I hope that the US Constitution becomes more to the people than a stumbling block in the way of popular (and well-marketed) legislation. I fear that a stumbling block is all that it is, however.
There's far too much concern over "the rich" (and what may or may not be good for them) and not enough concern over what's actually a good policy for everyone.
Just because some rich people may benefit doesn't mean others don't. Making that assumption is called class warfare, and it's not a good basis for policy decisions.
The rules ARE enforceable if you keep most stuff server side, but at the expense of increased latency, higher server load and very poor user experience.
If you define "end state" to mean "state visible to other users/applications", then the end state is all you need to verify.
Can you give an example where you need to verify some transient state that is invisible to other users?
You were defending a "news" outlet for its "disregard for problems such as his drug use".
It's not the news outlets' role to disregard news just because they don't happen to think that the law that was broken was not relevant to their competency.
Is it common knowledge now because of the Washington Post? Or is it common knowledge because others reported it? If it's news, and a news outlet doesn't report it, I'm not going to trust that news outlet in the future.
What relevance does drug use in a person's youth have to do with their competence and worth now as an adult?
You're missing the point. It's not the news outlets' role to decide whether a candidate is breaking an important or an unimportant law. Evidence that a candidate has broken the law is news. Period.
GWB's drunk driving conviction was reported. Even Sarah Palin's husband's drunk driving conviction was reported.
It's the duty of a news outlet to report all known illegal acts by a candidate. And the public can decide whether they are just youthful indiscretions or paint the picture of a reckless person.
For what it's worth, I don't care about some drug thing in the past either. What I do care about is whether I can trust the news outlets, or if they are sanitizing it first and removing all the stuff that I "shouldn't" care about.
No nation is well served when that sort of tit for tat news reporting is considered acceptable... [Fox News] has historically lacked an appropriate wall between the editorials and the actual news.
This doesn't make sense. "Tit for tat" only happens on news commentary shows (clearly editorials, not news), as far as I can tell.
Can you give one example of a news show on fox news that has a "tit for tat" exchange?
So intuitively it seems it shouldn't be that hard to design a system which controls costs.
But in practice, some person somewhere must be the one controlling costs. That's what makes it difficult -- would someone in the government deny care? And if so, on what basis? That standard is hard to develop and apply consistently.
Of course, as you pointed out, we can't avoid that in some cases. But I think it can be limited to catastrophic medical needs, and the rest can be left up to the patient.
But it's only economical to insure yourself against risks, not known expenses.
I think we agree more than we disagree. Usually it takes a lot of arguing for people to agree with me on this point.
But at the same time you've introduced a moral hazard which discourages people from living a healthy lifestyle and pursuing preventative care by insuring them treatment against catastrophic illness.
There are already well-established solutions to this -- just look to other insurance industries. If you get your preventative care regularly (checkups, vaccines), your premiums stay low. If you neglect it, your premiums start to rise quickly.
The thing I like about this system is that it is much more economically stable. Costs are controlled for non-catastrophic conditions and diagnosis by free-market pricing. If patients neglected regular care, they would pay for the additional risk of catastrophe with increased premiums.
There's still the issue of emergency treatment, which is a good point. I don't really know if there's much we can do to solve that completely, because we're not just going to let someone die in the street if we can reasonably help it.
However, I think this will make the problem less because:
1. More people will be able to afford insurance, because it's only insuring against catastrophe.
2. More people will be able to afford routine care if they watch what they spend. Patients will demand that simple treatments be provided by RNs or some lower-level form of a doctor, because they are paying so they have an incentive to seek more economically efficient treatments.
Government programs really have almost no mechanism to control costs, even for very simple, routine things. I'd much rather that we gave those in need (that is, not everybody, but some small fraction of people who truly can't pay) medical vouchers and allowed them to use the money for routine care and catastrophic insurance premiums.
So there may be some situations in which the taxpayers need to pick up the bill -- medical vouchers and unpaid emergency room care -- but let's scope that down to what's absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I worded it poorly, but what I meant was the supposedly non-partisan voter encouragements, such as teachers encouraging students to vote.
I don't think the post to which I was replying was talking about the same partisan "get out the vote" stuff that you're talking about (which all parties do).
Since the uninformed votes, being random, will for the most part split evenly down the middle between the Democrats and the Republicans
I agreed with you until I saw this.
Why do you think almost all the efforts to "get out the vote" are from Democrats and democratic allies? Getting a bigger voter turnout helps Democrats.
Why is it so hard to consult medical experts and clearly define a policy which meets people's 99% of people's basic needs...
I don't know, but it is hard to define a policy that meets that criteria and has some way to control costs.
Private insurance is in fact already "judging" how people's "needs" are or are not met.
Absolutely.
I'm not claiming our current system is perfect -- far from it. But we have opposing forces: doctors on one side, recommending/performing treatment, and insurance companies acting as the economic agent, controlling costs. And the patient plays both roles to a significant extent: paying copayments, unreimbursed treatments, and some prescription costs; so the prices have a limited rationing effect.
With government-run health care, we can't effectively use price as a rationing tool, so other forms of rationing must be employed: lines, bureaucracy, and reduced quality. I think those are all less desirable tools than price.
But I share your contempt for the current system. I think the problem is due to many 3rd-party payers, which make it very hard to control costs, even for simple, routine operations. I think the problem would be worse with government as the payer, however.
I think the best system would be for patients to pay for routine and low-cost treatments (vaccinations, normal dental work, checkups, etc), and to have catastrophic insurance to pay for expensive treatments that are unlikely to come along, or treatments for diagnosis that are unlikely to occur. And if you get diagnosed while you have insurance, the insurance company should be on the hook for the entire duration of the condition (or forever, if incurable), regardless of whether you continue your policy.
You're arguing against a strawman with irrelevant cliches
Not a strawman, and not irrelevant. The basis for the post to which I replied was that there could feasibly be enough health care such that nobody was left wanting. That's a fallacy, because in any economic system, people are always left wanting.
We have the resources in this country to provide basic health care that covers 99% of people's medical needs.
Who defines those needs? "Need" is meaningless in economic terms without some judge making the determination of what's a need and what's not.
It's the role of government to develop policies that promote an efficient allocation of resources.
You seem to think the government is that judge, and can effectively allocate these medical resources such that 99% of peoples' "needs" are met.
If they keep redefining "need" to be less and less, than the government may be able to meet that criteria. Is medical research a "need"? How much medical research is needed, and how much is just frivolous? Is a doctor needed for all medical treatment, or is a nurse sometimes good enough? Is access to a doctor at 2am a need?
I think you're making a mistake thinking that the government will somehow provide better judgment, or is somehow not constrained by economic influences. They are, they just use different mechanisms to ration care, like lines, tests, bureaucracy, reducing quality, etc.
Yeah, I love the idea that poeple will use 'too much' health care if it's free.
If there is no scarcity, than we're not even talking about economics. So let's just let medicine be like air: plenty for all.
The problem is that there obviously is a scarcity. Doctors' offices are busy, ERs are busy. Doctors often work long hours, but not for the pure joy of medicine.
And considering the 'shortages' people are talking about are for surgery and MRIs and whatnot, none of which you can visit without a reason, it's not like those people will be using them up.
Without a "reason" acceptable to whom? MRIs have no medical downside really, so they are medically wise in many situations. But they are expensive, so they are not economically wise in all situations.
So, someone is making the grim choice that the risk of leaving some condition undetected is not worth the economic costs of an MRI to know for sure. That's economics.
do self-described libertarians choose to focus on the programs that benefit the sick, poor, and politically unconnected and ignore the programs that benefit the powerful, wealthy, and politically connected?
First, my own philosophy: I'm not against a helping hand for the poor, but SS is for everyone. I know we can't possibly help everyone in the world, so I just want to limit these handouts to people who are legal citizens, and who are truly in need. I'd also prefer most of these programs were state programs rather than federal, because of constitutional issues and because I think they would be more effective that way.
As to why I go after SS: there is an aspect of Social Security in particular (but also other programs) that really bothers me: Social Security is a huge transfer of resources from people likely to invest (earners at the peak of their earning potential) to people almost certain to consume it.
This country focuses entirely too much on consumption. Every year you hear that we should spend all our money during the holidays because "it will be good for the economy". I have not found any convincing explanation of that, ever, and I have read more than a couple economics books (currently reading an economics book by a liberal, for the record).
After production and consumption, investment is what you have left over. Investment is the reason we don't start over as hunter-gatherers every generation. This isn't specific to capitalism; it's true for every economic system. The U.S. has a high standard of living, and a lot of economic power, because we attracted a lot of investment in the past, and we continue to attract a lot of investment. Not just from our own citizens, but investment from people all over the world.
But all of this is quite fragile -- more fragile than many people realize. As soon as other countries become more desirable for investment, we lose our plentiful capital overnight. We are seeing the beginning of this, as China attracts more investment. And believe me -- their citizens are saving every dime -- not consuming it all every holiday season.
So, to me, something like Social Security or Medicare is a kind of perfect storm: we strip the ability to invest from our own citizens (who are most likely to invest here), and the increased tax burden on domestic workers makes America a less desirable place for foreign investment.
All of the fund is "saved" in government bonds... that is, lent to the government, and put right into the "general pie", and spent[1]. In fact, much of it is spent on things like water subsidies, etc. Thus, there's no logical difference between Social Security, Medicare and water subsidies.
If you aren't convinced by that argument, consider this: If you loan me money, and I use it to take a vacation; then you have saved it and I have spent it. If you loan me the money, and I "save" it in "me bonds" (that is, I loan it to myself), and then I use it to take a vacation; you have still saved it, and I have still spent it. The reason is that loaning money to someone else is saving (or investing) precisely because I can no longer spend it. Loaning money to myself is a no-op because I can still spend it -- it's just a clever way to shuffle the books around.
What's more, Social Security was running a huge surplus in the past, but that surplus has been entirely spent. That means that the government has become accustomed to using the SS surplus to fund other programs. And even if we continue to raise enough in SS taxes to make the payouts, just having a smaller SS surplus will cause huge budget problems.
This is why, if it were a private plan, it would be illegal.
Therefore the only people who should receive SS or Medicare are those who "fall off" because they are too poor
A very good point. When people advocate social programs, they use the poor as an excuse. But the programs don't stop with the poor. They never do. Government busybodies want to control everything.
Neither Social Security nor Medicare are welfare programs.
Your definition is clearly different than mine.
You seem to be including water subsidies in your definition, which certainly don't just go to those who "need" it (whatever that means), they also go to people who are doing just fine. Similarly for social security and medicare.
So, what is your definition of welfare, such that it includes what subsidies, but not SS or medicare?
It's all arbitrary redistribution of wealth, as far as I'm concerned.
You mean like the 700 billion dollar bailout to Wall Street CEOs that pay no taxes?
That's a separate complaint, and I certainly don't like that idea either.
As a practical matter, I only went along with the bailout (not supported, just went along without denouncing it) because a lot of people -- some of whom were non-partisans that I respect very much -- seemed to think it was a necessary evil.
The only constant is that the middle class gets $crewed.
That's simply not true. The middle class during the middle ages was much more screwed than they are today. At some point in history some very good things happened, and it's worth examining what those things were, why they were good, and what might continue that trend into the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Your blog post didn't make up a rebuttal so much as they put things in perspective. A perspective I do not share, but a valid perspective.
I agree with Monty on this one. Advertising features with major known problems is irresponsible, and it's just asking for users to get into trouble.
And still having so many of these problems after a 3-year release cycle doesn't look good.
The passage you mention (beginning "The money of the state...") is not in the US Constitution (although it probably should be).
http://constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm
I believe that's from the NY state constitution.
I hope that the US Constitution becomes more to the people than a stumbling block in the way of popular (and well-marketed) legislation. I fear that a stumbling block is all that it is, however.
You didn't answer the question.
What in the Constitution authorizes the Congress to take money from the treasury and distribute it arbitrarily?
The 10th Amendment puts the ball back in your court:
What in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to take money from the treasury and distribute it arbitrarily?
Exactly.
There's far too much concern over "the rich" (and what may or may not be good for them) and not enough concern over what's actually a good policy for everyone.
Just because some rich people may benefit doesn't mean others don't. Making that assumption is called class warfare, and it's not a good basis for policy decisions.
The rules ARE enforceable if you keep most stuff server side, but at the expense of increased latency, higher server load and very poor user experience.
If you define "end state" to mean "state visible to other users/applications", then the end state is all you need to verify.
Can you give an example where you need to verify some transient state that is invisible to other users?
Men will always think about procreation because that's what they are told all their life.
Or perhaps that's an evolved behavior, and nobody needs to be told anything.
You were defending a "news" outlet for its "disregard for problems such as his drug use".
It's not the news outlets' role to disregard news just because they don't happen to think that the law that was broken was not relevant to their competency.
Is it common knowledge now because of the Washington Post? Or is it common knowledge because others reported it? If it's news, and a news outlet doesn't report it, I'm not going to trust that news outlet in the future.
It was reported
I didn't say it wasn't reported.
On what factual basis do you make the claim that I'm an "ignoramus"?
What relevance does drug use in a person's youth have to do with their competence and worth now as an adult?
You're missing the point. It's not the news outlets' role to decide whether a candidate is breaking an important or an unimportant law. Evidence that a candidate has broken the law is news. Period.
GWB's drunk driving conviction was reported. Even Sarah Palin's husband's drunk driving conviction was reported.
It's the duty of a news outlet to report all known illegal acts by a candidate. And the public can decide whether they are just youthful indiscretions or paint the picture of a reckless person.
For what it's worth, I don't care about some drug thing in the past either. What I do care about is whether I can trust the news outlets, or if they are sanitizing it first and removing all the stuff that I "shouldn't" care about.
No nation is well served when that sort of tit for tat news reporting is considered acceptable... [Fox News] has historically lacked an appropriate wall between the editorials and the actual news.
This doesn't make sense. "Tit for tat" only happens on news commentary shows (clearly editorials, not news), as far as I can tell.
Can you give one example of a news show on fox news that has a "tit for tat" exchange?
Although it's about 10 years too
late and that ship has sailed already.
Too late for what?
So intuitively it seems it shouldn't be that hard to design a system which controls costs.
But in practice, some person somewhere must be the one controlling costs. That's what makes it difficult -- would someone in the government deny care? And if so, on what basis? That standard is hard to develop and apply consistently.
Of course, as you pointed out, we can't avoid that in some cases. But I think it can be limited to catastrophic medical needs, and the rest can be left up to the patient.
But it's only economical to insure yourself against risks, not known expenses.
I think we agree more than we disagree. Usually it takes a lot of arguing for people to agree with me on this point.
But at the same time you've introduced a moral hazard which discourages people from living a healthy lifestyle and pursuing preventative care by insuring them treatment against catastrophic illness.
There are already well-established solutions to this -- just look to other insurance industries. If you get your preventative care regularly (checkups, vaccines), your premiums stay low. If you neglect it, your premiums start to rise quickly.
The thing I like about this system is that it is much more economically stable. Costs are controlled for non-catastrophic conditions and diagnosis by free-market pricing. If patients neglected regular care, they would pay for the additional risk of catastrophe with increased premiums.
There's still the issue of emergency treatment, which is a good point. I don't really know if there's much we can do to solve that completely, because we're not just going to let someone die in the street if we can reasonably help it.
However, I think this will make the problem less because:
1. More people will be able to afford insurance, because it's only insuring against catastrophe.
2. More people will be able to afford routine care if they watch what they spend. Patients will demand that simple treatments be provided by RNs or some lower-level form of a doctor, because they are paying so they have an incentive to seek more economically efficient treatments.
Government programs really have almost no mechanism to control costs, even for very simple, routine things. I'd much rather that we gave those in need (that is, not everybody, but some small fraction of people who truly can't pay) medical vouchers and allowed them to use the money for routine care and catastrophic insurance premiums.
So there may be some situations in which the taxpayers need to pick up the bill -- medical vouchers and unpaid emergency room care -- but let's scope that down to what's absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I worded it poorly, but what I meant was the supposedly non-partisan voter encouragements, such as teachers encouraging students to vote.
I don't think the post to which I was replying was talking about the same partisan "get out the vote" stuff that you're talking about (which all parties do).
Since the uninformed votes, being random, will for the most part split evenly down the middle between the Democrats and the Republicans
I agreed with you until I saw this.
Why do you think almost all the efforts to "get out the vote" are from Democrats and democratic allies? Getting a bigger voter turnout helps Democrats.
Why is it so hard to consult medical experts and clearly define a policy which meets people's 99% of people's basic needs...
I don't know, but it is hard to define a policy that meets that criteria and has some way to control costs.
Private insurance is in fact already "judging" how people's "needs" are or are not met.
Absolutely.
I'm not claiming our current system is perfect -- far from it. But we have opposing forces: doctors on one side, recommending/performing treatment, and insurance companies acting as the economic agent, controlling costs. And the patient plays both roles to a significant extent: paying copayments, unreimbursed treatments, and some prescription costs; so the prices have a limited rationing effect.
With government-run health care, we can't effectively use price as a rationing tool, so other forms of rationing must be employed: lines, bureaucracy, and reduced quality. I think those are all less desirable tools than price.
But I share your contempt for the current system. I think the problem is due to many 3rd-party payers, which make it very hard to control costs, even for simple, routine operations. I think the problem would be worse with government as the payer, however.
I think the best system would be for patients to pay for routine and low-cost treatments (vaccinations, normal dental work, checkups, etc), and to have catastrophic insurance to pay for expensive treatments that are unlikely to come along, or treatments for diagnosis that are unlikely to occur. And if you get diagnosed while you have insurance, the insurance company should be on the hook for the entire duration of the condition (or forever, if incurable), regardless of whether you continue your policy.
You're arguing against a strawman with irrelevant cliches
Not a strawman, and not irrelevant. The basis for the post to which I replied was that there could feasibly be enough health care such that nobody was left wanting. That's a fallacy, because in any economic system, people are always left wanting.
We have the resources in this country to provide basic health care that covers 99% of people's medical needs.
Who defines those needs? "Need" is meaningless in economic terms without some judge making the determination of what's a need and what's not.
It's the role of government to develop policies that promote an efficient allocation of resources.
You seem to think the government is that judge, and can effectively allocate these medical resources such that 99% of peoples' "needs" are met.
If they keep redefining "need" to be less and less, than the government may be able to meet that criteria. Is medical research a "need"? How much medical research is needed, and how much is just frivolous? Is a doctor needed for all medical treatment, or is a nurse sometimes good enough? Is access to a doctor at 2am a need?
I think you're making a mistake thinking that the government will somehow provide better judgment, or is somehow not constrained by economic influences. They are, they just use different mechanisms to ration care, like lines, tests, bureaucracy, reducing quality, etc.
Yeah, I love the idea that poeple will use 'too much' health care if it's free.
If there is no scarcity, than we're not even talking about economics. So let's just let medicine be like air: plenty for all.
The problem is that there obviously is a scarcity. Doctors' offices are busy, ERs are busy. Doctors often work long hours, but not for the pure joy of medicine.
And considering the 'shortages' people are talking about are for surgery and MRIs and whatnot, none of which you can visit without a reason, it's not like those people will be using them up.
Without a "reason" acceptable to whom? MRIs have no medical downside really, so they are medically wise in many situations. But they are expensive, so they are not economically wise in all situations.
So, someone is making the grim choice that the risk of leaving some condition undetected is not worth the economic costs of an MRI to know for sure. That's economics.
do self-described libertarians choose to focus on the programs that benefit the sick, poor, and politically unconnected and ignore the programs that benefit the powerful, wealthy, and politically connected?
First, my own philosophy: I'm not against a helping hand for the poor, but SS is for everyone. I know we can't possibly help everyone in the world, so I just want to limit these handouts to people who are legal citizens, and who are truly in need. I'd also prefer most of these programs were state programs rather than federal, because of constitutional issues and because I think they would be more effective that way.
As to why I go after SS: there is an aspect of Social Security in particular (but also other programs) that really bothers me: Social Security is a huge transfer of resources from people likely to invest (earners at the peak of their earning potential) to people almost certain to consume it.
This country focuses entirely too much on consumption. Every year you hear that we should spend all our money during the holidays because "it will be good for the economy". I have not found any convincing explanation of that, ever, and I have read more than a couple economics books (currently reading an economics book by a liberal, for the record).
After production and consumption, investment is what you have left over. Investment is the reason we don't start over as hunter-gatherers every generation. This isn't specific to capitalism; it's true for every economic system. The U.S. has a high standard of living, and a lot of economic power, because we attracted a lot of investment in the past, and we continue to attract a lot of investment. Not just from our own citizens, but investment from people all over the world.
But all of this is quite fragile -- more fragile than many people realize. As soon as other countries become more desirable for investment, we lose our plentiful capital overnight. We are seeing the beginning of this, as China attracts more investment. And believe me -- their citizens are saving every dime -- not consuming it all every holiday season.
So, to me, something like Social Security or Medicare is a kind of perfect storm: we strip the ability to invest from our own citizens (who are most likely to invest here), and the increased tax burden on domestic workers makes America a less desirable place for foreign investment.
Guess what, I pay taxes!
Maybe you should have a couple children, then. You're missing out on free money!
Sales tax is a state tax... are you suggesting that the federal government reimbursing what people pay to the state is not welfare?
Regardless, the number that matters is the absolute number. Are they a net tax payer or do they net money back?
Social Security and Medicare are self funded.
All of the fund is "saved" in government bonds... that is, lent to the government, and put right into the "general pie", and spent[1]. In fact, much of it is spent on things like water subsidies, etc. Thus, there's no logical difference between Social Security, Medicare and water subsidies.
If you aren't convinced by that argument, consider this: If you loan me money, and I use it to take a vacation; then you have saved it and I have spent it. If you loan me the money, and I "save" it in "me bonds" (that is, I loan it to myself), and then I use it to take a vacation; you have still saved it, and I have still spent it. The reason is that loaning money to someone else is saving (or investing) precisely because I can no longer spend it. Loaning money to myself is a no-op because I can still spend it -- it's just a clever way to shuffle the books around.
What's more, Social Security was running a huge surplus in the past, but that surplus has been entirely spent. That means that the government has become accustomed to using the SS surplus to fund other programs. And even if we continue to raise enough in SS taxes to make the payouts, just having a smaller SS surplus will cause huge budget problems.
This is why, if it were a private plan, it would be illegal.
Therefore the only people who should receive SS or Medicare are those who "fall off" because they are too poor
A very good point. When people advocate social programs, they use the poor as an excuse. But the programs don't stop with the poor. They never do. Government busybodies want to control everything.
Neither Social Security nor Medicare are welfare programs.
Your definition is clearly different than mine.
You seem to be including water subsidies in your definition, which certainly don't just go to those who "need" it (whatever that means), they also go to people who are doing just fine. Similarly for social security and medicare.
So, what is your definition of welfare, such that it includes what subsidies, but not SS or medicare?
It's all arbitrary redistribution of wealth, as far as I'm concerned.
You mean like the 700 billion dollar bailout to Wall Street CEOs that pay no taxes?
That's a separate complaint, and I certainly don't like that idea either.
As a practical matter, I only went along with the bailout (not supported, just went along without denouncing it) because a lot of people -- some of whom were non-partisans that I respect very much -- seemed to think it was a necessary evil.
The only constant is that the middle class gets $crewed.
That's simply not true. The middle class during the middle ages was much more screwed than they are today. At some point in history some very good things happened, and it's worth examining what those things were, why they were good, and what might continue that trend into the future.