Although I can empathize with your cynicism, defeatism takes you nowhere. Some people do care, and other people have much lower thresholds to begin caring than you give them credit too.
Eventually at some threshold everybody will care. We are just not there yet, fortunately.
The problem is that it gives a very good hint of how competent the government health contractors will be, and in this case it will not be measured in just hundreds of millions...
Maybe there can be a system that helps people in need to raise again that is sustainable, but that would not resemble in the least any attempt of welfare we have done up to this day.
The problem is not as much with the idea per se but with the execution. The execution always require A and B to decide what to do with C's money in order to help D. Even if A and B are totally honest and have the best possible intentions it is a highly inefficient arrangement that escalates poorly. Additionally it takes any incentive from D to change his situation, as the risk is far greater than the possible benefits.
Welfare states do not and never will stop poverty. Please, you are actually creating more and more have-nots with your welfare state and making the situation worse.
In average crime in welfare states is not better than crime rates in non welfare states. There are countries with welfare states that have low crime rates and high quality of life, but then again there are countries that are not welfare states with similar characteristics, like the Emirates, Hong Kong, Singapore, Saudi Arabia. The difference between them is that the latter economies are actually sustainable and improving and the former are collapsing.
When the country is no a welfare state, entitlements lower when "demographic and economic changes" stress the resources, and so the ratio barely moves. Only in a welfare state you keep giving the same or give even more when you have less to give.
No, we should just let you deal with it. Which is far better than helping you and all the others who will be in this situation because of irresponsibility and neglect, as by enabling the latter you create the former.
Yes, putting more money (and currently it is a large amount of the GDP) into welfare makes you into an welfare state, and certainly lands you on the left field, even if you execute it poorly (which is what happens eventually with all welfare states anyway). Should be self evident, but here it is in all the letters to you.
Is it? And why exactly welfare spending has steadily raised since then to more than the double of the expenditure per capita? Because the state is smaller? Please stop deluding yourself...
Sorry, but the article you linked is basically an article full of opinions with nothing to substantiate them let alone contradict what I stated in my post.
Oh lets stop the melodramatic crap. You do far more harm by enabling people to be irresponsible than by denying help to those that are afflicted by bad luck.
Even worse the huge costs of the health care that would break the poor unlucky guy in your example and difficulty to find new jobs would be the directly results of your welfare state. So basically you and your policies create the problem you accuse me of not wanting to solve.
What you guys are unable to understand is that there is no perfect solution. Everything is based on compromises. By pretending the compromises do not exist and aiming to the ideal you end making the situation worst.
Meritocracy is a swear word to any leftist, my friend, despite your delusions.
The very principle over which the left is based is that people should receive based on their needs not their abilities or value. That everybody is "equally valuable". That is completely incompatible with anything that rewards merit or even accepts it in any way.
But that truth is too much to people like you, you need convenient excuses like "self-reinforcing class system" to make the world fit in your delusions.
Thomas Sowell published not so long ago a study showing that in US there are bigger chances of a person who was born in a family in the top 25% of income to end in the bottom 25% of income than of a person who was born in the bottom 25% staying there for life. THAT is social mobility.
On the other hand, "self-reinforcing class system" is what you have in socialists countries where no matter what you do the system does everything to keep you exactly where you are..
On the contrary, my friend. US is slowly but surely becoming a Leftist Welfare State. Even Republicans are going more and more to the left due to misguided social pressures from Cultural Marxism and Keynesianism.
And that is a very bad outcome that stimulates legal harassment. The best solution is to make this third option unavailable, thus making any process go to its bitter end. Ford should not have its best interest settling for $500 if you pinched your finger in the door, and you shouldn't get a dime because of that.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to get there. Really...
Although I can empathize with your cynicism, defeatism takes you nowhere. Some people do care, and other people have much lower thresholds to begin caring than you give them credit too.
Eventually at some threshold everybody will care. We are just not there yet, fortunately.
The problem is that it gives a very good hint of how competent the government health contractors will be, and in this case it will not be measured in just hundreds of millions...
But they are not the same things, despite the industry's attempts to deliberately confuse them.
The problem the GP points to is that they will be confused into the same thing sooner or later.
You are completely wrong here. You just defined Breaking Bad.
Maybe there can be a system that helps people in need to raise again that is sustainable, but that would not resemble in the least any attempt of welfare we have done up to this day.
The problem is not as much with the idea per se but with the execution. The execution always require A and B to decide what to do with C's money in order to help D. Even if A and B are totally honest and have the best possible intentions it is a highly inefficient arrangement that escalates poorly. Additionally it takes any incentive from D to change his situation, as the risk is far greater than the possible benefits.
Expenditures are never tied to long-term averages simply because no welfare system can be sustainable. It is simply impossible.
Welfare states do not and never will stop poverty. Please, you are actually creating more and more have-nots with your welfare state and making the situation worse.
In average crime in welfare states is not better than crime rates in non welfare states. There are countries with welfare states that have low crime rates and high quality of life, but then again there are countries that are not welfare states with similar characteristics, like the Emirates, Hong Kong, Singapore, Saudi Arabia. The difference between them is that the latter economies are actually sustainable and improving and the former are collapsing.
Spending increased AFTER correcting inflation, my friend.
When the country is no a welfare state, entitlements lower when "demographic and economic changes" stress the resources, and so the ratio barely moves. Only in a welfare state you keep giving the same or give even more when you have less to give.
Sorry, my friend, but you would recognize a cogent idea even if it bit you, but by all means, keep crying.
Like the usual leftist you have no argument but: "Everyone who disagrees with me is a troll". Cry some more.
No, we should just let you deal with it. Which is far better than helping you and all the others who will be in this situation because of irresponsibility and neglect, as by enabling the latter you create the former.
Yes, putting more money (and currently it is a large amount of the GDP) into welfare makes you into an welfare state, and certainly lands you on the left field, even if you execute it poorly (which is what happens eventually with all welfare states anyway). Should be self evident, but here it is in all the letters to you.
Is it? And why exactly welfare spending has steadily raised since then to more than the double of the expenditure per capita? Because the state is smaller? Please stop deluding yourself...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
Sorry, but the article you linked is basically an article full of opinions with nothing to substantiate them let alone contradict what I stated in my post.
Oh lets stop the melodramatic crap. You do far more harm by enabling people to be irresponsible than by denying help to those that are afflicted by bad luck.
Even worse the huge costs of the health care that would break the poor unlucky guy in your example and difficulty to find new jobs would be the directly results of your welfare state. So basically you and your policies create the problem you accuse me of not wanting to solve.
What you guys are unable to understand is that there is no perfect solution. Everything is based on compromises. By pretending the compromises do not exist and aiming to the ideal you end making the situation worst.
Depends on which "Right" you are talking about. Libertarians are just fine with it.
Meritocracy is a swear word to any leftist, my friend, despite your delusions.
The very principle over which the left is based is that people should receive based on their needs not their abilities or value. That everybody is "equally valuable". That is completely incompatible with anything that rewards merit or even accepts it in any way.
But that truth is too much to people like you, you need convenient excuses like "self-reinforcing class system" to make the world fit in your delusions.
Thomas Sowell published not so long ago a study showing that in US there are bigger chances of a person who was born in a family in the top 25% of income to end in the bottom 25% of income than of a person who was born in the bottom 25% staying there for life. THAT is social mobility.
On the other hand, "self-reinforcing class system" is what you have in socialists countries where no matter what you do the system does everything to keep you exactly where you are..
Not scary. Just delusional. Exactly like you, my friend.
You know what is better than feeding needy children? Not putting children in the world if you cannot feed them.
On the contrary, my friend. US is slowly but surely becoming a Leftist Welfare State. Even Republicans are going more and more to the left due to misguided social pressures from Cultural Marxism and Keynesianism.
So lets keep everything equally dumb, right? Typical leftist mentality... Lets share the misery!
And that is a very bad outcome that stimulates legal harassment. The best solution is to make this third option unavailable, thus making any process go to its bitter end. Ford should not have its best interest settling for $500 if you pinched your finger in the door, and you shouldn't get a dime because of that.