2009-8-24 08:18:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog which can be read online at Idaho Statesman Letters To The Editor. These exchanges were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey to The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"I got all the way to the words 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' before I stopped wasting my time reading -- arp, you're an idiot."
JJ:
Congratulations! You got through three words of an opposing view. That's three more than most Lefties achieve.
"Boiseriver" wrote:
"How much do you think it would cost if corporations were not regulated? How many more deaths and illnesses would result from increased industrial pollution? [...]"
JJ:
I'm probably bigger on clean air and water than you are but believe we can achieve better results through incentives than black and white regulations with their unintended consequences.
By the way, greenhouse emissions from smokestacks and CO2 [carbon dioxide] as a whole were reduced during the Bush administration.
Also there is a lot more to the cost of regulations than clean air. By anyone's standards, except for the religious Left, $1.2 trillion for regulation is obscene.
JJ:
Before we jump the gun trying to copy socialized countries and spend trillions more on socialized medicine we need to learn how to first imitate them on one most important item -- cost.
Did you know that the U.S. government spends more per person now on socialized health care than any other country? That's right, through Medicare, Medicaid and other programs we already spend more per person than Europe. That means if we did nothing more than spend as much per person as France and had their thrift we could now provide every man woman and child France-like health care by only using present government funds and have money left over. Everyone could discontinue their private insurance and private health care payments.
Not counting private expenditures or insurance the U.S. government presently spends $3088 per person; the UK - $2401, France - 2748, Germany - $2595. Japan - $2046.
Through partially socialized health care the U.S. government is already spending more than the countries mentioned. Imagine what we would spend if we had universal care.
These figures tell us one important fact. The only way we can afford universal health care is to first copy Europe in reducing costs, and remember these costs mentioned have nothing to do with private insurance or private payments.
"Rastaman" wrote:
"Joseph -- on the surface your numbers speak to US government inefficiency. On closer inspection, your numbers are deceitful. It is also disingenuous to state more people will cause more per capita expenses -- it is the exact opposite when we consider who would join the pool."
JJ:
You've got to understand simple math here. Suppose you have six kids and three earn their own spending money and three do not. To help the kids without money you give the three an allowance of $20 a week. This averages out to $10 a week per child. To find the average you use the total number of people. If you then decide to be "fair' and give each child $20 a week then the average doubles to $20 a week.
Even so we spend $6714 a year on healthcare and of this the government pays an average of $3088. If we covered more people then obviously the average amount spent per person would go up even if the total amount spent (from all sources) stayed the same.
To think we would save money with a government takeover when there is currently around $60 billion a year lost to fraud in Medicare alone is not logical.
"Rastaman":
"Joseph -- your math and logic is faulty at best. With single-payer, we are paying for services rendered from a pool of money -- we are not paying for advertising and corporate profits."
JJ:
My math was right on and the average of $3088 per person the government spends has nothing to do with advertising and insurance profits. There will be corporate profits under any system.
"Rastaman":
"Let's keep it basic, let's say there is currently 100 seniors on Medicare who need $3,088 in reimbursements per year."
JJ:
Now remember that the $3088 was an average of current socialized health care spending for all citizens. The cost would be more than $9000 for Medicare recipients. For the sake of argument we'll go with the $3088.
"Rastaman":
"Let's say by expanding the pool to cover everyone we add 100 25-year olds to the pool who only need $1,000 in medical services per year."
JJ:
The trouble is this is not realistic. The range of people are from 1-65 in age that would be added and many with expensive medical conditions. Then where private insurance may deny a claim the government would accept it adding to costs.
"Rastaman":
"Although the overall cost goes up, the average per capita cost is now $2,044 per year. The rub is single-payer works only if everyone is in the pool."
JJ:
This is a theory with many flaws. North Korea is applying the same idea of eliminating overhead and pooling resources and their people are lucky if they can find some tree bark to eat.
"Rastaman":
"And we can hire people to investigate and collect on fraudulent claims."
JJ:
Then why do we not do it now and save $60 billion a year on Medicare?
"Rastaman":
"The money to the insurance companies might as well be used to fire the crematories. [...]"
JJ:
My post had nothing to do with insurance money. The $3088 only includes average government spending on current socialized medicine.
JJ:
Ken Taylor points out a typical problem with government running things. Even though all overhead is eliminated all Mr. Taylor and others get for his $10 was a sticker.
Do you think it will be any different if government runs health care? Why Lefties have such blind faith is an amazing thing. What most likely would happen is we would pay more and receive less and not even have a bumper sticker to show for it.
What's that I hear? Universal Health Care would be free? Yeah, right. If you think the money we pay to taxes is free money then I have a house to sell you on Simplot's hill.
"YouAgain" wrote:
"Hey 73.2 [JJ], which party created this program? Which party runs this state? Gee, you have a repuke run state that creates this BS program and somehow, someway you spin it to complain on Universal Health care."
JJ:
For the hundredth time I am a Libertarian, not a Republican. You need to argue with what I am. Not with what I am not.
It matters not which party expands government, the rate of inefficiency is about the same. Big wasteful government is what I am against, and if that comes through the vehicle of Big Republicans or Big Democrats, it matters not. Dogmatic Lefties seem to have extreme difficulty in understanding this as everyone that does not fit their exact mold is seen as an enemy.
"YouAgain":
"I got some suggestions for you old man, but it would be censored on the forum."
JJ:
And when you grow up you'll hopefully learn to speak respectfully to your elders. You'd better not let Mommy and Daddy see how you are speaking to me.
"Run" wrote:
"For the BILLIONTH time 73.2 [JJ], your social political philosophy PRECLUDES you from being a Libertarian."
JJ:
I have heard no reason from you for even the first time. And which part of my philosophy is out of harmony with being a Libertarian?
Remember to respond to what I say, think and believe and not fabricate.
"Run" wrote:
"I appreciate your attempt to skirt the issue, but I'm afraid that you didn't answer the question."
JJ:
I didn't skirt your question but did answer it. Now let me see if I can reword so you can understand. Since I believe in minimal government I would like the government to just allow us to make any contract we want no matter what sex. Legal contracts are all we need, hetro or same sex. How can I support legalization of same sex marriages when I am against the way all marriages are handled now? Marriage should be through private contract no matter who it is including polygamists.
As to how the world handles same sex marriages now I do not see any change in the degree of liberty one way or another so I do not care one way or another as long as it does not cost me money. That's about as libertarian as you can get.
-- End Of Part One --
Go To:
Next article in series: Local Posts #32, Part Two
Previous article in series: Local Posts #31, Part One
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved