A Look At Sarah Palin

[lostsheep]

ARRRGHHHH! I think I just ended up where I last left off with you.

[Jimble]

Irreligious wrote

Perhaps. But how much more should the insurance companies be allowed to charge those who are chronically ill or those who have dependant family members who are chronically ill? A quarter of their income? A third? Half? More? Should the market determine how much?

Should someone who has a child born with, say, spina bifida be required to hold down two or more jobs in order to afford the catastrophic health insurance needed to forestall bankruptcy and, possibly, destitution?

No. your government should look after it's people. Perhaps you could explain to me why Americans seem entirely opposed to having universal healthcare, when it's a basic protection of themselves, a simple act of kindness to all fellow humans and seems to cost less to countries that have a lot less to spend, yet receive comparable healthcare services?

I'm sorry if I seem snobbish or something, i'm just entirely confused by this issue. And no, I haven't travelled outside of Europe (yet)

[Victus]

lostsheep wrote

ARRRGHHHH! I think I just ended up where I last left off with you.

Defeat?

Jimble wrote

Perhaps you could explain to me why Americans seem entirely opposed to having universal healthcare

Individual liberties.

[Jimble]

Victus wrote

Individual liberties.

This might sound idealistic or idiotic.
But which individual liberty do you defend to refuse to treat a dying poor person? The liberty to be a total dick to a fellow human?

[Victus]

Jimble wrote

This might sound idealistic or idiotic.
But which individual liberty do you defend to refuse to treat a dying poor person?

There are two main issues; taxation and paternalism. Taxes infringe on people's rights by confiscating their property, so government programs should be used sparingly, and only when its really important/necessary. This will range substantially by person, from anarcho-capitalists (who think there should be basically no government) to moderate libertarians/"liberaltarians" (minimal welfare only for the truly needy is acceptable) to contemporary liberals (free stuff for everyone, hurray).

Paternalism comes in two forms in the case of welfare. The first is that someone people think that giving to others makes us better people, and the welfare can accomplish the same goal. The second, and we went over this in the first thread, is that whenever the government provides welfare to people, it inevitably starts attaching strings, either for the purposes of controlling costs (e.g., telling people what they can or can't eat) or because of some misplaced sense of morality (e.g., no drug use).

Jimble wrote

The liberty to be a total dick to a fellow human?

Yes, actually.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

For it to work, I only have to assume that things will work out better when the person using the insurance is the person that shops for it. That's not a particularly controversial assumption.

Says you. And what makes you think I am compelled to share your assumptions? I'm not.

As I said, I don't know that private health insurance will suddenly become more affordable if employers no longer provided it as a benefit to their employees.

There are plenty of people who are forced to pay out-of-pocket for their health insurance, and I haven't heard that they're paying less for the product.

Victus wrote

I'm trying to create a system where poor people can get jobs and buy nice things like health insurance and puppies without idiotic policies jacking up the price out of their reach. Helping poor people is a good, moral thing to do, but I think there would be fewer people in need if we would stop trying to help them in such wonderfully counter-productive ways.

You're doing a lot of talking is what you're doing. Again, why on earth are you assuming that your hypothetical policies will have the result that you claim to seek?

Victus wrote

As a microcausm, take Medicare and Social Security. Young people (< 35 years) are on average poorer than old people (> 65 years). Old people have had an entire lifetime to save money and accumulate assets, like homes or cars; their networth is much much higher, even if their year-to-year income isn't. These programs place substantial tax burdens on the working, relatively poor young, and transfer it to the not-working, relatively well-off old.

So, what are you advocating for the millions of senior citizens who don't have enough savings to eat, provide shelter for themselves and pay their exhorbitant medical bills? Involuntary euthansia?

Vitus wrote

I mean, I'm fine with the idea of re-distributing wealth, but why re-distribute it from poor to rich? No doubt, some seniors are poor, but most aren't. Most of the people that get money from these programs, probably don't need it, or at least need it less than the people it was taken from.

You certainly don't sound like one who is fine with re-distributing wealth. And I'm not saying that you should be. But you're living in a dream world if you honestly think you're offering a viable solution to this problem by just cutting people off at the knees once they become old.

Millions of people who are under 55 years old now will not be able to save enough to afford their exhorbitant medical costs in old age without Medicare. And maybe we'll have to live with that fact in the coming decades. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of money to keep some old people alive, more, on average, than it takes to keep young people from suffering and death. You're not offering any real prescription to address that fact. In essence, you're saying, if they haven't saved enough by then, let 'em die already. That's definitely a point of view, but I don't know that I can share it.

Victus[/Quote wrote

It would be cheaper if you would stop trying to make it 'fair'. If you are a 500lb crocodile trainer that likes to have unprotected sex with prostitutes, then your insurance should be rediculously expensive, because you lead an extremely health-risky life.

Yeah, like not having the courtesy to die young?

Victus wrote

What else could it be, then?

Your position? Your views? Your opinions?

Victus wrote

In both scenarios, the person has the ability to pay for their own basic needs, but has chosen not to because they wanted to do something else with the money instead.

Like buy groceries, pay the rent or the mortgage, put their kids through college, help out their kids financially after college? Why, the extravagance of it all!

Victus wrote

When everyone on the income scale between me (~$35K/year) and Bill Gates can go on Medicare just by virtue of being old, then the program is not catering selectively to the poor.

Perhaps. How "poor" should they be to qualify for Medicare?

Victus wrote

To put it another way, we often ask theists whether this world looks like one we might expect if it was Created. In this context, does the design of the welfare state, the two largest components of which are Social Security and Medicare, look like it should if it was set up to help the needy, or does it look like it was set up to give free stuff to the elderly regardless of need?

Well, from down here, where I'm looking, I don't personally know any senior citizens who are becoming rich off of Social Security and Medicare, not even anecdotally. Do you? If I had an example, perhaps I could better see what you're talking about. More and more, senior citizens are becoming my peer group, so my direct contact with them seems to be increasing, including recently retired work colleagues, friends and relatives. None that I know is living high on the hog. Many with whom I am acquainted have downsized their lives considerably, having sold their homes and adjusting to living on fixed incomes or taking part-time jobs.

Victus wrote

Hint: old people are the largest voting bloc.

Yeah, I was reading that in my copy of AARP Magazine. Perhaps, us geezer should stop voting? For the good of the country.

Victus wrote

Proponent probably goes a bit far. I acknowledge that life sometimes randomly incurs costs on people who, through no apparent fault of their own, are unable to afford or contend with them, and that charity, although quite helpful, will inevitable fail in at least some cases. When all those improbabilities come together, I can go along with some welfare.

Basically, welfare for the needy. Everyone else is on their own.

You should run for president. Or king. The latter would put you a better situation to judge everyone else's circumstances, according to your, no-doubt, very considered whims:
"You didn't save enough while you were young. No Social Security for you!"

Victus wrote

Is that so horrible, though? People that can't afford to not-work will, uh, be unable to not-work. It applies to every other age group, so why not seniors?

Most seniors I know who cannot afford to retire, don't. Very few live entirely on Social Security, which is not a windfall. Meanwhile, I work with a lot of younger people who grumble about the septuagenarians and octogenarians still in our company's employ, wondering why they don't retire already, so a younger person can take their job or so the company bean-counters will stop talking about buy-outs and forced layoffs.

I guess there really is such a thing as living too long. Maybe we should all make it our patriotic duty not stay too long at the party, huh? For the good of the country.

Victus wrote

You're conflating welfare and charity again.

That's not what I was doing at all. You suggested that there was nothing wrong with having some old people reduced to selling apples on the street. I suggested it was Dickensian.

Victus wrote

I am quite frugal, actually. Don't get me wrong, I like nice stuff, but I don't think people are being forced to buy the newest, bestest thing. They choose to do it, because it makes them happy on some level. That's fine, but you can't expect the government to cover your basic needs when you're capable, but unwilling to do so because OMG the new iPhone500 is so totally EPIC!

Well, I'm cheap. I admit it. I've been poor and I didn't like it much.

I drive a car that was manufactured in 1999 and I purchased it used in 2001. I still wear and own vests that I purchased in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Not one of my suits was made after 1992 and most of my furniture was purchased in the early 1990s after my divorce.

Even though you're Canadian, I fully expect that people, like you, will take over this country by the time I'm a bonafide old person and I want to be prepared.

Victus wrote

But, assuming the lack of a disability, that's basically just saying that they don't feel like working. Why can they retire while I'm forced to work for money?

Maybe they don't want to work any more. Maybe they have a good pension. Maybe they were forced out of their job by an employer that doesn't fancy having too many older workers, who tend to be more expensive than younger, newer employees. There are a myriad reasons for why people retire. Generally, if they can afford it or are able to adjust to living on a smaller, fixed income, that's what some senior citizens choose to do: Retire.

Of course, some continue working until they drop. That's my plan.

Victus wrote

It's not fair!

You may live to be old one day, too. Maybe it will look a bit different to you from that vantage point.

[nkb]

Victus wrote

There are two main issues; taxation and paternalism. Taxes infringe on people's rights by confiscating their property, so government programs should be used sparingly, and only when its really important/necessary. This will range substantially by person, from anarcho-capitalists (who think there should be basically no government) to moderate libertarians/"liberaltarians" (minimal welfare only for the truly needy is acceptable) to contemporary liberals (free stuff for everyone, hurray).

Victus,
Although I don't agree with your views, I respect your opinions. But, when you start regurgitating Tea Party bullshit dogma, you lose credibility. Just saying.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

Victus,
Although I don't agree with your views, I respect your opinions. But, when you start regurgitating Tea Party bullshit dogma, you lose credibility. Just saying.

Do you disagree that taxes take money away from people, or that the government engages in paternalism by telling you what you can or can't put in your body?

[nkb]

I was specifically talking about the comment about contemporary liberals (I probably should have highlighted it to be clear).

[Victus]

nkb wrote

I was specifically talking about the comment about contemporary liberals (I probably should have highlighted it to be clear).

Ah, I was a touch confused, as I thought the points in the quote bubble were relatively uncontroversial.

As I think I've said before, I would be more convinced that liberals cared only about poor people, and not about getting free stuff, if the (biggest) programs they supported (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) didn't transfer wealth from the relatively poor (young people) to the relatively better off (old people).

I mean, if there's a way to explain the direction of that transfer, which helps poor people on an almost incidental basis, that doesn't boil down to "free stuff for old people, even if they don't really need it", then I'm all ears.

Response to Irr is forthecoming later today. Expect links and perhaps picures!

[nkb]

But, do you understand my point?

You portray the other "official" positions relatively accurately, but then resort to Tea Party hyperbole to describe liberals. Show me one liberal that embodies the "free stuff for everyone, hurray" attitude.

The equivalent would be to portray libertarians as "abolish every government agency, except the military, fuck the people who can't survive on their own".

Victus wrote

As I think I've said before, I would be more convinced that liberals cared only about poor people, and not about getting free stuff, if the (biggest) programs they supported (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) didn't transfer wealth from the relatively poor (young people) to the relatively better off (old people).

I don't agree that this is what happens. On what do you base your assertion that old people, as a general rule, are better off than young people?

Before you continue with your requests for an explanation, you have to demonstrate that your initial premise is accurate.

[nkb]

I know this is crazy, but, let's bring this thread back to its original subject (the mind-boggling idiocy of a potential future presidential candidate).

Palin, instead of finding out what is meant by the "Sputnik Moment" referenced by Obama in his State of the Union address, she plows ahead in ignorance and stupidity, as usual.

[Professor Chaos]

Victus wrote

[T]he (biggest) programs [liberals] supported (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) ...transfer wealth from the relatively poor (young people) to the relatively better off (old people).

I mean, if there's a way to explain the direction of that transfer...

"Nonexistent" fits about right, since that claim is horseshit.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

I mean, if there's a way to explain the direction of that transfer, which helps poor people on an almost incidental basis, that doesn't boil down to "free stuff for old people, even if they don't really need it", then I'm all ears.

Well, for one, you could acknowledge that old, retired people did, once upon a time, contribute to the system that continues to pay for Social Security and Medicare, instead of characterizing them as abject freeloaders.

Weekly, for decades, they contributed a portion of their earnings to support the Social Security Security and Medicare systems that are still in place now. What, they're not entitled to a return on that investment into the system? Or should today's old, retired people turn around and start raiding the graves of the dead people whom they helped support when today's old folks were young?

Victus wrote

Response to Irr is forthecoming later today. Expect links and perhaps picures!

I look forward to it. But save the pictures, unless you've got some showing old people waving around Social Security checks like they were lotto winnings.*

*Taking nkb's request into account, perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere?

[psychodiva]

nkb wrote

I know this is crazy, but, let's bring this thread back to its original subject (the mind-boggling idiocy of a potential future presidential candidate).

Palin, instead of finding out what is meant by the "Sputnik Moment" referenced by Obama in his State of the Union address, she plows ahead in ignorance and stupidity, as usual.

that woman is dumb as fuck- but is great to laugh at- it will be even more of a joke when she gets elected