Back

@ChrisMayLA6 Is it a switch about that Or was the bait just a promise to return to a Golden Age of metal bashing car industry, Men on The Moon, brown people doing the low paid jobs, no competition from The Rest of The World- still not rebuilt yet.

@TerryBTwo

Well, I was thinking in more general terms:

bait: we're going to make your lives better;

switch: we're going to remove you benefits...

(of course put like that it sounds eerily like events this week in the UK)

@ChrisMayLA6 I was thinking of a subtly different version of that bait. "We're going to go back to simpler, better times" by angrily denying all the modern stuff.

@jwcph

yes, I think that narrative of the leader betrayed by the functionaries will be doing a lot of work in the coming year

@h4890

I think we're back to the social problem of luck; how does (and perhaps should) the state make up for the uneven distribution of luck (over health & wellbeing) in a society?

@ChrisMayLA6 And/or should it? Luck is not well defined, and measuring it, and basing policies on it sounds unfeasible to me, outside perhaps, lotteries.

@h4890

In this context, I think of (bad) luck as being things that impact on people's lives over which they have little or no control... but yes, equally it remains in specific instances difficult to define; but on the other hand politics is always about 'difficult' issues, isn't it?

@ChrisMayLA6 Well, I think politics goes from the trivial, to the difficult. On the trivial level, I think almost everyone can conclude that we do not want violence. We have the right to live our lives free from attack. But from there, it quickly goes downhill. ;)

And now I am of course arguing from "within" modern democracy, so adding authoritarians to the mix, we of course start from a difficult place, since they tend to favour the rule of the strong.

@h4890

Broadly yes; I think most people looking at welfare or other policies intended to deal with the results of bad luck would agree that equality of opportunity is what is required.... the difficulty is assessing the impediments to such opportunities & what ameliorative action(s) might be. This is why in the end a redistributive tax system works quite well as it acts at a level of generality that doesn't require such detailed judgments...

@ChrisMayLA6 Well, there's the problem of it being inherently unethical, since it is based on violence! =(

But perhaps a better model could be voluntary taxes combined with paying for the services you use?

That way, there would always be a choice! =)

@h4890

Hmmm... 'voluntary' taxes, requires a very optimistic view of human nature...

@ChrisMayLA6 There you go again, the leftists are always grumpy. ;)

Jokes aside, if the value provided is clear, and higher than the cost, why wouldn't people take the deal?

Maybe voluntary taxes is exactly the incentive the public sector needs, in order to provide services people actually want? =)

@h4890

The problem is the 'free-rider' issue; people often seem to think that if they quietly don't do something, but everyone else does they can reap the benefits more cheaply... and of course, as that approach widens (by experience & example) so the social provision fails....

@ChrisMayLA6 But isn't that just a symptom of them feeling that they don't get their moneys worth.

And if you adopt the model of paying what you use, then the free rider problems is minimized.

@h4890

But sometimes (especially in public health provision), what you 'use' is far form clear in the short-term

@ChrisMayLA6 I think that is where an insurance solution would work very well.

@h4890

and of course in a sense that is what a tax system is... with its mandatory status used as a way of dealing with the free rider problem

@ChrisMayLA6 Not at all... an insurnace is a voluntary arragenement. I am (ideally) in no way forced to buy insurance, but do it if I judge it to be necessary.

The insurance company also tailors the price based on the risk I am to them, based on lifestyle factors etc. so you actually do pay for what you use.

Free healthcare on the other hand, risks free riders occupying the system for the most trivial symptoms, blocking essential access for others.

@ChrisMayLA6 Therefore those people are "freeriding" since they use it way, way beyond what they pay in, at the expense of people with legit needs.

@ChrisMayLA6 Yes, that's why I said ideally. The government is basically giving huge profits to the insurance companies by such policies. They are completely wrong and distort the market. Some insurance billionaires benefit greatly due to the cozy relationship with the government. =(

That law should of course be abolished.

@ChrisMayLA6 Oh no. The US system, and I think we discussed this, is far, far from private. Instead it is a private/public hybrid under government control, that is the worst of two worlds.

I'd argue, that even a fully public system, or a fully private system, would be better than the mess the US has today.

@h4890

Yes, sorry I should have been clearer I was referring to the part that is not Medicaid, Medicare or the Veteran Administration... but yes, I'd expect they are getting the worse of both worlds