Campaigns of Misinformation?
As we hear more about how 50% of bankruptcies are caused by a medical crisis, Universal Healthcare has emerged as an issue that is related to the bankruptcy one. There is a lot of misinformation out on this. They say 45 million Americans can't get health insurance. Here are some facts Exposed by John Stossel of ABC News:
• 37% of the un-insured live in households earning more than $50,000 a year (and 19% live in households earning more than $75,000). Can people at these income levels afford major medical insurance? Yes. Should they be subsidized by you and me? No. Subtract this group and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 28 million.
• 20% of the un-insured are non-citizens. Should you and I pay to insure them through a top-down federal monopoly? We think not. Subtract this group and the number of un-insured people drops to roughly 19 million.
• 33% of the un-insured are already eligible for existing government programs. No new program is needed for people who are already covered by current programs. Subtract them and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 4 million. This is much more likely to be the true size of the problem.
45 million vs. 4 million -- that's a huge difference!
The congressional budget office estimates that a health insurance deduction could make it possible for 7 million more Americans to buy health insurance.
The Treasury Department agrees.
Here is what Jim Babka says at Downsize DC:
Congress could wipe out the un-insurance problem in one swoop -- not by creating a new program, not by spending more money, and not by monopolizing American health care, but simply by letting people keep more of their own money to spend on health insurance.
Moreover, as we understand it, the proposed health insurance deduction could be structured to apply to payroll and Medicare taxes too, which are regressive taxes that hurt low income Americans far more than income taxes do.
Best of all, a standard health insurance deduction wouldn't just help those with lower incomes, it would help everyone who has to purchase their own insurance.
Now, what about the number of Americans who die because they have no health insurance? As far as we can tell that number is effectively very small, and almost certainly nothing like the 18,000 deaths that Michael Moore claims in "Sicko." Here's why . . .
Hospitals are legally required to provide treatment, regardless of ability to pay. Most doctors will also provide routine medical care to the indigent, because this is part of the medical ethos.
In fact, these are two of the main ways low-income non-citizens without insurance get treatment, in addition to the already existing programs at the local, state, and, alas, federal level.
This is not to say that some people don't fall through the cracks, because of incompetence, or for other random reasons. They do. Perfection is not an option in this imperfect world. It is simply to say that our current system has no fundamental systemic flaw leading to widespread death such as we see with health care rationing in the socialist systems.
We could simply leave it at this and say case closed. Congress could solve the problem of the un-insured with one simple change. No federal health care monopoly is needed. In fact, we have shown that government health care monopolies in other countries have led to unneeded deaths through rationing and waiting lists.
Stossel's a hack.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
August 28, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
While Wikipedia has a lot of interesting information, I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source. Also, the editors at Wikipedia have expressed concern over what is currently in the article referenced. See the warning at the top of the page.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry Website
August 28, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read through the Talk page on wiki, you'll see the problem is that there is so much criticism of Stossel, the concern that it's weighted too far that way.
But it clearly references reputable sources like the NYT in its criticism.
Wikipedia isn't an "authoritative" source in the sense I think you mean, but it certainly points to authoritative sources in its citations.
Look, Stossel is a global warming denier, which, in my book, makes him a hack.
August 28, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you consider NYT a reliable source for criticism? I am skeptical of all news sources. Stossel certainly has his biases, but NYT does too.
I also have heard both sides of the global warming argument, and both sides are convincing, because both sides use credible scientific data to back their data. They are probably both right in some respects, and wrong in others. They both interpret the data from their own perspective. I'm not sure what the truth really is. Al Gore's position is the best publicized. My conclusion is that we probably don't have as much influence on the climate as we think, but it would still be good for us to clean up our act.
My point in my post was to call attention to the fact that there may be political agendas behind the information about Universal Default, just as their was behind the bankruptcy bill, that are not in the public best interest. We need to do our research on all perspectives.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 29, 2007 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am skeptical of all news sources.
But you're also, apparently, skeptical of things like U.S. Census data.
And of things like the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences:
I don't see where you can find a less biased source for information.
But you agree with Stossel, questioning this data.
I'm not sure what you would consider a good "source," but if it's not the NY Times, and not the National Academy of Sciences, I'm not sure where that leaves you.
Apparently, it leaves you with the position that "both sides" of the global warming debate have a good case, which is simply not true.
I don't disagree that we should be skeptics first, but, in certain cases, skepticism is not, or no longer, warranted.
August 29, 2007 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not questioning that statistic. I am questioning the interpretation of it. As well as the other sources. What were the circumstances of the deaths? Was the lack of insurance due to the inability to buy a policy, or was it because of a limitation in coverage? What were the circumstances involved? I am willing to bet the solution isn't so obvious. If we assume that it is because all these people were unable to get insurance and then have the government provide them with coverage, we might not actually solve the problem because we didn't really address the cause.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 29, 2007 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll agree to disagree. Cause I don't think there's all that much interpretation required there.
August 29, 2007 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. I'm just encouraging you to check your assumptions about what you read.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry Website
August 30, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you better off buying an individual/family health policy or buying it as part of a larger group? Don't larger risk pools lower premiums and broaden coverage? Do you consider premiums paid to group plans subsidies? What about the higher prices we pay for medical services because doctors and hospitals treat the uninsured? Aren't they a kind of subsidy?
August 29, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since we of course subsidize emergency care for uninsured/indigent through higher county taxes and federal support for Medicaid, the unspoken message in "picking my pocket" complaints is that those people should simply be ignored, not treated. If we instead agree to treat the ill, it is only a question of how best to pay for it.
The only way to have truly individual-choice market mechanism work is to allow it to work, that is, have people die without coverage. I'm not interested in exploring the free-market possibilities for health care, since I don't want to live in such a society.
August 29, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
My questions were intended to offer Mr. Anderson another way of looking at the issues he raised -- specifically subsidizing health care for other people. We already subsidize just not forthrightly. We do it with group plans and through higher prices.
I am only trying to win one argument at a time.
August 29, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm on your side, just piling on to bury the guy.
August 29, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
k
Sorry I misconstrued your post. As token of my apology, please accept this interesting yet grotesque story in the annals of Science Marches On.
August 29, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Hannibal Lecter would complain that growing cloned flesh takes all the fun out of it.
I do expect this will become reality, BTW, and also expect a schism between those who think there is a difference in flavor or essentialness, like vinyl-record aficionados, and the practical. It will extend to most products, I bet, when we can use home systems descended from the inkjet printer to manufacture goods purchased by data license.
August 29, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So, smoothe it off even and pack it down hard..." (James McMurtry)
August 29, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it isn't about getting to the truth, it is about winning an argument for your "side". Is that what you mean? Who cares about what the truth really is?
I take this more seriously than that. I'm interested in getting to the truth, not just buying some party line.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 29, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one has a private route to the truth--we have to argue it out. I want to bury certain misleading arguments.
I said: "The only way to have truly individual-choice market mechanism work is to allow it to work, that is, have people die without coverage."
Show me what's wrong with that statement.
August 30, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, I am looking for the truth. What I would say about this statement is that it makes a major assumption about economics and our society that isn't necessarily true. The implication is that we will let people die if they can't pay for the care in a true free market. There is certainly a place for government, but it isn't to step in and take over, at least not in America. That is why we have laws that require hospitals to take care of people without insurance. No one is advocating letting people die without doing everything we can to help them first.
We are supposed to step in and help each other. Since we don't do enough of that, we decide to abdicate it to the government. They step in, and then start telling us when, where, how much, who, what kind, etc. and we end up with a poor quality at a high price in taxes to pay for the government employees to tell us what we can't have, and dole out what is left of the tax revenue after paying for the office space, salaries benfits and pensions of the goverment employees, and excessive and wasteful overhead. How does that make us better off than making direct donations to the hospitals specifically to help those who can't pay? We let people die in our own selfishness, and then blame it on society.
A free market can work if we decide to realize the benefit to us we get for directly helping others in our society that are in need.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 30, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that if anyone, whether private or public, helps out, it is not free-market. This in the sense that if there is no downside, failure, the upside is poorly defined.
This is only a dispute over which process, random individuals making unforced contributions to charities, or systematic government programs, does the helping.
Here's why the latter is the poorer choice: Those contributions will have no policy attached, and will just go into general funds, mainly defraying ER costs. They will not be directed toward preventive care, proactive social work, and other things like education about health.
Read this short paper, by Gregory S. Paul, published in the Jesuit "Journal of Religion and Society". Seems that low religion and high taxes correlates with social health, such as reduced rates of teen pregnancy and suicide, divorce and murder. If you want to know what works, read.
August 30, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well written and researched article.
It seems to suggest that religion is the variable in this issue. I think it is missing something. Despite the fact that the U.S. is known for being a "Christian" nation, its citizens are very materialistic. This is contrary to Christian values. Poorer nations tend to be less materialistic, for obvious reasons. They see the benefits of helping each other. This isn't about religion, it is about being willing to sacrifice our comforts in exchange for helping each other to build a better society. We need to be more generous. That is what works.
A similar issue took place when the Jews were freed from Babylon. There was a need to provide good leadership in caring for the poor. Nehemiah had to lead them back to building a strong society. You'll notice he made rules that benefited everyone, and were not based on selfish leadership ambitions. Notice one of those rules had to do with debt forgiveness. Read that book in the Old Testament. Nehemiah is the example of great leadership.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry Website
August 30, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the easily measurable variables are those things like church attendance and belief in evolution. They don't measure character, and many non-religious folks have superb character, and deep spirituality.
But it's not trivial to look at these measures, since they are the very things bandied about by social conservatives here. Clearly, attending church and other overt displays miss the point. And clearly, a society which ignores science doesn't help. And clearly, higher taxes don't hurt, nor does a generally secular view of government, nor does a fairly socialist system of safety net.
I think we're a long way from being a strong society not in need of some top-down help, like Nehemiah. If we care about what works, Europe offers an example. If we want to see a fractured, greed-heavy society, look here. If we want to look for causative factors for the emphasis on greed and me-first, look to the GOP and the tax cutters, who say government is the problem.
August 30, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The social conservatives and the "Christian right" do not represent Christians. They say they do, but they don't. They are a politically active group of radical Christians that make Christians look bad. True Christians don't ignore science. In fact they embrace it, and recognize its limitations. Secular leaders attempt to use science to disprove what they don't agree with, and treat is as the final authority for truth.
There is a reams of archeological work that has revealed much about the validity and reliability of the Bible. There are, of course, scientists that choose to ignore evidence that disproves their theories that attempt to discredit the historical reliability of the Bible. The media, like the history channel, publicize slanted presentations of historical evidence and leave the viewers thinking it is a complete presentation. Many historians laugh the history channel for its lack of discipline in using scientific standards that insure objectivity. (that is a topic that can get quite detailed in a debate). Christians don't ignore science.
The founders of our country found taxes oppressive. That is why they started this country. They also believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The original ideas for seperation of church and state were:
What is happening today isn't moving toward socialism, it is moving toward facisim. The government is increasingly intruding on our private lives, suppressing opposition to its leaders, becoming more partnered with commerce and industry, and passing unconstitutional laws without the knowledge or approval of the people. Clinton's administration did this and Bush's administration is doing this as well. Both a democratically controlled and a republican controlled congress have been doing this. All we are missing is the dictator. All that is needed for that to come is for the President to declare a national emergency and invoke a right to total power, according to law. (I don't remember the reference to that law right now - but I have seen it.) If the "war on terrorism" keeps getting promoted and blown out of proportion, the President might have the opportunity to do declare a national emergency.
The state of our country is determined by the character of our leaders. The one factor that our country's founders couldn't insure in their system of accountability in the branches of government was the quality of the character of those who would lead in the future. We have been on a slow decline for 200 years. That makes the future look dim.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 30, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree about true Christians.
But a couple of founding issues are debatable. Freedom of religion is really the same as freedom from religion, in that if a religion is not government-empowered it has no particular power over the non-religious. E.g. you can't be stoned due to adultery, etc.
The Framers are various, some devout and some very secular. If we count Jefferson as Framer he was most certainly in the "Wall" camp.
Also not obvious that we found taxes oppressive. It was not "lower taxes" but "no taxation without representation", as I recall. The Boston Tea Party was because the East India Company was given an exemption from the taxes colonists paid. So one could argue it was against a tax cut. That's unfair, of course; it was against unfair taxation.
The church is not needed for providing a value system, unless you think constitutional republican democracy is impossible in China. Their value system is described well by Confucianism. There are Buddhists and Christians, as well as some Muslims, but they are not indigenous to the culture. You may believe that although they follow laws, it is not the same as moral; I had a believer friend maintain that. Correct me if that's wrong. But if so, the other statement is not tenable, that only church, religion, provides moral values.
Agree about the fascist trend, but what were the Clinton infractions? NAFTA, maybe?
Archaeology supports some Biblical stories. It places Noah's flood at about 5,500 B.C.E., and identical with the story of Gilgamesh. It apparently relates the filling of the Black Sea when the Bosporus opened up. Prior to that the Black Sea was lower than the Mediterranean. It would have taken some time to fill, but would have been dramatic in its encroachment on land to the south, and could have altered local weather. Likely a rare traveler had seen the cataract, and few believed it. Noah smelled funny weather and believed. But he was wrong about the outcome, since the flood waters did not recede. Probably he was hoping he could reclaim his farm.
August 30, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a great discussion, but we have gotten off onto a number of other topics, and to reply to all of them would take more time then I have available. My summary response is that I don't know what history books you've been reading, but the ones I read in school back in the 70s and 80s don't paint the picture you painted. I went to public schools. I also recognize that history taught in schools is biased by the current state of politics. Certain historical facts are better left untaught for political benefits of today. We wouldn't want another revolution, right?
Just a couple of quick points. If we had freedom from religion, religion would have been abolished and outlawed (kind of what is happening slowly now that we are reinterpreting the constitution in our courts). And we are somewhat unique in this country in our freedom and liberty - nothing like China. They certainly don't have the freedom and liberty that our constitution gives us.
Carbon dating is being put into question these days. It is now begining to be recognized that the assumption that setiment accumulates through time at an even pace is a false assumption. With this factor, it is found that during the flood, much more setiment accumulated than any other time, and all the species found died at about the same time. This also puts evolution into question. It also means the earth isn't as old as carbon dating suggests. There is much scientific research behind this finding. The flood did actually occur, and it covered the entire earth. Noah's ark found on top of Mt. Arafat attests to that. If water levels were that high, there wouldn't be much land.
During Clinton's administration, there was just as many hidden and unconstitutional earmarks in legislation as there is today. His administration was just was better at keeping them secret. He isn't alone, there is a long line of administrations that did the same. Despite what most people think, Congress doesn't care about the constitutionality of the laws they pass. They consider it the job of the courts to decide unconstitutionality. The problem is, most lawsuits don't challenge constitutionality because it is expensive to do so. As a result we have accumulated many laws that are unconstitutional, and they support each other now. So if one is challenged, the older one supports it as constitutional because the old one was not challenged. Apathy on these issues will be our destruction.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 31, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're sounding kind of flat-earth. Any idea where all the water came from that covered the planet?
No one ever assumed sediment accumulated at an even rate. Tree rings are uneven in thickness, which is why one counts them, and doesn't simply measure thickness. There are highly reliable techniques for dating, depending on the age range.
Carbon-14 dating is fantastically precise out to about 50,000 years. Some differential-isotope techiniques take us out to over 100 billion years. And what is an assumption, but a strong one, is that objects found in a rock stratum will be contemporaneous with other objects found elsewhere in the same stratum. Dropping this assumption would mean rock is not rock. It takes a lot of time to make rock, and it lasts a long time.
People that actually study dirt and rocks do know what they're doing. I recommend more reading, from reputable sources with falsifiable arguments.
August 31, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make "strong" statements with no evidence. So you haven't "falsified" anything. While what you say sounds logical it doesn't discredit the claim that there was a great flood and it has significant implications on the assumptions many scientists make about their methods of dating archeological finds.
The issue is still controversial, but it there are scientists that are investigating the find in 2006 that has significant features that point to being Noah's Ark. I realize this doesn't prove Noah's Ark is found, because there still isn't definitive proof because of the location and the difficulty of doing close examination of the site. Even if it is Noah's Ark, it is probably not provable because we don't have the ability to prove or disprove it. The scientists who made this find are highly criticized, based on the implications of the find, not by objective science. There doesn't seem to be honest inquiry, just criticism.
This report by CNN certainly adds credibility to the fact that there was a great flood, because they usually don't report stories that would support a biblical point of view. This find they reported is even making anti-flood scientists wonder. There are stories of the great flood in every culture, that certainly raises the possibility that there really was one. If there really was one, then there would be a significant layer of sediment, with a large number of species that all died at the same time in a very large layer, which is currently not recognized. There are significant implications to the current investments in the way things are done now in archaeology. We'd have to start over, because much past scientific conclusions of archaeology would be put into question.
Carbon dating is certainly not without its controversy. There are a number of assumptions made which include, the rate of decay being constant, and tree ring dating. Both are flawed assumptions, and constant adjustments have been made, making the results inconsistent and actual dates are chosen by guessing, not by the science, because it isn't reliable enough. Also in terms of fossil dating, scientists seem to say that geology is documented by evolution and evolution is documented by geology, but that is a circular argument and so something isn't right. We also determine the age of the rock by the assumed age of the index fossils it contains, then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same layer of rock, we look at the age of the layer of rock in which they are found. "…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. It is virtually impossible to "prove" anything with archeaology, but looking at the finds and putting pieces together paint a likely picture. In the end it is up to you what you believe, but both sides of the controversy can't be right.
Anyway, what does this have to do with the original topic?
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteSeptember 3, 2007 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue [of the biblical Great Flood] is still controversial...Carbon dating is certainly not without its controversy.
And stay tuned to CNN -- the Creationist Nonsense Network -- as we dig deep to explain the greatest controversy of all. The shocking truth behind the question: Stork or Cabbage Leaf? Where do babies really come from? You won't want to miss it!
I note that your link re:radiocarbon leads to an article that claims that the laws of physics have recently changed. The referenced article, in turn, references a paper presented at a creationism conference. Another link on that scholarly page leads to an essay about the reality of dragons. What? No leprechauns? We already know that all the unicorns died in the Great Flood, but what about fairies? They can fly, can't they?
Our minds are open on these subjects. Be sure to get back to us when your "scientists" discover the big electromagnet that holds the earth in place as the rest of the universe revolves around it, OK?
September 3, 2007 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those wacky fixed-Earth guys never figured out where one has to stand to determine that the Earth is stationary.
But uneconomical explanations are par for the course. My favorite is the Eternity thing. Compared to an infinity of Eternity, earthly life is unmeasurably short, and drops to effectively zero. So the two main Eternal populations, the Saved and the Damned, are essentially a coin-toss. Earth might as well not exist when set against Eternity, rasing the question of Why Bother?
September 3, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to have a civil conversation. Obviously that isn't possible. You are so way off course, it isn't funny. You are steering into personal attacks, twisting facts, piling on assumptions, and disparage others. I don't think it is me that looks like a heel here. Thanks anyway.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry Website
September 5, 2007 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are supposed to step in and help each other. Since we don't do enough of that, we decide to abdicate it to the government.
Abdicate is a politically charged word. Another, more neutral, way of saying this is:
People individually recognize that human nature leads them to a place where they are not doing enough to help those who need help. What's more, they realize that doing good for people in need is least efficient when performed by individuals and most efficent when performed collectively. Therefore, they combine in their good works for the same reason they combine to defend their families, to keep their homes safer from fire, to educate their children, and to do so many other things that large groups can do so much better than individuals.
Perhaps you would prefer to build your own interstate highways, run your own air-traffic control, and deliver your own mail. Most of us would prefer to have it done at the level where it's done best.
America's private health-care system is number one when ranked for expendure as a percentage of GDP, and in the mid-twenties when ranked for effectiveness. This is an experiment which has FAILED.
August 30, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not advocating the abolshment of government. It has a place. I just don't believe we should turn to the government everytime we have a problem. We need to properly define the problem first, only then will we be able to successfully address the problem. One of the problems we have now is that we have provided government solutions to problems that don't exist. Instead, those solutions are treating symptoms, and making the problem worse by masking the symptom. What is worse, we have many programs that served political purposes for the people in office that create problems for society because they were created to serve the interests of a small select group of people at the expense of everyone.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 31, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with almost everything you say here. However, none of it particularly applies to the subject at hand.
I just don't believe we should turn to the government everytime we have a problem.
Neither do any of us. We should turn to the government only where it is the only effective agency, or where it is overwhelmingly the most efficient agency to address the problem. As I pointed out above, there seems to be little question of that latter case with regard to health-care assurance. List the places where the health-care system works, and compare it to the list of places where single-payer, government-supervised health-care is employed. It's the same list. List the places where system works poorly, and the United States is at the top of the list.
We need to properly define the problem first, only then will we be able to successfully address the problem.
Agreed, but the problem IS properly defined: Our health-care delivery system is the least efficient system, bar none, in the history of the human race; and is also one of the least effective in the current world given the enormous amount of money we plow into it.
we have provided government solutions to problems that don't exist.
True. However, there is little question that access to affordable health-care is a problem that DOES exist. If you are referring to the fact that we have provided government with the power to fight a Global War On Terror that doesn't exist, I agree; but I don't see where that has much to do with the current topic.
Are you making the claim that our current system works? If that's your position, I must inquire as to the composition of the atmosphere on your world, because we 80/20 nitrogen/oxygen breathers in The United States of America on planet Earth are delivering shoddy-to-negligent-to-nonexistent care to a significant portion of our population.
On the other hand, if you agree that the current system is broken, but you have a better idea than a Federal single-payer system, let's hear it. I have not heard ANY such ideas from conservatives, who seem content to keep their heads buried...somewhere.
And why shouldn't wealthy conservatives ignore the issue? They've got theirs.
August 31, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. This conversation has certainly drifted. So I'll try to focus.
You've stated symptoms, not the cause. Its a little overstated. Why is it the most inefficient and ineffective?
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteSeptember 2, 2007 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, I butted in and answered you further down in the thread,
here.
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
September 3, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, Jim, but I have a problem trying to talk sense to someone who wants me to take the reality of dragons seriously.
September 3, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not interested in exploring the free-market possibilities for health care, since I don't want to live in such a society.
Thank you for saying that, Tom. I don't call myself a Christian, but I don't want to live in such a society, either.
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
August 29, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying that seashell. I am a Christian, and I don't want to live in such a society, either.
"What you do to the least of the brethren, you do to me." Jesus
August 29, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you are, Ticia, and you are why I think we can all shape a society that protects, as well as promotes, the general welfare of its people.
Or it could be that you are just one rare Christian! :-)
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
August 29, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Jesus really meant here concerned charity and hospitality. I don't think it meant that we should abdicate helping the needy to the government. I think it meant quite the opposite. We should take personal responsibility to help those we can, directly, and encourage others to do so. Advocating a government program to do it for you isn't doing that. Helping these people in need isn't just about the money they need, but the personal relationships and support.
There are a lot of statistics out there, and whoever uses them can mold them to make their point, regardless of the credibility of the original source. Interpreting the data requires looking at the entire picture, not picking out the numbers you like. Taking the source of information into account is also important. I'm not saying Stossel is unbiased, but their might be data we don't see that paints a different picture. He may have picked out data that supports his position that his opponents chose to ignore. It is great to advocate for a position, but to become dogmatic about your position without being interested in investigating new information just demonstrates an interest in something else other than the actual issue itself. Maybe political team spirit? Loyalty to the "team"? And it encourages drawing conclusions too quickly, and ignoring any information that doesn't support your conclusion.
So everyone here has made their point about Stossel. What about the other sources cited in my post?
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 29, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Jesus meant was exactly what he said:
I will be up at 4. I will go find them -- like I do every morning. And the "government program" called public education will help me to feed them, clothe them, care for them medically, dentally, and emotionally, and educate them -- as well as their mothers and their fathers. Everything will be fine as long as no one gets sick, laid off, has a learning or physical disability, an accident on the road, at home, or in the workplace.
Before you attempt to preach a gospel of privatized piety --and the moral superiority of "charity and hospitality" based on inherited wealth and social affordances -- you may wish to consider the fact that no such gospel exists in Jesus.
August 30, 2007 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's written us off, Ticia. AND, he apparently didn't like my numbers. Maybe they didn't take enough personal responsibility for their actions.
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
August 30, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't written anything off. I guess your ideas are not open for discussion or investigation. You've drawn your conclusions and no one is allowed to discuss or investigate them any further. Is that what you're saying?
I'm sorry if I'm a bit defensive. I'm simply questioning, I haven't drawn conclusions. An incomplete set of facts don't provide the information for drawing conclusions.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 30, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many more facts can you possibly need and which parts do you feel are unclear?
Angry Bear, who often announces that he is
set out an economic comparison series that he titled "God Punishes Us When We (Collectively) Vote Republican. He presented spreadsheet after spreadsheet (complete with gov't data sources) that clearly shows how well all Americans do under Democratic administrations vs Republican. The economy and the markets show the same upswings and fare much better under those same Democrats. If Americans paid more in taxes, they also brought home more after them.
Angry Bear and his cohorts are PhD type economists. John Stossel is a journalist. As the Financial Times (hardly a liberal publication) once noted, Republicans would do better to listen to economists rather than journalists who are usually prone to getting it wrong.
Stephen Roach, the chief economist for Morgan Stanley came right out and challenged general equilibrium analysis and said "the world remains highly unbalanced, and, therefore, more vulnerable to a shock than would be the case for a more balanced world.".
You don't want big government because it is 'inefficient' and 'wasteful', yet you produce no credible analysis to back up your assertion, while credible analysis is out there all over the place that directly disputes your assumptions. And, if I seem 'not open' to your ideas it is because several years of investigation has not made the case for your side. But you are more than welcome to investigate and discuss what I've said further.
I don't believe you are undecided about anything. You're here looking for backup for your pet ideology, not looking for policies that actually work for people.
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
August 30, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. You can find evidence of the wastefulness of our government in many places if you choose to look. Here is one place. Here is another place. Here. and Here. and here. Just to refer you to a few sources.
It is true that I generally have a point of view about this stuff, but I am always open to good information. However, you might not realize, that when I look at a "proof" I will ask myself the question, how many ways can this be interpreted? What is really being said? What is not being said? and questions like that. It is often surprising what that reveals.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 30, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you Ticia, the work you do does not go unappreciated. There needs to be more people willing to do their part to help others.
"gospel of privatized piety"? moral superiority? Where did I say that? You sound bitter. This message is for all people. Be generous with what God has given you. If God has blessed you with fruit of your labor, bless others with that instead of spending it on yourself.
If people would just be more generous, and less materialistic, then these people you are helping could have a little more security from those calamities. These government programs exist because no one else will meet the need. What does that say about our society?
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 30, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Send you thesis on generosity to the medical directors of insurance companies who are denying treatment to their "insured" who are sick.
I'm already happy with plain words of Jesus:
August 30, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, but I'd prefer that we didn't continue to grow our government programs and continue to grow our taxes. I see government as inefficient and wasteful, and the more it gets into our private lives, the more it demands of us. The problem isn't the lack of a government program, but the lack of compassion and generosity of individuals that make up our society, who don't take personal responsibility for helping those in need.
Appreciate the discussion.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteAugust 29, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of curiosity, how would a family of 4 that has a total income of $50,000 (pre-tax) afford the health insurance that you believe they can so easily afford. Let's use numbers that we can all agree on.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey 2005 (p.3)
An average family of 2.5 with a pre-tax income of $58,0000 spends $43,0000 (minus the health care spending). So let's just say that a family of 4 with an after tax income ($50,000) of $42,5000 spends $38,000 (minus health care).
From The Kaiser Family Foundation 2005 Annual Survey of Employee Coverage, Eligibility and Participation (p.62), the average cost of all plans for a family is $10,880. (NRO is using this survey, so it should be acceptable to you.)
$42,500 After taxes on 50,000
-38,000 Consumer Expenditure
$ 4,500 Leftover for Health Care
Ooops. Average family of 4 with a 50,000 looks to be SOL by about $6,380.00.
It might also interest you to know that, according to census.gov, the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance [was] 60.2 percent in 2005.
It only took a couple of minutes to find and calculate these numbers. You can call them biased if you want, but if you want to argue that position, at some point you will have to agree on some numbers, or it will look like you are the one who is misinforming.
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
August 29, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one more fallacy in Stossel's argument. It reminds me of this one about time off. You get:
16 hours (2/3 of a day) every day: 2/3 x 365 = 243
Two days off every week: 52 x 2 = 104
Two weeks of vacation: 2 x 5 = 10
Holidays: 7 x 1 = 7
Total time off: 364 days
And you people think you deserve benefits for working one day a year?
August 29, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The short answer, according to the American College of Physicians and the Physicians for a National Health Program goes like this:
I think the reason you and I have been at odds is that we measure government differently. You measure efficiency and I measure effectiveness. The answer to both of us was provided by a link you posted several days ago to show me examples of govt waste. (Surprise!)
From Social Efficiency and the Provision of Collective Services*, (Abstract here):
No wonder we talk past each other. We're carrying on two different conversations.
The ball is in your court.
The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon
September 3, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I agree we are probably having two different conversations. You are still talking about how you think government is the solution, and I'm trying to suggest that a change in attitude is what is really needed.
I have to say that I hate politics and we're knee deep in it here. I'm just trying to talk about solutions. I have never thought much of Bill Clinton, but I have to say that his recently released book is probably saying what I'm trying to say. I am not trying to take an extreme position and say that there is no place for government, there is. But I just think we are going too far with it. It is now encroaching on our private lives too much. The land of the free is disappearing. I'm not sure what Clinton says in his book, but the premise is one I agree with. We all need to be more giving. If we were, a lot of problems we have now would dissolve.
I'm not looking for a debate, where we each take one side of an issue. I'm interested in productive discussion.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteSeptember 5, 2007 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink