You complain about US government debt and deficits. Then I challenge you to offer a suggestion as to how US government could close the debts and deficits you complain about, how to increase revenues, and in so doing, should it maintain or even expand its services, such a paying for health care. Then you ramble on about everything and anything except actually answer the challenge put to you, all the while complaining that you have been challenged, that the challenge is itself wrong and wrongheaded, and on and on.
Here's some more of what you call "pseudoscience", which will show in stark numbers just how useless your philosophical musings are:
There are 50 million people out there with no heath care, and close to that under-insured as well. Let's say 80 million. As I proved before, health care amenable mortality in the US is much higher than it is in almost all other advanced countries in the OECD, including France and Canada. For people who get health care in this country, we spend about 12 thousand dollars per year per person. To give health care to that 50 million at the same rate would cost 50 million times 12 thousand, about 600 billion dollars per year in unmet need. Add in those 30 million under-insured, and we are up to around maybe 800 billion dollars per year in unmet need.
(Side note. The ER does not meet this need. The ER is legally required only to ascertain whether the condition is an emergency or potentially immediately life-threatening. If it is not - and it almost always is not, then
Do you know how much is spent on charity each year in the US? It's always been around 2% of nominal GDP. That's 300 billion dollars per year presently, for all charity of all types. How much of that present charity spending could be realistically increased and/or diverted to meet this 800 billion dollars per year in unmet need? Maybe 10%? That's roughly 30 billion, enough to cover only a few percentage points of that 800 billion dollars per year of unmet need....Just as I told you. (Yes, we could make the system more efficient with such as single payer, making that 12,000 figure go down to maybe 9,000. And how do we know this? Because that "pseudoscience" you condemn says so. But even so, charity still can handle only a very small percentage of the total need.)
Yes, I commend your charity work. (But think: What percent of all those MRIs or surgeries or drugs that need to be given to those 80 million that your charity pays for?) But the numbers are what the are and the facts are what they are with respect to the massively staggering amount of unmet need, and it is proved beyond all doubt that only government can end this evil of unmet need - it is proved beyond all doubt that saying otherwise to is horrible evil of promoting suffering and death from lack of health care.
And this is just for health care. There is much more need in terms of proper shelter for so many.
Your musings do not tells us how to close the deficit and otherwise find the revenues so that we do not have to tell people on Medicare and/or Medicaid "go join the ranks of those 50 to 80 million", thus swelling those ranks immensely. Your musings do not tells us how to come up with the financing to meet 800 billion dollars per year of unmet health care need.
The "pseudoscience" you condemn is the only thing that can tell us such. And it does tell us what we need to do.
It is plain evil to promote not doing what it tells us to do to lower the suffering and death rates. It is plain evil to promote anything that would keep these suffering and death rates where they are or even cause them to rise....Even if while doing charity work.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 2:02 AM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: >> Yet again, you prove me right: You have nothing useful to offer. Your >> "philosophical musings" are utterly useless and meaningless to, for >> instance, homeless people who are suffering *right now* because of >> lack of government that is paid for: Lack of proper food, proper >> shelter, proper health care provided by government to those who need >> it, which has to be paid for. Only that which you condemn - government > > On the contrary, I've devoted many total hours to a work / study > program wherein food about to be composted, perfectly good, is rescued > by bike trailer, hauled to kitchens and served to homeless and others. > Healthy fresh vegetarian produce. Wholesome grains. Rain or shine. > > This has been going on for years and I've written about it extensively > in my "philosophical musings" (with pictures and everything). This is > concrete, on the ground, and results in people developing skills and a > mind for logistics. > > What do you mean by "government" anyway? In a democracy it is of, by > and for the people. I am the government as much as anyone. You can > call it "private charity". I can call it "a government program" > (people giving of their own free will in a voluntary capacity, with no > specific religious denomination running the show). > > I am an agent of the people, of the government therefore, doing my > part, in coordination with others, and developing sharable curriculum > from the experience. > > I'm not aware that you're doing anything even remotely comparable. > Let us know if I'm wrong. > >> action that is paid for, where this mathematical economics you condemn >> provides the road map for its financing - can save those who need >> saving in this regard. (You think private charity can do it? Fact: It >> never has met more than a few percentage points of this need, and this >> is because it cannot meet any more than a few percentage points of >> this need. You do not believe this? Then try to prove otherwise - and >> I will destroy your attempted proof with the mathematical facts that >> you don't know because of your choice to deny the science of >> mathematical economics.) >> > > Right, by definition I'm suddenly banned from knowing these inner > secrets that are yours to know because you are loyal to your phony > phantasms. > > How does magically giving the USA indefinitely extensible borrowing > authority as a percentage of a magically rising GDP help those people > in Greece? > > Does your thinking extend at all beyond the narrow confines of one > specific nation? No US president could afford to be that narrowly > focused. > > We were talking about medical care above, now we're talking about > food. Shelter is yet another topic. > > Do you think it's smart to have millions of people leaving perfectly > good homes / apartments empty half the time while they go to well > plumbed office buildings that are then empty half the time as well? I > was writing above about mixed-us skyscrapers. Hotels that start on > the 9th floor, public schools likewise. Boarding schools? Dorms? > > Commuting as a way of life is not going to be so affordable or > "convenient" I think we're discovering. Some communities have been > planning for this, others not so much. > > As a teacher, I telecommute to work. My car is in the driveway more > than not, although sometimes I chauffeur MVPs around. People in our > city can join a service that gives them access to cars. They use > their cell phones to locate a nearby available vehicles, parked on the > street. Drive them, leave them. A shared fleet. Not taxis. > > The amount of food wasted in cities is huge (back to food again). > Much more could be done and more will be done in some cities. I'm > glad to be a part of the solution. We swap personnel around, compare > notes (we'll be doing more of that). E.g, we've been joined by a > Russian emigre recently though she's moving on after some months of > service. Some of our business cards are in Russian. > > This is the Global U coming together to take care of food services, > without depending on your poor / broke Uncle Sam (he could clean up > his act and actually help by the way, but so far he seems more like a > meth addict in terms of his level of dysfunctionality, poor slob). > > Do I have all the answers? I don't pretend to. > > But neither do I pretend that money-minded couch potato "problem > solving" is a substitute for real investment and planning for the > future. I'll take my "musings" (grounded in real practice) over your > pseudo-science any day of the week. > > Kirby