Unemployment

[Jester]

I would say that credit cards are the largest cause of private debt (not counting mortgages).

Credit does not in and of itself cause debt - spending does. What are people spending on? Houses are certainly one answer. Medical expenses are another very large chunk. And, unlike mortgages, when someone gets caught without insurance and has to put the cost on the credit card, they don't get a nice gentle interest rate. They get rooked by the card companies. It may be better than suffering with no medical care, but it's a major source of debt, especially for low income families.

-Jester

[Delc]

In the US, when you lose your employment you can keep your health insurance (COBRA -- for some limited number of months), however you pay 100% of the cost rather than just the 40% you paid as the employee.

And when COBRA runs out? Screw em, right? They should have had the sense to not get sick?

[kandrathe]

And when COBRA runs out? Screw em, right? They should have had the sense to not get sick?

You didn't read what I wrote.

We shouldn't need COBRA to temporarily allow us to keep our insurance. If we owned it, and it didn't disappear with our jobs, then it would be like groceries, the car payment, the mortgage, etc. Just another bill we need to pay. With my scheme... You'd have a very small premium for those rare catastrophes, and a sizable HSA you can draw from to pay for your health care. When we lose our jobs, we don't lose our HSA/retirement account... It goes with us to the next job. You in effect build your own safety net, at least for health insurance and retirement.

So, when someone is unemployed, and they run out of money what happens? We can't just think about their health insurance, because they are going to miss food, heat, and shelter pretty quickly as well. So, when people go broke what should the government do?

[kandrathe]

Credit does not in and of itself cause debt - spending does. What are people spending on? Houses are certainly one answer. Medical expenses are another very large chunk. And, unlike mortgages, when someone gets caught without insurance and has to put the cost on the credit card, they don't get a nice gentle interest rate. They get rooked by the card companies. It may be better than suffering with no medical care, but it's a major source of debt, especially for low income families.

Are you talking about the US? Here, the lower your income the less you pay. In my state the Medicaid (free) threshold is 275% of federal poverty level. Which, this year would be $60,637.50 for a family of four. The median income for 2009 was $83,444. And, then you have other programs, like SChip.

I agree though about credit. Credit is evil, and we should vastly curtail it. I'm not sure how, but one step would be to repeal the changes they made to bankruptcy laws in 2005 that made it harder for people to file bankruptcy. This would make lenders more wary again about to whom, and how much credit they extended.

[Jester]

Are you talking about the US? Here, the lower your income the less you pay. In my state the Medicaid (free) threshold is 275% of federal poverty level. Which, this year would be $60,637.50 for a family of four. The median income for 2009 was $83,444. And, then you have other programs, like SChip.

Yes, I'm talking about the US. Medical debt is a serious problem. Not everyone is eligible for Medicaid, not everyone who is eligible actually gets it, and many people/families are caught in a bad situation without insurance, or more likely with inadequate insurance. That usually means running up debt. Even for families with good insurance, the increasing cost of health care is slowly driving them closer to, or deeper into, debt.

I don't think people are stupid. But they're not infinitely rational, and when an expensive, low probability event hits, that can mean maxing out the credit cards on a "temporary" basis, that cripples them for years to come.

I agree though about credit. Credit is evil, and we should vastly curtail it. I'm not sure how, but one step would be to repeal the changes they made to bankruptcy laws in 2005 that made it harder for people to file bankruptcy. This would make lenders more wary again about to whom, and how much credit they extended.

I don't think credit is evil, and I don't think it should be vastly curtailed. Tighter regulation would be a step forward. How to solve the problem of people using credit is another story. Partly, I think the issue is education - people aren't as rational as we think they are. But the other part is expenses. People are encouraged to buy homes when they shouldn't be. The idea of universal homeownership is politically sacred, but economically stupid. Health care is another area.

-Jester

[Jester]

If we owned it, and it didn't disappear with our jobs, then it would be like groceries, the car payment, the mortgage, etc. Just another bill we need to pay.

Really? Because if you owned it, I suspect it would end up like retirement savings - something everyone things is a good idea, and most people do to some extent, but something which gets cut out or left out far more often than is rational, especially when times are tough. People are not good at predicting the future, even in a probabilistic sense. Everyone is too optimistic about their health care situation, until they get sick - at which point it's too late to change your mind.

People don't treat it as just one more bill. If you stop buying food, you starve. If you stop paying your rent, you live on the street. If you stop buying health insurance... well, nothing happens. Not immediately. So people risk it - even when that risk is irrational. Indvidually, 95% of people are fine. But 5% get caught out with some crisis or another, and the total social cost is higher than if they'd all just had universal health care.

With my scheme... You'd have a very small premium for those rare catastrophes, and a sizable HSA you can draw from to pay for your health care.

Sure, if you're lucky enough to get sick later, rather than earlier. What happens if you're 22, trying to make ends meet, you take a risky job in construction, and lose a limb? You don't have a "sizeable" lifetime of savings - maybe you had a few bucks you set aside. Maybe you have some insurance, but it doesn't cover everything. Or maybe you're not able to afford to insure yourself, to save extra for emergencies, and get every other bill paid on time.

I had a relative who used to work in Workers' Compensation. Even in Canada, where the medical bills are not an issue, the loss of income alone is crippling for many people. Getting sick sucks. How bad could it get with medical bills on top of things? Pretty ugly.

People think these things won't happen to them. Individually, they're probably right. Collectively, they can't all be right.

So, when people go broke what should the government do?

It's typically referred to as "welfare."

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Really? Because if you owned it, I suspect it would end up like retirement savings - something everyone things is a good idea, and most people do to some extent, but something which gets cut out or left out far more often than is rational, especially when times are tough. People are not good at predicting the future, even in a probabilistic sense. Everyone is too optimistic about their health care situation, until they get sick - at which point it's too late to change your mind.

A few things come to mind here. You cannot legislate away ignorance or stupidity. I've said before, a safety net is a good thing and helps people become self-sufficient faster. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and life is not always fair, or kind. The US has been trying to legislate away poverty for over a hundred years. It hasn't worked. We have just as many poor people today as when we started. They aren't as desperately poor, but they are still poor. We'd have been far better off putting that money into better birth control for poor families, and better education for poor children. You know... "Teach a man to fish..." Our billions and billions of tax money has taken the edge off of poverty, and it has also created multi-generational dependencies. It's this dependency that the progressives have used for political advantage to remain in power. Government run health care is just another step in locking in that dependency. So again. If government rationing works for health care, then why not government distribution of food, clothing, and housing? These are also staples of life that seem to be unfairly distributed.

People don't treat it as just one more bill. If you stop buying food, you starve. If you stop paying your rent, you live on the street. If you stop buying health insurance... well, nothing happens. Not immediately. So people risk it - even when that risk is irrational. Individually, 95% of people are fine. But 5% get caught out with some crisis or another, and the total social cost is higher than if they'd all just had universal health care.

If you stop care taking people, then people will be forced to think through these issues and take care of themselves. I know we just fundamentally disagree on this point. You think there should be laws that force people to do the right thing, and I think people should choose for themselves what is right, and suffer the consequences for their mistakes. For me, this is one of those freedom things. If we can truly realize the fruits of our labor, then we must also suffer the broken bones of our failures. Yes, failure has consequences. But, I think it is wrong to enslave everyone to prevent anyone from choosing wrongly and failing. It is always done for the most noble purpose; they only want to take away the bad choices, but eventually they end up taking away all the choices.

Sure, if you're lucky enough to get sick later, rather than earlier. What happens if you're 22, trying to make ends meet, you take a risky job in construction, and lose a limb? You don't have a "sizeable" lifetime of savings - maybe you had a few bucks you set aside. Maybe you have some insurance, but it doesn't cover everything. Or maybe you're not able to afford to insure yourself, to save extra for emergencies, and get every other bill paid on time.

Maybe some people are ignorant, or don't care enough to buy insurance. I know I made all the mistakes at 19 that you are talking about, and I ended up filing (medical) bankruptcy at age 20 after I was in a terrible accident. I discovered that I was not immortal. Had my scheme described earlier been in place, I probably would have had a cheap high deductible plan. I was glad to be out from under that debt, but later in life when I had the means I made a point of donating to that hospital until I had repaid what I had previously owed them.

I had a relative who used to work in Workers' Compensation. Even in Canada, where the medical bills are not an issue, the loss of income alone is crippling for many people. Getting sick sucks. How bad could it get with medical bills on top of things? Pretty ugly. People think these things won't happen to them. Individually, they're probably right. Collectively, they can't all be right.

I agree. Generally most people who are younger don't need as much health care, so in general, contributions to a HCSA will accrue over time. Again, some people will hit the safety net, and get back on their feet. Those who can no longer care for themselves won't be able to get back on their feet, and they will need to become wards of the state.

It's typically referred to as "welfare."

Yes, and if we can focus on helping only the people who need help, then our federal budget can be much smaller. We just need to dismantle the "Great Society" of Johnson, the "New Deal" of FDR, and the corruption of our Constitutional government going back to Wilson.

[Jester]

If you stop care taking people, then people will be forced to think through these issues and take care of themselves.

You suffered a bankruptcy. You weren't protected. Did you think it through? And if you didn't, what makes you think other people will?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You suffered a bankruptcy. You weren't protected. Did you think it through? And if you didn't, what makes you think other people will?

Some will, and some won't. I suffered for my mistake and learned from it. My case was one of slipping through the cracks in the system. My parents were just divorcing, and I left home. I couldn't afford to stay in college, so I took time off from pursuing my degree. I was working full time (for a State Agency no less), but I had no benefits in that position. I didn't even have an apartment for part of that summer, and I just lived out of my car and staying with friends. But, even with that kind of crap storm in my life, the system worked. I climbed out of my personal hell, and made something of my life.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The US has been trying to legislate away poverty for over a hundred years. It hasn't worked. We have just as many poor people today as when we started.

Is the situation better or worse than if we'd done nothing?

They aren't as desperately poor, but they are still poor.

What is poverty? Starvation? Inadequate clothing? Lack of shelter? Because I suspect those are rare and would be even rarer if people knew and took advantage of available programs.

We'd have been far better off putting that money into better birth control for poor families, and better education for poor children. You know... "Teach a man to fish..."

Birth control? There's a strong negative correlation between affluence and fertility. So, unless you propose forcing birth control on the poor, it will not work. Education? Mostly it doesn't work because of the stresses of the milieu of the poor. It's a catch 22: for education to work, they need to not be poor, and for them to not be poor, education needs to work. You could take them out of their milieu -- say, round them up and put them in ranches in Arizona. I'm not sure how well compulsory sterilization or mandatory state run boarding schools fit into the libertarian idea, but I'd guess not too well.

Besides, who pays for it all?

Our billions and billions of tax money has taken the edge off of poverty, and it has also created multi-generational dependencies. It's this dependency that the progressives have used for political advantage to remain in power. Government run health care is just another step in locking in that dependency.

Yeah, in my lifetime the progressives have been in continuous power. Except, of course, the Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, Bush, and Shrub years. Oh, wait, that's 36 of the last 58 years -- I guess the progressive conspiracy still needs a bit of work.

So again. If government rationing works for health care, then why not government distribution of food, clothing, and housing?

"Rationing"? Whatever. I'll answer your question if you answer mine: how much money will you need next year for food, clothing, housing? How about for medical expenses? A couple of bottles of generic aspirin? A week's stay in the hospital? A major procedure?

You think there should be laws that force people to do the right thing, and I think people should choose for themselves what is right, and suffer the consequences for their mistakes.

While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that our society will accept that. So, in looking for a solution, you are either constrained to what is doable or your solution is just a worthless pipe dream.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Is the situation better or worse than if we'd done nothing?

I don't know. It's hard to speculate on that parallel universe's outcome. My gut tells me things are perhaps better (not so harsh), but not good at eliminating the problems that cause it. I think we've been inefficient, and have misapplied our efforts.

What is poverty? Starvation? Inadequate clothing? Lack of shelter? Because I suspect those are rare and would be even rarer if people knew and took advantage of available programs.

It depends on who you ask. I think the definition has changed over time. Today, lack of TV and high speed Internet access is considered poverty. Also, geographically, things are vastly different between urban and rural, coastal and heartland, north and south, southern border or not.

Birth control? There's a strong negative correlation between affluence and fertility. So, unless you propose forcing birth control on the poor, it will not work.

Agreed. Yet, things won't change for the poor unless we can prevent more teen pregnancies, and give them an opportunity to get themselves educated before they are locked in to a life of perpetual welfare with a dozen little house imps. Our culture of high teen pregnancy skews many statistics in the US, including poverty, education, infant mortality rates, crime, etc.

Education? Mostly it doesn't work because of the stresses of the milieu of the poor. It's a catch 22: for education to work, they need to not be poor, and for them to not be poor, education needs to work. You could take them out of their milieu -- say, round them up and put them in ranches in Arizona. I'm not sure how well compulsory sterilization or mandatory state run boarding schools fit into the libertarian idea, but I'd guess not too well.

There are things that do work, without force of law or rounding poor people up in box cars. What we are doing is failing. We need to reach youth to change the dialog about society, whether it be drug use, education, birth control, etc. These are cultural issues, and we are not connecting with youth on their role in taking charge of their own destinies. Maybe one problem is that we force them into government run institutions (that we call schools) at age five. The product that comes out after 12 years is not what we wanted or need.

I think one thing is clear to me, it takes the very best teachers to work at the worst schools. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.

Besides, who pays for it all?

I'm offering the alternative to "giving them fish". So, how do we "teach them to fish"?

Yeah, in my lifetime the progressives have been in continuous power. Except, of course, the Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, Bush, and Shrub years. Oh, wait, that's 36 of the last 58 years -- I guess the progressive conspiracy still needs a bit of work.

Being President doesn't allow you to undo all the laws that came before. So, still, in that bunch I'd give you Eisenhower and Regan. The others were just progressive Republicans in the pattern of Teddy.

"Rationing"? Whatever. I'll answer your question if you answer mine: how much money will you need next year for food, clothing, housing? How about for medical expenses? A couple of bottles of generic aspirin? A week's stay in the hospital? A major procedure?

$22,000. $2400 (max deductible for family is $5000). $3. $30000 (but, again $5000 max). Same.

While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that our society will accept that. So, in looking for a solution, you are either constrained to what is doable or your solution is just a worthless pipe dream.

I don't know that it was realistic for Kennedy to dream "the New Frontier" or Johnson to believe he could wipe away all travails with "The Great Society". Yet, that vision has been the modus operandi since 1964 (most of my lifetime).

It takes people discussing what is possible coupled with the experience of what has worked and what has not worked to craft changes in our laws that will bring about the society we desire. I'd like to live in a society where people can work hard and get ahead. Or as Adams said, "that American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all our citizens of every rank." I'm not crafting a new vision, but trying to reclaim the original one.

[Jester]

So, still, in that bunch I'd give you Eisenhower and Regan. The others were just progressive Republicans in the pattern of Teddy.

This would be a joke, right? Nixon?

Bush? Dubya?

Seriously?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Seriously?

They are all to the left . . .






















. . . of Attila the Hun. :lol:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

This would be a joke, right? Nixon? Bush? Dubya? Seriously?

Did they grow the government? Did they expand the military? Did they grow the deficit? These are symptoms of progressivism. I think you maybe opposed Bush's conservatism, but didn't recognize his progressivism. Our politicians are often a mix of both. It's just their constituency and special interests that change. Regan and Bush didn't raise my taxes, but they did run up the deficit (i.e. taxes deferred). Actually, the least progressive terms were Bush I, and Clinton when they scaled back the government after the end of the cold war. Clinton, mostly because they failed to get much of anything progressive passed.

When you hear Republican politicians tout "strong national defense", "investing in small business", "investing in domestic energy", "kinder, gentler nation", blah, blah, blah. These are progressive concepts where they take money from people who have earned it, and give it to people who have not. I don't want to support run away corporate welfare either. My definition of a progressive Republican is Jim Ramstead.

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Ma...eet_Partnership

[Jester]

Progressive... as Inigo Montoya so famously put it, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Progressive... as Inigo Montoya so famously put it, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think you might have myopia... I know you want to keep that word for your own movement. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism...e_United_States

I'm as concerned about Graham, Romney, Huckabee, Snowe, McCain, Pawlenty, or Schwarznegger's progressivism, as I am about Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They just express it in different ways.

[Jester]

I think you might have myopia... I know you want to keep that word for your own movement. :)

Psychic powers? I've never liked the term "progressive". It's one I grudgingly use to describe a certain segment of American Liberalism, but I wouldn't generally use it to describe myself.

I also don't have a movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism...e_United_States

Is this some magic link that takes you to a different article than it does for me? Because otherwise, I'm at a loss. George W. Bush is in the same political tent as Ariana Huffington? Richard Nixon with Ralph Nader? John McCain with Howard Zinn? (Dennis Kucinich? Upton Sinclair? Jim Hightower? Noam friggin' Chomsky?)

Like I said before. Is this a joke?

I mean, they give a list of issues in the article. Take a look:

Modern issues for progressives can include: electoral reform (including instant runoff voting, proportional representation and fusion candidates), environmental conservation, pollution control and environmentalism, same-sex marriage, easy access to abortion, universal health care, abolition of the death penalty, affordable housing, a viable Social Security System, renewable energy, smart growth urban development, a living wage and pro-union policies, among many others.

Is there *anything* on that list that Dubya believed in? Or Richard Nixon, for that matter?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Is there *anything* on that list that Dubya believed in? Or Richard Nixon, for that matter?

Oh, you want W's progressive sins. :) I would count "No Child Left Behind", "War on Iraq", and "Prescription Drug Program" the most egregious, with many countless minor ones. Bush and Nixon administration are both known for adding the most amount of regulations to the law books, if that helps. Prohibition was a progressive movement, as is the war on tobacco. Now, drinking and smoking can be social ills, but must we protect people from themselves? What about bacon?

[Jester]

Oh, you want W's progressive sins. :) I would count "No Child Left Behind", "War on Iraq", and "Prescription Drug Program" the most egregious, with many countless minor ones.

This is insane. Claiming the war in Iraq was progressive policy is downright Orwellian. War is Peace! Slavery is freedom! Bush is Progressive!

Prohibition was a progressive movement... back in the 1920s. It's not exactly popular with progressives today, most of whom embrace civil liberties to a much larger extent than 'progressives' from a century ago. Anti-tobacco education and propaganda still is popular, but this is not a "sin" shared by Nixon, nor either Bush.

Being able to accurately tell black from white, rather than squint it all into a blurry shade of anti-libertarian grey, is not myopia. It's common sense.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Being able to accurately tell black from white, rather than squint it all into a blurry shade of anti-libertarian grey, is not myopia. It's common sense.

The progressiveness of the Iraq war is found in the liberation of the women, and the exporting of democracy (our brand), and that mind set that we did this for the Iraqi people and they should be grateful. You are correct that the war in Iraq, if it were rooting out terrorism, or dismantling the WOMD, would have been in our national interest. But, was it really in our national interest? Would Bush (or Republicans) give a speech against tobacco? No. Did he(they) support, or sign any legislation against tobacco? Yes. Progressives very rarely step up during the campaign and say, "I want to raise your taxes, and impinge on your liberties!" Mondale tried that in his bid against Reagan. Again, I'm surprised you don't see this. The rush to the middle of George HW Bush, the compassionate conservative, a thousand points of light, are all symptoms of the Republicans appealing to the dominance of Democrats social justice platform. For the Republicans after Reagan, it was not about principles, it was about winning elections and holding power. This is why we have the Tea Party movement and people marching in the streets. Neither party represents those people. And... if the two parties philosophies were not so commingled and homogenized, how might an Arlan Specter just decide to change from being a Republican to being Democrat? His belief system remained unchanged and was embraced by both parties.

The heart of progressiveness is egalitarianism by force, by laws and regulations or literally the point of a gun as we saw in Iraq.

Edit: I'd throw in a heavy dose of elitism as well. The debate for progressive change starts with assuming people are too stupid to do the right thing, and so we must force them to change for their own good.