Universal health care- For or against? (Afghanistan, Clinton, brainwash, military)

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Explanations

Less or no defense budget? More money for "entitlements".

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Two reasons: The poverty level was raised and entitlements increased providing a disincentive to achieve.

Not that I necessarily agree but just what entitlements were increased under Bush?

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Less or no defense budget? More money for "entitlements".

True, but they still generally have higher/more progressive taxes for the most part...

On the other hand, if your explanation is correct for "Why countries with more entitlement spending have less poverty, etc. etc." then maybe we should simply shift our priorities a little without raising taxes at all.

Then again, that's probably impossible at this point due to the mess we've gotten ourselves into in the Middle East.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

Not that I necessarily agree but just what entitlements were increased under Bush?

Social Security: 2001 $429 billion; 2002 $448 billion; 2003 $467 billion, 2004 $491 billion. An increase of 14.5 percent, or 4.8 percent annually.

Medicare: 2001 $238 billion; 2002 $256 billion; 2003 $277 billion; 2004 $288 billion. An increase of 21 percent, or 7 percent annually.

Medicaid: 2001 $130 billion; 2002 $148 billion; 2003 $161 billion; 2004 $175 billion. An increase of 34.6 percent, or 11.5 percent annually.

Total increases in elderly entitlement spending: $157 billion, which is 21 percent, or 7 percent annually.

http://www.habitablezone.com/Current...es/307661.html

Not to mention the Prescription Drug Plan

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Umm, most parents would require a teenager to do chores around the house as well.

True, but most parents wouldn't kick their kids out of the house or starve them if they refused to do so.

"Mom, I broke my leg, could you take me to the hospital?"

"No son, you didn't clean your room last night so you can just watch it fester. It's time you learned about personal responsibility and tough love."

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Social Security: 2001 $429 billion; 2002 $448 billion; 2003 $467 billion, 2004 $491 billion. An increase of 14.5 percent, or 4.8 percent annually.

Medicare: 2001 $238 billion; 2002 $256 billion; 2003 $277 billion; 2004 $288 billion. An increase of 21 percent, or 7 percent annually.

Medicaid: 2001 $130 billion; 2002 $148 billion; 2003 $161 billion; 2004 $175 billion. An increase of 34.6 percent, or 11.5 percent annually.

Total increases in elderly entitlement spending: $157 billion, which is 21 percent, or 7 percent annually.

http://www.habitablezone.com/Current...es/307661.html

Not to mention the Prescription Drug Plan

That doesn't mean that the people on them were getting increased benefits, or that eligibility standards were relaxed. Inflation, more people getting old, and more people becoming poor would necesitate increased spending in order to maintain the same level of service.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Social Security: 2001 $429 billion; 2002 $448 billion; 2003 $467 billion, 2004 $491 billion. An increase of 14.5 percent, or 4.8 percent annually.

Medicare: 2001 $238 billion; 2002 $256 billion; 2003 $277 billion; 2004 $288 billion. An increase of 21 percent, or 7 percent annually.

Medicaid: 2001 $130 billion; 2002 $148 billion; 2003 $161 billion; 2004 $175 billion. An increase of 34.6 percent, or 11.5 percent annually.

Total increases in elderly entitlement spending: $157 billion, which is 21 percent, or 7 percent annually.

http://www.habitablezone.com/Current...es/307661.html

Not to mention the Prescription Drug Plan

Like Mark Twain said: There's three kinds of lies

Lies
Damn lies
And statistics

Citing something like a 4.8% annual increase in Social Security without also citing how much the number of people on Social Security increased or the increase in cost of living is just meaningless. Or the prescrption drug plan which is so convoluted it no doubt requires increases just to pay for paperwok alone but are its benefits really increased? Or Medicaid which is prohibited from negotiating drug prices, sure, it costs more but are its benefits really greater? More $$ by itself just doesn't equate to more entitlements, sometimes it's just more $$.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

True, but most parents wouldn't kick their kids out of the house or starve them if they refused to do so.

"Mom, I broke my leg, could you take me to the hospital?"

"No son, you didn't clean your room last night so you can just watch it fester. It's time you learned about personal responsibility and tough love."

The teenager analogy is flawed in one sense. The parents have a legal obligation to care for their children as well as an emotional attachment, in most cases, not so for a stranger in L.A.. The analogy was developed to demonstrate the harm done to an individual when responsibilities are taken away by providing resources without expecting something in return.

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

The teenager analogy is flawed in one sense. The parents have a legal obligation to care for their children as well as an emotional attachment, in most cases, not so for a stranger in L.A.. The analogy was developed to demonstrate the harm done to an individual when responsibilities are taken away by providing resources without expecting something in return.

Sure, but, as in the teenager example, there has to be a balance. Getting resources for nothing is going to be better for most people than having no resources at all, and starving or going homeless. It's not like we're giving away free cell phones and Nike Tennis Shoes, we're just talking about the basic essentials of living.

However... I personally don't like the way our welfare system is set up. The U.S. has one of the worst implementations of welfare policy in the industrialized world... I think a better policy would be to make the benefits graduated less sharply, so that one never "has less for making more," as is the case with much of U.S. entitlement spending (Medicaid is a good example). I don't think there's much evidence to support the theory that more generous welfare benefits = more people mired in poverty... country-to-country comparisons, while not entirely accurate, don't support the conclusion, and many of the most impoverished states in the U.S. also happen to be the most economically libertarian.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

The teenager analogy is flawed in one sense. The parents have a legal obligation to care for their children as well as an emotional attachment, in most cases, not so for a stranger in L.A.. The analogy was developed to demonstrate the harm done to an individual when responsibilities are taken away by providing resources without expecting something in return.

“The choice before us is no longer violence or nonviolence; it’s nonviolence or nonexistence.” That’s where we stand today, on the brink of a new culture of nonviolence or the brink of nonexistence.
~~Dr Martin Luther King

Nonviolence begins with the insights that all life is sacred, that all human beings are children of the God of peace, and that as God’s children, we are under certain obligations. Of course, we should never hurt or kill another human being, wage war, build nuclear weapons, or sit idly by while millions of human beings starve to death each year.

And of course Gandhi said we judge a civilized society, by how it treats its most unfortunate.


Amazonjohn are you a compassionate conservative?