geojanes wrote:Thanks Dan. It's vastly more meaningful to look at data, and make an informed decision using objective criteria than basing one's stance on personal situations and memories, especially since those memories occurred during conditions that no longer exist. Those personal experiences are more visceral, of course, but that doesn't mean they provide a corollary in the current world.

The "data" is rigged.

If you grow up in a housing project, you're more likely to stay in a housing project.

How many people from rural Kansas wind up living in a government-owned tenement?

No "study" is going to put a negative light on government assistance, unless it is funded by Heritage.

fate

The "data" is rigged.

How?
Or this a case of "facts have a liberal bias".

Fate

If you grow up in a housing project, you're more likely to stay in a housing project

.

That's true in the US. Which means you agree that there is limited social mobility in the US
But its not true of other jurisdictions... Why not Fate?
Why is it that poverty isn't the trap in Germany or Denmark that it is in the US.

Fate

How many people from rural Kansas wind up living in a government-owned tenement?

It would be wasteful indeed to build high density housing in areas that have low density population.
But there is a lot of poverty in Kansas.
19% of Kansas children live in poverty.

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/map-d ... ate=Kansas

If you are wondering why poor people congregate in big cities there's plenty of studies on that. (mostly has to do with being close to opportunity as transportation is a big expense.)

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sequence=2

Fate

No "study" is going to put a negative light on government assistance, unless it is funded by Heritage.

Well, we know that is the raison d'etre of the Heritage Foundation. How many scholarly studies would you need to see that criticize current programs to admit this is BS?

So, we have all these social programs in the U.S. and maybe still limited social mobility. Shouldn't we conclude that the programs are poorly conceived? Why should we believe that new similar programs created by the same or similar people be any different?

Ricky:

For instance, have you lived in Sweden?

Goading.

Ricky:

That poor people are poor and rich people are rich because they deserve to be .... That if some people can still succeed in the current system then the system is not at fault so much as the people who are unable to find sufficient reward for their effort to enjoy a life better than their parents... . Blame the poor for being poor. Blame the middle class for failing to overcome the increasing obstacle in their way.

Full mischaracterization of what I said.

rickyp wrote:fate

The "data" is rigged.

How?
Or this a case of "facts have a liberal bias".

Nope. Incomplete data is . . . incomplete data.

Fate

If you grow up in a housing project, you're more likely to stay in a housing project

.

That's true in the US. Which means you agree that there is limited social mobility in the US
But its not true of other jurisdictions... Why not Fate?

Social factors that stretch beyond economics. Well, that and the gang and drug culture that infests many of these housing projects.

Why is it that poverty isn't the trap in Germany or Denmark that it is in the US.

Tell you what: let us send every Crip and Blood to Denmark and see how that changes the dynamics.

Fate

How many people from rural Kansas wind up living in a government-owned tenement?

It would be wasteful indeed to build high density housing in areas that have low density population.
But there is a lot of poverty in Kansas.
19% of Kansas children live in poverty.

That tells us nothing without knowing where those children live. My guess would be they predominately live in cities.

If you are wondering why poor people congregate in big cities there's plenty of studies on that. (mostly has to do with being close to opportunity as transportation is a big expense.)

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sequence=2

Yes, and the Democratic/Socialist agenda is to move more of us into big cities by making individual transportation something only the rich can afford.

Fate

No "study" is going to put a negative light on government assistance, unless it is funded by Heritage.

Well, we know that is the raison d'etre of the Heritage Foundation. How many scholarly studies would you need to see that criticize current programs to admit this is BS?

I'd settle for just one, as long as it is not funded by the government and not performed by liberals.

Is this your pension plan, DF ? http://ceo.lacounty.gov/PDF/portal/Fact%20Sheet.pdf

It says employees contribute half through payroll deductions. Of course sheriffs would not have the salaries to contribute to the pension plan except for gains originally made by private sector unions.

According to the above cite the State of California is seeking to do away with pensions for future employees, making them 401 plans. That is inevitable under the economic theory our country currently operates under.

But keep supporting the party that wants workers to get as little as possible..

freeman3 wrote:Is this your pension plan, DF ? http://ceo.lacounty.gov/PDF/portal/Fact%20Sheet.pdf

It says employees contribute half through payroll deductions. Of course sheriffs would not have the salaries to contribute to the pension plan except for gains originally made by private sector unions.

Yeah, sure, whatever. It's a theory.

Mine is: sheriffs would have no salaries if no one committed crimes.

According to the above cite the State of California is seeking to do away with pensions for future employees, making them 401 plans. That is inevitable under the economic theory our country currently operates under.

But keep supporting the party that wants workers to get as little as possible..

That would be the Democratic Party and I don't support it.

Think about it: which party has a stranglehold on California? Which party is trying to seize retirement funds like the one I belong to so it can bleed it dry?

The Democratic/Socialist Party.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Thanks Dan. It's vastly more meaningful to look at data, and make an informed decision using objective criteria than basing one's stance on personal situations and memories, especially since those memories occurred during conditions that no longer exist. Those personal experiences are more visceral, of course, but that doesn't mean they provide a corollary in the current world.

The "data" is rigged.

Please demonstrate using evidence, not soundbites.

If you grow up in a housing project, you're more likely to stay in a housing project.

Whether this is true or not, and I see no evidence either way from you, what is interesting is what factors lead to that. If all you can see is "housing project", fair enough, but that is just correlation not causation without more analysis.

How many people from rural Kansas wind up living in a government-owned tenement?

How many remain in rural Kansas is the question. Seems poverty is an issue in rural Kansas, despite the dearth of housing projects - https://www.raconline.org/states/kansas

No "study" is going to put a negative light on government assistance, unless it is funded by Heritage.

Because Heritage are noted for their total lack of ideological bias?

So basically you are pre-emptively dismissing even any independent study before even bothering to read it, because you don't like that it might have an outcome you disagree with.

Fine. I'd even look at a Heritage study as long as I can look at the methodology.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Thanks Dan. It's vastly more meaningful to look at data, and make an informed decision using objective criteria than basing one's stance on personal situations and memories, especially since those memories occurred during conditions that no longer exist. Those personal experiences are more visceral, of course, but that doesn't mean they provide a corollary in the current world.

The "data" is rigged.

Please demonstrate using evidence, not soundbites.

I politely decline for the following reasons:

1. It would probably take professional-level analysis to tease out the data.
2. I don't believe anyone has shown the data is not rigged--or that it shows the system is rigged. It is a logical jump from "less upward mobility" to "the system is rigged." Furthermore, comparisons between different countries and different cultures is not altogether helpful. Denmark keeps coming up. Well, Denmark is nothing like the US socially, militarily, and barely resembles us culturally. There is no "Danish can-do" spirit or "rugged individualism" running through Denmark.
3. So what if I could demonstrate it? In other words, if I had the time and expertise, so what? You all would still be arguing for more socialism because you view it as the "best solution" to most societal ills. I don't agree with you.

If you grow up in a housing project, you're more likely to stay in a housing project.

Whether this is true or not, and I see no evidence either way from you, what is interesting is what factors lead to that. If all you can see is "housing project", fair enough, but that is just correlation not causation without more analysis.

I found this story interesting. Four generations of one family in public housing. They are described as an anomaly, but I suspect that has to do with the income requirements needed to remain.

One of the reasons I found it interesting: the attitude of LaGuardia--tear down the old buildings, put up nice, shiny new ones . . . it was the obligation of the city to provide housing. To me, as an American, I find that offensive.

Furthermore, the history of public housing is not a pretty one.

Because Heritage are noted for their total lack of ideological bias?

Less biased than government workers who need more government to sustain their jobs. What sort of government-funded study is going to show that government is not the answer?

So basically you are pre-emptively dismissing even any independent study before even bothering to read it, because you don't like that it might have an outcome you disagree with.

Because they're not "independent."

Fine. I'd even look at a Heritage study as long as I can look at the methodology.

This is an interesting look at "welfare" from the time of our nation's founding.

In any case, if you want to argue about social mobility, go right ahead. Present all the data you want. All I know is that one can have rich parents and wind up poor (my cousins) or poor parents and land straight into the middle class or higher. I understand the liberal mantra and I reject it.

Are some people poor through no fault of their own? Yes. Are some people poor because of bad choices and decisions? Yes. Are some people poor because they refuse to work? Yes.

No study I've seen factors in drugs, alcohol, and an unwillingness to work or educate oneself. Some people, albeit a relatively small group, just don't care enough to do anything about their lot in life. Whose fault is that?

Is socialism the answer?

During the last decades the number of people living in poverty has been increasing. Children are more likely to be poor than adults. There has been a strong increase in the number of poor children. In 1965 only one in 75 children lived on welfare, in 2007 one in 6 did.[1]

Poverty rates differ by states. While in 2005 in states like Bavaria only 6.6% of children and 3.9% of all citizens were impoverished, in Berlin 15.2% of the inhabitants and 30.7% of the children received welfare payments.[2]

The German Kinderhilfswerk, an organization caring for children in need, has demanded the government to do something about the poverty problem.

As of 2015, poverty in Germany is at it's highest since German reunification in 1990. Some 12.5 million Germans are now classified as poor.

What's German for "We shall overcome?"

Working-class families from ethnic minorities with multiple children are the group most likely to be poor.[19] Families headed by a single parent are also more likely to experience economic hardship than others. While only 0.9% of childless couples and 2.0% of married couples received welfare in 2002, 26.1% of single mothers did.[20] In 2008, 43 percent of families headed by a single woman had to rely on welfare as the main source of household income.

More problems:

Social inequality and poverty have dramatically increased in Germany in recent years compared with other countries. This is the conclusion of a study published by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) last Tuesday.
According to the conclusion of the report: “Since 2000, income inequality and poverty have grown faster in Germany than in any other OECD country. “ The report continues: “They increased by more in five years (2000-2005) than in the previous 15 combined (1985-2000).”
From 1998 to 2005 Germany was governed by a coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the Greens, led by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of the SPD. The policies of this government, in the form of generous tax handouts to big business and the rich, while at the same time welfare and social benefits were slashed (Hartz IV), are above all responsible for the unprecedented growth of social inequality in Germany.
The study, entitled “Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries,” examines the development of relative poverty in each individual country. The incomes of the super-rich were not included.
The figures in the report make possible only a limited comparison of the extent and consequences of poverty in individual countries. There are undoubtedly differences between being poor in Mexico, Turkey or in the US, compared to countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Germany, where despite the rapid increase in inequality, there still exist the vestiges of a social net.

Obviously, the only solution is . . . more government!

rayjay

So, we have all these social programs in the U.S. and maybe still limited social mobility. Shouldn't we conclude that the programs are poorly conceived? Why should we believe that new similar programs created by the same or similar people be any different

Well, if social mobility is desired, then look at places with greater social mobility as a guide to what kinds of programs actually work.
Generally they are simpler and less bureaucratic than American programs. Partly because there are often is no need to screen by need, or "applicability". You qualify just because you are a citizen.
In the US it seems that every program is written and administrated as if those who apply for the assistance are trying to rip off taxpayers... because we all know the poor possess low quality character...

The two most effective are socialized health care and free or low cost education .
- with this a family receives security from the financial calamity of a major illness, and actually take care of themselves with prevention instead of waiting for a major
Socialized health care, say a national health insurance program, eliminates an enormous amount of bureaucracy and administration that the mish mash of private insurance and public programs cobbled together in the US. And there isn't a state in the world that provides Health care as expensively as the US. Although all cover everybody and about half or more are better average quality than the US.
The administrative cost for US Hospitals who have to manage interactions with hundreds of different insurance providers are enormous versus hospitals where they deal with one national provider...

This works in the US already. Medicare is more cost effective than US private insurance. And everyone over 65 gets it. Just lower the age, and start letting the medicare system negotiate pricing from suppliers .... and its affordable. Its socialized medicine. Its popular. And its more efficient than what came before. And its a right for every American who lives till 65. Why should one have to wait till then?

While rickyp is not a socialist (he says), two things stand out: 1) the frequency with which socialized medicine is featured; 2) the frequency with which Karl Marx would nod approvingly at what Comrade rickyp writes.

rickyp wrote:Medicare is more cost effective than US private insurance.

Is this true? http://www.cato.org/blog/private-insura ... dicare-far

Is Medicare solvent? Until when? How would lowering the age for eligibility affect that?

Are the Medicare outcomes better than private insurance?

Do all doctors accept Medicare?

Is Medicare better than the VA? Why or why not?

I figure since you know everything about the American medical system, I might just as well ask you.

Oh, and how about that Obamacare? It's going to fall just a few million enrollees short next year. What a shock! It's unreal that the government would get something wrong!

It looks like Obamacare enrollment is hitting a wall.

Federal officials Thursday said they expect the number of people who sign up for Obamacare plans to grow just modestly in 2016 — by fewer than 1 million people — compared with this year. That rate would leave enrollment well below what the Congressional Budget Office had most recently estimated for the third year of sign-ups under the Affordable Care Act.

Officials, in explaining their projection, cited a smaller pool of uninsured people on which to draw, as well as the difficulty in overcoming those people's strong concerns about being able to afford health coverage, and their confusion about how federal tax credits can help them buy such plans.

By the end of 2016, an estimated 10 million will have been enrolled in health coverage in plans sold on government-run insurance exchanges, said Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, who based that goal on an analysis by her department.

That's only about 10 percent more than the 9.1 million people that HHS expects will be enrolled in the plans by the end of this year, despite the fact that the tax penalty for failing to have health coverage is set to rise significantly in 2016.

The figure is also 11 million people lower than the 21 million customers that the CBO had predicted for 2016 enrollment on the exchanges as recently as last January. CBO has estimated that 12 million people will be enrolled this year, well above the actual figure.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

So, we have all these social programs in the U.S. and maybe still limited social mobility. Shouldn't we conclude that the programs are poorly conceived? Why should we believe that new similar programs created by the same or similar people be any different

Well, if social mobility is desired, then look at places with greater social mobility as a guide to what kinds of programs actually work.
Generally they are simpler and less bureaucratic than American programs. Partly because there are often is no need to screen by need, or "applicability". You qualify just because you are a citizen.
In the US it seems that every program is written and administrated as if those who apply for the assistance are trying to rip off taxpayers... because we all know the poor possess low quality character...

The two most effective are socialized health care and free or low cost education ....
Socialized health care, say a national health insurance program, eliminates an enormous amount of bureaucracy and administration that the mish mash of private insurance and public programs cobbled together in the US. ... The administrative cost for US Hospitals who have to manage interactions with hundreds of different insurance providers are enormous versus hospitals where they deal with one national provider...

This works in the US already. Medicare is more cost effective than US private insurance. And everyone over 65 gets it. Just lower the age, and start letting the medicare system negotiate pricing from suppliers .... and its affordable. Its socialized medicine. Its popular. And its more efficient than what came before. And its a right for every American who lives till 65. Why should one have to wait till then?

This is all very reasonable, but not persuasive as it relates to the American political experience. Saying that we should have more government programs and not do them the traditional way that America does them is not a recipe for success. We are stuck with our political process, for the most part. When the Democrats are in power (e.g. 2009) they don't enact the reasonable reforms that you mention above. In fact, Obama ceded all sorts of power to the insurance companies, and I and other Americans will pay the price (literally) for years and years. Rather, the U.S. Democratic response is to destructively distort markets that make those problems worse. It's all very nice to say that we should do it the way that other countries do it, but that's not what is going to happen based on years and years of experience. Why should I assume that this time will be different?

We've already had countless discussions on this topic as it relates to health, education, and housing. These are 3 markets that the U.S. government has worked actively to fix. I posit that in many cases it has made them worse. Whether it is rampant inflation for education (as a result of student loans), or rampant inflation in health care (as a result of tax policy, insurance policy, mandates) or the housing crisis (which has many factors, but certainly one of them was encouraging -- or even arm twisting -- loans to people who could not pay them back), the U.S. government (often, but not solely as a result of Democratic initiatives) gets it wrong. After you've lived awhile, you realize that this time won't be different.

BTW, I do think it is useful to look at what other countries do, but you have to be wary of cultural, constitutional, geographic, and other differences. I would adopt Sweden's lower corporate tax rate as the U.S. highest rate in the industrial world is killing us. I would also follow Canada and Australia's lead and approve the new Pacific Trade Agreement.

fate

Is Medicare solvent? Until when? How would lowering the age for eligibility affect that?

If every company and individual stopped paying insurance premiums to private insurers those premiums would or could would go to a national health insurance plan. Please remember that the US spends over 17% of GDP on heath care. No other country is over 12%. This despite not all Americans are covered, despite the ACA since GOP states opt out.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination or math skills to understand that there is sufficient money in the current US health care pot to provide Medicare with enough funds

I'm impressed that you actual quoted a source, although your source is a blogger who picks and chooses bits and pieces without regard to a disciplined approach. For instance he talks about the administration costs of Medicare and of private insurance companies. But he doesn't mention the reduced administrative costs that accrue to Doctors, clinics or hospitals when they only have to deal with one insurer. Plus, it is standard policy for private insurers to delay, deny and demand all kinds of extra information in order to lower payments. This takes a great deal of time and money.
With a simpler one to one relationship where the profit motive has been removed the relationship is cleaner easier and cheaper to manage. (One hospital in Texas had a department of 23 to deal with insurance claims. A similar hospital in Ontario had a staff of 2.)

Are the Medicare outcomes better than private insurance?

About half countries with national health insurance provide outcomes better than the US. And all do it more cost efficiently.
There is no question that one can often find the best medical care in the world at US facilities. But that doesn't apply to everyone. Only the well insured. On average, the US right now is pretty average in outcomes and outrageous in terms of cost.

Do all doctors accept Medicare?

If everyone had it, why wouldn't they?

Is Medicare better than the VA? Why or why not?

I have no doubt that the US could learn from the best health care delivery systems in the world, once the profit motive wasn't the driving force in the industry.
American car companies did learn from the Japanese and Germans. The medical industry doesn't have to because they are a largely protected turf where their profits are protected by regulation.

fate

While rickyp is not a socialist (he says)

I'll cop to believing in concepts like social insurance, national health insurance, low cost or free education, shared infrastructure like roads, bridges, airports, police, fire and military, and a minimum income level for the poorest. (welfare).
Which of those makes me a socialist Fate?
Or does my belief in free and fair competition in industry and business disqualify me?