Chances are that if you’re the average skateboarder, you don’t know much about politics, and even less about universal healthcare. If all you know is that universal healthcare means everyone has healthcare, then that sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? And chances are you could care less about how the government is going to pay for it. I mean, if they are just taxing rich people, who cares? I’m not going to argue the larger issues at stake, however. My point here is to explain what universal healthcare would mean when it comes to being a skater in the US. But first, we need to understand on a basic level how universal healthcare works.
In a nutshell, universal healthcare means everyone has healthcare. It is paid for by taxes. You know how when you get your paycheck there’s always money missing from it? Those are taxes and the government uses that money to do what the government does. There’s no doubt that if the US gets universal healthcare then somebody is going to have to pay higher taxes. Maybe it won’t be your mom or dad, but somebody’s mom and dad is going to being paying out a lot of money to cover those alleged 47 million people who currently don’t have health insurance.
The problem is, no matter how much the government raises taxes, it won’t be enough. The government already provides healthcare to a lot of people through two programs called Medicaid and Medicare and wouldn’t you know it–they’re bankrupt. They’re out of money to pay for these programs (not that this has ever stopped our government from spending money, they just borrow it), and it’s getting worse. The same thing will happen with universal healthcare, but at some point the government is going to recognize they can’t pay for it and they can’t borrow enough money to pay for it, and that means rationing. What’s rationing, you ask? Well, if the government were rationing food, it would mean the government would give you a certain amount of food per day, and if you wanted more you wouldn’t be able to get it, even if you were willing to pay for it. The same thing will happen with healthcare. And it will be compounded because it’s not all that fun to work for the government, so we won’t have as many people going into the professions of doctors and nurses. This is going to make healthcare very, very expensive for the government to provide, and so they’ll provide less of it.
In other words, everyone will have healthcare, but healthcare will stink. You’ve got a broken arm and the bone is sticking out? Great, sit here for a few hours, we’ll see when we can get around to helping you out. Sorry, our best doctor quit because he doesn’t like working for the system, but we’ve got this other guy over here who wants to be a doctor someday, we’ll let him help you out. Painkillers? No, those are too expensive, the government won’t let us provide them anymore. You want a new cast on your arm? But you’ve only had this one for three months. Yeah, I can see that it’s cracked and I can smell the stink coming from it, but you’ll just have to make do with it for another two months. We can’t afford new casts for everyone who wants them. No, you can’t buy a new one, that would be unfair to everyone else. Oh sorry, your arm healed crooked. Well, sorry about that, just be grateful you have healthcare.
But low-quality healthcare won’t be all you have to deal with. Broken arms are expensive. The government can’t afford repairing all these broken arms. So all skateboarders will now be required, by law, to wear full arm-guards and helmets while skateboarding. If you get caught skateboarding without full protection, you’ll be fined, along with your parents. And you know all these public skateparks? That’s just encouraging kids to skate, which means more kids are getting hurt. The government can’t afford this, so we better close down all the public parks. Let’s outlaw private skateparks while we’re at it. In fact, let’s just make skateboarding illegal. Hey, if we, the government, are providing the healthcare then we get to make the rules that define your behavior so that we can keep costs down, right? No smoking, no drinking, no skateboarding. We have to make these rules to protect you. We can’t afford to provide health insurance for all these poor people and college students if we’ve got people out there skateboarding and making healthcare more expensive.
But wait, you say, Canada and England have universal healthcare, and there aren’t any rules like this in those countries, and they’re still building public skateparks and all that. What are you talking about? Yeah, you’re right. I’m giving you the worst-case scenario. I don’t think it will ever get that far, because I think the people in this country would reject universal healthcare before it ever reached this point. But that doesn’t mean we won’t get down the line a ways. Helmet laws already exist in some states. With universal healthcare you can bet helmets will be required at all public skateparks in every state of the country. Full pads won’t be far behind. And you can definitely count on the quality of healthcare being lower. We already see that in Canada and England. There may be some exceptions, but there are a lot of nightmare cases happening in these countries where people are dying because the waits are so long and the care is so bad. Sure, people die here in the US too, but you’re statistically better off here. That’s why so many people come from other countries to the US in order to get treatment–we’ve got a better system.
Here’s an alternative to universal healthcare. How about if we let people choose whether to have health insurance or not? If a health insurance company thinks skateboarding is dangerous, then they can charge more to insure someone who skateboards. If you want to skateboard and have health insurance, you pay more. If you don’t want to pay more, then don’t skateboard. If you don’t want to have health insurance, that’s your choice. The point is, you choose. With universal healthcare, you have no choice, and you might not like what end up being forced to do…or not do. So think twice before you say “Obama’s great, he wants to give healthcare to everyone.” It could end up making skateboarding even more illegal than it is.
Loading ...
Thanks for breaking it down in simple terms for people. I’m a skateboarder and do keep up with what is going on in our country and can’t believe that Americans are turning a blind eye to what this is going to do to the healthcare system in order to get something for free. Nothing is free and if we pass this we will soon find out. By the way that 47 million of uninsured, 25% are Illegal Aliens, 42% voluntarily choose not to be covered (Freedom is having a choice), and another 10% can be covered under Medicare and haven’t applied.
i live in a city where everyone skates plus im native so that helps
Sounds like a double edge sword. This kind of reminds me of the no child left behind program. Sounds like our country is in the toilet.
Discount Supra Footwear For Sale
i live in canada…and i skate and I have had to use our health care system quite extensively (for my daughter). Our system has it’s flaws, but health care is vastly different than other types of products or services…afterall, if you are without a phone, you might have issues, if you are without vital signs, well, then you are dead. I don’t see health care as a product or service – I see it as a right. In the USA, you’ve been going down a different road…and you’ve come to this fork.
While folks in North America shop at the same types of stores, ride the same types of skateboards and generally eat the same foods (sadly, no In and Out Burger in Canada!)the differences between Canada and US are very real. But the biggest difference is that we have less people than you have. The entire state of California has more people than our ENTIRE country. This makes for a very complex situation…by just the sheer volume of people.
Bottom line, you might have to with a blended system…that takes the BEST of both systems…
maybe that’s something to think about – people will still pay…but you’ll decrease the influence of the insurance and drug companies
1st of all,your an idiot.skateboarding is a sport just like any other,people are worried about skateboarding hitting someone or getting hurt but in reality a baseball can break a window or someones nose.its almost discriminating because i love to skate and ive only broken my finger.once you learn a little more,then write some more.
This is pretty much BS. Feel free to go and visit any country with universal health care and decent living standards and then decide who’s better off.
If you have any facts or figures rather than anecdotal evidence to support your claim that’d be nice. I’m all open to other points of view, but saying “this is BS” or “go visit another country and see” doesn’t really help the debate progress.
Whoa… that’s quite a slippery slope you’re tumbling down. It’s interesting that you think the average skateboarder knows little about these current events. Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that you’re aiming right at them. The blog entry is a regurgitation of common fear tactics used by the lunatic-right – and you’re smearing it around on the young people you’re talking down to here. Demeaning.
Do you know why Medicare is “bankrupt”? “Baby Boomers”. We have a huge number of Americans who are at the age of retirement, or needing Medicare/Aid. It has put a strain on the system. It does not mean the system is broken.
So much of your entry is conjecture that there’s little debating to be had with you.
Mark, your tactics are typical of the radical/lunatic-left as taught by Saul Alinksy (one of Obama’s mentors) in his book Rules for Radicals–attack the messenger to distract attention from the message.
Regarding my mode of speech being demeaning, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by somebody “having a clue.” I have no doubt the average skater (a 16-year old male) is capable of understanding our healthcare system, federal tax policy, and our government in general, but I doubt they’ve had much, if any, of this type of knowledge presented to them. Our schools certainly don’t teach it in any depth. The average 40-year old doesn’t have the kind of knowledge necessary to understand these things unless they are self-motivated and study it out, let alone a teenager. A teenager who knows about these things and understands what’s going on would be a truly exceptional youngster and hardly average. If I were trying to be demeaning then I would be casting doubt on the ability of an average skater to understand what I’m talking about, rather than casting doubt on whether or not they have attained the information requisite for understanding these matters.
Yes, part of the reason Medicare is bankrupt is because of baby boomers. There are too many of them to provide services to without a huge tax increase on the rest of us to pay for it. If that’s not the definition of “broken” I’m not sure what is. But even if only half the number of people who are or will be enrolled in Medicare were, it would still be bankrupt, only less so. The politicians knew this would happen, know it’s happening, and yet are ignoring it. They especially don’t want to confront the problem right now because it makes the government look like it can’t handle healthcare, and why would anyone want the government to take over even more healthcare responsibilities if it can’t handle what it’s already got?
Hi Joshua,
My message was based solely on the content of your blog entry. If you’d take a step back and look at your blog entry, you could see: there is fear-mongering, there is conjecture, and it is wrapped up in a slippery-slope argument. There is no need to take that as a personal attack – it’s not meant to be one.
Your blog entry is emotional and lacking data, yet you scolded “Doubt” for the same thing. To a third party, his post is no worse than your entry. It’s impossible to debate against emotion.
You’re targeting teenagers and telling them that the government is going to take away their skateboards. It’s another spin-off of the “euthanize grandma” fallacy. No doubt you feel passionately about this, but there must be a better way to present your side than a virtual skateboarder’s apocalypse.
This is too far out there. I mean, c’mon… be for realz now. The government is not going to take away our skateboards or our skate parks, or deny painkillers, or… there’s too much to list.
This has to be one of the most biased articles about health care reform written.”You’ve got a broken arm and the bone is sticking out? Great, sit here for a few hours, we’ll see when we can get around to helping you out. Sorry, our best doctor quit because he doesn’t like working for the system, but we’ve got this other guy over here who wants to be a doctor someday, we’ll let him help you out” First off in no way shape or form would an unqualified person be allowed to treat someone. Whether they wanted to be a doctor or not.Secondly a person with a bone protruding the skin will not be made to wait for several hours. People need to wake up and realize that things are bad the way that they are now. The reform isn’t perfect but people need to be willing to ensure that the right choices are made . There needs to be a public option. Maybe not totally free but a reduced cost. At least to put other insurance companies in check, because face it the prices that insurance can charge are criminal. Having to wait for a claim to go through while you need immediate care is criminal. Think of all the people that get denied or are considered at risk, who end up going without treatment. People with insurance! A public option is necessary.
And in response to what Matt wrote”By the way that 47 million of uninsured, 25% are Illegal Aliens, 42% voluntarily choose not to be covered (Freedom is having a choice), and another 10% can be covered under Medicare and haven’t applied.” I would like to see some valid source where you get these figures. I follow this debate pretty closely and have yet to see any documentation that proves this.
We’re all biased, the question is who is biased towards facts and truth, and who is biased towards misinformation and error?
5-year old girl in Great Britain with broken arm waits 7 hours for treatment
In Canada, Treatment in ER may take over 24 hours
Elderly woman waits 40 hours on hospital trolley for treatment
Those are just a few examples that took me about 2 minutes to find. How can anyone say this type of thing wouldn’t happen under government run healthcare? Granted, bad things happen in our system too. No healthcare system will ever be perfect. But there are TONS of stories like this coming out of Canada and the UK compared to the US.
If you don’t think we’d have a shortage of doctors, then read the article “45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul“. If there aren’t enough doctors, you’re going to have two choices; be treated by someone who isn’t a doctor, or don’t get treatment. How can you say “in no way shape or form would an unqualified person be allowed to treat someone”? Will the government magically conjure up enough doctors to treat everyone?
The 47 million uninsured myth – Bear in mind, this isn’t some right-wing blogger, it’s the Congressional Budget Office. It’s a government website. You can even tell from Obama’s speech to Congress that they’re fudging the 47 million number, or else why did the number suddenly change from 47 million the day before Obama’s speech to 30 million during Obama’s speech? His speechwriters knew people were catching on.
The problem with Obama’s healthcare plan is not that it “isn’t perfect”, it’s horrible. It’s nothing more than an attempt to set us on a course towards all healthcare being government healthcare. Many of the problems our system has could be fixed within a year, without a $1 trillion-dollar public option. You want to drive down healthcare prices? Then allow healthcare companies to compete across state lines instead of giving them government-backed monopoly powers. Allow insurance companies to offer packages covering any range of services, rather than the government forcing them to cover certain conditions. Allow individuals and small businesses to join pools to buy insurance as a group so the group can negotiate “bulk rates” like big businesses do. A large part of the reason our healthcare is so expensive is because the government is already too involved, not because they’re not involved enough. The government and the healthcare companies are already in bed with each other, and the health insurance companies are as excited as all get out for a public option, because it will force tens of millions more customers into their arms, drive up prices even further, and result in even more profits for them.
If we want lower prices and better care, take a look at those industries that are least regulated by the government. Take flat-panel TVs, for example. Today you can buy for under $1,000 what would have cost you $10,000 2-3 years ago, and the technology is better. Why? Because there are several players who have to compete against each other for customers. If the government came in and said “If you’re in California, you can only buy TVs from Sony, if you’re in New York, you can only buy TVs from Vizio” what incentive would Sony and Vizio have to lower their prices or produce a better TV? They’d have a monopoly, and this is similar to what has happened with healthcare in our country.
If you want something to get cheaper and better, get the government out of it. If you can name one product or service that is cheaper and better due to government regulation, I’d love to hear about it.
Life Expectancy – The U.S. is 50th behind Canada, every Western European country, and such wonderful places as Jordan and South Korea. Source: CIA World Fact Book
Infant Mortality – The U.S. is 45th, again trailing the countries in which universal healthcare is available. Source: CIA World Fact Book
Preventable Deaths – The U.S. is DEAD last among 19 industrialized countries (Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia). Source: CBS News
Healthcare Spending – Hey, we’re #1. The U.S. spends 53% more per capita than the next biggest spender (Switzerland) and 140% more per capita than the median industrialized country. Elective surgery in the U.S. accounts for 3% and the higher rates of malpractice suits and the resulting “defensive medicine” in the U.S. account for at most 9%. Source: Johns Hopkins University
Life expectancy and infant mortality are widely used as measures of a health care system because doing so serves an ideological agenda of greater government involvement in health care. However, these measures are virtually useless for trying to determine the effectiveness of a health care system for multiple reasons:
1. Health care isn’t the only factor determining infant mortality and life expectancy. For example, people in the US drive cars a lot more (a LOT more) than people in any other country in the world. There are something like 40,000 traffic deaths in the US each year, which skews the life expectancy rate, but says almost nothing about the quality of health care in the US.
In addition, cultural norms and practices like diet, exercise, tobacco and alcohol consumption, etc. have a huge impact on life expectancy. Somebody who eats fried twinkies for breakfast and smokes five packs a day is going to have health issues, regardless of the quality of health care they receive.
In other words, there are many factors that have a much larger effect on life expectancy and infant mortality than the quality of the health care system.
2. Different countries count things differently. When it comes to infant mortality, it’s important to compare apples to apples. You might say “A baby is a baby, how could anyone not count a baby?” The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then “breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles… is considered live-born regardless of gestational age.” While the US follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland “an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living.”
Plus there are variations in when infant deaths are reported from country to country, so the timing of data can be skewed, showing more deaths in one year than there truly were. The point is, the methods of measuring statistics from country to country vary quite a bit. Of course those in favor of government health care don’t tell you this, they only report the data that gets them what they want.
Preventable death – Government health care would not fix this because again, the major causes of preventable death, namely smoking, overweight and obesity, and alcohol abuse (see http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2006/nichd-11.htm), are not closely linked to quality of health care but rather to cultural and societal norms. In fact, more comprehensive health care (or at least the belief that no matter what happens the government will take care of you) might lead to an increase in preventable deaths due to the concept of “moral hazard” wherein people engage in more risky behavior when they believe there is a safety net to catch them.
Healthcare spending – Why are we #1? As you mentioned, 12% of our health care spending is due to elective surgery and lawyers. But technology is the big one. We spend a ton of money in this country on new medical technology, which is probably a large reason why so many foreigners come here to get medical care instead of relying on the “universal coverage” of their home countries. But does anyone want to stifle investment in new technology in order to cut back on costs?
The thing is, most of us normal people agree on the problems in our health care system; 1) it’s too expensive, 2) it’s getting more expensive all the time, 3) it’s confusing and seems like a mess, 4) we all know it could be better. And most of us would like to see more people covered by insurance, less people going bankrupt due to huge health care bills, and better overall care. Where many of us disagree is the particular solutions. I don’t believe the government is capable of achieving any of those goals, nor am I convinced they want to. I do believe that many in government want more control and power. It worked well with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are ostensibly programs that do very little, if any good, but are a great way for politicians to get votes (“If you vote for the other guy he’ll take your Social Security check away!”). Universal health care would be the culmination of a political plan that has been in the works since FDR–the most power hungry president I know of.
The real solutions are easier and cheaper than Obama suggests. If you want real solutions to lower the cost of health care and get more people covered, read this article by the CEO of Whole Foods — http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html. It’s not perfect, but it would cut costs dramatically, quickly, and without any government spending. In fact, it would cut government spending.
Sorry, in reference to Mark’s older comment, which I somehow missed…don’t worry, I don’t take anything personally and don’t intend what I say to be taken personally, but I do enjoy the open debate of ideas and trying to figure out what the truth is. What I say may sound harsh, but I’ve got a smile on my face and wouldn’t hesitate to go skate with someone even if they vehemently disagree with me.
Yeah, some of my examples are extreme and are conjecture, but sometimes ideas that are extreme and imaginary become reality. Do I really think skateboarding will be outlawed? No, it hasn’t happened in any other country with universal health care and I don’t think it will happen here–but only because I don’t think the American people will stand for that level of intrusion. If it weren’t for the human desire to be free to make one’s own choices and live with the consequences, I do believe our government would eventually outlaw skateboarding and anything else that posed a risk and which didn’t have enough lobbying support in Washington.
But you don’t stop bad things by warning of the most likely scenarios, you stop them by warning of the most extreme. Statistically it’s pretty unlikely that a teenager will die in a car crash, but a parent who told their teenager “Be careful, or you might end up brushing another car and getting a light scratch in the paint job” wouldn’t be saying anything that would alter their behavior. The parent uses an extreme and unlikely example because while the risk is low, the consequences of being on the wrong side of that risk are so high. That’s how I see Obama’s health care plan. I think it’s justifiable to use the most extreme examples of what could happen under his proposed plan because not only do I not believe we’d see a single one of the benefits he claims we would, but I think the consequences of his plan being enacted would be dire for this country. We’ve been suffering with FDR’s programs for 70 years with no end in sight, and if Obama gets his version of health care “reform” I think it will take us 100 years to dig out from under it, if ever.
BTW, you say it’s too extreme to claim that a government run health care system would deny painkillers? Then read Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections. It’s not extreme–it’s already happening. Why would Obama’s system be any different?
Joshua,
Thank you for allowing my earlier post to be posted.
The reason I saw your blog here is because I Googled something about “skateboarding” and “can’t afford to get an injury”. Like so many Americans today, I’m one injury/illness away from bankruptcy. I’m 37 years old and not invincible like I was when I skated in the ’80s.
Have you attempted to get an individual insurance policy lately? Insurance companies cherry-pick their customers and I was denied coverage a few years ago. The reason they gave for denial was simply a list of medications that I had taken years before I even applied for coverage. They were mostly generic medications in the first place, and I wasn’t even taking them any longer. I am healthy, have good credit, and have a flawless driving record. I do not have any expensive, ongoing medical problems. Let me warn you: Do not let your insurance policy lapse. You may never be covered again.
I am a business owner and I’ve been mostly self-employed for nearly 15 years. I pay my taxes without complaint. I’ve never used any social services such as unemployment, Medicare, etc.
But I have used socialistic services like schools, roads, FDA-approval on medications and safe foods, etc. The police and fire department offer me peace of mind when it comes to my home and my safety. FICA means that my bank account is safe and the SEC keeps a pretty good eye out for Wall Street crooks to keep my investments in a fair playground.
I’m getting a ton of value for what I pay in taxes. You won’t hear me whine about paying them.
The comments are actually wide open, but for some reason it’s making me approve yours…which is how I missed that one.
I’m also self-employed and have been for 10 years and just had to get a new policy about two years ago. They didn’t deny me, although they did give me some grief because my wife had been through fertility treatments–not me, bear in mind, my wife–and I was applying for an individual policy for just me, not my family. So I’ve at least had a brush with that situation.
However, I don’t think government will fix it by getting more involved. One problem is that it’s never just the government who’s involved. You can bet the health insurance companies will be heavily involved and will be writing a lot of the laws and regulations to favor themselves. The politicians will say they’re sticking it to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies will make it look like they don’t like it, but in reality they’ll be making out like bandits while the politicians get the votes. We’ll end up with poorer care, higher taxes, and then in a few years when it’s all in a crisis the politicians will come along again promising to fix the problem they created, and in all likelihood they’ll just make it worse once again. We wouldn’t even have the health insurance mess we have today if it hadn’t been for government getting involved with it back in the 40’s. The government policy that allows employers to give employees health insurance paid for with pre-tax dollars whereas individuals like you and me have to pay for it with post-tax dollars is what started it all.
Don’t get me started on the other stuff or this comment thread is going to get really long…suffice it to say I think there are credible cases to be made that we’d be better off today without the FDA, the FDIC, or the SEC. The fire department and police I love…well, I guess I love the police most of the time as long as they’re not kicking me out of a spot. I don’t mind paying local taxes at all, it’s the federal stuff that gets me. I’m pretty happy with the military on the federal level, but that’s about the only thing I approve of. I’d like to see our federal government reduced to about 5% of what it is today.
I think it boils down to a fundamental belief about how you see yourself in the world. Those who feel like they are isolated, separate entities whose lives are totally independent of everyone else think government is the enemy (except when it comes to killing people in other countries). Those who feel like they are one small part of a larger whole, that all lives are interconnected, including other species and ecosystems, appreciate the concept of civil society and own the government as their own and work to make things better for everyone. From this point the choices we make in terms of what voices to listen to affect our arguments and subsequent beliefs. It seems clear that Joshua gets most of his info from the Limbaughs and Fox News, while Mark might be an NPR listener. So we butt heads and call it a debate. Meanwhile, the puppet masters raking in all the dough from us ordinary little people keep raking it in. Divide and conquer is the surest way to dominate. I’m not enthralled with Obama’s approach to health care. I think the single payer system is what we need, why keep the middle man who always has to take a huge cut off the top and is already practicing extreme forms of rationing? and if you think the insurance companies aren’t out there feverishly pumping out misinformation and hyperbole for mass consumption in order to generate opposition to health care reform, you need to check your head. The critical thinker should always ask themselves, who benefits? from a particular idea, slogan, concept, etc.
I think if the government were reduced to 5% of what it is today, civil society would be a thing of the past and skateboarding, especially in public parks would be a distant memory. Without some sort of social safety net people have no choice but to take matters into their own hands and that spells civil unrest, violent crackdowns by private security aka police who essentially serve the wealthy, lets face it, basically an unravelling of civilization back to the feudal system. Maybe thats exaggerating but my question to you is how do you maintain order without a social safety net?
Stereotypes serve a needed purpose, but of course can be quite misleading when applied to individuals. I have about 10 primary sources of news/information, plus I do use hundreds of other sources for my research. Fox News isn’t on the list but NPR is. I never watch any of the TV shows on Fox, and I never visit their website. Ok, I think I’ve visited their site twice in the last year, maybe. The top three news outlets I frequent are the Wall Street Journal, CNN.com, and NPR.
I don’t feel that my life is totally independent of everyone else and I don’t see government as an enemy, but I also don’t subscribe to collectivism. I see our government as an extension and representation of the will of the people.
Now, let’s take what you say point by point.
1. You seem to believe that having a single-payer system is better than what we’ve got. I assume we can agree on the definition of “better” as being cheaper, covering more people, and providing higher quality care. Is there any system out there that does all three better than the system we have in the US?
2. I agree, the critical thinker should always ask themselves, who benefit? Who benefits from a single-payer system? You better believe the insurance companies will benefit, or at least they think they will. The way they see it, government is going to force tens of millions of new customers into their arms. If nothing else, they think it’s better to go along with the plan than it is to resist it. Who else benefits? Politicians do, because if they can control healthcare, they can control virtually everything. Do you think we have Social Security because FDR thought little old ladies needed to be taken care of in their old age? Do we have unemployment laws because politicians wanted to help the unemployed? While there may be a sincere politicians here and there, most government programs are created with one thought in mind–getting re-elected. That is what drives politicians more than anything else, and the best way to get re-elected is to make people financially dependent on your re-election. It’s no different than a politician handing out money and saying “There’s more where that came from if you elect me” (which incidentally, I saw firsthand when I was in Brazil once–they don’t even try to hide it behind a government program down there).
3. What if government were 5% of what it is today? Bear in mind, I’m only talking about the federal government. I see the roles of federal, state, county, and city governments very differently. For example, I don’t believe the federal government should have any role in public education whatsoever. I believe that should be 100% the business of the state. That doesn’t mean I’m against public education, it just means I’d prefer for it to be managed at a more local level.
I’d like to see the federal government go back to what its enumerated powers are under the US Constitution. The primary use of a federal budget would then be restricted to defending the country against foreign attacks. What other major purpose does the federal government need money for that couldn’t be done by the states on their own? Cities or counties can easily manage their policing, education, road building, etc. Why does the federal government need to be involved?
The problem with stronger state governments and a weaker federal government is that the politicians at the federal level wouldn’t like it. What politician wants to lessen the power and prestige of the position he holds? They want to grow it, and that’s why our federal government has gotten so large today–not because it benefits the masses, but because it benefits those in Washington. And they’d grow it even faster if they thought they could get away with it.
Of course simply reducing the government to 5% of what it is today isn’t the solution. It depends what you cut and what you leave in place, and how you do it, and that’s where it gets complicated.
So let me ask some of my own questions:
a. What is it that the federal government does today that maintains a “civil society”?
b. If the federal government were shrunk by 95%, which means all that money we currently send to Washington would instead stay in our pockets, how would that result in less public skateparks?
c. The federal government didn’t become the behemoth it is today until around the 1920s-1940s. Why didn’t the country descend into massive civil unrest prior to that? (let’s ignore the civil war, since that was a rather exceptional circumstance)
d. A single-payer system means no competition. Can you name any product or service that has gotten cheaper and better over time without any competition involved?
e. In the past 100 years, what countries have suffered the most from civil unrest, what types of governments did they have, and were those governments more similar to that described in the US Constitution, or that envisioned by FDR and Obama?
Joshua,
You are a very intelligent person and I’m sorry for stereotyping you.
regarding your points:
1)Aren’t there at least a dozen countries where health care is cheaper, more people are covered and the quality is top notch? If I broke my arm in Canada or the UK or any other civilized country I wouldn’t have any qualms about whether or not the doctor is qualified. And there are plenty of examples where more people are covered and its cheaper. I thought that was already understood. In fact, we have the most expensive healthcare in the world and its purely because we’re allowing businesses to make a profit while effectively rationing care and coverage.
2)I think you don’t understand what a single payer system would entail. Like I’ve alluded to, its cutting out the middlemen, the insurance companies, so we don’t have to be paying for their exorbitant bonuses and tropical vacations in addition to what it costs to get health care delivered. They’re totally opposed to it and that’s why its been left off the table from the beginning even though Obama recognized that its the most sensible option.
You’re distrust of the politicians is misplaced. They’re good people trying to do the right thing. The only problem is that monied interests like the health insurance industry, financial industry, energy industry, war industry, etc. etc. fund the campaigns and flood Washington DC with thousands of lobbyists. They control the purse strings, they write the rules. They’re only interested in themselves. They don’t give a damn about you or me. So the politicians try to go with the flow and they think they’re doing us a service.
3)You wrote yourself and I quote “I’d like to see our federal government reduced to about 5% of what it is today.” and then you say, “Of course simply reducing the government to 5% of what it is today isn’t the solution. It depends what you cut and what you leave in place, and how you do it, and that’s where it gets complicated.” That’s good, I think you’re learning.
The world is complex. Things are not clear cut.
But the federal government is not just about defending the nation. Its really about advancing the quality of life of its people. Should we ditch the Interstate system? Should we privatize the national parks? Should we get rid of the EPA? Do you really wanna live in that reality? Do you know what a shithole this country was becoming before the EPA? What would happen if the states soley funded education? I don’t know but kids would probably be even dumber than than they are now. No that’s not fair, kids are pretty smart these days. The kids who go to school in rich communities that is. Inner city kids and ghetto kids are still pretty dumb, what do you expect, when some kids are only getting a fraction of the education dollars spent on others?
Should we get rid of the 8 hour day and the weekend? Should we go back to having children work?
Should we get rid of NASA and pretend like outer space doesn’t exist?
Should we eliminate the State Department? Close down all the embassies and get out of the WTO? Should we stop subsidizing large agribusinesses which totally distort markets in the developing world? Should we stop giving no-bid contracts to the company the vice president was formerly the CEO of, and delivering piss poor service to the servicemen and women iow, like Halliburton, KBR? What about paying for private military units to provide security for State Department people? Is that a wise use of taxpayer money? Mercenaries are better than the Armed Forces of the US right? See, I agree with concepts like the government and global engagement i just don’t think they’re being properly done.
I think we could both agree that the government is f_cked up right now. But I just don’t think you’re seeing the big picture. Its not the politicians fault that all the money comes from the top and therefore that is where power truly resides. They’re just trying to get a little pork for their district. In a normal world, the word is corruption, but in this 21st century drunken stupor we’re in, everyone just acts like the emperor is fully dressed. My mistrust is placed squarely on the titans of industry. They have the power, the money and the ability, why the hell wouldn’t they do everything in their power to stay there? They even bail themselves out with trillions in taxpayer money from future generations and give themselves huge bonuses…why not? who’s stopping them?
so to respond to your questions
a. What is it that the federal government does today that maintains a “civil society”?
see above
b. If the federal government were shrunk by 95%, which means all that money we currently send to Washington would instead stay in our pockets, how would that result in less public skateparks?
I was referring to a general breakdown in social order in which it wouldn’t be safe to be on the streets for fear of getting gunned down and robbed like in Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia, Colombia, or kidnapped and held for ransom, etc.
c. The federal government didn’t become the behemoth it is today until around the 1920s-1940s. Why didn’t the country descend into massive civil unrest prior to that? (let’s ignore the civil war, since that was a rather exceptional circumstance)
First of all, if you don’t think the civil war was about money, you’re being naive. The friggin American Revolution was about money, no taxation without representation, right? The US economy went through several boom and bust cycles prior to the Great Depression which always resulted in tragedy for the working class, the GD being no exception, only a lot more people were impoverished as a result of that one. There were many lives lost and heads clubbed of people standing up for their rights to protest poor working and living conditions and many hard fought gains achieved. I don’t know, it just seems like things got better for ordinary folk after people like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR came in and did a little house cleaning, trust busting and so forth. I think it was Lincoln who warned about corporations taking over government and he was right then and he’s still right today.
d. A single-payer system means no competition. Can you name any product or service that has gotten cheaper and better over time without any competition involved?
health care is a human right not a mere commodity to be bought and sold on an exchange. In the past monopolies were broken up by the government. Single payer means the government rather than insurance companies, pays the doctors and hospitals, who compete amongst themselves for health care dollars. Since the government is not out to make a profit, costs are lowered, everyone is covered and over time people get healthier because they can get an annual physical exam instead of ending up in the ER with a critical (costly) condition
e. In the past 100 years, what countries have suffered the most from civil unrest, what types of governments did they have, and were those governments more similar to that described in the US Constitution, or that envisioned by FDR and Obama?
I think you should answer this question yourself, that’s too much work.
Ah geez, our answers to each other are getting longer and longer. I’m going to have to hire someone to respond…
Ok, well here goes.
1. I don’t think I can answer this question definitively. If it were an easy question to answer then there wouldn’t be intelligent people who have dedicated their lives to healthcare arguing on both sides of the question. What I know is that in the US I hear horror stories about people being rejected for care by their insurance companies. From Canada and the UK I hear horror stories about the care simply not being available, and people having to come to the US to get the care they need. If I had to choose between the two, I’d choose the US system. Even if I’m rejected by an insurance company maybe I can pay out of pocket, maybe I can borrow the money from family and friends, maybe I can find a charity or a church to help me out, but at least I can avail myself of the best treatment possible. Evidently in many cases you can’t get the treatment you need in Canada or the UK no matter how much money you have or are able to get–it simply isn’t available, or isn’t available in a timely manner.
As for the “most expensive” argument, a lot of that is due to too much government involvement rather than not enough. Lasik surgery (which I’ve had, and it’s absolutely wonderful) is much cheaper and much more affordable (and therefore available to more people) than it was 10 years ago. Why? Because it’s not covered by insurance and it’s not heavily regulated by the government. It’s sold like any other product or service, and it is precisely the profit motive that has made it happen. If all health care were sold the same way, we’d see prices drop like a rock while quality would simultaneously improve, which would lead to more people having access to quality health care at a lower cost.
The only way to contain costs with a single-payer or universal care system is to ration services. It’s impossible to do it any other way, and that’s what Canada and the UK do, and why people are dying for lack of timely care in those countries while many are traveling to the US to get the care they need. Sure, everyone has “health care”, but they have less and less of it all the time.
2. How much do you think those bonuses and tropical vacations add up to? Let’s say you took all the profits all the healthcare companies make so that they made zero profit. How much would that add up to? Last I heard, it would cover three days worth of the costs required to provide universal health care.
Profits are not the cause of the high price of health care.
Do you seriously believe politicians are good people? Wow…I’m literally speechless. When you have a debate with someone you have to be able to agree on some fundamentals, and one of my fundamental beliefs is that politics is power, power generally corrupts, and politicians are generally corrupt. I mean seriously, if you think the majority of politicians are in there to “do good” for mankind, then I don’t know where to start. I think there might be 5% of politicians that are good people, but certainly don’t trust the rest. I don’t think most business people are saints either, but politics is probably the most corrupting profession we’ve got, and it affects politicians from every party. If you think this is a group of generally good guys who are being forced and manipulated by corporate interests then you’ll keep voting for these people and we’ll keep having the same problems because it’s not just corrupt corporations, it’s corrupt corporations working with corrupt politicians that are the real problem. Go read the book Liberal Fascism and you’ll get the straight story on why we are where we are today.
Now, to answer your questions:
Should we ditch the Interstate system? I haven’t researched this question, so I’m open minded about it, but it seems to me it could be managed just as well by the states coordinating with each other. I’m not sure how big a deal it is to have it controlled by the fed, however.
Should we privatize the national parks? Either that or make them state parks instead.
Should we get rid of the EPA? For the most part. It’s debatable as to whether they’ve caused more good than harm, and it’s arguable as to whether the EPA or an organization like it is necessary in order to protect the environment. The same goes for the FDA. I believe more people have died as a result of the FDA than have been saved because of it.
What would happen if the states solely funded education? I think we’d have better education. Each state would be free to experiment and try new things out and figure out what works best, and then states could learn from those that succeed and those that fail.
“Inner city kids and ghetto kids are still pretty dumb, what do you expect, when some kids are only getting a fraction of the education dollars spent on others?” As a sidenote, do you know about the DC voucher system? The DC school system is controlled by Congress, and is therefore unique in that it’s the only school system directly controlled by the federal government. Several years ago a voucher system was passed to allow poor kids to go to expensive private schools. The parents love it. The kids love it. There is a waiting list a mile long. The program has been extremely successful by all accounts. And then congress, those “good” politicians, voted to defund the program. Why? Because the NEA, the teacher’s union, was getting scared. They hate vouchers and private schools, because they threaten their power base and financial well being. The NEA spends a lot of money getting politicians elected, and they’ll be darned if they’re going to see a voucher program succeed, even if parents and students love it and it results in better education.
Should we get rid of the 8 hour day and the weekend? Yes. Why shouldn’t I be able to work more for my employer if I want to? What right does the government have to tell me I can only work 40 hours per week? Isn’t this the land of the free?
Should we go back to having children work? I think there’s room for discussion on the matter. I think if a 14-year old wants to get a job at Little Caesar’s, and Little Caesar’s wants to hire them, then they should be able to get a job there and the federal government should stay out of it. Obviously I don’t think 5-year-olds should be working in factories or food processing plants.
Should we get rid of NASA and pretend like outer space doesn’t exist? My dad worked for NASA. He was on the Hubble Space Telescope for 10 years. I’m fully aware of all the amazing discoveries and inventions that have come as a result of NASA. The question is, is it worth it? And the follow up question is, even if there is a positive return on the investment, is the government the best entity to be making that investment, or could it be done better by the private sector? But I don’t know how to answer the question. If we hadn’t gone to the moon or built a space shuttle, how would our lives be different today? I don’t know. But from what I’ve heard the sum total of NASA spending is a drop in the bucket, and I’ve heard there are a lot of valuable inventions that have come out of it (much of which relates to defense of the country), so if I were in charge it certainly wouldn’t be the first place I’d cut spending, if at all.
Should we eliminate the State Department? Close down all the embassies and get out of the WTO? No, but we should get out of the UN, which is an entirely corrupt organization that hasn’t a single major achievement to its name in its entire history, as far as I know.
Should we stop subsidizing large agribusinesses which totally distort markets in the developing world? Yes.
Should we stop giving no-bid contracts to the company the vice president was formerly the CEO of, and delivering piss poor service to the servicemen and women iow, like Halliburton, KBR? Probably, although I don’t know the matter well enough to comment.
What about paying for private military units to provide security for State Department people? Probably, although again, it’s not one of the matters I pay much attention to.
I agree there are some titans of industry who are corrupt, but I don’t think they’re pulling all the strings. I think the politicians are equally to blame, if not more so. The books I’ve read and research I’ve done lead me to believe the politicians have the bulk of the power, and that the corporations are generally responding to incentives, rather than controlling things. But I think we agree on the bailouts–they were a bad idea. But why don’t we have politicians in power who are willing to stand up and say “no” to corporate interests? It’s our own fault for not educating ourselves.
Yes, the civil war was about money, but you claimed it requires a large federal government to prevent civil unrest, and my point was that if that were true, why didn’t we have massive civil unrest prior to the federal government becoming the large institution it is today? But I wanted to point out that while the Civil War was certainly massive civil unrest, I didn’t want to get into an argument over whether it was connected to the lack of a large federal government, because I think there were a lot of issues involved.
There have always been boom and bust cycles, but guess what? You can trace most of them back to government regulation and interference. The stock market crash of 1929 did not cause the Great Depression. The GD was a direct result of Hoover’s policies, which were adopted and enlarged by FDR. Go read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. The economic situation of the late 1970s, the worst so far since the GD, was a direct result of Carter’s policies. But I’m not just picking on Democrats, I give almost full credit for our current situation to George Bush. It’s not that he instituted the policies that caused the current situation (that credit goes to Barney Frank), but he could have done more to stop them, and he should have known better than to approve the stimulus package and the bailouts. But I will place the blame on Obama for continuing with Bush’s policies. Obama and Bush are just like FDR and Hoover. Hoover started the bad policies, so FDR criticized him, and once in office he did the exact same things Hoover was doing, only more of it.
I think we differ on the definition of a “human right”. I believe we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I lived on an island by myself I would have those things. Nobody would need to give them to me. They exist, independent of any other person and any other thing. But how ridiculous would it be for me, by myself on an island, to yell out “Where’s my healthcare? It’s my right!”
If health care is a right, what about food? What about housing? Why aren’t these also rights? A person will die faster from a lack of food than a lack of health care, right? The same goes for someone who doesn’t have housing in Idaho in January.
Health care is merely a service that improves our lives. It can make us more comfortable and extend our lives. A Cadillac Escalade will also make you more comfortable, and in an accident is safer than a Smart Car, so it also makes you more comfortable and can extend your life, so why do we not all have the right to an Escalade? To me, it is just as ridiculous to say that health care is a right as it is to say an Escalade is a right. You want it? You earn the money and buy it. If you don’t want it, you shouldn’t be forced to buy it. And most importantly, I shouldn’t be forced to buy it for you any more than I should be forced to buy you your food, your clothes, or your house.
To answer my last question, the countries that have had the most civil unrest in the past 100 years are Russia/USSR, China, and Germany. I am measuring “civil unrest” by the number of a country’s own citizens murdered by its government. Stalin killed some 20 million. Hitler some 10 million. Mao eclipses them all, having killed some 70 million. What’s similar about these governments? They all advocated government control of industry. They all advocated strong federal governments that would provide a strong social safety net. They all promised their citizens that they would take care of them from cradle to grave and make sure they had everything they needed. They promised order, civility, safety, equality, and security, and they ended up with failed economies, starvation, and tens of millions murdered.
Meanwhile, the US has promoted, for the most part, freedom and personal responsibility. You want something? You work for it and get it, don’t expect the government to give it to you. You want to take a risk and start a business and try to get rich? Go ahead, just don’t break the law and feel free to keep whatever you make, but don’t ask anyone to bail you out if you fail. This country has become the richest, most powerful country in the world because people knew they could come here and be free to succeed, or fail, but that it was up to them. They knew they had a better chance here than anywhere else, because nothing stood in their way beyond themselves. If they built something up, the government wouldn’t take it away from them, but would instead protect them and make sure nobody else took their property away.
But beginning with Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR, we got a new breed of politician that said the same things Mao, Stalin, and Hitler said. We’ll take care of you, we’ll keep you safe, we’ll make things fair, we’ll provide everything you need. Do I think we’ll end up with tens of millions murdered? No, but I do think our country’s progress has been stunted, and at great cost in terms of human lives, human suffering, and the environment, by the very people who claim to advocate for such things.
Health care reform is needed, but universal health care will only do one thing–cover everybody. It will not make healthcare cheaper, and it will not make it better. The US is the major provider of medical innovation in the world. If we get single-payer, that innovation will stop because the government will not be able to control costs while funding new, innovative, and risky treatments. It may be picked up by India or some other nation without universal coverage that steps up to the plate, but meanwhile millions will suffer or die who might not have had the innovations been created that weren’t created because there was no incentive to create them. Companies that now exist to invent new medical devices and drugs that save and improve lives will have no financial incentive to create such things, and they will cease to exist. If we get single-payer, then doctors will quit (polls show 45% of doctors already claim they’ll quit if universal health care passes). Young people won’t have as much incentive to go through 12 years of medical school if they end up making the same amount of money as a truck driver. Single-payer means the price of health care may go down, but that doesn’t mean the cost goes down. The government may come in and say “This is the price we’ll pay for such and such procedure” but what if the cost to a doctor of providing that procedure is higher than what he’ll get paid? He just won’t provide that procedure anymore. So yes, your health care might be cheaper, but you might have to wait a year for cancer treatment, whereas you would have waited two weeks before, and that might make the difference between living and dying. Everyone might have health care, but that health care might only include half the treatments they could have gotten before, or you might have to drive three hours to a hospital instead of three minutes. This is what has happened in Canada and the UK.
Let me just start by saying I appreciate your willingness to engage and debate in a civil manner. I’ll try my best to keep things brief.
I think all the so called horror stories about other countries are cherry picked by insurance industry/anti-health care reform parties and they are grossly exaggerated. As far as people coming to the US to get health care, aren’t there at least as many Americans traveling abroad to get health care because they can’t afford it here?
To argue against universal care by saying it’ll result in rationing doesn’t make any sense to me because like I’ve said before, we already have extreme rationing by insurance companies. My hunch is that at least with everyone covered we can make some head way in terms of preventative care.
Who funds politicians campaigns? Who funds multiple lobbyists for every member of Congress? If you don’t see the titans of industry as the de facto holders of power already, I’m not sure what to say except that you’re kidding yourself. I agree, most politicians are corrupt, but its mainly because of the currently broken system in which industry groups for the most part fund campaigns. If we had real campaign finance reform, or public financing of campaigns we might be able to get some good policies passed for ordinary Americans.
Just to be clear, I’m not against doctors/clinics/hospitals/medical researchers trying to make a profit. I just don’t see the point of having insurance companies being the middle man.
Call me crazy, but the reason for the 8 hour day and the weekend was because employers used to force their workers to work 12 hour days 7 days a week, don’t like it? take a hike. With some rules in place at least you get time and a half for overtime.
I hate to burst your bubble but the even the most prominent proponent of free market principles, Alan Greenspan himself, admitted before Congress that he was wrong about that. Watch the Frontline show The Warning. The market does not know best. We need a return to sanity and balance. If you watch that show, you’ll see that the current situation started with Clinton, who was all about deregulation and did everything in his power to stop regulation of over the counter derivatives (toxic assets).
It seems like we’re both on the fringes, you on the right and me on the left. For example, I think your suggestion to privatize the national parks would be laughed at by the vast majority of the population. I’m sure some of what I say would be laughed at too. But I still think that the basic thing that we disagree on is our basic outlook. I decided a while ago that my life would be best spent trying to improve the situation for the most people, especially poor people, who have as much disadvantage as most rich people have advantage, while you seem to be focused on improving the situation for yourself. You’re certainly free to do that, we’ll just have to disagree.
Well, I didn’t respond to a lot of what you said which I think is just flat out wrong, like FDR continuing Hoover’s policies, and all your conjecture about what would happen with universal health care. But for the sake of brevity I’ll leave it there.
BTW, where u at and hows the skate scene there?
I could buy into the argument that the insurance companies are cherry picking these horror stories if I was getting the stories from news outlets controlled by the insurance companies, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Yes, there are millions of Americans traveling abroad to get medical care (see http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html). But they’re not going to countries like Canada and the UK where there is universal coverage, they’re traveling to highly unregulated countries like India, Singapore, and Thailand. Europeans are going to these countries as well “Some Canadians and Europeans said they chose to travel aboard, despite having national health plans, because they are tired of waiting — sometimes years — for treatment.” This is just more evidence of the problems that come from universal health coverage.
Yes, there is rationing that is done by insurance companies, but single-payer won’t fix it, it will make it worse. Every health care system has to ration in one way or another, because there is a finite amount of money to pay for the services that are available. The only question is which way is preferable. If there were no government care and no insurance companies, then everyone would negotiate directly with doctors and other health care providers, and that would be ultimate control. Of course even then there would be rationing because if someone needs $50K worth of care but they don’t have the money, then they can’t get the care. That’s what we could call “free market rationing”. If you can’t come up with the money, you don’t get it.
On the other extreme is single-payer, government funded health care. The thing is that we get tricked into thinking this kind of care is “free”. We still pay for it, we just aren’t in control of where the money goes or what we get for it. The government takes the money from us, by force, and then tells us what health care we can have. Since there is a finite amount of tax revenue the government can collect, and a finite amount of that tax revenue that can be dedicated to health care, but a virtually infinite need for health care, that means the government has to decide what will be covered and what won’t be. That’s why Robert Reich, who’s fully in support of single-payer, said if the politicians in favor of a public option were being honest, what they would say is “We’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”
From my perspective, my choices appear to be:
1. Uninsured. 100% freedom to choose what kind of health care I get, my only restrictions being what services are available, and how much money I have or can round up.
2. Insured. 100% freedom to choose what kind of health care I get, my only restrictions being what services are available, and how much money I have or can round up, including what my health insurance company is willing to cover.
3. Single-payer. There’s one plan, and I don’t even have the option to opt out of it–I must be enrolled or pay a fine. The quality of care is low, wait times are long, and services are restricted because the government has to keep costs in check–they can’t just give everyone everything they want without going bankrupt (like Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office, and Social Security all are–only they are able to keep getting bailed out). The only benefit is that I pay for this plan with my taxes, so it doesn’t “feel” like I’m paying for it because the true cost is hidden from me.
I’ll take #1 or #2, but I’d never choose #3. If the government plan is going to be so great, why don’t they just start it, run it, and let people choose to join it or not? If it’s that good, everyone would want to join it, right? Why do they have to force people to join or pay a fine? It’s kind of like the Soviet Union. If it was such a utopia as its leaders claimed, why did they have to build a wall around it to keep people in?
If the goal is to provide the best level of care to the greatest number of people, then free markets are the best way. Lasik is available to many more people today than it was 10 years ago, because it’s cheaper. Even though it’s cheaper, the quality is 100 times better and safer today than it was 10 years ago. Isn’t it interesting that this happened without any government regulation, while primary medical care has gotten so much more expensive during the same time period, arguably without huge advances in quality?
I also want to help the poor, not only to get health care but to be able to not be poor any more. The best way to do it is a free market economy. We have poor here, but it’s nothing compared to third-world countries. I lived in Brazil for two years, and the poor people here are rich compared to the poor people there. The trouble is Brazil’s economy has too many regulations. It’s too hard to start a business. It’s too expensive to hire employees. There are too many rules designed to “protect” employees, and so there’s high unemployment. If they lightened regulations then more people would start businesses and hire people, more companies would move to Brazil, unemployment would fall, and there would be less poor people. And it wouldn’t cost the government a thing. In fact, the government would make money, because they would increase their tax base and they wouldn’t have to provide social programs to these unemployed people, nor deal with the increased levels of crime that come with unemployment.
If our government wanted to get rid of poverty here, the best things they could do would be to permanently get rid of the corporate tax, capital gains taxes, Social Security, unemployment benefits, Sarbanes-Oxley, the minimum wage, all subsidies, all tariffs and trade restrictions, and institute a flat tax of 10-15% on all personal income over $50K/year, or a national sales tax (FAIR tax). Business would explode overnight and we’d be down to 5% unemployment by the end of the year. A year from now the only people who wouldn’t be able to find a job would be those who aren’t looking. You’d have no excuse to be poor, unless you were disabled, and if you were in need of charity there’d be more people than ever willing and able to help those in need. The starting wage at McDonalds would be $10/hr, and they’d still be having to fight to get employees. The last thing on our minds would be how illegal immigrants are taking American jobs–we’d be trying to figure out how to get more immigrants here as fast as possible because there would be too many jobs going unfilled. The dollar would be strengthened, increasing foreign spending and lifting other economies around the world as well. Tax revenues would boom, and we’d be able to start paying off our national debt.
FDR said he wanted to help the poor, but it was his policies of taxing the rich and growing government that created the Great Depression. He thought a group of smart people in Washington could replace the billions of economic decisions made between individuals and companies every day with rules and regulations. He was focused on fairness more than freedom, and the worst economic disaster in modern history was the result. If you don’t think FDR was responsible for the GD or that he continued Hoover’s policies, I suggest you do a little more studying of history, starting with The Forgotten Man. It’s all there, and it’s pretty straightforward. Those who think FDR was just a great guy who wanted to help the working man don’t know a thing about him. There’s a reason why Hitler and Mussolini both admired FDR so much.
As for the skate scene here in Utah, it’s great, except for the winters, although even the winters aren’t that bad. Lizard King and Adam Dyet are both from here. There are tons of good skateparks without any pad rules, and plenty of street spots. The only thing we’re missing in Salt Lake City is a good indoor park. Where are you at?
I’ve heard good things about Utah’s skateparks. I’d love to visit them sometime…I’d also like to shred some of that famous powder Utah’s known for sometime…Alas, I’m way out here in flat central Michigan, after a dozen or so years in the Willamette Valley of Oregon.
But my wife got a job and now we have health insurance! woohoo! haha.
We have a skatepark in town but its a modular steel one, so on many of the ramps there is a fat lip that you have to roll over first. Its better than nothing but a far cry from the Dreamland dreamparks that have been popping up all over Oregon.
Getting back to the debate…You say you want to help the poor but all your suggested methods involve making rich people richer. A rising tide floating all boats doesn’t matter if you don’t even have a boat. Without a boat, you just drown.
How much are you getting paid by the insurance industry? Well whatever it is, they should pay you more because you’re doing a great job advancing their cause. If you’re not getting paid, then it seems to me like you’re being used and abused not unlike a part-time sucka, to borrow a phrase from KRS-ONE.
Who is Amity Shlaes and why the hell should anyone believe her and when did she become the last word on what happened during the Great Depression? Who’s writing her paychecks? There’s too much misinformation out there already its impossible to sift through all the bs. I just trust my conscience, after listening to it of course, and if I feel like something helps out average, working people, fights power and corruption, advances peace, love, truth and justice, then I go with it. There may have been things that FDR did wrong, but what I have seen with my own eyes, the work of the CCC still stands the test of time. They did good work. I trust Howard Zinn because what he writes seems to be purely on the side of average working folk. He’s not out to make a fortune or make friends in high places, that seems pretty clear.
If you don’t think the mainstream media is a wholly owned subsidary of big business you’re kidding yourself. Even PBS’ Newshour with Jim Lehrer is sponsored by Chevron and Monsanto, a fact that makes me take the broadcast with a grain of salt.
I’m just curious as to why, given the amount of research and reading you’ve done, you side with conservatives and big business/corporations, almost all of the time? I mean, if you are getting paid by them then it makes perfect sense, but if not…why? I make it a point to side with the little people every time out of an assumption that conservatives and big business don’t give a rats ass about another unit of labor such as myself or anyone else with a different viewpoint. And the only way things have gotten better for working people, minorities, etc. is by vocal opposition to conservatives and big business and often times bloodshed and imprisonment (though I personally haven’t gone that far… yet).
Again, don’t get me wrong, there is plenty about our government that I find unacceptable, and I subscribe to the Ralph Nader proposition that the Dems and Repugs are merely two heads of the corporate party, but my solution is not to hate the government and demonize it, but rather to try to reclaim it and make it work better, in the tiny incremental ways that i can.
If this really goes through it will probably be like a epic failure on the econemy because theres was to many people who dont belong here,and plus nothing is really free and the chances of it happening is like 0% but it would be nice if some kind of care would come out for people that can’t afford normal insurance,i have medicade it’s not all that great people treat you like crap but if there was a cheaper way of course i would have normal healthcare like everyone else.I’ve busted my but many times skateboarding and yet even though im really good at it i do mess up.I rescently slammed on my knees of a big old ramp messed mty nknees up go to the doctors and they dont take medicare !!!!!!!!!! went to the hospital guss what happend…. oh yea they said scince u don’t have healthcare you can just leave we wont help you. Even though i wasw injured isnt that messed up ? well yea something neds to happen soon for people who can’t get normal insurance.Universal healthcare is just like solcialized healthcare.Theres seriously no way thats going to happen in the U.S. it’s to complicated, we are already in a recession.
skatin is skatein whether ur rich or poor,
Wow, you do paint a vivid picture…
Interestingly the rest of the developed world (& some of the third world) already have universal healthcare and interestingly enough it does work fine without draining the economy.
I am not saying you do not have a point, just that a lot of examples from outside the US suggest that it might be that big of a deal.
I personally live in Sweden which has both free healthcare and quite a lot of free skateparks. Anyways, just my five cents, here is a pic of my local park btw http://www.transition.se/image.ashx?type=article&subtype=center&id=21&index=1