IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Agree in large part. But the economy is not the only thing worth talking about - just most important
In a capitalist system like ours, the amount of money you have is directly proportional to the amount of happiness you enjoy. Take that last two parts of your posted statement, health care and social issues. With enough money, receiving the health care you need isn't a problem. I'm not sure which social issues you're talking specifically about, but an example of one that can be fixed with enough money is abortion (I believe this week the President is pro-life). If you've got enough money and you want to terminate a pregnancy, you can travel to where you can get a safe abortion (as was rumored to be the case with one of Dubya's early lassies) even if the Pro-Lifers win and get Roe reversed.

I do focus on the inequitable distribution of wealth that is part and parcel of any capitalist society. I do focus on the fact that the capitalist/donor class is vastly over-represented in our government precisely because re-distribution of wealth is something the government can accomplish fairly easily through its taxation powers (and is in no small measure the reason the capitalist class has taken over our government). Moreover, I think it's clear that a lack of money is at the root of most of a capitalist society's other problems and this lack is a consequence of the natural order of capitalism; namely, the inequitable distribution of wealth.

Of the great ills facing our society, it happens that moderating the inequitable distribution of wealth is the easiest problem for the government to tackle. Once managed, a lot of other ills will be resolved as a consequence. Or at least significantly reduced in intensity.

Do I think all our ills will be resolved if we fix the distribution of wealth problem alone? Of course not. But a great many will be reduced in strength or eliminated outright if we do address that particular problem. As a bonus, it happens to be the easiest one for the government to address.

It's simply not possible to address all other ills in the absence of addressing this distribution of wealth problem and I give you as an example the ACA. If you're very poor, you got supplemental income from Medicaid expansion so that you could afford to pay the capitalists for health insurance. But there are a great many who make too much to receive the supplements, but not enough to afford what the capitalists demand for health insurance. Fix the inequitable distribution of wealth problem and such ceases to be the case. There is perhaps no better example of how addressing the distribution of wealth problem positively impacts another societal issue (health care).

In the end, for all the wrangling, I think the differences between practically everyone else posting on this board and me is that I believe the most important issue facing us today is the inequitable distribution of wealth and that this issue is driving most, if not all, of the other issues we are facing. Further, I hold that the other issues cannot be addressed without addressing what I will call the primary issue. I believe those who've argued with me would contend that each of the three (economic, health care, social) categories of issues are mutually exclusive and can be addressed separately. I don't buy that and I think the ACA points to the wrong-headedness of that train of thought.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Where has this mmoffitt been?
This is actually a coherent position that's not obviously wrong. :-P

Seriously though, I think your point that health care would be mostly solved if we fixed the distribution problem is nearly right. But healthcare is such a special case that it's qualitatively different. If you spread out all the money in the U.S. we'd each be worth about a half-million dollars. (2 years ago) But one heart attack - even a less-severe one - will cost you about three-quarters of a million. (7 years ago)

Two two problems are that:
1) Medical costs vary too much for people to cover catastrophic events. We need to spread that across the population.
2) Medical costs are too high specifically because we generally aren't in a position to comparison shop or negotiate at the point of needing the most expensive treatments.

Single payer solves both of these.

As for the social issues, I don't see how racist immigration policies, anti-gay policies, anti-abortion policies, or intelligent design in schools are improved by more equal distribution of wealth.
--

Drew
New I've been here. Where have you been? :0)
You'll find absolutely no argument from me about Single Payer (check out the old arguments I was in with Scott around the time the ACA was being considered, for example).

But your heart attack counter-example is a bit off. If, in fact, we were all worth half a million, could we all afford insurance? Of course we could. The point I was trying to make is that if you are foolish enough to have a health care delivery system that includes private health insurers competing over dollars people intend to spend on health care but which will be re-directed to shareholders instead, then a more equitable distribution of wealth would only aid that system by allowing everyone to participate in it.

The abortion issue is one I already spoke of. But, as I said, not all social ills would be cured. However, (and IMO this a HUGE However), more equitable distribution of wealth would mean fewer than twenty-some per cent of our children living in poverty, fewer of us food insecure, fewer of us domicile insecure, more of us with access to health care, etc.

But especially after yesterday's special election results, I think those things that I know you and I oppose about our society are not only unopposed by the masses, but are actually supported by the masses. To borrow from a comedian, "There's no fixin' that. That is forever."
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Which special election is that?
--

Drew
New GA and SC
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Concur, v. nice description of Econ insanities, but..
My priorities begin with the BIG One: Over-population, that issue forever kicked-down-the-road.

This article on AZ + Western States' dilemma can be extrapolated/not conflated with: the World's aka The SPECIE'S Own Mastodon ... in comfy A/C cooled living rooms all over.

The southwestern United States is facing an increasingly stressful future with unabated population growth, oversubscribed water resources and a hotter and drier climate. This, in a nutshell, was the message delivered by a panel of three environmental experts discussing how climate change is already affecting and will impact the Southwest’s environment during a panel discussion on the University of Arizona campus during the Tucson Festival of Books.

The presenters did leave the audience of almost 250 with some reason for optimism, pointing out that small but committed groups working with nongovernmental organizations and tribal communities plus efforts on behalf of the private sector have started and will continue to make a difference.

Population in the six Southwestern states – Arizona, Nevada, California, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico – is expected to grow from currently 56 million to 94 million by the middle of this century, according to the report Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States, to which three of the UA panelists contributed. At the same time, water from the Colorado River already is over-allocated by about 2 million acre-feet,

[. . .]




Now, overlay The Climate prognoses, the unutterable rampant-dumbth in our very own Precincts (and the many related, usually unaddressed seppuku-oriented mindsets) on which our collective mob-ignorance depends, and:

Damned if I 'know'.
But in a probability-dependent Cosmos, I think the Precincts have already closed: Homo-sap IS simply, too un-wise to survive ... even those cool caves will eventually become roaster-ovens as we very well might emulate Venus.
But if heroic efforts actually keep the climate barely-livable?? AND the population problem stays un-Faced.. well, you know ...



[a sop for the Magical-"thinkers"]

Bummer that. Unless ... there IS a Cthulhu and ... (It actually Likes us for some unfathomable reason?)
New Concur.
Throughout my elementary school years THE big issue was population growth. Before I was ten, I knew what exponential growth was from what I'd been taught about "the world's population explosion" (that's what I recall my teachers calling it). If you'd have asked me at any point before my 11th birthday what was humanity's biggest challenge I'd have answered in less than a nanosecond, "Over population." AFAIK, that topic hasn't even been discussed in the last 30 years. And it will, as you rightly point out, kill us if nothing else does.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Relevant corroboration from Edward Teller
wikiquotes

There is no case where ignorance should be preferred to knowledge — especially if the knowledge is terrible.

Discovered that a quote of Albert A. Bartlett was (IME) attrib. to Teller, (though altered significantly, so not bogus)

[Bartlett]
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

[Teller] and unverified
"~I believe that the [end?] of the human race will occur for its failure to emotionally comprehend the exponential function."

I prefer Door #2 because, while a math person might grok ex to fullness: without a massive/emotional contemplation of what this MEANS ... you're just a decent math technician.

(Obligatory counterpoint ..to the obloquy Teller earned for his testimony re In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer) is this encomium:

When we came back through the trees to the house, we heared a strange sound coming through the open door. The children stopped their chatter and we all stood outside the door and listened. It was my old friend from long ago, Bach's Prelude No. 8 in E-flat minor. Superbly played. Played just the way my father used to play it. For a moment I was completely disoriented. I thought: What the devil is my father doing here in California? We stood in front of our Berkeley house and listened to that prelude. Whoever was playing it was putting into it his whole heart and soul. The sound floated up to us like a chorus of mourning from the depths, as if the spirits in the underworld were dancing to a slow pavane. We waited until the music came to an end and then walked in. There, sitting at the piano, was Edward Teller. We asked him to go on playing, but he excused himself.
Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (1979), p. 92




..as today: the massive deconstruction builds to its (whatever terror they have hidden within 'Health'? the word.)


Carrion.
New Excellent. Thanks muchly.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
     mmoffit - does this sound like you? - (drook) - (9)
         Agree in large part. But the economy is not the only thing worth talking about - just most important - (mmoffitt) - (8)
             Where has this mmoffitt been? - (drook) - (3)
                 I've been here. Where have you been? :0) - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                     Which special election is that? -NT - (drook) - (1)
                         GA and SC -NT - (mmoffitt)
             Concur, v. nice description of Econ insanities, but.. - (Ashton) - (3)
                 Concur. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                     Relevant corroboration from Edward Teller - (Ashton) - (1)
                         Excellent. Thanks muchly. -NT - (mmoffitt)

You can't polish a turd.
96 ms