Exhaustion 2012 (or, It's Not Forcible Rape if the SuperPAC is Willing)

faetal on 3/9/2012 at 14:57

I know. You read about ordinary people in the US holding down 2 or three jobs in order to live with very modest means, continually terrified of becoming ill due to loss of wages and medical bills and you wonder where the fuck it went wrong for the US :(
A Gini coefficient of greater than 50 is shocking. The UK is trying its best to catch up mind you.

SubJeff on 3/9/2012 at 16:06

I can't really speak for Europe (and whenever I go I'm insured for £millions so I don't worry) but the more I read about US healthcare the surer I am that the NHS, flawed as it is (and believe me, I know), is a fantastic safety net for people here. It seems it's not just the care you get that is free at the point of delivery, but the lack of stress about being able to afford things. I can't imagine having to worry about whether I'd paid enough to get treatment for x, y or z.

Chimpy Chompy on 3/9/2012 at 16:23

That's something I've found interesting talking to americans. Compared to the UK, it seems more common to encounter people that are quite poor but support very minimal-government libertarian type policies and eschew anything that sounds liked Dreaded Socialism.

faetal on 3/9/2012 at 16:28

My GF lives in France, which has some of the best healthcare in the world. She pays and then gets reimbursed by her insurer. They are more tightly regulated than the US, so none of this co-pay, treatment limit or pre-existing conditions to worry about, but still, being sick as fuck and worrying about getting your payments reimbursed is a pain. The NHS is great simply because you show up, get treated and the most you have to do is sign consent forms or get your prescriptions repeated (and pay £7.20 for medicines I guess). It's such a shame that it won't be around in its current (or previous, since it started being privatised as far back as Maggie Thatcher) form for too much longer :(

CCCToad on 3/9/2012 at 17:55

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Probably because either they watch Fox News, or their encounters with government haven't been all that great. The amount of incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption in all levels of government from city to federal is staggering. I'm of the opinion that a lot of our failed policies would have worked great if only they were implemented by people with something more substantial than sawdust between their ears.

And on the candidates, I think this is about right:

Inline Image:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/564726_318563804908389_1674765524_n.jpg

LarryG on 3/9/2012 at 19:55

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Ever since the start of the 20th century, American big business, and hence both political parties who owe their funding to big business, has demonized any sort of socialistic safety net. It took the strong leadership of FDR, Kennedy, and LBJ to get any sort of social reforms through. Since then it is all being slowly eroded away. People who didn't live through it don't remember how medicare, now an accepted institution, was called "socialized medicine" when it was debated in congress, as though that were the worst thing possible. That's also the issue with Obamacare. It gets demonized as "socialized medicine" when all it really is is a social safety net for those who would otherwise have to get all their treatments in the emergency room. We Americans have been sold a bill of goods for close to a century about how socialism is communism by another name and communism the devil incarnate. All by people who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. The real problem is that men act non-logically, as Vilfredo Pareto said (1897. “The New Theories of Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 5.), “but they make believe they are acting logically.” We are subject to cradle-to-grave, institutionalized propaganda which convinces us to act against our own real self-interests and for things which favor a select few. This problem does not affect just individuals, but governments as well, which get caught up in a trap of their own devising. If you agree that the role of governments is to maximize social welfare (i.e. defense, freedoms, rights, standards of living, health, etc.) then most governments do not act logically to implement global policies to effect these responsibilities and realize an optimal utility for their peoples. Instead governments tend to work at cross purposes to their reasons for existence, leading to increasing dissatisfaction amongst their constituencies as to their trustworthiness, efficiency, reliability, and overall worth, hence the rise of small government advocates who only see the problems that poor government brings and not the benefits that good government can bring. All because of the undue influence that $$ has in politics to the advantage of a select and powerful few. This is one area where our founding fathers screwed up big time! They did not foresee that we would equate $$ to speech and interpret free speech as meaning that the wealthy get to speak longer and louder than anyone else. And guess what, with smaller government, those with wealth and power get to do whatever they want to enhance that wealth and power. It's a feedback loop. Only true political funding reform can break the loop, and it may have gone to far for that to happen.

SubJeff on 3/9/2012 at 20:11

A paragraph a day keeps the tl;dr crew away.

Vasquez on 4/9/2012 at 03:43

That's the edited version, Larry?

Quote Posted by LarryG

The real problem is that men act non-logically, as Vilfredo Pareto said (1897. “The New Theories of Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 5.), “but they make believe they are acting logically.”

You don't really need Vilfredo to state what any sane person can see with their foreheads. I agree, this is probably the gist of all problems, but hard to overcome since we can't buy extra brains anywhere to do that extra thinking.

demagogue on 4/9/2012 at 04:17

It has to be said libertarianism on principle is engrained in Americans generally... Even "liberal" (lefty) Americans still tend to have a gut instinct that government needs to be limited and they won't necessarily manage some operation the ideally "best", only for some issues you'd trust a free market even less... I don't think anyone is questioning that though (even Keynes was this kind of soft-libertarian too).

I think for a lot of the blue collar Reaganites (poorer voters that still vote Rep & agree with scaling back gov't programs), a lot of it is on the principle, and as for their own interest... probably a lot really don't believe it is in their best interest (what they hear from the news) BUT probably a lot also don't *want* to believe it'd be in their interest -- I don't want to be the kind of person that needs to depend on gov't support because that questions my self-worth as a responsible adult that can manage my own life.

From what I've heard from this type, there's a kind of underlying contempt for people that can't get their act together in life or they perceive as not having self-respect... The fact they are themselves poor means they appreciate all the more people working hard in tough circumstances to make ends meet and not falling into some fatalist victimology "Woe am I, the victim. I'll always be poor & only tax support can get me by. I can't do it myself." You get the idea particularly blue collar people will get really indignant if they perceive that kind of attitude... Gov't should just help poor folks that are working hard get by, but shouldn't encourage laziness & dependence.

I also wouldn't doubt there's a racist edge to it sometimes. In these kinds of arguments, like some FB image post you'll see, so often it'll be (or one I saw was) some photo of a frankly ugly black woman on welfare with gold teeth and a smug smile, four kids, smokes & eats nothing but junk food all the time (no wonder she has to go to the hospital, look at how risky she's living; no self-respect at all) and no intention of getting a job to pay for medical or grocery bills (so the caption tells us), she just walks into a hospital or foodstamp line with some feeling of entitlement... "and I'm the one that's supposed to support her smug and risky lifestyle with my taxes?? How about she get a job and stop eating HoHos for dinner?" or something like that is supposed to be the punchline. As if this one hypothetical case encompasses the entire issue -- and no one asks if it's even representative of the need and actual circumstances out there.

Edit: I couldn't help but see that post in particular as very manipulative and baiting the political issue with pretty transparent racism IMO... What else are we supposed to think? You hate her lifestyle and don't want to "pay for it". But healthcare isn't about caring about other people's lifestyles. It's about structural issues, having a healthy workforce, not draining resources with the costs of sickness, etc. Even starting with an anecdotal case to make your argument is missing most of the point, I thought.

faetal on 4/9/2012 at 09:29

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

A paragraph a day keeps the tl;dr crew away.

The tl;dr crew are essentially the entire problem with democracy. Everyone's vote is equal and the vast majority base their choice on sound bites, hence why campaign advertising is so important, hence why the vested interests who fund it (without limit in the US now) are in essence buying their candidates.

Re healthcare in the US, it is stories like (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH) THIS which leave me dumbfounded. Richest country on earth can't even look after its people o_O