Jump to content

California leads the way


Recommended Posts

Gunnergoz, an excellent response and not exactly the one I was expecting either. However, I would like to focus on this bit here as rights and privileges can get to the heart of a few disagreements. I think the difference is one of perception though. Let me go through an exercise with health care. If health care is a human right in a similar way to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then that would mean that the individual can't have that right taken away from them by the state - or I suppose alternatively that the state has an obligation to provide that right to the individual depending upon where you are coming from. There is a fundamental difference between healthcare as a right and life or liberty as a right. The difference being that healthcare, by definition, is a "service" while life and liberty are not "services" but rather more akin to a state of being.

Interesting point. I would argue that our state of health is just as much a "state of being" as life or liberty. In fact, I'd argue that we understand more in the way of our state of health than in liberty. We can measure and change our state of health with the aid of protocols and instruments which are the result of a huge investment in time and ability, we can do it in a timely fashion and it has real and immediate benefits. This is probably why so much has been invested in it. This is probably why it will continue to enjoy investment so long as a society can afford it.

Some public health works are not under the mantle of Health Care. What percentage of disease occurence has been solved by the construction and maintenance of sewerage systems? How many city-size sewerage sytems have been built with capital raised as a tax on the populace? Did you know that the management of zoonoses (diseases that transfer from animal to human) accounts for something like eighty percent of the value contributed by the veterinary profession? All that pet stuff - that's the icing on the cake, the real value is in the worming and vaccination programs in domestic herds.

A service requires that another individual must provide something to you in order for you to benefit from that right, service, product, whatever. If something is a service that is being provided, does making that service a right for the recipient not infringe upon the rights of those who are required by law to provide it? In other words, doesn't the person required to provide healthcare to someone then become a slave to the state or to the person receiving the healthcare?

What happens when the state can no longer provide that service for whatever reason? For example, there are many documented cases in the UK where patients were denied cancer drugs by a government review board or some other reason. Does that not constitute the state taking away the 'rights' of the individual for the receipt of healthcare? What gives the state the authority to remove the rights of the individual for healthcare?

The same authority the state assumes when it deprives someone of the right to life. That is, every time the state's army kills an enemy combatant. The same authority the state assumes when it deprives someone of the right to liberty. This isn't an argument worth looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What happens when the state can no longer provide that service for whatever reason? For example, there are many documented cases in the UK where patients were denied cancer drugs by a government review board or some other reason.

There is not an infinite amount of dosh to provide ALL healthcare in the UK's NHS - There are Health Economists armed with Excel that have a profound say on how funding is distributed.

http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug09/nice/index.html

How to measure life

Last week's BBC programme The price of life highlighted the plight of cancer sufferers awaiting a decision by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, on a new drug that could extend their lives. If approved by NICE, the drug, called revlimid and used to treat a cancer called multiple myeloma, could be prescribed freely on the NHS. If rejected, the prohibitive cost would mean that patients will miss out on those extra months or years. In the light of the suffering facing myeloma patients and their families, the main criterion for NICE's decisions — cost-effectiveness — seems almost inhumane. But, as the BBC programme revealed, NICE has to strike a next to impossible balance: the NHS budget is finite, and an extra year of life for a myeloma sufferer goes at the expense of others — it could mean a baby's life in an area with high infant mortality, no decent palliative care for other terminally ill patients, or no new diagnostic equipment for a hospital. It's hard to make fair decisions without some sort of rational measure, but exactly what kind of mathematical considerations go into NICE's calculations?

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/QALY.pdf

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/plea+to+save+kenyan+kidney+patient/547362

Plea to save Kenyan kidney patient

A Kenyan woman with kidney failure faces "certain death" if she is forcibly repatriated, her consultant said.

Apeles Onyango, who lives in Bradford, has life-saving dialysis treatment three times a week at St Luke's hospital.

Mrs Onyango said the Home Office turned down her application to settle in the UK two weeks ago and she now fears the necessary treatment will not be available to her if she returns to Kenya.

Her consultant, Robin Jeffrey, who has written to the Home Office about his concerns, told BBC Look North: "Termination of dialysis leads to death within about two weeks for a patient requiring that treatment."

"We need to appreciate that if she was forcibly repatriated it would be to certain death.

She died soon after returning to Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASL are you arguing that one is entitled to life, but not to the healthcare that might allow it?

I agree there is a philosophical difference between the 2 - 1 is a goal, an objective. the other is the means to achieve it.

It seems nonsensical to me to say that you are entitled to the objective, but not to the means to attain (or retain) it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Founding Fathers didn't immediately enact a Federal Healthcare system, I rather think they meant you are entitled to Life, in the strictest sense that the state cannot deprive you of life without due process.

If being entitled to Life is to mean the citizen is entitled to every good or service required to sustain life, then there is no aspect of our physical existence the state cannot be involved in or providing. You think that's the way to go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the government is already involved in most life sustaining business. FDA, FHA, Fannie and Freddie. All we lack is a Federal Clothing Authority.

And by the way, it has nothing to do with California, but I'll mention it because it was part of Gunner's rant against capital and fits in well at this point. Government money and policy fueled the housing boom and bust here in America. Fannie and Freddie borrowed money with an implicit government guarantee, and then used the money to buy up mortgages, which thereby begat more lending in the industry for housing. Sure the "evil" bankers went along for the ride, but low rates from the Fed and these government agencies were the prime movers in the boom and bust. Now that we know the loans are bad, and FNM and FRE are nationalized, the taxpayer is now on the hook for practically every bad mortgage in America. One more example of the dangers of getting politicians involved with a large segment of the economy in the name of egalitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a better way to go than saying that you are not entitled to "every good or service required to sustain life".

But in real life you get all those entitlements mostly without the direct action of the state - but via it's indirect actions. For example it makes laws controling commerce so that you can obtain food and shelter and have your property protected.

there is no need for it, at he moment at least, to actually grow and distribute food. none-the-less in an emergency situation it will provide food - how is that something that you can argue against??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Founding Fathers didn't immediately enact a Federal Healthcare system, I rather think they meant you are entitled to Life, in the strictest sense that the state cannot deprive you of life without due process.

While the founding fathers IMO showed remarkable foresight in laying out the foundations of our republic, they were not omniscient, a fact they themselves were well aware of. They must have understood that times would change and bring new needs and responsibilities with them. That's why they created a process by which the Constitution itself could be amended and also a Congress which could pass new laws as required to meet changing situations.

I frankly cannot imagine what kind of country you imagine would arise from the measures you seem to be advocating. Would you like to spell that out for us? I have a feeling that that somehow lies at the nub of our apparent disagreement.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in my fantasy Presidency I'd like to roll back American government to about the 1920s. That was before FDR tried to repeal the business cycle through legislation and government work projects, and the socialist ideas of one V.I. Lenin began to creep into the politics of Europe and America. At that time, there was certainly inequality, but there was also unprecedented opportunity.

I don't have the numbers at hand. What do you suppose the federal debt to GDP ratio was in the 20s and 30s? How about for the state of California? What about the tax rates? I'm guessing all were lower than today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US top marginal tax rates from the early 1900's are here.

Not the whole story of course since it doesnt' tell you anything about the lesser rates or the relationahip to things like average wage, etc. - but it does look a bit like you are wrong except for 6 years 1925-31.

Federal debt to GDP is here - you would proably have liked the period from 1840-1860!

And here's one since 1940 by presidential term.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in my fantasy Presidency I'd like to roll back American government to about the 1920s. That was before FDR tried to repeal the business cycle through legislation and government work projects, and the socialist ideas of one V.I. Lenin began to creep into the politics of Europe and America. At that time, there was certainly inequality, but there was also unprecedented opportunity.

I don't have the numbers at hand. What do you suppose the federal debt to GDP ratio was in the 20s and 30s? How about for the state of California? What about the tax rates? I'm guessing all were lower than today.

Yep, we really do live on different planets. :D So you are looking forward to a time which preceded and caused the Crash of '29? Gosh, the huevos of that leaves me breathless my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I am surprised at the high level of those top tax rates for many years.

More important to look at debt to GDP I think. Those bounced between 20 to 40 percent except for the WW2 years. Since the 1980s however, the story has been nothing but a steady climb, as we know approach the Greek or Italy like 100 percent ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, we really do live on different planets. :D So you are looking forward to a time which preceded and caused the Crash of '29? Gosh, the huevos of that leaves me breathless my friend.

There was a crash and a bad business cycle for sure. Of course today we don't stand for that. People go on unemployment, industries get bailouts, and it all goes on the Federal tab. That is until one day, when the government can no longer borrow, and then prints money until we take our wheelbarrows to market, and at that point the whole shell game is over.

Yes I do advocate economic lassez faire over interventionism, debt and monetary meltdown. Sure North Korea has no stock market crashes and no recessions. How are they doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, we can afford some of this social spending. I admit, debt ratios were under control for decades after things like unemployment insurance and social security were put in place.

What we are seeing now however in places like California and some of the European states is a tipping point where the social spending can no longer be paid for. Eventually, the tendency is clearly to vote for more services pensions and safety nets than can ever be made good. What are the unfunded social security liabilities? Five trillion? Where will that come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a crash and a bad business cycle for sure. Of course today we don't stand for that. People go on unemployment, industries get bailouts, and it all goes on the Federal tab. That is until one day, when the government can no longer borrow, and then prints money until we take our wheelbarrows to market, and at that point the whole shell game is over.

Yes I do advocate economic lassez faire over interventionism, debt and monetary meltdown. Sure North Korea has no stock market crashes and no recessions. How are they doing?

Runyan, I'm trying to do it, but I just can't wrap my mind around your logic: how will proper regulation of the financial market cause monetary meltdowns? I don't even buy the idea that it will cause excessive debt. It was the very Laissez fair philosophies you advocate that, when implemented by the Reagan and succeeding administrations, ultimately enabled the present financial crisis: not government regulation. The whole idea is to regulate unreasonable excesses in the financial sector - excesses of the sort that led to the out of control derivatives market that, along with frankly stupid home loan practices, nearly brought down Wall Street and necessitated the massive government bailouts in order to save the economy. It was not government "interventionism" that did all this, but rather the lack of effective government oversight to begin with. Ever hear the old saying that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" It certainly applies here.

And once again, you resort in the end to totally bogus tactics like dragging out the red herring of North Korea, as if its form of government is what is being suggested by those who see the need for regulation of these runaway market practices. Such hyperbole does nothing to further the discussion and actually backfires most of the time.

Why? Because, if your arguments have to depend upon this sort of phony smoke and mirrors finale, it is like admitting that your ideas will not stand up to logical dissection and must hide behind tired cliches, much like a aging stripper might use fans to conceal her flabby, saggy body.

Keep in the fight pal, but keep the punches clean and focused. Clinching in the corner is not going to win any bouts for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine with me. All our financial markets do need regulation. Lets not abolish the SEC or the FDIC. We need both. Just don't kid yourself. The government had it's hands all over the housing crisis. Government policy put people into houses they could not afford. Period end of story. Both parties were to blame.

Edit - By the way, you want reform? Let's see to it that Fannie and Freddie are unwound and then abolished. Let's get government out of the mortgage business.

I'm far more interested in discussing government spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, there was a policy to encourage people into housing that gave interest rate breaks somehow, and it was the end of those breaks that precipitated the crash - people on low incomes who could barely afford the reduced rates could not afford full market rates?

And again, as I understand it, this was entirely predictable, was pointed out by many, but was glossed over with "the market will correct itself by then" or similar nonsense that ammounts to nothing more than vague hope that something will come along?

and it was an election bribe...sorry..promise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short

1) Government created Fannie and Freddie in the interest of promoting home ownership.

2)These agencies buy mortgages from the banks. This takes the loans off the banks books, and frees them up for another round of lending. In this way government juiced and liquified the housing market.

3)This went on until the banks were giving loans to deadbeats. The banks didn't care because they were going to pass them on to the GSEs anyway. The government wasn't concerned as their goal was houses for everybody in the first place. In any case, a delusion developed that home prices were only heading higher. Some government luminaries like Alan Greenspan actually encourage the use of nontraditional mortgages like adjustible rate loans.

4) eventually a day comes when a significant portion of these deadbeats (you may prefer a different term) who had an expensive house but perhaps no job could no longer afford their payments. This topples the whole ponzi scheme, and home prices begin to drop, which snowballs.

5)government, who fed the flame all along and ignored the bad underwriting practiced in place during the boom, ignores it's own role in the whole thing, and of course posits that is what is really needed is tighter oversight and control of finance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting graph that SO linked to showing the ratio of debt to GDP for each presidential term. What was particulary illuminating was that under the Reagan, Bush & Dubya regimes the ratio increased significantly with the trend continuing ever upwards each time, when their reign finished. This is for Republican presidencies where the free market is king.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Regards

KR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More important to look at debt to GDP I think. ... Since the 1980s however, the story has been nothing but a steady climb

not quite - the Clinton years saw a substantial decrease

If you say so.

Um, what? SOs link shows a clear decrease in debt-to-GDP during Clinton's reign, as does yours.

What do you think the graphs show? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting graph that SO linked to showing the ratio of debt to GDP for each presidential term. What was particulary illuminating was that under the Reagan, Bush & Dubya regimes the ratio increased significantly with the trend continuing ever upwards each time, when their reign finished. This is for Republican presidencies where the free market is king.

Tax cuts and higher defence/war spending go hand in hand don't they?

What could possibly be wrong with spending more to make a stronger USA, while also "earning" less to do it with?:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are wearing me down, I don't know if I can spit into the wind much longer, but consider this - I'm sure the Greeks thought their social spending was "reasonable" right up until the prevent day, when nobody would lend to them anymore and they needed a bailout.

Individuals clearly did - same with the Spanish.

And their protests against spending cuts aer about as stupid as you can get - where do they think the money for it all is going to come from? They've been living fat off borrowings for years...now they can't do that any more......

You aren't arguing with communists here....despite what some people may label others as.....you are arguing with centrists, or perhaps pragmatists - people who think that there is a role for taxation and social welfare and a role for the free market.

But not too much of either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, what? SOs link shows a clear decrease in debt-to-GDP during Clinton's reign, as does yours.

What do you think the graphs show? :confused:

Yeah sure that's right. I think Clinton was one of our better conservatiive Presidents, in the mold of Calvin Coolidge. The man just didn't do anything, and that was great for the country. I just don't see the slight decline over those years as material, or worth pointing out, within the context of the larger trends the graph shows. It's a big So What.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...