America Before the Entitlement State

[Foxfyre]

Before the entitlement mentality, we didn't have so many of the population, most especially the younger people, thinking the government is the source of all that is good and benevolent and right. And we didn't have a $15+ trillion dollar national debt that is growing at a whopping four billion dollars EVERY DAY and no end in sight--an unsustainable situation if we want to remain the greatest nation on Earth. Every man, woman, and child in American now shares some $43+ thousand of that debt and it continues to grow.

Meanwhile, for anecdotal evidence, for every person having tough times before, we can point to children living in poverty and in danger of injury or death by stray bullets living in deteriorating rat infested tenements in big cities all across America now. There have always been people having tough times, there still are, and there always will be. Government entitlements have not changed that and won't. The unintended consequences of even intended good in government entitlements remain significant.

Things were better and there had been much advancement between the 17th and 18th centuries, and again between the 18th and 19th centuries and well into the 20th century before the age of entitlements. That is true of our culture, social policy, and improvement in working conditions and aesthetic quality.

To think that entitlements have made things better is the leftists wet dream. They have no way of knowing if things wouldn't have improved and gotten better without governmetn entitlements. Temporary help always looks good. But when the long range prognosis looks so very grim, it is easy to see that certain kinds of short term compassion is actually the most cruel policy of all.

P.S. for the critical thinking impaired: Entitlements is NOT the same thing as NECESSARY government regulation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, it was a compromise.

And no, the individual mandate is not rooted in personal responsibility. The government forcing an action is not personal responsibility. Don't be ridiculous.

It was NOT a compromise. It predated the Clinton administration.

My bad. I was talking about a SS tax bill. Sorry. 5 hours of sleep a night this week caught up with me.

And it sure is rooted in personal responsibility. Plenty of conservatives promoted it as such...

October 18th Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

There's nothing in that exchange about personal responsibility.

No there isn't. It was to establish that it was a Republican idea.

Here's Newt in 2005:

GINGRICH: If I see somebody who's earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare. Because what they've said is, A, I'm gambling that I won't get sick, and B, I'm gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors. Now, when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectibles are people who have money, but have calculated it's not worth the cost to pay. And so I'm actually in favor of finding a way to say, whatever the appropriate level of income is, you ought to have either health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no right in this society to have a free rider approach, if we're well off economically, to cheat our neighbors.

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

 

[daveman]

It was NOT a compromise. It predated the Clinton administration.

My bad. I was talking about a SS tax bill. Sorry. 5 hours of sleep a night this week caught up with me.

And it sure is rooted in personal responsibility. Plenty of conservatives promoted it as such...

October 18th Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

There's nothing in that exchange about personal responsibility.

No there isn't. It was to establish that it was a Republican idea.

Here's Newt in 2005:

GINGRICH: If I see somebody who's earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare. Because what they've said is, A, I'm gambling that I won't get sick, and B, I'm gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors. Now, when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectibles are people who have money, but have calculated it's not worth the cost to pay. And so I'm actually in favor of finding a way to say, whatever the appropriate level of income is, you ought to have either health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no right in this society to have a free rider approach, if we're well off economically, to cheat our neighbors.

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

So? They're wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well why not go back to the way it was in the 60's and 70's? The hospital presented the patient with a bill and we worked out a payment plan for the family to pay it out at however much a month they could manage. Yes, some didn't make the payments and the outstanding bill would be turned over to a collection agency to collect and it would be a black mark on a person's credit. Because in those days you needed a decent credit rating in order to buy anything on credit, most people did pay their bills however long it took. Nobody expected to get healthcare for free without consequences. The relatively few who didn't pay their bills was not an unmanageable burden for the hospital/county to absorb. The federal government didn't need to be involved at all.

 

[Greenbeard]

Well why not go back to the way it was in the 60's and 70's? [...] The federal government didn't need to be involved at all.

Federal money has been flowing to American hospitals since the 1940s. And, while poorly policed, Hill-Burton money did come with the stipulation that hospitals provide a reasonable amount of indigent care.

 

[Bfgrn]

My bad. I was talking about a SS tax bill. Sorry. 5 hours of sleep a night this week caught up with me.


There's nothing in that exchange about personal responsibility.

No there isn't. It was to establish that it was a Republican idea.

Here's Newt in 2005:

GINGRICH: If I see somebody who's earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare. Because what they've said is, A, I'm gambling that I won't get sick, and B, I'm gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors. Now, when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectibles are people who have money, but have calculated it's not worth the cost to pay. And so I'm actually in favor of finding a way to say, whatever the appropriate level of income is, you ought to have either health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no right in this society to have a free rider approach, if we're well off economically, to cheat our neighbors.

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

So? They're wrong.

Now I understand the right's definition of individual responsibility: You right wing turds don't buy insurance, when you get in a wreck, it's MY personal responsibility to pay for YOU...

Newt was right; "I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare."

 

[Bfgrn]

Well why not go back to the way it was in the 60's and 70's? The hospital presented the patient with a bill and we worked out a payment plan for the family to pay it out at however much a month they could manage. Yes, some didn't make the payments and the outstanding bill would be turned over to a collection agency to collect and it would be a black mark on a person's credit. Because in those days you needed a decent credit rating in order to buy anything on credit, most people did pay their bills however long it took. Nobody expected to get healthcare for free without consequences. The relatively few who didn't pay their bills was not an unmanageable burden for the hospital/county to absorb. The federal government didn't need to be involved at all.

You keep forgetting...before Medicare, half the elderly had NO insurance. Citizens 65 and older were the MOST likely group to live in poverty. Now they are among the least.

Medicare is the GREATEST thing in American history...

 

[Foxfyre]

Well why not go back to the way it was in the 60's and 70's? The hospital presented the patient with a bill and we worked out a payment plan for the family to pay it out at however much a month they could manage. Yes, some didn't make the payments and the outstanding bill would be turned over to a collection agency to collect and it would be a black mark on a person's credit. Because in those days you needed a decent credit rating in order to buy anything on credit, most people did pay their bills however long it took. Nobody expected to get healthcare for free without consequences. The relatively few who didn't pay their bills was not an unmanageable burden for the hospital/county to absorb. The federal government didn't need to be involved at all.

You keep forgetting...before Medicare, half the elderly had NO insurance. Citizens 65 and older were the MOST likely group to live in poverty. Now they are among the least.

Medicare is the GREATEST thing in American history...

A graph like that is almost worthless UNLESS the data shown is adjusted for inflation and takes into account the moving target of what constitutes poverty from administration to administration.

But what you keep forgetting is that as many people had no insurance back before entitlements as people have no insurance now and still people went to the doctor and were admitted to the hospital when they needed to be in the hospital. And only a very few of the most sick wound up with bills their families were unable to pay. Healthcare costs started escalating the day Medicare went into effect and escalated when Medicade was added.

And now we have a whole generation of elderly people trapped in an ever more shaky government program with no other option available to most and the system is broke. With a shrinking work force relative relative to retirees it is not sustainable and has dissolved into most a cattle car, assembly line process of medicine that is serving the elderly more poorly as each year goes by. And Fearless Leader continues to threaten them that even that could be taken away if we don't do what he says, and many are terrified that could happen. And don't start feeding us a lot of lifted links and websites from those who defend Medicare. I see the system at work a lot these days; sometimes several times a week.

Had it been left to the states and local communities, and the federal government stayed out of it, I don't have a doubt in the world that things would be no worse and most likely would be much better as each found ways to meet the needs of their own.

Unless it cannot be done effectively, efficiently, and economically at the more local level, the federal government should never be involved. The best solution for most of our problems does not lie with the federal government.

 

[daveman]

No there isn't. It was to establish that it was a Republican idea.

Here's Newt in 2005:

GINGRICH: If I see somebody who's earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare. Because what they've said is, A, I'm gambling that I won't get sick, and B, I'm gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors. Now, when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectibles are people who have money, but have calculated it's not worth the cost to pay. And so I'm actually in favor of finding a way to say, whatever the appropriate level of income is, you ought to have either health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no right in this society to have a free rider approach, if we're well off economically, to cheat our neighbors.

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

So? They're wrong.

Now I understand the right's definition of individual responsibility: You right wing turds don't buy insurance, when you get in a wreck, it's MY personal responsibility to pay for YOU...

Newt was right; "I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare."

As usual, you understand nothing.

Anyone without insurance requiring medical treatment is welcome to work out a payment plan.

Besides, WTF are you complaining about? You want everyone else to fund your leftist wet dream via government wealth redistribution.

 

[daveman]

The best solution for most of our problems does not lie with the federal government.

Heretic! Infidel! Outcast unclean! You shall burn in the fires of the Federal Department of Hell for your sins!

Right, Bfgrn?

 

[Foxfyre]

The best solution for most of our problems does not lie with the federal government.

Heretic! Infidel! Outcast unclean! You shall burn in the fires of the Federal Department of Hell for your sins!

Right, Bfgrn?

Yep I'm one of those hard hearted conservatives who doesn't give a damn about anybody because I don't want the federal government to do something.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well why not go back to the way it was in the 60's and 70's? The hospital presented the patient with a bill and we worked out a payment plan for the family to pay it out at however much a month they could manage. Yes, some didn't make the payments and the outstanding bill would be turned over to a collection agency to collect and it would be a black mark on a person's credit. Because in those days you needed a decent credit rating in order to buy anything on credit, most people did pay their bills however long it took. Nobody expected to get healthcare for free without consequences. The relatively few who didn't pay their bills was not an unmanageable burden for the hospital/county to absorb. The federal government didn't need to be involved at all.

You keep forgetting...before Medicare, half the elderly had NO insurance. Citizens 65 and older were the MOST likely group to live in poverty. Now they are among the least.

Medicare is the GREATEST thing in American history...

A graph like that is almost worthless UNLESS the data shown is adjusted for inflation and takes into account the moving target of what constitutes poverty from administration to administration.

But what you keep forgetting is that as many people had no insurance back before entitlements as people have no insurance now and still people went to the doctor and were admitted to the hospital when they needed to be in the hospital. And only a very few of the most sick wound up with bills their families were unable to pay. Healthcare costs started escalating the day Medicare went into effect and escalated when Medicade was added.

And now we have a whole generation of elderly people trapped in an ever more shaky government program with no other option available to most and the system is broke. With a shrinking work force relative relative to retirees it is not sustainable and has dissolved into most a cattle car, assembly line process of medicine that is serving the elderly more poorly as each year goes by. And Fearless Leader continues to threaten them that even that could be taken away if we don't do what he says, and many are terrified that could happen. And don't start feeding us a lot of lifted links and websites from those who defend Medicare. I see the system at work a lot these days; sometimes several times a week.

Had it been left to the states and local communities, and the federal government stayed out of it, I don't have a doubt in the world that things would be no worse and most likely would be much better as each found ways to meet the needs of their own.

Unless it cannot be done effectively, efficiently, and economically at the more local level, the federal government should never be involved. The best solution for most of our problems does not lie with the federal government.

Mumbo Jumbo bullshit Foxfyre. The graph is from the US Census Bureau and accurately shows the DRAMATIC impact Medicare had on taking the elderly from the highest poverty group to the lowest. Before Medicare it HAD BEEN 'left to the states and local communities'...it FAILED.

The biggest failure in this country is that we pay twice as much for health care than other industrialized countries because we have to feed PRIVATE insurance cartels that are the poster boy for INefficiency.

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay Bfgm, since you're giving a lot of credit to the Bush years there, give us your expert opinion why, with Medicare furnished by the government, the poverty rate dropped so much less for older Americans than it did for younger ones? Also, why it was dropping so dramatically BEFORE Medicare and the Great Society?

 

[daveman]

The best solution for most of our problems does not lie with the federal government.

Heretic! Infidel! Outcast unclean! You shall burn in the fires of the Federal Department of Hell for your sins!

Right, Bfgrn?

Yep I'm one of those hard hearted conservatives who doesn't give a damn about anybody because I don't want the federal government to do something.

You probably kick puppies, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Heretic! Infidel! Outcast unclean! You shall burn in the fires of the Federal Department of Hell for your sins!

Right, Bfgrn?

Yep I'm one of those hard hearted conservatives who doesn't give a damn about anybody because I don't want the federal government to do something.

You probably kick puppies, too.

Oh no doubt. Mean to the core.

I just wish our leftist friends could get it through their heads that people like me see things being BETTER for everybody when the government does not presume to be mother, father, and sugar daddy to large constituencies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I just wish our leftist friends could get it through their heads that people like me see things being BETTER for everybody when the government does not presume to be mother, father, and sugar daddy to large constituencies.

Just as I wish our rightist friends could get it through their heads that the bolded is a contrivance and myth of the own making; ‘government’ has made no such presumption and no one of any political philosophy advocates such nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

I just wish our leftist friends could get it through their heads that people like me see things being BETTER for everybody when the government does not presume to be mother, father, and sugar daddy to large constituencies.

Just as I wish our rightist friends could get it through their heads that the bolded is a contrivance and myth of the own making; ‘government’ has made no such presumption and no one of any political philosophy advocates such nonsense.

Sounds like you might want to consider turning in your Lefty Card, because that is, in effect, the attitude of the left regarding the role of government to a large degree.

 

[daveman]

Yep I'm one of those hard hearted conservatives who doesn't give a damn about anybody because I don't want the federal government to do something.

You probably kick puppies, too.

Oh no doubt. Mean to the core.

I just wish our leftist friends could get it through their heads that people like me see things being BETTER for everybody when the government does not presume to be mother, father, and sugar daddy to large constituencies.

Now you're just speaking a language they can't understand.

And they fear what they can't understand.

 

[daveman]

I just wish our leftist friends could get it through their heads that people like me see things being BETTER for everybody when the government does not presume to be mother, father, and sugar daddy to large constituencies.

Just as I wish our rightist friends could get it through their heads that the bolded is a contrivance and myth of the own making; ‘government’ has made no such presumption and no one of any political philosophy advocates such nonsense.

Have you ever considered paying attention?

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay Bfgm, since you're giving a lot of credit to the Bush years there, give us your expert opinion why, with Medicare furnished by the government, the poverty rate dropped so much less for older Americans than it did for younger ones? Also, why it was dropping so dramatically BEFORE Medicare and the Great Society?

If you read the chart's Note(s) you would know:
Data for people aged 18 to 64 and 65 and older are not available from 1960 to 1965

The rest of your post makes no sense. You need to take a course in chart reading.