Date: Nov 10, 2012 2:36 PM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Obama's win - good or bad for the US/the world?

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, kirby urner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Paul Tanner wrote:
>

>> 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.)
>>

>
> The % given for charity is a variable.
>
> We already agreed that, holding GDP constant, we could create various
> mixes. Lets say prisons versus schools (like the old guns and
> butter).
>
> Here's a general systems theory diagram that encapsulates the tradeoff
> (lets think of the entire planet as having a GDP for the moment):
>
> http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/gst2.html
>
> Currently we don't call it "charity" to give to political campaigns or
> military campaigns. Nor is video poker considered charity, even
> though someone freely chooses to part with their money in a game
> playing context. Or maybe that *is* charity? Is church bingo a
> charity? Can you take a tax deduction for what you lose paying bingo,
> if the funds go to a recognized charity? Maybe so.
>
> In the CSN model, vendors / sponsors commit their % for charity to
> accounts which the players then commit on their behalf. I walk into a
> coffee shop and play games to advantage causes I support and to
> enhance my profile / track record in so doing. Charity becomes
> entertainment in this model. Many of the games have didactic value.
>
> Think again of video poker, but at the end of the game I commit my
> winnings to a health care operation in Sicily that I personally
> support. Or maybe the funds go to an animal shelter nearby.
> Different games come with different constraints.
>
> Charity-for-sport becomes a leading pass time for many people in this
> model. Some skip going to high school to play in these coffee shops
> instead and, depending on the zip code, may be the better for it.


Your above fails the challenge. You fail to actually provide the numbers.

It's probably because you know that they will not add up. I showed that there is close to a trillion dollars per year of unmet health care need in this country. This above will meet no more than a few percentage points of that unmet need. Prove otherwise if you think otherwise by actually proving the numbers.

If you refuse to provide the numbers to back up your claims, then you have no business posting at a math forum.

> Expanding this model would be easy, but USAers sit around whining
> about how "the government" should be solving these problems whereas
> they *are* the government (in theory -- in practice they've been
> trained not to think that way).


This above is what I mean. It's a copout. By its attempted redefining of terms, it tries to escape the cold hard facts that only government can end the vast majority of suffering and premature death caused by lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care.

>
>> 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

>
> That was a funny part of Michael Moore's film where he took those 911
> ground zero first responders, who'd been denied coverage yet were
> suffering from related medical conditions, and took them as a group
> down to Cuba for MRIs and stuff. I got a chuckle out of that one.


Government to the rescue. Just like I said.

The reason that our government has not come to the rescue of our homeless and other poor is because too many US citizens stand in the way via their voting for "limited government" politicians.

>
>> 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

>
> Which government? You mean government in general? You fling a lot of
> terms around.
>
> I assume the Chinese foreign aid groups providing dental services in
> Detroit come under the heading of "government" in some way? Like the
> Peace Corps. Perhaps you mean "the US government" in particular?
>
> I'm suggesting that some US homelanders (I didn't say how many) might
> avail of medical services with charitably funded branch operations in
> their vicinity. These could be clinics funded by donations from people
> who've moved away but still want to see health care in places like
> Flint, Michigan.


All this talk about "free clinics" really irks me. Do you know how many free clinics there are in the entire state of FL? Less than 10. And they do nothing, except the most basic of basic services. (I once went to the ER some time ago in FL when I had no job and no money and no health care, and got into an argument with one of the ER doctors, a "limited government" MD, who claimed that there is no such thing as people not being able to get the health care they need in the US. He claimed that there were free clinics all over the place. I challenged him to give me a list. I later found out that not one of those places were free clinics - they had only sliding scale models with minimums for even homeless people than were more than may poor people could afford. And they all had only the basic of basic services, not one specialist - hell, not even one MD, period. They had only nurses. That's when I did some digging and found that true free clinics essentially did not exist in the state, they being so few.

(And I know someone who at the time lived in the Tampa Bay area who could not get the orthopedic specialist care she needed after a fall down a flight of stairs - living with her son who had a very low paying job made her a bit too rich for Medicaid (and we have the "limited government types" to thank for that). Not one such specialist in the entire area was willing to volunteer services or work for lower pay at these places for poorer people. Not one.)

Here below some more facts that should send a chill up and down the spines of all who happen to have a conscience: Because of these conservatives, these "limited government" types, 41 states in the US do not provide any cash assistance or Medicaid or Food Stamps to the vast majority of their homeless, and to large numbers of otherwise poor. You know why? Because the vast majority of the homeless are adults that do not have dependents - either they never had kids or their kids are grown or if they have kids that are not grown then someone else has custody - and because these "limited government" types, these conservatives, say that such people should get no help from government all costs, that if private charity does not help them, then too bad, they have to suffer and die premature death from lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care. (The Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare that would have changed this evil was that part of Obamacare struck down by the conservatives on the US Supreme Court.)

The socialist/capitalist Scandinavians, because more than any other group of countries in the world through their cradle-to-grave social benefits that exceed any other group of countries in the world, are the people in the world who most understand that only through government can a people most obey the Christian dictate to take care of their own.

And lo and behold, they are the economically most prosperous group of countries in the world (with their nominal per capita GDPs larger than any other group of countries in the world).

I claim that it's cause and effect, that this mathematical economics applied to macroeconomics that you condemn as "pseudoscience" provides the very clear explanations why this cause and effect occurs.

You really do need to read and learn from such as Paul Krugman and their "pseudoscience" you condemn.

>
>> beyond all doubt that saying otherwise to is horrible evil of
>> promoting suffering and death from lack of health care.
>>

>
> Right, more like the USA does, by spending its money on WMDs and
> preemptively attacking here and there with them, pretending it's some
> kind of British Empire on steroids.



>> 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.
>>

>
> Giving a "meth addict" more money to buy WMDs and stalk people with
> drones is not necessarily a good solution. The USA has been using its
> money to conduct shock and awe campaigns against people who were
> manifestly *not* a threat (even the US president said so, mocking the
> search for WMDs that were never found).
>
> Why encourage such manifestly idiotic / psychopathic behavior with
> more borrowing authority?
>
> Uncle Sam is perhaps too psychotic to be trusted with more dough?
> He's a mental patient at the moment, not really a constructive player.
> Lets wait until we see more signs of courage and health.


Meanwhile, you are content to see all this massive amount of perfectly stoppable suffering and premature death caused by lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care guaranteed to continue on and on and on here in the US (because of the fact that the US government and only the US government can stop all this stoppable suffering and premature death).

>> The "pseudoscience" you condemn is the only thing that can tell us
>> such. And it does tell us what we need to do.
>>

>
> Right, give more money to the evil WMD addict so he can rain bombs
> down on the latest "threats" -- people far away from these scared
> little homelanders who sit in front of their televisions,
> malnourishing themselves, pale, ignorant, sick in the head from all
> that televised unreality.
>
> Helping their bomb victims is much higher priority than helping them
> at the moment -- that's how a lot of good doctors think. Lets help
> the Iraqis get back on their feet. The Americans can wait. Their
> health care is maybe not a priority for the most skilled health care
> planners, given their commitment / track record as USAers is to maim
> and kill somewhat indiscriminately, out of fear and ignorance. The US
> is manifestly anti-healthcare.


See all my above about your copout with respect to government, this "government is not the answer" utter BS.

So, since the US government does some things you do not like, you promote the idea that it should pull the plug and turn around and walk away and "let the states" do it or whatever? Tell that to black people. (To anticipate: Yes, I and they know about the bad things occasionally done to them by the US government, but they almost all always vote for more US government, which is the only entity that freed them from slavery and gave them civil rights. Your private charity as "government" could not save them from the "Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy" who run so many of these states.) Tell that to the environment. (For example, before the Clean Water Act of 1972, 3/4 of fresh water bodies in the US were too dirty to swim in or fish out of. Even just shortly afterwards, 3/4 were both swimmable and fishable.) Tell that to people 65 years old and older. (Before Medicare for older folks, we had the obscenity of the statistical correlation of the poorer people were, the higher the mortality rate from lack of health care. I've cited any times that 2000 study [more of the "pseudoscience" you deny] showing that that obscene correlation no longer exists in the US, even though it still exists for people under 65, this because the qualifications for Medicaid are too stringent, thanks to the "limited government" types having too much political power.) And on and on.

>
>> 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.

>
> That's why I'm skeptical that the USA should be permitted to continue
> on its murderous / psychopathic course. You seem to want to fund it
> indefinitely. You want to feed the monster so it can continue
> morphing into Prison Nation and weapons pusher to the world. That's
> where DC seems to be taking us. As long as DC has such a negative
> influence, I say we should not provide any encouragement.
>
> My goal is to get more of the people, the real government, off their
> duffs and out there doing things to assist with building
> infrastructure and taking care of people.
>
> You call that evil, whereas you want to give money to a murderous
> misanthropic Beltway Junta. That's what your "mathematical economics"
> tells you to do. Sorry, not buying. Once again you prove me right,
> that you can't think clearly or intelligently about world problems.
>


It's the other way around. I repeat: If you refuse to provide the numbers to back up your claims that private charity (I reject this copout redefinition of "government") can do it all, then you have no business posting at a math forum.

And see all of my above, especially what I said about all those very many tens of millions and millions of homeless and other poor who get NO assistance from government in terms of food or health care or cash assistance in those 41 states. NONE. And they have not and will not ever get it from your precious private charity. Only the US federal government has a large enough financial base to end this obscenity in the US. It is simply a fact that it can raise whatever revenues it needs to close yearly deficits a lower the debt as a percentage of nominal GDP, and at the same time stop all this stoppable suffering and premature death. Therefore to be against this one and only entity that can end this obscenity ending this obscenity is itself an obscenity.

I repeat: Here below some more facts that should send a chill up and down the spines of all who happen to have a conscience: Because of these conservatives, these "limited government" types, 41 states in the US do not provide any cash assistance or Medicaid or Food Stamps to the vast majority of their homeless, and to large numbers of otherwise poor. You know why? Because the vast majority of the homeless are adults that do not have dependents - either they never had kids or their kids are grown or if they have kids that are not grown then someone else has custody - and because these "limited government" types, these conservatives, say that such people should get no help from government all costs, that if private charity does not help them, then too bad, they have to suffer and die premature death from lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care. (The Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare that would have changed this evil was that part of Obamacare struck down by the conservatives on the US Supreme Court.)

Do you think that it is mathematically impossible for the federal government of a country to stop at least the vast majority of this stoppable suffering and premature death caused by lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care?

There are countries already doing this so-called mathematically impossible.

The socialist/capitalist Scandinavians, because more than any other group of countries in the world through their cradle-to-grave social benefits that exceed any other group of countries in the world, are the people in the world who most understand that only through government can a people most obey the Christian dictate to take care of their own.

And lo and behold, they are the economically most prosperous group of countries in the world (with their nominal per capita GDPs larger than any other group of countries in the world).

I claim that it's cause and effect, that this mathematical economics applied to macroeconomics that you condemn as "pseudoscience" provides the very clear explanations why this cause and effect occurs.

You really do need to read and learn from such as Paul Krugman and their "pseudoscience" you condemn.


Message was edited by: Paul A. Tanner III