The budget battles

[Winstonm]

Two men are in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. No one knows where they are, they have no communications. Rescue is highly unlikely. They know where land is, and they are headed there. However, they have only enough food and water for one to survive the trip. If they try to both make it, they'll both die. Which one's "right to life" takes precedence?

 

The same one what has the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

But the argument is not about life - the argument is about healthcare. Life and healthcare are not synonymous.

[blackshoe]

I would say they both have equal right to life saving treatment. And I'm sure an ethical doctor would save both lives.

[kenberg]

One can postulate various "Sophie's Choice" situations. I never find them that enlightening. Here is a puzzle

 

A bad guy is convicted and, on a Saturday, the judge passes down the sentence "You are to be hanged on one morning of the following week, but you will not know in advance on which day this will take place". The guy is of course distraught, but his lawyer reassures him: "They cannot hang you on next Saturday morning because then you would be alive on Friday and, knowing you are to be hanged by Saturday, you would know that Saturday is hanging day. But the judge said that you won't know in advance which day the hanging will take place. OK, that rules out Saturday, so the hanging will have to be Friday or earlier. Ah, but then they cannot hang you on Friday because you would be alive on Thursday and, since the hanging cannot be Saturday you would know that it is Friday, contrary to the judge's assurance that you will not know the day. Ok, so it must be no later than Thursday, But...." Apparently he can never be hanged in a manner consistent with the judge's decree. The prisoner went back to his cell with great relief and on Wednesday they hanged him. And just as the judge said, he didn't know that that would be the day.

 

It's my understanding that there have been learned papers in journals about this little puzzle, but the practical person (we each think of ourselves as the practical person) learns not to base serious decisions on such hypothetical situations. Forget the guys in the boat. If you are ever in such a situation, you will cope as best you can. Right now we have an active threat by the Republican leadership to crash the world economy unless everyone does what they say. No specious logical tricks will get us out of this jam.

[hrothgar]

Two men are in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. No one knows where they are, they have no communications. Rescue is highly unlikely. They know where land is, and they are headed there. However, they have only enough food and water for one to survive the trip. If they try to both make it, they'll both die. Which one's "right to life" takes precedence?

 

Don't know...

Don't care...

Don't consider this type of abstract hypothetical remotely relevent, especially since it doesn't describe any of the real dynamics

 

"The Cold Equations" is a classic SF story, but it really doesn't have much bearing on the discussion at hand.

[blackshoe]

Ron Paul has said (and I agree) that one has a right to pursue quality healthcare. That does not equate to a right to have government steal from others to give it to the one.

[hrothgar]

Ron Paul has said (and I agree) that one has a right to pursue quality healthcare. That does not equate to a right to have government steal from others to give it to the one.

 

I've always thought that we need to update Godwin's Law to include "Ron Paul".

 

BTW: I seem to recall that you pissing and moaning a couple pages back about cuts to the defense budget and how this might threaten veteran's benefits...

I guess that whole "right to have the government steal" issue depends on who it is that's reaping the rewards.

[awm]

In the US we seem to want to apply capitalist markets to health care. The issue is that health care doesn't fit the market model very well. In particular:

 

(1) Markets assume that a buyer can refuse to buy if the product is overpriced. However, for health care the alternative to buying is often death.

(2) Markets assume that a seller can refuse to sell if the buyer is not offering enough money. However for moral reasons, we require our medical professionals to "do no harm" and treat anyone in need regardless of their ability to pay.

(3) Markets assume that a buyer can choose amongst different sellers based on comparing price and quality. However, for emergency health care the buyer is often incapacitated and/or in significant pain and unable to make a decision. Further, health insurance (where one might have the time to make a decision) is a regional monopoly or duopoly in the vast majority of US regions.

(4) Markets assume something close to full information for buyers when making their purchasing decisions. However, understanding drugs and medical practices requires very substantial training which most people don't have. And predicting future medical needs (to purchase insurance) is also extremely difficult.

 

"Socialist" medicine obtains better outcomes and much cheaper pricing than "capitalist" medicine. There is ample evidence of this both in other countries and in the US medicare and veterans systems. This is not to say that there is something wrong about capitalism in general -- just that certain commodities make more sense to be provided by the government (other good examples are police services and national defense).

[y66]

Interesting story in today's NYT

 

More than 75 professors at Catholic University and other prominent Catholic colleges have written a pointed letter to Mr. Boehner saying that the Republican-supported budget he shepherded through the House of Representatives will hurt the poor, elderly and vulnerable, and therefore he has failed to uphold basic Catholic moral teaching.

 

“Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings,” the letter says. “From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.”

 

The letter writers go on to criticize Mr. Boehner’s support for a budget that cut support for Medicare, Medicaid and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, while granting tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. They call such policies “anti-life,” a particularly biting reference because the phrase is usually applied to politicians and others who support the right to abortion.

 

Anti-life indeed.

[Bbradley62]

You mean Mr. Boehner separates his religious beliefs from his legislating? Good for him! Now, if the rest of the Religious Right would do the same across the board...

[y66]

It means that Mr. Boehner is a hypocrite.

[Bbradley62]

Not unless you fill in a lot of blanks, it doesn't. Being able to separate personal religious beliefs from public policy is not at all hypocritical. (And please don't think I am a John Boehner fan; I just don't like seeing absurd statements made against public figures when there are plenty of legitimate criticisms that could be made.)

[blackshoe]

"Socialist" medicine obtains better outcomes and much cheaper pricing than "capitalist" medicine. There is ample evidence of this both in other countries and in the US medicare and veterans systems. This is not to say that there is something wrong about capitalism in general -- just that certain commodities make more sense to be provided by the government (other good examples are police services and national defense).

 

I'm not so sure I agree that healthcare should be included in this. Rand said — and before Hrothgar starts spouting about me "pissing and moaning" again, I'll say that I don't agree with everything Rand said — that there are three services the government should provide. Healthcare wasn't one of them.

 

There is no example of "capitalist" medicine currently extant. Not when the government is and has been heavily involved in regulating the industry for years.

[Winstonm]

Ron Paul has said (and I agree) that one has a right to pursue quality healthcare. That does not equate to a right to have government steal from others to give it to the one.

 

 

But the government has the right to steal from others and provide Israel with military hardware? Is that it?

 

I have been consistent stating healthcare should be provided by eliminating most of defense spending. You, on the other hand, have been consistent in proclaiming that everyone should pay his or her own way except the military.

 

I am positive your side of the argument will win as it has already won - there will be no single payer and there will be no reduction in defense spending. We will continue to fiddle while Rome burns and blame the liberals for the fall of the empire.

[y66]

Not unless you fill in a lot of blanks, it doesn't. Being able to separate personal religious beliefs from public policy is not at all hypocritical. (And please don't think I am a John Boehner fan; I just don't like seeing absurd statements made against public figures when there are plenty of legitimate criticisms that could be made.)

Are we talking about the same guy? I just read Boehner's post-budget-shutdown blog post.

 

Strong Support For Pro-Life Protections in Spending Cut Agreement

Posted by Press Office on April 12, 2011

 

Americans United for Life (AUL), National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Susan B. Anthony List(SBA List) are praising the pro-life protections included in the spending cut agreement to be voted on later this week.

 

LifeNews.com says House Republicans “are giving the pro-life community more good news when it comes to de-funding abortion and pro-abortion groups.” NRLC explains in a letter to members of Congress that the agreement “contains a very important pro-life provision, the ‘D.C. Hyde Amendment’” that would “would restore a prohibition on the use of government funds to pay for abortion in the [Washington, DC] (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest).” NRLC “strongly supports the restoration of this pro-life policy.”

 

SBA List says “pro-life leadership in the House forced this important concession from Senate Democrats and President Obama during the budget debate. Lives will be saved because of their commitment to Life.”

 

The final agreement also includes guarantees that the U.S. Senate will vote on separate measures to eliminate taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and any of its affiliates, and to defund President Obama’s job-crushing health care law which allows taxpayer dollars to be used for abortions.

LifeNews.com notes that “a vote on revoking the taxpayer funding of the Planned Parenthood abortion business” is “something pro-abortion Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid previously said he would not allow.”

 

And Dr. Charmaine Yoest with AUL says “Speaker Boehner achieved what most said was impossible – cutting taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia and guaranteeing straight up-or-down votes in the Senate on both defunding Planned Parenthood and President Obama’s pro-abortion health care law.” She says a Senate vote on defunding ObamaCare is “a pro-life victory.”

House Speaker John Boehner today said the support from pro-life leaders gives the agreement a “positive boost” but vows more needs to be done to protect innocent, unborn life:

“The comments provided by these leaders in the pro-life community provide a positive boost for the agreement – which, while falling short of what truly must be done to protect innocent, unborn life, prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion in D.C. and allows the fight for life on other fronts to continue.”

[awm]

As far as the Christian thing goes...

 

It seems to me that Jesus said and did a lot about helping the poor and the sick. He said something about loving your neighbor. He also said some pretty negative things about wealthy people. He didn't say anything about homosexuality or abortion as best I can tell.

 

Yet an awful lot of so-called Christian politicians seem to be all about banning homosexuality and abortion, and about hating muslims and gays and atheists and liberals. Yet they seem not to care much about providing for the poor and the sick... instead finding it more important to make sure that wealthy people "get to keep all their money." Atheist Ayn Rand's worldview (basically "I got mine, I earned it, I'm keeping it, screw you") doesn't seem to mesh all that well with Jesus. Yet our conservative politicians claim to be Christians while advocating much the opposite. Boehner is just the latest in a long run of these sorts of hypocrites.

 

There are a lot of things that should be handled by the government even though Ayn Rand didn't think so. Basically the thought is, suppose I want something but I don't have money. Do we think I should go without? If "something" is a new car it seems obviously fine for a car dealer to tell me that if I can't pay, no car for me. If the thing I want is a drug to keep me from dying of a curable disease, do we feel the same way? How about if I'm a kid? I'm sure Ayn Rand would be perfectly fine saying that six year olds who can't afford to pay for their own penicillin may as well die... Moochers! Those of us who are a bit more sane probably don't think this way.

[Winstonm]

Are we talking about the same guy? I just read Boehner's post-budget-shutdown blog post.

 

On another forum some hardline Christian right-winger wrote in response to me that the Dark Ages weren't so dark.

 

This budget battle reminds me of that guy.

 

I used to have a friend who had served in the air force and he told me that going to eastern Turkey was like stepping centuries back in time. If left to their own devices, how far back would the christocrats turn the U.S. clock, I wonder?

[kenberg]

There are people who never tire of flaunting their religious devotion and they are fair game for charges of hypocrisy. But absent this professional Christian personality, I am not going to quote Jesus at them when they support policies that we might well believe would not have His support. At the other end of the political spectrum I have known more than a few doctrinaire liberals who don't seem to much like working people when they actually have to interact with them on an equal basis.

 

I am willing to discuss Republican ideas and Boehner's ideas. I am far from certain that I would disagree with all of them. What I find absolutely beyond the pale is this threat to not raise the debt ceiling unless he gets his way. I believe this to be the most thoroughly irresponsible action taken by any politician of either party during my entire lifetime. Since I was born in 1939, that's saying a bit.

[blackshoe]

Winston, I never said the things you attribute to me. You should go into politics; you have the tactics down pat.

[hrothgar]

Rand said that there are three services the government should provide. Healthcare wasn't one of them.

 

There is no example of "capitalist" medicine currently extant. Not when the government is and has been heavily involved in regulating the industry for years.

 

Why should we care what a long dead hack has to say?

 

Abraham Lincoln said

 

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.

 

Very different view than Rand's...

 

How, oh how, can we square the circle?

Maybe quoting random dead people isn't a particularly useful form of discussion?

[hrothgar]

There are people who never tire of flaunting their religious devotion and they are fair game for charges of hypocrisy. But absent this professional Christian personality, I am not going to quote Jesus at them when they support policies that we might well believe would not have His support. At the other end of the political spectrum I have known more than a few doctrinaire liberals who don't seem to much like working people when they actually have to interact with them on an equal basis.

 

I have plenty of issues with Boehner, however, his views on religion aren't one of them...

 

I've never really associated him with Dominionism or Christian Nationalism.

[PassedOut]

Despite all their noise about the deficit, Boehner and his free-lunch republicans are only adding to the problem. It's good to see some responsible people pointing that out.

 

Ezra Klein: Boehner's debt-limit demands would increase the deficit

 

Extending the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years, which Boehner favors, will increase the deficit by twice as much as the $2 trillion in spending cuts he's calling for will reduce the deficit. Conversely, adding the revenue increases in the Simpson-Bowles plan to his spending cuts would bring the deficit reduction to more $3 trillion. But Boehner isn't using the debt-ceiling vote to reduce the debt.

 

E. J. Dionne, Jr.: Health-care lawsuits: Delaying the inevitable

 

Conservatives talk an excellent game about individual responsibility and the idea that there is no such thing as a free lunch. They have a point, which makes it all the more astonishing that their legal attack has focused on the health law’s requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. (Mitt Romney actually understands this. That’s why he’s in the midst of trying to square his own support for an individual mandate in Massachusetts with anti-mandate orthodoxy among GOP primary voters.)

 

There’s a simple truth here. People who get sick and show up at emergency rooms will get care whether they have insurance or not — and they should. Under a law signed by President Ronald Reagan — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 — nearly every hospital is required to offer treatment to those in urgent need of help. The law stops private hospitals from “dumping” (the term of art in the medical profession) patients onto public hospitals.

 

The way things work now, the cost of treating those patients falls onto those who already pay for insurance or onto the taxpayers. The mandate is designed to get everyone inside the system and have them pay something.

 

The free lunch crowd wants to kill health care reform by asking the courts to find in the US Constitution the right to be a freeloader. "Let the responsible people pay our bills," they beg.

 

And the free lunch crowd most certainly doesn't want to raise taxes to pay the bills for the spending that they themselves authorized over the past decade. "Let our children and grandchildren pay our bills," they cry. (And Boehner cries just thinking about how wonderful an idea that is.)

 

These people are pitiful excuses for human beings. And so are the people who vote for them.

[phil_20686]

It seems to me that neither the left nor the right in america are being in anyway reasonable/enlightened in this debate.

 

On the right, they are making the right noises about being worried about the deficit, but the tax cuts are pretty bizarre. While in general I am in favour of lower taxes and a less powerful state, my understanding of economics is that in general it is not that important who you tax. The republicans seem intent on reducing the tax burden on the wealthy while (in effect) broadening the tax base by forcing middle and lower income parties to purchase health insurance.

 

Further, the normal "conservative" position, is that the government should only step in when there is a clear economic inefficiency, or where a government backed system is the only real option. E.g., in national defence. It seems obvious that modern healthcare is one of those issues. The market is failing in healthcare spending, due to the lack of any properly aligned incentives. A single payer healthcare institution always has well aligned incentives, as the doctors understand that money spent on one patient might mean that another goes without treatment. This leads to reasonably efficient choices on when to ration expensive treatments of doubtful benefit. While I can understand anyone objecting to the current healthcare bill system since, imo, any system which does not get rid of the insurance companies as the prime payers and beneficiaries, is going to suffer from the inefficiencies of poorly aligned incentives.

 

On the left the government seems unwilling to accept that the transition to a low deficit economy will be painful. The pain cannot be put off indefinitely, and the easy way to understand why is that deficit spending is included in estimates of GDP. Thus, the GDP measure of a country is artificially inflated by its deficit spending. Reducing the deficit must go hand in hand with a nominal fall in gdp. Even if done slowly, this will still lead to a long period of relative stagnation in apparent GDP growth rates. Suppose that I chose to adopt a deficit reduction plan by waiting for the economy to grow and lowering the deficit exactly in line with the increase in revenues, such that GDP was exactly stationary, then I would need the economy to grow by roughly 50% to eliminate the deficit. (Because only a fraction of the increase in GDP comes back to the government in tax receipts, so increase in revenue = (%growth in gdp)*(tax as fraction of gdp). Basically, my point is that the "current gdp" of most economies with large deficit are largely imaginary. Look at this graph:

 

http://dshort.com/charts/guest/2011/GDP-excluding-debt.gif

 

The idea that one can "grow" ones way out of a deficit this large is pretty laughable. Even at robust 5% growth, and if spending stayed stationary, it would still take a decade to eliminate the deficit, and both of these are hugely unrealistic assumptions. Thus there must be large increases in tax revenue, and a general lowering of living standards. Also note that GDP growth in the US looks quite anaemic once deficit spending is subtracted. The Left seems to imagine that deficit spending through the recession will quickly lead to a return to robust growth, which in reality america has hardly seen since the early eighties, if you measure GDP less deficit spending. Which is the important measure if you want to reduce the deficit.

[phil_20686]

As far as the Christian thing goes...

 

It seems to me that Jesus said and did a lot about helping the poor and the sick. He said something about loving your neighbor. He also said some pretty negative things about wealthy people. He didn't say anything about homosexuality or abortion as best I can tell.

 

Yet an awful lot of so-called Christian politicians seem to be all about banning homosexuality and abortion, and about hating muslims and gays and atheists and liberals. Yet they seem not to care much about providing for the poor and the sick... instead finding it more important to make sure that wealthy people "get to keep all their money." Atheist Ayn Rand's worldview (basically "I got mine, I earned it, I'm keeping it, screw you") doesn't seem to mesh all that well with Jesus. Yet our conservative politicians claim to be Christians while advocating much the opposite. Boehner is just the latest in a long run of these sorts of hypocrites.

 

I dont really want to hijack this thread, but try:

1 Tim 1:8 for homosexuality, or Jerimiah 1:5 is generally quoted for abortion. Effectively I think the biblical precedent that You are "alive" before you are born is pretty clear. Its also obviously wrong to equate Christian beliefs on these matters as "hating". Christians have a world-view in which these actions amount to self harm, thus legislation against them is compassionate. That is not to say that there are not lots of bad Christians, there obviously are, and there do seem to be some who go in for "hate" in a oddly unchristian manner. But one should not equate the human failings of particular Christians with Christian teaching.

[hrothgar]

I dont really want to hijack this thread, but try:

1 Tim 1:8 for homosexuality, or Jerimiah 1:5 is generally quoted for abortion.

 

Jeremiah is old testament

First Timothy is generally attributed to Paul

 

Winston specifically referenced "Jesus"

[luke warm]

Jesus believed the prophets and the O.T., but it's true that he didn't preach on either of those issues... like phil said, christianity is a worldview and like all worldviews it has its share of hypocrites and idiots... that aside, even abolishing the bush tax cuts won't do much good re: the deficit, even with spending cuts... a complete overhaul of the tax system is needed, one that cannot be criticized as being "unfair" while at the same time increasing revenues