So SDS and I got into an argument about health care last night, but that's not the point. I reject his premise and since all his arguments rely on that premise, we can't have any decent level of discourse that doesn't get me kicked for "factual inaccuracy". It is difficult to avoid factual inaccuracy when debating someone who uses a different set of facts.
Since I'm sure I'll be called on it, my premise is that all health care systems have strengths and weaknesses, and comparable results indicates comparable success. If one system is "proven" to work then all comparable systems are also "proven." Therefore the discussion becomes why to absorb all the costs associated with changing the system to a vastly different model rather than arguing which system inflicts more agony and destitution. If an immoral, indecent, backward, agonizing, and destitution-causing system results in the same life expectancy and general health-care outcomes as a kind, loving, benevolent, maternal, and compassionate system, I don't see what's different other than the spin on the mechanisms of that system.
What was more interesting to me was the spin-off discussion sparked by Medicare. Specifically, medicare is an example of socialized medicine currently existent in the United States and is projected to bankrupt. The obvious solution then, would be to throw more money at it because it is "underfunded."
Money from where? SDS was too irritated by me to continue (and it was late), so I'm moving the discussion here.
This ties in with another issue that has come up recently in the wake of losing the 2016 Olympics, Chicago youth violence. It is argued that Chicago needs more federal resources to fund the programs. "Federal resources" is usually a synonym for taxpayer dollars.
The issue is the same, money from where? This clip illustrates the disconnect from the need for money and its source.
Everyone knows that money is a finite resource. It is illogical to assume an infinite level of funding. It is also illogical to assume that an increase in funding leads to a directly proportionate increase in results. This study concludes that while increasing spending per pupil does increase test scores, the most effective funding mechanisms are localized.
Localized funding mechanisms are subject to much further review and scrutiny than other funding mechanisms. There are also no constitutional breeches associated with local funding and implementation policies. In any case this study points to maximizing efficiency in resource allocation. The resources themselves are still finite. You could not take this study and logically argue to increase local property taxes everywhere by 500%. You could make the argument, but you would have to recognize that you are not pulling money from nowhere. Homeowners pay property taxes and the state's income is derived directly from their ability to work independently of government assistance.
Ultimately you must ask the question: Where does the money come from? For government programs, the answer is taxes, fines, and fees. With taxes the government takes a certain percentage from your gross pay and filters it into various federal trust funds. Fines are collected for illegal activities and fees are costs associated with renewing licenses and other localized mechanisms.
Naturally you can't institute a 100% tax because you are destroying the incentives for people to work. If people do not work, there is no money for the government to collect, and people currently on government assistance are simply returning money the government has already taken from others, recycling it between the two constantly and losing transaction costs in the process.
Tax paying citizens are the source of money for all of these programs, and tax paying citizens enjoy having a high quality of life. They can only do so if they figure by working hard and utilizing their intelligence that they can improve the quality of their life.
I have come to the conclusion over time that egalitarian philosophy is evil. Egalitarian philosophy promises equal outcomes for unequal efforts. It creates a net drag on effort, and therefore productivity. Ironically, egalitarianism requires productivity to function as the end-result of zero effort is zero output. Zero is by definition impossible to redistribute. Thus the logical conclusion of egalitarianism is zero outcomes for everyone.
In such a system, the number of people who will "do the right thing" becomes less and less as they realize more and more people have become freeloaders. Inevitably you end up with a system where 49% or less of the people produce the work that sustains the other 51% or more of the people. Once you reach that point, a majority of the system has become free-riders with an entitlement mentality (and vested interest in maintaining the system), and no rational person wants to expend effort to support such people.
Rational people support egalitarian policies because of the emotional benefit that comes with caring for the less fortunate. When your effort remains the same or increases yet the demands and outcomes of the "less fortunate" grow ever larger, you lose all emotional incentive to support that group. In an oppressive egalitarian state they may be prohibited from moving away, so they will take their only recourse in refusing to work.
So what is your take. Is egalitarism evil? How can such a system be implemented over the long term? If it can be, how can it ensure productivity?
Remember that for the purposes of this discussion, egalitarianism is the equal distribution of outcomes. The equal distribution of opportunity is not egalitarianism, because equality of opportunity does not create equality of outcomes. The principle of comparative advantage comes into play with equality of opportunity where it does not with equality of outcomes.
Since I'm sure I'll be called on it, my premise is that all health care systems have strengths and weaknesses, and comparable results indicates comparable success. If one system is "proven" to work then all comparable systems are also "proven." Therefore the discussion becomes why to absorb all the costs associated with changing the system to a vastly different model rather than arguing which system inflicts more agony and destitution. If an immoral, indecent, backward, agonizing, and destitution-causing system results in the same life expectancy and general health-care outcomes as a kind, loving, benevolent, maternal, and compassionate system, I don't see what's different other than the spin on the mechanisms of that system.
What was more interesting to me was the spin-off discussion sparked by Medicare. Specifically, medicare is an example of socialized medicine currently existent in the United States and is projected to bankrupt. The obvious solution then, would be to throw more money at it because it is "underfunded."
Money from where? SDS was too irritated by me to continue (and it was late), so I'm moving the discussion here.
This ties in with another issue that has come up recently in the wake of losing the 2016 Olympics, Chicago youth violence. It is argued that Chicago needs more federal resources to fund the programs. "Federal resources" is usually a synonym for taxpayer dollars.
The issue is the same, money from where? This clip illustrates the disconnect from the need for money and its source.
Everyone knows that money is a finite resource. It is illogical to assume an infinite level of funding. It is also illogical to assume that an increase in funding leads to a directly proportionate increase in results. This study concludes that while increasing spending per pupil does increase test scores, the most effective funding mechanisms are localized.
Localized funding mechanisms are subject to much further review and scrutiny than other funding mechanisms. There are also no constitutional breeches associated with local funding and implementation policies. In any case this study points to maximizing efficiency in resource allocation. The resources themselves are still finite. You could not take this study and logically argue to increase local property taxes everywhere by 500%. You could make the argument, but you would have to recognize that you are not pulling money from nowhere. Homeowners pay property taxes and the state's income is derived directly from their ability to work independently of government assistance.
Ultimately you must ask the question: Where does the money come from? For government programs, the answer is taxes, fines, and fees. With taxes the government takes a certain percentage from your gross pay and filters it into various federal trust funds. Fines are collected for illegal activities and fees are costs associated with renewing licenses and other localized mechanisms.
Naturally you can't institute a 100% tax because you are destroying the incentives for people to work. If people do not work, there is no money for the government to collect, and people currently on government assistance are simply returning money the government has already taken from others, recycling it between the two constantly and losing transaction costs in the process.
Tax paying citizens are the source of money for all of these programs, and tax paying citizens enjoy having a high quality of life. They can only do so if they figure by working hard and utilizing their intelligence that they can improve the quality of their life.
I have come to the conclusion over time that egalitarian philosophy is evil. Egalitarian philosophy promises equal outcomes for unequal efforts. It creates a net drag on effort, and therefore productivity. Ironically, egalitarianism requires productivity to function as the end-result of zero effort is zero output. Zero is by definition impossible to redistribute. Thus the logical conclusion of egalitarianism is zero outcomes for everyone.
In such a system, the number of people who will "do the right thing" becomes less and less as they realize more and more people have become freeloaders. Inevitably you end up with a system where 49% or less of the people produce the work that sustains the other 51% or more of the people. Once you reach that point, a majority of the system has become free-riders with an entitlement mentality (and vested interest in maintaining the system), and no rational person wants to expend effort to support such people.
Rational people support egalitarian policies because of the emotional benefit that comes with caring for the less fortunate. When your effort remains the same or increases yet the demands and outcomes of the "less fortunate" grow ever larger, you lose all emotional incentive to support that group. In an oppressive egalitarian state they may be prohibited from moving away, so they will take their only recourse in refusing to work.
So what is your take. Is egalitarism evil? How can such a system be implemented over the long term? If it can be, how can it ensure productivity?
Remember that for the purposes of this discussion, egalitarianism is the equal distribution of outcomes. The equal distribution of opportunity is not egalitarianism, because equality of opportunity does not create equality of outcomes. The principle of comparative advantage comes into play with equality of opportunity where it does not with equality of outcomes.
