Post by Alex W.Post by Jim BeardPost by Alex W.Not disputing any sums, but a word of caution: such calculations,
if done seriously, are horrendously complex.
I am pleased you have enough sense not to dispute the IRS-given
facts. Those people do not always play nice when they think they
are being short-changed or their modus operandi denigrated.
Post by Alex W.Wealth transfer is no absolute by any means.
Nonesense. A transfer is a transfer. If you do not believe
that, I will happily accept transfer of all your money and liquid
assets to me, and we will see how "absoutely" broke you will be
as a result.
Only my liquid assets?
So you'll take my wine cellar but leave me my humidor?
I'm not picky. I simply did not include your real property and
other assets because trying to move them (if any) to my location
would likely be difficult, and I am not terribly interested in
obtaining title to and converting to transportable assets
whatever "non-liquid" assets you may have.
Post by Alex W.That is not how such transfers work out in the greater scheme of
things. To start with, such transfers are made in all directions
(if to varying degrees) -- there are benefits and rebates and
subsidies and services available to all, and at all levels of
income. Therefore, a wealth transfer is never totally away from
you; at some point, and in some way, you will benefit.
Technically true, but the benefit may not be one that most people
would prefer. For example, if all of your wealth is stripped
from you, to include food, water, and protection from the
elements, you will soon die. But, that will mean an end to your
suffering in this mundane world, and deliver you to the next step
in the time-space-(whoknowswhat) continuum.
Such a benefit!
And if there is not "next step" for you, you will have attained
Nirvana! What greater benefit would one ask for? You don't even
have to become a Buddhist and mediate to reach that goal!
The issue is, who gets what, how. Much of the "what, and how"
legislated by those in trall to the "have-nots because they are
produce-nots" is detrimental to the entire society, in that it
will corrupt and eventually destroy the economic engines of
production that are providing the "what."
Post by Alex W.Post by Jim BeardPost by Alex W.For instance, calculating the cost of
granting free medical care has to take into account the benefit
accruing to employers and the state by preserving skills that
were expensively taught (approx. $20,000 per state-schooled
citizen up to High School Diploma) and any subsequent gains in
productivity and tax revenues for any such individuals who, once
cured, return to the labor market.
First, there is no such thing as "free medical care." Someone
has to foot the bill, or the provider has to swallow the expense.
There is a term for the latter (also used by those in the
business of lawyering), Pro Bono. Physicians made much use of
that in the centuries up to maybe 1965 when the Federal
Government got involved and started pour in so much money that
the "health sector" now absorbs one-sixth of U.S. GDP.
Which is a decidedly American oddity. Other countries with
similar or comparable economic development and demographics that
do have state health care spend a great deal less than the US for
very similar health outcomes. It is easy to dig up horror
stories of waiting times for treatment or patients being parked
on trolleys in the hallways of overflowing hospitals, but in the
end a Briton or German or Canadian will have very similar
outcomes and life expectancy as his American cousin, and for half
the money spent. This would seem to indicate that these systems
are doing something right, at least when it comes to getting
value for money.
I spent a few years in the UK, one of the countries mentioned as
having similar outcomes and life expectancy as Americans, and I
believe your glib response does more to obscure than to
enlighten. The British were not exactly happy with their system,
for good reason (though total cost was not the greatest problem).
To take an example of one instance I was personally
knowledgeable of:
Kidney stones can be severely debilitating, even for an
individual at the peak of his career who is intelligent, highly
educated, an experienced and productive worker, and subject to
the same form of treatment rationing as anyone else. Over the
years, surgery, shock waves, medicines, and everything else the
doctors tried provided either temporary or no relief. Surgery
provided the greatest effectiveness at lowest cost, but when the
pain became so severe the man was significantly disabled he would
be scheduled for removal of the stones 6 months or more in the
future.
Post by Alex W.Post by Jim BeardSecond, in some instances medical care may yield a net benefit to
society, above and beyond its cost. This I will grant. But
existence of such instances does not justify requiring the
taxpaying public to pay for any and all care for any and all who
wish to have it.
I wasn't even shooting for a general net benefit of such a
system. I simply wished to point out that the issue and the sums
involved are not quite as black and white as they are made out to
be. It's the difference between "gross" and "net", often ignored
in such debates.
There are roughly 7 billion people on this planet and no person
or assemblage of them can deal individually with each of them,
discriminating appropriately between "black and white, and the
potential forms of gray" for all. It is literally impossible.
The goal is to categorize matters in ways that enable addressing
problems in practical fashion and providing solutions (partial or
complete) that offer the best cost/benefit trade-off.
Your decision to emphasize that things are "not quite as black
and white as they are made out to be" simply obscures matters,
and makes it more difficult to deal with them. With rare
exception, major issues are always gray, but only when enough
light is brought to bear on them to distinguish between the
"black and white" that blended produces the gray is it possible
to address the problems effectively.
Post by Alex W.Post by Jim BeardThink about it a bit. The Baby Boomers are hitting retirement
age now (if they have not retired "early" and maybe as in the
case of hippies and dippies not only way early but permanently).
Their earning capacity is not what it once was. Yet, the costs
of staying alive not only continue but increase, as it becomes
ever more expensive in effort and money just to hold your own
against the advancing year. Add to that, many of them would be
willing to accept -- nay, desire and may demand if they think it
will work -- any and all care that will keep them alive and
functioning. No population can provide all the care that
oldsters fearful of death and desirous of a more pleasant
continuation of life will understandably want.
If provision of health care at taxpayer expense were to be
"return on expenditure" tested, i.e. if there had to be sound
reason to believe that provision of health care to a particular
individual for a particular purpose would yield a benefit to the
society at large, there would be little if any objection to it.
But that is not the way the Government works. The Demograts
cater to those willing to pay in their votes in return for
"entitlements" that the productive working population has to pay for.
Which, to return to the difference between "gross" and "net"
would also include the same services for the working population.
On the same terms and conditions with respect to rationing (which
will happen, simply because there will always be more demand than
it is possible for supply to satisfy). My illustration above on
provision of health care to the British is pertinent. The
workers pay in first, and then try to get what they need in
competition with a far larger population that paid in little or
nothing yet will still get allocated treatment according to the
same standards. And you may wonder why fewer and fewer people
choose to pursue productive careers (too little reward for too
much effort!), or quit striving to better their individual lot by
individual effort (because the difficulties in that are immense;
better to just try to play the parasite effectively, which is
much easier).
Post by Alex W.On top, there would be a certain relief for the working
population and their employers as private healthcare would become
optional rather than a necessity. This will not be to everyone's
taste, of course, but your employer would gain long-term planning
security and quite possibly an overall reduction in healthcare
expenditure, and you yourself would be able to choose whether to
spend the money or invest in some sort of additional healthcare
insurance. Are these not benefits, to be taken into account?
From the mid-1960s onward, every increase in U.S. Government
involvement in health care has resulted in the total costs of
health care going up, at a pace significantly greater than growth
in total GDP, and the benefits have been much slower to increase.
The cost is already exhorbitant, and the benefits as you note
do not even approximate the cost-effectiveness of that in other
countries. (Yet, if you go back and look at the 1950s and 1960s,
the U.S. cost/benefit ratio when compared to that of the UK,
Canada, etc, looked pretty good.)
What benefit should we expect to result from giving the
Government more control and more authority to spend in the health
care arena? Every time in the past that the Government has been
given more in this area, cost has ballooned and effectiveness has
declined. To my mind, this implies we should be reducing
Government involvement, control, and spending authority, as this
will be the only way that costs can be contained and
effectiveness and efficiency improved.
Post by Alex W.Post by Jim BeardPost by Alex W.Or take the consumerist aspect: tax benefits or social security
(welfare) spending has to be administered which creates and
maintains a class of tax-paying civil servants -- whatever one
may think of them in principle, their money is as good as yours
or mine. On top of that, the designated end recipients of such a
transfer do not sit on those funds but also spend them,
benefiting an entire industry that caters to their needs
("Welfare Checks Cashed Here") and the economy as a whole.
If spending is the cure-all for everything, why not just load up
airplanes with $100 bills and drop them by the ton at random all
over the country? That will make lots of spendable cash
available, and I am sure it will be spent, as soon after it hits
the ground as possible.
Yeah, try that. See how long it is before the economy collapses
because there is no incentive, no reason, for anyone to do
anything productive.
I re-read my post and I fail to find anywhere a claim, however
obliquely implied, that "spending is the cure-all for
everything". Of course it is not. That would be stupid.
Post by Jim BeardPost by Alex W.So wealth transfer is not a zero-sum game by any means, but there
are benefits to be had which ought to be included in any honest
assessment of the overall cost.
Count in not just "benefits" but damages and negative effects and
you will find that wealth transfer is not necessarily a
positive-sum game, or even a zero-sum game. It can be a
negative-sum game. In health care in particular, it appears that
the more Government becomes involved, the more damage resulting
in terms of exhorbitant cost to society. There are other examples.
See above.
In all the debates on this issue, I have yet to be offered a
satisfactory explanation why it is that other first-world nations
with state-funded and state-run healthcare systems that run the
gamut from "comprehensive" to "universal" manage to NOT do what
you prognosticate. My government spends 7.75% of GDP on
healthcare, and I can expect to live 18 months longer than an
American. What is the basis for the claim that government-run
health services result in exorbitant cost to society?
The nature of health care and the cost of it, whether
Government-run or on a private fee-for-service, has much to do
with judgments in this area. I am not inclined to make this
already-lengthy missive longer, so I will simply observe that my
criticisms were directed first and foremost at the state of
affairs in the United States and (second) I do have opinions on
government-run health care in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere and
their implications for a similar system in the U.S. Another
time, perhaps.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.