5 ms·

Denmark's safety net is one thing, some whacko communist universal subsidy is another. Said safety net doesn't decrease disparity significantly, while giving so

by muyuu 15y ago

Denmark's safety net is one thing, some whacko communist universal subsidy is another. Said safety net doesn't decrease disparity significantly, while giving some universal coverage for basic needs. As long as it's not a bigger burden to the economy than the alternative, I'd have nothing against something like this. I also believe the safety nets here in the UK are about right, in general terms. The government is still too big though. Denmark's income inequality has increased during the last decades together with their living standard. http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_49185046_1_1_1_1,00.html http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_... Notice the language there. "The situation has worsened" because the rich are now richer, even though the living standards have improved dramatically in all income ranges, somehow "the situation has worsened" because now the gap is 6 to 1, instead of 5 to 1 as it was in the 80s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_disparity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_disparity

jnorthrop 15y ago
Did you really think a national healthcare system is a "whacko communist" idea? If you want to debate it's merits please do, but don't resort to petty name calling.
- muyuu 15y ago
  Nope. I actually take a National healthcare system for granted, ideally working under proper scrutiny. I'd rather have what we have here in the UK than what's in place in the US (as far as I know about it). I was talking about this other idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
  - gyardley 15y ago
    It's not a completely wingnut idea. I first bumped into it in Hayek, who was in favor of it and not much of a socialist. The rationale works like this - given that some less-fortunate members of society will need assistance at some point in their life, and given that 'conservative' != 'asshole' and we don't want to just let them die in the street, we have to provide some form of limited welfare state. Since we have to provide some form of limited welfare state, what's the best way to do it while preserving as much freedom as possible? We could set up a large government bureaucracy to do this, with rules and regulations and intrusive measurement for determining who can get what, or we could simply periodically cut everyone a small check. Hayek thought the small check was a lot less harmful than the large bureaucracy. I'm inclined to agree. It'd be better still if the government could get out of the welfare business altogether and leave it to our individual communities - I certainly don't mind that my synagogue dues are used to help our poorer members, and if my tax bill was lower, I'd have still more to donate. But that would require a cultural shift to make practical - it's a shame, but most people in America no longer belong to small, supportive communities.
    - giardini 15y ago
      "... or we could simply periodically cut everyone a small check." And what do you do when they drink the check and once again lie dying in the street? I really do agree with you - society can pay up to some point and no more. But at some point people must be allowed to die. For example, today I would not be opposed, in the case of cancer, to society providing payment for all necessary pain medications and hospice care to the point of death rather than paying for (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) treatment. Lifespans would be shorter, death quicker but it is IMO a reasonable and far less expensive option. Nobody really survives cancer although they may die trying. We need to terminate the cancer industry (but maintain cancer research). They are an industry selling pure hope with no significant probability of a cure today. They are a cancer on our economy.
      - matwood 15y ago
        Nobody really survives cancer For many cancers this is simply not true. I know many people who are 5-10-15 years out from when they were declared cancer free after treatment. Should we have let them die when first diagnosed?
        hackinthebochs 15y ago
        Maybe we should. We like to say you can't put a price on a life, yet our actions do not agree with our words. I'm sure any of us could come up with a long list of ways we indirectly place a monetary value on a life. The difference is we rarely acknowledge it out loud, and when someone does we collectively feign indignation that someone could be so callous. It's time to end the hypocrisy and address these issues head on. Health care is so expensive because of insanely expensive treatments we use to extend the lives of chronic or terminal patients by months. It seems gravely immoral as a society to spend millions extending the life of one person while letting another die from lack of health care at all (whether or not the person is paying for it with their own money is irrelevant). I'm not saying I know where these lines are, but we need to have this conversation.
      - gyardley 15y ago

by muyuu 15y ago

jnorthrop 15y ago

Did you really think a national healthcare system is a "whacko communist" idea? If you want to debate it's merits please do, but don't resort to petty name calling.

muyuu 15y ago
Nope. I actually take a National healthcare system for granted, ideally working under proper scrutiny. I'd rather have what we have here in the UK than what's in place in the US (as far as I know about it). I was talking about this other idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
- gyardley 15y ago
  It's not a completely wingnut idea. I first bumped into it in Hayek, who was in favor of it and not much of a socialist. The rationale works like this - given that some less-fortunate members of society will need assistance at some point in their life, and given that 'conservative' != 'asshole' and we don't want to just let them die in the street, we have to provide some form of limited welfare state. Since we have to provide some form of limited welfare state, what's the best way to do it while preserving as much freedom as possible? We could set up a large government bureaucracy to do this, with rules and regulations and intrusive measurement for determining who can get what, or we could simply periodically cut everyone a small check. Hayek thought the small check was a lot less harmful than the large bureaucracy. I'm inclined to agree. It'd be better still if the government could get out of the welfare business altogether and leave it to our individual communities - I certainly don't mind that my synagogue dues are used to help our poorer members, and if my tax bill was lower, I'd have still more to donate. But that would require a cultural shift to make practical - it's a shame, but most people in America no longer belong to small, supportive communities.
  - giardini 15y ago
    "... or we could simply periodically cut everyone a small check." And what do you do when they drink the check and once again lie dying in the street? I really do agree with you - society can pay up to some point and no more. But at some point people must be allowed to die. For example, today I would not be opposed, in the case of cancer, to society providing payment for all necessary pain medications and hospice care to the point of death rather than paying for (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) treatment. Lifespans would be shorter, death quicker but it is IMO a reasonable and far less expensive option. Nobody really survives cancer although they may die trying. We need to terminate the cancer industry (but maintain cancer research). They are an industry selling pure hope with no significant probability of a cure today. They are a cancer on our economy.
    - matwood 15y ago
      Nobody really survives cancer For many cancers this is simply not true. I know many people who are 5-10-15 years out from when they were declared cancer free after treatment. Should we have let them die when first diagnosed?
      - hackinthebochs 15y ago
        Maybe we should. We like to say you can't put a price on a life, yet our actions do not agree with our words. I'm sure any of us could come up with a long list of ways we indirectly place a monetary value on a life. The difference is we rarely acknowledge it out loud, and when someone does we collectively feign indignation that someone could be so callous. It's time to end the hypocrisy and address these issues head on. Health care is so expensive because of insanely expensive treatments we use to extend the lives of chronic or terminal patients by months. It seems gravely immoral as a society to spend millions extending the life of one person while letting another die from lack of health care at all (whether or not the person is paying for it with their own money is irrelevant). I'm not saying I know where these lines are, but we need to have this conversation.
    - gyardley 15y ago