On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM, kirby urner wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Paul Tanner wrote: > >> Your above fails the challenge. You fail to actually provide the numbers. >> > > I have no idea what "challenge" you're talking about.
You claim that that not far from 1 trillion dollars per year of unmet need with respect to that not far from 100 million in the US with little or no health care can be met by private charity, never mind the fact that I proved with the numbers that private charity could never cover more than a tiny fraction of that unmet need. I challenged you to try to prove otherwise.
> I have not > accepted any challenges from you.
You don't have to. The challenge stands unmet by you regardless.
> I have not failed in any way, given > my logic has been sound and yours superstitious and vacuous by > contrast.
You just described your own position, which is devoid of any mathematical fact or data.
> >> It's probably because you know that they will not add up. I showed > > You think like an arithmetic teacher (which I gather you are): make > every problem be an addition problem. See what I wrote earlier about > strait jacketing rubber room time assumptions.
But denying the relevant mathematical fact and data is what cranks do.
It's therefore not good to deny the relevant mathematical fact and data.
> >> 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. > > Right, more evidence of the vast incompetence of your Uncle Sam. > You've provided me with lots of rhetorical ammo to back my contention > that your Uncle is a weak / bankrupt addict, in need of some serious > health care himself. Hardly strong enough to be helping others in > most cases. I think we need to focus on curing your sick Uncle before > we give him more borrowing authority.
It is evidence of only the horror that is guaranteed to happen when federal government revenues and expenditures are at the levels that "limited government" people promote. US government revenues are at an all-time low since WWII - they are presently at only roughly 15% of nominal GDP, and when state, county, and city government revenues are added in, the total is only at about 25% of GDP.
This total from all levels in the Scandinavian countries, those that care for their own far better than we do through their governments, those with nominal per capita GDPs up to twice as large as ours, are at roughly 50% of GDP.
The numbers prove that they care for their own through their governments much more than we do not because their governments are better than ours, but because they have less "limited government" people standing in the way of government getting in revenues that roughly 50% of GDP.
That makes the "limited government" people totally responsible for the horror of people suffering and even dying premature death because of lack of proper food, proper shelter, or proper health care.
The "limited government" people are responsible for starving the federal government of the revenues it needs to stop and prevent at least the vast majority of this suffering and premature death, and then because it cannot stop and prevent such precisely because it is so starved, they claim that this is evidence that the federal government cannot stop and prevent such.
And they call this logic?
And they call this being honest?
This "logic" and "honesty" is everything but.
> >> >> If you refuse to provide the numbers to back up your claims, then you >> have no business posting at a math forum. >> > > Hah hah. The Arithmetic Teacher speaks.
> >> 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. >> > > Not your Uncle though, he's not a contender at this time as a > legitimate government. He's too sick and weak,
This is because as the mathematics I gave above and elsewhere proves, the "limited government" types have been all too successful as starving him of revenues.
>> 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. > > You have numbers to prove that I suppose, some addition problem. > Otherwise you have no business posting your opinion to the math forum > and blah blah. Heh (just joking -- I'm not the stentorian promulgator > of edicts that you are).
I gave these mathematical here at math-teach many times. Some of it again, above.
> >> >> All this talk about "free clinics" really irks me. Do you know how > > Oh, you're irked now are you? I bet you're "irked" quite a bit. Lets > poll your students when we get a chance. > > I read ahead and didn't see much of interest, a bunch of lecturing / > berating by some arithmetic teacher with a narrow mind >
This "person with a narrow mind" simply has a problem with those whose truly narrow minds blind them to the vast suffering and premature death that their voting for the "limited government" politicians causes.
And to reiterate some of the large amount of mathematical fact that I in my last post in this thread
gave, here is some of it again - some of it should cause everyone who actually has a conscience to wonder about those who promote "limited government":
"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."
And to add to all of what I said in this thread: Here is even more data that the "limited government" folks cannot handle:
Roughly half of all Medicaid funds go to taking care of older people in nursing homes. If these "limited government" types get their way and not only do we see our federal government get no revenue increases as a percentage of GDP but starved even more of revenues (see again my above that proves that government revenues as a percentage of GDP are at all time lows since WWII - only 15% of GDP with al levels of government summing at 25% of GDP, vastly lower than the Scandinavian countries I talk about - at roughly 50% of GDP for all levels of government with the vast majority of it going to their federal governments), then we will see nothing but increase suffering and premature death caused by older people in nursing being dumped out onto the streets and left to rot.
It's very simple thing to do to see which public policies are the more morally good and which are the less morally good, the "limited government" ones or the "big government" ones. Just compare the "big government" countries with the "limited government" ones, compare how much suffering and premature death is caused by lack or proper food, proper shelter, or proper health care, and then think of those comparisons in light of what Christ said in reply to those who wondered whether his ministry was "of the Devil". He said along the line of this: "We feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and heal the sick."
In other words, with this teaching extended and generalized, we have a moral standard when comparing the competing political philosophies "big government" or "limited government" for a democratic country to follow is to ask and then answer the question, "What are the results in terms of the sum total of suffering and premature death in the country caused by lack or proper food, proper shelter, or proper health care - it is higher or lower?" Answer: Just look around the world at all the democracies and specifically look at the richest democratic countries in the world - especially all of the ones richer than the US via per capita nominal GDP, and we see these: The sum total of such suffering and premature death is caused to be lower by the "big government" political philosophy applied. And it is caused to be higher by the "limited government" political philosophy applied, regardless of how much private charity exists. (On this last point: Again see my above that it is mathematically just not realistically possible for private charity to cover any more than a tiny fraction of the need.)
What does anyone with a conscience need more than that to see which is the moral way to go in terms of which political philosophy for a democratic country to follow?