Hillary outspoken socialist

[jjd]

Charity is not perfect, but it is better than government. Charities are better able to tailor assistance in ways that government cannot. They can also be much more flexible and efficient than government. Charity has the further advantage of allowing people to "shop" for the best charities (i.e. those who do the best job of addressing that person's particular issue or issues). With governement, I am compelled to provide charity and support all sorts of things that I don't want to support (this is an almost endless list, but examples include: farm subsidies baa , Department of Education , Department of Homeland Security skull , Department of Energy , and the list goes on).

[mattp]

I'm with you on the part about providing "charity" for things we don't agree with. Homeland Security is a joke. Farm aid is a disaster. And on and on.

 

But comprehensive postal services? Public health? Roads? Winning wars? The list of things that really only the government can do well, and which our government in particular does a very good job of, is huge.

 

[i include postal services because I know it drives many anti-government freaks nuts to think about the inefficiencies of the USPS, but I think it is amazing that for 41 cents I can drop something in the mail and it gets to anywhere in the country in three days - so reliably that I have no compunction about mailing checks and receiving them in the mail.]

[sirwoofalot]

Not everyone wants to be covered. In the USA you need to expect about 4% don't want, or refused to be accounted.

Thus, 4% unemployment in the USA is the same as 0%.

But some good points on both sides of the issue.

In Marx's original theories he says it is a natural progression from an Agriculture to Feudal to Capitalist to Socialist and ultimately to Communist. If you try to pull out any one of these steps then you are thrown out all of his theories.

 

Please do not be deceived. The Democratic Party is America’s Socialist party. ABSOLUTLY. Just because they go by a different name does not mean they are any different.

 

20 century Socialism died. However, there is a new socialism brewing. It is going to be much more in lines with Marx’s original theories. And it is going to be a privatization of the government programs. I really believe as long as the UK can stay OUT of the EU they are going to be the first society to naturally progress from Capitalist to Socialist. However they way they are doing it is through the privatization of the social amenities. The private sector does a better job than the government.

 

[archenemy]

Charity is not perfect, but it is better than government. Charities are better able to tailor assistance in ways that government cannot. They can also be much more flexible and efficient than government. Charity has the further advantage of allowing people to "shop" for the best charities (i.e. those who do the best job of addressing that person's particular issue or issues). With governement, I am compelled to provide charity and support all sorts of things that I don't want to support (this is an almost endless list, but examples include: farm subsidies baa , Department of Education , Department of Homeland Security skull , Department of Energy , and the list goes on).

Then why has charity not obviated gov't in the areas where they are most effective?

[jjd]

I am not an anarcho-libertatrian; I believe that it is the role of the government to protect the rights of citizens, which includes maintaining a defensive army. You're right, I hate the postal service and I think it should go away or survive as a private entity WITHOUT a government-enforced monopoly over mailboxes. I think "public health" has been extended far beyond its proper boundaries. Protecting people from communicable diseases like TB, yes. Banning trans fats, no. There are plenty of examples/reasons of privately sponsored roads and turnpikes. Water most certainly can be provided by private industry. Did I miss anything?

[archenemy]

air ports fire dept education

[jjd]

Then why has charity not obviated gov't in the areas where they are most effective?

 

In some cases, government impedes charities (Katrina, for example). I believe that people would give much more to charity absent confiscatory taxes. Also, some people just believe that it IS the government's job to provide these services.

[JayB]

The government already provides health care for millions under medicare/medicaid/the VA, etc.

 

Government health care is a fact on the ground, and I'm glad that the are programs whereby the states provide care to people who - through no fault of their own - can't reasonably be expected to pay for it. This includes children, the disabled, the elderly, the indigent, etc. Accepting that government has a role in the provision of health care for these people is one thing, accepting that transferring control over the entire health care system to the government and creating a public monopoly over the same is the optimal solution to all of the problems and the shortcomings that currently bedevil our healthcare system is quite another.

 

Welfare payments to those who cannot work can be beneficial to those that need them. It does not follow that we should therefore transfer control of all employment and payrolls to the government.

[jjd]

Airports: definitely could be provided by private industry. Government control has, in the past, only served to make flying MORE expensive.

 

Fire Departments: I can live with public funding of fire departments. But, private fire services are possible (fire protection was private through much of history).

 

Education: Definitely get the government out. If I can't get government completely out of education, I would accept the Milton Friedman solution.

[archenemy]

Then why has charity not obviated gov't in the areas where they are most effective?

 

In some cases, government impedes charities (Katrina, for example). I believe that people would give much more to charity absent confiscatory taxes. Also, some people just believe that it IS the government's job to provide these services.

I don't see how the gov't presence in N.O. stopped charity from coming in. Various charities may have had to find the gaps that the gov't left or rerouted their help when required to do so, but no one was told not to send aid or open thier homes to Katrina victims.

 

And I don't believe the second post. First of all, as a whole, we don't pay that much in taxes (and this is coming from a person who got to pay 14K just in capital gains in '05). The amount we are taxed should not impact our charity. My family gives 10% no matter what. So do I. I also donate time, clothes, and the occasional canned food item. I have never considered using the fact that I, like most other Americans, pay taxes and therefore have no responsibility to give to charity. Anyone who uses this excuse is not going to have a charitable heart anyway--it is either part of your belief system to help others or it is not.

[archenemy]

Airports: definitely could be provided by private industry. Government control has, in the past, only served to make flying MORE expensive.

 

Fire Departments: I can live with public funding of fire departments. But, private fire services are possible (fire protection was private through much of history).

 

Education: Definitely get the government out. If I can't get government completely out of education, I would accept the Milton Friedman solution.

I don't want you to be offended by this question as I absolutely do not mean it to be dismissive or agressive, but how old are you? Please don't answer if it would bother you--I am only curious as to what point in your life you are in: but no matter how old or young you are I believe your opinions to be valid.

[jjd]

Late 20s with a family.

[jjd]

One example of government-related interference in disaster relief: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120276.html

 

The amount we pay in taxes absolutely should affect how much we give to charity. Are you telling me that you, as an obviously charitable person, wouldn't give more to charity (in absolute dollars) if you took home more of it, rather than have it taken by the government?

 

And I beg to disagree that we don't pay that much in taxes. Add up federal income tax, state income tax (if applicable), sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes and the countless fees that you pay, and you come to a pretty hefty number.

[JayB]

I have an idea that Matt should wholeheartedly embrace, for the sake of intellectual consistency if nothing else.

 

Legal services are a basic right, and there are far too many people in this country who cannot afford quality representation. Public defender's offices, for example, provide legal representation at a cost that's far lower than that which can be obtained in the private market for legal services. Think of the savings to be had, the efficiencies to be realized, and the vast expansion of coverage that will be realized under this model.

 

Clearly the best solution is to adopt a single payer model to provide for universal legal coverage. The government will determine how much all attorney's services are worth, what the total quantity of legal services as a whole, and in each sub-specialty the country will need every year, and compel attorneys to provide representation at a fixed price that it deems fair and reasonable. There are some, who selfishness, greed, or a misplaced faith in "the market's" ability to allocate legal services in an efficient manner, or who question the government's ability to provide legal services that are of the same quality as those obtained in the private market for legal services, or who question the government's right to abridge the citizen's right to choose whichever attorney they think will best represent their interests, but one can see through the naked self interest inherent in these statements.

 

How about it, Matt? What's good for medicine will be good for the law, no?

[archenemy]

One example of government-related interference in disaster relief: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120276.html

 

The amount we pay in taxes absolutely should affect how much we give to charity. Are you telling me that you, as an obviously charitable person, wouldn't give more to charity (in absolute dollars) if you took home more of it, rather than have it taken by the government?

 

And I beg to disagree that we don't pay that much in taxes. Add up federal income tax, state income tax (if applicable), sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes and the countless fees that you pay, and you come to a pretty hefty number.

I give 10% of my gross regardless of the amount of taxes I pay. And as I said, I pay a fair share.

When I say we don't pay much, I compare that to Europeans--the ones who actually get the services they pay for under a socialist system.

[jjd]

I compare that to Europeans--the ones who actually get the services they pay for under a socialist system.

:grlaf: :grlaf:

:crosseye:

[archenemy]

I assume you haven't lived there?

[jjd]

I assume you haven't lived there?

 

No, I haven't. But then again, I've never eaten poop, but I'm pretty sure it would taste bad.

 

In all seriousness, I am very scared that this country is heading in the same direction. I have never lived there, but I have family who travels there extensively and raves about it. They think that this country should be more like Europe - the things they brag about (social welfare, for example) go against everything that this country was built upon.

Edited May 30, 2007 by jjd

[archenemy]

I've lived there and it ain't bad.

[JosephH]

jjd, just focusing on healthcare alone we now have one the most expensive and least effective healthcare systems among industrialized nations. It is a serious boat anchor on our economy and the well-being of families.

 

I'm a systems architect and I can tell you for a fact that the IT overhead alone in our system is killing us. That we spend billions annually attempting to interface differing systems at all layers of the healthcare infrastructure - at doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, states, and the federal government. Every doctor, pharmacy, hospital, insurer, state, and federal agency is using different software that is all constantly churning within itself and at the interfaces with all the other systems.

 

What is required is ONE system of standardized interfaces across all providers, pharmacys, insurers, states, and federal government. The current administrative overhead for private insurers alone is about $100 billion per year and that doesn't count the costs to everyone doing business with them. They whole system likely cost closer to .5 trillion dollars per year. We do not get value for the money spent, period.

 

What bedevils our healthcare system isn't the government - it's the lack of a single-provider system that cuts out all the parasites that provide zero value yet are endemic in our current system. Our healthcare system is a complete failure at the moment based on the dollars spent relative to the services it provides.

[dt_3pin]

What bedevils our healthcare system isn't the government - it's the lack of a single-provider system that cuts out all the parasites that provide zero value yet are endemic in our current system. Our healthcare system is a complete failure at the moment based on the dollars spent relative to the services it provides.

 

well said, JH.

[archenemy]

jjd just focusing on healthcare alone we no have one the most expensive and least effective healthcare systems among industrialized nations. It is a serious boat anchor on our economy and the well-being of families.

 

I'm a systems architect and I can tell you for a fact that the IT overhead alone in our system is killing us. That we spend billions annually attempting to interface differing systems at all layers of the healthcare infrastructure - at doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, states, and the federal government. Every doctor, pharmacy, hospital, insurer, state, and federal agency is using different software that is all constantly churning within itself and at the interfaces with all the other systems.

 

What is required is ONE system of standardized interfaces across all providers, pharmacys, insurers, states, and federal government. The current administrative overhead for private insurers alone is about $100 billion per year and that doesn't count the costs to everyone doing business with them. They whole system likely cost closer to .5 trillion dollars per year. We do not get value for the money spent, period.

 

What bedevils our healthcare system isn't the government - it's the lack of a single-provider system that cuts out all the parasites that provide zero value yet are endemic in our current system. Our healthcare system is a complete failure at the moment based on the dollars spent relative to the services it provides.

Again, geeks will unite and make zillions of dollars. Eventually, we will rule the world.

[kevbone]

I'm not sure I can give you a precise definition. Different people need different levels of assistance.

 

The reason I ask this is your definition and my definition are different. I have a job and pay taxes but might feel “needy” and will seek treatment along side the homeless guy. Well at that point we are both “needy”, I would like the govy to pay for both of us.

[Crux]

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

 

 

 

This is a contradition.

When ever you add rules to the free market, then it is no longer free....

 

 

 

There has never been a free market, and never a market without rules. Ever. You must always pay, one way or the other, and participation is, was, and always will be subject to rules.

 

The key to the survival of a democracy is for its members to exercise effective and appropriate control over what those rules will be.

[JayB]

I'm a systems architect and I can tell you for a fact that the IT overhead alone in our system is killing us. That we spend billions annually attempting to interface differing systems at all layers of the healthcare infrastructure - at doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, states, and the federal government. Every doctor, pharmacy, hospital, insurer, state, and federal agency is using different software that is all constantly churning within itself and at the interfaces with all the other systems.

 

What is required is ONE system of standardized interfaces across all providers, pharmacys, insurers, states, and federal government. The current administrative overhead for private insurers alone is about $100 billion per year and that doesn't count the costs to everyone doing business with them. They whole system likely cost closer to .5 trillion dollars per year. We do not get value for the money spent, period.

 

What bedevils our healthcare system isn't the government - it's the lack of a single-provider system that cuts out all the parasites that provide zero value yet are endemic in our current system. Our healthcare system is a complete failure at the moment based on the dollars spent relative to the services it provides.

 

Good argument for developing a single healthcare data platform, bad argument for transforming all of health care into a public monopoly.

 

Millitary procurements take place within a single payer system, and we've certainly never seen any corruption, waste, inefficiency, or politically motivated misallocations of resources there, have we?

 

BTW, how would you feel about transferring control of IT/electronics/programming to the government? Again, surely the benefits of a single-payer system would be equally valuable in this sector of the economy.