Is This Who We Really Are?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is this who we really are?

The woman was told that her neighbors should help pay for her needs and then her neighbors applauded. Sounds like they volunteered.

How would Jesus deal with this issue, Who? Would He simply appeal to people's better nature and then let things happen as they may? If no one helped and someone died in the street, then that's just the way it is? Should there be a public entitiy charged with collecting and burying the dead in the streets? Even if that entity had to be paid with money from the public purse? Wouldn't that be the very charity that isn't in the Constitution?

In your opinion is there a social contract in human society or are we just packs of dogs preying on each other? Is there such a thing as a "public good" that is worth being paid for by taxation? I mean besides war.

I've read a lot of your posts and I'm really interested in how you would confront this issue because it looks like a conundrum to me, your conservative Republican, free-market, anti-socialist attitude versus Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself.

I admit that I don't know how to solve this problem in light of the attitudes of our culture today.

 

[Pidgey]

While this might seem a bit too practical, I rather expect that he wouldn't have made it this long back then. If we're going to keep exponentially inventing ways to keep a person going longer after traumatic injury, illness and just plain wearing out bit by bit... how can we expect anything other than increasing healthcare costs? As in, increasing beyond affordability? Add to that the exponentially increasing potential for malpractice suits and you've hit the ball right out of the park. Where does the simple business of the thing end and "rights" begin?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

While this might seem a bit too practical, I rather expect that he wouldn't have made it this long back then. If we're going to keep exponentially inventing ways to keep a person going longer after traumatic injury, illness and just plain wearing out bit by bit... how can we expect anything other than increasing healthcare costs? As in, increasing beyond affordability? Add to that the exponentially increasing potential for malpractice suits and you've hit the ball right out of the park. Where does the simple business of the thing end and "rights" begin?

And right there you hit the thumb with the hammer: the BUSINESS of life. Why is life a business? I realize that everything has been reduced to the bottom line, but is that the way it should be? People live and die on the basis of their monetary value to someone's business? We can no longer afford to let people live? Nor afford to care for them? That may be the way it is, but it doesn't seem right to me somehow.

 

[top gun]

If there is no chance that the Democrats will allow a Republican bill to become healthcare reform, and there is no chance that the Republicans will allow a Democrat bill to do so, then what are the chances of health care reform of any kind?

There is no real Republican Bill that addresses all the issues... they've just said things like give more tax credits so it's true that ain't happening as a solution.

On the other side there's a wide range of possibilities from a government public option to a co-opt for those without healthcare. And there's a lot of other things that could garner some compromise such as the setting of drug prices and from where drugs can be obtained and reimbursement amounts for treatments as well as how the new programs will be phased in.

There will be a Bill. It won't be exactly what I would most like to see (a single payer system) but it will open up some type of an affordable plan to everybody and not require an employer contribution by those unemployed for it to be affordable. And preexisting conditions will not be disqualifiers.

This on it's own would be a HUGE step forward.

And this is one of those one step at a time things addressing the most glaring deficiencies first.

 

[PLC1]

The Canadians seem to have an interesting take on our health care debate.

"We've heard talk in the U.S. that you may die here because of long wait times, you can't choose the doctors or the care you want and that the government makes your health decisions for you, but none of that is really true," said Dr. Michael M. Rachlis, a leading Canadian health policy analyst who has written three books about Canada's system. "I think there's a lot that the U.S. could learn from Canada."

I'd like to see a survey of Canadians, as well as people of Britain and Australia asking how many would trade their system for what we have in the US.

I'd be willing to bet the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of keeping their system, wouldn't you?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

The Canadians seem to have an interesting take on our health care debate.

I'd like to see a survey of Canadians, as well as people of Britain and Australia asking how many would trade their system for what we have in the US.

I'd be willing to bet the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of keeping their system, wouldn't you?

Exactly...I worked for a Canadian based oil production company
1979 - 1989 and all of the share holders, board of directors, operations managers all said the exact same thing!!!

"I think there's a lot that the U.S. could learn from Canada."

Take our example, learn from our mistakes and improve upon them

 

[Pidgey]

And right there you hit the thumb with the hammer: the BUSINESS of life. Why is life a business? I realize that everything has been reduced to the bottom line, but is that the way it should be? People live and die on the basis of their monetary value to someone's business? We can no longer afford to let people live? Nor afford to care for them? That may be the way it is, but it doesn't seem right to me somehow.

Statistically, yes.

Life is "a business" because each of us is trading his or her time and efforts for something else that somebody else is doing. And make no mistake about it, the yoke ain't equal for everyone. Think of how smart a doctor has to be and what a doctor has to have learned in order to go cutting his way through you to fix something. Back in The Old Days, they didn't have to know near as much because there was a crapload of drugs, tools, techniques and technology that we simply hadn't invented yet. But now a doctor graduates from medical school several hundred thousand dollars in debt and has to set up practice by buying one heckuva' lotta' very expensive stuff in order to take the first patient. Sure, some of them get brought in to established practices but they still have to assume part of the costs and then pay interest on the unpaid balance.

Getting down to the real crux of your comment and where the sentiment comes from, I'd have to point to a principle demonstrated in The Destroyer series once--the real reason why they make uniforms for military personnel: most folks don't like the nasty business of killing. By wearing a uniform, one can convince oneself that it's not really him or her doing the killing--it's the institution that issued the uniform, thus lifting the guilt of the dirty deed off of the wearer.

By that same token, people see most companies and other similar institutions almost as living entities rather than as the group of individuals that staff them. Trouble is, they've got a payroll, payables, receivables, capital, assets, liabilities and all of that. If they can't make the cost of doing business, then a time will come when the payroll checks start bouncing. Now... if you're imagining that EVERY business is making money hand-over-fist and that they're ALWAYS paying out a ton of cash to their investors who are a small bunch of fatcats sitting around living The Life of Riley... well... you might just be horribly wrong. Actually, lately you would be rather more wrong than right.

Regardless of who wins this pitiful little scrabble over universal health insurance, healthcare IS going to be more and more rationed as we go along.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Statistically, yes.

Life is "a business" because each of us is trading his or her time and efforts for something else that somebody else is doing. And make no mistake about it, the yoke ain't equal for everyone. Think of how smart a doctor has to be and what a doctor has to have learned in order to go cutting his way through you to fix something. Back in The Old Days, they didn't have to know near as much because there was a crapload of drugs, tools, techniques and technology that we simply hadn't invented yet. But now a doctor graduates from medical school several hundred thousand dollars in debt and has to set up practice by buying one heckuva' lotta' very expensive stuff in order to take the first patient. Sure, some of them get brought in to established practices but they still have to assume part of the costs and then pay interest on the unpaid balance.

Getting down to the real crux of your comment and where the sentiment comes from, I'd have to point to a principle demonstrated in The Destroyer series once--the real reason why they make uniforms for military personnel: most folks don't like the nasty business of killing. By wearing a uniform, one can convince oneself that it's not really him or her doing the killing--it's the institution that issued the uniform, thus lifting the guilt of the dirty deed off of the wearer.

By that same token, people see most companies and other similar institutions almost as living entities rather than as the group of individuals that staff them. Trouble is, they've got a payroll, payables, receivables, capital, assets, liabilities and all of that. If they can't make the cost of doing business, then a time will come when the payroll checks start bouncing. Now... if you're imagining that EVERY business is making money hand-over-fist and that they're ALWAYS paying out a ton of cash to their investors who are a small bunch of fatcats sitting around living The Life of Riley... well... you might just be horribly wrong. Actually, lately you would be rather more wrong than right.

Regardless of who wins this pitiful little scrabble over universal health insurance, healthcare IS going to be more and more rationed as we go along.

I run a business, I know exactly how things are, we lost half our workforce in this crash and we're scrambling to make ends meet.

I hear horror stories about other places that have universal health care, but when I talk to individuals from other places--Canada, Germany, Sweden--I find that they don't agree with the horror stories. The money paid to bail out the bankers who trashed the economy would more than pay for our health care. Ending the war would help. I'm suspicious when our country can't afford to do what other countries have been doing for years.

 

[GenSeneca]

I run a business

If you don't mind me asking, selling what product or service?

The money paid to bail out the bankers

That TARP money went to prop up banks around the world, UK, Germany and Switzerland among them. Of the AIG bailout money, 2/3rds (62 billion dollars) of that money went overseas. Dubai, China and India were also recipients of TARP funds, by the tune of 16 billion dollars.

The $750 Billion in TARP funds (50 billion of which was pure pork) pales in comparison to the $24 Trillion our federal reserve has actually "spent" to stabilize banks both at home and around the world...

US OFFICIAL SEES $23.7 TRILLION RESCUE TAB
By PAUL THARP

Just as the economy seems to be stabilizing, the price tag of the government's rescue could hit an eye-popping $23.7 trillion -- double what many analysts thought.

The sobering assessment, by the US Treasury's special inspector general, Neil Barofsky, marks the first formal review of the government's efforts to blunt damage from the economic meltdown that began more than a year ago.

That would buy a lot of HC insurance for a lot of people but since we didn't have the money to begin with, its kind of a moot point.

 

[Pidgey]

I run a business, I know exactly how things are, we lost half our workforce in this crash and we're scrambling to make ends meet.

I hear horror stories about other places that have universal health care, but when I talk to individuals from other places--Canada, Germany, Sweden--I find that they don't agree with the horror stories. The money paid to bail out the bankers who trashed the economy would more than pay for our health care. Ending the war would help. I'm suspicious when our country can't afford to do what other countries have been doing for years.

Well, let's take a hard look at Svaria (Sweden) for a moment... now there's a country with a small population that hasn't grown much in several decades. They increased by about 10% in 30 years. So, the 30th root of 1.1 is... 1.003182. I wonder how that compares to growth in the US of a comparable period... ? So, from 225 million up to 304 million (several million illegals not included) and we get a delta of 1.35111, so a 30th root of 1.01008. Heckuva' difference when you're talking that kind of exponential!

How about power? Hmm... they're kinda'... vertical ...with respect to geography and have a lotta' water flow. Must have an absolutely massive hydroelectric generation capacity per capita. Let's see... they've got about about 60 billion KWH to divide amongst those nine million people. By contrast, the USA has about four (4) times their hydroelectric generation capacity but ~34 times their population.

Now why would I bring this up? Because once you've paid off the CAPEX, the OPEX is pretty small in relationship to the benefits. You can't quite call it "free power" but it's very close. You need to remember that the market viability of any single type of thing produced and sold on this planet will ultimately be measured by price first and then quality. If a geographical region can produce items much less expensively than another, it's GOING to win the competition. And that's regardless of whether the trick was achieved by cheaper power, cheaper labor, cheaper resources... whatever.

In any case, if you're going to compare apples to apples, you must consider ALL of the circumstantial aspects in order to perform anything approaching a correct assessment.

 

[Dr.Who]

How would Jesus deal with this issue, Who? Would He simply appeal to people's better nature and then let things happen as they may? If no one helped and someone died in the street, then that's just the way it is? Should there be a public entitiy charged with collecting and burying the dead in the streets? Even if that entity had to be paid with money from the public purse? Wouldn't that be the very charity that isn't in the Constitution?

We know the answer to that.

The OT set up a theocracy. And yet the government run by OT principles did not have state sponsored assistance to those with medical needs.

The Synagogues did. And everyone who belonged to that "church" gave if they wanted to remain a member. So that was somewhat compulsory.

And Jesus constantly admonished individual people to help more. Clearly this was what he wanted people to do. He never once advocated a public entity that would help people with medical needs.

I would add that the teachings of Jesus would help people living under any form of government at all figure out what to do. So if we lived under a socialism we would know what to do. And if we lived under a regulated capitalism we would know what to do.

In your opinion is there a social contract in human society or are we just packs of dogs preying on each other? Is there such a thing as a "public good" that is worth being paid for by taxation? I mean besides war.

There is a social contract that every individual participates in on a moment by moment basis. We are our brothers keepers - each one of us must make the choice to be a brothers keeper moment by moment or face the consequences.

I've read a lot of your posts and I'm really interested in how you would confront this issue because it looks like a conundrum to me, your conservative Republican, free-market, anti-socialist attitude versus Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself.

I know that it is my job to be a brother keeper and it is your job to be a brother keeper. But it is not your job to force someone else to be a brother keeper.

I admit that I don't know how to solve this problem in light of the attitudes of our culture today.

If you are helping out the best way you know how and advocate that others do the same then you are part of the solution and not the problem.

If all the people who were concerned about those in need did something today instead of lobbying and *****ing that someone else should do something the problems we have would already be solved.

I suggest that every time a person with can asks for money you give. I suggest that you join a church or start one and then give generously to it so that it can take care of the needy. I think you should find a worthy charity and give $50 every month to provide for what YOU think are the most pressing needs we face.

What you should not do is compel anyone to give a certain amount to a certain cause at a certain time in a certain way. Leave that up to them. If your arguments are good then you will be persuasive. Are the arguments you have to support helping the needy good?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, let's take a hard look at Svaria (Sweden) for a moment... now there's a country with a small population that hasn't grown much in several decades. They increased by about 10% in 30 years. So, the 30th root of 1.1 is... 1.003182. I wonder how that compares to growth in the US of a comparable period... ? So, from 225 million up to 304 million (several million illegals not included) and we get a delta of 1.35111, so a 30th root of 1.01008. Heckuva' difference when you're talking that kind of exponential!

How about power? Hmm... they're kinda'... vertical ...with respect to geography and have a lotta' water flow. Must have an absolutely massive hydroelectric generation capacity per capita. Let's see... they've got about about 60 billion KWH to divide amongst those nine million people. By contrast, the USA has about four (4) times their hydroelectric generation capacity but ~34 times their population.

Now why would I bring this up? Because once you've paid off the CAPEX, the OPEX is pretty small in relationship to the benefits. You can't quite call it "free power" but it's very close. You need to remember that the market viability of any single type of thing produced and sold on this planet will ultimately be measured by price first and then quality. If a geographical region can produce items much less expensively than another, it's GOING to win the competition. And that's regardless of whether the trick was achieved by cheaper power, cheaper labor, cheaper resources... whatever.

In any case, if you're going to compare apples to apples, you must consider ALL of the circumstantial aspects in order to perform anything approaching a correct assessment.

Perhaps our $623 billion military budget in relation to the military budgets of the rest of the world at $500 billion is one of the things that should be factored into the discussion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you don't mind me asking, selling what product or service?

I own and run a construction company.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know that it is my job to be a brother keeper and it is your job to be a brother keeper. But it is not your job to force someone else to be a brother keeper.

What you should not do is compel anyone to give a certain amount to a certain cause at a certain time in a certain way. Leave that up to them. If your arguments are good then you will be persuasive. Are the arguments you have to support helping the needy good?

Good post, Dr. Who, and one that I largely agree with in relation to caring for others.

But what struck me is that your comments bear on our discussion about gays and marriage when you say "... it is not your job to force someone else..." Yes, that is absolutely correct, you are allowed to have your beliefs but not to force them by law on others. Passing laws to disenfranchise people you think are evil is forcing them and thus beyond the scope of your "job".

And in your second paragraph your comment that one should compel anyone is directly on point. If your arguments are good then you will be persuasive and will convine people--again, force is not your "job".

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you don't mind me asking, selling what product or service?
That TARP money went to prop up banks around the world, UK, Germany and Switzerland among them. Of the AIG bailout money, 2/3rds (62 billion dollars) of that money went overseas. Dubai, China and India were also recipients of TARP funds, by the tune of 16 billion dollars. The $750 Billion in TARP funds (50 billion of which was pure pork) pales in comparison to the $24 Trillion our federal reserve has actually "spent" to stabilize banks both at home and around the world...

That would buy a lot of HC insurance for a lot of people but since we didn't have the money to begin with, its kind of a moot point.

Maybe we didn't have the money that was given to the banks, but will that keep them from spending it? Not on your life. The fact that it was fiat money makes no difference in the spending of it despite the damage that the spending will do to the economy.