Still considered high. I just started a new job, so I won't get health insurance for another 6 months, so I'll get it rechecked then and see how it goes. Regardless, it seems like it's a controversial subject. Thanks for the response.
irishtexan at January 31, 2010 3:41 PM
If there's a link between diet and serum cholesterol, then I don't have it.
I eat lots of fatty meats, 2 eggs a day, carbs, the whole bit.
My cholesterol number was 205 at my last checkup.
brian at January 31, 2010 3:49 PM
I'm familiar with the constitution thanks, and:
A: "Welfare" in the preamble has never been read to mean lifetime government healthcare.
B: The preamble is exactly that, a PREAMBLE. It IS NOT AN ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The preamble is nothing more than a statement of what the articles that follow are intended to do. Put in terms you will understand, it is like the introduction paragraph of an essay, a statement of what is to follow.
And NONE of those articles not a single one, even hints at government provided healthcare. Brainwashed? No, I'm literate.
Next in line, well I'm a soldier, "MY" coverage is provided on an unlimited basis just to keep me fit for combat, but I'm also expected and REQUIRED to maintain myself in a physical condition to where I'm suited to conduct any and all missions. My family however, is not similarly covered, oh we do have insurance through a private company which we do have to pay fees to and all that, copays can be a bitch of course, but the coverage is there, even if it is not perfect.
I'm familiar with the law of large numbers, I know you're not making it up, but I think you've misunderstood its meaning. Lets say 100 people have insurance, 1 of them gets sick, that other 99 which are not sick, are paying for that 1 person. Its basically a game of odds, SOMEONE will get sick, but until then, everything is gravy, and when it does happen, the system can sustain that one person.
But lets say we have another group of 100 people, now someone steps in and says, ok, you're all healthy, we have these people other people (lets say 10) who are ALREADY sick, and whats more, they're sick because they refuse to take care of themselves, so now YOU 100 responsible people MUST PAY for them. You're now violating the law of large numbers, because you aren't playing the odds, they're already sick, and they are an instant drain with 0 contribution. Making that even WORSe, those people who didn't take care of themselves in the first place, thus making themselves sick, suffer no requirements or consequences that MANDATE that they change their lifestyle to prevent their relapse into future sickness, meaning I get to pay again and again and again for ole 3x day Mcdonalds lover until the paramedics run just a little bit late and he keels over for good.
This may come as a surprise to you cb, but its for profit phramacutical companies, for profit doctors, and for profit hospitals which have been responsible for the best treatment in the world. It was a for profit system that developed the experimental procedure that saved my life when I was born with a defect in my heart, and it was a doctor earning 6 figures who studied his ass off for year after year who learned how to do what needed to be done to successfully complete that operation. Your little fantasy that a nonprofit system would help everybody is nothing but just that, a fantasy. I'm not brainwashsed thanks, you're simply innocent & naive, you can't accept that someone could come to a different conclusion to yourself, so they have to be either part of the evil system or brainwashed by it. You're personally showing me exactly why I lost patience with leftists a long time ago.
You DO have ONE good point, people with preexisting conditions have a hard time getting coverage, or find it out right impossible, well you'd have to be blind not to realize that. After all, insurance is a business, a business, not a charity. Note that there are thousands of charities out there already, and if you'd like to contribute your savings to the health care of a person with a preexisting condition, well I'll happily call you as saintly as you think you are. I'm not totally heartless, it certainly does suck when someone has a preexisting condition or a family history that makes getting coverage difficult.
But it is not a crime against humanity for a person to...gasp...pay for themselves. You did get the point though yes, people will PAY. That is the POINT, someone ALWAYS pays, even under your fantasy of nonprofit medical care, it just spreads the burden to us all. And I hate to tell you this because I WISH it weren't true:
But, SUCH A SYSTEM is NOT sustainable. We can't keep everyone alive, and when we can, we can't keep any of them that way forever. A few generations ago, people died of things we can help them survive today, but once they survive it, well they often require constant support to keep themselves alive. You forget that our resources are NOT unlimited, every dollar I spend on the person who tragically developed a brain tumor that keeps growing back after every surgery, is one less dollar spent on someone who needs only a single treatment, one less dollar spent to support care for those who will be able to contribute to the system for years on end, every dollar spent on the 90 year old patient keeping them alive for one more day after one more day, is a dollar less spent helping the life of the 20 year old, or on research to cure disease, or on infrastructure that allows every person to be productive, or on police forces to protect us from people who SHOULD be dead, or on job training to feed some poor bastard who lost his job, but needs only training to get a new one.
Every dollar you spend on this, is a dollar less that could go to something better.
In short, you're struggling to help people who, as in your example, will almost certainly need constant help for not 1 year, not 20 years, but all their lives, however long that is. I wouldn't mind you doing that, hell you're a saint if you contribute your time & money on preserving life, which even short, still has value, but don't dare for one second tell me you'll be taking MY hard earned wages, wages which are MY RIGHT to decide what to contribute to, what to save and how to use. The dollars you take from me in NEW taxes, you take away from MY CHILDREN, from MY WIFE, from MY HOUSE, from OUR FUTURE.
Help those people all you want, but don't mug me and pretend you're some noble robin hood type.
Robert at January 31, 2010 4:58 PM
"Welfare in this instance was meant to be health, happiness and well-being. I'm not making this stuff up"
Except you are. If they wanted the gov't to provide Drs, they'd have said that. They weren't shy about saying what they meant back then, and they don't need you to clarify things for them. General welfare doesn't mean health insurance or health care just because you say it does.
"Out health care system is so screwed up in that it is a FOR-PROFIT system,"
Our car companies are so screwed up that they are a FOR-PROFIT (at lest in theory) system. Our computer companies are so screwed up that they are a FOR-PROFIT system. Our clothing stores are so screwed up that they area FOR-PROFIT system. People NEED cars to get to work, and computers for school!! See how this works? Everyone on the planet works for their personal profit. Drs are no different, nor should they be. Or are you cool with the gov't telling you what you can earn?
"A lot of people simply can't handle long time periods, and make their decisions based on the emotion of the moment."
A lot of people can't make a lot of decisions. Does this mean I should pay for them if they gamble away their paycheck and can't make the rent? Where does it end? I'm all for keeping a (basic, communal) roof over really poor people's heads, and very basic food in their bellies. That's it. Life on the dole should not be appealing. Now should retirement on it. I just did our taxes. If I'd had that SS tax money to invest myself, we could retire in 10 years. And I'm sure we'll never see a dime of it.
momof4 at January 31, 2010 5:03 PM
Frankly I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't much matter WHAT you eat, as long as you are reasonable about how much, and exercise regularly.
The Army SAYS that at my height, I should weigh 189 lbs.
What I actually weigh is 230.
I also lift 355 lbs and run 2 miles in 14 minutes 37 seconds.
I'm in phenomenal shape, I go to the gym 6 nights per week, run every other day.
As to what I eat, MEAT, lots and lots of MEAT, also alot of fruit, I've been on a big kiwi kick lately, and plums, I love fruit, I love meat. I drink a lot of juice, don't touch much in the way of soda, and I enjoy the occasional bowl of lowfat strawberry frozen yogurt, good stuff.
Am I overweight? By measure of weight yes, but by measure of body fat, I'm way under my Army mandated limit.
Final point is this:
If you do NO exercise, no matter what you eat, (except maybe an all vegetable diet *blech*) you will probably get fat.
If you exercise regularly, and eat reasonably, you should always be able to look down and see your toes.
If you can't see your toes, its probably your own fault.
Robert at January 31, 2010 5:04 PM
I thought Bush tried to do something with Social Security, something about lockboxes and such. Might not have been the best idea, but it was a start, until it became a raving moonbat debate about Bush hating old people.
Back in the day, people relied on the Church and donations to take care of the poor, sick, and widowed. The state paid attention to national defense and providing a safe place to grow an economy, which it was allowed to tax. That model seemed to work fine for quite some time, and now we have non-profits for those that don't like religion. Works great until people start asking for the government to do crazy stuff, like manage their housing, health care, retirement and the BCS.
People see a lot of stability in government, forgetting that governments can in fact fail. Anyone that remembers the Carter era can recall a time when you simply couldn't get a loan for a house. Maybe a better example is post-war Germany, where the utter collapse of the government meant widespread poverty and a flourishing black market for a few years after.
If (when) the government does run out of money, Social Security will get "fixed," and probably not in the nicest of ways. People will start hiding money to avoid being cleaned out by the government, and no one will want to grow legitimate business because you'll get taxed to death.
As it stands now, Social Security isn't security, its theft. It doesn't work, and if you are responsible and save, you won't be allowed to draw from it. Your taxes currently go to the military, where you get the luxury of not being invaded and being able to operate in a world economy. Your taxes also pay for things like court systems, which are nice when you get sued or someone violates the law against you. But if you never get a benefit from Social Security because you are responsible and save, I can't see how you can call it anything but theft.
Ryan at January 31, 2010 5:36 PM
Ryan, the only reason I don't call it theft is because, like it or not, they haven't missed a payment yet.
In theory...in THEORY, we will all get our money back, and so far that has been true. I do believe we'll be able to start calling it theft in a decade or two, when to many people are collecting, not enough putting in, and then everybody has to pay in but they have "Qualifiers" for who can collect and when.
Robert at January 31, 2010 5:52 PM
Who doesn't pay taxes but gets most of the benefits?
I know you can't be talking about the rich.
As of 2007 for example:
Top 1% $410,096 paid: 40.42% of the total revenue collected by the U.S. government.
The next top 4% ($160,041)pay an additional 20% of the total income tax revenue.
The next 5% ($114,018) pay another 11% of the total income.
So we've gone through over 70% of the government's income tax revenue, and only 10% of the population's tax returns.
By the time you get to the bottom 50%, that entire bottom half is paying less than 3% of the income tax for the entire country.
SO, just how much more can we tax "the rich" to pay for all the little pet programs people like cb want?
Robert at January 31, 2010 6:01 PM
Time to bring THIS up again.
If you don't pay, you don't get to say what treatment you get.
Don't mistake luck for being prepared for a health emergency.
Radwaste at January 31, 2010 6:10 PM
We're not really going to let the stupid people eat cat food in their old age."
_____________
What about children, siblings, other family, community, friends, charity, church, etc?
_______________________________
OK, FINE! They can eat in this order: (1) children; (2) siblings; (3) other family members, (4) community, (5) friends (6) charities, and (7), church. When they're all gone, the stupid people can eat cat food.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 31, 2010 11:03 PM
"... yet you are saying that health care and retirement benefits is a PRIVILEGE that only a select portion of the population who can afford it are entitled to have ..."
Yes. That is what I am saying. Just where do you think the money comes from, to provide health care and retirement income? If the answer to your question is, 'From someone else's paycheck,' then you should be fucking ashamed of yourself.
If you've never earned a million dollars in your life, let alone saved that much, but you suddenly wish to have a million dollars spent on your hospital bills during the six months it takes you to die, where do you think that money comes from? Not from your own bank account, clearly. Do you want to take that hospital bed from someone else? Sure looks like it.
If you've worked your entire life and have been too stupid, or lacked enough self-discipline, to save any money, why do you suddenly have a "right" to a comfortable, lengthy retirement? There is no question of rights, here. If you save your money, you have it later; if not, you don't. Who are you to tell the person living next door to you, who has lived within his means, that he has to work longer in order to support your lazy ass?
Pirate Jo at February 1, 2010 11:44 AM
Everybody wants to be the grasshopper. And they want to step on the ants.
Not the best long term survival strategy.
brian at February 2, 2010 6:02 AM
Thanks for the marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and may come back someday. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great work, have a nice day!
Kelsie Hunzeker at August 9, 2011 8:08 PM
Leave a comment