|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 13 2013 09:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2013 06:49 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 06:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As many as 135,000 individuals enrolled in federally funded programs for people with pre-existing conditions will be given a few more weeks to find replacement coverage for next year through Obamacare's health insurance exchanges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Thursday.
The Affordable Care Act established the $5 billion Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) in 2010 as a bridge to the exchanges, and the program was set to expire at the end of this year. But given the ongoing difficulties in using HealthCare.gov and several state-run health insurance marketplaces, concerns have grown that these sickest beneficiaries could find themselves uninsured next month, which could disrupt their medical care and expose them to extraordinarily high costs.
Under the policy announced Thursday, PCIP beneficiaries in 40 states and the District of Columbia, where the federal government operates the program, would have until the end of January to enroll in new coverage via the health insurance exchanges. Ten states run the program for their residents on behalf of the federal government and would have to sign off on the extension, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
These so-called high-risk pools are supposed to become obsolete because Obamacare prohibits health insurance companies from rejecting anyone on the basis of pre-existing conditions or charging such people higher rates than healthy individuals.
But the troubled rollout of the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act has jeopardized insurance coverage for as many as several million people, including those whose current policies can't be renewed because they don't meet the law's benefit standards and those enrolled in the PCIP and similar state-run programs, many of which also are shutting down in the coming months. Source The real story about Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan: The $5 billion program was intended as bridge health coverage to sick patients waiting for full implementation of ObamaCare. The administration says about 135,000 Americans have benefited from the insurance coverage.
But the program initially failed to enroll as many people as expected and was plagued by high costs. In February, the Health and Human Services Department stopped accepting new applicants into the program to ensure it would have enough money to cover the people already enrolled.
"Running out of money before the end of the year is something we're trying to avoid," said Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in congressional testimony. sourceI gather everybody running interference for Obama is quick to gloss over how few people actually enrolled and how they ran out of money anyways! It's like the party least competent to help insure people with pre-existing conditions are the ones putting it together. Thats a stopgap measure for the ACA. I fail to see how it proves anything. And even disregarding that and seeing it as a somewhat failed program my question is still "and?" The ACA is better then what you have right now (which is a pile of shit) so yes i still support it even if it is put together by incompetent people. If the Republicans came with a different idea then 'nothing' I might support it. If you'd rather reply to a news article on the PCIP and blubber that I haven't disproved the merit of the entirety of the ACA, then perhaps you should speak of its merits in your own post. Changing topics out of the blue will get you nowhere.
You take the PCIP as an example that Obama has no clue about health insurance and I reply to that saying there is no one else who is doing something better, So how am I chancing the topic again?
|
On December 13 2013 09:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 09:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2013 06:49 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 06:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As many as 135,000 individuals enrolled in federally funded programs for people with pre-existing conditions will be given a few more weeks to find replacement coverage for next year through Obamacare's health insurance exchanges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Thursday.
The Affordable Care Act established the $5 billion Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) in 2010 as a bridge to the exchanges, and the program was set to expire at the end of this year. But given the ongoing difficulties in using HealthCare.gov and several state-run health insurance marketplaces, concerns have grown that these sickest beneficiaries could find themselves uninsured next month, which could disrupt their medical care and expose them to extraordinarily high costs.
Under the policy announced Thursday, PCIP beneficiaries in 40 states and the District of Columbia, where the federal government operates the program, would have until the end of January to enroll in new coverage via the health insurance exchanges. Ten states run the program for their residents on behalf of the federal government and would have to sign off on the extension, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
These so-called high-risk pools are supposed to become obsolete because Obamacare prohibits health insurance companies from rejecting anyone on the basis of pre-existing conditions or charging such people higher rates than healthy individuals.
But the troubled rollout of the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act has jeopardized insurance coverage for as many as several million people, including those whose current policies can't be renewed because they don't meet the law's benefit standards and those enrolled in the PCIP and similar state-run programs, many of which also are shutting down in the coming months. Source The real story about Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan: The $5 billion program was intended as bridge health coverage to sick patients waiting for full implementation of ObamaCare. The administration says about 135,000 Americans have benefited from the insurance coverage.
But the program initially failed to enroll as many people as expected and was plagued by high costs. In February, the Health and Human Services Department stopped accepting new applicants into the program to ensure it would have enough money to cover the people already enrolled.
"Running out of money before the end of the year is something we're trying to avoid," said Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in congressional testimony. sourceI gather everybody running interference for Obama is quick to gloss over how few people actually enrolled and how they ran out of money anyways! It's like the party least competent to help insure people with pre-existing conditions are the ones putting it together. Thats a stopgap measure for the ACA. I fail to see how it proves anything. And even disregarding that and seeing it as a somewhat failed program my question is still "and?" The ACA is better then what you have right now (which is a pile of shit) so yes i still support it even if it is put together by incompetent people. If the Republicans came with a different idea then 'nothing' I might support it. If you'd rather reply to a news article on the PCIP and blubber that I haven't disproved the merit of the entirety of the ACA, then perhaps you should speak of its merits in your own post. Changing topics out of the blue will get you nowhere. You take the PCIP as an example that Obama has no clue about health insurance and I reply to that saying there is no one else who is doing something better, So how am I chancing the topic again?
Go look at StealthBlue's article excerpt again, and read it twice, and then what I wrote and see if I mentioned anything trying to expand it to other PPACA promises. I did not say health insurance, I said competency to help insure people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe post your own news articles dealing with other aspects of the PPACA, or on the Republican's lack of alternatives for that matter, if you wish to move the discussion elsewhere. I am perfectly willing to discuss it, should you want to focus on another aspect. It is an open forum.
|
On December 13 2013 09:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 09:41 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2013 09:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2013 06:49 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 06:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As many as 135,000 individuals enrolled in federally funded programs for people with pre-existing conditions will be given a few more weeks to find replacement coverage for next year through Obamacare's health insurance exchanges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Thursday.
The Affordable Care Act established the $5 billion Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) in 2010 as a bridge to the exchanges, and the program was set to expire at the end of this year. But given the ongoing difficulties in using HealthCare.gov and several state-run health insurance marketplaces, concerns have grown that these sickest beneficiaries could find themselves uninsured next month, which could disrupt their medical care and expose them to extraordinarily high costs.
Under the policy announced Thursday, PCIP beneficiaries in 40 states and the District of Columbia, where the federal government operates the program, would have until the end of January to enroll in new coverage via the health insurance exchanges. Ten states run the program for their residents on behalf of the federal government and would have to sign off on the extension, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
These so-called high-risk pools are supposed to become obsolete because Obamacare prohibits health insurance companies from rejecting anyone on the basis of pre-existing conditions or charging such people higher rates than healthy individuals.
But the troubled rollout of the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act has jeopardized insurance coverage for as many as several million people, including those whose current policies can't be renewed because they don't meet the law's benefit standards and those enrolled in the PCIP and similar state-run programs, many of which also are shutting down in the coming months. Source The real story about Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan: The $5 billion program was intended as bridge health coverage to sick patients waiting for full implementation of ObamaCare. The administration says about 135,000 Americans have benefited from the insurance coverage.
But the program initially failed to enroll as many people as expected and was plagued by high costs. In February, the Health and Human Services Department stopped accepting new applicants into the program to ensure it would have enough money to cover the people already enrolled.
"Running out of money before the end of the year is something we're trying to avoid," said Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in congressional testimony. sourceI gather everybody running interference for Obama is quick to gloss over how few people actually enrolled and how they ran out of money anyways! It's like the party least competent to help insure people with pre-existing conditions are the ones putting it together. Thats a stopgap measure for the ACA. I fail to see how it proves anything. And even disregarding that and seeing it as a somewhat failed program my question is still "and?" The ACA is better then what you have right now (which is a pile of shit) so yes i still support it even if it is put together by incompetent people. If the Republicans came with a different idea then 'nothing' I might support it. If you'd rather reply to a news article on the PCIP and blubber that I haven't disproved the merit of the entirety of the ACA, then perhaps you should speak of its merits in your own post. Changing topics out of the blue will get you nowhere. You take the PCIP as an example that Obama has no clue about health insurance and I reply to that saying there is no one else who is doing something better, So how am I chancing the topic again? Go look at StealthBlue's article excerpt again, and read it twice, and then what I wrote and see if I mentioned anything trying to expand it to other PPACA promises. I did not say health insurance, I said competency to help insure people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe post your own news articles dealing with other aspects of the PPACA, or on the Republican's lack of alternatives for that matter, if you wish to move the discussion elsewhere. I am perfectly willing to discuss it, should you want to focus on another aspect. It is an open forum.
And what is your point then? Its badly run? Sure there are a lot of problems with it but once again, No one else is doing it so this is what has to get the job done.
When the choice is between this badly run program and no program at all what choice is there.
|
On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of....
By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one.
For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real".
Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone.
Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided.
In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study.
Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul.
As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work.
Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately.
|
On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately.
I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgements each person makes. I think we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it.
It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions I posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones.
So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: "fairness" (of start and finish).
I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because government is too incompetent and immoral to come up with something that works. (Because that would require that, upon fixing it, politicians would have to keep their grubby hands out the program even for a little, while it works well).
Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. It could be argued that it's easier for them since the scale is so much smaller than it would be here. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, at certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right.
I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level.
edit: grammar. I was in a hurry.
|
On December 13 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately. I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgement each person makes. I think when we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it. It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions i posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones. So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: fairness (of start and finish). I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because they are too incompetent and immoral to come up with someone that works (because that would require that, upon fixing it, they would have to keep their grubby hands out even while it works well). Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, and certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right. I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level.
I see, I am mostly ok with what you argue. I think though there is some semi-objective best (I am kind of utilitarianist) in many cases under discussion, but that would get us too far from where we started.
As for the rest, it is really not only that Europeans are ok with that and US citizens are not. It is also that we get more bang for our buck as far as I can tell. And that brings me to something that I start to suspect more and more. Did you consider that maybe your federal government does such a poor job, because you made it impossible for it to work properly. That the whole problem is not the size or incompetence, but this whole distrust of government causing solutions to be implemented that are suboptimal. Maybe in your goal to prevent government from abusing its power you prevented it from also doing its job better. Because there are plenty incompetent idiots elsewhere in the world and same goes for corruption, so that cannot be the sole cause. The only alternative I see is US size and diversity, but I am not convinced that it is enough to explain it.
|
On December 13 2013 11:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately. I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgement each person makes. I think when we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it. It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions i posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones. So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: fairness (of start and finish). I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because they are too incompetent and immoral to come up with someone that works (because that would require that, upon fixing it, they would have to keep their grubby hands out even while it works well). Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, and certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right. I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level. I see, I am mostly ok with what you argue. I think though there is some semi-objective best (I am kind of utilitarianist) in many cases under discussion, but that would get us too far from where we started. As for the rest, it is really not only that Europeans are ok with that and US citizens are not. It is also that we get more bang for our buck as far as I can tell. And that brings me to something that I start to suspect more and more. Did you consider that maybe your federal government does such a poor job, because you made it impossible for it to work properly. That the whole problem is not the size or incompetence, but this whole distrust of government causing solutions to be implemented that are suboptimal. Maybe in your goal to prevent government from abusing its power you prevented it from also doing its job better. Because there are plenty incompetent idiots elsewhere in the world and same goes for corruption, so that cannot be the sole cause. The only alternative I see is US size and diversity, but I am not convinced that it is enough to explain it.
I think there is some standard we can agree to (natural law being one). But I don't want to go much further than that. That's a reason I like the Constitution. It was based on smaller government and using the fact that factions compete for power as a self-limiting mechanism. Unfortunately it wasn't perfect, and the abuse possible is showing its ugly head at this very moment.
First, I think size is important. More people, more entropy, as well as a different scale and proportion. Maybe it's just the chemist in me, but sometimes when you change scales or add seemingly benign things at the start, they can have an effect later on.
I don' think so. I personally think more people would be better off if the government stepped way back, though it would be painful getting there. For me, "work properly" is not to take and redistribute, nor is to prop up those who are failing, nor is to provide for in old age when a person has not planned that out for themselves. How about UI? Yea, I'm fine with that to a degree. A very small degree. But not a permanent welfare state. But that relates to values again.
Now, if the government was more powerful, would it be more efficient? Possibly (unlikely IMO). But how much does that require me to give away? I don't actually think a big government can do most things well, but a larger state in Europe seems to do ok at the moment. I'm just not convinced it will continue, because as I said, nothing is static, those in power aren't working for the greater good, and you can only move things around for so long before you run out of options.
Social Security isn't a mess because the Federal Government had to little power. They can adjust taxes as they wish, they can organize it as they wish, they can hand it out as they wish. What more power could you give them? More cash? What has that ever solved?
Edit-
It's all about values, still. I would argue that a more free system has shown itself to be remarkably good for everyone, but some just don't like the "unfairness" of it all.
|
On December 13 2013 12:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 11:59 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately. I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgement each person makes. I think when we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it. It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions i posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones. So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: fairness (of start and finish). I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because they are too incompetent and immoral to come up with someone that works (because that would require that, upon fixing it, they would have to keep their grubby hands out even while it works well). Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, and certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right. I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level. I see, I am mostly ok with what you argue. I think though there is some semi-objective best (I am kind of utilitarianist) in many cases under discussion, but that would get us too far from where we started. As for the rest, it is really not only that Europeans are ok with that and US citizens are not. It is also that we get more bang for our buck as far as I can tell. And that brings me to something that I start to suspect more and more. Did you consider that maybe your federal government does such a poor job, because you made it impossible for it to work properly. That the whole problem is not the size or incompetence, but this whole distrust of government causing solutions to be implemented that are suboptimal. Maybe in your goal to prevent government from abusing its power you prevented it from also doing its job better. Because there are plenty incompetent idiots elsewhere in the world and same goes for corruption, so that cannot be the sole cause. The only alternative I see is US size and diversity, but I am not convinced that it is enough to explain it. I think there is some standard we can agree to (natural law being one). But I don't want to go much further than that. That's a reason I like the Constitution. It was based on smaller government and using the fact that factions compete for power as a self-limiting mechanism. Unfortunately it wasn't perfect, and the abuse possible is showing its ugly head at this very moment. First, I think size is important. More people, more entropy, as well as a different scale and proportion. Maybe it's just the chemist in me, but sometimes when you change scales or add seemingly benign things at the start, they can have an effect later on. I don' think so. I personally think more people would be better off if the government stepped way back, though it would be painful getting there. For me, "work properly" is not to take and redistribute, nor is to prop up those who are failing, nor is to provide for in old age when a person has not planned that out for themselves. How about UI? Yea, I'm fine with that to a degree. A very small degree. But not a permanent welfare state. But that relates to values again. Now, if the government was more powerful, would it be more efficient? Possibly (unlikely IMO). But how much does that require me to give away? I don't actually think a big government can do most things well, but a larger state in Europe seems to do ok at the moment. I'm just not convinced it will continue, because as I said, nothing is static, those in power aren't working for the greater good, and you can only move things around for so long before you run out of options. Social Security isn't a mess because the Federal Government had to little power. They can adjust taxes as they wish, they can organize it as they wish, they can hand it out as they wish. What more power could you give them? More cash? What has that ever solved? Edit- It's all about values, still. I would argue that a more free system has shown itself to be remarkably good for everyone, but some just don't like the "unfairness" of it all.
What about old people who lost their pensions through their long time employer companies going bankrupt?
|
On December 13 2013 12:26 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 12:13 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:59 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately. I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgement each person makes. I think when we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it. It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions i posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones. So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: fairness (of start and finish). I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because they are too incompetent and immoral to come up with someone that works (because that would require that, upon fixing it, they would have to keep their grubby hands out even while it works well). Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, and certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right. I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level. I see, I am mostly ok with what you argue. I think though there is some semi-objective best (I am kind of utilitarianist) in many cases under discussion, but that would get us too far from where we started. As for the rest, it is really not only that Europeans are ok with that and US citizens are not. It is also that we get more bang for our buck as far as I can tell. And that brings me to something that I start to suspect more and more. Did you consider that maybe your federal government does such a poor job, because you made it impossible for it to work properly. That the whole problem is not the size or incompetence, but this whole distrust of government causing solutions to be implemented that are suboptimal. Maybe in your goal to prevent government from abusing its power you prevented it from also doing its job better. Because there are plenty incompetent idiots elsewhere in the world and same goes for corruption, so that cannot be the sole cause. The only alternative I see is US size and diversity, but I am not convinced that it is enough to explain it. I think there is some standard we can agree to (natural law being one). But I don't want to go much further than that. That's a reason I like the Constitution. It was based on smaller government and using the fact that factions compete for power as a self-limiting mechanism. Unfortunately it wasn't perfect, and the abuse possible is showing its ugly head at this very moment. First, I think size is important. More people, more entropy, as well as a different scale and proportion. Maybe it's just the chemist in me, but sometimes when you change scales or add seemingly benign things at the start, they can have an effect later on. I don' think so. I personally think more people would be better off if the government stepped way back, though it would be painful getting there. For me, "work properly" is not to take and redistribute, nor is to prop up those who are failing, nor is to provide for in old age when a person has not planned that out for themselves. How about UI? Yea, I'm fine with that to a degree. A very small degree. But not a permanent welfare state. But that relates to values again. Now, if the government was more powerful, would it be more efficient? Possibly (unlikely IMO). But how much does that require me to give away? I don't actually think a big government can do most things well, but a larger state in Europe seems to do ok at the moment. I'm just not convinced it will continue, because as I said, nothing is static, those in power aren't working for the greater good, and you can only move things around for so long before you run out of options. Social Security isn't a mess because the Federal Government had to little power. They can adjust taxes as they wish, they can organize it as they wish, they can hand it out as they wish. What more power could you give them? More cash? What has that ever solved? Edit- It's all about values, still. I would argue that a more free system has shown itself to be remarkably good for everyone, but some just don't like the "unfairness" of it all. What about old people who lost their pensions through their long time employer companies going bankrupt?
Somehow, I knew that when I made a general statement like that I would start to get a list of exceptions and heart-wrenching stories.
Do you have numbers for that? How many people is that? Is it worth trillions of dollars over the decades? Don't just come out with some emotional appeal and expect it to make a difference. Most SS recipients are not in that boat.
unless you can show that this is a problem that really needs addressing, I'll just say that it's the type of thing that could be discussed (since we now have so many older people that rely on these programs).
|
On December 13 2013 12:26 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 12:13 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:59 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately. I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgement each person makes. I think when we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it. It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions i posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones. So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: fairness (of start and finish). I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because they are too incompetent and immoral to come up with someone that works (because that would require that, upon fixing it, they would have to keep their grubby hands out even while it works well). Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, and certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right. I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level. I see, I am mostly ok with what you argue. I think though there is some semi-objective best (I am kind of utilitarianist) in many cases under discussion, but that would get us too far from where we started. As for the rest, it is really not only that Europeans are ok with that and US citizens are not. It is also that we get more bang for our buck as far as I can tell. And that brings me to something that I start to suspect more and more. Did you consider that maybe your federal government does such a poor job, because you made it impossible for it to work properly. That the whole problem is not the size or incompetence, but this whole distrust of government causing solutions to be implemented that are suboptimal. Maybe in your goal to prevent government from abusing its power you prevented it from also doing its job better. Because there are plenty incompetent idiots elsewhere in the world and same goes for corruption, so that cannot be the sole cause. The only alternative I see is US size and diversity, but I am not convinced that it is enough to explain it. I think there is some standard we can agree to (natural law being one). But I don't want to go much further than that. That's a reason I like the Constitution. It was based on smaller government and using the fact that factions compete for power as a self-limiting mechanism. Unfortunately it wasn't perfect, and the abuse possible is showing its ugly head at this very moment. First, I think size is important. More people, more entropy, as well as a different scale and proportion. Maybe it's just the chemist in me, but sometimes when you change scales or add seemingly benign things at the start, they can have an effect later on. I don' think so. I personally think more people would be better off if the government stepped way back, though it would be painful getting there. For me, "work properly" is not to take and redistribute, nor is to prop up those who are failing, nor is to provide for in old age when a person has not planned that out for themselves. How about UI? Yea, I'm fine with that to a degree. A very small degree. But not a permanent welfare state. But that relates to values again. Now, if the government was more powerful, would it be more efficient? Possibly (unlikely IMO). But how much does that require me to give away? I don't actually think a big government can do most things well, but a larger state in Europe seems to do ok at the moment. I'm just not convinced it will continue, because as I said, nothing is static, those in power aren't working for the greater good, and you can only move things around for so long before you run out of options. Social Security isn't a mess because the Federal Government had to little power. They can adjust taxes as they wish, they can organize it as they wish, they can hand it out as they wish. What more power could you give them? More cash? What has that ever solved? Edit- It's all about values, still. I would argue that a more free system has shown itself to be remarkably good for everyone, but some just don't like the "unfairness" of it all. What about old people who lost their pensions through their long time employer companies going bankrupt?
PBGC should have you covered.
|
WASHINGTON –- Twenty-five House Democrats sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday urging him to delay a decision on Keystone XL until the State Department's Inspector General finishes investigating the contractor that completed the environmental analysis of the proposed pipeline.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, took the lead on the letter expressing "serious concerns about conflicts of interest" related to the consulting firm that authored the most recent environmental impact analysis, which downplayed environmental and safety concerns. As The Huffington Post has previously reported, after contractor Environmental Resources Management wrote the report on Keystone XL, it was discovered that some of the consultants involved in the analysis had done previous work for the company seeking to build the pipeline, TransCanada. They had also done work for a TransCanada subsidiary and for other oil companies that could benefit from the pipeline's construction. Documents released via a Freedom of Information Act Request showed that the company had not disclosed the previous work in its conflict of interest statement.
ERM's supplemental environmental impact statement, released last March, found that the environmental effects of the pipeline are "expected to be rare and relatively small." A final version of the report has not yet been released, but will inform the State Department's ultimate decision on the pipeline. Because the proposed 1,600-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Texas crosses an international border, State will make the call on whether or not it gets built.
Source
|
Sounds pretty reasonable to wait for such an investigation to be finished before deciding on the matter.
|
On December 13 2013 11:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 11:07 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 09:07 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 08:24 mcc wrote:On December 13 2013 05:15 Introvert wrote:On December 13 2013 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2013 16:48 Introvert wrote:
Which begs the question- if Obama is so American (in values) then why on earth try to change something "fundamentally?"
I don't get what's so wrong about changing a country fundamentally in the long run(through a reformist approach)? I think the fact that America was(is?) such a dynamic country and that America lacked that "European conservatism" is what makes America quite special. I think there are few things that are worse today than this "Stick up the ass" traditionalism that is getting popular again over here. I think to pinpoint Americas success only on the capitalist market is a huge mistake. Americas dynamic nature as a whole and their openness seems way more important. Public healthcare systems and social security are mainly "technical countermeasures" to the rising inequality and have, in my opinion, little to do with the "core American values". Because I don't think it needs a "fundamental" change? When I say fundamental I am referring to something a little more than just a bad law, or fixing a problem. I mean a degradation of the actual system, like that (liberal) law professor that I posted clips from a page or two back was talking about. I guess I tend to think more long term. 100 years ago it was the income tax, in the 40s it was Social Security, in the 60s it was Medicare, etc. I didn't pin all of America's success on capitalism. It is a major part of it though. America and its "values" has changed "fundamentally" several times since it's creation. What's wrong with that?
The "fundamental" values the majority held back in 1787 would have many differences from the values in the post-Civil War era and the post-WW2 era and the present day. It has in several areas, good ones at that. Treatment of blacks and women springs to mind. If you have any other examples let me know. But think you are somewhat right, they are changing, and in some cases I'm not happy about it. Just because it's "changing" doesn't mean it's improving. Also, conservatives have had trouble dealing with the word "fundamentalism" since it's inception as a religious misnomer; it's probably best to just excuse Introvert's fright. The base must be kept sacred! I never used the word "fundamentalism." I was originally making a play off of an Obama clip. If it was just a campaign clip, I would not be surprised- but if it was what he actually meant, then I think I have actual reason to be concerned, yes? Next time figure out what I'm trying to say before latching on to a single word. I think throughout the thread I've proven that I don't just have a "knee-jerk" reaction, I just think government fails the vast majority of the time when it tries to intervene. And that failure always comes with taking just a little bit more power. Which Obama is doing a fine job of grabbing. Edit: you prove that it's actually the Left that has a problem with the word "fundamentalism." it's been their new catchphrase for their opponents. I wonder how long until that card fails. Hopefully it doesn't last as long as the racist card has. Edit again: here is that video I was talking about http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ I notice that you talk about things getting worse. But when you give examples of what got worse it is all ideological. Do you have anything real that got worse over long stretches of time. There are few things that I can see, but they are relatively minor (they might get worse in the future). In any measurable way it seems things are getting more or less better over time and why should we care about the rest. I am using "measurable" in wider sense as basically anything we can at least somewhat objectively grade, not in precise scientific/engineering sense. I'm still not sure I get what you mean by "objective." If you want to look at things that everyone can like (a worldwide decrease in poverty) then yes, things are getting better. This has been going on for throughout the course of history, however, so I'm not sure we can use such broad strokes (though interestingly, had its largest decrease with the rise of capitalism). But ideology plays a very large role, obviously. For instance, you might take a shrinking of the wealth gap (data) as a good thing, whether it comes through the market or redistribution. I, meanwhile, don't really care so long as people are maintaining the most possible freedom (yes, another abstract idea). This cannot occur with forced redistribution. So you can see the difficulty- it's not just where you go, but how to get there. I simply don't value the goal as highly, and I detest this heavily egalitarian idea so many have now. In terms of getting worse, we'll see if these welfare states and welfare programs collapse, as they are in this country. I don't pretend to know what's going to happen over the pond, but if they are willing to sacrifice more and more to save the system, maybe they'll find a sustainable point. My view of human nature says that's impossible, but who knows. Both Medicare and SS have been called "unsustainable" at this point. They need yet MORE "tweaks", and imo they always will. To me, this constitutes as a failure. I'm not even going to get into the financial stuff right now. So we could look at the history of government involvement, which is what I'm concerned about. Are people better off or worse off with such massive programs? Is it worth the trade? There is no data that can determine this latter question, and it's not until either system fails/collapses that we'll be able to look at the data and objectively say "see, this idea is a failure." I wish I could give you an answer, but if someone says "no, Social Security works!" it's not going to be until it fails completely that we can call it a failure on anything BUT ideological grounds. Right now I would argue it is failing, but I can also be countered with the idea that it needs yet more cash. So the lens I use is not only "does it accomplish what it was intended to do," which can only be fully determined at its terminus, but "are you more free before this or after this?" This question is not a data relevant question, because A) the topic is too complex, and B) freedom is judged or valued differently for different people. Some think that you are more free when everyone is more equal and managed. I find that idea to be laughable, but some people use that criteria, and I can't stop them. So it's kind of like a basic Line Integral of a field in calculus- under certain circumstances, any path you take will get you to the same answer, but some ways are better than others. What's better? Well, if you LIKE doing math, you might go the longest way, but if you LIKE getting the answer quickly, you'll go a different way. Edit: Also, is that the answer you want? Maybe you should take a different path in a different field to get the answer you want. If I was kind of unclear, it's because I actually studying for my math final right now, which, speaking of.... By "objective" here I mean something that can be argued about with evidence. Not necessarily decided, but at least argued. So semi-objective, like amount of suffering is good enough, beauty as highly subjective on the other hand is not the best one. For your examples, shrinking the wealth gap. That is not "real" thing. Wealth gap is just a ratio of some numbers. Judging wealth gap on its own is exactly the example of ideological judgement that I talked about, because you need to attach value to it rather arbitrarily without showing that it has any relation to any "real" thing that we as humans value. Of course if you show that shrinking this gap decreases poverty, then it is a good thing, but only because you translated it into something "real". Freedom is more tricky, not because it is so much as abstract as because it is vague, but more importantly is not a singular value. Freedom to enjoy your time, is specific, freedom of speech is specific (enough), freedom to kill someone is specific, .... Most people, and I suppose you belong to them, want to maximize some of them and minimize the others. Thus maximum freedom as possible is hardly a true credo. For the most part the freedoms that people want to maximize are globally improving , there are bumps, but I do not think we can say it got worse. The ones that most people want to minimize are also improving (violence is getting rarer). Then there is the gray area. For example, economic freedoms it might be argued are decreasing, although even that can be contended, the question is is it a good thing or bad thing. People want economic freedoms not for their own sake, but to achieve some other goal. Thus economic freedoms are not example of a measurement of some "real" value, unlike the I-do-not-want-to-be-killed freedom. So in short, the issue with freedom is that it is actually a multitude of scales, some of them "real", some not. Specifically economic freedom is in the same category as wealth gap, it might be a proxy for something real, but valuing it in itself is pure ideology as it has no actual value to basically anyone. Now of course we run into the issue that you do not value results. Apart from results there is nothing to measure and judge its value and thus discussions in case of lacking measure look like : "I like it." vs "I don't like it" without any way to actually learn anything or decide anything. Alternatively in case of lacking value they take form of : "Index X is rising thus I am right and world is getting better" vs "Index X rising means world is getting worse" and again nothing can be learned or decided. In this case, since you do not value results, I cannot show you that world is getting better and you cannot show me that it is not. We are left with nothing interesting to discuss, because we will be talking past each other. The only way to discuss anything in the realm of policies and social organization is on the basis of results, everything else is waste of time. Because where you stand simple "no" has as much value as careful scientific study. Enough with philosophy. Pension systems are sustainable with small tweaks consisting of moving retirement age and compulsory "tax" that funds them, assuming ratio of pensioners and working does not reach some absurd values, but then society has bigger problem than funding some programs. Mandatory public healthcare systems are also easily sustainable as you just limit the coverage to what can be afforded and build private system above that for things that cannot be. And frankly extremely good results can be achieved with very cheap coverage. As for safety nets, they are also proven to work in their basic incarnation as many countries run rather extensive safety nets without some overwhelming cost, so even if they run on bad times they can just revert to more basic coverage and still continue working well. And no they do not need more cash necessarily, they need better management and in some cases (like US healthcare) just overhaul. As for if they are worth it. Financially, who knows, most likely yes, if they are done with reason. And there is some supporting, although indirect, evidence for that. Socially of course they are, this is the reason why they were created. Because societies decided that leaving people in such situations is not acceptable. Again you can argue if current level of support is the best one, but in general safety nets are worth it, because financial criteria are only secondary and because we do not know how to create society yet where old people will be universally supported, everyone can afford basic healthcare and everybody can find work. Just a final note on the whole freedom thing. I suspect that if you did a proper study on which particular freedoms people value, you would find high level of agreement, because the term would stop being vague. Freedom is just a poor catch-all phrase for multiple phenomena that in actuality should be considered separately. I'm just not sure how far you want to go with this. But as for your first point, I think we agree? There is no objective good or bad in terms of freedom, it is vague and abstract. These are value judgement each person makes. I think when we start to agree when we wander into what could traditionally be called "natural law." Things like killing, stealing, etc. I personally think Locke's Second Treatise lays some of this out very well, though it's been years since I read it. It's not that I don't value results, it's that I ask the two questions i posed "does it do what it is supposed to do" (results) and "do we want what it's giving us for the price it's costing us?" For instance, I pay taxes not because I think they directly increase my "freedom quotient" but because they do so in a backhanded sort of way, in funding a government. I like governments- I just don't like big, fat, unwieldy ones. So the point is agreed then? There is no "best" from some outside standard. Now, we can discuss what you value or why you value it- that has happened a lot in this thread. Everyone advocating some sort of stricter egalitarianism is advocating a value: fairness (of start and finish). I don't have a problem with pensions, especially private ones. But our government has to take more and more from hard working citizens because they are too incompetent and immoral to come up with someone that works (because that would require that, upon fixing it, they would have to keep their grubby hands out even while it works well). Like I said, if the Europeans want that and are ok with the trade-offs, good for them. If it lasts, good for them. But it will never be static, it can't. You will almost always have to be reducing benefits or taking in more, and certain intervals. And it can obviously go back and forth. And to talk specifically about America: it always needs more, it always needs a massive reform every couple decades, because the politicians can't be trusted to set it up right. I have nothing against well run safety nets/pensions (done by smart states and smart businesses), but the federal government is really bad at it and uses confiscatory taxes that it changes on a whim to pay for it. Not a trade I like. I can agree or not to the smaller options, I have no choice on the federal level. I see, I am mostly ok with what you argue. I think though there is some semi-objective best (I am kind of utilitarianist) in many cases under discussion, but that would get us too far from where we started. As for the rest, it is really not only that Europeans are ok with that and US citizens are not. It is also that we get more bang for our buck as far as I can tell. And that brings me to something that I start to suspect more and more. Did you consider that maybe your federal government does such a poor job, because you made it impossible for it to work properly. That the whole problem is not the size or incompetence, but this whole distrust of government causing solutions to be implemented that are suboptimal. Maybe in your goal to prevent government from abusing its power you prevented it from also doing its job better. Because there are plenty incompetent idiots elsewhere in the world and same goes for corruption, so that cannot be the sole cause. The only alternative I see is US size and diversity, but I am not convinced that it is enough to explain it.
There are some big regional / cultural divides in the US. No one group wants to be dominated by another, it's been that way from the start, and so the system includes ample opportunity for any group to play interference when something is happening that they don't like.
|
On December 13 2013 13:47 zlefin wrote:
Sounds pretty reasonable to wait for such an investigation to be finished before deciding on the matter.
Unless it's just a ploy to stall the matter.
|
On December 13 2013 13:47 zlefin wrote:
Sounds pretty reasonable to wait for such an investigation to be finished before deciding on the matter.
It's just the latest stall tactic.
|
On what basis do you claim it to be a stall? Please provide cites and history.
And do you believe that the investigation will reveal that there either was not a conflict of interest, or that it had no bearing on the conclusions that had been reached?
|
On December 13 2013 14:25 zlefin wrote:
On what basis do you claim it to be a stall? Please provide cites and history.
And do you believe that the investigation will reveal that there either was not a conflict of interest, or that it had no bearing on the conclusions that had been reached?
The House energy and commerce committee has a timeline here.
|
It's a pity that's such an obviously biased source.
It does indeed appear to be an unnecessary delay. As there are sufficient alternative examinations of the environmental impacts that any issues with the first one will not find sufficient problems to justify blocking the pipeline.
I'll put it on the long list of bad/questionable things done then; it's a pity the list is so big in politics. I'd like to use a system which has less of that.
|
On December 13 2013 06:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 06:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As many as 135,000 individuals enrolled in federally funded programs for people with pre-existing conditions will be given a few more weeks to find replacement coverage for next year through Obamacare's health insurance exchanges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Thursday.
The Affordable Care Act established the $5 billion Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) in 2010 as a bridge to the exchanges, and the program was set to expire at the end of this year. But given the ongoing difficulties in using HealthCare.gov and several state-run health insurance marketplaces, concerns have grown that these sickest beneficiaries could find themselves uninsured next month, which could disrupt their medical care and expose them to extraordinarily high costs.
Under the policy announced Thursday, PCIP beneficiaries in 40 states and the District of Columbia, where the federal government operates the program, would have until the end of January to enroll in new coverage via the health insurance exchanges. Ten states run the program for their residents on behalf of the federal government and would have to sign off on the extension, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
These so-called high-risk pools are supposed to become obsolete because Obamacare prohibits health insurance companies from rejecting anyone on the basis of pre-existing conditions or charging such people higher rates than healthy individuals.
But the troubled rollout of the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act has jeopardized insurance coverage for as many as several million people, including those whose current policies can't be renewed because they don't meet the law's benefit standards and those enrolled in the PCIP and similar state-run programs, many of which also are shutting down in the coming months. Source The real story about Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan: Show nested quote +The $5 billion program was intended as bridge health coverage to sick patients waiting for full implementation of ObamaCare. The administration says about 135,000 Americans have benefited from the insurance coverage.
But the program initially failed to enroll as many people as expected and was plagued by high costs. In February, the Health and Human Services Department stopped accepting new applicants into the program to ensure it would have enough money to cover the people already enrolled.
"Running out of money before the end of the year is something we're trying to avoid," said Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in congressional testimony. sourceI gather everybody running interference for Obama is quick to gloss over how few people actually enrolled and how they ran out of money anyways! It's like the party least competent to help insure people with pre-existing conditions are the ones putting it together.
Wow, a program for people with pre-existing conditions out of money? I wonder why?
Maybe, perhaps it's something to do with the fact that they have pre-existing conditions? Could it possibly be?
And their pre-existing conditions were so bad that no insurer would cover them that they were forced to rely on this government program?
And now these people can now get insurance at the same price as everyone else thanks to Obamacare, and be mandated to pay for their insurance like everyone else. What do the Republicans think of this? That it's a terrible thing that these people with pre-existing conditions should be allowed to get healthcare, instead we should repeal Obamacare so that they can either just die or end up at the ER where the costs are socialized.
|
Obamacare advocates are actively recruiting those left out of the Medicaid expansion in Republican-controlled states to lobby state officials to change their minds and participate in that key provision of the health care reform law.
So far, the effort is most organized in Texas, which is also the state with the most people in that Medicaid expansion gap: 1 million. But it's likely to pick up elsewhere as the Obama administration and outside advocates apply pressure to the 25 states that have resisted expansion for the first year.
Texas Left Me Out, the combined effort of several community groups, is a website designed to collect those people's stories and organize them into a cohesive political action constituency. It asks those in the Medicaid gap to sign a petition to stay informed about advocacy events and share their story on the site.
Are they going to turn Texas blue on the backs of people who have traditionally been ignored by Republicans? Are they going to convince an anti-Obamacare stalwart like Rick Perry to buy into the law? That's a tough sell. But they're going to try.
"When you personalize a policy, when you make it real, it's always much more powerful. It's always going to resonate," Tiffany Hogue, state health care campaign coordinator at the Texas Organizing Project, one of the groups involved with the campaign, told TPM. "People have really have awakened to the fact that people really are getting left behind."
Texas Left Me Out had a soft launch in October in preparation for a January rollout. The Texas Organizing Project says it has already contacted 100,000 people who are in the gap and convinced 20,000 to commit to be part of the campaign. They hope that those numbers will grow substantially before the Texas legislature reconvenes in 2015, its next opportunity to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. They've set recruitment targets for specific legislative districts to focus their efforts.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
