[olug] OT: evil poll

[Thomas D. Williamson]

Quoting Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T <jeffh at dundeemt.com>:

> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Thomas D. Williamson <
> twilliam at inebraska.com> wrote:
>
>> My father-in-law was dependent on big government programs the last
>> years of his life. Were it not for Medicare, Medicaid and Social
>> Security, he would have lived a very short unpleasant life and left my
>> mother-in-law destitute. I see this happen with other families
>> regularly.
>
> I am sorry for your loss.
>
> Social Security is a pyramid scheme - a bad plan that depends on large
> families and expanding numbers of contributors that is coming to a crashing
> end in the near future.  This isn't crazy talk, the numbers themselves bear
> this out.

The ability to maintain Social Security is more a matter of keeping  
the money contributed where it is needed and not borrowed for other  
general budget items as the Regan Administration did. The one increase  
that would generate enough money for long term solvency is increasing  
the income ceiling that Social Security is being paid on, that is,  
including up to 80% of the wage earners would change the flow. This  
would mean about 12% to 14% more of wager earners would pay Social  
Security Taxes for a full year.

> Health care is a whole issue unto itself.  Does anyone have any real reason
> why health care is not faster/better/cheaper?  That entire industry doesn't
> even believe in the pick 2 idiom.  It, like education, has way to many
> middle-men leaching on it.  I just read a story about how some doctors are
> now refusing insurance completely.  The story reported that after expenses
> and payroll, the doctor was only making about $15-20/hour.  Recent trends in
> medicine with doctors choosing specilization over GP due to financical
> considerations would seem to back up this account.  So, If doctors can't
> afford to just be doctors and health insurance is growing out of control --
> there is something woefully wrong with the system.  Making it bigger doesn't
> mean solving the problem.

The question is which bureaucracy do you want controlling health care.  
Most modern industrialized nations have opted for some public system  
or a public and private hybrid. Our current option is a private  
bureaucracy system of insurance companies, and then there is a move to  
a hybrid system where the government covers certain levels of need and  
a private pay supplemental insurance takes over, unless you are  
financial unable to pay then the government pays.

The specialization/general or family practice division moves back and  
forth depending on the plans insurance companies are supporting. In  
the late 1970s and early 1980s many were going into general/family  
practice because access to specialists was being limited through the  
HMO plans being used. As a patient in one of those plans I could not  
see a specialist until I saw a GP or FP physician to clear me for  
higher level care. Only in the long run the GP and FP physician may  
not have referred until two or three visits--getting a fee for each  
visit. And then when referred finding that the specialists could  
identify and treat the issues with one visit. After seeing this  
pattern develop, many plans moved to a PPO plan where there were  
negotiated payment plans for many doctors in all areas of practice.  
The next phase we are moving toward is insurance negotiating with  
local heath care systems to bring more areas under a common  
negotiation. It is easier to negotiate with an Alegent Health System  
or Methodist Health System or The Nebraska Medical Center, and have  
all the doctors under each of them receiving the same payment schedule  
than to negotiate with each doctor individually. The doctors who are  
unaligned or independent of an over arching health care system will be  
seeing more of the costs effecting them directly. Many physicians who  
are a part of health care systems are paid a salary not directly  
derived from patient care, but volume of patients and the patient's  
loyalty to the system.


>> When the corrections for the Depression 1931, after the 1929 Crash,
>> occurred, the solution of government programs to create employment for
>> about a third of the 25% of the population unemployed stimulated the
>> economy and allowed the rebuilding of the industrial base that when WW
>> II began the tooling up for that conflict kept us a head of the German
>> industries.
>
> That entire point is open to argument.  It could also be argued that the
> size and scope of government intervention prolonged the problem by creating
> a situation where lending essentially froze -- in many ways there are
> parallels to today.  It could also be argued that it was the war itself that
> brought us out of the problem.  I've never heard anyone argue that if it
> wasn't for the "New Deal" the allies would/could have lost the war.

There was this little program called "Lend-Lease" that allowed US  
industrial capacity to be used to support our allies long before we  
involved in WW 11. The Second World War began in 1939 for Europe and  
1937 in Asia, we did not get involved with the combat until well after  
December 7, 1941.

>> Conversely when you have an administration that acts out the concept
>> that government programs are bad there are the failures that we saw
>> with FEMA. We saw it in the lack of inspections for safety and purity
>> from international imports of food, drugs, and products for children.
>
> Failure by FEMA?  What is the standard reaction time for FEMA,  On an event
> of that scope, a reaction time of 3-7 days for federal help is quite
> normal.  As for the rest of your arugment, I don't have anything to add
> without specific instances to analyze.

Prior to the Bush Administration, the FEMA was an effective  
organization with well qualified leaders to plan and support people in  
the midst of disasters. It was a model other governments used for  
their own emergency management systems. In 1975 FEMA was here within a  
day of the tornado and getting people organized for housing and other  
needs. Then again the National Guard was also here the next day and  
patrolling the damage and assisting those in need. The poor response  
has been a recent phenomenon, exacerbated by a lack of other usually  
available support system. In New Orleans, because we did not have  
National Guard troops, the government sent Blackwater mercenaries to  
provide "security." And because they were a non-governmental agency  
FEMA had no way to communicate with them and coordinate activities.  
The budget for FEMA had been reduced and staff cut under the Bush  
Administration.

>> There are many things that "big government" does for us as a nation
>> and a society that individuals and local communities cannot do for
>> themselves. It is such a natural part of civil society we do not see
>> it immediately.
>
> Yes, and those things are layed out in the constitution.  I would only
> rarely agree when the government tries to expand beyond that scope.
>
> Why is it that people believe that government can operate in some magical
> realm that operatess with different laws of cash flows than the ones you and
> I must face?

If you print the currency and back it there are "magical" powers that  
not every one can do. After the Civil War there were many local  
currencies printed up by local banks without much regulation. It was  
an open market for banking, but that was accompanied by panics, local  
recessions, and depressions finally coming to its head in the Great  
Depression. For fun the Bank of Florence Nebraska replicated some of  
its own currency from the 1870s. That original currency became  
worthless in a panic a little later and the bank had all of its  
federal currency withdrawn. So although a currency control is alluded  
to in the constitution, its full form did not materialize until after  
the Great Depression, when Keynesian economic models were used to  
stimulate the economy. Then the ability to print money and pay out it  
through a national debt infused cash into the frozen banking industry.  
Remember it was not until 1932 that the banks began to fail and the  
Bank Holiday was declared to set up the guarantee system we now know  
as FDIC. Foreclosures were rampant, but the property being take had  
not marketable value as there was no one to buy it. (That sounds  
familiar today.)

>
> Regards,
> -Jeff

I do not expect to convince anyone regarding those issues we are  
discussing, this just gives me a chance to say a few things that have  
been on my mind for a while.

Thanks,

Tom Williamson