Is "hard work" a virtue?

[Mr Spinkles]

You want to tax the rich. Taxes are coercive. Coercion erodes liberty.

Virtually everyone, including the rich, think the rich should be taxed. Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations that the rich should be taxed not only in proportion, but "somewhat more" than in proportion to their wealth, for a number of reasons.

 

[Jackytar]

So, we shouldn't have taxes?

Not to finance social programs that clearly don't work or are largely wasteful. As an example, type "medicare fraud" into google news and look at the hits from just the last few weeks. And this represents only a small fraction of the blatant fraud that's out there, at least 60 billion a year, which itself is only a tiny fraction of the soft fraud - procedures and tests that are not only unnecessary, but often harmful. From 1966 to 1980 the cost doubled every 4 years and continues to skyrocket. Not only because of the aging population and increased health care costs, but because people continually figure out how to game the system and that it's easy for public employees to spend other people's money. Medicare is, for all intents and purposes, a "blank check" operation that audits less than 5% of it's costs. I personally know a man from riding motorcycles who made 25 million in 7 years in the home health industry, where nurses go out to have a cup of tea with elderly ladies who have well managed high blood pressure. That's just one guy. Keep in mind that medicare is not a new program that we're trying to work the bugs out. It is an entrenched social program that has resisted reform multiple times. But, you know, I'm sure the next great scheme will work out fine. That we can get it right... eventually.

Jackytar

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I note that this picture assumes the profit margin and the salaries of managers and CEOs of MacDonalds will remain constant, and changes to minimum wage regulations will affect only the wages of minimum wage employees.

I was thinking roughly the same thing.

 

[Jackytar]

Virtually everyone, including the rich, think the rich should be taxed. Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations that the rich should be taxed not only in proportion, but "somewhat more" than in proportion to their wealth, for a number of reasons.

Well, sure, but that's not the same as "fixing" wage disparity.

Jackytar

 

[Alceste]

One of the most astounding examples of straw man argument I've ever seen - and this from someone who clearly knows how to identify logical fallacies. I'm disappointed. And starting to feel that I'm as likely to get an honest debate out of you as I am to get Ebola from drinking water.

Jackytar

How is this not a well-reasoned response to your statement that taxes are inherently coercive, and impinge on personal freedoms? Surely you can't come to such a conclusion without first considering the services rendered in exchange for the taxes, and whether or not their value (on the whole) outweighs the detrimental impact on personal freedom.

I'm not sure you know what a straw man is.

You're not likely to get Ebola from drinking water because water quality and waste management are heavily regulated. In fact, they're provided by the government in most cities. These services and enforcement of any regulations is paid for with the very same tax dollars that you feel are inherently coercive and detrimental to your personal liberty.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not to finance social programs that clearly don't work or are largely wasteful. As an example, type "medicare fraud" into google news and look at the hits from just the last few weeks. And this represents only a small fraction of the blatant fraud that's out there, at least 60 billion a year, which itself is only a tiny fraction of the soft fraud - procedures and tests that are not only unnecessary, but often harmful. From 1966 to 1980 the cost doubled every 4 years and continues to skyrocket. Not only because of the aging population and increased health care costs, but because people continually figure out how to game the system and that it's easy for public employees to spend other people's money. Medicare is, for all intents and purposes, a "blank check" operation that audits less than 5% of it's costs. I personally know a man from riding motorcycles who made 25 million in 7 years in the home health industry, where nurses go out to have a cup of tea with elderly ladies who have well managed high blood pressure. That's just one guy. Keep in mind that medicare is not a new program that we're trying to work the bugs out. It is an entrenched social program that has resisted reform multiple times. But, you know, I'm sure the next great scheme will work out fine. That we can get it right... eventually.

Is Medicare in the U.S. problematic because government is inherently more inefficient than markets in this case, or because of mismanagement/sabotage peculiar to the U.S.? I guess what I'm asking is.....isn't it true that every other wealthy industrialized nation has a single-payer healthcare system and all their citizens have health insurance? Is this a disaster in all those countries, or only in the U.S.? All the data I've seen from the WHO and so on indicate the U.S. is unique for the degree of privatization in its healthcare AND the low-quality of its healthcare, especially considering the enormous wealth of the U.S.

 

[idea]

You're not likely to get Ebola from drinking water because water quality and waste management are heavily regulated. In fact, they're provided by the government in most cities. These services and enforcement of any regulations is paid for with the very same tax dollars that you feel are inherently coercive and detrimental to your personal liberty.

I'm not "likely to get Ebola from drinking water" because I buy bottled water from a privately owned company.

What is wrong with the private sector providing what we need?

It gets better - private companies compete with one another, so their price is low. (Who does the gov compete with again? no one? a monopoly? that does not sound good). And if the private sector does not provide it - I can make my own . I am actually currently using grey-water to water my garden (I grow some of my own food too). Life is great when you work and can take care of yourself.

 

[idea]

Is Medicare in the U.S. problematic because government is inherently more inefficient than markets in this case, or because of mismanagement/sabotage peculiar to the U.S.? I guess what I'm asking is.....isn't it true that every other wealthy industrialized nation has a single-payer healthcare system and all their citizens have health insurance? Is this a disaster in all those countries, or only in the U.S.? All the data I've seen from the WHO and so on indicate the U.S. is unique for the degree of privatization in its healthcare AND the low-quality of its healthcare, especially considering the enormous wealth of the U.S.

from Scotland

Moonbattery: Socialized Medicine Death Sentences in Scotland
Socialized Medicine Death Sentences in Scotland

From Scotland, land of enlightened socialized medicine:

Cancer patients are still waiting up to seven months for treatment.
​

Patients are supposed to be treated within 62 days of urgent referral.
​

But figures out yesterday showed only three areas in Scotland were meeting those targets every time.
​

In the worst cases, sufferers were kept hanging on for 220 days.


from Britain
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-46837.html

Just look at the comparison between our health care system here in the states and the socialized medicine practiced by our British cousins across the pond, and you'll see how many corpses are produced when the government gets into the business of "making you well."
Ralph R. Reiland (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/reiland/s_307614.html) has the goods..

In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal health care system. Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."

Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British health care." The reason isn't that we sue more in America and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."

More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a bypass.

...Taken as a whole, Britain's universal health care system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.

"Having a diagnosis test beyond an X-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need," writes Bartholomew. "In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., 5 percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist."

Ronald Reagan once said,

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

If we ever get socialized medicine in this country, many Americans will find out how right Reagan was....

​

 

[Jackytar]

How is this not a well-reasoned response to your statement that taxes are inherently coercive, and impinge on personal freedoms? Surely you can't come to such a conclusion without first considering the services rendered in exchange for the taxes, and whether or not their value (on the whole) outweighs the detrimental impact on personal freedom.

I'm not sure you know what a straw man is.

You're not likely to get Ebola from drinking water because water quality and waste management are heavily regulated. In fact, they're provided by the government in most cities. These services and enforcement of any regulations is paid for with the very same tax dollars that you feel are inherently coercive and detrimental to your personal liberty.

Allow me to quote myself...

"Capitalism does not defend the right of one person to harm another. Period. If it does, it's not capitalism. It's something else. Perhaps cronyism. A feature of government."

You can't get Ebola from drinking water.

Jackytar

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In the short run, if I own a McDonald's, I will cut back help. In the long run, it will not work and I will have to have more help again. This will raise my labor expense and require me to charge more for a big mac.

On the other hand, workers around the country will move into an income bracket that allows them to buy big macs. This increases demand, so you hire more workers to produce more big macs.

It seems to me the devil lies in the details....you can spin any story you like but at the end of the day, the economy is a complicated thing, like the human body, there are feedback loops and nonlinear thresholds and finite things and discrete things....it's not just the simple cause-and-effect one learns in Micro. Econ. 101. Many people were vehemently arguing that women should leave their jobs after WWII because their massive entrance into the workforce alongside men was lowering wages for everyone.....the reasoning seems simple enough, but clearly in reality it's not so simple.

Empirical data is really the only way to resolve this, and in fact the outcome of raising min. wage surely depends on the details: which country, during which time, and how much of a raise we are talking about.

But just looking at the data I posted, we can say (at very least) raising the minimum wage does not *necessarily* increase unemployment. The data plainly shows this.

 

[Jackytar]

Is Medicare in the U.S. problematic because government is inherently more inefficient than markets in this case, or because of mismanagement/sabotage peculiar to the U.S.? I guess what I'm asking is.....isn't it true that every other wealthy industrialized nation has a single-payer healthcare system and all their citizens have health insurance? Is this a disaster in all those countries, or only in the U.S.? All the data I've seen from the WHO and so on indicate the U.S. is unique for the degree of privatization in its healthcare AND the low-quality of its healthcare, especially considering the enormous wealth of the U.S.

The answer to "which is better" is "none of the above". But that's another thread.

Jackytar

 

[idea]

you can't get ebola from drinking water.

lol!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola

 

[Alceste]

Sadly Alceste, I don't think that most people are aware of this at all.
Most people think the Federal Reserve is actually federal.
(gee... I wonder why? )
They have no idea that private banking families charge their govt.
(ie... you and me)
interest, just for the "right" of using their family money...
which is backed by absolutely nothing tangible.

And it's not like the public school cirriculums bring light to any of this either.
Yet they do a stellar job mass conforming young minds to pledge their blind allegiance....

Yup. All the US dollars in circulation are borrowed from the Federal Reserve, at interest. I was surprised to learn that myself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

from Scotland

Moonbattery: Socialized Medicine Death Sentences in Scotland
Socialized Medicine Death Sentences in Scotland

From Scotland, land of enlightened socialized medicine:

Cancer patients are still waiting up to seven months for treatment.
​

Patients are supposed to be treated within 62 days of urgent referral.
​

But figures out yesterday showed only three areas in Scotland were meeting those targets every time.
​

In the worst cases, sufferers were kept hanging on for 220 days.


from Britain
Socialized Medicine = less sick people (by less sick people I mean more dead people) [Archive] - nV News Forums



​

Hi idea,
I think this article from U. Maine is more comprehensive: http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

Your article focuses on only one other country, Britain.

Also, you focus on only two measures of "good" health care: the speediness of treatment, and the survival rate for severe, high-cost illnesses.

These happen to be the American health care system's strong points, according to the study I've cited above, but they are arguably outweighed by the negative aspects. For example, one might ask what percentage of Americans got cancer, or didn't have it detected until the later (more severe, more costly) stages, because of lack of education or preventative treatment, or because seeing a doctor is so expensive that they waited until their condition became an emergency. If the answer to this question is "a lot" then it's not so comforting that the illness is *less fatal* in the U.S. than other countries. As far as the bottom line is concerned (# of people dying, # of people suffering, for # of years, for X dollars) it would be better to have a tiny number getting the illness in the first place even if that illness is fatal for a higher percentage once they get the illness. And what percentage of foreigners avoid serious illness in the first place, and live all-around healthier lives, because they can afford regular check-ups and preventative tests and treatments?

All these dimensions, not just the two convenient ones you focused on, must be explored to establish a "better" or "worse" health care system outcome.

 

[idea]

Yup. All the US dollars in circulation are borrowed from the Federal Reserve, at interest. I was surprised to learn that myself.

If you want to know who really runs the country... who really runs the world...
Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idea]

you focus on only two measures of "good" health care: the speediness of treatment, and the survival rate for severe, high-cost illnesses.

No - see underlihned...
from the Britain one:

In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal health care system. Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."

Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British health care." The reason isn't that we sue more in America and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."

More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a bypass.

...Taken as a whole, Britain's universal health care system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.

"Having a diagnosis test beyond an X-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need," writes Bartholomew. "In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., 5 percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist."

The Problems with Socialized Health Care
Worldwide Experiments in Socialism
Links, articles and figures detailing widespread and specific problems in countries with varying degrees of socialized health care. </B>
Great Britain
Other European Countries
Canada

Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Cuba
New Zealand
Australia

and waiting lists are a HUGE problem.
See links.

In any event, Anyone can go into any hospital in the US and get treatment with or without health insurance. Medicaid / Medicare - there are programs for everyone who invests the time to sign up.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Mr. Sprinkles,



Take it look at my link above (Walter E. Williams study: Youth and Minority Unemployment). But the fallacy you are committing is looking the unemployment rate of everybody when a very small percentage of people have jobs that pay the minimum wage.

Well sure, that's another thing we can look at, but originally I don't remember you making this caveat, that we are only interested in unemployment for people at that wage.

Obviously, you can only look at the unemployment rates of the people that work minimum wage jobs. When you do that you see more often than not there is an increase in unemployment among the very people working minimum wage jobs.

So what? Clearly, any job loss at the min. wage level was made up for by job increases at higher wage levels. Otherwise the overall unemployment rate would have gown down over the past 60 years, as min. wage was increased over and over again. But that's not what the data shows.

OTOH you could argue raising the min. wage had no effect, or that unemployment would have been steadily going down all this time, if it weren't for min. wage.

 

[Sunstone]

Hey, this is a good debate and a fun thread for once. What happened?

 

[Alceste]

Allow me to quote myself...

"Capitalism does not defend the right of one person to harm another. Period. If it does, it's not capitalism. It's something else. Perhaps cronyism. A feature of government."

Allow me to quote you:

for every problem there is a market economy solution that is better than the socialst one

The current system of water quality management and sewer regulations, as well as the provision of these services in most western cities, is a socialist solution. Please give me an example from the real world of a water / sewerage provision and regulation system that is measurably better (in terms of universal access, quality, affordability and robust regulation - not profit) than the socialist system we all currently enjoy.

When you're done with that, we can start on the Fire Department.

I don't know what "capitalism" does or doesn't believe, but you have stated that you believe the free market would provide better libraries, better schools, cleaner water, more effective fire protection, better roads, better sewers, better environmental regulation and enforcement, better labour and workplace safety standards, better food and drug quality monitoring, a better army, navy, and coast guard, better border security, a better police force, better orphanages, better public transport... I could go on and on, since governments in mixed economies provide a lot of communal services in exchange for our tax dollars.

You can't get Ebola from drinking water.

Jackytar

Whoops, my bad. Cholera then.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No - see underlihned...
from the Britain one:

The part you underlined talks, again, about severe, high-cost, relatively rare illnesses and advanced technologies to treat them, and that does seem to be America's strong-point, that was my point. Not everyone is going to need an artery widened after a heart attack with an angioplasty, at enormous personal cost. Everyone, on the other hand, has to be born eventually, and our infant mortality rates are dead last among industrialized nations. Everyone is going to need some form of health care eventually, and the U.S. is the only wealthy nation that does not provide health insurance for every citizen. Everyone has to endure the costs of health care, which are far higher per person, as a % of our GDP....any way you slice it...in the U.S. than anywhere else. Only a very few people need advanced drugs or a replacement heart (and on a side-note, private industries provide them for enormous profits, because people will pay anything when faced with fatal illness). The best treatment for heart disease, as we all know, is preventative treatment over the course of a lifetime, which means regular check-ups, etc. that are affordable, not $1 million for a replacement heart that extends your lifetime by 10 years once the disease becomes an emergency. ....Although that may well be the most *profitable* way to treat people (less cost effective for *them*)....

All this is incredible, given the enormous comparative wealth of the U.S.

and waiting lists are a HUGE problem.
See links.

Right. Rapidity of treatment is one upside of the U.S. system, as I conceded. You get the incredibly expensive, TV-advertised miracle drug that will cure your preventable emergency very, very quickly, right when you pay for it and not a moment later. Great customer service.

In any event, Anyone can go into any hospital in the US and get treatment with or without health insurance. Medicaid / Medicare - there are programs for everyone who invests the time to sign up.

Yes, you can get treatment, at enormous cost. And the treatment is much worse in poor communities. The last time I needed an X-ray I had to call my insurance company to ask which hospitals/doctors were covered on my plan, in principle I could go to any one I liked, sure, but I wouldn't be covered and the costs would be much higher. Instead of a government bureaucrat there's a business bureaucrat restricting my choices.