Universal Health Insurance (2)

[Oscarthecat]

This is what I thought. Since the set of conservatives includes a lot more wealthy people who give to charity (a lot in terms of whole dollars, but in relation to their wealth, not so much), it would stand to reason that this claim could be made as an aggregate.

I was also curious as to the methodology of determining who is “conservative” or not. Most likely, corporate = conservative.

none of you criticizing this article appear to have actually read it…

you figure that it must be just a bunch of rich people and corporations, right?

Wrong: here’s the truth:

The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30% more as a share of their income. “The most charitable people in America today are the working poor,” Mr. Brooks says.

Incidentally, that quote also debunks the “conservative people give more in dollars, but not in terms of percentage of their income…” claims

Secular liberals are more generous?
Wrong-

here’s the truth:

“Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.”

I’ll post the article again for those who didn’t read it the first time…

nysun.com/opinion/who-gives-to-charity/44719/

 

[LCMS_No_More]

none of you criticizing this article appear to have actually read it…

you figure that it must be just a bunch of rich people and corporations, right?

Wrong: here’s the truth:

Incidentally, that quote also debunks the “conservative people give more in dollars, but not in terms of percentage of their income…” claims

Secular liberals are more generous?
Wrong-

here’s the truth:

I’ll post the article again for those who didn’t read it the first time…

nysun.com/opinion/who-gives-to-charity/44719/

You’re making another assumption. That religion = conservatism. Morally, this may be true, but is there a correlation between right-wing capitalism and Christianity?

 

[SoCalRC]

none of you criticizing this article appear to have actually read it…

you figure that it must be just a bunch of rich people and corporations, right?

Wrong: here’s the truth:

That’s what I said, the poor give disproportionately more. But in that part it is referencing percentage of income. Your claim of conservates/more is based on total dollars.

The problem isn’t ‘reading’ but ‘understanding’. The poor disproportionately support political liberalism, which is why the GOP is always so intent on suppressing their ability to vote. So stop and think for a moment, how could your two sneers make rational sense without the caveat that I provided? That is, that one claim is based on total dollars, the other percentage of income.

 

[SoCalRC]

here’s the truth:

I’ll post the article again for those who didn’t read it the first time…

nysun.com/opinion/who-gives-to-charity/44719/

But again, look closely beyond the spin. When you look at the raw data, religion is a big factor (again, this is exactly what I said), but religion does not equate to ‘conservatism’.

Secular conservatives give less than secular liberals

Religious conservatives give almost as much as religious liberals

The poor, who are disproportionately liberal, give the most in terms of percentage of income.

Conservative may give more in total dollars (though that claim is more dubious).

This is what I said, this is what the underlying study said, and if you look closely and don’t get fooled by the spin, this is what your article says.

I find this comes up a lot, conservatives provide a source, but then are baffled when it does not really say what they they think it should.

 

[Oscarthecat]

And sometimes people do not give charity to the poor. They sometimes put it in art galleries, orchestras, operas, and universities that the poor are unlikely to interact with. (although supporting these things are important.) How much do the wealthy give (as in percentage of their income) to the poor. I doubt the amount would be superior to the amount they have to pay in taxes. As I have iteratively stressed, Homo sapiens is not a charitable but an avaristic species.

So, you’re saying that primary reason that people should not be allowed to use their money as they choose is because they might choose to use their money as THEY choose, and not as YOU would have them use it?

If we are to live in a free society, then we have to allow people to be free- that means that we have to allow people to make choices we might disagree with. That also means that we can’t force other people to do what we want them to do all the time.

If you want to convince people to do what you want them to do, that’s great- but the choice has to ultimately be theirs, otherwise they are not free.

I imagine you’re going to respond with something similar to “well, I’d rather be in good health than have absolute freedom” or “well, you don’t care if other people die, so long as your freedom is not impinged.”

So i’ll just respond to that now…

No one in this thread has said they want other people to die- so you really need to let that go.

The thing is, I don’t want the government to take away my freedom to help people by stealing my money to create programs I believe are harmful to society and individuals.

I want to have the freedom to help other people in the ways I think are best- and that freedom means that I have to learn to coexist with people who would rather not use their freedom to help others.

So you are saying you prefer a system where YOU benefit while others suffer because of a lack of safety nets that protect them from the menace of poverty.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I prefer a system where people are free to choose how and if they want to help other people.

As far as a system where “you benefit while others suffer…” well-- I think that just about everyone, on both sides of this debate, has agreed that we should help those in need- the problem is agreeing on HOW we should help them.

You believe that the only way to help anyone is for everyone else to fall in line, by force if necessary, with the way YOU think is best, and you justify this by saying that if they were allowed to do as they saw fit, they wouldn’t do what you think is best…kind of circular, isn’t it?

I believe that in order to genuinely help someone, we first have to be free to do it without government interference.

 

[Oscarthecat]

But again, look closely beyond the spin. When you look at the raw data, religion is a big factor (again, this is exactly what I said), but religion does not equate to ‘conservatism’.

Secular conservatives give less than secular liberals

Source?

Religious conservatives give almost as much as religious liberals

Source?

The poor, who are disproportionately liberal, give the most in terms of percentage of income.

The article I posted differentiates between the working poor and the non-working poor- I noticed you didn’t.

Oh, and…your source?

Conservative may give more in total dollars (though that claim is more dubious).

Source?
Why is it dubious?
If you’re going to doubt something, maybe you could provide a reason?

This is what I said, this is what the underlying study said, and if you look closely and don’t get fooled by the spin, this is what your article says.

The underlying study? Did you post that?
I must not have seen it. Is that your source?
What I’m asking for here is your source.

I find this comes up a lot, conservatives provide a source, but then are baffled when it does not really say what they they think it should.

I’m baffled? Do you have source for that, too?

 

[pathia]

If we are to live in a free society, then we have to allow people to be free- that means that we have to allow people to make choices we might disagree with. That also means that we can’t force other people to do what we want them to do all the time.

What choices? I’ve NEVER been able to even CHOOSE insurance. They do the choosing for me and they say ‘No!’. I don’t HAVE a choice, and I never have, ever. I don’t have a car, I don’t have TV, I don’t have cable, I can’t even afford the water bill reliably!

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I prefer a system where people are free to choose how and if they want to help other people.

.

I have never received an offer of assistance from anyone until after it’s already too late. I’ve gotten a few over the last week weeks, and appreciate that, but it’s TOO LATE. I’ve already filed for chapter 7. I cannot accept any money, or they’ll just take it in the process of this bankruptcy.

 

[Oscarthecat]

What choices? I’ve NEVER been able to even CHOOSE insurance. They do the choosing for me and they say ‘No!’. I don’t HAVE a choice, and I never have, ever. I don’t have a car, I don’t have TV, I don’t have cable, I can’t even afford the water bill reliably!

Pathia, there is no short answer to the problem you are posing in regard to how our choices affect our freedoms. So, I’ll try to be as brief as possible, but will probably fail.

Our freedom is conditioned by our choices and the choices of others, and our choices are conditioned by our innate ability, our past choices, and the choices of others that affect the choices at our disposal. Some of our choices open new choices to us, and other choices limit our future choices. With that in mind, we must always have the freedom to make the choices that are available to us, and must learn to live within the limits of the choices that are actually available to us.

Every decision we make is the result of our attempt to secure what we believe is the greatest good. That doesn’t mean that all of the choices we have at our disposal always seem fair, or that they are easy to make, or, and I want to emphasize this one, that the choices we have at our disposal don’t effectively force us to choose to limit ourselves in ways that we don’t want to be limited.

Therefore, in life, we will all find ourselves, at one time or another, trying to balance out what freedoms we wish we had against the choices we have at our disposal.

That doesn’t change the fact that people have to make their choices freely, and that in order for people to be completely free, we have to allow them to freely make those choices that they are faced with.

When a person wants to make a choice that does not fall within their freedom to choose, they depend on support from others to make that choice possible for them. The choice to be charitable toward another person is a free exercise of one’s freedom that increases both their freedom and the freedom of the person they are acting charitably toward.

When this comes from God, we call it Grace. When it comes from human beings, we call it Charity.

That being said, my whole point all along has been that it is fundamentally wrong to impinge upon one person’s freedom for the benefit of another.

The only ethical and moral ways to transcend the choices that are available to you within the limits of your own freedom are to either make choices that will increase your freedom by opening greater choices to you, OR, when that is not possible, to rely on the free choice of others to help you make those choices that are outside of your innate ability.

If you force people to enable you to make choices beyond your ability, then you are violating their freedom, and ultimately you are limiting both your freedom and their because you have hardened them against making the free choice to help you in the first place.

 

[pathia]

Pathia, there is no short answer to the problem you are posing in regard to how our choices affect our freedoms. So, I’ll try to be as brief as possible, but will probably fail.

If you force people to enable you to make choices beyond your ability, then you are violating their freedom, and ultimately you are limiting both your freedom and their because you have hardened them against making the free choice to help you in the first place.

Then you are asking me to die. Sorry, I don’t think I get it. Given what you have said above. My choices left are to die or to live, really, that’s it, and to die would a sin, as it would be like committing suicide.

My choice that I cannot fulfill myself is to LIVE and it would seem to harm other’s freedom. Why is my life a burden? That’s what I’m taking away from you. My LIFE impedes over other people’s freedom, so that means that is bad, and I should just go away.

You are speaking so utilitarian that is it very frightening. Is my life worth so very little? I don’t know what it is like to have a normal life. I would very much like to have it, if only for a few years, and then die in peace. Really, that’s all I want. I want to have a normal life, I really do.

 

[SoCalRC]

Source?

Source?

The article I posted differentiates between the working poor and the non-working poor- I noticed you didn’t.

Oh, and…your source?

Source?
Why is it dubious?
If you’re going to doubt something, maybe you could provide a reason?

Let’s review, I’ve read the article, and the research it makes reference to. You state that we must not be reading it, then declare “the truth” - ie, you repeat what I just posted. But you remain baffled…

Let’s not move on to additional sources until you understand your own. This can all be very confusing to a die hard conservative. After all, we have research from Harvard and UCLA that both suggest that conservatives are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as “well informed” on health care issues, but then are more than three times as likely to incorrectly answer basic questions of fact, like which segment of the population pays the most for health insurance.

Objective reality is not your strong suit - after all, you are willing to take one article about someone elses research as gospel onto itself, showing that you have virtually no understanding of the scientific method anyway. But if you really want to understand why you are confused - and you are confused, since you object to me citing the same conclussions from the same article you do, we can work through it one step at a time.

First, do you understand the concept of “total dollars” vs. “percentage of income”? It is important to actually understanding the article and the statistics. If you don’t, let’s stop there and get you caught up.

Yes, that sounds condescending, but let’s face it, if you can’t understand the implications of 10-18% inflation on healthcare when we already spend more than any other industrialized nation on earth, then holes in your math skills is not an absurd hypothesis.

 

[SoCalRC]

Then you are asking me to die. Sorry, I don’t think I get it. Given what you have said above. My choices left are to die or to live, really, that’s it, and to die would a sin, as it would be like committing suicide.

My choice that I cannot fulfill myself is to LIVE and it would seem to harm other’s freedom. Why is my life a burden? That’s what I’m taking away from you. My LIFE impedes over other people’s freedom, so that means that is bad, and I should just go away.

You are speaking so utilitarian that is it very frightening. Is my life worth so very little? I don’t know what it is like to have a normal life. I would very much like to have it, if only for a few years, and then die in peace. Really, that’s all I want. I want to have a normal life, I really do.

Don’t take it personally. Remember, it is clinging to ideology over reality. We’re pretty much it among industrialized nations and it is a massive drain on our economy and puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage in the world market. It isn’t just about asking you to die, it is about clinging to a quasi free market to the point where his own descendants can expect to live shorter lives in greater poverty.

The good news is that the ideology isn’t really even what is at stake, it is more akin to cultism. Yes, he will shout the merits of the free market and scream about personal responsibility in, say, the mortagage crisis, but you almost certainly won’t hear a bit about the utter hypocrisy of a massive bailout for Fannie Mae or Indy. You see, it isn’t really heartfelt, it is just noise to justify an agenda. I’m not the only big business owner to see that rising health care costs are a huge problem and effect my competitiveness in the world market. As we shift, the agenda will shift (since our money is the key to power), and the ideology of the ‘faithful’ will magically follow.

Modern US conservatism is more about a cultural identify than any actual belief system. How else would you support a deficit spending, government expanding, nation building president? At the end of the day, the ‘cult’ is more important than any of the supposed ideals. The hypocrisy is rationalized by demonizing the alternatives.

You do have my prayers.

 

[ribozyme]

You are speaking so utilitarian that is it very frightening. Is my life worth so very little? I don’t know what it is like to have a normal life. I would very much like to have it, if only for a few years, and then die in peace. Really, that’s all I want. I want to have a normal life, I really do.

No, a utilitarian might argue that it is better for money to be given to you instead of it being retained in wealthier hands because if you have that money it would significantly reduce your suffering. Utilitarianism does not demand that you should die.

Brooks: Yes. Most surprising is that the least privately charitable group out there tends to be secular conservatives, who give and volunteer even less than secular liberals, and far less than religious conservatives. For example, secular conservatives are only about half as likely as religious conservatives to volunteer. The reason secularists don’t drag down the conservative charity numbers overall is that there are three times as many religious conservatives as there are secular conservatives

article.nationalreview.com/?q=Zjg2ODYwNzdkZDhhYzkwNzM3YThlOTY2ZThjN2MyZWU=

I guess reading John Galt’s remarks about " “some barefoot bum in some pesthole of Asia” isn’t conducive to charitable giving. I does not surprise me that secular conservatives who read *Atlas Shrugged *would have the most contempt for the poor that they do not privately support them nor advocate government policies to help them.

Let’s not move on to additional sources until you understand your own. This can all be very confusing to a die hard conservative. After all, we have research from Harvard and UCLA that both suggest that conservatives are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as “well informed” on health care issues, but then are more than three times as likely to incorrectly answer basic questions of fact, like which segment of the population pays the most for health insurance.

I guess “well informed” means listening to rants from Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I suppose those well-informed people do not derive their knowledge from more reliable sources of information such as think tanks (although some think tanks might not be so unbiased if they are funded by a corporation.)

 

[soma]

Americans just might be whinners when it comes to UHC.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Then you are asking me to die. Sorry, I don’t think I get it. Given what you have said above. My choices left are to die or to live, really, that’s it, and to die would a sin, as it would be like committing suicide.

I really have no idea how you came to these conclusions based o what I said. I never said anything about asking you to die, or asking anyone to die, for that matter.

What I said was that you have needs that you cannot satisfy on your own. What I said was that you have a choice to advocate the government taking what you need from others by force, or respecting the freedom of others to give you what you need freely.

The problem with freedom, and the reason that people violate others’ freedom so often, is that human beings often feel it is more expedient to force others to do what is right rather risk allowing them to make the decision to do what is right on their own. Unfortunately, people will never learn to make the right decisions when they are never given the opportunity to make free choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

My choice that I cannot fulfill myself is to LIVE and it would seem to harm other’s freedom. Why is my life a burden? That’s what I’m taking away from you. My LIFE impedes over other people’s freedom, so that means that is bad, and I should just go away.

No. What I said was that every individual has different choices within their grasp, and that our choice affect and are affected by the choices others make.

You are not a burden when someone is helping you freely, because they are making the free choice to help you. When one helps another in a spirit of charity, they are helping by choice, they are helping in the best way they believe how, and they are helping because they genuinely want to. If you genuinely care about someone, you don’t view them as a burden- you want to help them because you love them. In the same way, if you know your caretaker genuinely cares about you, then you don’t feel ashamed of what they are giving you, you feel gratitude, and you feel closer to them because of it. The experience is mutually beneficial- you’re getting more than just healthcare, you’re participating in a loving relationship with another human being.

That kind of relationship is a common denominator in just about every person’s definition of what it means to live a normal life- they want to have normal, positive relationships with other human beings.

On the other hand, Universal Healthcare, and programs like it, destroy this relationship because they remove that individual choice to help, they remove the individual choice of how to help, and they remove the individual choice of why to help. There is no humanity in socialism or socialist programs because these programs violate such a fundamental part of what it is to be human.

When the government gets involved, the condition of free will is removed from this entire equation- and consequently there is a significant lack in the potential for the relationship I described above. Instead, the person who is in need is made to feel worthless because the government convinces them that nobody but the faceless bureaucracy found them worth helping. The people who are being forced to pay for these benefits through taxation never see those they are helping, never feel a personal connection with those in need, and so don’t even perceive them as real people.

What I was talking about was that programs like UHC violate and ultimately destroy the relationships between individuals because people on both ends of the giving and receiving are not freely choosing to participate- they are being forced to participate in it by the government.

You are speaking so utilitarian that is it very frightening. Is my life worth so very little? I don’t know what it is like to have a normal life. I would very much like to have it, if only for a few years, and then die in peace. Really, that’s all I want. I want to have a normal life, I really do.

Nothing that I said was utilitarian- quite the opposite. Utilitarians don’t consider things like basic human rights, the fundamental value of human beings, or what genuine human freedom is. A utilitarian would simply say that your desire for happiness is outweighed by how your happiness might impact the happiness of other people, and would conclude that your happiness is not worth costing them their happiness.

 

[Oscarthecat]

No, a utilitarian might argue that it is better for money to be given to you instead of it being retained in wealthier hands because if you have that money it would significantly reduce your suffering. Utilitarianism does not demand that you should die.

Wrong.

Utilitarianism would absolutely demand that some people should die if their deaths meant that more people would be happy.

Utilitarianism, by definition, does not give any consideration to individual suffering- it only considers how to give the largest group of people the most happiness, with absolutely no consideration for the degree of unhappiness that may result in the minority group. A utilitarian would be completely comfortable with allowing one individual to die in agony if it meant that two individuals lived happily every after.

That is practically the definition of Utilitarianism- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, with no regard for any absolute values like life or freedom.

That’s one of the major problems with UHC- on the large scale, government decisions necessarily become based on utilitarian values. Small groups would be allowed to die, or even killed, if it meant that the larger group was preserved.

 

[SFTor]

Wrong.

Utilitarianism would absolutely demand that some people should die if their deaths meant that more people would be happy.

Utilitarianism, by definition, does not give any consideration to individual suffering- it only considers how to give the largest group of people the most happiness, with absolutely no consideration for the degree of unhappiness that may result in the minority group. A utilitarian would be completely comfortable with allowing one individual to die in agony if it meant that two individuals lived happily every after.

That is practically the definition of Utilitarianism- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, with no regard for any absolute values like life or freedom.

That’s one of the major problems with UHC- on the large scale, government decisions necessarily become based on utilitarian values. Small groups would be allowed to die, or even killed, if it meant that the larger group was preserved.

As long as this debate is kept on an ideological plane “gevernment doesn’t work”, “utilitarianism is evil” etc., the longer it will take to begin discussing the realities of the situation.

Let’s look at a parallel example: several major financial institutions, not to mention a large number of smaller ones, are in danger of going under due to the credit crisis, and may cause serious damage to the American economy, and I mean serious. Examples: Freddy, Fanny, and Washington Mutual. If you take the longer view you can throw in Citi, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and many others.

The government is likely to intervene in a number of ways (discount window, FDIC, etc.) to prevent this. They would do so to maintain the financial health of the country.

First question: should the government stay out, and allow the financial institutions to fall on their own mistakes? It’s a free market after all. Wouldn’t it be “socialism” if they intervened?

Second question. Do I need to state the second question? OK. We have a health care system that is failing to cover an increasing number of Americans. If the government intervenes in the financial health of the nation, would it be different and impermissible if it intervened in the physical health of the nation?

Third question: can you endorse financial intervention without realizing that intervening in the physical health of the nation has an equally substantial financial component? (Hint: we’re spending twice as much on health care as comparable countries.)

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Oscarthecat]

First, do you understand the concept of “total dollars” vs. “percentage of income”?

You seem very upset and angry, so let me clarify. But first, let me provide my source…I’m going to be referring to data from Arthur Brooks’ own website. In case you missed it, he’s the guy that actually collected and interpreted the data in that article…you know, the data you keep saying you’re reading- that is, the data that you keep saying I’m misinterpreting. I guess the guy who collected it, interpreted it, and wrote a book about it must not understand his data better than you do…that’s weird, huh? Maybe you should let him know he got it all wrong…

source: arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/excerpt.html

“In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.”

I know that, by itself, that one quote proves what I’ve been saying, but stay with me here…

What he’s saying is that conservatives gave 30% more money than liberals- that means that the total amount of money from conservatives was 30% more than the money from liberals. To clarify, that 30% isn’t referring to a percentage of their income- it is referring to the fact that to total amount of dollars given by conservatives was 30% greater than the total amount of dollars given by liberals.

Now, it also so happens that the article states “low-income people give almost 30% more as a share of their income.”

Ok, here is where I think you got confused… 30% shows up TWICE, but it refers to TWO DIFFERENT THINGS…that is, the two measures of 30% are measuring two different things, they aren’t the same thing just because they’re both 30%. Kind of like if I eat 30% of the apples, and 30% of the oranges, I’ve eaten both apples and oranges. It doesn’t mean that I think apples ARE oranges.

Let me sum that up again for you…

the first time 30% shows up is in reference to the fact that that conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals- this 30% refers to the fact that their total giving is 30% greater than that of liberals.

the SECOND time 30% shows up is in reference to the fact that the working poor “give almost 30% more as a share of their income.” Now, before when I said that conservatives give 30% more, that was in total dollars. This time, when I say that the working poor give 30% more as a share of their total income, what I’m referring to is that, compared to rich people, the money that the working poor give to charity represents 30% more of their income than the % of income given by rich people.

you seemed very frustrated with my facts, so I hope that helps to clear everything up for you…if you don’t like my facts, I invite you to cite the sources where you got your facts.

As far as the rest of what you wrote…
Your ad hominem attacks are a thin attempt to disguise the fact that you still haven’t posted any evidence of your claims. Just saying “I looked at the source data of the articles you posted” doesn’t cut it- if you want to make a fact claim, you are going to have to post your sources and your data. I’m just going to go ahead and ignore everything you write from here on out until you actually start backing up your claims with data and sources.

 

[SFTor]

the SECOND time 30% shows up is in reference to the fact that the working poor “give almost 30% more as a share of their income.” Now, before when I said that conservatives give 30% more, that was in total dollars. This time, when I say that the working poor give 30% more as a share of their total income, what I’m referring to is that, compared to rich people, the money that the working poor give to charity represents 30% more of their income than the % of income given by rich people.

Would it be OK to ask what the total amount of giving amounts to, and how much is given to people in need of health care?

And Oscar, do you personally believe that private donations can cover the needs for health care of uninsured people in this country?

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Oscarthecat]

First question: should the government stay out, and allow the financial institutions to fall on their own mistakes? It’s a free market after all. Wouldn’t it be “socialism” if they intervened?

 

[SFTor]

SFTor;3948439:

Well, since I don’t endorse government intervention in either financial institutions or in healthcare systems, I guess the answer to your question is…no.

Fair enough. Let’s batten the hatches. In the meantime, Oscar, you can rest assured that more pragmatic forces will intervene in the financial mess (as if you didn’t know) and perhaps even in the health care mess.

In both cases there’s too much at stake for ideological experiments. I have a sneaky suspicion that you are aware of it, and know that you can maintain your views in the knowledge that responsible forces will take action when it threatens the welfare of large numbers of people.

Am I saying that your views are irresponsible? No, that would be unnecessary. I am saying that you are free to promote your views while others have to roll up their sleeves and sort out the very real problems that affect real people.

Respectfully,

Tor

P.S. If it’s OK to allow financial institutions to fail, is it “socialism” to protect consumers through FDIC insurance?