American Suckage

[Ghastly]

We should - at least loosely - meet couple of these standards.

bullshit.

So then you're against free public education being available for all children and the abolishion of child labour factories or does your critical thinking skills stop at "communism = bad".

Sounds to me like somebody has been brought up on a steady diet of propaganda and jingoism.

[Honor]

We should - at least loosely - meet couple of these standards.

bullshit.

Eloquent as always, but no less correct.

Meeting standards loosely is either meeting a new standard, or misdefining standards so that nobody is sure whether they've been met. And none of Marx's tenets, as written, are worth adopting in a real-world environment, although several are... interesting... for the pruposes of thought experiments.

Inherited wealth, for instance... On a purely theoretical level, it would be really interesting to see everyone get an actually equal level of opportunity to amass wealth, either by luck, skill, hard work, invention, or a combination of the above. Plowing those assets back into the soil at the point of the accumulators death would make for much better and more level playing field...

But it's just wrong on some level. Despite being "unamerican", it also removes much of the motivation to excel... There are people who accumulate wealth just to accumulate it, but there are more who want to guarantee a better life for their children. And people excelling is good for the marketplace and good for the economy... Mostly.

It's right to tax inheritance... Much more heavily than we do. Pretty much anything over a hundred thousand (or another arbitrary mark that falls around one to two years income) should be taxed the same as what it essentially is... A lottery winning. The obvious exceptions shuld exist... Working capital like farms and factories... But those enterprises should be carfully identified, categorized, and taxed as ongoing businesses, and entities in their own right.

Just as an example.

[Honor]

We should - at least loosely - meet couple of these standards.

bullshit.

So then you're against free public education being available for all children and the abolishion of child labour factories or does your critical thinking skills stop at "communism = bad".

Sounds to me like somebody has been brought up on a steady diet of propaganda and jingoism.

I may as well answer to that as well, since I called him essentially correct... If the sentence stops there, it's good. Where it continues to fold education into the production process, thus not abolishing child labor, but changing it's name to something more palatable...

So yeah... I reject the premise of the statement. If we're meeting standards loosely, we should be writing our own standards.

[SpasticSage]

Honor, I don't think we're all that far apart here.

By saying "we should 'loosely' meet some of these standards", I didn't mean to say that we should take action so that we do.

By "should", I mean that given that it makes sense that bits of these principles make their way in the current American status quo. Mostly due to the fact that American policymakers (ideally) and Marxist principles both work for the good of the people and nation (granted, through different methods).

i.e. I was using 'should' in the same sense as "My VCR should automatically tape South Park tonight", not "We should go to the park today".

Mostly, I was responding to Swordsman, saying, basically "Yup, we do. That's not particularly surprising. And it's not necessarily a bad thing that some Communist principles partly apply, just because they're Communist. (Though you could easily argue against the merits of specific principles - many of them you should argue against). "

Nor, in making future policy, do I recommend looking at Communist principles in a vacuum. Rather, experiments (thought experiments and otherwise) produced from these principles, especially if we combine them with other principles (just as Honor just did with the concept of inheritance) can be used for meaningful and actionable discussion. (I.e. make new standards, based, in part, on the principles and experiences of the past)

I concede that I used the word, "standard" poorly.

[Tfin]

Yes, government schooling is bad, when they force religion into science class as more and more cities/states are doing.
-----

America already tried and rejected communism. We have this holiday coming up, called Thanksgiving; There was a reason those pilgrims did so poorly at first, yeah. They didn't teach that bit in the government-run schools.
-----

[Cuteswan]

So then you're against free public education being available for all children and the abolishion of child labour factories or does your critical thinking skills stop at "communism = bad".

Sounds to me like somebody has been brought up on a steady diet of propaganda and jingoism.

I'm disappointed that such a talented and expressive writer, who usually makes terrific and convincing arguments, would have to resort to personal attacks. Actually, I'm sad that anyone here would, but I knew that it would happen.

Why? In nearly every other thread, we rally against people who impose their religious or moral values upon us and tell us how we must live. However, since (most of) you feel that it's right to confiscate* money that others have earned so that it can be spent on the people you claim "need it more" then it must be absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees is an evil, heartless bastard, yada yada yada.

It's called hypocrisy.

Yes, deconstruction is fun when it's against a big bad country we want to blame for all the problems in the world, but somehow we never manage look at the intellectually dishonesty in our own thinking. If you believe that certain people need to be taken care of, then you should do it with your time and your resources. If you can convince others that you're right and then they help out, then so be it.

Sure, you can start arguing what's good for society, but that old line has been used to create concentration camps, impose religion, allow slavery, etc. Public schools are a great idea, but what gets taught? None of us want creationism taught, but it would be nice if they spent more time on math and reading than touchy-feely political correctness and why all corporations are evil. Should our money go to the military? If not, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.

Creating community standards is not like doing tax forms once a year: you need to be part of a community and agree to live by the standards that you help maintain. Most of us just don't pay attention to "that stuff" anymore, even though the more that government spends the poorer people seem to get.

In truth, we don't really believe it's our job to take care of the poor and downtrodden: we just don't want to get your hands dirty so we make it the government's job. Sure, some of us give money to charities or volunteer somewhere once in a while, but I can guarantee that, even in this forum (which I think is full of some of the brightest and most-caring people, despite this rant) there aren't 10% who have a personal commitment to help poor and needy strangers.

By the way, I'm not in that 10% either.

* Try not paying your taxes or filling out your forms and, eventually, people with guns will arrest you and you'll spend some quality time with a bunch of violent offenders. Actually, I think that's one reason that liberals are against the death penalty -- it's an added terror to use on people so they'll "pay their fair share."

[Swordsman3003]

While I don't necassarily agree with your views, cuteswan, I do agree with the point you are trying to make. A lot of people on this forum try to fight against unproven assumption and beliefs and philosophies, but fail to recognize when what they support is not automatically true, because they 'know' that what they are saying is correct.

I would say I agree with Bill Maher when he said "There is nobody better to tax than DEAD RICH PEOPLE!"

Also, I did like your comment cuteswan, when you said

[quote=cuteswan]Why? In nearly every other thread, we rally against people who impose their religious or moral values upon us and tell us how we must live. However, since (most of) you feel that it's right to confiscate* money that others have earned so that it can be spent on the people you claim "need it more" then it must be absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees is an evil, heartless bastard, yada yada yada.[/quote]

[Toawa]

Try not paying your taxes or filling out your forms and, eventually, people with guns will arrest you and you'll spend some quality time with a bunch of violent offenders. Actually, I think that's one reason that liberals are against the death penalty -- it's an added terror to use on people so they'll "pay their fair share."

I'm going to have to call you on that one; to the best of my knowledge, in the history of this country, no one has been sentenced to death for tax evasion or tax fraud.

And while I'm posting, let me put up my warning against blind partisanship:

Beware of blind partisanship; it's just as capable of mind control as any other memeplex. (Blaming one party, which certainly has as many problems as any other, and operating under the assumption that "If it's from a Party-Xican, it must be bad." is a recipe for others to control you. I've done the same thing... We all have... But I've seen too much blind partisanship lately, in this forum, and I feel I must say something.)

[Swordsman3003]

Like disregarding the FairTax because Republicans back it? hide

[SpasticSage]

Actually, I specifically remember considering it, and debating against it based on its merits. Learning who was backing it was less on my mind, though I can't speak for anyone else.

[Ghastly]

I'm disappointed that such a talented and expressive writer, who usually makes terrific and convincing arguments, would have to resort to personal attacks. Actually, I'm sad that anyone here would, but I knew that it would happen.

Why? In nearly every other thread, we rally against people who impose their religious or moral values upon us and tell us how we must live. However, since (most of) you feel that it's right to confiscate* money that others have earned so that it can be spent on the people you claim "need it more" then it must be absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees is an evil, heartless bastard, yada yada yada.

I think you're misunderstanding. Someone posted the points from the communist manifesto. Someone said we should at least try to meet some of those points but clearly not all of them. Someone else responded to that with "bullshit". Now either the "bullshit" meant we should try to meet all of those points or the "bullshit" meant we should try to meet none of those points. Given the previous statements it was pretty simple to deduce the "bullshit" meant we should meet none of those points.

One of the points of the communist manifesto was the abolishion of child labour factories (a truly brutal institution during Marx's time) and the establishment of public eduction. No matter what else you might think about Marx this one was clearly nailed on the head. I seriously doubt there are too many people who think abolishing child labour sweat shops and ensuring that even poor children are able to get an education is a bad thing.

The "bullshit" response meant either 1) the person is indeed a heartless bastard or 2) the person didn't read the points of the communist manifesto and simply assumed that since it had the word "communist" in it it must therefore be "evil" since Ronald Regan clearly taught us all that "communist" is always equal to "evil".

This is why critical thinking is such an important and neccessary skill and one which should be taught in highschool if you ask me. Forming opinion and policy based on jingoism is downright dangerous.

Yes there's an awful lot about communism which is flawed, horribly flawed, completely unworkable. But that doesn't mean everything about it is flawed. That doesn't mean there arn't some values it can impart. Abolishing forced child labour and establishing public schools... that a pretty damned good thing if you ask me.

Hell USSR state educational hygene pamphlets stressed the importance of proper diet, exercise, frequent bathing and oral care. Is that "bullshit" simply because Communists think brushing your teeth at least twice a day is a good idea? I think not.

(edit: from "abolishing forced child labour and public schools" to "abolishing forced child labour and establishing public schools". Marx wasn't for abolishing public schools)

[Honor]

wow... So much to respond to...

*Finished. I think this is a record. Not just for me, but for anyone. I'm sorry, but I obviously felt it all had to be said.

So then you're against free public education being available for all children and the abolishion of child labour factories or does your critical thinking skills stop at "communism = bad".

Sounds to me like somebody has been brought up on a steady diet of propaganda and jingoism.

I'm disappointed that such a talented and expressive writer, who usually makes terrific and convincing arguments, would have to resort to personal attacks. Actually, I'm sad that anyone here would, but I knew that it would happen.

Although G has already replied, and well, I'd like to point out, with a fairly high amount of vitriol, that nothing in his above quote (highlighted in red) can, in any reasonable way, be construed as a personal attack. It's a straight-forward judgement on the shallow, one-dimensional quality of the statement it referred to... In fact, it's considerably more sound and urbane than is the "argument" it refers to.

To make matters worse, for you to "tsk tsk" and wag your finger at it in this inaccurate manner is a baseless and ad hominem "personal attack" ...Precicely what you're inaccurately charging him with. Frankly, to echo in paraphrase the charge you leveled at G, Shame on you... You know better.

To move on to the balance of your argument...

In your next paragraph:

Why? In nearly every other thread, we rally against people who impose their religious or moral values upon us and tell us how we must live. However, since (most of) you feel that it's right to confiscate* money that others have earned so that it can be spent on the people you claim "need it more" then it must be absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees is an evil, heartless bastard, yada yada yada.

It's called hypocrisy.

...it's not really clear whether you're telling us all forms of taxation are hypocritical, or just specific graduated forms, like estate tax... I think I took it to be estate tax at first, because of the response that Swordsman offered up, but it's really not clarified at all, so I guess we're to assume that it's all taxation that's hypocritical and evil.

Well, let's practise some deconstruction on that admonition. The first and largest flaw in your thinking is that it's not because we "feel that it's right" that we support the idea of paying for social services through graduated taxation. It's not because we feel sorry for them (we do), or because we believe, as humans, we should care for our own (we should), or because or concience tells us everybody deserves a fair break (they do).

It's because it's better, for them and for all of us, if we do these things. It's not "we think it's better." it's "it's better. period." Better fiscally, better sociologically, better economically, and better technologically. And we can prove it.

"Because it's the right thing to do" has been offered up as an anecdotal supporting argument by myself and others, but only after it's been proven that it's also the logical and intelligent thing to do from a point of view of economics and sociology. It's really not much more complicated than the Karl Rove quote suggests...

"As people do better, ("better" meaning "get more money"... the only measure of a person's worth that the republican party considers meaningful) they start voting like Republicans (i.e: conservative) - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic (i.e: liberal/progressive)..."
((clarification notes added, of course, to clean up KR's sloppy language, and the moronic but irelevant indication that too much education was bad was removed.))

The more intelligent someone is, and educated someone is about the way the real world really works, the more likely they are to understand that progressive politics really are in the better interest of the vast majority of society. Only three types of people carry ideas the other way...

• Those, like many who either are rich and/or powerfull, or want to be, who are willing to profit from the direct victimization, subjugation, and misfortune of others
• Those who a) hold religious beliefs that are contrary to logic and b) wish to enforce those beliefs on others with the weight of law, and
• Those people whom members of one of the above two groups can hoodwink into false beliefs, in order to convince them to vote against their own best interests.

That's it. Really. It really is that simple. Various people and interest groups with a whole lot of money, who stand to make a whole lot more money by keeping conservative policies in place have spent a whole lot of time and money making sure it looks more complicated than that, since before the US was a country... But it Really. Is. That. Simple.

The answer to all the rest of your argument is found in the last line before the small print...

By the way, I'm not in that 10% either.

Bingo. If the government doesn't mandate it, it won't hapen.

We can easily enough prove that (the following are not real, documented numbers, just estimates I think we can all basically agree on) 90% of people agree we should all be charitable, and only 10% percent of people actually are.

If this were only about "Take care of the poor people... We feel sorry for them." then you'd be right. But it's not. It's about the government's fundamental obligation to ensure the safety and viability of the free market, and promote an environment that is beneficial to trade and economic growth.

Whether or not "the people" are smart enough to understand that it's fifty dollars better for them to let the government provide fifteen dollars in social services... Whether or not the powers that profit the most from the suspension of these services can fool you by shouting "ZOMG!!! Lookit all teh TaXXorS theyre charging yoo 4 nohtingz!!"... Whether or not everyone can agree that it's best if we have roads and mail service and technological advancement and social services... It's still better that we have them.

Better for economic reasons... The government's only real job.

By the way...

Sure, you can start arguing what's good for society, but that old line has been used to create concentration camps, impose religion, allow slavery, etc.

That is one of the most reprehensibly fallacious arguments that can be made against something. It's reprehensible because it employs faulty logic to intentionally compare something beneficial with something detrimental in the hopes of distracting from the more soundly logical points at hand.

Sure... You can argue that dogs can help the blind, but everyone knows dogs have savaged children, killed livestock, and infected the innocent with rabies!

Sure... You can argue that hypodermic syringes can fight disease, but everyone knows that these needles deliver devastating narcotics and actually assist in the transmission of diseases like HIV!!

The fact that something can be or has been put to negative use does not negate the idea or fact that it might be, even predominantly, put to positive use.
________________________________________

Honor, I don't think we're all that far apart here.

By saying "we should 'loosely' meet some of these standards"...

I know SS... I don't think we're that far apart on the ideological aspects of it, I'm just pointing out that a phrase like "we should adopt some aspects of this ideology" is a hollow, inoperative phrase... It doesn't really mean anything.

As an extreme example, we can take the quote "I like to eat a nice breakfast, then go out and find a three year old to rape and murder." and it stands up just as well to the phrase "we should adopt some aspects of this ideology".
________________________________________

...is anybody actually reading this...? If so, I love you.
________________________________________

I would say I agree with Bill Maher when he said "There is nobody better to tax than DEAD RICH PEOPLE!"

Also, I did like your comment cuteswan, when you said

ZOMG!! We shouldn't, like, taXXors peeple... it's all hippo-critical and stuffs!!*

Like disregarding the FairTax because Republicans back it? hide

You can run, but you cannot hide.

I'm really wishing you were one of my little brothers right now, because with them, I can say "Dammit, if you don't start thinking before you open your mouth, I'm gonna smack you so hard your nose will come out of your ear." and they'll understand that I'm only saying it because I love them.

With you, I have to be more polite and reasonable if I expect you to know that I'm annoyed because I love you. So...

Did you notice that you contradicted yourself twice and then... how shall we say... "fractured" the truth a bit?

First you're saying there's nobody better to tax than rich, dead people, then you're saying Cuteswan's right and we should't do that, then you're referencing something that never happened in order to sing the praises of a tax plan that would abolish inheritance taxes all together?

Now. Go back and actually read the arguments for and against (un)FairTax. Consider them fairly. Understand them all, whether you choose to agree with them or not. Only in this way can you make a truely wise and considered decision as to the position you choose to take on an issue, grasshopper.

The first thing I said was that I hadn't yet looked at it closely enough to make a judgement on it, but that the people sponsoring it were a very bad sign... But, I added, that fact alone didn't mean it was a bad plan.

Then we all spent a couple days actually debating the ideas and principals on their own merits (or galactically abundant lack thereof) and proving it was a fundamentally flawed and poorly conceived plan... And, in all liklihood, an intentionally dishonest smokescreen to get undereducated voters to support something that is demonstrably not in their best interest.

And now you come off with this... crap about "disregarding the FairTax because Republicans back it"!?!?! One of three things has to be going on here... There are no other logical options.

• Either you did read the arguments against FairTax and didn't understand them, or...
• You skipped reading them for some reason (whether it was because of your schedule, or because you knew they disagreed with the plan you back), or...
• You read them, understood them, disagreed anyway, and are now intentionally saying things that you know full well aren't true to try to color the debate.

Ever seen the Cher movie where she slaps the guy and says "Snap out of it!"? Well, this is your slap. Knock it off! You're smarter than this, and you're better than this. Don't take your point of view in suppository form from one-sided punditry and propaganda merchants, and never consider a subject closed before you hear and consider all sides. And don't turn into one of those guys who figures he's smarter than everybody else, so he only has to glance at the surface of any given problem before he makes his mind up... Even if you are smarter than everybody else, that just makes it that much more important to get all the information, and understand it before you dig your heels in and start pontificating.

I love you little brother... Now go have some porn and ice cream.
________________________________________
Toawa Thank you... You beat me to it. The Death Penalty as a means of frightening people into paying their taxes was -way- outide any theory I'd ever heard before.

And on reflex partisanism... I've always said: "Anyone who can always vote a straight party ticket with a clear concience probably isn't smart enough to be allowed to vote."

Of course, the more partisan congress gets, the more you have to swallow the idea of voting a party line just to keep balance... And that's not good in any way.
________________________________________

*ok... Cuteswan didn't really say that. I just realy got amused by typing "TaXXorS" in feeble-leet.

[Toawa]

"ZOMG!!! Lookit all teh TaXXorS theyre charging yoo 4 nohtingz!!"

Except that is happening... In the form of government inefficiency. (But do you see any vocal crusaders against that? I don't.)

One of the reasons that Libertarianism can be so attractive is that some of the current implementations are so inefficient, that having them not exist feels like an improvement.

And just for fun, if you want a tax policy to debate: I once heard someone advance the argument that corporate profits shouldn't be taxed at all. I'll admit, from a theoretical economic standpoint, I find it a fascinating concept to consider. Unfortunately, from a practical standpoint, one of two things would happen: Either corporations would become bigger focal points for wealth than they already are, or the regulations needed to prevent the abuses that come with the first would be so large as to negate any benefits that might have come.

[Danikitty182]

disclaimer: sorry, i'm not sufficiently versed in how the forum works to go back and find who said what and quote it. apologies.

warning: rantish, and apologies again.

disability is NOT all that easy to get on.

i've only been trying for about 3 years or so.

i have always had on-again-off-again trouble with my knees. when i was an adolescent, the docs pronounced my knee problems "growing pains". in high school, i had to give up almost all my physical activities (and quit playing basketball, which i loved) because my knees would just QUIT with no warning. i had to retake my junior year english final exam because i broke down crying in the middle of the class....got taken to the ER, got poked and prodded a number of ways, and was told i had an abcess under my right kneecap. no reason for it to happen, at least as far as anyone told me or my mother. got to wear an immobilizer for 6 weeks (loads of fun in a high school with 3 floors and one broken elevator that was a token for "handicapped facilities"). of course, by this time my lovely hereditary propensity for obesity was being stoked like a wildfire. fast-forward to college, about 4 years later ("real life" ensued first), and i had to quit school because i stepped off a CURB and sprained both ankles so badly the ER doc told me it would've been better if i'd broken them instead. never have managed to get back into school, mainly because of the loans i had to take out in order to get into school in the first place needing to be caught up before i can get any more of them.... anyhow. managed to land what i personally think of as a "career"-type job, as a temporary worker in the clerical field.....until my knees began to hurt me more regularly. now i don't know about most people, but for some reason, my employers took a dim view of having an increasingly overweight lady who was always in some kind of pain doing their clerical work for them. fortunately for me, i moved before i got fired....but eventually the knees caught up with me and i had to quit. the last time i held an actual job was january of 2000.
i started trying to get disability in 2002, and immediately found out firsthand what a nightmare bureaucracy can be. first, trying to get the proper information in the first place....the website seems to have been designed out of campaign promises - i've never seen so many words that seem to actually say so little. then, trying to fill out the paperwork. that surpassing joy was followed by the Long-Ass Wait. then, the request for more information...and lo and behold, i found out something nobody had bothered to tell me: i didn't have a Diagnosis. nobody had ever told me what was really wrong with my knees. disability wasn't interested in "they don't work! i can't stand up for more than 2 minutes! most days it's everything i can do to make it from my bed to the damn toilet!" they wanted a Diagnosis. fine. so i went looking for one. and made my next important discovery: nobody was gonna tell me anything unless i could Pay....either with insurance or with cash, unless they got Paid they weren't gonna tell me jack shit.....now here, go home, stay off your feet, elevate your knees, use ice if the swelling gets too much, and take these vicodin/darvocet/other pain meds. so i existed for 3 years, filling out forms, visiting ERs when i had long-time-since run out of pain meds and couldn't deal anymore, and getting rejections in the mail. in the meantime, my long-suffering and patient boyfriend-now-spouse managed to support us both...by slaving away at dead-end jobs that never could manage to give him full benefits i.e. "family"insurance.....and for a little while, on unemployment. we finally got married when he got a job that offered insurance for us both that didn't cost several limbs to get. thus armed with real, live insurance, i went and had my knees looked at for the umpteenth time. guess what? i got a Diagnosis: "patella alta, leading to chondromalacia". guess what that means? apparently my kneecaps have been in the wrong place all my life...put there by faulty genetics... and being in the wrong places, have ground themselves up into rough-surfaced chunks of Nasty, whilst crapping the sandpapered-off bits into my synovial fluid. guess what now? i've tried applying to get disability again, this time by contacting a specialist lawyer service first. they said there's no point in my trying to get disability, i'm not disabled enough. now, i know this is based on their risk-assessment thingy, are-they-gonna-get-their-money-on-my-case, and the answer is NO. there is a possibility that i could go for it on my own and win, although the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none, and slim just left town. here's the kicker: i also can't go back to school or work. school: i owe them a decent bit of money that i'm now in default on. work: i've tried, i've sent out lots and lots of resumes....and nobody wants to hire me. let's face it, i've been out of the job market for 5 years now, i'm out of practice in my field (clerical). it was hard enough getting jobs when i had a nodding acquaintance with walking but now i'm 375 pounds, i limp with a cane, i'm on pain meds at least 3 out of 5 days, and sometimes i can't even drive. i've been diagnosed depressive lo these many years ago, but pshrinks are expensive as all hell and even our family insurance only covers 20 visits a year...for both of us....and the money-making spouse needs to have his Seasonal Affectative Disorder seen to more than i need to be seen for my depression.

please don't tell me it's easy to get on disability.

[Honor]

"ZOMG!!! Lookit all teh TaXXorS theyre charging yoo 4 nohtingz!!"

Except that is happening... In the form of government inefficiency. (But do you see any vocal crusaders against that? I don't.)

Actually, living in Arizona - a very special kind of red state - I see quite a few... Unrealistic, wild-assed fringe groups who'd happily misrepresent the concept of laissez-faire policy until the government was effectively neutered and put on a 1 foot shock leash with a choke collar. I think they're called... What was it? Oh yeah. Republicans and Libertarians.

One of the reasons that Libertarianism can be so attractive is that some of the current implementations are so inefficient, that having them not exist feels like an improvement.

You've always stunned me by holding to Libertarian views, because you have this one trait you hardly ever find in a Libertarian. You're -very- intelligent. So let's advance this thing to the next level, shall we? Can I ask for some specific examples? Government budgets and operation numbers that show gross ineffeciency?

Countering a position like this (inefficiency) one is pretty easy... The government is actually very good at bureaucracy... Very efficient. Removing the profit issue from things that people actually need in order to survive allows those things to be seen to in a very matter-of-fact way. One of a great many representative studies on Medicare is a great example:

The overhead operation costs of private health plans varies pretty substantially... from as much as 30% or more in the case of individually held insurance to 22%-ish for smaller group plans to 12-15% in the case of very large group plans like Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Medicare's overhead operation cost is 2.1%. This number is a bit misleading, because of the sheer scale of the Medicare system, and the higher cost per member per month... But if those numbers are scaled closer to the numbers used by the private concerns, it still yields an overhead for Medicare of 6.1% as opposed to twice as much for the larger HMOs and "Blues".

Yes, this thread was started off railing against the quality of the coverage of these and similar plans, and the most recent post speaks directly ot that problem as well... But that is a problem of restrictive coverage born of insufficient funding... Not a problem of effeciency.

My solution (well... not mine originally... But rather, the one I support.) is simple. Everyone get's medicare, everything's covered, and we (as a nation) save about $27 billion* a year in insurance overhead costs. It should be noted that this only cuts overhead costs... Doctors still make as much. They can actually bill lower rates because everything and everyone is covered, and they don't have to figure a 20-50% non-coverage non-payment from insurance providers into their operating costs... So the healthcare cost per person would almost certaily go down over time.

And just for fun, if you want a tax policy to debate: I once heard someone advance the argument that corporate profits shouldn't be taxed at all.

Here in GGCF, if we're remembering the same discussion.

I'll admit, from a theoretical economic standpoint, I find it a fascinating concept to consider. Unfortunately, from a practical standpoint, one of two things would happen: Either corporations would become bigger focal points for wealth than they already are, or the regulations needed to prevent the abuses that come with the first would be so large as to negate any benefits that might have come.

Well... I -think- we're in basic agrement(?) so, since you're taking the "reasonable" response path, I'll take "strident".

I find it pretty... Well, "retarded" is the word that actually comes to mind if the person advancing the idea is serious and doesn't understand that the idea itself is evil. "Evil" is, of course, the term that comes to mind for the rest, because they know it's an evil idea.

Let's make it so something that is legally an artificial person, and of the class of entities that makes the bulk of the income in our economy, completely immune from the concept of a tax obligation. Great.

First, it would become childs play for anyone with a resonable IQ and a weak set of morals to self-incorporate and live tax free. Beyond that, the same problems that lurk just under the surface of just about every Republican/Libertarian "freedom" scheme are right there and easy to find... It would:

• Concentrate and/or export wealth at an increased rate
• Reduce the tax burden of the rich
• Increase the tax burdon of the working classes
• Deprive the poor of social services
• Restrict opportunity and upward mobility

Who would have ever thought that some of the best, most intelligent, and most civil "policy wonk" discussions on the menu would be found in a "big tent" special interest forum centered on a web-comic that self-identifies as kinda too-kinky-for-porn. I -so- love it here.


* this is a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess) based on $200 average cost per person per month X 12 months X 150M citizens currently covered X %15 average savings, with half of the savings absorbed in higher tax rates** to cover the balance of the population.

** Remember... The higer tax rates are balanced with lower overhead costs... So the total is still less.
Old Plan: Health Plan + Medicare Destined Taxes = 100% of current cost.
New Plan: Medicare Destined Taxes Only = (perhaps) 92% of (old) current cost... To start.

[Honor]

The Mighty Block O' Text.

Hi. My name's Honor. I can help you.

Where do you live? How many credits of college do you have, and from where and when? How old are you and your husband? Has he ever been in the military? What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

We don't get too snooty here about formatting, but if you -wanna- learn more about formatting posts on a phpbb forum, lookee here.

And if you only want to learn one formatting rule, remember the paragraph. The carriage return is your friend... But it's even more the friend of the person you want to read what you type.

[Toawa]

"ZOMG!!! Lookit all teh TaXXorS theyre charging yoo 4 nohtingz!!"

Except that is happening... In the form of government inefficiency. (But do you see any vocal crusaders against that? I don't.)

Actually, living in Arizona - a very special kind of red state - I see quite a few... Unrealistic, wild-assed fringe groups who'd happily misrepresent the concept of laissez-faire policy until the government was effectively neutered and put on a 1 foot shock leash with a choke collar. I think they're called... What was it? Oh yeah. Republicans and Libertarians.

One of the reasons that Libertarianism can be so attractive is that some of the current implementations are so inefficient, that having them not exist feels like an improvement.

You've always stunned me by holding to Libertarian views, because you have this one trait you hardly ever find in a Libertarian. You're -very- intelligent. So let's advance this thing to the next level, shall we? Can I ask for some specific examples? Government budgets and operation numbers that show gross ineffeciency?

I might be intelligent, but, as I've stated previously, I'm also paranoid about any large organization with the tools to impose their will onto mine. While I may acknowledge the need for that, sometimes, I prefer to keep them somewhere where I can see their hands at all times.

I think most of us, for instance, disagree with the government's current stance toward our little webcomic here, and what it represents. (See 18 USC 2257, "Obscenity Taskforce", etc.) I don't take comfort in the current requirement that it be "actual acts", because that could go at any moment.

Eliminate the bulk of that power structure, and you eliminate the potential for such annoyances. That's why Libertarianism is an attractor (consider the mathematical sense) to me. If they wouldn't resort to the kind of legislative trickery that they are so well known for, like hiding controversial measures in giant, must-pass-or-the-goverment-stops budgetary bills, etc., I might not be so... distrusting of the current structure. By minimizing the power of the government, they wouldn't have the tools to abuse. If it weren't for that tricky bit about all the other stuff they do (besides abuse), it'd be great.

If they'd at least stop with the, "We want this tool to fight (scare X), and that's all we'll use it for, we promise, (unless it makes something else easier, no matter whether its actually legal or moral to use it in such a situation).", I would have fewer problems. If they'd be willing to codify the "that's all we'll use it for, we promise" into the law itself, I'd be less concerned. But they rarely do.

Of course, that is probably more an aspect of politics than government.

But, this might also be a matter of choosing the party of best fit. I may have voted for them, but I've never given money to the LP. If I can find another party that better fits with my ideals, I'd certainly go for it, because the LP certainly isn't perfect.

Countering a position like this (inefficiency) one is pretty easy... The government is actually very good at bureaucracy...

Perhaps it's more of a state-government thing, then. Of course, there is still the legendary $500 toilet seat.

I'm more familiar with education spending than Medicare. I've heard stories of, for example, teachers being forbidden to buy books from one supplier because they were "not approved", even though the books were being sold at a significant discount (due to newer editions coming out). Look up some of John Taylor Gatto's books.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the government's operations, as opposed to private organizations, is that the government must, more or less, declare what it's going to do 6+ months in advance of when it's going to do it, and once declared, you can safely wager that they'll do it (or at least try to). This establishes a baseline demand that is essentially garaunteed not to fall, allowing supply to charge any price they want. In certain specialized areas, this can lead to cost increases due to lack of competition. (Of course, this can happen in the private sector, too, but private companies can change their mind a lot faster than the government. They have much less inertia.) Granted, this is a problem that is going to arise, because if they government had the same kind of agility that private groups have, it would be easier to hide wrongdoing due to less transparency.

But stories like the above, with the books, just stick in my craw.

And just for fun, if you want a tax policy to debate: I once heard someone advance the argument that corporate profits shouldn't be taxed at all.

Here in GGCF, if we're remembering the same discussion.

Actually, I heard it somewhere else, before that. Hell, I might have been the one to bring it up the first time.

I'll admit, from a theoretical economic standpoint, I find it a fascinating concept to consider. Unfortunately, from a practical standpoint, one of two things would happen: Either corporations would become bigger focal points for wealth than they already are, or the regulations needed to prevent the abuses that come with the first would be so large as to negate any benefits that might have come.

Well... I -think- we're in basic agrement(?) so, since you're taking the "reasonable" response path, I'll take "strident".

I find it pretty... Well, "retarded" is the word that actually comes to mind if the person advancing the idea is serious and doesn't understand that the idea itself is evil. "Evil" is, of course, the term that comes to mind for the rest, because they know it's an evil idea.

Let's make it so something that is legally an artificial person, and of the class of entities that makes the bulk of the income in our economy, completely immune from the concept of a tax obligation. Great.

Actually, I've never been that big on "artificial personhood" for corporations. It doesn't make sense to give artificial personhood to something that can't be thrown in prison for breaking the law because it doesn't actually exist... It lessens the deterrant effect.

First, it would become childs play for anyone with a resonable IQ and a weak set of morals to self-incorporate and live tax free. Beyond that, the same problems that lurk just under the surface of just about every Republican/Libertarian "freedom" scheme are right there and easy to find... It would:

• Concentrate and/or export wealth at an increased rate
• Reduce the tax burden of the rich
• Increase the tax burdon of the working classes
• Deprive the poor of social services
• Restrict opportunity and upward mobility

Which is exactly what I meant when I said:

...or the regulations needed to prevent the abuses that come with the first would be so large as to negate any benefits that might have come.

Not taxing the corporations' profits could let the corporations' coffers to be used as a giant (untaxed) savings account. And so long as that account was only money, and not "other things", and that the money was destined to be used domestically, ultimately allowing it to be taxed, it could work.

But that isn't going to happen, because there will be the abuses that you stated. Of course, replacing the income tax with a VAT would change the game entirely.

---

Oh yes.. As for medical insurance, I wonder, sometimes, if perhaps the problems (besides funding) are related to the fact that the barriers and compartmentalization seems to be getting rediculous. I understand that the risk-arbitrage game is best played when one has a very good idea about what the risk is, but I think it might be reaching a point where the gains made by better understanding the risk are offset by the increased cost required to assess that risk. Eventually, you just have to say, "Look, you lower-risk persons are going to be subsidising higher-risk persons. Deal with it." Especially as the gap between "lower-risk" and "higher-risk" narrows.

What brings this on? Actually, it's a completely separate, but equally controversial, topic: Abortion.

I would define myself as pro-choice, but sometimes it can be very difficult, when I see things like eugenic abortion (which the pro-lifers seem to be rather... quiet... about.), that is, aborting a fetus because of a "defect". Now, if the fetus, say, has no brain, that's one thing. But we're talking about Down's Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, even certain types of genetic deafness (or so I hear, on that last one). It's suggested that one of the reasons that the occurance of these conditions in this country has decreased primarily because as soon as its discovered, these fetuses are often aborted. (I've seen one claim, that 90% of fetuses that test positive for Down's are aborted.)

To make matters worse, this has given rise to "wrongful birth" and even "wrongful life" lawsuits. "Wrongful birth" is when the parents sue the hospital and doctors for not telling them about their baby's "defect" in time to have an abortion. ("Wrongful life" is when the child themself sues! Fortunately, most states have declared this to be as rediculous as it is, and won't allow it.) In order to insulate themselves from such suits, doctors have to tell the parents what the "worst-case scenario" is for whatever condition is detected, no matter how rare that is.

I've heard it suggested that if things continue developing along this line, it might come to a point where society in general (and insurance companies in particular) expect parents to abort "defective" fetuses, to the point of turning the cold shoulder to them if they don't. (Think Gattaca.)

(It did make me think of "birth-defect insurance", which pregnant women would purchase, and which would pay off for medical help or lifetime care (if needed) in the event of such births. But I don't know how well that would work, and it'd leave itself open to the abuses in the last paragraph. You'd need a very well-principled insurance company to pull this off.)

The point of this offshoot being, eventually the people (and the insurance companies) just have to say, "Look... there are risks in this world, and some people have higher risks than others, and for some people, their risk might be so high that the price they'd pay for insurance is rediculously high. Just because their high risk, perhaps though no fault of their own, doesn't mean we should break them financially, so some of your premiums are going to go toward them. Deal with it."

(And as for the risks that they do have control over, the set of "controllable" risks is expanding and shrinking all the time. So I'd say, unless there's a mountain of evidence to back segregating it into its own risk class, IE smoking, they shouldn't do it.)

[Jackalope]

On the other hand, try getting insurance if you have one of those inherited defects right now. They're considered "pre-existing conditions" and disqualify one from getting anything other than Medicaid. And since one's genetic information is not currently protected under privacy laws, a lot of people have opted to not undergo genetic testing because it'll screw up their insurance and employment chances. A lot of researchers have been complaining about this, because no one wants to enroll in a study about genetic defects if it'll mark them as carriers of defective genes. So the Gattaca scenario has at least partially arrived already.

One thing that gets ignored by the folks who object to aborting "defective" fetuses is the quality of life that someone with a given genetic defect is likely to have. As someone who is a carrier for several inherited defects, I would never, ever subject someone else to what I've lived through. My parents at least have ignorance as an excuse. They didn't know they were carriers and they didn't know that I'd inherit just about every recessive gene in our family tree. I can't make those excuses--and worse, George's family carries some of the same bad genes. Nope, I won't be breeding, even if I could carry anything to term. I think it's morally reprehensible to knowingly pass on deadly (CF, Tay-Sachs) or seriously disabling (Downs, RA, lupus, diabetes) genes. And the only reason that lupus and diabetes are "seriously disabling" and not "deadly" is because medical science has advanced enough to keep us alive.

And to bring things back to our original topic, Allan was strongly against CF carriers having children. He thought that no one should have to live the sort of life he had. His older brother died of CF when he was still a child, and it convinced him that any couple that knew they were carriers should quit after they had their first CF child. Or start practicing selective abortion. But he was appalled by the families who just kept having children, claiming that god meant for them to have them. He considered mostly selfishness on the part of the parents, who kept trying for a "normal" child and didn't take the suffering of their children with CF into account. All the posturing about "god meant us to have these kids" was just a way of justifying trying again and again for a normal child since they wouldn't consider genetic testing and abortion.

[Toawa]

My first response is that in many ways, Quality of Life is what we (as a society) make it. The QOL of a "disabled" person is largely influeneced by the existence of support mechanisms, as well as physical assistance (ie, wheelchair ramps). See the Social Model of Disability.

One of my biggest concerns with eugenic abortion has to do with Heterozygote Advantage. The most famous example is probably Sickle Cell Anemia, which, though debilitating to homozygotes, protects heretozygotes from malaria and other blood-borne parasites. An advantage exists to Cystic Fibrosis as well, with the discovery that being a heterozygote can provide protection against cholera. There is some evidence that Tay-Sachs carriers are more resistant to tuberculosis.

I am not unsympathetic toward parents who do not want to bring a baby into the world only to know that they will die early. But if we continue on this path, we could breed out potentially life-saving genetic traits because they cause a portion of the species to die young. It's like an insurance policy, but in this case, it's against armageddon; if we fall from our technological pillar, genetics will be our safety net against disease. Hell, we might not even have to fall... What if we get a flu pandemic that is counteracted by heterozygote advantage?

Now, I would not be against selective in vitro fertilization, so long as they'd still select carriers. Of course, if everyone did this, we'd all start to carry everything and then we'd become dependant upon genetic tests to concieve. I'll admit, this solution is not without its problems.

The other concern is one of the above-mentioned Social Disability model. Babies with CF and Tay-Sachs aren't the only ones who are getting eugenically aborted. Downs syndrome, which isn't even a carried genetic disorder, is a spectrum disorder, and there are a lot of people on the "less disabled" side of that spectrum. There is much concern amoung the autistic community that if a genetic basis for autism is ever discovered, the exact same thing will happen to them.

[Swordsman3003]

They way I feel, any woman should be able to have an abortion regardless of the circumstances, otherwise we have to draw an arbitrary line about who 'is allowed to have an abortion' or not.

While, I, personally, would hope that someone I would know would choose not to have an abortion, that is their decision not mine, and certainly not the government's.

What I am concerne about is the fact that many women/girls are not educated on the benefits/negatives of abortion properly. It can often be a dangerous procedure. I think teenagers need to be shown, possibly in the form of a film, what an abortion looks like etc etc. Perhaps THAT might deter them from of their indiscriminant sex.