What is the current Republican position on this?

[Drachasor]

From a Drachasor link:and the "certain diseases" just happen to be the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the US, according to this site. Survival rates for untreated breast and prostate cancer are significantly lower than are survival rates for treated cancers.

You ignore where other countries do better. You ignore how other countries cover all people. You ignore the vast majority of what the links say, searching for tiny bits that support your position. You ignore the links I provide that show the USA has a much higher rate of cancer, stroke, and heart disease than other countries, and that more people in the USA die due to preventable diseases than elsewhere.

Rather than look at any of that, you cling to tiny statistical difference.

Although average survival differences between the United States and Europe as a whole were in some cases large, the difference between the United States and the other countries with relatively high five-year survival rates were generally small (approximately 3 to 4 percent for many cancers) and (due to small sample sizes) usually not statistically significant.

Rarely statistically significant, and in exchange for that we have much higher costs, don't cover everyone, and have poor treatment for chronic and other conditions (and a higher incidence of many diseases -- less healthy population). So yeah, we're not looking so good.

Rather than cherry picking for the best sentences to support your conclusion, maybe you should look at what the actual studies say.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Fine - since the discussion was about public services and your belief that the government shouldn't provide them, I assumed the discussion was related to countries where this was even a potential branch of discussion. You go ahead and argue semantics all day, i'm going to debate actual points.

Go argue with

The state is a corporation? What?

Although i'd like to remind you that you actually didn't find a dictionary definition of governments as being corporations.

Ummm...

Here's Merriam Webster Online on "corporation":

Definition of CORPORATION
1a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild b : the municipal authorities of a town or city
2: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
3: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state.

...If you believe that governments are corporations, don't just state it thirty times, try and use that to make an actual point....so unless you can explain why you believe the potential tiny overlap in legal definitions is important, you're not really saying anything.

...Unions are 501-c(5) corporations. Most independent schools are 501-c(3) corporations. The overlap is NOT important. The point remains the same if you substitute "institutional" for "corporate" and "institution" for "corporation" in

...The "public goods" argument for State provision of charity (e.g., medical care) contains (inter alia) this flaw: oversight of corporate functions is a public good and the State is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the "free rider" problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not solve it.

...Are we now going to get into an argument over whether the State is an "institution"?

More semantics. If to you anything that is an institution is also a corporation, fine. Just don't pretend that that automatically means that you can say anything wrong with a corporation is also wrong with governments, because there are dramatic differences as I have previously explained. Given a list of Halliburton, Shell, Walmat, and three governments of any country, a ten year old would be able to tell you which were govenrments and which were corporations, because they are very different things.

Try: "Given a list of Suffolk, Percheron, and Clydsdale and three mammals, a ten year old would be able to tell you which were mammals and which were horses, because they are very different thing." Horses are mammals. Governments are corporations. Further, the point about the "free rider" problem of "corporate oversight" remains unchanged if you generalize it to "institutional oversight". This is not a matter of the correct use of words.

 

[Globert]

I actually wouldn't extrapolate from Massachusetts. We're the number one state for health care in the country and have the most high ranked hospitals (except possibly for California. Cali is huge and I don't know much about their health care, so they could have more than us). You can't swing a dead cat in Boston without hitting a major hospital. People come from all over the country and the world to be treated in Boston. Boston also is on the cutting edge of medical advances and innovation, thanks to our top ranked research hospitals. There are a lot of treatments, procedures, etc, which are available in Boston first before anywhere else in the country, so if you want that treatment, you have to come here. Medicine and medical research is one of our biggest industries.

I can pretty much guarantee you Mississippi, Alabama, and all the other "fly over states" etc don't have anywhere near the amount of health care providers we have here. And that people aren't traveling from all over the world to be treated in Alabama (with the exception of people seeking to enroll in a clinical trial only available at a hospital/research center there).

We also have the single most generous Medicaid program in the country, and we're the only state that has compulsory health insurance coverage (or else you pay a tax penalty). Also, health insurance benefits are very competitve amongst employers here in Mass, so people who work here tend to get on average better coverage than people out of state.

So in general our residents receive more medical care because they are more likely to be insured, and insured well.

Lastly, while of course there are hospitals in other New England states, no state in New England aside from Mass has the kind of advanced/specialty hospitals that we have in Boston, so it is extremely common for other New England residents to come to Boston for treatment for major medical issues. This is why all New England Medicaid programs extend their coverage to Boston providers, even though many other areas of the country have Medicaid programs that are limited to their own states. But Maine, Connecticut, etc all have Medicaid programs where they know that for major conditions, a patient will often have to go to Boston to get treated.

If defensive medicine in Mass is "only" $1.4 B, that makes me think (though I wouldn't say this with certainty) that the cost of defensive medicine in the U.S. is actually much smaller than I would have thought when compared to the total cost of health care.

So the best state model will be insufficient on a national scale also? How am I supposed to support changing to universal health care which by your own standards is insufficient, cruel and heartless because cancer treatment is so expensive??

 

[stokes234]

Go argue with Ummm...

And where in there does it say anything about state governments?

Try: "Given a list of Suffolk, Percheron, and Clydsdale and three mammals, a ten year old would be able to tell you which were mammals and which were horses, because they are very different thing." Horses are mammals. Governments are corporations. Further, the point about the "free rider" problem of "corporate oversight" remains unchanged if you generalize it to "institutional oversight". This is not a matter of the correct use of words.

The ten year old may well point at the horses and call them mammals, and they'd be right. But they aren't going to point at the government of germany and say "corporation", because to 99.9% of the population of the world, "corporation" means the dictionary definition as you quoted above, rather than any definition of government. You're clutching at straws.

 

[Drachasor]

So the best state model will be insufficient on a national scale also? How am I supposed to support changing to universal health care which by your own standards is insufficient, cruel and heartless because cancer treatment is so expensive??

You look at the models in other countries, and realize that the more people you have supported, the cheaper it is. Massachusetts suffers from having to fund its system, Medicaid, and Medicare (and provide extra funding to support other states, since it gets back fewer tax dollars than it puts in to the Federal Budget). You'd expect a state-based system to largely be a mess in that situation.

National systems, on the other hand, work really well. We have plenty of models to choose from, even ones that use a lot of high tech equipment (more than is necessary, that is) such as Japan. All of them more effective and much cheaper.

That said, we'd probably have to do something about the immense level of government corruption first. But heck, we'd have to do that anyway to get a national health care system PASSED. We only don't have one because of the influence of certain corporations -- this is the same reason Medicare can't negotiate drug prices.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And where in there does it say anything about state governments?

That's moving the goalposts. Incorporated township and municipal governments are corporations. Definition #3
applies to States. Legally, a corporation is an association of humans that can own property collectively and appear as a party in court. Governments certainly qualify.

The ten year old may well point at the horses and call them mammals, and they'd be right. But they aren't going to point at the government of germany and say "corporation", because to 99.9% of the population of the world, "corporation" means the dictionary definition as you quoted above, rather than any definition of government. You're clutching at straws.

Explain why the City and County of Honolulu calls its legal counsel the "Corporation Counsel", then.

Thought you wern't interested in "semantic" arguments.

 

[stokes234]

Thought you wern't interested in "semantic" arguments.

I'm not. You go on using your own special definition, i'll continue using the one every other person in the world uses. Now what exactly was your point about free riders, corporate oversight etc?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...You go on using your own special definition, i'll continue using the one every other person in the world uses.

Everyone except the dictionary and the IRS code.

Now what exactly was your point about free riders, corporate oversight etc?

Please read this slowly.

...
Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy
Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

The problem with the "public goods" argument for State (government, generally) provision of charity (medical care, education, welfare) is that oversight of corporate ("institutional") functions is a public good and the State itself is a corporation ("an institution") . Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

To a free marketeer, it makes no more sense for citizens to assign to a government responsibility for operation of charitable institutions (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, K-PhD schools, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc) than it does to send money to Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company with a note: "Please spend this on poor people". It's not their area of expertise.

 

[bikerdruid]

please answer the question...
why are americasn conservatives so unwilling to help their less fortunate neighbours?

Everyone except the dictionary and the IRS code.Please read this slowly. To a free marketeer, it makes no more sense for citizens to assign to a government responsibility for operation of charitable institutions (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, K-PhD schools, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc) than it does to send money to Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company with a note: "Please spend this on poor people". It's not their area of expertise.

how about answering my question....
why are american conservatives so unwilling to help their less fortunate neighbours?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I used Google to search "legal dictionary" and then entered "corporation" in the dictionary that Google provided. This resulted: "corporation
n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act..."

Obviously, this includes labor unions, incorporated independent schools, incorporated churches, and incorporated townships and counties. Seems to me, States (i.e., governments) would grant themselves "approval to act".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

how about answering my question....
why are american conservatives so unwilling to help their less fortunate neighbours?

The premise is mistaken. See here.

Do “conservatives” give more to charitable causes than “liberals”? According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous “liberal” and the Scrooge-like “conservative.”
In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.”

 

[Drachasor]

And yet it is a fact that charity is insufficient to cope with health care and other problems.

I can't help but notice you ignore my posts that show you to be in error, Malcolm.

 

[theprestige]

My current position on this:

Punch: I don't produce enough surplus wealth to treat my mortal condition!

Pantaloon: Thus it is for all of us, for we all have a mortal condition, and we all die of it eventually.

Punch: The Duke has enough surplus wealth to treat my mortal condition, if only for a time!

Pantaloon: Well, and what of it?

Punch: The Duke should treat my mortal condition for a time, of course!

Pantaloon: Oh? Why is that?

Punch: Because [appeal to emotion]!

And scene.

 

[Drachasor]

My current position on this:

Punch: I don't produce enough surplus wealth to treat my mortal condition!

Pantaloon: Thus it is for all of us, for we all have a mortal condition, and we all die of it eventually.

Punch: The Duke Society has enough surplus wealth to treat my mortal condition and everyone else's, if only for a time! insofar as they are treatable.

Pantaloon: Well, and what of it?

Punch: The Duke should treat my mortal condition for a time, of course! Did I mention it's also cheaper to treat everyone rather than continue with private insurance? Here are numerous studies showing that it is as effective or more so, results in more people living, and it is cheaper.

Pantaloon: Oh? Why is that? I don't have the facts to back this up, but I can misrepresent some of what you provided...so...YOU'RE WRONG!

Punch: Because [appeal to emotion]!

And scene.

Fixed.

 

[stokes234]

The premise is mistaken. See here.

The book includes donations to churches as charitable donations. Leftists would disagree.

 

[stokes234]

I used Google to search "legal dictionary" and then entered "corporation" in the dictionary that Google provided. This resulted: "corporation
n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act..."

Right, so like I said - when you use the word corporation, you're welcome to think to yourself that it means "anything the government allows to exist", while i'll carry on using the same meaning that everybody else in the world uses. Don't try to pretend even for a second that if you started up a conversation with someone and asked them what they thought about corporations, that they would think you were referring to labour unions, state governments etc, because that's just downright intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Drachasor]

Right, so like I said - when you use the word corporation, you're welcome to think to yourself that it means "anything the government allows to exist", while i'll carry on using the same meaning that everybody else in the world uses. Don't try to pretend even for a second that if you started up a conversation with someone and asked them what they thought about corporations, that they would think you were referring to labour unions, state governments etc, because that's just downright intellectual dishonesty.

Btw, here's the full link to what he quoted -- he didn't even quote a full sentence.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And yet it is a fact that charity is insufficient to cope with health care and other problems.

Health care? Depends on the definition of "cope with health care".

...The taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could provide health care for everyone on the planet if "health care" means one aspirin tablet and one bandaid per person per year. The world's GDP is insufficient to keep even one person alive forever. You are going to die. Most of us, before we die, will get sick. Inevitably, for each person, someone decides if X additional days of life is worth $Y more dollars in treatment costs. In any system, for every person, the answer will be "no", eventually.

What "other problems" does Drachasor intend? I disagree with "charity is insufficient to cope with" schooling, for example. The total budget for government-operated K-12 schooling in the US exceeds the DOD budget, and this is a fraction of the total cost. The total cost of the US school system includes the opportunity cost of the time that students spend in school. It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil year (a gross underestimate of the cost of this system) to teach a normal child to read and compute. A loving parent can teach an infant to read (i.e., to decode the phonettic alphabet) before that infant can speak. The US Math curriculum is a colossal waste of students' time and taxpayers' money. State-mandated Social Studies is a threat to democracy, just as State-operated newspapers and broadcast news media would be, and are in totalitarian countries.

I can't help but notice you ignore my posts that show you to be in error, Malcolm.

I can't help but notice that Drachasor's links don't support Drachasor's assertions, except for the aggregate cost and aggregate longevity assertions. As Drachasor's links suggest, the US system responds faster and is more effective in treating several common and commonly diagnosed cancers that are often fatal w/o treatment.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Right, so like I said - when you use the word corporation, you're welcome to think to yourself that it means "anything the government allows to exist", while i'll carry on using the same meaning that everybody else in the world uses. Don't try to pretend even for a second that if you started up a conversation with someone and asked them what they thought about corporations, that they would think you were referring to labour unions, state governments etc, because that's just downright intellectual dishonesty.

And in this forum, Stokes is welcome to misrepresent what other people write. A corporation is a legal person. That is, it is an institution that can own property, enter into contracts, and appear in court to sue and be sued. If that "someone" were a lawyer, s/he would certainly agree that labor unions, churches, and governments are corporations. The government allows Makapuu Head to exist (it could be blasted to rubble), but that does not makie Makapuu Head a corporation.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Btw, here's the full link to what he quoted -- he didn't even quote a full sentence.

So? Follow the link:

corporate opportunity
n. a business opportunity which becomes known to a corporate offi...
corporation
n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act...
corpus
n. 1) Latin for body. 2) the principal (usually money, securities...

I quoted the entry between "corporate opportunity" and "corpus". Did Drachasor have a point, here? If you follow the link at "corporation", you get:...

corporation

n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital. One benefit is that a corporation's liability for damages or debts is limited to its assets, so the shareholders and officers are protected from personal claims, unless they commit fraud. For private business corporations the articles of incorporation filed with the Secretary of State of the incorporating state must include certain information, including...
There are also non-profit (or not for profit) corporations organized for religious, educational, charitable or public service purposes. Public corporations are those formed by a municipal, state or federal government for public purposes such as operating a dam and utility project.

As I wrote earlier, and as this makes clear, a corporation is a an organization that can own property, enter into contracts, and appear in court to sue and be sued. The definition recognizes non-profit organizations as "corporations", and so admits governments, and many schools and churches.