If you think government programs work, maybe you should fix the State of Maine.

I'm really tired of the jackoffs who abuse the welfare system (my sister and mother work in related fields - the abuses you never hear about would probably surprise you...or maybe not, who knows). I'm sick of supporting people who delicately balance the hours they actually work as to not impede their free money flow from the gubment. That's for another thread, though...go back to your discussion. I don't belong in here.

Yes, because everyone using the welfare system is deliberately taking advantage of it. No one actually needs it. While we're at it, we should get rid of government grants. They're just for people who don't want to pony up the dough, right?

That's not what I said.

However, when you get someone to watch your kids so you can go out to the bar and get smashed, I really don't think the government should be paying for it.

Then we're talking about something different, which is restrictions on welfare, which I fully support. If you buy prime rib with food stamps, you should lose it, etc...

These programs should exist for those who need them, not for people to take advantage of. This is the reason I fully support the healthcare bill. It can potentially help those who really need it. That's a good thing no matter how you slice it as far as I'm concerned.

I agree entirely. However, based on what I have witnessed with the existing welfare programs, I am apprehensive of this health care bill. I really, really hope I'm proven wrong and it turns out to work out beautifully.

That's the real thing, though. There are always going to be people taking advantage of these programs. I'm happy that there are people who will have better lives because of this. It's a good thing. It's just sad that there are people who take advantage of this sort of thing.

True dat.

I feel the same about welfare here in the UK.

You know, I can use the same argument against that that the demoncrats (oops, sorry, that was just a typo) use to say abortion isn't going to be paid for with tax dollars. So far as the money the person is using at the bar is from the money they earned they're not spending the money the government gave them there. It's a ridiculous argument, actually, but it is the same thing they are saying about abortion in this bill.

I would argue that the amount of people that abuse the welfare system are a small minority & that it's a necessary evil. That's like saying that we shouldn't send any money to Haiti because 10%-20% of it might make it in to the hands of someone corrupt. There would be dire consequences if we didn't & the same applies to healthcare. Not many people from either side are going to tell you that they like it that some people abuse these systems. I personally think it's worth it as long as the percentage of suspected abuse is relatively low.

They are already being paid for with tax dollars anyways, just in a very indirect way. Basically, a tax deductible medical expense, which is the same thing anyways as far as the tax revenue GL is concerned. See IRS Publication 17 (Page 147) & 502 (Page 5).

The only difference is that they're out of pocket now and have to wait for the deduction later, whereas this bill would have allowed them not to be out of pocket right now. Which would actually be better because they could then go ahead and spend that money on something else that they would have to pay sales tax on. Then they wouldn't get the deduction later that they may or may not have had the money to spend on something else (depending on their return).

In other words:
It makes certain that if they would have received a return that included the amount of the deduction for the abortion, that they do spend that money and put it back into the economy. It's really smart economics. The same economic principles apply to tax breaks. Why give tax breaks to the wealthy who hang on to extra money during tough times when you can give it to the poor and know almost for certain that nearly every penny will be put back into the economy. Smart economics.

Oh look, Senator Coburn's being a dick again.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/No_Viagra_for_sex_offenders.html

Oh yeah, what a toolbag, all those amendments are so stupid.

Do you actually expect to be taken seriously with childishness like this?

no, wookie06 doesn't care if people take him seriously or not. he just don't give a **** n e more

Antony, it's not BS. It's strictly an information asymmetry problem. Those at the top do not know as much as all participants in the market aggregated. That is the point of a market. That is true 100% of the time, and there is no argument against that. There are hundreds of economics journals specifically regarding this, and especially regarding the issue of information asymmetry (of which Joseph Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for). When the government institutes programs, there is undoubtedly information asymmetry. Those lead to inefficient outcomes.

This can be seen in almost all facets of life. Ever been to a DMV? Ever looked at the post office (who are seriously considering cutting back Saturday mail because they can't physically do it). I believe they were projected to have 238 BILLION DOLLARS in losses over the next decade. Even the head of the USPS said that privatization would help. Ever looked at our education system which is seriously LAGGING behind much of the world? Medicare? THE RECENT STIMULUS? Much of the stimulus money went to programs that Obama is looking to cut in the extremely near future. That IS wasteful. Look at most of the foreign aid programs that the US has (primarily) instituted through the WTO. I'm sure that foreign aid so far has REALLY been helping countries right? The United States has completely ****ed up foreign aid, and its because of many of our domestic government policies that are screwing up much of the third world. Government programs have the potential to not only be inefficient domestically, but also around the world.

Just look at something like the Agricultural Adjustment Act back in the 30s. That program paid farmers to burn crops. That's right. Burn food. When people were starving. Burn food to raise prices.

Let's look at Cash for Clunkers. Just throwing a few points out there: If any junker was turned in that wasn't 3500-4500, the government was essentially wasting money when providing the rebates to people and destroying the junkers. If the car was more than 3500-4500, then the government is not deriving any benefit from it (that someone COULD receive from selling on the private market) and instead is just throwing any revenue that COULD be used for health care, whatever, away. Any "assumed" environmental benefits that came from the program probably won't be realized as there are numerous more environmental emissions in the production of new cars. What about the environmental emissions coming from junking the old cars? It completely disincentivized a market for used cars that actually are environmentally efficient (used Prius for instance). There were some estimates that Cash for Clunkers in the end actually cost the nation 1.4 Billion dollars at a cost of almost 2,000 dollars per transaction. It completely distorted a market for used cars. What about people without a car that WANTED to buy a car? Suddenly used car prices have skyrocketed, and now there is a chance that they cannot afford a car on the margin. There are many many many many unintended consequences.

I'm not even arguing against or for Cash for Clunkers. I am merely pointing out the beginning of thousands and thousands of variables that the government CANNOT possibly know when they institute these programs. It's information asymmetry, and that is what leads to inefficiency.

I'm not saying all government programs are inefficient, because many of the services I just listed work quite well (or just relatively better) in other countries. I'm saying OUR government is inefficient, and that is true through and through and there are thousands of examples to prove this.

Gasp, you mean I might not get taken seriously on an inconsequential internet forum? Oh my!

I think that everyone would agree w/ you on government inefficiencies. The question is, what, if anything, will ever be done about it so that we can move on to creating efficient social programs that function as well as or better than those in other countries? Also, for us laymen, could you please go in to more detail about the cultural differences that affect the outcome of social policies? For instance, what is it about the culture of France (or any other country, I just chose them based upon their WHO ranking) that makes their form of healthcare so successful there & what is it about our culture that prevents such a thing from working here?

If it was inconsequential you wouldn't have +4000 posts.

Do you actually expect to be taken seriously with childishness like this?

no, wookie06 doesn't care if people take him seriously or not. he just don't give a **** n e more

I always have to throw this out there, as one example: The US population and area is significantly larger than France. By significantly I mean ridiculously.

I know, a massive 1.56 posts per day average!

How is it that you define the French healthcare system as successful or, rather, what criteria are you basing that on? France is racked with problems and I believe some would argue that the French culture and attitude towards healthcare and work contribute to that nations problems. Funny thing, I was searching about the national debt of France and I find that [url]www.en.wikipedia.org[/url] can not be found on the internet right now.

Ah, back up now.

wracked.

Nope, I meant a state-paid child care person came to watch the kids so going out drinking could ensue. The system is pretty much broken, and I'd rather see the current one fixed before we dive headlong into another expensive thing. Hopefully they know what they're doing.

I think you're misinterpreting my question. I wasn't judging the quality of the French healthcare system. I made it obvious that I was using it as an example of what's typically considered to be a successful healthcare system per the World Health Organization (WHO). I was asking for examples of relevant cultural differences that would prevent a system like that in France from working here.

Never said he was wrong, I made a knee jerk post that was silly, and didn't like that he hashed it up again.



I don't think that any sort of healthcare reform will seriously effect the prestige of any medical profession. It may effect the pay, but even then not to a significant extent. I don't think your average physician working a 40 hour work week will earn less than six figures any time soon, and that's good enough for me.

What I was arguing against were the guys who were for a single payer program, and questioning those who were giving this bill some sort of pat on the back. I'm not arguing against reform, just the ideas that have been proposed I'm not too keen on. I don't like the idea of forcing people to buy insurance if they don't want to, and I don't like when people advocate for a socialized medical system as if it is some cure all without any proof behind it, other than the fact ours has flaws.

Hell, to go with your opinion of me, I'd like to reform malpractice litigation, so we don't have to waste money practicing "defensive medicine". So being the selfish wad that I am, there are indeed healthcare reforms that I support, so saying I'm against everything is just silly and out of my atrocious character. Also, people with chronic conditions need someone to cover them, so at the very least the bill addresses (maybe or may not solving) something.

Also get off my back, I have to economize my time by masturbating serenely and posting at the same time.

LONG LONG LONG POST

Regarding the first question, yeah, you pretty much nailed it on the head. That's the real question isn't it? I certainly have no clue. I would argue making it less beauracratic and "trimming the fat" would help a lot, but I think that's pretty much a given. Unfortunately, I think it's one of those questions that the cop out "just need to cut back" answer is really the only one

Regarding the second one, I base my opinion on my experience so far around Europe. Having been to almost all of Europe, and living with both British, French, and German people for a while now, I definitely have asked them the same question!

First, I would argue that in this case, size does matter, especially given the debt our country is in. I mean, with this, we are adding basically half the entire French population now to health care. This is bound to cause some problems with our small amount of doctors. I fully agree with many of you when you say that not as many people abuse free services as many right-wingers like to think. However, in this case, even a minority is QUITE large compared to other countries. But this is just more logistical

More importantly though, I think the large cultural difference is the historical context and attitudes regarding property. I have asked the "marginal" question to them many times, AKA "aren't you worried about people abusing "free" health care". All they say is (paraphrasing) "No, because everyone has had it for so long and it is so ingrained in our lives and we are still taught from childhood not to really abuse it". Also, they say that their taxes and wages REALLY reflect that they are indeed paying quite a large amount for their public provision. There is a large difference in per capita GDP between the US and many European countries, and that's really why. Their public service programs really hit them hard with taxes. There is a large "work to live" culture that exists around Europe from what I've noticed, and they simply dont' mind huge tax rates to pay for their public provisions, and there is a very large sense of community harmony rather than private harmony. They work less, they get taxed a lot, but they are generally happy because of the lifestyle they have just historically had.

I would argue that in the US, this is hardly the case. The US is VERY individualistic (I think all of us can agree with that). More than any country, we have an attitude of "what is mine is mine and should be mine". We can all agree that private property is a HUGE part of the idea of "America". I think this has the potential, of course, to cause some problems with health care provisions. For instance, I don't think the guy going into the doctors office for a cold would be thinking "hey, I might be wasting health care's time here, cuz some people REALLY need health care for more important things now". That I could see as the opposite of the American attitude.

Also, I'd say that in a country like the US with such a low personal savings rate and a huge consumption culture, getting a "golden ticket" (even though it may not be that way technically, but in appearance to many people it is) can lead to overconsumption. Look at road congestion, for instance. I think we can all agree there are many ignorant people in the US that simply don't get how things get paid for or how things work (OBAMAS GONNA PAY FOR MAH GAS!), and I for one know many (stupid) people that are suddenly excited for "FREE HEALTH CARE". There have been a lot of studies about peoples sometimes irrational behavior when it comes to things that are "free". I don't even blame a lot of misinformed people for not understanding how the system works, because I think also we can all agree that it is incredibly complicated (just look at all the non-standardized insurance forms). The one thing that I really hoped Obama would accomplish is the transparency of government and the standardization of certain activities and forms, but unfortunately it hasn't happened yet. I think if things were much more open, much simpler to understand, that a lot of consumption problems could be fixed!

So in sum: I think that culturally, Europeans (in general) seem to be fine with huge taxes, even for those on the lower end of the spectrum, to pay for services so they can live happily. Historically, it has always been this way, and they are taught from the start not to abuse it. America, on the other hand, is very large, very in debt, and is certainly very individualistic. We are very self-centered and there are many people who simply don't care about their fellow man. I think this tension is bound to cause problems. Because of how complicated, how bureaucratic, and how f***** up our system is, unfortunately these provisions are very hard to understand, and I think without transparency that people might get the wrong idea about how health care is being funded. And in this case, a significant margin of the new 32 million people not understanding the system is still significant in a country like the US. I think the general attitude that many are getting might lead to the problems that people are worried about, generally, waste or inefficiency.

TL;DR version: Europeans are just plain used to high taxes to pay for public services so they can live happily, and are taught to not abuse it. Americans for one are not, and also our consumption culture and the appearance of "golden tickets" and "free" goods may cause problems (even if they aren't technically free). Even if the people who "overconsume" this new health care is marginal, it is still huge compared to most other countries, and with a program of this magnitude, this may lead to big big problems.

How can you abuse free healthcare? Go to the Doctor when you're not really sick?

Yes, I know, there are some morons that will try it just because it's free. But "abuses" like that are common in any kind of change (regardless if they are free or not). After a few years, those type abuses would go away. Elective stuff still wouldn't be free, though.

Basically, if you abuse it, you should have to pay the bill. Otherwise it should be free. It's the same with other public services.

Alco, what I mean by "abuse" health care is the argument that many people have regarding this upcoming universal health care, which is:

With almost 32 million people now "affording" to go to the doctor, that we are going to be suffering the long waits that many other countries face. This could be the result of people who now think that if their kid just has a measly cold (which many can be solved simply by getting sleep) or if parents are SUPER paranoid like many are, or going in for little scrapes from falling off a bike, that they will be going to the doctors all the time, thus preventing people who may REALLY need it from being able to see the doctor. AKA without some sort of prioritizing measure, those who may really need attention quick may not get it. You compound that with an American attitude of "me me me me", and it could potentially lead to problems.

So yes, actually going to the doctor when you are not really sick, and in reality, wasting the doctors time and perhaps preventing someone from getting treatment they ACTUALLY need. There are a fair amount of these actually. Many of my friend's (like I said, I went to a private school) fathers are doctors and they say that they do get people who come in who are perfectly fine, but are just incredibly paranoid. INCREDIBLY paranoid.

Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't making a point either way, that was merely the question I asked my fellow flatmates because it seems to be a concern among many here who don't want this new health care.

I'm not intending to show support for this bill, but if parents were that paranoid they'd likely have insurance and be using it already.

That's a good point However, I'm talking about the margin here (which in this case, is 32 million more people). These are ones who could not afford health care, and MAY have the attitude of "hey, I've got it now! Why NOT just go to the doctors all I want"

Think of it this way:
1. Your example parent can afford to do this and probably has private insurance like you said. He/She does it for whatever reason X (paranoia, loves going to doctors offices, wants to steal a lollipop that doctors keep in those cupboards, whatever)

2. 32 Million Americans are now in the same position.

I don't wish to preach this whole thing as a fact here. I'm just merely demonstrating how my observation of our individualistic culture would seem to foster this attitude rather than get rid of it.

You can expect a spike in doctors visits right when a bunch of people get coverage. And then it will be the same.

And then those people will just stop going to doctors? I wasn't aware that these provisions are being designed for "Go to the doctor once, then you won't need to go". Now THAT'S preventive medicine.

I fail to see what evidence you have in claiming this as certainty. I don't see any reason why there would be a spike in doctor's visits with 32 million additional people now covered, and then it dropping back to today's levels. You'd think that at least ONE of those 32 million people would continue to see a doctor.... (let alone a million or two which would just be roughly 3% out of the 32)

I'm not the one making any claims. I've only stated what I believe to be a pretty accurate description of American individualistic culture, and how it does not foster being considerate of other people's time, money, or health. That in my opinion will have quite a large effect on the new 32 million people and their decisions to seek care, whether they need it or not.

I thought it was spelled like that but I was too indifferent to check.

You underestimate the power of laziness.

I know more than a handful of people at work that fall into this category.

Working really well, right? We've only seen this coming for....decades or so....you know, since the first time it was in the red back in the late 70s/early 80s

Hey, better unemployed thirty-somethings getting the last of the money than baby boomers who, instead of spending money raising kids who could keep the system funded, bought a bunch of pot and a Miami beach house.