Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary... "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO


wait...I think I've got this....from what I can discern from what you've written....you'd like to create a efficient and effective benevolent government program run from a benevolent government office that will be efficient and effective...and filled with benevolent government officials and underlings who will likewise be efficient and effective and what?...non-union?...and whose job it will be to decide who gets assistance from their benevolent budgets despite your railing against and pointing out the problems with all of this benevolence for quite some time....so that things like what happened to your friend will never happen to anyone again because that is the only way to prevent such things from happening....

sadly...the only thing that skirts reality in all of that is the story about your friend........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary... "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO

Scott, the difference between me and them, as that I wouldn't mandate that we all pay for the voluntary, sometime-unethical choices that we make. I'm not saying you pay for my drug needles.

I'm not saying I have a vision for how this would work. I am saying that we can do better, in my opinion. If you need some details, I'd say that we all pay some amount into a pool, that could be tapped into to ease the burden of catastrophic and uncontrollable medical expenses.

I'm glad you weren't in the Army Chief Of Staff in 1938. You want to increase the military tenfold? Impossible. Stop showing news reels of European Jews being gassed, I'm not persuadable by such 'emotional gymnastics'. How can we fight on 2 fronts? Why should we have to sacrifice to save Europe and China from enslavement?

Obamacare, clearly, is about much more than helping our neighbors. It's a vehicle to fund a whole liberal wishlist like contraceptives, and to increase the scope of the feds - that's the goal. I'm talking about things, I think, that are more vital to the human condition.

That something is hard, or will be flawed, doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing.

[scottw]

well...looks like I nailed that...except that the benevolent government official will efficiently and effectively decide what are ethical and unethical choices

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm glad you weren't in the Army Chief Of Staff in 1938. You want to increase the military tenfold? Impossible. Stop showing news reels of European Jews being gassed, I'm not persuadable by such 'emotional gymnastics'. How can we fight on 2 fronts? Why should we have to sacrifice to save Europe and China from enslavement?

"glad you weren't in charge when Hitler was killing Jews"...that's good one Jim...real original

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

"glad you weren't in charge when Hitler was killing Jews"...that's good one Jim...real original

The fact that it wasn't original, doesn't mean that it wasn't on point. Your argument against my thought, was that it would be difficult and imperfect. Some causes are noble enough that you take them head-on, even though they will be difficult and imperfect. Sometimes when you have the ability to do something, then you also have the responsibility to do it. That was Bush's argument wen he launched his AIDS treatment plan in Africa. It was difficult, and it was imperfect, and probably has some waste. But Stanford University estimates that it saved more than one million lives. If I have to work an extra month or two before I retire, to pay for my share of the cost of saving a million lives, that's something I'll gladly take.

Scott, you and Detbuch pointed out a long lit of absolutely valid concerns about why such a thing would likely be inefficient, wasteful, possibly ineffective, and maybe unconstitutional. I concede all of that.

I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?

I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?

I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.

I see people who are at that age working in the places that you speak of, one that comes right to mind is working at the cash register at the CVS down the street...he was an owner of a furniture store here for most of my life...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that? I fully expect to still be working at that age, maybe I need a government program....as unfortunate as your friend's circumstance is...people get kicked in the nuts by life all of the time...he could also be a millionaire by the time he's 75 with the right circumstances... you seem to be assuming the worst for him...there are plenty of examples of people that turn these things into great successes... but it's less likely he'll succeed in this economy being strangled by all of the debt that we owe due to the other misguided programs that were sold as intended to prevent people from having to deal with the unfortunate things that happen in life and our steady move to a government assisted society rather than an entrepreneurial free market capitalistic model ever since we reached "peak capitalism" back during the recovery summer

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that?

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. but that is what you are asking for in a sense...removal of life's roadblocks to "guarantee" the outcome would be what it would have been if not for life's bumps...or in this case hurdles...and you'd like government to decide which are bumps and which are hurdles But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity. we have many...how are those working out in your opinion?...rhetorical

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. yes I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

you should know by now that when government takes the reigns they tend to blur those "distinguishable differences" so as to include as many in their "charity' as possible...there are plenty of current examples

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

The difference between equal "opportunity" and equal "outcome" is a convenient rhetorical distinction used to politically strive for the latter. The glue that equates the two concepts is the word "equal". In reality there is no such thing as an equal opportunity. Opportunities cannot be equal in actual time, space, and matter. Even less so within the more complex realm of human beings and human nature.

If by "opportunity" you mean the chance to acquire a finite existing object, obviously, not only is it not possible for "everybody" to acquire that object, but no matter how assiduously "everybody" attempts to meet the requirements needed to get that object, there are those factors which you keep insisting must be overcome for everyone to have the same "opportunity"--those pesky things that no one can possibly control--hereditary differences that physically or mentally or psychologically (even spiritually, if you will), qualify in some way some more than others to get the object. There is a pre-existing condition which nullifies an "equal" opportunity to achieve the goal.

On the other hand, if you mean by opportunity one's individual capacity to achieve personal goals, even in the face of difficult obstacles, that is, treating every obstacle as an opportunity rather than a defeat, that would be a "more" equality of opportunity, one which cannot be tampered with by politics. If you politically remove the obstacle, you erase the opportunity for the individual to overcome it. You do not create "more" equal opportunity, you erase the opportunity in the hope of creating a more equal outcome.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

You judge that the reason those supposedly less fortunate friends are deservedly struggling is because they didn't take advantage of opportunity to make good choices rather than bad ones. How many choices in the sphere of what you consider good and bad were there to make? If the good choices were narrowed to a smaller finite number, would it be possible for everybody to succeed in the limited space provided by the market? Would some, even most, not win the coveted positions which would go to the "most qualified" amongst all?

And what part did those factors which they had zero ability to control have in making choices--inherited abilities and personality characteristics? And those that chose "communications," did they all fail? Or did some succeed in doing "well" with that choice? And in filling the limited number of positions that excluded others who made "bad choices"? Some will "do better" in the financial arena than others. And that will be the case, no matter how hard everyone tries nor how wise they are. The political guise of creating equal opportunity (outside of obvious discriminatory practices such as race) cannot do so, and any attempts are actually trying to create equal outcomes. As far as "more" equal opportunities, some are more equal than others.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

.

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast,

[justplugit]

Jim, I understand how you must feel, especially being these people are friends of yours and a child is involved. I don't think there are any answers at this time to pay for such an event that no one could predict. Any Govt. program would be a losing proposition with waste fraud and the usual incompetency.

The only thing I could think of would be some kind of a catastrophic insurance policy, similar to an Umbrella Policy which you can add to a Home Owners Policy,added to a medical insurance policy to cover those kind of medical issues. The cost, I am sure would be very expensive, but the cost of medicine, which will never go down, and is now a fact of life. As our technology's progress costs will continue to rise and everyone wants the best. The days of Doc Adams getting paid with vegetables are long gone, although I do know of some Docs who do NC work for those who can't pay, but that's not the big costs of high tech and hospital costs.
Competition is the only way to keep things some what in check, and the Govt. is unwilling to do what they could do to reduce costs by allowing Interstate Competition and Tort Reform.
I feel for this family as they are truly between a rock and a hard place.

[scottw]

no one can argue that the circumstances for this family are tragic...it's a little surprising to see Jim however, who spends significant time railing about the inefficiencies and looming financial disaster created by various government programs and the inherent dynamics that occur when government involves itself in many things, would seek to have government attempt to solve this issue...but more and more we seem to think that government should and could provide the solutions to many things, with the right people in charge of course....government seems quite content to supplant private charity with it's own form of compassion

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=scottw;1020128it's a little surprising to see Jim however, who spends significant time railing about the inefficiencies and looming financial disaster created by various government programs and the inherent dynamics that occur when government involves itself in many things, would seek to have government attempt to solve this issue...[/QUOTE]

Scott, I agree with you on the vast majority of the issues, an dI respect the way you state your opinions, including the way you are stating your opinions here. You make a very, very compelling case, and I admit I don't have an effective response to many of your arguments.

I do rail against the hole we are in with entitlements, as it was avoidable...I don't want to go broke myself, so that we can reward blocks of citizens with financial perks that are insanely expensive.

My assumption is that we could, collectively, make a big dent in reducing stress of people like my friends, without making extreme sacrifices. Hell, if the feds could wisen up and gut (or eliminate) wasteful boondoggles like the Dept of education, dept of energy, etc...that alone might provide the funds. It'd be a better allocation of those dollars, that's for sure...

Good jousting, though.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good jousting, though.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Jim, I understand how you must feel, especially being these people are friends of yours and a child is involved. I don't think there are any answers at this time to pay for such an event that no one could predict. Any Govt. program would be a losing proposition with waste fraud and the usual incompetency.

The only thing I could think of would be some kind of a catastrophic insurance policy, similar to an Umbrella Policy which you can add to a Home Owners Policy,added to a medical insurance policy to cover those kind of medical issues. The cost, I am sure would be very expensive, but the cost of medicine, which will never go down, and is now a fact of life. As our technology's progress costs will continue to rise and everyone wants the best. The days of Doc Adams getting paid with vegetables are long gone, although I do know of some Docs who do NC work for those who can't pay, but that's not the big costs of high tech and hospital costs.
Competition is the only way to keep things some what in check, and the Govt. is unwilling to do what they could do to reduce costs by allowing Interstate Competition and Tort Reform.
I feel for this family as they are truly between a rock and a hard place.

I don't pretend to have any kind of a solution. But I don't believe that it's beyond the abilities for us to improve the current situation. One of the my favorite things about this country, is that we are at our best when things are at their worst.