This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Welfare" - The Great Delusion
We have long argued that at its core, modern society, at least on a mathematical basis - the one which ultimately trumps hopium every single time - is fatally flawed due to the existence, and implementation, of the concept of modern "welfare" - an idea spawned by Otto von Bismarck in the 1870s, and since enveloped the globe in various forms of transfer payments which provide the illusion of a social safety net, dangles the carrot of pension, health, and retirement benefits, and in turn converts society into a collage of blank faces, calm as Hindu cows. Alas, the cows will promptly become enraged bulls once they realize that all that has been promised to them in exchange for their docility and complacency has... well... vaporized. It is at that point that the final comprehension would dawn, that instead of a Welfare State, it has been, as Bill Buckler terms it, a Hardship State all along. Below we present the latest views from the captain of The Privateer on what the insoluble dilemma of the welfare state is, and what the key problems that the status quo will face with its attempts at perpetuating this lie.
From The Privateer
The Great Delusion - “Welfare”
For the best part of the last two decades, it has been accepted as an indisputable fact even by the mainstream media that the two great pillars of the welfare state - medicare and social security - will break the government which offers them. Today, every nation in the world makes at least some pretense of providing “welfare” to its citizens. Since the “developed” (or “rich”) nations are those where these systems are most “developed”, these are the nations most at risk of crumbling under their burdens.
Welfare has many antonyms, but “hardship” is particularly apt in this context. Wikipedia’s entry on “welfare” ends like this: “... this term replaces “charity” as it was known for thousands of years, being the act of providing for those who temporarily or permanently could not provide for themselves.” As usual, the defining characteristic is missed. Charity is voluntary. “Welfare” as practised by government is compulsory. This makes the two terms opposites. It also brings about the opposite results. Charity is a voluntary act made by those who have a surplus to assist those who do not. “Welfare” is a system guaranteed to end up in hardship for everyone but particularly for those who are forced to be “charitable”.
The insoluble dilemma of a “welfare state” is twofold. First, it results in a situation in which the majority of people who vote are partially or wholly dependent on the state for their sustenance. In every “advanced” nation today, those who vote for a living outnumber those who work for one. It is true that not everybody, or even a majority of those eligible in many cases, bothers to vote at all. It is equally true that the “wards of the state” have much more incentive to vote than do those who are to provide for them.
The second dilemma is the issue of the unfunded liabilities. The US government divides its budget into discretionary and NON discretionary items. The bulwarks of the welfare state, social security and medicare, fall into the second category. They are considered untouchable. There are only two problems here. First, the unfunded liabilities of these two programs are somewhere in the order of $US 80 - 120 TRILLION. Second, any talk of sharply lower annual deficits (let alone talk of a return to a budget balance) are puerile without MAJOR surgery being performed on medicare and social security. They are gigantic millstones around the neck of the US economy as they are on the economies of all other nations.
In the hands of government - “welfare” becomes its antithesis - “hardship”. Today, this is being illustrated in real time in Greece. But no nation can afford a welfare state in the long run.
It appears that the "Captain" is on to something here. A few short hours ago none other than Goldman Sachs was forced to come out with a report attempting to justify this most fundamental social illusion, in "Is Health Spending Unsustainable" - that only Goldman, and potentially the San Fran Fed, could put this question for serious debate when it is well known that the unfunded liabilities associated with such luxuries is in the triple trillion digit ballpark, speaks volumes. Yet, since even Goldman is now floating various "trial balloons", we can only assume that this is about to become a big issue for policy, especially ahead of the Supreme Court's hearings later this month on the constitutionality of the national health care law.
From Goldman Sachs
I. Is Health Spending Unsustainable?
Health spending in the US exceeds that of any other developed nation, topping the next largest spender by nearly half again as much (as a share of GDP). Spending has also tended to grow faster in the United States than elsewhere (Exhibit 1). Unchecked spending runs the risk of destabilizing public finances, reducing competitiveness with trading partners, and ultimately crowding out other productive uses of resources. This is particularly the case if health spending is inefficient (Exhibit 2).
However, the case that health spending is “unsustainable” isn’t as clear cut as the debate has sometimes made it out to be. After all, dedicating a larger share of future income gains to improving health could be a more productive investment than increasing other forms of personal consumption. Moreover, while health spending within federal programs is clearly unsustainable under current policies and growth trends, whether broader health spending should also be deemed to be growing too quickly depends on whether increased spending improves outcomes and whether it affects the ability of the rest of the economy to grow.
What Drives Health Spending?
From 1970 through 2010, nominal health spending grew at an average annual rate of 9.7%, well in excess of nominal GDP growth of 6.8%. Excess growth was greatest in the 1970s and 1980s, declined in the 1990s, and reaccelerated somewhat in the last decade (Exhibit 3). Continual growth in excess of GDP growth has led health spending to reach 15% of GDP (Exhibit 4). Notably, this has occurred while the out of pocket costs to patients and consumers have declined, replaced by indirect costs such as insurance premiums and taxes that fund public programs, as well as federal borrowing.
There is no single cause for excess growth in health spending, but a large body of research has focused on the drivers of growth and has reached qualitatively similar conclusions, as shown in Exhibit 5:

Technology. Advancement in the state of technology typically increases cost over existing products or procedures, though it may produce savings in other areas. Academic work has typically attributed residual spending growth to technology, after accounting for other measurable factors. More recent work has tended to find a slightly smaller though still large contribution from technology to total health spending.The exact magnitude is necessarily imprecise in any case, given substantial interaction between the availability of new technology and willingness to pay for it due to rising incomes and greater insurance.
Income. Differences in income explain a good deal of international variation in the health spending to GDP ratio (Exhibit 6). This implies that as societies become richer, they devote a greater share of additional income gains to health rather than other forms of consumption. We find that regressing excess cost growth through 2010 against real GDP growth with a one year lag produces a statistically significant coefficient similar to the estimates shown in Exhibit 5.

Insurance. The RAND Health Insurance Experiment conducted in the late 1970s found an insurance elasticity of 0.2, which implies that around 10% of the increase in real per capita spending growth since 1960 is attributable to increased insurance coverage. A more recent study examining the effect of coverage in Medicare found a much greater effect, suggesting increased insurance coverage could be responsible for as much as half of the increase in per capita spending. (See Amy Finkelstein, “The Aggregate Effects of Health Insurance: Evidence from the Introduction of Medicare,” 2006.)
Demographics. The contribution of aging of the population to spending growth is more certain but even here there are differences in estimated magnitude. Clearly, aging will become a more important source of health spending growth over the next two decades, but as spending on the “baby boomer” generation peaks, income growth and technology are likely to be more important factors over the long run.
What do official projections assume?
Despite chronic health spending growth in excess of GDP growth (an average of 2.1 percentage points on a real per capita basis since 1975) official estimates of Medicare solvency had until about ten years ago assumed a long-range growth rate essentially equivalent to GDP. This was eventually increased to GDP plus one percentage point, where it remained until passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Following enactment of that law, the official Medicare projections reported annually by program trustees are now based on growth of GDP minus 0.1 percent.
The ACA permanently reduced annual payment increases for Medicare providers and sets in motion a number of payment policy reforms that could lower utilization, so a reduction in future Medicare cost growth of this magnitude seems reasonable. However, these new lower projections have upside risk given that some of the reduction in growth stems from sizeable payment reductions that might eventually be reversed. Moreover, while the ACA improved Medicare finances, these savings as well as new taxes go to finance insurance expansion, which will raise total health spending in the medium term (Exhibit 7).
When Does Health Spending Become Unsustainable?
One of the difficulties in determining how long health spending is likely to grow as a share of the economy is that the US health care system has not existed for all that long in its current form. Commercial insurance companies only began to offer health insurance on a large scale around World War II (partly due to the employer response to wage controls), and federal health insurance programs (Medicare and Medicaid)were not established until the 1960’s. That said, some trends would likely prompt a reduction in health spending growth:
Public finances become strained. Since health spending totals about 15% of GDP but 23% of federal outlays, when health spending grows in excess of GDP, government spending as a share of GDP will necessarily expand. The demographic mix of publicly vs. privately insured individuals will add to fiscal pressures. Exhibit 8 shows the trajectory of spending assuming that historical excess cost growth gradually slows to zero and that certain cost containment policies are not maintained over the long term.
Whereas the private sector can gradually respond to increased health spending, the public sector—and particularly the federal—reaction is apt to be much slower, leading to deficit spending until changes are adopted. As shown in Exhibit 8, health spending if left unchecked would not only crowd out other spending but would also eventually exhaust all federal revenues.
Of course, we would expect the situation to be addressed long before this happens.
Health spending begins to crowd out real non-health consumption. This is not such a hard test to meet over the medium term, mainly because of the “low” base from which health spending as a share of GDP starts. Real per capita spending growth of around GDP+1.5% would slow but probably not reverse nonhealth consumption growth over the next 75 years, though this depends greatly on real growth and demographic assumptions (Exhibit 9).
Increased health spending begins to weigh on growth, creating a vicious circle. This appears quite distant, if it ever occurs. The main concern here would be that rising health spending crowds out other productive activities (for instance, fixed investment or education), reducing potential output and further increasing relative health spending. Alternatively, higher taxes (to pay for public programs) or insurance premiums (to pay for private insurance) would reduce workers’ take-home pay, with potentially adverse incentive effects at a certain level.
Finally, there is some evidence from businesses that excess health costs reduce employment and output. (Sood et al, find that a 10% increase in excess cost growth (i.e., about 20bps) leads to 121,000 fewer more jobs and $14bn in lost value added. See Neeraj Sood, Arkadipta Ghosh and Jose Escarce (2009) “Health Care Cost Growth, Employer Provided Insurance and the Economic Performance of U.S. Industries,” Health Services Research, Vol 44.)
When the Time Finally Comes…
If costs are ultimately deemed too great (or projected growth too fast) what can be done? The decision before policymakers, employers, and individuals falls along two lines: first, what share of total output should be devoted to health care instead of other goods and services, and second, what is the optimal mix of public vs. private payment for whatever share is decided. This leaves three options:
1. Limit growth in health care costs regardless of payor, because activities that would otherwise be crowded out by health spending are deemed more important. Reaction to rapid growth in the 1980s— health spending consumed around 25% of overall per capita real income growth—led to Medicare payment reductions and broader use of managed care. This, along with strong growth elsewhere in the economy,stabilized the health share of GDP temporarily. Future restraint in health spending is likely to come from elsewhere, particularly given that Medicare cuts were already used to finance new spending under the ACA, so those savings have already been captured. A reduction in the geographic disparity of health spending is one option for future savings—patients in some areas of the country receive much greater intensity of treatment at greater cost than patients in other parts of the country, but show little medical benefit. (See for instance “Health Care Spending, Quality, and Outcomes; More Isn’t Always Better,” Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 2009) Use of information technology to increase medical and administrative efficiency is another.
2. Allow health spending to rise, but reallocate payment responsibility from the public sector to the private sector, in order to avoid the fiscal consequences that would follow, i.e., tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. Since most of the public policy discussion regarding the rise in health spending relates to Medicare, and to a lesser extent Medicaid, it is quite possible that policymakers will find it sufficient to shift the financing burden for health costs away from the federal budget. This could mean an increase in the burden on state governments (they already face growth in Medicaid spending under the ACA), and would almost certainly imply increased cost-sharing for Medicare enrollees, thus shifting some of financing burden back to the private sector in the form of higher out of pocket spending. Under some proposals, such as that offered by House Budget Committee Paul Ryan, Medicare spending would be capped at GDP+1. The Bowles-Simpson proposal would apply the limitation more broadly, limiting federal health spending and the tax exclusion for employer sponsored benefits to GDP+1, though it is not specific on how this would be accomplished.
3. Allow public health spending to rise and reallocate resources to pay for it. While it is unlikely that public-sector health spending growth would go completely unchecked, it is possible that additional health spending restraint could be modest, with a greater focus on reallocating resources to cover increasing state and federal health costs. The result would likely be higher taxes in this scenario, since in 2011 Congress already capped discretionary spending (annual appropriations by Congress) and automatic cuts set to take effect next year would reduce this segment further (we assume these will be pushed back past 2013). We estimate that the primary budget deficit (i.e., excluding interest) will average around 2% of GDP over the next ten years and it is politically unrealistic to imagine that such a large amount of savings can be found in the 13% of the budget that excludes appropriations, health, and Social Security. The upshot under this scenario would most likely be a tax increase of a magnitude similar to our estimated primary deficit of around 2% of GDP (roughly the size of the 2001/2003 tax cuts set to expire at year end). However, this would be the minimum under such a scenario, for two reasons: first, health spending would continue to rise, requiring additional tax hikes later on. Second, eliminating the primary deficit over the medium term is the minimum—a primary surplus is needed to bring down the ratio of debt to GDP.
The ultimate outcome is likely to be a combination of all three scenarios, though we suspect public policy will focus on the second and third options since they have less ability to influence the growth of privately financed health spending. It is also worth noting that health spending may naturally slow as its ratio to GDP rises; a simple regression of excess cost growth against the lagged ratio of health spending to GDP shows a coefficient of around -0.25, implying a gradual slowing in the growth rate even as the level of health spending continues to increase.
- 28247 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -






He's a chronic moron
Through a private legal and police mechanism. There is no need for a government to provide these items.
The preference for private property results from the understanding that the ability to acquire private property is an excellent motivator for success and lifts all boats- thus benefiting all society.
The indians never believed they "owned" the land, they were surprised by the white man's arrogance. Land was like the water and the air- here for our use only. Further, disease killed more indians than the government ever did- that and broken treaties, neither of which would have been protected by government. In the War of 1812, the whites were scared to go against the indians and the British allowed them to kill with impunity. They struck fear into every American.
Finally, government doesn't give me my property, in fact, I have to work to keep their grubby little hands off of it- thus the reason why many people want less government and more liberty.
Who provides Adam Smith's modicum of regulation?
You do not really believe that markets are self-regulating?
Dust off your copy of Wealth of Nations and look up this sections
(WN II.ii.94: 324)
Or here
http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essay-sentiments
Markets are self regulating if government , again the problem, gets out of the way and allows failures to happen an successes to be rewarded. Assets need to be delivered from bad management and weak hands to strong hands and efficient managers .What we have instead is a system where the bad actors are rewarded with bail outs and resources that are directed from the productive and efficient to the incompetent and inefficient. The right to fail is the ultimate regulator.
Those are finely regurgitated 'capitalistic' talking points. Sadly, they're nonsense as the past four years have demonstrated the monopolists are always 'strong' hands. It has indeed been that way in varying degrees through-out history. Free trade? Also mythology.
You are a deadly on your Jim Rogers impersonation though, kudos.
You are using the last four years as an example of capitalism's failure?? Flush out your headgear, new guy. Capitalism hasn't existed in the US since 1913.
You are a regular Johnny One-Note...
Please leave this place and go back to HuffPuff, DailyKos, or whatever socialist-loving hellhole you emerged from. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!
Didn't you know?
I'm on the Zerohedge payroll, to keep fools like you from completely polluting the comment section...
But seriously, why don't you try your bullshit ignorant attitude at a real center-right website... I bet you couldn't last one day, before you left from embarassment... that is even assuming anyone would pay attention to what you wrote...
Your comments are at the level of Yahoo! quality...
four "..." in one post, is that a new record for ya? really it would be awesome if you could complete your thought in spite of how little value they add, I just ahte to be kept guessing...
What's the matter, you have problem with choice of style??
Maybe you could post a little guide for us, sort of a Strunk and White for posting on the Internet...
obviously the most important style note you'll get from riphowardkatz is never to capitalize anything and to skip most punctuation.
To me criticizing style or punctuation serves no purpose. What is important is the free exchange of ideas.
I agree, but there are folks who need at least sufficient guidance to become comprehensible. If you literally can't be understood by the skilled reader, PLEASE JUST STOP WRITING.
Write to Durden and request that "ignore user" feature, with an option to see how many other users are ignoring that account.
It'll help us sift out the BS
More "..." from you they add a ton to your thoughts...
Ah, a Fed buster, anyone ever tell you you're a rare find? Especially these days...
Volcker seemed to still be able to flush the turds(for the most part), no? The 'capitalism hasn't existed part' was correct should've just added 'except on paper' or stopped altogether. Nice to see you've diagnosed the problem doctor yet I'm somehow glad I'm not in the states waiting for a return of 'capitalism'.
Don't give me that crap. What has been shown over the last four years is the opposit of capitalism. If it was capitalism Aig, GM , Citi, Bank of America, the Morgue.....and many more would be dead and buried. What has been displayed for everybody to see is we live in a fascist state in the guise of free markets. Regulations are designed so the big can get bigger and the small get squeezed out. It's easier for the all powerful central planners to control a few players instead of multiple players.
Sounds like your problem is with captured regulation...
We all agree that is the problem....
Since you changed your post from a position of arrogance I changed my response.
Sometimes its tough to keep the players straight without a scorecard....
You are right though. Captured regulation is my biggest issue. I don't mind modest regulation preventing fraud. The liars and the cheats need to be punished I feel it's necessary for a free market to flourish . But that is not what we have the liars and cheats are rewarded. As far as everything else goes,business success or failure, I think that the market should be allowed to iron out.
Well...
There are 2 knobs that can be dialed to balance the playing field...
Either make the rewards less for the capturers...
Or pay the regulators more and limit their ability to work for those that they regulate after leaving the civil service...
Ultimately, if your loyalty is to the almighty buck and not the interests of the country, there is no legislation that can address the problem...
well Bob, I think I'll choose Door #3.
Excellent choice, contestant!
Now let's see what I might have won...
how about we all grow a sack, up the personal, group & community defenses, get an actual immune system for this "economy" thing and flat out kill the invader?
Immune systems tend to do 2 things: remember patterns of past invaders and use lethal force to destroy the invaders before the body is destroyed.
Those finely regurgitated talking points are just that- we haven't observed laissez faire capitalism in America since the start of the 1900's. To blame it for the mechanics of fascism: socialism, militarism and debt enslavement, is intellectual camel dung.
Monopolies, when married with the coercion of the police power of the state, is what you are referring to. If you are going to be exact, then please, be exact.
Yep.... and the financial system began and ended with John Pierpont Morgan back then and he realized that the job was too big for one private citizen...
Those finely regurgitated talking points are just that- we haven't observed laissez faire capitalism in America since the start of the 1900's.
_________________________________________________
So there was laissez capitalism some time between 1776 and 1900s.
__________________________________________________
To blame it for the mechanics of fascism: socialism, militarism and debt enslavement, is intellectual camel dung.
__________________________________________________
Militarism was present in the US before the 1900s.
Debt enslavement was present in the US before the 1900s.
Socialism was also present as the US of A required US citizen nationality to work jobs, mine gold and some of the rest.
Well, well...
US citizenism has not changed one bit since its inception.
Fascism, Nazism are copycats. Communism came as a reaction.
Bear with it.
Being from China, you are excused your ignorance of US history. The period of Laissez faire was not total, but relative. It appeared with the elimination of the Second Bank of the United States in 1834 and ended with the Morgan manipulation in 1907. European bankers, especially the Rothschilds, still intervened in markets through proxies and Banks still had power through government intervention as well.
American militarism was limited to the War of 1812 and manifest destiny prior to the Spanish American War. The boxer rebellion was Britain and France's gambit- we were just along for the ride. Militarism, as it is understood today with the inclusion of the industrial complex more accurately began in 1938 with the evolution of the lend lease program and the admiration for the efforts of Mussilini and Hitler.
Your statement, regarding Socialism, is barely coherent (like normal). Socialism and debt enslavement didn't start until after 1913. You cannot have socialism without a high level of government intervention and that really didn't occur until 1929 and Hoover.
Don't you have some industrial espinage to work on? Or are you not smart enough to be put in that department?
You forgot the Fenian raids.... Oh, yeah, they don't teach that stuff in US schools, or "54-40 or fight"...
So I call bullshit on your soft peddling of American militarism....It was a reflection of the contempt that people held for other people and was more than manifested in the utter contempt that labor was held in until the labor movement emerged as a counter weight....
That and your claim of debt enslavement starting in 1913....Yep, sharecropping is a taboo subject for Libertarians...
This effort was not up to your usual high standards of posting...
http://www.historynet.com/fenian-raids-invasions-of-british-ruled-canada.htm These Fenian raids? I'm sorry, when did the Irish takeover the US government?
I was not soft peddling American militarism either, merely pointing out the fallacies in his argument. Sharecropping was a choice and one that could lead to getting one's own land. That is not debt enslavement. What we have now, is debt enslavement.
You seem to be picking fights today, something get your knickers in a twist?
You only have debt enslavement, if you choose to go into debt...
I think if you polled sharecroppers, a very large majority might have a different opinion...
There is a very, very fine line between sharecropping and serfdom....
Nice link on the Fenian military actions but the leaders were typical in their belief that N.A. should be American for Americans...As for the Irish, they are no shortage of people that when offered a proposal "Go take what ever you want from somebody and it'll be ok..."...
Unless you are trying to link American militarism to the influence of the Irish.... :-)
No... just seems to be some exceptionally thick people today, and perhaps I am little testy after an exchange that consisted almost solely of being told to go fuck myself.... You know, the usual ZH warmth and hospitality...
Sovereign debt has nothing to do with private debt- it is an additional debt placed on every citizen, regardless of private actions. This is debt by government and central banks. When the debt can no longer be paid through taxation- that is debt enslavement.
Yeah, sometimes the "fight club" demeanor gets real old...
How is there a fine line between sharecropping and serfdom? You want to grow more, you dont have enough land, somebody lets you use theirs and you give them 25% of whatever comes up.
I dont have enough space to grow what I want myself and am talking with someone about doing just that next year, its a win/win for both parties.
Tell that to the Indian peasant farmers born with nothing. They go into debt to "share crop" on someone else's land and when a bad season comes they murder their family and then kill themselves out of despair.
You are told to fuck yourself when you deserve it. This is typically from your presenting a Leftist solution to a government created problem.
But today you got one big thing right: So I gave you all up votes on regulatory capture.
The solution to our various differences is that the individual states are allowed to be as liberal, or conservative, statist, or libertarian as they wish, and we are all allowed to live in the one that we are most comfortable in.
Can kicking.
All the things have to be relative, right, to fit the preset conclusion.
You can have socialism only with a high level of state intervention? Because capturing a whole continent to hand it over to its citizenry is not a high level of intervention, Indian land transfer ending in 1898. Which fits your period of time, right?
So what is the reality here, militarism, socialism were present since the inception of the US of A but at levels you are comfortable with.
US citizens are creatures of comfort, not of principles.
It does not bother them to declare that the US of A was a free country when it was a slaver country.
It does not bother them to tell that the government intervention was not high when the government was involved in an extremely large land transfer.
This as long as their comfort is not hurt.
US citizen nature is eternal.
AnAnonymous said:
US citizen nationality was not required for those building railroads.
Also, you did not respond to my question directed to you in another article regarding your socio-economic theory of US citizenism. Perhaps you did not see, so I now repost what you said followed by my question. Please consider what I ask and then explain this in the context of your theory.
AnAnonymous said:
Please help explain something to me then in the context of these statements of yours. As you have stated, resources are dwindling on a global scale, and this leads to the diminishment of the US of A citizen middle class. Because resources are finite, this means that the long term trend for the US of A citizen middle class is forever diminishment, until it is so small that is has no impact on aggregated demand.
This indicates to me, by your own statements of the socio-economic theory of US citizenism that you are propagating, that the nature of US citizenism is not, in fact, eternal, but faces its end on the rocky shores of resource constraint. How do you therefore reconcile this observable fact with the component of your theory which claims that the nature of US citizenism is eternal? It seems like a contradiction, although I concede that perhaps it is my own US citizenism which is keeping me from understanding this clearly.
Which component?
US citizen nature is eternal. This is what it is stated.
Never written that US citizenism is eternal. On the contrary, US citizenism has always been connected to the environment conditions that gave it birth.
Never read here and there that the overpopulation issue was too many US citizens, not enough Indians? Where is the Indian land to sponsor the freedom, justice, truth US citizen project? Looks like if that findind of land was a one shot opportunity huh?
So what does it mean?
It means that despite all signs showing that US citizenism has exhausted the environmental resources to sustain and expand itself, the eternal nature of US citizens will lead to deny all these changes.
US citizenism has to be independent of the environment, as it is stated, part of US citizen propaganda.
It is a major dimension to underline because it leads US citizens to deny the most obvious. In the doing, they will push under the train many, many people in a desesperate attempt to maintain US citizenism while the conditions to maintain it are fading away.
There are some jolly things coming down the road.
US citizen countries have an excess of population, too many middle class people. Once again, US citizens are applying their protocols: they are triggering a new wave of colonization.
This time, though, they wont find conserved land but already US citizen consumed land, with toxic and radioactive waste around.
The eternal nature of US citizens guarantees they wont adjust, trying to reboot US citizenism on a local scale. And this is going to deliver some very nice things here. Very nice.
So good effort in trying to discuss US citizenism from within, without the resort of an imagined exterior, but failure in the end.
US citizenism systemics prevail.
Thank you for your response. It was a good effort in trying to explain your socio-economic theory of historical propagandized economic resource extractionary depletionism as an ideology of global domination which you call US citizenism.
However, I think you will need to make some refinements to it because, as it stands, some inconsistencies exist, and the rest of it is a bit vague and requires further expostulation on your part lest the ambiguities lead to misconstrued interpretations on the part of the reader.
OK, fine so far.
I believe you are correct in the general case. However, your theory does not appear to take into account any US of A citizens who recognize the resource depletion and the impossibility of continued growth and expansion. For instance, I am a US of A citizen who recognizes the environmental and resource depletion and I believe that growth and expansion is no longer possible. Is it possible that I am a US of A citizen that has somehow escaped the controlled world view of US citizenism? I do not know how this fits in with your theory, but for now will bear with it until you offer explanation because it might be US citizenism which is keeping me from understanding this point.
I think I might understand what you are saying here. My interpretation is that perpetual growth and expansion cannot exist on a planet with finite resources. The US expanded when it had unconquered land next to its conquered land, but now lacks the land for expansion. Furthermore, any unconquered land on other parts of the planet are already facing resource depletion, so that well has run dry.
Have you considered the parallels with European style fractional reserve central banking? This fractional reserve banking which began in Europe before 1776, July, 4th, gained in power and influence as the European explorers found new lands to invade and then colonize. As European colonization and resource extraction blobbed up, European fractional reserve central banking blobbed up to match. Likewise, after 1776, July, 4th, European fractional reserve central banking came in to power in US of A with Alexander Hamilton and his European fractional reserve central banking cronies.
As many observers can see, European fractional reserve central bankism is in decline because there are no remaining undiscovered lands to conquer and the resources of the remaining lands are entering depletion, which means no new growth and expansion. Without the oxygen of growth and expansion, European fractional reserve central bankism suffocates. Does your theory of US citizenism build upon the theory of European fractional reserve central bankism, or is it something altogether different?
I can see the train pushing under now in progress. I do not deny this, it is obvious to me, and yet I am a US of A citizen. Does this mean that US citizenism does not affect all US of A citizens, or am I making a misinterpretation because of US citizenism? If a misinterpretation, what is causing me not to deny the most obvious? Please explain further to address this point.
This is vague and deserves a better explanation.
I agree that most US citizens won't adjust. Is it possible that some US of A citizens are not mind controlled by US citizenism and can make a better attempt to adjust? Or is this just another deceptive illusion of US citizenism?
Please give further explanation because this is also vague. What nice things are going to be delivered? When you say nice things will be delivered "here", what place do you mean by "here"? Please be specific so that I can better understand without misinterpretation.
I do not understand your use of failure in the end. Do you mean US citizenism will fail in the end? If so, I do not deny that. Or do you mean my effort to discuss US citizenism is a failed effort in the end? If so, is it because some concepts of your theory of US citizenism are not clearly understood by me? If I am seeking explanation, how is that a failure? Thank you for your response.
The monopolists? You mean the ones sanctioned by government decree? Apart from those the whole idea of monopolists is a fiction of your and the power hungry non-producers imagination.
Private property law and markets provide all the restraint necessary. Not to say there are not problems inherent in an social order or contract- requiring a perfect system before you eliminate an obviously malodorous and flawed existing system is rhetorical nonsense.
Adam Smith is merely one mind on the subject, a subject he stole most of his thoughts on from Contillion and probably the School of Salamance as well. Remember, Smith had a labor theory of value as well, and he was completely wrong there.
Von Mises and Hayek both saw the need for government as well, but with a VERY different role from today. This vanguard has continued to evolve, marrying the concepts of free markets with anarchy to create voluntaryism.
The better questions to ask are: how much regulation? When does regulation become problematic? Can you really regulate human behavior? Or merely try to contain it? I would suggest the latter and government has never been able to accomplish this task.
Looking to the past, a past of governments that prioritize the minority over the majority, is a poor place to look for the solutions that humanity must come to grips with. It is the rejection of these failures that will allow the imaginations of men to consider other possible resolutions. You cannot be of two worlds, we must step boldly from one to the next, equipped with the integrity and character necessary to create a world where tolerance rules greed and a person's labor is their own.
Pity that no one has responded to a reasonably well thought out post...
Yes, the issue is regulation. How much and what type is required to minimize the damage from the sociopaths...
What are the limits to greed?
I can assure you that ZH is not the place for such a measured debate, what with low-brow socio-political neanderthals running amok....
"The more laws and edicts are imposed, the more thieves and bandits there will be.” - Laozi (Tao Te Ching)
"And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt." -Tacitus (Annals)
Less is more. None is best.
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/how-laws-and-legalism-destroy...
"[...] what with low-brow socio-political neanderthals [..]" such as the legalist utopians, including yourself.
In the absence of annual property taxes it is highly likely that you would own zero property. All land and property would be owned by a small group of aristocratic families. Having been born propertyless, you would be at their mercy.
This has all be done before. It's called feudalism. Read a history book some time before you start ranting about wanting 0 property taxes and 0 estate taxes because "what's mine is mine." It is very likely that you and your family would live in poverty and misery forever under such a system. And social mobility would be nil.
Can't see the mechanics in how that works. I can't recall a single time in history where 0 taxes on land had any relation to aristocratic family domination of all lands.
Anywhere.
Does seem like a replay of feudalism. Back then, you had various nobles trying like hell to extricate themselves from the central gov't (the King) and going off on their own to gain "freedom." Today? you see corporate entities trying the same, get out from under the national gov't to do whatever the hell they want.
Back then, a serf could belong to the House of D'Medicci, the House of Burgundy or the House of Brabant. Today you might choose being a loyal serf to the House of Exxon or perhaps the House of Archer Daniels Midland. And there was NO chance of climbing the ladder of success. Once a filthy peasant, always a filthy peasant.
Rant for the personal freedom of large business entities! That works well if you're on the governing board, not so much if you're the lowly worker.
And don't think your loyalty to your particular "house" will save you. Loyalty is expected from the lowly. It's such impudence to think you can ask your "betters" to be paid well.
Here's what nobility thinks of their own property.
During the Battle of Crecy, the French nobility and knights were impatient for the battle to begin. They deliberatly charged through their own foward peasant troops, crushing many of them, to reach the English lines.
Quite a convoluted vision of feudalism. First point, feudalism was plural. US citizens, unsurprisingly, promoted certain versions of feudalism over others.
Serfs were usually attached to lands.
There was social promotion. Made me laugh. The idea that there was a day zero one became a noble and after that day, it was over is quite widespread among US citizens, even though it made no sense.
Funnily enough, US citizens borrowed certain methods to promote themselves. Stealing land as the US citizens have been doing to distribute it later and provide a higher social status is one method known in feudal times.
US citizens have been exceptional thiefs. The best ever. I would not be surprised if social mobility in US citizen societies goes lower than feudal times when US citizens run out input provided through theft.
You seem completely unable to distinguish between small central government and anarchy. I cant decide whether this is genuine or willful stupidity.
Many "libertarians" are in fact elitists that desire the reimplementation of a ridgid hierarchical class based society. Naturally they believe that their family deserves to be at or near the top of society - forever. That's what the idea behind "zero property taxes" is, to allow for eternal land rights passed down from generation to generation in a neo-feudal society.
I say that as a libertarian. What these neo-feudal elitists don't understand is what you point out, that property "rights" have to be enforced. And history has shown that when a small group of aristocratic families end up owning everything they usually get murdered in a peasant revolt.
Feudalism is a defuct political system. There is too much information floating around inside the peasants mind's. Too much technology allowing "dangerous ideas" to be promulgated. You will never be king of your fiefdom in bum fuck North Dakota, on your 500,000 acres of land and a mountain of silver and gold. But that's really the dream of many of these people.
So saying that "as a libertarian"...what's ur point? Is it that you are pissed that the dream per your first paragraph isn't coming true?
Pls answer me within the next half-hour. I can wait a while 'cuz I have the Kardashians recorded on DVR. But I can't stay up all night!
I was responding to these two posts. But the thread has gone so long that it's not at all obvious that's what I was doing.
==================
aaronb17
Funny thing -- libertarians and small-government advocates are frequently also the biggest proponents of private property rights. How the heck to they expect to enforce their private property rights without government? "Property" just means you're allied with the biggest corrupt mobster. Your gang is able to enforce its claims to stuff against everyone else's claims.
==================
Flakmeister
You forgot the Fenian raids.... Oh, yeah, they don't teach that stuff in US schools, or "54-40 or fight"...That and your claim of debt enslavement starting in 1913....Yep, sharecropping is a taboo subject for Libertarians...
==================
I'm just giving my assessment of some of the psychological motivations and desires behind some so-called "libertarians" attraction to that ideaology. They are more elitists dreaming of neo-feudalism than anything else.
Ok - thanks for the feedback.
Perhaps I'm talking my book here, but libertarianism is the answer. Sure, it only works on paper as of today but one day, I swear it's gonna work...
...'cuz on a long enough timeline people are going to get it.
But the fact remains that Barack Obama is getting elected to a second term whether we like it or not. And if he doesn't, then Mitt Romney is getting elected. And the difference between them equals nil.
So the question to the libertarians today is this - what to do about it now? I say buy physical. At the very least, you are doing the right thing. And at the very least, at least you know you tried and you have something to pass onto your kids.
My deadline for a course correction for this country was the 2012 election. With Ron Paul taken out of the picture, my course of action is clear. Seek liberty overseas because it has been extinguished forever in America.
And I would never help bring children into a nation so thoroughly corrupted. To be born into serfdom, lorded over by far off bureaucrats in the central government, to live in poverty and misery, milked of their lifeblood for corporate profits and government taxes during their most vital years, and die in obscurity.
I won't be missed and there are millions of Mexicans willing to take my place as a loyal subject of the American police state.
Many "libertarians" are in fact elitists that desire the reimplementation of a ridgid hierarchical class based society. Naturally they believe that their family deserves to be at or near the top of society - forever. That's what the idea behind "zero property taxes" is, to allow for eternal land rights passed down from generation to generation in a neo-feudal society.
_______________________________________________
It is quite understandable.
US citizens have been exceptional thieves. They have glorified them in the name of humanity progress. Theft was heroic.
The current situation is plain and simple: when you are a very successful thief, you reach a point when you own the most of it.
The urge becomes to disqualify theft. Theft has to be depicted as the ultimate disgrace on humanity.
Theft has to be stopped since due to your previous success, you are going to be the main target of thieves.
Promoting theft would be self destructive.
US citizens are deep conformistic people. They want the status quo to endure.
Libertarians, that subset of US citizens, do indeed favour the concept of private property to secure their entitlements.
When you already own something, no one lost it without consent to you, it's a real property right, not a fake claim using government or mobster force. Bottom line is you must be able to kill to protect what is yours, morally, legally, physically. Otherwise it's just not yours.
I'm sure the Indians never wished for a bigger government. I'm sure what they wished for is that they picked everything poisonous they could find that white men had never seen & said "this will get you through the winter".
That would have solved their problems in this land.
Pretty easy solution is to deregulate the health-care industry.
Allow 50k doctors a year from globalized market. Drive up competition, drive down labor costs.
Increase intellectual labor flexibility regarding length of patents thus increasing innovation in product pipeline.
Allow countries with more efficent medical services infrastructure to extend their healthcare system as franchises across the country.
Hilarious...
Westchester Co. NY has more HC administrators making > $250,000 then there are in all of Canada...
Low-cost health care is about getting rid of the executives that add no value to the system...
DING DING DING...we have a winner. Just keep those "efficient" private health care pricks the fuck out of my country.
Ask yourself this: When you are receiving medical treatment are you receiving the best treatment OR are you receiving the treatment they are making the most money on? You may be shocked at the answer most of the time. (In a private healthcare system that is)
We haven't had private health care in this country since before LBJ.
You must be a troll...
Buck and I have gone 'round a good few times awhile back. I guarantee, he's not a troll, he's really that stupid.
You........must..........be............an.............idiot..........................
And in a socialized sickcare system you need not even ask the question, for the answer is always "the treatment they are making the most money on", perhaps you don't understand that "non-profit" does not mean no one makes any money from it, quite the opposite (contracts are awarded via the crony system, as are top-level managerial positions, doctors and nurses don't exactly starve either), and when it's a government-run monopoly, there is, by definition, no competition and no danger of involuntary bankruptcy, thus there is no incentive to minimize costs (or be efficient).
If you cannot see how this applies equally to the American system as to that of Canada or any EU country, you have been baffled by ideological propaganda bullshit.
The efficient private healthcare pricks will be waiting to provide the services you need when your government monopoly system cannabalizes itself and implodes.
Except it's the USA system imploding and not Canada's, which pretty much is opposite to what you were personally claiming / expecting. Maybe you ought to look closer at the health benefits & the cost numbers then re-think your diatribe.
Canada's Healthcare is about equal to the patients in the US without Healthcare.
I can remember getting fitted for contacts for my eyes. I was then asked to watch a video glorifying the new Lasic treatments. After the Dr kept asking, prodding, cajoling me to 'think' well about this new procedure. His pitch to me was worse than some used car salesman would do.
I went there for contacts, not to be pressured into getting the latest (and probably, the best moneymaker for them) procedure.
I never signed for it. Too bad, the Dr lost his commission.
Private health care providers...are pigs in my eyes.
Oh, I've never ran to my Dr demanding I get the latest pill offered on TV either. Too bad, more lost profit.
Worked great for public university system look at how they have decreased the cost of college.
... .... ....
...
....
Trying your hand at a little Morse code?
Transparency of cost to individuals would help too. There is no current way to compare costs versus outcomes for individual health care consumers. If you make the individual responsible for these costs, they will pick what is right for them.
Remember all those rosy, optimistic predictions that were made a few decades ago about "technology & scientific advancement" producing a huge increase in the amount of "leisure time" for the working class?
Guess what, they all came true. Just not exactly in the way some might have imagined.
Exactly... see my comment above...
The huge productivity gains went to a tiny tiny few....
Edit: And ironically, not to those responsible for said gains....
You worship the state because you believe in your own ability to self-determine and wish to force others to capitulate to your method. When God is supposedly eliminated, the state becomes the god. You worship an organization(a collection of people), usually with the same belief in their ability to self-determine and to determine what is best for others. Those who understand the state is unworthy to be worshipped but humanly necessary for collective protection from organizations (collections of people) like yourself are the only ones that are able to be trusted with goverment.
When you type crap like
and
you clearly are not aware of my positions, or you deliberately choose to misconstrue them...
Now, when you say:
You may be on to something....(note I removed two words)
ok, I'll go for that. Good call.
I like how likstane immediately goes to the "you worship the state" chapter of the script in response to suggesting that useless executives stole the rewards of employees' productivity. That's really the only response people like him can come up with because they're the biggest entitlement leeches and crybabies on the planet. It's not enough for them to take everything, they have to have people believe they deserve it all too.
I isn't the government's job to invest my money in healthcare spending. And anytime the government gets involved, the incurable inefficienies of socialism take hold. Outside of a free market, the system cannot be reformed and will not be reformed.
Corporatism isn't socialism, refuse to confuse. You woke up one day and private industry was a relic, now you 'own' GM do you have say in its affairs? You do not hence not socialism. Mussolini is smiling however.
Have very little to say in it's affairs if your don't own enough of it's stock either, private or gov't run.
In saying "You do not [have any say in the affairs of the collectively owned entity] hence not socialism" you are acknowledging by a technicality of definition that a socialist state has never existed (and never will!).
Corporatism implies a state, refuse to confuse. You(r ancestors) woke up one day and the state was making sweet love to private industry, now government-dependent oligopolist corporations dominate both the economy and the state. Does the free market have a snowball's chance in hell here? It does not, hence not capitalism. Mussolini is happy about this as well.
One of these days, someone who actually read and understood Das Kapital is going to come explain all the stuff Marx had wrong.
Heh.
The charges run up to me and the provider of my free market health insurance are mind boggling. A vague complaint of pain equals 3,000-10,000. I can imagine a single payer system charging less as most do.
You might be hitting at the root of the problem there. The question is always framed as who is going to pay, not generally how much does it cost. It's the cost, not the payor that is the problem. Hey, maybe if a trick from the credit card industry could be used: Patients get to shop the best price/treatment balance and get a 10% credit to a selected credit card for the money saved. The costs would go down! Nah. Some healthcare "provider" someplace would figger out how to get a major cut of that as well. The so-called healthcare industry is just as Ponzied-up as the banking system. Follow the money.
While I completely agree with you (as usual), Rocky, please call it what it really is: "Sick care".
When was the last time ANYONE ever heard of a CURE for any disease or malady actually being discovered or announced? EVERY tactic and aspect of the medical-industrial complex nowadays revolves around "treatments", usually for life, and usually with expensive drugs, as opposed to cures. Coincidence?
We think coincidence is not the culprit. A well constructed ruse is suspected!
Actaully a breakdown of spending reveals it to be "Death Care".....
http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/20/4/188.full
I would have thought that the majority of Americans were anxious to meet their supposed maker... but Medicare shows that that no expense, no matter how futile, is too much...
Some factoids
I like "managed poor health" akak, as in, the patient goes on a long-term maintenance plan where they get to (be the) experiment to find which cocktail of pharma will cause them the least "healing" while simultaneously cost them the most monies. . .
pills to cancel out the effects of other pills, pills to "up" this numerical stat while "lowering" that one. . . depending on the flavour of the current fad diagnosis, one can try out any number of pricey pharma, until that perfect combo is reached. . . temporarily, as the "effects" randomly ebb 'n' flow, and another trip to the scrip is needed.
once you step on the escalator, you begin to realise there's no getting off until your expiration date is reached.
What incurable inefficiencies? Long-term planning & large-scale collective payment and/or production seems to beat out short-term-only market solutions with few players. At least with health care it's a net gain because healthier people can work more per week, year, etc. & for more years in life.
Since the inception of Social Security the general population has been forced to contribute to this program. As we had a portion of our checks forceably taken from us; our benevolent government looted the money and spent it on other items that they knew were best for us. All government employees have, of course, their own private retirement system out of which not one penny has been used for our benefit. As we know neither program is going away so since one of the programs is very well funded, combine them and let our representatives share in the burden they have created.
During the Obamacare initial planning stages, Rush Limbaugh said that his biggest problem with the proposed program is "longer lines for people like him as more insured people would mean lower quality of service for him."
I don't see government spending on health care as welfare. Despite trillions spend on health care in US, most of that money is channeled to doctors and pharmaceutical companies: the patient, whether even real, is just a means of making and distribution of MONEY form the lower classes to the rich.
Now, one can say many things; but. not seeing any benefit of millions additional insured is........so ZH.
All these arguments here on ZH have false premises. The real purpose is rationing of money, wealth and privilege to some and denial to others. This applies to anything that money is spend on--austerity is very selective. In order to hide the real truth, the public is fed a litany of lies that come from right wing think-tank, and so called "libertarian" talking points.
Pretending for a moment that Limbaugh was sincere, the obvious solution is a tiered system as working demonstrably in many countries.
There'd be the "public" or national-health system which is vertically-integrated and insurance free, and then the private "cash for services" system for guys like Rush who don't want to wait in line and can pay any price.
(I don't think for a moment he was sincere, myself. I also don't think we're going to get anywhere until we eliminate the idea that "insurance" is a necessary component of the system--that means Medicare has to go.)
Its worse than that. Cheap gov't mortgage rates are now an entitlement and a form of welfare. As are the refi programs. Think of them as economic stimulus misses the point that they never go away.
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/housing-a-tale-of-fou...
with all of the u.s. spending on health care, this country ranks wayyyyy down there on life expectancy..................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Um, blame the six dollar burger at Carl's Jr and MIC, not healthcare.
Just kidding it all sucks set the entire thing ablaze.
youre right.....pay less for low grade processed food and more for health care....and live a shorter life.....or pay more for high quality food and less for health care....and live a longer life....sadly this country has it backwards..............
good man Gene. Hope you vote with your dollar exclusively.
The real scandal here is how much lower male life expectancy is than female life expectancy. Iceland seems to be the best place to be a guy, with a life expectancy of 80.2 years. The U.S. female/male differential is on the high side, but don't hold your breath for Congressional hearings about why so many men in the U.S. die so young. In a natural state of affairs, it would be the other way around, with mortality during childbirth biasing life expectancy against females, as seen by the countries at the bottom end of the spectrum.
have you done any research on your "scandal"?
perhaps a diet heavy on meats, particularly feed lot beef and pork, combined with higher alcohol consumption, smoking and "risky behaviours" contribute to the "life expectancy" differentials.
Iceland males don't really live the same "life" as amrkn males do, in many many respects.
personal responsibility, consequences.
Are you fucking nuts? Yeah life was so much better when we had debtors prisons, people starving in the streets and hordes of uneducated kids, many working in sweatshops.
Listen, the US has the worst social welfare system of any developed nation and yet it also has one of the worst financial situations. In fact one could argue that the lack of a decent welfare sytem has made america uncompettive in the world economy.
The problem is not the social welfare state. Remember health care for example was brought in by a socialist party in Cnada ... but only gradually, based on the ability of the economy/government to pay for it. The solution is simply you have to pay for what you get. If you want more you ahve to pay for more.
The people most responsible for the US mess have been Republicans who only wanted to cut taxes and not spending. Fucking wimps.
Republicans? Seriously ? Are you gullible enough to believe there is a difference between republicrats and democrans?
amen to that doc.....
How is that fair? They will pay for my broken arm or heart-attack but they won't pay for my broken teeth.
If only there were a way to drop an internet spike strip on the offramp from DKos to here...
You seem completely blind to the possibility that a very large chunk of the country DOES NOT WANT MORE FROM CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT AND DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THESE THINGS!
Fucking idiot.
Sad that we have lost even the concept of what our social network was created for, how it was to be isolated for the benefit of the people, and how it was misdirected, gamed, and defrauded beginning the day after it was created. It became the target of every thief in the world because of it's unique characteristic. It was designed to protect the little people and easily targeted. Costs go up because the thieves bought people in congress to turn it into insurance profits, monopoly, control fraud, price fixing, copyright fraud, bribes, payola, advertising and larceny to game it.
The actual costs are quite small and are paid for every day of every year by everyone working or paying taxes in this country. The money has been in trust for all these years but darn if the money wasn't stolen, and now it must be time to revise it because it is unsustainable. Only after the mark has been relieved of everything do they pull out the rug.
Welfare. the term used to describe the basic rights of a human being, as decided by human beings and dictated by law. Welfare, the alternate name to what every other civilized nation on earth calls a basic human right for their people.
Does it please the author to tighten up their kneepads and gently stroke the thigh/midbrain of their fuhrer? Does the author help their master with that mental orgasm where the real thing ceased long ago with their humanity. Ah, the Privateer. A pirate that stole from anyone. Always for profit first, loyalty never. The ultimate home for the true psychopath.
You left out #4; cover everyone, limit payouts to doctors, agree only to drugs that are proven to function, control the system so fraud can be eliminated rather than encouraged, prosecute crime, eliminate cheats from ever participating again. You know, give a shit about that which is law in our nation.
Too difficult for our privateer. To the privy with you then, and give em' a nice view straight up. Hurry now as the tide is rising.
The problem with State-led cost containment is that it inevitably leads to authoritarianism and favortism. WHO decides how much you are allowed to spend on healthcare or whether it is "cost effective"? Are you a "productive" member of society? Europe has tried No 4 (parcel out health care for all) with ever-decreasing returns as they rapidly cut trying to adjust for the inevitable demographic time bomb.
Outcomes are different for the most obvious reason - diet and public health. The Japanese and European diet is healthier and neither (especially Japan) has the obesity problem that is the root of so many of our problems.
My personal opinion is that technological advances will soon begin to address basic problems (at first) like obesity and its consequences then advance to easy eye or body part replacements - permanent cures vs constant problems.
You're obviously not a regular reader of The Privateer. The good Captain cannot be condemned for your disagreement with one aspect of the whole picture -- and I'm not talking about healthcare. I've been reading The Privateer since the late 1990s and it has saved my bacon over and over again. I swung to putting all (100%) of my available cash into PMs early on. How's 'bout you?
Want quality health care?
Join the Military and fight for it. It will be there when you need it.
That's some funny shit, dude. I think the junker thought you were serious.
The social welfare-state to run up government debt is the big rainmaker for the banking cartel. Our debt is their money, plus the additional jacked up leverage.
Banks encouraged all of it and paid for it to make it happen. Goldman Sachs and the other squid grifters could have put a stop to it a long time ago if they really had wanted to reign in the politicians.
These days you can get arrested feeding animals in National Parks. PETA, among others, considers it insidiously cruel to make bears dependent on humans and unlearn how to fend for themselves, and even draws in copycat bears from surrounding areas (Mexico?). Of course, we know that the unnatural behavior is also generational and applies to humans. Where's PETA's outrage over own species? Welfareism doesn't work.
"Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince skeptics but to use words to help the gullible believe what they want to believe. No message has been more welcomed by the gullible, in countries around the world, than the promise of something for nothing. That is the core of Barack Obama’s medical-care plan." --Thomas Sowell, NRO
Charlatan-in-Chief - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online
This is one of the worst articles I have seen on ZeroHedge. Very disappointing. The author NeoCon no doubt? Its not event sententious, its just republican verbiage spouting off on result data (recorded and biasely forecast) without even addressing as to why this is happening ie looking at the cause data.
Why is health costs going up?
Why is unemployment growing at record levels?
This facile rubbish was put together by a knee jerk in a tie and patented shoes.
We get it dufus, you are the finger-in-the-ear fraternity "..lalalala I'm not listening ..I'm not listening.."
Carry on living in your bubble..,Sooner or later its going to bust and you are going to have to come to terms with your own criminal profligacy.
What the hell? What in this article has anything to do with neocons? Can you fucking read? Or are you so mentally challenged that anyone who thinks our social safety net is inherently authoritarian and economically crippling is a neocon?
Facile rubbish indeed- you do nothing but recite a nonsensical script developed to poorly rebut a different nonsensical script concocted by another idiot.
Nice job, sock puppet.
Let's simply change health care back to how it worked in the USA in 1960. It appears all the "improvements" since then are "the problem."
you mean like the value loss of the dollar since then?
Hardship State? Here it is in a nutshell: Let the scum of the bankers, Wall St Thieves and their ilk prescribe their "cure" for us all. Am sure you'll just love living under that.
The unsustainability of it all means that many have to die; no wonder there are special viruses being perfected. Only the chosen few with the proper Nazi mindset will have the antidote.
So to summaize -
Federal healthy care spending is unsustainable.
If I may expand on your excellent summation.
The gigantic and well entrenched health care fascist machines growth is eating away at profits that can be "earned" by the fascist financialization sector. This report, written by the financialization sector, is seeking to educate the average American to their plight of potential dwindling profits.
i.e. - If this keeps up, our "hooks" into managing Social Security for America are going to net 0, because too much money will be diverted to Medicare.
Isn't pretty much EVERYTHING the feral government is involved in nowadays unsustainable?
My wife has no health insurance and so we pay cash for any health care she needs. A few years ago she needed an endoscopy, so we booked the doc and the hospital and made all our payment arrangements up front. The doc gave us a 50% discount from his normal fee, and the hospital quoted us $700 for the out-patient procedure. A few weeks after the procedure we received a receipt from the hospital. The charge for the procedure was $7800, discounted to $700 and marked paid. So, I have to assume that if my wife had had health insurance her insurer would have been billed $7800 for a procedure that the hospital was perfectly happy to take $700 for. I am sure that the hospital didn't lose money on $700.
Any other questions about why health care costs are so high?
Precisely. It's all about the cost (as distinguished from the "bill"), revealed by who is paying. The curtain will be pulled back by following the money NOT paid, and who would have gotten it had the gov't picked up the tab. I see little difference in operating procedures between the health and banking cartels. We had the MIC first, then the BIC, and now the HIC. Military, banking, health. All ways to fleece the populace, and all government sanctioned.
Epic truth.
yes certain plans seem to discount/limit different costs.. sometimes it is 50% from the billed amount and then insurance askes for 20% out of pocket or so from the reduced amount... everyone is takin advantage of as much as they can while they can.. if you have good insurance and have ANY ailments just get it done - it'll never stop
It is beyond "government sanctioned". It is a necessity for the government's survival. The government is not passive in this; they are an active player... a creator, a driver. They have to be... they over-promised back in the days real, organic economic prosperity, and now they can only keep those promises through debt bubbles, ponzis, and centralized repression.
The rich get more welfare than the poor, as someone above astutely mentioned.
People born with disabilities should get welfare. People who pay into SS should get it upon retiring. Welfare isn't broken, what is broken is the means tests--too many people scamming the system--and politicians putting their dirty hands in the cookie jar.
What is wrong with charity? Oh that is right you can't force people against their will to support your causes like education for sex offenders, free housing for drug addicts, food stamps for child abusers.
And don't give the garbage about people wouldn't do it. Thailand, Pakistan, Haiti, Katrina people stepped up and donated multiple billions. Drug companies give free drugs to any under privleged person in need. Anyone that qualifies academically with out financing can go to any privtae ivy league school.
You just want to force your ideas on others, sicko, control freak.
What.
He said sicko, control freak. Did you not hear or understand?
There is a lot wrong with welfare and nothing wrong with charity. That is what.
Stop forcing your beliefs on other people.
free housing for drug addicts
You may be surprised but those same drug addicts look a lot worse, and sometimes leave nasty things like dirty needles, outside in everyone's way, a danger to children and such, if they are homeless.
Same with injection clinics: this controlled environment reduces diseases spread, reduces lethality from overdoses & allows an open environment to push the message that quitting would be good. Sure, some never will but if even a couple do out of every 50 to 100 that's a little progress. The main point though is that if you don't, disease will run rampant in the community.
Surprise: lots of drug addicts don't appear as addicts to the untrained eye until it's been months to years.
Why should persons with disabilities get anything from the state? Why should I be forced to participate in your benevolent use of my money? The state is not the church. Quit worshipping the state.
Because your son or daughter could be born with a disability and have nobody to help.
I don't like the State at all, but not everything is black/white. There are circumstances beyond peoples' control, and those people shouldn't be relegated to poverty. People who make bad decisions and have the capacity to control their fate are a different story...which is why I said means testing is the issue.
Every year people donate multilple millions to help the disabled. You have no proof or reason to believe he wouldn't be able to use private charity to help fund his child. There is also the possibility insurance would exist to cover the expense.
Again you just want control. Stop forcing your ideas on others. You have no right to try and control people.
I don't want your help or the help of your benevolent state. Keep the fuck out of my business. Every circumstance is out of peoples "control." You and your ilk that somehow know what's best for others are the problem. Go control your dog, wife, kids, etc....
This man is a rock, this man is an island!
Strawman argument and totally irrelevant.
You choose guns pointed at people's heads to accomplish your objectives. I adovocate free will and choice. You are immoral. I am moral.
Your morality leads to death and destruction look around you for the outcome. My morality leads to wealth and prosperity.
You're being idealistic, though. That's fine if you live on an island, and you are one man. When you have other animals (i.e. people) after your scarce natural resources (or natural resource purchasing power, in the form of wealth), as in modern society, then it might be a wise strategy to part with a small % of them to keep things civil. In your idealistic scenario, the lesser animals get restless, and anarchy ensues. Do you even realize this? If we switch to such a system, you'd probably be robbed of your entire wealth (and life) within an hour. There's a reason the Wild West isn't wild anymore. If you want liberty and peace, go off the grid and live the life you want. Nothing is stopping you. A great start would be leaving Zero Hedge.
If you want to be part of society, then sacrifice is required. Now, it should be a much smaller sacrifice than we all currently pay, which is why I keep saying the system isn't broken, but the execution is.
Personally, I feel empathy for people born blind and shit like that. It's sociopathic not to feel empathy. So, I'd rather you call me a Statist (even though I hate the State, go figure) than an sociopath.
Forced benevolence is tyranny.
Thumbing down my comment and not addressing that you'd be dead within 20 minutes of the liberty/anarchy you desire isn't much of a response. I mean, if you are willing to explain your stance and how humans would get along in a system where everyone had the liberty to do anything and there was no government (and thus no law, justice, crime, punishment, etc), I'd be willing to listen. People grouped together and formed societies because the alternative was frightening.
No one in this disucussion said they wanted anarchy. quit creating strawmen. i want the government to perform their function of protecting propertyt rights and stopping those who use force and fraud to achieve their objectives. you want a government to use force to achieve your objectives. I want to choose who I give my wealth to you want to steal wealth and give it others. the choice isnt between anarchy and government. the choice is between the proper and improper roll of government. again quit creating strawmen to "prove" your argument
@ Devo-There is nothing to address. Whether or not I'd be dead is not the debate. You believe you know whats best for others and want to control them. I do not care what you think is best. I desire freedom from the state. Don't take my money out of my pocket to use for what you think is best. When you come to forcibly take my stuff, I have the right to defend it. It is very simple. Humans have proved they are ungovernable by laws of the state. Do you think more laws will make them more obedient? Government should be nothing more than a collection of sovereign persons voluntarily organized for their common defense.
Why don't you just go off the grid and live by your own rules?
Ps. I have no interest in controlling you. Just think the execution of the system is the problem. Let me have my opinion.
I don't give a shit what you do with your money. Stay out of my stack.
Let him have his own life. Stop forcing people. Stop advocating the use of guns and incarceration to achieve your objectives. Stop advocating theft and wealth redistribution.
You don't need a church to take care of the disabled. It's not about religion, it's about morality. Churches are a place for control & ideology.
Morality is a little more common.
Sure, some people believe the disabled should die if no one knows about them, no one steps forth to help.
We call those people scum.
It's one of those things that always amazes me to see how many don't have a good grasp on this.
Back in '08, the official TARP figure was about $800B, right? And just to keep the math simple, let's say there were 300M US citizens.
Call that $2700 per person.
The majority of the US population doesn't *have* $2700 in a bank account. It would have cost them less to let the banks fail and lose their deposits (completely!) than it would've cost to bail them out.
So who was really helped by the $800B? The relatively small number of people who have so much money in the banks (and the shadow-banks, and the brokerage houses, etc.) that they needed the system "saved."
That's about 10 years worth of foodstamps given to benefit the folks who are supposed to be the productive ones, paying their own way.
But how often do you see someone here bitching about a SNAP card or EBT transactions? That's a serious comprehension problem.
People on Food Stamps aren't invited to this forum. There are probably very few non-whites that post here too. The majority of people that post here are exactly what Louis Farrakhan calls them.
If one thinks that this country faces a major financial calamity, guns and ammo, won't be much help. Even in the Apocalyptic movies like "Mad Max" and "Road Warrior", the humans organize themselves into primitive communal societies and embark on voyage to seek better livelihood for their collective group. They do leave the savages with their guns and ammo behind.
Until you understand that the 800 billion to bail out the banks is required to perpetuate the welfare system you advocate.
BINGO!
The entire "modern" technocratic state, with mass comfortable retirements, healthcare as a right, college for all, and on and on and on, is built on the myth of perpetual growth. Without growth, every so-called "advanced" welfare state collapses -- none of them can pay their way as they go -- and as we all know, perpetual growth does not exist.
Every welfare state is set up in the only affordable way -- pay for a small portion of its costs with taxes and then outgrow the remaining funding deficit. Social Security, government pensions, Medicare, Medicaid -- all of them and more -- have been designed from the beginning with built-in deficits. Yesterday's promises are met by tomorrow's growth.
So what happens when the real economy no longer grows fast enough to cover the built-in deficits? Those deficits stop being theoretical design elements meant to make the system affordable, and instead become real-life debts. Then you're faced with a choice: admit that state over-promised (rarely chosen) or pretend things are still OK by blowing a debt bubble.
Choosing to create a comprehensive welfare state is choosing to end up in debt and living under the thumb of the debt creators (i.e. government and bankers). It cannot be any other way.
US citizen myth of eternal growth has deeper consequences that the welfare state.
Noticeably, the OP dismisses infinite growth paradigm and assigns the consequences to one of its effect: the welfare state.
It is quite normal though and expected.
US citizens will keep looking right and left to try and see who has to be pushed under the train so that US citizenism can be maintained.
US citizenism comes with a large and rich gangster cultural goods productions.
Stories of gangsters expanding their turf are numerous.
So are the stories of gangsters when they hit saturation. At that moment, it is all about double crossing, knowing who is a real member of the gang and who is not, who is going to be sacrificed.
God you're a moron. Where do I advocate a welfare state?
"But how often do you see someone here bitching about a SNAP card or EBT transactions? That's a serious comprehension problem."
What is that jackass?