U.S. Politics, 14

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There is no "or" here. Of all the large government programs that should be in the first place, health care is one of them.

How do you determine which government programs "should" be in place?

[Lord O' Bones]

Or, you could lower taxes, not have UHC, and still balance the budget. It all matters on the subjective moral weighing of more government benefits v. less taxation.

I'm sorry. No UHC, means either "unique snowflake" or "not first world country" to me.

Any asshole that has ever chanted USA! USA! USA! and meant it, and still doesn't believe that we, of all people can't have UHC, is the opposite of what it means to be a United Statesian.

[Shryke]

Or, you could lower taxes, not have UHC, and still balance the budget. It all matters on the subjective moral weighing of more government benefits v. less taxation.

Why bring morals into it?

Economics is more then enough to prove some form of UHC is needed.

If your government is managed shittily, you need to manage it better.

[Lord O' Bones]

How do you determine which government programs "should" be in place?

I have 3 guidelines:

1. What does most of the modern world do, and the US military, and the VA, and do well?* (Re: UHC)

2. Not get into an argument with a lawyer about government programs when I know UHC should be one and the lawyer knows 572 other programs that shouldn't.

3. Suck it! Russel Martin.

*Also, Medicare ish

[Hereward]

This is an interesting, but bewildering, discussion to me as a British Conservative. I, too, believe in a smaller state and a balanced budget, but I have no sympathy with Tea Partyism or what I believe is immoral, or perhaps amoral, attitudes to the less fortunate.

I lost faith in British Conservatism when I came to realise that they weren't in favour of unpleasant medicine in order to make the situation better for all, but as an ideological end in itself. In other words, all stick and no carrot, devil take the hindmost. The idea of no safety net and no UHC is both anathema to me and short-sighted in terms of economic efficiency.

I am, at least for now, back on board with major government spending decreases in Britain of a type which no-one in power in the US seems to be willing even to contemplate, but only aligned with necessary tax increases that demonstrate that everyone has to make sacrifices. It is impossible, and damaging, to balance the budget with spending cuts alone.

[Swordfish]

Yes.

There is no "or" here. Of all the large government programs that should be in the first place, health care is one of them.

A shitty or poorly managed government doesn't change my stance on these things.

Which is completely understandable from a philosophical standpoint.

[Shryke]

And completely necessary from an economic one.

[Lord O' Bones]

Which is completely understandable from a philosophical standpoint.

And completely necessary from an economic one.

Exactly.

[Shryke]

It's a pretty classic bullshit tactic here LoB. It comes up every time with UHC. The Right-wingers will try and paint it as a moral issue to distract from all the other reasons it's a good idea. They try to push it into an area of subjectivity.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm sorry. No UHC, means either "unique snowflake" or "not first world country" to me.

I'll take unique snowflakes for $200, Alex.

I lost faith in British Conservatism when I came to realise that they weren't in favour of unpleasant medicine in order to make the situation better for all, but as an ideological end in itself. In other words, all stick and no carrot, devil take the hindmost. The idea of no safety net and no UHC is both anathema to me and short-sighted in terms of economic efficiency.

Hereward, is it really that simple when it comes to UHC, though? I think the comparisons would be difficult and open to dispute, but I don't think it's self-evident that the average Briton gets better health care via your UHC than the average American gets without it. Nor do I think it's self-evident that the long-term prognosis of a UHC health care system is better than that of a system without UHC.

[Swordfish]

Exactly.

uh... Well. All right.

We'll just have to disagree I guess, but I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the 'drowning shitheads' post.

:dunno:

I'll take unique snowflakes for $200, Alex.

Hereward, is it really that simple when it comes to UHC, though? I think the comparisons would be difficult and open to dispute, but I don't think it's self-evident that the average Briton gets better health care via your UHC than the average American gets without it. Nor do I think it's self-evident that the long-term prognosis of a UHC health care system is better than that of a system without UHC.

Precisely.

[Shryke]

Hereward, is it really that simple when it comes to UHC, though? I think the comparisons would be difficult and open to dispute, but I don't think it's self-evident that the average Briton gets better health care via your UHC than the average American gets without it. Nor do I think it's self-evident that the long-term prognosis of a UHC health care system is better than that of a system without UHC.

How isn't it?

What metric do you want to use where the US doesn't come out behind?

[TrackerNeil]

You're applying two different standards. Liberals wants univeral health coverage because they believe health care is a right, and conservatives oppose it because they don't believe it is a right. Neither position is any more pragamatic or philosophical than the other, because both are dependent upon specific moral views.

So you don't care whether everyone has health care or not, as long as the budget is balanced?

Didn't think so.....

Actually, this liberal wants universal healthcare because I think it's fiscally sound and socially responsible. I don't think it's a constitutional right, nor do I think it's some kind of divinely bestowed privilege that government must honor. I think it's good policy, period. I imagine there are some liberals who think differently, but to be honest I don't care why they agree with me as long as they agree. Similarly, I'd happy link up with a conservative who wanted UHC only because it is fiscally wise. Pragmatism, baby.

As to your question, I want everyone to have access to health care, yes, and I think it's possible to do so on a balanced budget. However, I don't share this current fixation on the debt, which I notice coincides neatly with a bad economy. I suspect that when the recession abates, so will widespread concern about the national debt.

[TrackerNeil]

Who said reducing revenue doesn't add to the debt?

Upthread I asked:

So it's not that we increase the deficit, but only how we increase it that's wrong?

You replied:

I've had this discussion on here before, but yes, at least to some extent. To conservatives, reducing the size of government and not running a deficit are related but not identical or fungible concepts, and both goals have independent value. Conservatives wouldn't like a system that takes 80% of wages to fund it's programs, even if that budget is balanced. Democrats repeatedly focus solely on "the deficit", while ignoring the additional issue of the size and scope of government. I think many Democrats believe that we should have all the social programs that we can afford, which is why all they care about is the deficit.

That tells me that deficit increases are OK by you, given that they meet certain ideological criteria. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually, this liberal wants universal healthcare because I think it's fiscally sound and socially responsible.

What do you mean by "socially responsible"?

And just to focus on this "fiscally sound" thing for a bit, I want to make sure we're talking the same thing. Let's say we eliminated completely Medicare and Medicaid, but kept all current taxes in place. Would that not improve the fiscal position of the government?

[Hereward]

Hereward, is it really that simple when it comes to UHC, though? I think the comparisons would be difficult and open to dispute, but I don't think it's self-evident that the average Briton gets better health care via your UHC than the average American gets without it. Nor do I think it's self-evident that the long-term prognosis of a UHC health care system is better than that of a system without UHC.

I'm willing to contemplate the idea that the average American has better healthcare than the average Briton. I am firm in my belief, though, that nobody should have no healthcare, or be bankrupted by cost when they are already dealing with the potentially devastating emotional impact of a serious illness or accident on a relative. Avoiding that seems to me what we owe one another as a society.

Leaving that aside for a moment, on utilitarian grounds I think it is also of great benefit for the economy not to be burdened by lack of labour mobility owing to people clinging on to employer provided health assurance when one or both parties would be happier parting company. I think entrepreneurial spirit would benefit from taking the fear of the potentially devastating effects of illness or accident out of the equation. Also, it is amazing to me that major companies, impossible to replace in the medium-term, should be destroyed or forced to concentrate, to the exclusion of almost all else, on their health insurance costs and liabilities, when they could be concentrating on renewing themselves.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That tells me that deficit increases are OK by you, given that they meet certain ideological criteria. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.

You were saying the Republicans were "going back on a promise" by urging a tax cut that would increase the deficit. I said they never promised any such thing, only that they wouldn't agree to new spending that increases the deficit. And they did expressly promise to support extention of the tax cuts, so it's hard to see how that is going back on a promise.

Now you can argue that the effect of a tax cut and the effect of new spending have a similar effect on the deficit, but that does not turn a tax cut into "spending" any more than in makes new spending a "tax increase". You can disagree with the policy, but you can't fairly accuse them of breaking a promise. That was my point.

Moving on from there, there are two fundamentally different views of how to approach government spending, both of which are consistent at some level with fiscal conservatism. A liberal fiscal conservative might argue that we should have as many social programs as we can support with tax revenues. As long as the books balance, there's no problem with more social programs, and they're generally a good idea.

A conservative fiscal conservative would prefer to keep taxes lower so that people keep more of their own money rather than having the government take it for more programs. Again, the books can balance under that approach as well.

But these two approaches can lead to fundamentally different societies, which is why talking about "conservatism" as simply fiscal conservatism misses the mark.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm willing to contemplate the idea that the average American has better healthcare than the average Briton. I am firm in my belief, though, that nobody should have no healthcare, or be bankrupted by cost when they are already dealing with the potentially devastating emotional impact of a serious illness or accident on a relative. Avoiding that seems to me what we owe one another as a society.

Okay, I get that. My personal opinion is that even the less well-off are going to end up worse off under a guaranteed system than ours long-term, but that's obviously a debateable issue as well.

Leaving that aside for a moment, on utilitarian grounds I think it is also of great benefit for the economy not to be burdened by lack of labour mobility owing to people clinging on to employer provided health assurance when one or both parties would be happier parting company.

Well, in many cases, health insurance here is somewhat portable between employers. I do think there are some ways that portability can be improved, though.

[Lord O' Bones]

I'll take unique snowflakes for $200, Alex.

Well, shut mah mouth. You've taken the Jeopardy tact.

/floored

uh... Well. All right.We'll just have to disagree I guess, but I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the 'drowning shitheads' post. :dunno:Precisely.

I have no problem reconciling "my government is drowning in shitheads" with your seeming stance on the populace being sicker equals more growth.

[TrackerNeil]

You were saying the Republicans were "going back on a promise" by urging a tax cut that would increase the deficit. I said they never promised any such thing, only that they wouldn't agree to new spending that increases the deficit. And they did expressly promise to support extention of the tax cuts, so it's hard to see how that is going back on a promise.

Now you can argue that the effect of a tax cut and the effect of new spending have a similar effect on the deficit, but that does not turn a tax cut into "spending" any more than in makes new spending a "tax increase". You can disagree with the policy, but you can't fairly accuse them of breaking a promise. That was my point.

I see. Republicans campaigned on concern about the deficit, and now they are slithering out of their promise by pointing out that they never promised not to increase the deficit, only not to increase the deficit with additional spending. That's like a man telling his wife, "Honey, I swear I never had sex with that woman. Sure, I was handcuffed naked to a bed while she rubbed me with a bath towel soaked in olive oil, but that's not sex!"

I'll leave off for now, though, because half the board is piling on you and I think you deserve a break. BTW, board folks, you may not be aware that FLoW resembles a cute Willem Dafoe. So go easy on him. ;)