Part II: The Social Contract

Post #157,110 by inthane-chan 5/26/04 7:00:17 PM Reply	Part II: The Social Contract For a lot of what I say to make sense, you have to understand that I look at society\ufffds structures sometimes as meeting three categories of needs for each person: Body \ufffd Basic survival needs Spirituality \ufffd Existential needs, why am I here, what is my purpose, etc. Mind \ufffd \ufffdToys\ufffd, entertainment, etc. That which is not necessary to survival, and is not related to spiritual needs. Each of these three needs are met through three basic structures. I use the following words not in their traditional sense, but in a sense I will define as I proceed: Needs of the body are met by the \ufffdgovernment\ufffd social structure. Spiritual needs are met by the \ufffdreligion\ufffd social structure. Note that for this purpose, I consider agnosticism and atheism \ufffdreligions\ufffd. Needs of the mind are met by the \ufffdbusiness\ufffd social structure. Please note that I consider all three of these needs to be important. Without nurturing the body, we wither, sicken, and die. Without nurturing the spirit, we loose focus and purpose in life. Without nurturing the mind through play and entertainment, we come bored and withdrawn. Each of these three needs can be provided by structures that support one of the other needs, but there is inefficiency inherent to each agency providing needs in a category other than their own. Ideally, each agency should stick to covering its own set of needs as best it can. Human nature being what it is, any agency attempting to fill one role will always attempt to move into the other two roles, with usually disastrous results. Our natural state (I.E. before having a society) is one of bare minimum survival. Basic needs are met only if the individual is capable of meeting those needs themselves, or if they are able to convince another individual to help them meet those needs. Spiritual and Mental needs are met at a bare minimum, if at all. The seeds of the future, however, are planted here, as individuals agree to work together to spread out the work of achieving survival for all. This, in my opinion, is the foundation of government. A government is not about making a profit, or providing a meaning to life \ufffd it is about guaranteeing that the basic needs of the people are met so that the other two needs may be met as well. In other words, it is a social contract, a deal which says in essence \ufffdyou will not fall below this point, and if you do, we\ufffdll lift you up to that point. After all, some day it may be one of us that needs your help in getting back up.\ufffd Law enforcement (property, contract, etc. \ufffd we\ufffdre not just talking about cops \ufffdn robbers, especially in a day when a man with a briefcase can steal more money than a man with a gun) Social safety net (basic housing, basic food) Environmental protection Emergency services Basic health care Basic education Community infrastructure (transit, roads, bridges) In a way, it can be said that the \ufffdgovernment\ufffd\ufffds role is to counteract the tendency of people to look out for themselves first to the exclusion of all others. Its purpose is not to nullify this entirely \ufffd some conflict is necessary for real progress to occur. \ufffdBusiness\ufffd as I define it is the production of luxury items for us to \ufffdplay\ufffd with. A good test is \ufffdis this service or good necessary to my day-to-day survival in today\ufffds society?\ufffd If not, then that service or good should be produced in a \ufffdbusiness\ufffd context. I need to be able to get to a place of employment every day and return to a safe place to rest at night. I\ufffdd like to live in a 5 bedroom two story+basement with three acres of forest around it five minutes from work. There\ufffds a definite difference between the two at that extreme, but finding the dividing line is a very difficult task. I think \ufffdSpirituality\ufffd is pretty self-explanatory on its own \ufffd and I\ufffdm going to stop here for today, because I think this gets across the gist of my ideas behind where I\ufffdm headed with medical insurance reform. In fact, I\ufffdm willing to bet if you read this missive, you know exactly where I\ufffdm headed. Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain. You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.
Post #157,118 by boxley 5/26/04 7:59:49 PM Reply	Also would like to discuss what you call basic healthcare does that cover coughs colds broken arm leg catastrophic health items or does that also cover all kinds of new drugs to keep people alive where they would have died of natural causes 5 years ago? example, when Zocar first came out it was $200 per month, I decided that I would increase my life insurance as that was cheaper and take my chances. That was a rational decision. That was 15 years ago. It has paid off in my mind. Now when I have seen fat people sitting in a neurosurgeon's office with sweaty palms as the syptom and welfare covered the tab I find that abusive. So please define what triage will be used to separate needful from wantful medicine. thanx, bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #157,151 by inthane-chan 5/26/04 10:17:25 PM Reply	That's in part III
Post #157,160 by gdaustin 5/27/04 12:41:05 AM Reply	Disagree with your "Social Contract" It's part of what I disagree with. The main function of government should be to protect the natural borders of the country. It should also protect and assist in the building of the infrastructure of the country. It should ensure fair competition in the business infrastructure of the country. It should protect industry within the country, and ensure fair and equitable trade and negotiations with other countries. The functions of government should not include providing for my healthcare, social security, or welfare. That being said, I also believe strongly in charity, that we are responsible for our fellow man, but that those donations should be voluntary, not compulsive. And we should be more than willing to donate. The problem with our country is that the government is taxing us so heavily that we can no longer donate freely. If you add up your sales tax, income tax, social security contributions, gas tax, excise tax, and property tax, I think you would that we're probably paying out about 30-40% of our income in taxes. And the government still runs a huge budget deficit. 100 years ago, we did not have an income tax, social security, and socialized health care. All of that occurred in this century. So, is the government spending our money efficiently? What do you guys think? Do you think they would spend healthcare dollars from larger taxes any more efficently than the market would? I think not. However, I think socialized medicine is probably inevitable in this country, because medicine has done a wonderful job of pricing itself out of the market. That being said, if we can provide large pools of private insurers for small companies and the poor, then it would be preferable to a large national "single payer" plan.
Post #157,175 by boxley 5/27/04 9:10:06 AM Reply	actually there was socialized health care 100 years ago If you research on the spanish flu epidemic of 1918 and NYC you will find a public health infrastructure with docs, nurses etc with better coverage than todays pay as you go infrastructure. thanx, bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #157,197 by ben_tilly 5/27/04 10:26:22 AM Reply	Your title and body do not match A working public health infrastructure is a very different beast from socialized healthcare. What you describe is that we had a good public health system in 1918. Not socialized healthcare. The difference is that healthcare involves caring for the sick while public health involves steps to address health-threats to the community. Public health includes things like clean water, making restaurants meet sanitation standards, vaccination programs, public education efforts, etc. As an example of the difference, the SARS epidemic was solved through public health measures (contact tracing and quarantine). Health care efforts were notably ineffective. In fact from a public health perspective the main reason to provide health care to people with SARS rather than just shooting them is that you're going to get better compliance if you give people hope that they have better odds of surviving if they report their symptoms honestly. (Public health officials are very interested in figuring out what steps will improve public compliance.) Until Medicare, the USA didn't have any form of socialized healthcare (and now only has it in a poor form). However the US public health system in the USA got started in the 19th century. Incidentally the arguments for a good public health system are far more compelling than for universal healthcare. For one thing, public health by the nature of the beast cannot be delivered privately. For another, public health is far more cost effective than healthcare and therefore is a justifiable investment. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #157,190 by ben_tilly 5/27/04 10:06:46 AM Reply	Again, you should read "Betrayal of Trust" It would add "public health" to your list of basic needs that have to be provided by government, and would also open your eyes to the fact that public health and health care are very different things. Another book recommend: [link\|http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/OLSLOX.html\|The Logic of Collective Action]. Because collective action is what you're talking about. And no theory of how we should be governed is going to be very realistic unless you are aware of phenomena like "regulatory capture" and have accounted for it. (Else you'll come up with an ideal system that never has a hope of working.) Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]

Welcome to IWETHEY!