General > General Technical Chat
What is a good about Covid 19 related?
<< < (11/25) > >>
james_s:

--- Quote from: Psi on March 30, 2020, 04:02:02 am ---Universal basic income is a difficult thing to get right because it has to take into account a lot of factors. The cost of living is not the same everywhere.
But that sort of system would be able to deal with lockdowns much better.

--- End quote ---

I don't like the idea of universal basic income. I think all who are able need to pull our own weight, it gives us some purpose in life, otherwise there are significant numbers of people content to coast by on the absolute minimum or worse, cause trouble for others. I like having a safety net but I don't want to be able to just sit around and mooch off society while I'm able to work.

Universal healthcare? Absolutely, at least for medical necessities. I don't believe anyone should have to choose between death and bankruptcy. Nobody should ever have to wonder whether they should call for an ambulance or visit the emergency room for some chest pain or just take a chance and hope that it's indigestion because it's going to cost several thousand dollars to find out. Nobody should ever be denied treatment that is medically necessary.
BravoV:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 30, 2020, 03:30:06 am ---Capitalism in general works very well I think, but it needs some controls to keep things in check. A completely free market works ok for non-essentials but goods and services essential to basic living there has to be a greater degree of control against dramatic price fluctuations. Taxation ought to also be progressive, it should be possible for anyone who makes the right choices to become quite well off, but it should be progressively more difficult to become so wealthy that it snowballs and allows someone to use money to keep acquiring more money without generating any actual value. It could be all but impossible to be a billionaire and it would not stop anyone from becoming extremely wealthy. There is this false idea that the wealthy create jobs but it actually works the other way around. People who build successful businesses create jobs and that makes them wealthy along the way.

--- End quote ---

The problem is, the "check" is never existed and deliberately shot down since the beginning and every times whenever someone tried to bring it out.

An "opinionated" article, imo, but worth reading as this kind of view rarely seen in 1st tiers news in Western world.

Few quotes ...

"This is not capitalism. Capitalism is simple. You let winners win. You let losers lose. Regulate the whole show to the minimum degree realistically necessary to protect workers, consumers and citizens. These simple rules have been forgotten. Instead, we have an adulterated form of capitalism that, as far as finance is concerned, has no losers."

"Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Catholicism without God."

Read here -> $6 Trillion ‘rescue package,’ unaffordable bailouts and buybacks: Bend over, here it comes again! ... its from "Russia Todays" ...  >:D
james_s:
I hadn't realized there was anywhere that actually had UBI. I've known enough people who can barely be motivated to get a job even when they can't pay the bills and will always do the bare minimum they can get away with to survive. My friend's stepson is in his late 20s now and can't seem to hold a job for any length of time, he mooches off his mom who keeps giving him money for some stupid reason. He's perfectly content to sit around smoking pot and playing video games, activities I have no particular issue with *provided* they are done in moderation but with him that's pretty much all he ever does.
IDEngineer:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 30, 2020, 04:42:50 am ---Universal healthcare? Absolutely, at least for medical necessities. I don't believe anyone should have to choose between death and bankruptcy. Nobody should ever have to wonder whether they should call for an ambulance or visit the emergency room for some chest pain or just take a chance and hope that it's indigestion because it's going to cost several thousand dollars to find out. Nobody should ever be denied treatment that is medically necessary.
--- End quote ---
Emotionally I want to agree, and I'm not going to argue, but do consider this. Such medical expenses are paid for with tax dollars, which politicians and the media constantly scrutinize to find fault with how they're spent (though they often couch such actions as "oversight" or "being responsible", they really do it to find ammunition against their political opponents). If the government is financially responsible for your medical expenses, then legally they can prove standing to control those behaviors which cause or increase those expenses.

Let's take an easy one: Smoking. The medical expenses associated with smoking are 100% preventable. Therefore, it seems reasonable to compel taxpayer-funded patients to not smoke, correct?

OK, then what about fast food? How about liver disease caused by liquor consumption? Drug abuse? Every one of those is 100% preventable - wouldn't it be appropriate to ban them to save tax dollars? (Ask yourself how those would be enforced, and what penalties we would impose for violation?)

Now let's get to the tougher ones. What about activities deemed "risky" to one's health? I'm a scuba diver, an activity deemed risky enough that it disqualifies you from many life insurance policies. Same for private pilots. But what about rock climbing? Kayaking? Children's sports like soccer, baseball, and (especially) gymnastics? There are well known stats for the dangers of these activities, and your CHOICE to participate risks government spending obligations.

Finally, the heavy lifting. Should women deemed "high risk" be allowed to get pregnant? The costs for a baby requiring NICU can hit six figures at light speed, and the actuarial tables that statistically predict such outcomes are well known to both the medical and insurance industries. And that's not even considering the risks to the mother. How about adults with inheritable mental or physical ailments - should they be allowed to create children who will be virtually certain to create enormous expense for the government?

There is substantial legal precedent for a benefactor having standing over the decisions of a beneficiary. Politicians and the media already weaponize the spending decisions of their adversaries. Do you really want your medical decisions to be wrapped around that axle?
IDEngineer:

--- Quote from: BravoV on March 30, 2020, 04:55:08 am ---The problem is, the "check" is never existed and deliberately shot down since the beginning and every times whenever someone tried to bring it out.
--- End quote ---
Not true.

Early in the industrial revolution we didn't have antitrust, and the problems with that quickly became evident enough that we passed antitrust legislation. It's been used on quite a few industries, and strongly considered on many more.

Also, please look up Glass-Stegal. Passed as a result of the Great Depression, it successfully kept banking and investment separated for ~70 years until Clinton signed it away. To no one's great surprise, the Great Recession followed within about a decade. That's about as perfect an example of your "check" as you'll ever get... it didn't exist and the problem occurred, the problem didn't recur while the "check" was in place, and then the "check" was removed and the problem resurfaced in just a few years.

"Checks" do exist, can and do work. We just need less wild swings in our (at least USA) politics to stop the wild overshoots and overcorrections.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod