Should Social Security and Medicare be abolished?

[John Dibble]

Eventually, yes, or at least great reforms in both. Social Security should be privatized or made optional. Honor payments already made. Not sure how medicare could be reformed, but it needs to be or it needs to go.

[John Dibble]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

How exactly would the economy or the government be unsustainable without these two programs? Technology wouldn't go away, so the infrastructure for a global economy would still exist - you also neglect the fact that without these programs taxes would be lower, and people would have more money to spend. These two programs are completely unnecessary to sustain the government or the economy.

Heck, if anything such programs can make the government and economy unsustainable by having them rather than a lack of them - they can bankrupt the government, so taxes are raised, harming the economy as well.

[John Dibble]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

How exactly would the economy or the government be unsustainable without these two programs? Technology wouldn't go away, so the infrastructure for a global economy would still exist - you also neglect the fact that without these programs taxes would be lower, and people would have more money to spend. These two programs are completely unnecessary to sustain the government or the economy.

Heck, if anything such programs can make the government and economy unsustainable by having them rather than a lack of them - they can bankrupt the government, so taxes are raised, harming the economy as well.

Way back when, mainly before the agricultural revolution, economy was on the whole a very small scale affair, based mainly on simple kinship relations.  Thus, as the main economic unit, the family structure also provided the support.  But, now that economy has shifted into a much larger scale and the economic role of the family and its ability to support has been diminished (through changes in the division of labor system and such things), support needs to come from the same collective economic level, or it cannot be counted upon to lend any real social or economic stability or consistency (which would be quite a problem for the economy).  Social Security used to be an easy family affair, when everybody lived in temporary shelters or the children invariably lived with parents - in a neolocal money-based society with a complex division of labor, the family is by necessity a less important and stable economic structure.

Without those programs taxes would be lower, but then people would still need money to pay for the services they would otherwise have received.  Those who cannot pay for such things without the aid of a progressive tax system are going to prove quite a burden on society when they're dying in the streets and are no longer able to do all the grunt work the wealthier folks wouldn't think of doing.

Curiously enough, government programs can be quite effective.  As I've mentioned in another thread, most every developed nation besides the US pays less per capita and receives better healthcare, according to the WHO.  And somehow, there are still rich people in Europe and Japan.  Hmm.

Nobody said there weren't rich people elsewhere - they aren't communists after all. However, you VASTLY overstate what would happen without these programs - there would still be jobs, there would still be a global economy. In fact, it is probably the case that more social programs would lower our productivity(countries with higher tax rates usually correlate with lower productivity, Japan being a notable exception, mainly due to their cultural work ethic).

[John Dibble]

That's why there's so much talk about importing Canadian drugs.

People talk about importing 'Canadian' drugs, but they are wholly ignorant on why drugs imported from there are cheaper. The vast majority of those drugs were developed and researched in the U.S.

Canada relies on our free-market system to develop those drugs. Their price caps are what keep the prices low there - and guess what, that raises the prices here, because the required 10 years of research to market new drugs in the U.S. ain't cheap. If we had their system, with their price caps, we wouldn't be getting much in the way of new medicine, because it would cease to be profitable to make it.

[John Dibble]

That's why there's so much talk about importing Canadian drugs.

People talk about importing 'Canadian' drugs, but they are wholly ignorant on why drugs imported from there are cheaper. The vast majority of those drugs were developed and researched in the U.S.

Canada relies on our free-market system to develop those drugs. Their price caps are what keep the prices low there - and guess what, that raises the prices here, because the required 10 years of research to market new drugs in the U.S. ain't cheap. If we had their system, with their price caps, we wouldn't be getting much in the way of new medicine, because it would cease to be profitable to make it.

One would think, then, that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't sell drugs to Canada.  Are you sure you don't mean that the Canadian government subsidizes drug purchases?

No. It's price caps. And as I said, they just offset things by raising the prices here. They still make a little bit of money selling there, but if the prices were the same here it would not be worth the investment.

[John Dibble]

Yes, they help their own people - AT OUR DETRIMENT. If they did not have price caps, or at least raised the cap a bit, the prices might just noramalize here.

And what's wrong with people trying to make a profit? Seriously - people working in their own self interest often leads to technological innovation, making everyone's lives easier. If the medicine industry wasn't so profitable, there wouldn't be as much motivation to advance it. You can't rely on everyone to be selfless, but self-interest, or greed if you must make it a negative, is very reliable.

[John Dibble]

Yes, they help their own people - AT OUR DETRIMENT. If they did not have price caps, or at least raised the cap a bit, the prices might just noramalize here.

And what's wrong with people trying to make a profit? Seriously - people working in their own self interest often leads to technological innovation, making everyone's lives easier. If the medicine industry wasn't so profitable, there wouldn't be as much motivation to advance it. You can't rely on everyone to be selfless, but self-interest, or greed if you must make it a negative, is very reliable.

Somehow I get the feeling that such a massive profit margin isn't going back into creativity (especially since that profit margin already factors in R&D).  And I sincerely doubt that the executives of these companies are going to bow out if they're only making $15m each rather than $20m.  Besides, if we institute our own price caps or subsidies, ol' reliable self-interest will motivate them to be more efficient about their work in order to maximize profit.

They are business, not government, so they are already operating efficiently in all likeliness. If we institute price-caps, especially ones as low as in Canada, yes things will cease to be profitable. You know how low the prices are in Canada as compared to here - much lower than 18.5% of the cost here - so it would be inevitable that the profitability would be much much less. And if we had subsidies(which won't lower profitability), it's only an illusion of cheaper medicine - when the government does something it always costs someone, ie the taxpayers. Let's not also forget that subsidies will likely lead to more government corruption - certain corporations will no doubt be favored, so the quality of their medicine may well decrease since the government pays anyways.

Of course I'm probably arguing with a brick wall here - do you think people have a right to health care? I don't, especially considering many health problems result from people's own bad habits, meaning they are self-inflicted. Heart disease, cancer, high-blood pressure, ect. are preventable through healthy living - but most people don't live healthy. Why should I have to pay for someone's lung cancer treatment, especially if that person smoked three packs a day for twenty years?

[John Dibble]

Business as a paragon of efficiency - that's quite a funny idea you've got there.  Considering the number of companies that go under, the various scnadals among even the largest companies, and white collar workers' broad identification with such cultural phenomena as Dilbert, I'm inclined to think that business is not quite as sunshine and lollipops as you profess it to be.

No, they aren't a paragon of efficiency. However they are usually more efficient than government(after all, they don't have the ability to tax people to get as much money as they need). And yes, companies will go under - usually because they were inefficient or because they didn't sell a product people wanted to buy. But I assure you successful businesses stay in business because they are somewhat efficient - in today's world they can't afford not to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Banning tobacco? You must hate freedom. You would rather people not be able to make their own choices. Alcohol is unhealthy, why don't we ban that? Obesity is a problem - let's ban fast food, because obesity harms society. Meanwhile, let's ban red meat, too. Get my drift? Have you ever seen Demolition Man? Under people like you that's what society would end up like - it becomes easier and easier to ban behaviors the more you do it, all in the name of public health.

Information on what is healthy is widely available, and common sense would tell you much of it. People should be held accountable for their own stupid actions - bailing them out doesn't discourage the behavior. I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes - they should have to pay.

[John Dibble]

Yes, social security should be abolished. Senior citizens are distinctly ungrateful toward my keeping them alive.

LOL!

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hate freedom?  You have a very narrow definition of freedom to believe that.

In moderate amounts, alcohol, red meat, and fast food do not pose nearly as significant a health risk as inhaling tar.

I agree that people should be held accountable for their actions - but there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive to leave somebody who's made one mistake twisting in the wind, as it were.  Under the system you propose, we wouldn't offer hospital service to drunk drivers involved in crashes, or truck drivers who fell asleep at the wheel, or even children who accidentally drank poison.  If a kid falls behind in school, we'd leave him there, and expel him when he got annoying.  If your friend didn't put his seatbelt on, you'd rather let him sail straight through the windshield than remind him to buckle it, and then the paramedics would leave him on the shoulder rather than take him to the hospital.  What a utopia you espouse!

Ok, I don't know where the hell you got the idea that all that would happen, especially with the children drinking poison - use some common sense. I'm not in any means talking about emergency care for accidents. I am talking about health care that applies to things usually caused by people's own long-term bad decisions. So don't twist my words to mean something they don't.

And where do you get the idea that I advocate utopia? Do you advocate a utopia? I doubt it - utopia is an impossibility, human nature won't allow it. What I advocate is a free society with personal responsibility.

As for hating freedom, you only like it selectively if you want to ban tobacco. It comes down to this - do people own their own bodies or not, do they own themselves? I say yes, and therefore it would be hypocritical of me to tell them they can't put what they want in their own bodies, even if I disagree with them for doing so. They should know what they are putting there, for sure(cigarettes are labeled as dangerous, they don't have an excuse for not knowing), but once they know it is dangerous it is their problem what damage they do. By advocating a ban on tobacco, you advocate allowing the government to ursurp a person's ownership of their own body.

[John Dibble]

I favour free health care for all, paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Do you favor having the tax payers pay for lung cancer treatment for 3-pack a day smokers, or heart disease treatment for people who eat McDonald's every day and don't exercise?

[John Dibble]

I favour free health care for all, paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Do you favor having the tax payers pay for lung cancer treatment for 3-pack a day smokers, or heart disease treatment for people who eat McDonald's every day and don't exercise?

I see your point, but the answer is still yes. By that argument you could equally say that people who ride motorcycles or play dangerous sports should be denied health care?

I suppose you could. Of course, accidents are somewhat different, and usually less costly, than long term health problems caused by bad habits. It's in terms of degree I suppose. I gaurantee you it's easier and cheaper to fix a broken leg from a rock climbing accident involving a physically fit individual than performing quadruple bypass open-heart surgery on an obese man who never exercises.

I don't support 'free' healthcare for anyone(it isn't free, anyways, you pay for it through taxes, so let's not call it that). I don't think people should be denied emergency care, but they should certainly have to pay for it.

P.S. - If I'm not mistaken, the majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by some jerk in a four wheeled vehicle who assumes the motorcylce driver can just get out of the way(many are if not the majority). Heck, driving a car is pretty risky business, plenty of people die in them.

[John Dibble]

Don't twist my words, and I won't twist yours.  I disapprove of tobacco, and would support a ban were it put in place, but I have no intention of telling people they can't use tobacco in the dictatorial fashion you care to propose.

So, you wouldn't tell people they can't use tobacco, but you'd support a ban if it were in place? Uh...excuse me if I think that's hypocritical - supporting a ban on something is telling people they can't do something.

And I pose a question to you - do people or do people not own their own bodies?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I didn't distinguish, but I don't believe I implied one time mistakes or accidents - I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about long-term habits. But still, I don't think I should have to pay for people's one time mistakes either - is that wrong?