<p>The reason the debt is as bad as it is now (read: the only reason it matters in the least) is because of its massive growth with Reaganomics and the Iraq Crusades. Those weren’t special circumstances, that was a mix of fiscal irresponsibility and just pointless spending. If we hadn’t spent that money, there wouldn’t have been any repercussions. The bailout, otoh, was necessary. The health care bill is less necessary, but it has a clear benefit, is clearly a rare occurrence, and its cost really isn’t that high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if I were to steal your ingenuity or your ability to work, that would violate your human rights?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, so before one buys health insurance, they should receive a pamphlet containing the circumstances needed to qualify for each possible treatment known to modern science. Fine.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I would read that though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t make any sense. Are you trying to say that there is such a surfeit of essential goods and services in this country that it is not incumbent on society to provide for its members?</p>
<p>In other words, all the spending you agree with was clearly neccesary, and if only those people who have different view would go away it’d have all been fine.</p>
<p>The problem is that the other side can say the same thing “if it weren’t for all that bailout spending we could have easily paid for the war…”</p>
<p>I think both sides should be expected to be fiscally responsible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. And I am 90% sure I know exactly what you’re going to say next, so go ahead and say it.</p>
<p>My analogy compared it with milk: You or I may not know a lot about biochemistry, but if milk is labeled “Certified Organic 2%” then we can buy it with confidence. The same would be good with insurance. Help people make choices, instead of making the choices for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m saying that, for the most part, even the food you buy in America isn’t really essential to your life, but is rather something that makes your life more pleasant.</p>
<p>Just from the things you listed:
WWII - Indisputably necessary
Cold War - unavoidable
Reagan - built weapons and pie in the sky missile defense research to do what exactly?
Recent Iraq War - served what purpose?
Bailouts - stabilized the economy; prevented Depression-level unemployment</p>
<p>
Interesting. So essentially, frictional unemployment is a systematic violation of human rights. But that’s a necessary consequence of society. As is failing to leave others alone without prior contract. I guess then that the only just society would be none at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you think I’m the one that fails to understand your point? :rolleyes: How long do you think a brochure properly saying what’s covered would have to be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not a meaningful statement. If I were to refuse to eat, I would die sooner rather than later. Does that not make food essential to life?</p>
<p>^ There’s a pretty marked difference of opinion on the neccesity of different spending plans… For that matter, why target the big stuff? If we weren’t wasting so much money on nonsense programs and useless bridges, we’d be able to sock away money so these crises didn’t even force us to go under water.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. If you have the ability to do work, but nobody wants to buy your work, then that’s not their fault.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>About half a dozen words, if, like milk, appliances, chocolate, etc. there were established terms used in the advertising. I’d be fine with the government establishing minimum standards for a plan to be called “full coverage” or “dental care coverage” or “emergency coverage” etc. But people with the intelligence to to the research should still be free to buy a nonstandard plan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but that doesn’t mean society is obligated to provide it for you. Even if we considered it society’s responsibility to provide you with the things essential to life, that wouldn’t include anything near the standard of food all americans are used to…</p>
<p>And what would you consider to be under water?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s not what causes frictional unemployment. There are always going to be people that need to hire someone, but the people available aren’t always going to be aware of the positions or in the same place. There’s also frequently just more people than jobs, so society by its very nature impairs people’s ability to work. You also didn’t address the fact that society necessarily causes interactions without prior contract.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok… but the plans have to be written up somewhere, right? Including all the nonstandard plans… So how long are those plans going to be, if they’re going to be, as you said, completely explicit?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you don’t think health care is necessary…?</p>
<p>If you have the ability to do work, but you can’t find anyone who wants to buy it, then that isn’t their fault. You and them would both benefit from buying some of a third person’s skills at matching workers with jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’ll be written up the same way that the standards for milk and the other things I said are. Have YOU ever read what the exact standards for different grades of milk are? I’d bet 99% of Americans haven’t. But that system still works fine.</p>
<p>Remember the health care bill? It lays out the standards for the “Essential Care Package” with just a page or two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I don’t think it is. Greatly beneficial, but not neccesary. Considering the vast number of people who have lived without it throughout history I think the evidence is on my side.</p>
<p>A lot of people have lived without food and water. Then they died. Same with healthcare. The only difference is a matter of time and circumstance. And health care has been a mark of human society at least since the Neanderthals, so I’m curious as to who you know that never received any and lived ~80 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is they? More to the point, since their is a clear overarching structure that makes it impossible for you to find work, it is that structure’s fault.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m familiar with FDA food standards. Basically a certain level of “other stuff” is allowed. Anything more is too much. I find it hard to believe that you actually think the question of what insurance covers is that simple. There are far more variables in person’s health, and there are an infinite number of potential responses to that condition. It’s just not possible to specify beforehand what can and can’t be covered in each case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And those 2 pages specify what’s covered in each possible case? Thought not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to give you credit here, you did say that your knowledge of economics was limited. The two consequences of government debt are (1)slightly limiting the amount of lending to the general public by banks, and (2)interest payments. Neither of those is serious enough to justify allowing mass unemployment.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about your sawbones and herbs here. I’m saying that what you and our current administration are calling “health care” and claiming to be a basic human right isn’t a neccesity of life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“They” are the rest of society. And I disagree that we have an “overarching structure” that makes it impossible to find work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me, but then what is the point of the bill? Do I understand this right:</p>
<p>You:</p>
<h1>1: Insurance companies keep denying care to their customers, and there’s no way to stop them because we can’t define what they are expected to provide.</h1>
<h1>2: So let’s let the government define what all insurance plans must provide.</h1>
<p>So there are no circumstances in which seeing a doctor would save a life that would otherwise imminently end?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you fail to understand the concept of frictional unemployment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The government isn’t trying to explicitly define what must be covered. IIRC, that was one of your complaints about the bill. The bill is meant to make sure everyone has more than minimal coverage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mass unemployment? There wasn’t mass unemployment, because very few companies ended up going under.</p>
<p>I don’t think society is obligated to save your life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What part am I getting wrong:</p>
<p>1: Normal umemployment is when there is more work of a particular kind for sale than demand for that work, so that some people are unable to sell theirs.</p>
<p>2: Frictional unemployment is where there IS a market for a person’s work, but that person can’t find the market because it’s a big world.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s the world’s fault that it is big. Part of selling anything is marketing it so customers can find you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait…</p>
<p>1: You think one of the current problems with insurance is that when people buy it they don’t know whether they will be covered.</p>
<p>2: The bill does nothing about that problem.</p>
<p>3: You support the bill.</p>
<p>So what gives?</p>
<p>Do you support the bill because of this issue or in spite of this issue? If the latter, then you agree with me here and we can argue new points.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, then what caused the threat of mass employment?</p>
<p>Ask a historian. Mass employment has existed for millennia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually YOU were the one that said (1). I merely pointed out that there’s no way to fix that short of a single-payer system. I would like a single-payer system, but the fact that this bill comes short of that doesn’t mean it’s a complete failure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the inability to work due to external circumstances is a natural consequence of the structure of any (non-communal) society. Therefore, any society systematically violates your conception of human rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. I can’t force everyone in this country to have Christian ideals.</p>
<p>But this still causes huge moral issues. If an uninsured person is randomly stabbed on the streets and can’t pay, we should let them die? Seriously? How about if an uninsured person gets malaria? Where’s the boundary between the “right to life” and the non-right for society to save your life? Who gets to decide? There are some hints of death panel-ness here!</p>
<p>Of course! I think, morally a person is absolutely obligated to save someones life if they can. I also think people are obligated not to have sex before they are married. But I don’t suggest that the government try to force everyone to follow said morals…</p>
<p>But these are doctors we’re talking about! Of course some random guy on the streets isn’t technically obligated to help out, but for a medical professional who has taken the Hippocratic Oath, the situation is a bit different…</p>
<p>So the gist of the argument - is government responsible for saving people’s life.</p>
<p>Why can’t we just solve it like this- if you go to the hospital and you don’t have health insurance, you commit to 5 years of forced labor by the government.</p>
<p>Wait, what? I think we’ve gotten lost again. What DO you think is good in the bill? All my last few posts were trying to address what I thought was your concern about insurance company abuses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with that. Just because society isn’t banging at your door with a job doesn’t mean it is violating your rights.</p>
<p>The threat of mass unemployment was caused by poor business decisions allowed due to insufficient/nonexistent government oversight. I’m not sure why you would bring this up in a discussion of government debt.</p>