A thread about healthcare and debt and stuff

I wrote up a response to your last post, Will, and I thought I'd saved it in my Dropbox folder before driving home, but apparently not. So I'll just post it tomorrow, then, when I get back.

When Jesus returns, I am sure he will let us mortals know what he thinks of socialized medicine and the military industrial complex.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

thats a trippy concept. its amazen holy roller types tend to frown on hallucigens.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

I believe it stems from the translations of The Bible in which the pronouns (or something similar) imply multiple people when God is talking. Whatever God is, though, I have little doubt it would seem kinda trippy to us.

Your whole reasoning is plain wrong. You make it sound like Europe's universal health care is THE problem that countries are going broke. It isn't. It's the Euro and the fact that our National Banks can't just print money like yours can.

I'll take Greece as an example. That country is broke, because the government misses out on huge incomes due to massive tax evasion. They let this go on for decades whereas the politicians should've handled this problem through reforms and a more stringent implementation of their tax system.

Moreover, the Greek government didn't invest enough in the hen with the golden egg: tourism. They should've promoted their country way, way more.

I could quote many more reasons why the country is now broke, but it all boils down to their governments not being strict enough in their policies and giving the Greek population too much freedom, which led to them abusing the system.

And now they are flat-out broke. But NOT because of the health care system. In all likelihood, that'll be thoroughly abused in Greece, much like everything, but the system isn't the cause. The cause is the fact that the country has been badly run for decades and now, the ***** has finally caught the fan.

Don't even get me started on us trying to print our way out of current troubles. I won't be defending that, so don't worry. It's a terrible idea that's temporarily propping up an economy even worse than the already poor numbers indicate.

But to your point: I'm not suggesting that all European countries that are going broke are doing so because of health care. There are a variety of entitlements out there, each of them capable of doing the same sort of thing. But let's skip over this for a moment and and narrow the original question: which European countries that have universal healthcare have not seen it eat up and ever-increasing amount of their budget, and/or had to significantly reform it? The UK is constantly talking about reform. Australia isn't European but it, too, has universal healthcare, and needs to reform. It's being discussed in Canada as well, and I suspect the places that resist it will find the need overwhelming before long. Why?

You don't think it has something to do with their generous public pensions and the fact that they granted a seventh of their work force early retirements? Entitlements are almost invariably a part of all such major financial crisis, because of their very nature. They are ongoing, increasing costs which mean prospects get worse as time goes on. Things like tax loopholes can be closed and sometimes even fixed overnight, at least in a general sense. It is the ongoing, exponential costs that cripple budgets in the long run. That's when debt becomes impossible to manage: when there is no prospect for recovery.

It's also not an either-or scenario. I have no trouble believing that Greece has been badly mismanaged in a variety of ways. But expanding entitlements narrow the options a country has when that sort of mismanagement occurs. The more you've obligated yourself to pay out, the less flexibility and margin you have as a result of other forms of incompetence.

Put another way: the things you're describing are reasons this is happening as soon and as badly as it is, but I don't think they're reasons it's happening at all, if you follow the distinction.

Increasing life expectancy of the population. People get olderand older, man. This is of course thanks to technological developments in taking care of the sick and elder (just using a collective term here), which now enable us to keep people alive longer. The consequence is naturally rising expenses. Yes, this will need fixing. It will eventually be simple. Europeans will need to work longer and get lesser pensions. Every government will do everything to avoid that scenario, but they will all have to succumb to it eventually, unless they want to end up like Greece.

I don't think it's because people are abusing the system.

Absolutely. But public pensions are generous in a lot of places in Europe. Also the early retirements. It has to be said though that the latter is due to complete mismanagement of the country and simply appeasing the population in order to stay in power rather than doing the sensible thing.

And no, their tax loopholes cannot be fixed easily. Tax evasion permeates every business sector in Greece and not just to a small extent. The biggest problems are mismanagement of the country and the fact that they had to expend lots and lots of money to fight the crisis and keep their banks alive, when they really couldn't afford it.

Yoda doesn't think government should have bailed out the banks. No government, no matter what type of government was in charge at the time, was willing to let the banks fail on a massive scale.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that it was about people abusing the system at all. I'm saying that this is simply what entitlement programs naturally do, even without abuse: they grow and grow, for the reasons you state and others. As conceived they are completely unsustainable. Various things in the United States, such as our overall wealth and ability to print money and dilute its value, masks this fact. But in other economies like Greece, we see what it leads to.

And when other forms of mismanagement occur (or even without them, eventually), entitlements need to be heavily reformed. And, shockingly, we find that people feel entitled to their entitlements. That's why they're so financially destructive: a combination of utter insolvency with a moral component that causes the citizenry to resist their reform.

Agreed. We need leaders who will tell us the hard truth about what is and is not financially feasible. I'm not sure people want to hear it, but they ignore it at their own peril.

I may have been clumsy in my phrasing: when I said "closed and fixed overnight," I meant that its effects would be immediately evident, not that the legislation would be necessarily easy to pass. By way of analogy, the country's finances are a boat with too many people getting on board and a leak. If you fix the leak and dump the excess water out, the boat is instantly more bouyant. But every person that comes in stays in. Stop tax evasion and you get new taxes coming in. Stop entitlement growth and you still haven't seen the last of the problem, because even the current retirees keep drawing more and more.

In other words, another restatement of your same points.

1) When entitlements are given, people want more. Which sounds a lot like this: "if you give someone minimum wage, they want maximum wage", which is stupid and untrue. We give someone minimum wages so they don't wander the streets without a place to sleep. Anything more, and we would be overstepping our bounds. It's classic slippery slope what you're doing.

2) It's not financially feasible. It's impossible without going into tons of debt. Hmmmmm.... this seems like something that I could contradict with a little bit of research. I'll get back to you here.

3) As for Jesus saying stuff is voluntary..... whatever man. WHATEVER.

The distinction between voluntary/non-voluntary is probably the biggest linguistic hole anyone can fall into, and I know this from my endlessly wise life experience. *puff* *puff* *puff on my pipe*

Because you can attribute any number of causes as "forcing" you to do something. For example, you can attribute the police for "forcing" you do not commit murder, but there is also the possibility that you just didn't want to commit murder. It only stops the people who do, because people shouldn't be murdered.

Are you saying Jesus would not agree that people shouldn't be murdered (for bad reasons of course, obviously he wanted to murder a lot of people)?

Clearly there are ethical injunctions that exist, and this should be the nature of "coercion". Is it RIGHT or WRONG to do something? And if it is WRONG to do something it is ALSO WRONG to let somebody else do it.

4) Also, i'm not going to waste my time arguing for the merits of a state socialist straw man. I'm not into that. But I will gladly explain why communism is not "coercive" at all.

People simply want to help others, because there is so strong a feeling of communal love, love for all people because of their existence as people and people alone. The love of the community IS the love of the holy ghost. No one is "coerced", because they just want to.

Now this is obvious when extended to state socialism. Has Christianity made you hate mankind so much that you cannot believe that people will simply WANT to help others as part of a love of others?

People join the military for three main reasons: 1) it's their only option because they can't find other lines of work, 2) they are drafted or "coerced" on penalty, 3) because they want to, because they want to help protect their country.

Any other reason is partially suicidal (which is not a bad thing at all)!

#3 is the level that communism exists at. We all love one another and will help one another. The selflessness and unconditional love that defines the divine love.

But please, try again to insert individuality and self-interest into LOVE.

I had other stuff, but the database error was too long, so I gave up and did something else. Screw it.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

No, there is a logical disconnect between "these programs always grow" and your example of "maximum wage." I don't know what "maximum wage" even means, but the correct analogy would be "if you give someone minimum wage, they'll want the minimum wage raised." Which is exactly what keeps happening to the minimum wage. It goes up now and then, and never goes down. Even when we have deflation.

The idea behind entitlements is simply that you're entitled to them. It expands, never contracts, unless/until a massive crisis results from their expansion. Ever hear the phrase "what's mine is mine and what's your is negotiable"?

Okay then.

The thought of you smoking a pipe is hysterical. Moreso if I imagine bubbles coming out of it.

For this to be true there would have to never be an instance where the threat of legal reprisal stopped someone from committing murder. And I think it's clear that this happens at least some of the time. It brings to mind the quote that we "punish more severely in order to punish less frequently." A good law does not only punish people who have done things, but deters others from doing it to start with. Thus, someone who doesn't commit murder because they fear punishment is also being "coerced" into not doing it. They are being coerced by threat.

But I'm not sure there's much legal value in the distinction between coercing someone not to do something and simply not allowing something they wouldn't do, anyway. The choice is the point, no? A person who has no freedom of speech doesn't stop being oppressed on a day when they don't have anything to say. They're oppressed by the mere fact that they cannot.

Regardless, isn't this academic? There is no society that will completely unite behind something like this. At least some people will not want to pay for other people's health care, and a universal health care law will necessarily coerce them to do so anyway.

I don't understand the first sentence/question. Regarding the rest: yes, ethical injunctions exist. Some things will be coerced. I have no problem with people making the case that paying for health care as a group is one of these things. I'm only disputing the notion that it is not, in fact, coerced.

And what happens if they decide they don't want to?

I don't even fully understand why this question is wrong, nor what statement of it mine it stems from. But I'll just state my position on people in general: sometimes we will help each other out of love. Many times we will not. We're fallen, imperfect, and ultimately pretty selfish. But yes, we are capable of beautiful, selfless things. It's just not something you can rely on.

Perfect love dispenses with individuality and self-interest. But our love is not perfect, because we're not perfect. And even then, this is thinking of familial love, which is not easily transferred to just anyone else. If we could all love each other in the same way that we love our spouses or our children, perhaps Communism could work. But I don't think we can.

Regarding the army example: do you think we'd have the same size army if we didn't pay them anything other than their expenses?

You might have to branch this thread off again into something similar to "Who Was Jesus and Was He a Commie?" I'd be down for that thread, but otherwise, I'm leaving this alone for now.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It'd really be something if we had to create a new thread for the discussion in the new thread we just had to create.

its a confusing thread if you didn't see the original branch-off in the abortion thread.

Yeah, sorry, I picked a less than great cutoff point in part because I wanted to branch it off before more posts showed up. Thanks for posting those, Dex, for posterity and clarity and all that.

WARNING: RANTING HARD

And why must we keep raising the minimum wage? Why is this a must? Why does this happen?

Let's assume that there is a situation where minimum wage can go up "naturally" -- let's say when the economy is good -- and it only benefits people. This situation is not unimaginable.

Now let's look at the opposite situation where minimum wage goes up "unnaturally" and it only hurts everyone overall.

I asked you this same question in a PM, but why can't the government just be smart about this? I agree that they haven't been smart, but why can't the government just change its ways and, well, BE SMARTER? I'm nearly finished with Hazlitt's book now, and I'm still asking the same thing. Why can't the government just make the right calculation ahead of time? Natural pricing works, but it works slowly and often unfairly. Why can't the government fix these problems AND be smart about it?

I don't see the mutual exclusivity here.

YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. YOU BETTER WATCH OUT, BOWYER. IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER.

I'm not saying something is true or false. I'm merely pointing out the ambiguity of the word "coercion" and how complex it is. This doesn't involve a "never/always" type of ultimatum. It is an ambiguity because it embraces both alternative.

People are both coerced and un-coerced. That's the only point I'm making here.

Ah, but speech is a terrible, terrible example here, because one can say an infinite amount of things.

There are also ethical injunctions on speech. Ethical injunctions, when assumed, change the entire game. Not only are there now coerced and un-coerced actions, there are also ethical and unethical actions. Unethical actions should not be allowed to occur.

So be it.

But ethics trumps coercion, and that is certainly not academic.

"Are you saying Jesus would not agree that people shouldn't be murdered?" a.k.a. what I asked.

I never said it wasn't coerced, did I? I just said that there is a possibility that it isn't coerced.

Why is this whole discussion of coercion/ethics extremely relevant? Because once ethical injunctions are assumed, coercion becomes necessary. It becomes indistinguishable from pure ethical necessity. It is subsumed in the entity of ethics, which you believe exists. That's the whole idea behind the law; it is necessary. Why is it necessary? Often for pragmatic reasons, often for economics reasons, but always for ethical reasons. The law can never be "consciously" unethical. Ethics is precisely what gives the law its mandate.

The whole point is they wouldn't decide that. They wouldn't want to. I would be destructive to decide against it for both themselves and the community. They would simply ask themselves the question: should I be a hUgE ******* today? Nah. Being a HuGe ******* kinda sucks.

Once we assume ethical injunctions exist, the idea that somebody should have the freedom to act evil is rendered impotent, even though it's stupid already by common sense.

Your argument: "we should have the right to be evil!"

This is why I like to say that Christianity is the most nihilist concept there is. You don't believe in the possibility of something truly beautiful or meaningful in an immanent world. Therefore, our entire world is nothing to you. What good is this world when the next world is infinitely better? Why try to create anything like heaven on earth when there's heaven waiting for you just around the corner?

I hope you realize there is absolutely no mischaracterization here. I also hope you realize that the argument for communism is largely predicated on the idea of love and is therefore absolutely what a logician would deride as an appeal to emotion.

When I said that Christianity and communism were the same, I meant it on every level in a completely unanalogous way. They are literally the same feelings/ideas but spoken through different words/narratives. Christians call it the second coming. It is the hope for something better. Social hope is the basis for all revolutionary action.

This point I do not want to argue with you on, since I know Christianity is all about humanity as the lowest scum, the dirty mirror, the sinful wretch. I cannot change what Christianity says. There is no argument against an absolute truth laid out in a book that you must obey. But I can tell you that I highly disapprove of your thinking. I gave you all the reasons why.

I know you don't. I've read Lewis's great work on love.

I suddenly think now I understand just how Christianity and capitalism are compatible. It's because you believe that mankind is forever doomed to be this selfish fiend. You don't believe that a society could function where people would look out for others and not just for themselves. You have no social hope, because that hope is exhausted in your idea of the second coming. There is no place for heaven on earth.

So you just let our immanent existences be the hell it is. Everyone out for themselves. Everyone for their own self interest. Everyone rejoicing at the failure of the others. A world of material prosperity powered by evil. I understand this sentiment. How dare a government try to improve the world? How dare we try to relieve suffering through our powers? That is the ultimate arrogance.

Let this world burn as the crapstack it is. True happiness can only be found in heaven.

It's pretty much the entire reason why you don't think government can ever do anything right. The question I asked above -- "why can't the government just change its ways and, well, BE SMARTER?" -- is already answered. You think that this is impossible, because people are just too evil to account for. Only a becoming-one with God can account for the evil in man. Only some transcendental force of good can wipe out that inner chaos.

Thank you, Yoda. I get it now. I get you. Your views couldn't be more consistent.

No. But we'd still have people who'd join out of love. That is the beginning of communism. The source of power that would rule such a society: a society fully on love. If there is one person on earth who sacrifices himself for the good of others, I believe that we all can do so in his image.

I was never kidding when I said I was a Christian.

Note: Feel free to reply piece-wise to this thing, ridicule it (seriously, if you are offended by this, just ridicule it [I deserve it ]) or, better yet, not at all, because I immediately feel uncertain again about what I have said. Except the ending about Christianity. That I have feel strongly about. However, the whole point of it was to establish a fundamental incommensurability between your views and my views despite the fact that they are really the same thing.

As long as you believe there is a transcendent plane, we can never be allies in fighting for our object of hope.

When have we had deflation and there has been long periods when Republicans have been in charge when the national minimum wage was not raised. It may never go down, but it has not kept up with the rate of inflation either. That statement didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Just out of curiosity what is the minimum wage stateside these days?

$7.25 here. But I just checked and it varies greatly across the states. Some have none.