EP174: Political Discussion

[TristanPEJ]

As a side note - Why does sci-fi almost always assume the republicans are in charge?

Republicans make better villains I guess.

[Zathras]

As a side note - Why does sci-fi almost always assume the republicans are in charge?

If they weren't, we'd never get anything accomplished

[alllie]

[regardless of witch party is in power].

witch party = Republicans or equivalent

[Zathras]

witch party = Republicans or equivalent

Funny, every "witch" I know is a Democrat.

My apologies, I should have made clear that by witch I meant Wiccan.  It is true that the Wiccans I know are Democrats, when I know for sure that they are a member of a party.  However, all of them definately lean way more left than I do.

I should have been more clear on this.

[wintermute]

Let's see: a sentient toy "feels" for the child and decides to commit fraud because it is better to "save" a dying child than conform to the government health care system (hence it must be "bad"). A government so "bad" that it offers a 50% commission for privateers to uncover fraud against the government (or concoct it). Just having a snitch line for fraud obviously wasn't enough, and the crack government investigators just weren't motivated enough to root out fraud. Now that's a pretty "bad" government.
...
But if health care is fairly rationed to the "deserving poor" (as I think we could, alternatively, infer) then another child maybe whose mother actually was working two jobs and was actually killed in a car accident is going to die.

As opposed to the girl in the story, whose mother was actually working two jobs and was actually killed in a car accident?

The reason the mother was no longer working 60 hours a week was because she was medically incapable of doing so, which implies that she wasn't herself eligible for any kind of health care, and that her employer and the government were both willing to just leave her to die a slow and painful death when she stopped being an efficient worker. Removing her benefits just because she committed suicide seems incredibly arbitrary, and surely only exists because (as in this case) people saw suicide as the only way they had to protect their children from being thrown on the trash-heap. That is surely the mark of a fucked-up government.

But leaving aside the question of whether or not the operation was one with inherent limitations of scale (like a lung transplant) or was just lacking trained medical staff; it's not just life-saving health-care that the government is trying to crack down on. It's also things like education. If you want your kids to get a decent education, you need to be either working 60 hours a week or be able to afford to go private. Or be able to afford to have a parent stay home and be well enough educated to be able to do the job yourself. There might be problems of scale, if not enough of the previous generation have enough education to be able to act as teachers, but it's really a bad idea for a country to try and keep its citizens ignorant and untrained.

All in all, the government in question seems to be systematically trying to keep the workforce ignorant, poor, sick, unable to advance beyond their station, and puts no effort into keeping them alive at all if they're not productive members of society.

Cutting down on government fraud is one thing (though it never seems to save as much as it costs), but paying mercenaries to concoct reasons to deny education to people is just racing to the bottom. It may not be "evil" government, but it's at the very least, suicidally moronic government.

[TristanPEJ]

suicidally moronic government.

sorry, this term was just too perfect as a description for the last 8 years

[Zathras]

Oh hell no!

Not gonna let that slide.  I grew up poor.  Poor as in didn't get enough to eat, never had new clothes that weren't donated poor.  I could have let that determine my life, but I didn't. 

IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO MAKE YOU SUCCESSFUL.

One of the problems with society today is that too many people look to the government for help.  There was a time that a single mother would have gotten help from the community.  Someone would have helped babysit, or helped with meals, or something.  Now, too many people feel that the government should do those things and so they don't help.

Kinda reminds me of Mr. DeRego.  I sent an admittedly small donation his way.  I don't mean to be crude, but it's not the government's fault that Mr. DeRego wasn't properly insured.

I am not saying the following applies to Mr. DeRego, I don't know his specific situation.

STOP GOING TO F***ING STARBUCKS IF YOU "CAN'T AFFORD INSURANCE."  Or McDonalds, or Deny's, or buying video games, or going to Cons, or buying cars that you can't afford, or ordering pizza, or paying an absurd amount of money for cable/internet/phone packages. 

Now I'm going to disparage EP, sorry. 

Maybe if you spent a little time LEARNING something, you would improve your lot in life.  Put down the EP, PC and PP.  Step away from the fiction.  Pick up a nonfiction book.  Your income is dependant on who and what you know. 

I feel for the woman's situation in this story, I really do.  But she committed fraud. 

Oh, and for your information, we DO provide insurance for underpriveleged children.  My 3 stepkids were covered by government insurance before I married their mom.  I am proud to say that now I cover their insurance.  So, not only do my taxes go to wasteful government programs, but I am saving the government money on healthcare for 3 wonderful children.

I am NOT sorry if I offended anyone. 

[wintermute]

For the record, I am a Conservative leaning Libertarian.  I know I'm in the minority, and when I post a political comment, don't take it personally.  Trust me, if I have a problem with you personally, I'll just ignore you.

Well, that didn't last long.

IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO MAKE YOU SUCCESSFUL.

True. It's also not the government's job to stop you being successful. It is the government's job to give you access to the tools you can use to make yourself successful.

STOP GOING TO F***ING STARBUCKS IF YOU "CAN'T AFFORD INSURANCE".

Do you know how much individual (ie not from employers) health insurance costs? Do you really think it's the kind of money a minimum-wage family can scrape up by not drinking that fancy $4 coffee?

Oh, and for your information, we DO provide insurance for underpriveleged children.

"We" meaning the 2008 United States of America? Yes, that's true if you don't count the 2 million children under the age of 15 who aren't covered by private insurance and don't qualify for government health programs. And, of course, those people who do have private insurance which is extremely unwilling to pay out. But I don't see how that speaks to the public health policies of the fictional government in the story, which are far, far more restrictive than "we" have at present.

My 3 stepkids were covered by government insurance before I married their mom. I am proud to say that now I cover their insurance. So, not only do my taxes go to wasteful government programs, but I am saving the government money on healthcare for 3 wonderful children.

Just out of interest, do you have an explanation for why countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and so forth manage to spend less government money per person on healthcare than the US, and still manage to provide a comprehensive, free-at-point-of-access system that (according to WHO benchmarks) compares well to the most expensive private hospitals in the US?

[Zathras]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know how much healt care costs, as I own my business and therefor pay for my own insurance.  

Show me in the Constitution where it is the government's job to provide access to those tools.

As to the minimum wage argument, minimum wage is ENTRY LEVEL pay.  I wouldn't want someone to work for me who would settle for minimum wage.  If you are over the age of 20 and earning minimum wage, you better be looking for a new CAREER.

I have seen free health care when I was in the military.  Thank you very much I will pay for mine and have my choice of care providers.  Want to make it easier for the poor?  Fine, then give out yet another tax credit.  

The fictional government in the story was already called Republican in this thread, so that is where this argument stems from.

It makes me sick to see people look to a government for support.  If we all are "equal" then why should anyone work harder than they need to?  I work more than 4000 hours a year at my business.  It's hard, but it's better than looking for someone else to provide for me and mine (and the way I'm taxed, several others).

As far as brining my introduction into the thread, I put that there AFTER this post.  I realized that it was missing.

[wintermute]

Show me in the Constitution where it is the government's job to provide access to those tools.

I'm pretty sure it comes under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the government is obligated to ensure, right?

As to the minimum wage argument, minimum wage is ENTRY LEVEL pay.  I wouldn't want someone to work for me who would settle for minimum wage.  If you are over the age of 20 and earning minimum wage, you better be looking for a new CAREER.

I agree that minimum wage is barely enough to live on, but many people out there do spend their lives working at minimum wage, because that's what unskilled labour pays. Telling people that they just ought to become doctors, or something, doesn't actually help.

I have seen free health care when I was in the military.

US military healthcare is pretty shabby, by all accounts. I'll confess that I've never had the pleasure of it, but I hear quite shocking stories and statistics. It's certainly not the same as the socialised healthcare that I grew up with in Britain.

Thank you very much I will pay for mine and have my choice of care providers. Want to make it easier for the poor? Fine, then give out yet another tax credit.

"The poor" are those people who aren't earning enough to pay significant taxes. If they get a credit for 50% of their contributions, that's not going to buy them any actual healthcare.

Part of me is very glad that you have the privilege to think that "the poor" have easy access to high-paying careers, if only they'd make the effort, or that they can pay for that TB medicine by economising on the luxuries. I honestly wish everyone had as little idea of what being poor in America actually means.

The fictional government in the story was already called Republican in this thread, so that is where this argument stems from.

And all governments called "Republican" are exactly the same. The Second Roman Republic, the Old Republic in Star Wars? There's no difference at all.

It's clearly a strongly right-wing government, though not one I can see the current Republican party morphing into in the next 20 years. If you were to assume that there are only two political parties in America (and, for that matter, that the story is set in America - I don't believe it was explicitly stated), then it obviously lines up more with the Republican party than with the Democratic party, but I wouldn't agree that that simplification means that the fictional right-wing government represents the Republican party any more than the government depicted in V for Vendetta bears any relationship to the Conservative party in Britain.

It makes me sick to see people look to a government for support.  If we all are "equal" then why should anyone work harder than they need to?  I work more than 4000 hours a year at my business.  It's hard, but it's better than looking for someone else to provide for me and mine (and the way I'm taxed, several others).

If we are all "equal", why should anyone think that the society around them didn't play any part in their success? Why shouldn't you help to pay for programmes that everyone benefits from, such as roads, pollution controls and, yes, public health?

Really, there's a very simple reason why funding other people's healthcare is a good idea: If your next-door neighbour comes down with cholera, that has a direct negative effect on you. If the pool of potential employees who are healthy enough to do the work you want done is reduced, that has a direct negative effect on you, and on the economy as a whole. Public health is a public good.

As far as brining my introduction into the thread, I put that there AFTER this post.

Ah, so it was a blatant lie from after you'd proved you were unable to avoid political arguments. That makes it so much better. My apologies.

[Zathras]

For the record, I am a Conservative leaning Libertarian.  I know I'm in the minority, and when I post a political comment, don't take it personally.  Trust me, if I have a problem with you personally, I'll just ignore you." 

I see nothing in this that says I will avoid political comments.  If you READ it, you will see that it says not to take it personally.  So it isn't a "blatant lie", it's a case of you not reading what was posted.  Please, if you wish to attack me personally, at least attack me for what I actually typed, not what you thought you read.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"  is not found in the Constitution, that is in the Declaration of Independence. 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare.

I did NOT say that we should not provide healthcare to those that can't afford it.  A tax CREDIT is different from a tax CUT.  A credit of $1000 would mean an additional $1000 return to those who already get more back each year than they pay. 

Forcing people to be *gasp* responsible for their own healthcare will lower fraud and waste.  When the government, or employer, or anyone else, pays the bill, why should an individual care if they are charged $500 for a bottle of Tylenol?

As to the 2 million children living without insurance, if you would be kind enough to provide me with some evidence, I will gladly discuss this with you.

I also believe you missed the part where I said I grew up poor.  I do understand what it means and what it's like.  I am not a heartless bastard and support charities.  Granted, they are charities with similar ideologies as mine, but the ones I donate to do not require you to believe as they do. 

You know the stories you hear about a family receiving a complete Thanksgiving meal, or the single waitress who gets a $100 tip from someone she will probably never see again?  I am one of the people that does that. 

There is absolutely NO reason for someone to keep earning minimum wage.  America is a land of opportunities.  If you don't have a skill, learn one, it's possible.  Of course, I have more faith in people than to just assume that they cannot better themselves.  You do not have to become a doctor to earn a decent wage.  We have apprenticeships, community colleges, charitable organizations that provide training, and *gasp* even some nasty, evil corporations that will train employees.

Oh, and the "equal" remark I made was referring to socialism.  Equal opportunity is one thing, what you do with it is another.

[Heradel]

As to the 2 million children living without insurance, if you would be kind enough to provide me with some evidence, I will gladly discuss this with you.

From The Times:

The Census Bureau reported last month that the number of people under 18 without health insurance had decreased, to 8.1 million in 2007, from 8.7 million in the prior year. Economists say the number could climb this year because of the weak economy and rising unemployment.

———
Edit: Let's keep it civil folks.

Zathras — Unless you're saying in your experience Wiccans tend toward leftist politics and the Democrats, that witches comment was very, very close to going over the line. No ad hominem attacks.

[wintermute]

Forcing people to be *gasp* responsible for their own healthcare will lower fraud and waste.  When the government, or employer, or anyone else, pays the bill, why should an individual care if they are charged $500 for a bottle of Tylenol?

And yet, for some reason, this [/i]doesn't[/i] happen with socialised healthcare, while $50 per tablet is not uncommon in private hospitals. Removing the profit motive seems to do a great deal to remove this kind of gouging.

As to the 2 million children living without insurance, if you would be kind enough to provide me with some evidence, I will gladly discuss this with you.

Well, I got it from that well known evil liberal anti-government agency, the Department of Health. I'll see if I can dig up the reference for you.

There is absolutely NO reason for someone to keep earning minimum wage.  America is a land of opportunities.  If you don't have a skill, learn one, it's possible.  Of course, I have more faith in people than to just assume that they cannot better themselves.  You do not have to become a doctor to earn a decent wage.  We have apprenticeships, community colleges, charitable organizations that provide training, and *gasp* even some nasty, evil corporations that will train employees.

Education is expensive. Some employers train some of their employees to be more valuable, but they generally have non-compete clauses that stop said employee using that training to get a job elsewhere. And people who don't already have a job that offers training obviously can't use this path to better themselves. Educational charities do a lot of good work where they can, but they are woefully underfunded and oversubscribed.

Which leaves us with public funding for education. If you want the disadvantaged to be able get an education and pull themselves up by their bootstraps so you can make sweeping generalisations like "there's no excuse for not being able to get a better job", then you need to have an inclusive public education system that is available to everyone, regardless of means or merit. Are you in favour of your hard-earned tax dollars being spent on public schools that will probably never dirctly benefit you?

Oh, and the "equal" remark I made was referring to socialism.  Equal opportunity is one thing, what you do with it is another.

I agree that equal opportunities would be something that a society should strive for. But when the quality of your education is largely determined by the socio-economic sector you're born into, and your earning potential is strongly limited by the quality of your education and (yes) by the colour of your skin; where the poor are granted the opportunity to die in the gutter because they can't afford to take time off work to go to the hospital, or because they can't afford the $50 co-pay to find out what that cough that just won't go away is... well, we're a long way from equal opportunities, and I've never understood how libertarianism is supposed to be a step in the right direction.

[Zathras]

Which leaves us with public funding for education. If you want the disadvantaged to be able get an education and pull themselves up by their bootstraps so you can make sweeping generalisations like "there's no excuse for not being able to get a better job", then you need to have an inclusive public education system that is available to everyone, regardless of means or merit. Are you in favour of your hard-earned tax dollars being spent on public schools that will probably never dirctly benefit you?

Yes.  I'm also in favor of my tax dollars being used to encourage business owners to train employees.  I'm in favor of my tax dollars being given to private schools to educate those that couldn't otherwise afford it.

I can't stop the government from taxing me, I just want them to use my money wisely and to prevent fraud and waste.  Little of which has been done lately.

I would support the idea of a completely free community college system, regardless of income. 

[Zathras]

Zathras — Unless you're saying in your experience Wiccans tend toward leftist politics and the Democrats, that witches comment was very, very close to going over the line. No ad hominem attacks.

Whoops, sorry, should have clarified that.  My best friend is a Wiccan and we just avoid discussing politics as she is about 150 degrees from my political views, will edit that entry.  -done

I have tried to make it clear that I will not attack anyone personally. 

Now, I would like the reference to me posting a "blatant lie" fixed, if it is acceptable.

[alllie]

Show me in the Constitution where it is the government's job to provide access to those tools.

Wouldn't that fall under "promote the general welfare"?

And why is it that some people who have had it hard are determined that other people should have it just as hard if not harder. I have never understood that.

While I was without health insurance I fell and broke my leg. At least I thought I broke it. I had broken my foot about a half dozen times and it felt just like that but worse. It wasn’t a compound fracture or a through and through break but just maybe a greenstick fracture but it really hurt all the time.

I had no insurance and was living on savings. I didn’t know how much it would cost to go to a doctor and get it splinted. $200 I could do. $2000 no way. But I got to thinking about how for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, people broke their legs, splinted them and they healed without a doctor. I got an air cast off the internet for $80 and as soon as I put it on about 95% of the pain went away. I wore it for 6 weeks and the pain stopped. But I’m still annoyed that I couldn’t just go to a doctor. I’m angry that anyone in this country who is sick or hurt can’t just go to a doctor. Other countries manage it. Why can’t we? Because some health insurance companies would go out of business? Because the medical and pharmaceutical industry would make less profits? Why does their welfare count more than ours? Because they have the money and power to bribe those in government? So that story made me angry. A mother forced to work 60 hours a week to get health coverage for herself and her child, forced to kill herself to save her child’s life. Don’t you see anything wrong with that?

[Zathras]

I'm looking up the Census info right now.

Found a summary:  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html#_ftn2

I am delving further into this, but will admit that it appears I was wrong.  The number of children uninsured and under the poverty line are higher than I thought and deserve further research.

I don't want it to be just as hard or harder for others.  American's have great access to education.  Get a library card and read a book.  It's not easy, but people can do better.  I simply refuse to accept can't. 

edit:  http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

It's an 84 page document, it's gonna take me a while to get through it.  I'm not ducking the issue, if I haven't addressed it in 2 days, feel free to call me out on it.

[Zathras]

My head hurts from reading this report already.  I hate sorting through these things.

I was mistaken in the level of insurance I thought was already provided.  I would not be against anyone that is technically in poverty to be covered by state insurance, even if it was federally mandated.  There is at least a better chance to avoid fraud at the state level.

edit:  To clarify, I mean individual states should implement this, not the federal government.

I incorrectly believed that all children were there already.  I will go so far as to change my opinion and allow for adults to be covered, as well.

If someone is above the poverty threshold, they could receive a tax credit to offset their insurance premiums.  (I was already willing to concede this point)

I still don't think it is or should be the federal government's role to do this, however.

Fair enough?

Edit:  Poverty levels can be found in appendix B of the report, page 53.

A few examples:

1 Person household:  $10,787
2 Person household with 1 child:  $14,291 (Single parent, one child)
4 Person household with 3 children:  $21,100
5 Person household with 3 children:  $24,744

Edit:  The total number of uninsured people in this report is higher than actuality, due to the polling methods.

"Additionally, many people may not be aware that a health insurance program covers them or their children if they have not used covered services recently"  Appendix C, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2007 report from the census bureau.

Perhaps a better job of letting these people know they have benefits would be more appropriate.

I would like to point out that I am perfectly willing to do research and follow links that anyone wishes to use to back up their side of the debate.  Please have the courtesy to do the same.

[stePH]

Zathras — Unless you're saying in your experience Wiccans tend toward leftist politics and the Democrats, that witches comment was very, very close to going over the line. No ad hominem attacks.

Zathras was responding to Allie's post (quoted below), which was itself a response to biondolino's typo.  I think Allie's post was closer to an ad hominem attack than Zathras' -- though I honestly think neither one actually was.

[regardless of witch party is in power].

witch party = Republicans or equivalent

[zobmie]

In response to Federal vs. State run health insurance

There are states out there that are actually trying to provide health insurance to their citizens.  I have worked with the "working poor" of the State of New Mexico for about 2 years.  NM has multiple plans to help people get health insurance... not just children but adults as well.  This is a State run program that works. 

Here is a link to their program website: http://www.insurenewmexico.state.nm.us/SCIHome.htm

Having worked in the healthcare industry for almost 20 years (and NO I'm not a doctor) I don't think the Federal Government is equipped to run a federal healthcare program.  They may work in other countries but with the greed and overspending in Washington, the administrative costs of running a national program would far surpass the potential savings. 

[Heradel]

Zathras — Unless you're saying in your experience Wiccans tend toward leftist politics and the Democrats, that witches comment was very, very close to going over the line. No ad hominem attacks.

Zathras was responding to Allie's post (quoted below), which was itself a response to biondolino's typo.  I think Allie's post was closer to an ad hominem attack than Zathras' -- though I honestly think neither one actually was.

[regardless of witch party is in power].

witch party = Republicans or equivalent

I'm glad it was Wiccans.

I pointed out Zathras' statement because, without knowing about the Wiccan friend, it gave the impression of sexism. Obviously he didn't mean it it like that, and he corrected it, so chalk up another one to text-based internet misinterpretations. Allie's post, being directed at the political party and not at individuals within the party, doesn't set off my mod-meter as much.

[JoeFitz]

As opposed to the girl in the story, whose mother was actually working two jobs and was actually killed in a car accident?

But she wasn't "killed" ... she committed suicide. Insurance companies routinely make allowances for this. I have no problem with this distinction being enforced (if that's a "rule") though I question its need. Anyone desperate enough to kill herself with the intent to help a child should probably not result in that child being punished. But what happens to the children of criminals and those with addictions? Those people are unable to help themselves, are stuck with a medical condition, and yet their children must suffer?

This story does not give us enough information about the way the system works (or doesn't). It only tells us that some mean person with a financial incentive to throw a child off the welfare roles is out to get "our" child. I just mused about that other child... assume the system described in this story works (i.e. those who die in accidents while working do qualify for child care, education and health care for their children). If it doesn't, all bets are off. A line or two would have been nice to keep me (and maybe others) on message.

[wakela]

I'm going to try to phrase this in a non-argumentative way, because I'm not trying to challenge anyone's opinion here.  But something occurred to me recently that I have not seen much written about.  American pharmaceutical companies are motivated more strongly by profit that those in other countries.  As a result there is most of the development of drugs and medical machinery is done in the US.  So if the US were to somehow adopt socialized medicine, wouldn't this development slow down dramatically?  More people can get treatment for TB, but the cure for cancer moves farther away.  For the countries with socialized medicine that enjoy high quality care, isn't this due to the capitalist incentives of the US? 

I could be totally full of crap on this.  Based on this suprisingly handy list of companies, the US ones and the non-US ones look like they spend about the same on R&D as a percentage of revenues.  It also shows that most of the top pharma companies are American so there is much more total money being spent in the US than other countries, but America is also a much bigger place... Don't know.  I was hoping to get some other opinions here...

Note:  I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything here, and I'm not trying to toot America's horn or justify the US health care system.
Also, I use the awkward "other countries" because saying "Europe" leaves off Japan and Australia, and probably some others. 

[JoeFitz]

I'm going to try to phrase this in a non-argumentative way, because I'm not trying to challenge anyone's opinion here.  But something occurred to me recently that I have not seen much written about. 

Exactly! The best patent policy for drugs is to live next to a country with stringent laws! The US does all the work, and the generic companies (i.e. those Canadian devils Novo and ApoTex) reap the benefits. Funny thing is that Big Pharma needs enormous profit to attract the investments. Obscene profit, really. But the $1B put into the next Viagra to earn $10B+ dwarfs what is spent on malaria research. That's the rub (sorry). Profits chase profitable drugs, not necessarily the needed drugs.

The fallacy is that drug companies need this obscene level of profit to find new drugs. How many years longer would it take to cure cancer if Big Pharma only made 500% profit of sales vs. investment+marketing instead of 1000%? And would Big Pharma even want to find a "cure" for a disease it could "treat"?

Not that I've got a better idea for a drug research system. But why not put a patent window in place and keep it in place (silly extensions of Lipitor patent protection notwithstanding).

[Zathras]

>>Pokes head around corner

CAPITALISM RAWKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>Takes cover

Ahem, nothing to see here, there was no man with a blue mohawk screaming obscenities