Obama

[CentralCaliBike]

Originally Posted by Bala Verde

Check out Ostrom's work (although I don't have any abstracts). It should be quite appealing to anyone with an interest in Political Economy.

I have looked at her Bio a couple of times this weekend - I have to admit the Nobel Prize does not seem to hold the same weight anymore - seems a little political to me.

[Bala Verde]

Originally Posted by Scott SoCal

A right wing nut job evil employer and business owner (me) has a few questions.

I am glad to see that you don't have the answers to everything

Originally Posted by Scott SoCal

Is anyone bothered forcing young healthy people to pay higher than market rates for insurance to provide a subsidy to older Americans?

In reply:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I think that would apply to those 'rich in health' as well.

[CentralCaliBike]

Originally Posted by Bala Verde

I also find it touching that you believe to hold the key to 'the truth'. You must be a very well published and read author

I have written a little (not much published) - been involved in research for other authors as well - but never claimed to be an expert in economics (although I believe I have a fairly good handle on human nature).

In general, I believe that liberalism starts with the thought that the basic nature of man is good, that most will look after their neighbor if given the chance. Conservatives tend to see the nature of man in general is selfish, or as Thomas Hobbs once stated about life in a society without government, it is "nasty, brutish and short".

Since Liberals tend to believe that man is generally decent - they tend to believe that, given equal economic access, most people would avoid corruption and be willing to do with less to insure their neighbor has what they have. They also tend to believe that conservatives are a mean and selfish aberration to the basic nature of man.

I see conservatives concluding that most men will attempt the most gain with the least effort. They believe that a large number of people are more than happy to obtain all they can from others while putting in little to no effort to give back. Culturally, if hard work is not a value and society makes sure that everyone has food and shelter, a growing number in that society will be happy with the basics and not attempt for more. The problem with this situation is that the number of those who are providing the financing of that free shelter will continue to decrease as the gain is not equal to the effort.

I have a number of friends (and a few family members) that are liberal - I do not dislike them for that, however, I disagree with their basic understanding of human nature.

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by CentralCaliBike

I have looked at her Bio a couple of times this weekend - I have to admit the Noble Prize does not seem to hold the same weight anymore - seems a little political to me.

Particularly when you don't have to spell the prize's name correctly.

[Scott SoCal]

Originally Posted by Bala Verde

I am glad to see that you don't have the answers to everything



In reply:



I think that would apply to those 'rich in health' as well.

So parents get to extract their pound of flesh from their kids right at the start of their adult life? Let's see, new in their budding careers, perhaps college loans, new family perhaps, possible eye on that first home... and they get to pay higher than what is actuarily sound so that their parents and grand parents can be more comfy?

Contrast that with auto insurance for example. Drivers without much or any experience cause accidents at a much higher rate than those with experience and are charged accordingly. Medical insurance charges more as people age because those are the folks filing insurance claims in greater scope and scale. To make the young and healthy pay even a portion of a senior subsidy is patently unfair particularly when there are far fewer young people than seniors. That is not to say they should take so much risk... they should have health insurance, but to tax the historically lowest wage earners among us.... And that's passes as fair?

The young in this country are completely screwed. There are fewer of them and they sure have a ton of financial burden bestowed upon them.

[CentralCaliBike]

Originally Posted by Oldman

Particularly when you don't have to spell the prize's name correctly.

Agreed (this program cannot let me off with just a word of apology)

[Laszlo]

Originally Posted by Scott SoCal

The young in this country are completely screwed. There are fewer of them and they sure have a ton of financial burden bestowed upon them.

Not completely screwed, assuming other conditions eg environmental etc. remain stable, I envy their employment prospects in the future.

Unfortunately, if enviromental predictions concerning global warming are correct, the future might be much more difficult. The future is usually far different from what we imagine it will be.

[Bala Verde]

Originally Posted by Scott SoCal

So parents get to extract their pound of flesh from their kids right at the start of their adult life? Let's see, new in their budding careers, perhaps college loans, new family perhaps, possible eye on that first home... and they get to pay higher than what is actuarily sound so that their parents and grand parents can be more comfy?

Contrast that with auto insurance for example. Drivers without much or any experience cause accidents at a much higher rate than those with experience and are charged accordingly. Medical insurance charges more as people age because those are the folks filing insurance claims in greater scope and scale. To make the young and healthy pay even a portion of a senior subsidy is patently unfair particularly when there are far fewer young people than seniors. That is not to say they should take so much risk... they should have health insurance, but to tax the historically lowest wage earners among us.... And that's passes as fair?

The young in this country are completely screwed. There are fewer of them and they sure have a ton of financial burden bestowed upon them.

Hey, I was just quoting Adam Smith's "wealth of nations". He seemed to favor progressive taxes, and I thought this was somewhat analogous, but then from a health perspective.

The rich in health support the poor in health, perhaps also understood as intergenerational support? This also works reversely, when those older people with an income pay taxes and support the law (enforcement), fire depts, libraries, defense, infrastructure and public education etc. We also have a system called 'inter-citizenry support' or nationalism. When people in New Orleans get hit by Katrina, we (ideally) would support them in their unfortunate circumstances, because they are fellow citizens of all ages, races, and backgrounds.

I am unsure though what you are referring to here exactly. You mentioned 'higher 'than market insurance fees' before, but it seems as if you are pointing at taxes on the young as well? (I could be mistaken though)

In terms of taxes, many youngsters don't even have an income (so no income tax, rest is what, sales taxes on consumer goods), or start out with a rather low income (0-$50.000; not including the new doctors and lawyers). That means you have (as a max) around $3.000 per month to spend, and an end of year tax credit is probably worth another 2-3K since you are in the lowest (10%?) bracket.

If you refer to insurance fees, I think you are obfuscating the fact that a car insurance only applies to those who possess a car, hence a consumer of a (luxury) good. You can choose not to own a car, and therewith even forgo on auto insurance. Everyone however possesses health, merely by being a human being. Secondly, an individual's health cannot be replaced (like a broken car) and will therefore require inevitable maintenance later in life, no exceptions.

Hence, to me, health is not a luxury good and affects everyone, the young the old, the poor, the rich, the smart, the stupid and of all colors and denominations. IMO, to then say, 'hey you are young and therefore very likely to be healthy' is completely different from 'hey you are a good driver and have never caused any accidents, stuck to the laws, and behaved well'.

Further down the line, when a young person turns senior citizen, he would quite possibly also not want to go bankrupt when he'll be suffering from an unavoidable ailment. It's what Rawls called 'maximizing the minimum'.

The young in the US are screwed because of government 'divestment' through the eternal (American) politics of tax cuts leaving public institutions in tatters.

To illustrate the American 'respect' for government institutions, I walked into a Social Security office to apply for my first card as a recent newcomer. I had never seen such tacky, run down, crappy and under-equipped (computers from year 200 A.D) government office before. They reminded me of those dark, grim concrete government buildings you saw in Eastern Europe and the USSR. If image means anything in the USA...

Hence, overly expensive private education/bad public education, no access to health care, collapsing bridges, bad roads, no public transportation system, social security problems, outsourcing of public functions to private companies, who then charge premium rates to satisfy their for profit motives. Heck, even the military is gradually being outsourced, see Blackwater/XE services, whose mercenaries make 10k per month while some poor SOB who joined the army gets paid what 2k a month?

On second thought... You might be right. The government's chronic and structural underfunding of American society shall be attributed to the current and past (voting) generations. So let the young cut ties and let them say "you know what, because of you our opportunities have been eroded, our potential can't be realized without taking on extreme and risky debts, much has been privatized and become exceedingly expensive, American society has become a frustrator, not a facilitator. Screw you, we don't owe you anything". And then start their golden age of irresponsibility.

[Bala Verde]

Originally Posted by CentralCaliBike

I have a number of friends (and a few family members) that are liberal - I do not dislike them for that, however, I disagree with their basic understanding of human nature.

That's where we differ. I don't believe in 'human nature'.

[usedtobefast]

Originally Posted by Bala Verde

Hey, I was just quoting Adam Smith's "wealth of nations". He seemed to favor progressive taxes, and I thought this was somewhat analogous, but then from a health perspective.

The rich in health support the poor in health, perhaps also understood as intergenerational support? This also works reversely, when those older people with an income pay taxes and support the law (enforcement), fire depts, libraries, defense, infrastructure and public education etc. We also have a system called 'inter-citizenry support' or nationalism. When people in New Orleans get hit by Katrina, we (ideally) would support them in their unfortunate circumstances, because they are fellow citizens of all ages, races, and backgrounds.

I am unsure though what you are referring to here exactly. You mentioned 'higher 'than market insurance fees' before, but it seems as if you are pointing at taxes on the young as well? (I could be mistaken though)

In terms of taxes, many youngsters don't even have an income (so no income tax, rest is what, sales taxes on consumer goods), or start out with a rather low income (0-$50.000; not including the new doctors and lawyers). That means you have (as a max) around $3.000 per month to spend, and an end of year tax credit is probably worth another 2-3K since you are in the lowest (10%?) bracket.

If you refer to insurance fees, I think you are obfuscating the fact that a car insurance only applies to those who possess a car, hence a consumer of a (luxury) good. You can choose not to own a car, and therewith even forgo on auto insurance. Everyone however possesses health, merely by being a human being. Secondly, an individual's health cannot be replaced (like a broken car) and will therefore require inevitable maintenance later in life, no exceptions.

Hence, to me, health is not a luxury good and affects everyone, the young the old, the poor, the rich, the smart, the stupid and of all colors and denominations. IMO, to then say, 'hey you are young and therefore very likely to be healthy' is completely different from 'hey you are a good driver and have never caused any accidents, stuck to the laws, and behaved well'.

Further down the line, when a young person turns senior citizen, he would quite possibly also not want to go bankrupt when he'll be suffering from an unavoidable ailment. It's what Rawls called 'maximizing the minimum'.

The young in the US are screwed because of government 'divestment' through the eternal (American) politics of tax cuts leaving public institutions in tatters.

To illustrate the American 'respect' for government institutions, I walked into a Social Security office to apply for my first card as a recent newcomer. I had never seen such tacky, run down, crappy and under-equipped (computers from year 200 A.D) government office before. They reminded me of those dark, grim concrete government buildings you saw in Eastern Europe and the USSR. If image means anything in the USA...

Hence, overly expensive private education/bad public education, no access to health care, collapsing bridges, bad roads, no public transportation system, social security problems, outsourcing of public functions to private companies, who then charge premium rates to satisfy their for profit motives. Heck, even the military is gradually being outsourced, see Blackwater/XE services, whose mercenaries make 10k per month while some poor SOB who joined the army gets paid what 2k a month?

On second thought... You might be right. The government's chronic and structural underfunding of American society shall be attributed to the current and past (voting) generations. So let the young cut ties and let them say "you know what, because of you our opportunities have been eroded, our potential can't be realized without taking on extreme and risky debts, much has been privatized and become exceedingly expensive, American society has become a frustrator, not a facilitator. Screw you, we don't owe you anything". And then start their golden age of irresponsibility.

bv, as a recent resident(you said) your understanding of the american
situation, leaves most natives behind.