Medicare reform...

tonyb

"regulations/requirements have doubled"

Once again, the more government gets involved, the harder they make it.

I think if you took vouchers one step at a time, the benefits would be obvious enough even to those politicians against them. Trying to do it on a national level could be cumbersome. One state at a time, take the tax money you pay for public schools, return it in a voucher to use at any school you wish, private,religous, whatever. Problem is the public system will suffer even more so than it already does. Also, what do you do with those who don't pay at all for public education. Numbers have to be crunched, but if half the people exited the public system because of vouchers, the costs of that public system would be also cut in half and maybe those lottery dollars will go further. How about taking unused political campaign funds to go directly into the school fund when someone leaves office. Just a thought, But I gather vouchers won't sit well with teacher unions, or state governments.

steveinaz

The simplicity of a voucher program, is its very strength. It's a straight forward process that is very difficult to pervert. That's why most politicians (BOTH parties) HATE them. Tough to appease your lobbyist when you can't manipulate a program into the ground and render it useless.

That's the problem with government programs today; they've become a playground for politicians to ensure their re-election, an to keep their fat-cat constituents happy. Add to that, that congressman and senators have their own programs---so they could give less than a **** about the affects of manipulation to these programs bring to you and I. About the only thing they can do with a voucher program is to raise the tax needed to support it---and guess what? They have to get that past the approval of their voters. "Taxes" is a dirty word to politicans--but you can't call it anything else in a voucher program. (no place to hide).

You see, the Government doesn't like "simple" and "efficient"---it's too easy for us dumb voters to figure out when it's being manipulated in counter-productive ways; and we can't have that, can we? Politicans LOVE complexity; it's easy to bury pork in a complex program.

rooftop59

The way I see it the main goal of a liberal democracy such as ours (note that liberal and libertarian share the same root which means free or autonomous) is to give everyone as fair and equal a shot as possible at (as the gates foundation puts it) a chance "to live healthy and productive lives" while also maximizing personal freedom and minimizing potential danger and harm to others. In other words all human beings should have a fair shot at realizing their full potential. As to what the "role of government is", this is a very difficult question. Tonyb assumes that the government should only pay for roads, police, and national defense, nothing else apparently. Why? What arguments can you offer for that being the only legitimate role of government? I take it that in order for everyone to have a chance at a healthy and productive life, education and health care have to be a part of the equation in a liberal democracy.

As to the voucher issue, yes it would cause a mass exodus of public schools, and then children who are born into a bad situation (by no doing of their own, just like you have nothing to do with being born into whatever situation you were) will only have an opportunity for a good education, thus continuing the cycle. Why do we think that fixing society equals creating institutional policies that perpetuate cycles of poverty, violence, and lack of education?

And before you say that you aren't about fixing society, then what are we trying to do here?

steveinaz

True, unfortunately the term liberal as come to mean an expectation to "provide for me" in too many cases. Government LOVES that, it's like a drug. Get'm hooked, get'm dependant, then CONTROL them by threats of removing the "benefit."

We've lost our "sink or swim" mentality that made this country, and its people so great. Americans were tough people in the early days, because we knew we were pretty much on our own. This toughness/challenge to succeed makes you resourceful, inspires ingenuity, and self-reliance.

markmarc

"As to the voucher issue, yes it would cause a mass exodus of public schools"

It would become an attempted mass exodus. But the fact that their is a very limited amount of private school desks would leave say 85% of students in public schools, until new private schools could gear up. But as we've seen with the charter school movement a significant number don't perform well and have floated in mediocrity.

Up until the 1970's public schools and social norms allowed for the quick removal of troubled making students. Plus, those that struggled academically were ushered into the local factory job where they became productive members of the community. Those days are sadly over, as is the shop classes where students who didn't fit the traditional student mold could develop trade skills. Trade classes are virtually non-existent in high schools, yet 33% of high school graduates still end up in a successful vocational career. Instead, schools replaced shop teachers with Japanese language teachers because of Japan's tech/factory rise all for the 1% of students who will use it in their career.

What is our true common sense educational needs for ALL of society?

rooftop59

steveinaz wrote: »

We've lost our "sink or swim" mentality that made this country, and its people so great. Americans were tough people in the early days, because we knew we were pretty much on our own. This toughness/challenge to succeed makes you resourceful, inspires ingenuity, and self-reliance.

I agree that there are many things that made this country great and the western-individualism was one of them, like it or not. Steve, I think that you really like a book of my former professor and mentor Chip Conyers - The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit. He was an advocate of decentralization and libertarian thought, and i was very taken in by his arguments (and still find much wisdom in his thought. He was a fine scholar and a better man). But the reason I no longer find the core arguments persuasive is that we simply no longer live in that world. The US used to be rural, agrarian, and small communities helped each other out. It was also much simpler to live. Kill and grow your own food, built a simple house, work you arse off to survive. But let us not forgot that many people either died or were born with mental or physical disabilities, and those people were basically written off. In that world a lot of people worked very hard and did in fact "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" but many people were left behind and suffered immensely due to that way of life.

Bottom line: we cannot offer 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. We have to confront the now with new solutions. And yes, I agree with you that people must take responsibility, that they must be willing to work, and that no one should get a free ride for no good reason. We really agree on a lot here. But I just think that we need to give everyone a fair shot, and how to do that is a very complicated question and I don't claim to know the answers.

As for the voucher issue and the shift in public education I agree that it is problematic. My mom taught for 40+ years and both my in-laws for 30+. My in-laws have even created a fund to send their grandchildren to private school because they are so disillusioned. But we can't abandon the hope of democracy and education. As least I can't. I want a better world for my children and others'.

aviator

rooftop59 wrote: »

As to what the "role of government is", this is a very difficult question. Tonyb assumes that the government should only pay for roads, police, and national defense, nothing else apparently. Why? What arguments can you offer for that being the only legitimate role of government?

What is legitimate about seizing the fruits of my labors to provide someone else their meals, housing, education, health care, transportation, their entire means of existence?

Isn't the free ride of roads, police, courts and national defense courtesy of those paying all the bills a grand enough gift?

tonyb

rooftop59 wrote: »

Tonyb assumes that the government should only pay for roads, police, and national defense, nothing else apparently.

Oh dear lord....please point to where I said that. Your original premiss is flawed as to what a libertarian believes. It is not the job of the government to "Equal out" opportunity for all. Or equal out the outcomes too. Libertarians want government out of their lives.

Everyone is born not with the same set of circumstances, opportunity, lifestyle, thats a fact of life. The challenge is overcomming those obstacles to rise up out of a poor situation. What the Gates foundation does is called charity, what an individual does with his disposable income is his buisness and I applaud him for it, but it's HIS money, not mine, not the general taxpayer's.

Marc also brings up a good point about shop class,trade schools and I know you have brought it up before in other threads and I am in total agreement with you there. It does beg to question what exactly is the purpose of education ? Is it to make thousands of worker bee's for the queen ? Or is it to provide a path to reach an end goal ? To make one choose a path that will enable one to support themselves at something they will be happy at ? Personal fufillment ? Not everyone is born a rocket scientist.

rooftop59

aviator wrote: »

What is legitimate about seizing the fruits of my labors to provide someone else their meals, housing, education, health care, transportation, their entire means of existence?

Isn't the free ride of roads, police, courts and national defense courtesy of those paying all the bills a grand enough gift?

I'm sorry, but that's not an argument. Why should the government even supply that? If you are going to be a consistent libertarian, then anarchy is the only logical conclusion. No roads, no police, nothing that gets paid for by anyone else. The only other logical conclusion is that you only can access something insofar as you have contributed to it. So every service including police and roads get rationed. What kind of world would that be? Not one I want to live in.

aviator

tonyb,

The quote he attributed to you is my position.

rooftop59

Libertarians want government out of their lives.

First off, I apologize Tony it was aviator that said that.

Second, I grant your point and just pressed it. Get the government completely out of your life and you will have none of the benefits of a modern liberal democracy. It that really what you want?

aviator

rooftop59 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's not an argument. Why should the government even supply that? If you are going to be a consistent libertarian, then anarchy is the only logical conclusion. No roads, no police, nothing that gets paid for by anyone else. The only other logical conclusion is that you only can access something insofar as you have contributed to it. So every service including police and roads get rationed. What kind of world would that be? Not one I want to live in.

Here we go -- if we can't have a government that confiscates as much as possible and has its long nose into everything under the sun -- then we should just have anarchy.

Again -- tell me why what I've busted my **** for is fair game for you to spend as pleases you and not me. Why are your desires, wants, needs and demands superior to mine in the dispostion of my life's work?

tonyb

Rooftop- I know where your comming from. You are looking at a more compassionate society, one that takes care of all. It's a utopian thought, nice as it may be. It's simply not sustainable in a world that is loaded down with debt from past utopian policies. You only have to look as far as Europe to see what these type of "take care of everyone" policies do to a society. Makes them lazy, and when it comes time to take away something,you get Greece.
Nobody like to see the disadvantaged stay in that cycle of poverty,but your not doing them any favors by giving freebies. A hand up does not necessarily mean a hand out. I'm all for trying to give those less fortunate a hand up.

We are floating off topic here, let's circle around and bring it back to medicare and opinions on how to fix a program that eats up a good portion of the national budget.

tonyb

rooftop59 wrote: »

First off, I apologize Tony it was aviator that said that.

Second, I grant your point and just pressed it. Get the government completely out of your life and you will have none of the benefits of a modern liberal democracy. It that really what you want?

Heck no, who does ? Your going to extremes here bro. Gov. has it's function,and the right to collect taxes to support those functions, question is, where are the limits of those functions ?

One could argue the limits of those functions are contained in something we call the constitution. A document most these days down in washington don't like because of it's limitations.

tonyb

so much for circling around...:biggrin:

rooftop59

I agree Tony (about my utopianism and being off-topic). And I am not a utopian but rather a pragmatist, if a progressive-leaning one at that. I am speaking out of the Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition (though I am no prophet!) and no prophet has ever had his or her vision realized. But I want a fair and just society while admitting that no solution will be perfect; we will all have to make compromises.

So speaking of compromises, my original problem with the voucher solution is that I just am rather skeptical that a hardcore "free-market" solution will work, but I am not ready to throw the baby out with bath water (speaking of rural america!). Perhaps a voucher system would work, but I just think that we would still need some regulations on the HUGE companies that own insurance and medical technology in this country. They are so large that they will charge what they want and no one can compete and vouchers won't be enough. By I admit my inadequacies and that I do not know where to go from there...

rooftop59

I am very tempted to touch the constitution issue, but I really need to get some work done today ;-)

tonyb

I can agree with some of that Rooftop, but the way I see it is yes you need regulation to keep everyone in check, but too much only adds to the cost, not keep them down. You have to start looking at laws that make HC cost what it does, it's a mixed bag of tricks for sure. Think of it like this, you run an office, your paper costs keep climbing, do you just keep boosting up the price of your product, or do you search around for cheaper paper clips ? Do you tell your employee's they are rationed to 2 pencils a day, or do you look to find a cheaper supply of pencils.
We have laws that actually prevent this process from happening in the medical field. Why ? Money money money.....Money !!

Roy Munson

Vouchers aren't worth the paper they are written on!

Roy Munson

So speaking of compromises, my original problem with the voucher solution is that I just am rather skeptical that a hardcore "free-market" solution will work...

Without regulation greed will raise its ugly head just like it did on Wall St.

steveinaz

However, it's difficult to be too greedy when your competition will gladly take your customer.

tonyb

Roy Munson wrote: »

Without regulation greed will raise its ugly head just like it did on Wall St.

Yes and no....sure you had greed, but you also had those who stood to benefit from that greed making the laws for wall street. Like everything,there's good and bad in it all. To think one can eliminate greed in the open market place is fooling himself.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

However, it's difficult to be too greedy when your competition will gladly take your customer.

Competition Steve ?? What a novel concept.:biggrin:

tonyb

rooftop59 wrote: »

They are so large that they will charge what they want and no one can compete and vouchers won't be enough. .

That may well be the case, but any given HC policy, be it a private insurer, or a government program also has it's limits and may still indeed not be enough.

This why most want to keep competition in the HC market, and take on the reasons it cost so much by getting rid of laws that drive up costs or prevent a more cost efficient solution without having to ration the care.

steveinaz

There is no perfect solution, but there are FAR better alternatives to the $40 dollar aspirin. I went to urgent care a few weeks ago with walking pnuemonia---I told them I'd pay cash. My bill? $52. And that was being "seen" and diagnosed, and with 2 very costly medications, and 1 not-so-costly medication. Can you guess what an insurance plan would have been charged? What's wrong with this picture?

Similar situation with dental care 3 years ago. Had an abcess, and had to lose a back tooth...I had no dental coverage at the time, so I paid cash. My bill? $65. Wonder what that one would have been through insurance.

cnh

Are we still talking about these issues? Has anyone 'changed' anyone else's mind or position yet? No.

That's what I thought. Carry on!

Diversity of thought in America! One of our greatest strengths?

cnh

steveinaz

Did you think anyone would? Still, there are things to be learned. I am always more than willing to hear other possible solutions, or possibly an angle I missed--because to be honest, I'm not at all smart about the fine detail of this stuff.

Isn't that the hang-up with this country today---"I'm right, your wrong" end of discussion mentality?

steveinaz

The methods/strategies to a solution can be discussed at length, and I realize that when it comes to how a program will be implemented, you can't help but wade into the political side of the debate. This is to be expected, as the 2 big parties have very different opinions on how and what will be paid for, and by whom. But you have to check box 1 before you move on to box 2; and possibly along the way a light will come on--and a good idea will be recognized as a good idea---political agenda and bias set aside.

It all comes down to "how do we fund this?" This is where the great divide lives. This much I can tell you, as federal government worker; there are things the Fed does well--very well in fact, and there are things we suck at. No doubt about it, I see it everyday. "Money" is one those things we suck at. From buying a box of paper clips, to making responsible decisions on a MACOM's budget. There is way too much personal/professional agenda (politics) that goes on, on OUR dime. I could tell you stories that would give you nightmares.

cnh

I completely agree with you there Steve. I just wish our two party system would comply. For example: keeping 'everything on the table for discussion is necessary'. You can't have Democrats saying we can't touch 'entitlements' and Republicans saying TAX increases are OFF the table. That is not compromise.

And politics is supposed to be the 'art of compromise'. By that definition, we currently have NO political process in this country. And believe me it is getting tiresome to watch these two parties NOT talk to each other.

Nothing but two hot air balloons passing each other in the night.

cnh

steveinaz

It's desperate times, and people act irrationally when times are desperate. Americans are fed-up, no doubt about it--so tempers, and opinions are in over drive right now. Where I believe the problem lies, is more and more the "switch" of individuals who run for office--wanting more to be professional politicians, instead of having a genuine desire to want to create a better country. This is why we can't get a decent candidate for President. Nobody that would be truly good at it, will even consider running because they know the BS they'll have to go through isn't worth the effort. The VOTERS are largely to blame for that debacle. We're stupid. Seriously. I know I'm guilty of it--I try to stay on top of big topics, but it's all very complicated. I know what general direction fits my character and values, and what I believe will be the most likely to be successful--so I depend upon the candidates of my choice to get me there.

Here's the problem, they are only concerned with re-election.