"Socialized Medicine"

You'll hear the term "socialized medicine" a lot as health care reform comes to the forefront in policy discussions:

Why 'Socialism' Evokes No Fear, by Joe Conason, RCP: Once among the most frightening epithets in American political culture, "socialized medicine" seems to have lost its juju. Today that phrase sounds awfully dated...

Yet ... the old buzzwords appear regularly in columns, press releases and speeches. Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican presidential pack run around squawking about socialism whenever anyone proposes health care reform. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak warns that the federally financed, state-run Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is essentially a socialist conspiracy. So does President Bush, who has threatened to veto a modest increase in that program's funding because he doesn't want to "federalize health care."

Although the red threat still triggers an autonomic reaction among GOP true believers, the rest of the country no longer twitches to that high-pitched, far-right whistle. Most polls not only show enormous majorities favoring extension of coverage to every child, but substantial support for a radical change in how we pay and administer health insurance -- including the possibility of a single-payer system.

Why doesn't the traditional propaganda work any more? Perhaps the demise of the Soviet Union and the withering of Communism in China have had a delayed effect on public attitudes here. Both the Russians and the Chinese have turned more capitalist than the West, abandoning their former systems without substituting modern protections. ... Most Americans may also have noticed that corporate bureaucracy and corruption, which figure largely in the present health care system, are not preferable to government bureaucracy. ...

This corporate model is more expensive and less efficient than the government plans that provide care in every other industrialized nation.

And most Americans may have learned by now that such systems prevail in Western countries that aren't normally categorized as "socialist," including the United Kingdom, Japan, Spain, Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. All these nations manage to provide their citizens with high living standards, industrial and technological innovation, and broad political and economic freedom, even after 50 years of national health insurance.

Meanwhile, the credibility of conservatives has diminished steadily. These days they cannot even achieve clarity on the meaning of their favorite cliches. For instance, the president hates "federalized health care," but sponsors a Medicare prescription drug program that wastes hundreds of billions on drug companies and private insurers. Right-wing definitions no longer seem so clear, either. When the government awards a billion dollars in sweetheart mercenary contracts to a wealthy Republican family in Michigan, that's "private enterprise." But when the government helps a struggling middle-class family in Maryland send its children to the doctor, that's creeping socialism.

Conservative ideology's declining relevance is again encouraging the politics of personal destruction. That must be why right-wing voices on the Internet, talk radio and the Fox News Channel have launched a nasty attack on the family of Graeme Frost, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who appeared in a Democratic radio commercial endorsing the SCHIP program. ...

It doesn't seem to occur to any of these strict ... moralists that the Frosts have enough trouble trying to care for their disabled daughter, or that the state of Maryland, under the SCHIP regulations, has determined that the Frost children are fully eligible for the help they obviously need. Let us not hear again ... about "family values" or "compassionate conservatism." ...

Just one quarrel. The opposition to SCHIP is an example of compassionate conservatism, it's not a failure to live up to the promise embedded in that phrase. From a previous post of mine:

Compassionate Conservatism (edited): There is confusion -- perhaps intentional by those who popularized the phrase -- about the term "compassionate conservatism." It isn't a kindler, gentler brand of conservatism, though that's certainly the impression the phrase is intended to convey. It doesn't mean, for example, government stepping in and helping after an event like hurricane Katrina. It refers to the work of Marvin Olasky and his book Renewing American Compassion. He advocates scrapping the present welfare system entirely and replacing it with private and religious charity, a system he says was "effective in the nineteenth century." This is compassionate conservatism. The term is misleading, but it's not a fundamentally new idea.

Comments

[Sandman]

The funny thing is, it is hardly "Socialism". That would be all the health care system acting cooperatively together instead of competing. A government can't do that because its will determines rank rather than Socialism's free association.

It is more "Fascist" and "Elitist" in nature. Very similiar to Nazism. But we never hear a leftoid mutter that. Europe loves National Health Care because they worshipped the Nazi regime and its efficient systems.

[Lafayette]

All these nations manage to provide their citizens with high living standards, industrial and technological innovation, and broad political and economic freedom, even after 50 years of national health insurance.

“We, the people, …”

The debate about Health Care on this forum is focused uniquely on that subject. It may seem, therefore, logical to show Americans that other countries demonstrate as much, if not more, concern for citizens' health as they do – and that they do more to assure it uniformly.

But, when one makes that sort of comparative argument, one should take it a bit further. That is, let’s ask the question: Why does this happen?

Sociologists have tried to classify the cultural attributes of countries into two opposites. The world is not that black and white, but for purposes of debate/analysis/discussion the two poles that sociologist use are Individualist and Collectivist societies.

Individualist societies are those that privilege the interests/rights of the individual. They maintain that nothing should hinder the individual in their pursuit of whatever they desire. Meaning that all people can attain the same level of individual liberty in their endeavours if they only try hard. (Which is, admittedly, a noble thought, but reality teaches us otherwise.)

Collectivist societies are those that privilege the interests/rights of the collective, or community/town/state/nation. These societies maintain, a bit naively also, that what is good for the all people (the collective) is good for each individual. This means that the accent is placed on the fact that all individuals benefit from their collective work in a communal manner.

So, it is simple to understand why Collective societies ask that government do more for them and are willing to accept higher taxes to do so. Also simple to understand is the flip side of the coin, that is, Individualist societies strive to have as few impediments as possible in the development/fulfillment of the individual, particularly in an entrepreneurial sense.

However, societies are not that easily classifiable. There is no black and white. What we can safely say, however, is that the US is mostly an Individualist nation and Europe mostly a collectivist group of nations. Within each grouping, however, there can be nuances.

And, apparently, as regards Health Care in America, that nuance is showing. Let’s hope it doesn’t stop there. Because the singular difference between Individualist and Collectivist societies – bottom line – is that the former refuse the redistribution of wealth by taxation and the latter adhere to the principle.

It’s all about Income Inequality, isn’t it?

NB: And, after all, the Declaration of Independence begins, “We, the people, …”

[kharris]

Sandman,

You have an odd version of European history in your head. Belgium, The Netherlands, Poland, France and various western parts of the former USSR are all European, and the UK is sort of European, and I don't remember any of them "worshipping" Nazi ideology. By and large, their people fought against and suffered under Nazism. Your premise is wrong, so your argument is wrong.

[The Baron]

Lafayette, Income Inequality isn't bad, as long as there are good opportunities for social mobility. I don't want to raise taxes on the rich, if I believe that there is a really good chance that I will be one of the rich in a reasonable amount of time with sufficient effort on my part. Similarly, I want a good safety net for the poor if I think I might end up among them through bad events or luck.

It is when I think I'm poor, and have little or no chance of ever becoming rich, no matter how hard I work, or I'm rich and know that no matter how badly I screw up, having more money than God will always save me, that each segment of society looks for ways to penalize the others.

The amazingly sad thing I see is the irrational expectations of both groups leading to a more antagonistic society between classes, and eventually, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even today, someone with enough hard work and no more than average luck or intelligence can become wildly successful, and someone who is tremendously rich can lose it all overnight (though it's harder to lose everything than it is to get it all when you start with nothing). But all you ever see or hear about is the rich trying to reduce the amount of their money going for a safety net, and the non-rich demanding larger portions of the rich's income. Add to it that no one talks in reasoned measures but in wild hyperbole, both for their side and against the other side, and I begin to despair.

[Farrar Richardson]

Lafayette -

Good post, but let's take your analysis a bit farther.

Everyone has is mind the failure of the soviet Union and and the kibbutz systems, apparent proof that pure collectivist ideals don't work in practice.

But have we stopped to think that pure individualist ideas don't work either? We Americans still have in the back of our minds, the lone frontiersman who started with nothing and yet made a comfortable life for his family - all through his own efforts. But the truth more often was that he didn't get very far without a few neighbors, who gladly came to help him with the barn raising, the sheep-shearing, or whatever.

The real loner was like Lincoln's Dad, who never rose above th elowest rungs of poverty. Fortunately, people like Lincoln learned better , that successful economic activity is always a cooperative endeavor. The folk hero may be the individual entrepreneur, but she wouldn't get very far if she couldn't enlist the cooperation of others.

[anne]

Repeatedly we are told fearsome stories about supposed systemic problems with Canadian or British health care provision, as often references to the problems when finally supplied turn out to show no systematic problems. The same was done with complaints about the French or German systems several years ago, similarly the complaints were trivial and have recently been forgotten. A complaint about Swedish health care, turned on the unwillingness of a state agency to supply a child-flavored antibiotic in taking advantage of a cost difference. Let the children suffer.

[anne]

Notice the wording of the horrid complaint, by the way, and understand there are words and phrases that are coined by lunatic rightists that are then obviously echoed through the Internet. Obviously, because the language is too studied to be original or spontaneous.

[Patricia Shannon]

Farrar Richardson says...

Lafayette -
But have we stopped to think that pure individualist ideas don't work either? We Americans still have in the back of our minds, the lone frontiersman who started with nothing and yet made a comfortable life for his family - all through his own efforts. But the truth more often was that he didn't get very far without a few neighbors, who gladly came to help him with the barn raising, the sheep-shearing, or whatever.

Good post.

Also, the "rugged individualism" of the frontier days was based on free land from the government, which was socialistic. Of course, the land was stolen from the American Indians in the first case.

[jamzo]

gaining freedom for slaves,
gaining direct election of legislative reprsentatives,
gaining the right to vote for anyone who is not a white,
male, property owner,
gaining the right to universal public education,
gaining the right for workers to negotiate employement contracts with employers as a group,
gaining the right to economic assistance if you are disabled

were things that were achieved against powerful political and economic forces who made the argument for their cause with well-honed moral and economic philosophical reasoning

the need to push for equality does not change

the targets change

and sometimes it is necessary to back and reclaim territory that has been lost

healthcare seems a good goal for this time

public education seems to have slipped and needs to be reclaimed

maybe it is also time to look at how we limit the dissemination of knowledge in our society

the nyt has an article about dentistry this morning

we are very successful in "traiing people" to become dentists

however, we restrict this knowledge to a few

like the marines - "the proud and the few"

"a small elite force"

as a result they enjoy large incomes

maybe it is time to examine why we restrict certain kinds of knowledge to a "few" - maybe more dentists and more doctors would be a good thing,

satisfying the dental needs of society requires more than a "small elite force" - it might requre a powerful army

wow! maybe we should look at medical training too

can you imagine the moral and economic arguments that would be offered against these ideas

i can hear them now

by the way, like mental health care, private and governemnt health insurance is bais against subsidizing the cost of dental care

[HitTheBid]

HealthCare is actually a moral issue, or at the very least should be. Someone please tell me why someone's access to a Doctor or treatments SHOULD be based on their ability to pay?

And if you decide to construct a feeble argument against that, why should someone's ability to get insurance be curbed by their present health situation?

I am sick and tired of conservatives/libertarians making the argument that the problem is more moral hazard than adverse selection. The fact that 20 percent of the people are 80 percent of all costs blows any arguments like that out of the water. People who "abuse" the healthcare system--if they actually exist and I don't think they do--do not account for any real measurable amount of the problem...just like "frivolous lawsuits" do not--and by the way the definition of frivolous means it cannot have a cost...it gets thrown out.

Please someone tell my why a rich person deserves better health care than a poor person?...or if you like why someone making 225k deserves better health care than someone making 125k? Jesus Christ where is John Rawls when you need him!

[calmo]

Could any summation be more efficient that this:

Your premise is wrong, so your argument is wrong.

I mean without resorting to "Blockhead!" or similar, (which might only initiate a more inefficient (according to the non-ad hominemers: the polite) ad hominem exchange).
Does Sandy need my help against this efficiency menace, kharris?

Possibly.

Do I face an uphill battle with Sandy's remark:

A government can't do that because its will determines rank rather than Socialism's free association. [So...unequivocal Sandy: Iron fisted Government Will (the march) and Socialism's random pattern (worse than jazz: noise?)]

and the implication that the govenment's Will
has already assigned me this lesser, somewhat kibitzing role of freely associating (and butting in gratuitously like this)?

Possibly.

[Denis Drew]

Simple answer to all socialism non-arguments: ask the non-arguers to imagine there had never been a Marx or a Lenin or Communism -- and then ask them to produce logical, specific support for their position or against yours.

[robertdfeinman]

One of the (usually successful) tactics of the right is to come up with a scare-word catch phrase to short circuit any thought on complex issues.

The "death tax" is a good example.

Knowing this I prefer to refer to programs such as Medicare and Social Security as "government-administered, communal programs". The government collects and disburses the funds according to a set of rules laid down in the enabling legislation. The various agencies that do the actual work are performing a strictly clerical task. Contrast this to, say, the Defense Department which is run by the government and makes its own policy decisions subject only to broad guidelines in the annual appropriation bills.

I know that "communal" might be used to hammer the left with, but I'm trying to emphasize that these programs are meant to benefit the community at large as opposed to special interests.

The difference between administering a program and running it needs to be highlighted.

[Jean]

Oh, Jamzo, the Elite are elite FOR A REASON (pardon me for yelling). Cold hard cash. Moola. Geldt. Bucks (BIG). In this country I think we can only affect those schools that take US greenbacks. Otherwise it's private enterprise all the way. Maybe the gov. should sponsor some schools for docs and dds's. Horrors! it's CUBA!!!!!

[Bruce Webb]

I am noticing an increased desperation among the Economic Right of which the Graeme case only the leading edge.

The Reagan Revolution and its slogan 'Big Government is not the solution, big government is the problem' relies for support on belief that Big Government programs are proven failures. Government successes are more of a threat to this belief system than market failures. Which is why I bring everything back around to Social Security. For 24 years the Right has attempted to transform it from the Third Rail of Ameican Politics to proof of Reaganism. It has been both a practical and theoretic weapon. Practical in which the 'looming crisis' can be used to block social spending generally (got to pay for those selfish Boomers) and to promote tax cuts (got to grow the economy to pay for those selfish Boomers). Theoretical in that it allows them to support their overall 'Market trumps Government' argument.

The flip side is that the Social Security blade can be made to cut both ways. On the practical side we can examine the numbers and show that financing Social Security is not going to be as difficult as prevailing belief would have it, on the theoretical side we can use solvency to show that government solutions can be both efficient and equitable.

I firmly believe that the road to universal coverage and indeed progressive social solutions generally runs through Social Security. And then maybe we can reexamine what Socialism really is and is not. You have collective socialists, you have cooperative socialists, you have communist socialists, you have national socialists and none of it falls neatly along a Left/Right axis or even along the public property/private property axis, you don't need to nationalize national resource extraction is establish a socialist society. In my view Socialism is Social Pragmatism with the goal being 'Greatest good for greatest number' and the understanding that often both efficiency and equity can be maximized through social solutions.

Universal Health Care is Socialism and that remains so whether the means of delivery remain largely in private hands (the mandates path) or becomes closer to a British style system. Socialism not being so much about manner of ownership but of mode of operation. How we get around the terminology barrier is another thing, but it is time to stop letting the Randites control our political language.

[Patricia Shannon]

I don't have health insurance.
I have been legally blind in my left eye for at least two years, so that eye has been too weak for driving for longer than that. Since last year, the cataract in my right eye has gotten bad enough that it is on the boundary of being legal to drive in Georgia. I got the left eye fixed almost two weeks ago. My eye doctor was bugging me to get the other one fixed, but it's a good thing I insisted on holding out until I saw the final cost. I was given to believe it would cost about $4,000. The reality:

$ 334 eye exam
1,500 surgen's fee
6,808 statement from hospital, hopefull everything else
Total $8,642 for one eye.

That's about my total savings of the last two years. And my job is very insecure, because they are outsourcing everything possible to India.

The next time I renew my driver's license, I intend to remove the organ donor checkoff. None of my family or friends have received an organ donation, and I could not afford one, and the people who can don't care about people like me.

[dogfacegeorge]

"In my view Socialism is Social Pragmatism ... often both efficiency and equity can be maximized through social solutions."

What I want to ask Free Marketeers: Are you opposed to a socialized military, or a socialized police force? How about a socialized interstate highway system? Should we privatize Yosemite Valley, and sell off the Grand Canyon? Or are you willing to agree that sometimes collective ownership is preferable to private ownership, and we should discuss which form of ownership is better on a case by case basis?

[tibby]

"Should we privatize Yosemite Valley, and sell off the Grand Canyon?"

Oh, well, they'll bring up the tragedy of the commons to argue that privatization would protect these resources better than government and its moral hazard and sleepy ineffective bureaucrats ever could. Which is absurd on its face -- it assumes there is greater incentive to protect the resource rather than despoil it, as if private interests worried about long term availability of resources.

[Patricia Shannon]

I read several years ago that farmers in some western states are killing the soil, due to the buildup of mineral salts becausue of irrigation. They know they are killing the soil on their own land, but irrigation makes them more money now.

[ilsm]

We cannot let the government run the health system!

Look what they are doing to the war machine: corruption, waste, fraud, ineptitude, Blackwater.

Do you want your doctor to be as effective as Petraeus?

Do you want your MRI machine to be as useful as the MV-22?

Come on, get the government out of the war machine and leave health care alone.

The logical follwo on comment to attacks on "socialized" medicine is the sins of the rest of the multi trillion dollar trough Washington runs for the K Street crowd.

If Bush cannot raise $35B over 5 years for kids' health coverage we shouldnot give him $3T over that time to waste on the war machine.

[Catron]

If "'socialism' evokes no fear," why do "progressives" become so unhinged when the term is deployed? If the epithet doesn't resonate with the electorate, why do the advocates of government-run health care want the opposition to stop using it?

If Conason, et al really believed this BS, they would be delighted to give conservatives and libertarians enough rhetorical rope to hang ourselves.

[James Killus]

Interesting.

I'm actually a believer in the philosophical principle of individualism, which says, among other things, that there is no such thing as a "group mind" or a "group will." So why is it that whenever issues like this come up, the self-style opponents of "collectivism" write and talk as if there really is a "government will" or behave as if there is this shadowy entity "government" which has certain innate characteristics (like incompetence, mean-spiritedness, outright evilness) which will apply no matter who holds the positions of power?

In answer to the basic question of this comment thread, however, I will note that most people who have ever had any experience with, or observation of, children understand that, as they mature, it is necessary to teach them certain basics about fair and humane dealings with other children and other human beings. We call this process "socialization" and I think that the American Health Care System could use a dose of it. I fear that it is a little late for the Conservative Movement, however; it is an unsocialized beast, also known as a sociopath.

[Bruce Webb]

Shorter version of Killus: Golding's Lord of the Flies.

None of human society comes outside of societal norms. The real world equivalents of Randite sophomores in baboon society would have three life outcomes: subservience, exile, or bleeding in the sand with their throats torn out. The weird notion that everybody can be Howard Roark, Horatio Alger, or John Galt is just Ayn Rand fanboyism.

[Lafayette]

The Baron: Income Inequality isn't bad, as long as there are good opportunities for social mobility.

The upwardly mobile economic escalator

Your name is appropriate for this kind of comment.

Income inequality is not bad when it is in proportion, which is decidedly NOT the case in the US. The higher income levels receive disproportionately more of the economic wealth generated than the lower classes. Meaning, quite simply, that the returns to capital rents are greater than the return to labor inputs.

Which is why the US has a Gini Coefficient about the same as China. Go see for yourself.

The way European societies correct this anomaly of the capitalist system is high taxation and the redistribution of that revenue in terms of public services to the society as a whole. True enough, the richer classes have less need for such services.

But the poor and middle-class do need adequate Health Care as well as easy access to Education/Training in order to take the “economic escalator”. In Europe, you may know, both are fundamental pillars of the Public Service offering. The fact that these services are assured by the state means that they are (1) first rate and (2) accessible to the largest number. (The combination of both are rarely common attributes of private market services.)

Any country, with its head in the right place, is looking to Europe when it replicates such public services, not the US. America has a knee-jerk propensity to expect that ALL services should be provided by the private sector. Mind you, that is not all bad. Even Public Services, if administrated by the state, can avail upon private enterprise to provide them at a reasonable price. (Most public construction, whether in Europe or the US, is provided in such a manner.)

But, when the private sector is called upon to provide services as fundamental to the economy (and therefore well being of a people), something ugly happens. The accessibility of the service becomes distorted, meaning this: Its access is made more random and conditional upon finding adequate finances.

It's access is therefore diminished and/or focused upon a privileged set of the society as a whole. This cannot be conducive to social harmony.

It means also that the ability to ride the escalator is open to fewer people at the bottom – those at the top couldn’t give a damn, they are probably going to private schools of which their parents are alumni. And, they will indubitably obtain the very best medical treatment that money can buy.

America is right to have rectified this distortion in higher education, by creating its system of state universities, which are supposedly accessible at a lower cost than privately run universities. The cost is still too high, apparently, because the average university student today graduates with a debt of around $17,000 before they’ve even begun to work … if they work.

What is strange, nonetheless, is the fact that whereas America had the good sense to implement state school education (for the masses), it could not see fit to do the same for Health Care.

More so, it relies upon a high-cost private health care system that is expensive because its practitioners take so long to get accredited and into practice – meaning that they look to recuperate both their expenses and foregone-income incurred whilst in apprenticeship servitude.

It is evident, therefore, that Health Care cost and university training are intimately entwined – a low cost education would lead to a lower cost Health Care service.

As for the upwardly mobile "economic escalator", Monsieur le Baron, it is a figment of your imagination for the people who need it the most.

NB: Which is why so many of those who would have liked to take the escalator actually came home in body bags from the sandbox. Did your child? I doubt it.

[James Killus]

Actually Bruce, I think that Golding took a bit longer to tell it than I did.

As for the Ayn Rand stuff, I've recently managed to get a proper handle on a bit of it that had eluded me before, so I'm kinda happy about that.

[Lafayette]

Le Baron: I don't want to raise taxes on the rich, if I believe that there is a really good chance that I will be one of the rich in a reasonable amount of time with sufficient effort on my part.

Effete smugness

Your faith in "sufficient work on my part" would win praise from Ayn Rand, but that's about all. It is ridiculous to think that the rich earned their riches from the sweat of their brows.

Most inherited it, others were at the right place at the right time. Birth or luck are accidents of life ... but never a worthwhile foundation for social policy.

The rich will always be with us, as will the poor. Humans are of different capacities and the idiocy that all should earn equally has proven to be a false god.

Good social policy tries, however, to narrow the gap between them. But, that is PRECISELY the problem. No one wants to define how much that gap is. Is the total net worth (between the poorest element of society and the richest) ten times more, a hundred times more, a thousand times more, a hundred times more?

How much? Somebody, please, put a number cap on it! If only for purposes of debate.

The skies the limit? Ah yes, there we are ... a world where the rich get richer and the poor can go to hell.

[Icarus]

Lafayette: "The higher income levels receive disproportionately more of the economic wealth generated than the lower classes."

No, the don't 'receive' it...the "EARN" it. A key distinction. Wealth creation is the large reason for the gains of the elite classes. US GDP has increased from 2-3 trillion to 13 trillion in the past 2 decades. Why?

Was it because the janitor or clerk worked better or harder? Perhaps tangentially.
But, the real reason is, high tech adventurers, scientists, investment bankers, lawyers, and the other cadres of the techo-manegerial elite, along with the barons of the capitalist class (who take the risk), alongside strongarmed govt support (ie, like forcing arab countries to deposit petrodollars in US banks), coordinated this ascendancy.

It wasn't the middle class worker. Their tasks are relatively similar to what they were years ago, and, often worth less over time because of global competition. There's no conspiracy against the middle class or poor...we live in a cold, but rational era of wage labour. If workers do something easily replacable, their fair market wage won't be too good. This shouldn't really be alarming news.

[Icarus]

Hit the Bid...

Sadly, yes, the child of the wealthy parent will, and should get better medical treatment than the child of the poor.
I know that sounds horrible, but, it's the only way.

That wealthy parent took precautions before having that child which ensures it's success. The poor parent didn't. Our society rewards that precaution.

No matter what, the child of the wealthy will get better services, because, that wealthy parent can finance it. Whatever the govt hands out for free, the wealthy parent will want more for their child. And, what that wealthy parent can afford, cannot be matched by the free healthcare distributed.

Also, there is a philosophical issue here. Healthcare is a service. It has costs. There are hadly any services where one gets a blank checkbook. I can't walk into a store, and demand $100,000 worth of services, get them, before showing a propensity to pay.
This is what the left wants for healthcare. It sounds nice (to some), but, is impossible.
At some point, even in a social healthcare system, budgets have to be taken into consideration, and, "no" must be the answer. US society has to re-consider its attitude towards death. Now, the fear of litigation has they system spending bad money after worse.

So, my answer to you is...no. The mistake the poor parent made was having a child before they could afford it. They shouldn't be able to externalize the costs of raising a child to the social whole.

[dogfacegeorge]

"The mistake the poor parent made was having a child before they could afford it. They shouldn't be able to externalize the costs of raising a child to the social whole."

Yeah, and while we're at it let's close down all the public schools. No way should we rich people be forced to
subsidize the "mistakes" that poor parents make.

[Icarus]

Dogface...

There is a strain of thought, going back to milton friedman, which actually argues that schooling should be privatized.

Then, when decisions are made regarding whether a person should/will have a child, these costs can be properly considered.

And, the "mistake" poor people make doesn't end with having children they can't afford. The mistake continues when they assume that others exist who will be responsible for the basic welfare of their children. Externalizing parenting costs...that is a mistake.

[Patricia Shannon]

Icarus, what cave do you live in? The birth rate is highest in countries where people are the poorest, least educated, and with fewest social programs. For one thing, these conditions lead to a high death rate in infancy and childhood, so people have more children. And under these conditions, when people get old, they have to depend on their children to help them survive. Also, they don't have access to knowledge and mechanisms (eg., birth control pills) when they do want to avoid having children.

I know this will be impossible for you to understand, but it is normal for there to be a strong drive to have children to nurture and love. Otherwise, the human race would have died out when people found out how children are made.

[Lafayette]

Icarus: No, the don't 'receive' it...the "EARN" it.

That is a matter of smug perception. Frankly, I think your flying too close to the sun with that one.

They "earn it" how? Do you know any multimillionaires who "made it" on an island. No, anyone who is able to amass wealth does so in a free-market economy within which they and their family enjoy communal social and cultural benefits.

That is, they are part of a whole. Which means, in most advanced cultures, perhaps not yours, that the ability to earn limitlessly wealth is not considered a desired economic attribute of that culture.

There are innate differences in all humans and some have either more talent or more luck -- or both -- such that most cultures recognize that equalizing all income (meaning a communist society) is simply unworkable. But, somehow, with the demise of communism, many Americans decided that the outcome was indirectly God's blessing upon them "to get rich, exaggeratedly rich".

No, that was never the logical conclusion. Europe rejected it and, today, shows a far better distribution of the generated wealth than does America. By most social parameters, nations of the European Union do more for more of their citizens than America.

Take a hint: The purpose of life is not to accumulate wealth beyond proportion -- meaning way way beyond any one individual's ability to enjoy their slightest whimsy -- especially whilst significant parts of the same society are living in the hell of poverty and crime.

Neither is life a super highway, where the exaggeratedly rich drive Ferraris and the poor are simply left as road kill.

The naiveness of your thinking lies in the belief that "people can unconditionally better themselves" if they will only try hard. This notion is wholly simplistic. The statistical reality is that any one person has the same chance of "earning" a net worth of more than one million dollars as winning a lottery.

So, why sweat? Buy a lottery ticket ... at least the proceeds will go to supporting public services.

[Cyrille]

Patricia, I couldn't find your mail in your blog. Would you mind dropping me an email?

[Icarus]

Patricia Shannon:

"I know this will be impossible for you to understand, but it is normal for there to be a strong drive to have children to nurture and love. Otherwise, the human race would have died out when people found out how children are made."

That's just it..."nurture and love"...repeat those words over and over. To nurture and to love is to consider the welfare of the child, over the needs (ie, lonliness, or an immature naive craving) of the parent. Conscioiusly giving birth to a child one can't nurture properly, and hence love selflessly, is the inherent problem.

And,

"Also, they don't have access to knowledge and mechanisms (eg., birth control pills) when they do want to avoid having children."

I wouldn't be too romantic about the nobility of shanty town poverty. I come from such an urban slum, originally. We shouldn't assume much of 'knowledge and mechanisms', as cultures are much older, and knowledge isn't as monopolized by elites, as those in the West assume about 'developing' cultures. I think a small anthropological shift should be embraced here, Patricia Shannon...and, a simple binarisms positing a knowing, morally certain western observer, vs a more simple, under-educated, cultually bereft native. I know the binarism is dramatic, but, hear me out.
Cultures have both tacit and conscious knowledge systems, and things like 'birth control' and family planning aren't rocket science to them. (shanty town dwellers, I'm speaking of here).
This poor have children because it's a form of economic insurance; the child is the proverbial 'lottery ticket'. As long as basic caloric intake isn't too expensive, such reproductive patterns become strategic. It's sad overall, as the power of social infrastructures rupture, and another form of organization occurs.

In a strangely ironic twist, it will be the 'developed' society which will replicate the present of the 'developing' one. This is quite the reversal, as conventional Development theory posited that the 'non-west', or 'developing socities', were knowable to the West, as they were living the West's past. Furthermore, the West was living in the "non-west's" future. The paternal strain of developmental epistemology was solidly infused in this narrative.

The dialectic of economics seems to be a bitch...societies will eventually develop shanty towns, and there will be this fissure between the haves and have-nots. Europe will one day look a bit more like south Asia, and vice-versa. Such is the law of profit accumulation, and labor migration.

The only problem with Marx's eschatology was that he thought it would be quick. This will take a few more centuries, class consciousness will appear, and then, and only then, will change occur. Of course, who knows the contours?...what if technology can develop in ways which assuage the malcontent of the have-nots. Playstations in shanty towns, virtual worlds with alternate hierarchies, multiple identities. The "Economic Man" may be lost, in a technodystopic vertigo, layered underneath other 'selves'.

The continued fissuring of the social democratic state is a key step.

[Lafayette]

Icarus: But, the real reason is, high tech adventurers, scientists, investment bankers, lawyers, and the other cadres of the techo-manegerial elite, along with the barons of the capitalist class (who take the risk)

Rubbish

For every one of those described above, there are how many who fail? Hundreds, thousands?

We are all doing our best to survive in a competitive jungle. Some of us do so honestly, others dishonestly, and still others with amazingly good fortune (luck).

I don't doubt for a moment that what is cited above is not true. But, it is still rubbish, since it celebrates the achievement of a comparative few within our society. And, that achievement of the few is dependent upon an economy constituted of the many, many ordinary people. So, the former few (comparatively) would not have had the slightest chance of such success were it not for the latter many.

You have been blinded by America's social onus on "financial success" as a measure of both good and virtue. It is nice to be rich and, yes, anyone can regret not being rich. But, let's face reality, the world does not really need a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet. It just has them. And, it has had this sort of exaggerated rich for centuries.

The only factor that is somewhat new is the manner and ease with which they made their money. Bill Gates is no saint, as anyone who knows how his success came about can attest. But, let us set that aside. Even a richness honestly earned that is beyond measure (meaning exaggerated) is of no real consequence to its owner. How many Rolls-Royces can you drive in a day?

Time and time again, history has proven that excess riches concentrated in the hands of a comparative few is dangerous to the social harmony of a country. Just go back to the history of tsarist Russia to learn why.

No one minds, really, a person who succeeds and is modestly wealthy. What bothers people are those who have attained excessive wealth -- way, way beyond their needs.

NB1: Just where does "excessive wealth" begin? I'd say around 3 megabucks. Beyond that point, then marginal tax rates have every good reason to become confiscatory.
NB2: Try it and see. America will be a better place with less wealth BUT better distributed, than more wealth AND its present income inequality. Wanna bet on it?

[Icarus]

Lafayette:

Of course no person is an island. We are all only social creatures. I'm not sure where you're going with that...

But, within the social field, we all differentiate ourselves, with our skills, our capacities, and with our work/contributions. The market responds accordingly.

The technology billioinaire is so, because he (usually 'he') designed, developed, and/or deployed something which the rest of said 'thanks' to by giving him our dollars. In fact, it was so nice, his contribution, that we gave him umpteen dollars. That's it. Outside of the Enron scenarios, normal, daily 'business' accumulates profit if they offer something of value, in exchange.

And, so far, the market is the best tool, or mechanism invented, to alert the rest of us that something is of value, or, appreciated. It simply prices the available supply quite high. That way, those with the most money (money simply being a store towards the right to control future labour) will go through a choosing ritual called 'making a purchase'.
Once they do, they're sending a signal, not too different than an ancient smoke signal, to the suppliers, to 'make more'. Eventually they will. But, the ritual never ends, consumption takes over, false gods worshiped. This is a deeper enemy to "Economic Man". A deeper 'self' which doesn't care about economic rationality, and instead, embraces the jouissance of consumption. Playstations in the shanty towns.

So, the billionaire recluse, did earn it. He was at the right place, with the right ideas, with the right gumption, sure. And, not everyone can be...more strangely, everyone may not even know when they are in a potential place to evolve into greatness. People are tethered to the welfare of the people who brought them into the planet. "Societies" can try and insure against such cold realities, and does so with cultural institutions, such as the 'family'. Small bands of blood relatives take on the responsibility of being the first layer of insurance. If that breaks down, and photos of baby-daddies abound, extended families must come in. Once that dissapates, we're kind of screwed, because, we now have to depend upon civic institutions such as schools, and religious institutions, such as church. Well, church is purportedly voluntary, so, it's kindness rituals are categorized as 'charity'. The state isn't voluntary, and, the 'nation-state' evolved into assuming responsibility over such institutions, as a form of concentrating its powers. Some basic foucault can guide someone through that complex history.

State institutions subsituting for the family, and developing an infrastructure which is responsible for raising children properly scares many of us. That's all.

[Icarus]

Lafayette...

Let me ask you. Assume I 'invented' a product. Sure sure, any 'invention' builds upon the shoulders of previous inventors, previous science. But, I invent a widget, and, it has a great demand.

Are you saying that such a product is not entitled to maximize profits, and so, has to be re-priced continuously, lower and lower, until marginal cost is reached?

Or, are you saying that the aforementioned profit, has to be (relatively) equally divided by everyone involved in getting the product to customers? (even the deliver drivers, the floor sweepers, etc?)

Or, that no profit should be earned, and the central government should confiscate a set percentage of it (after they observe the books)?

I'm just curious.

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Lafayette,

You admit that things aren't black and white, so don't then try to make it seem like they are. Europe isn't a "mostly collectivist" region... we mostly accept the idea that there really is no freedom if you fall economically too far behind, and in particular if you get sick and die early.

There really isn't much of a sense of "collectivism" here, but more of an advanced sense of humanism -- a recognition that suffering sucks for others about as much as it would suck for us, as we're supposedly all human beings. I don't support universal healthcare here because I have some weird *nationalistic* feelings about it, so don't try to make me seem like I do (although I think it's one of the greater European accomplishments of the last century).

Most of us simply dislike the idea of a human being's worth being completely dictated by economics. If pure capitalism dictates that someone has to suffer and die due to competitiveness, then capitalism has to give way, as that system obviously is not working. People can choose to co-operate on other terms, and here, they do.

A competitive environment that goes too far is just too brutal to participate in. Let's face it, the reason why a "non-socialist" healthcare system is better for those who do get care is that resources are not "wasted" on those who can't afford them. It's that plain and simple, I really wish US conservatives admitted that. There is no charity fairy that lets you hand-wave yourself out of it, because she will be neccessarily out-competed just like the socialist healthcare system supposedly would be -- that's the whole damned idea of capitalism, and it works pretty well when you're building cars... but this is about people.

Americans are, unfortunately, so damned traumatized and afraid of each other "stealing" their shaky, ever-shrinking lot in life that they just can't see that sometimes removing competition makes for a more humane world to live in... and it doesn't automatically turn you into a communist. It just sometimes happens that you can defeat extreme competition only by not playing ball in the first place.

Personally, I refuse to buy anything American before you guys get yourselves genuine universal healthcare. I won't support a country that takes its competitiveness from slave labour that dies young because didn't "deserve" anything better...

[Lafayette]

Icarus: Or, are you saying that the aforementioned profit, has to be (relatively) equally divided by everyone involved in getting the product to customers? (even the deliver drivers, the floor sweepers, etc?)

What you invented is being sold into an economy. That economy, in the weighting, is more important than your invention. Without the economy, you know full well what you can do with your invention.

Who constitutes that economy? Millions people like you and me. (Even the DOD consumes to protect the economy, in the name of the nation.) The collective (the economy), I insist, is far more important than one individual's invention or contribution to its activity.

So, go ahead, invent. Make a million. Make ten million. Make a hundred million in personal profit? Whoa! Enough is enough, for you and your invention.

You perhaps think the sky's the limit, because you recognize no limits. You don't accept them, therefore you do not observe them.

We live on a planet with very definite limitations. Let's learn to live with them, and one of them is the fact that ONE INDIVIDUAL accumulating excessively net worth is NOT an expression of personal liberty. It is an expression of personal greed.

Some people collect butterflies, others net worth. Both are obsessions -- one innocent, the other not.

[Lafayette]

Ic: what if technology can develop in ways which assuage the malcontent of the have-nots

Technology brought us the Industrial Age ... which also brought us a betterment in the standard of living and fortunes to families that Americans readily recognize (Rockefellers, Carnegie, Ford, etc.)

And, also sweatshops.

Technology created entire industries, it is true. But, we see that technology is also transferable. Highly transferable. Leaving some highly paid staff out of a job.

The problem with American technology is its bent for excess. First Silicon Valley was dreamland making millionaires over night ... next thing you know it's gone barren. Now, its fighting its way back. Boom and bust, boom and bust.

That is no way to have long-term, durable employment that people can count on to nurture a family. But, that is precisely what we have when the only metric of importance, the only criteria, the only focus is bottom-line profit.

Take the money and run. Rather than take the money and spread it around.

[anne]

Jean-Luc Picard:

"Personally, I refuse to buy anything American before you guys get yourselves genuine universal healthcare."

Ah, we are South Africa in need of Nelson Mandela....

[Icarus]

Lafayette...

First, my "invention" would require that I "spread it around", because, I would create jobs.

"The problem with American technology is its bent for excess. First Silicon Valley was dreamland making millionaires over night ... next thing you know it's gone barren. Now, its fighting its way back. Boom and bust, boom and bust."

Now, that's just silly. Silicon Valley, barren? When? Where? Even after the so called 'crash', there was plenty of economic activity. You're being overdramatic in order to make a point...ok.

But, I'm just curious as to the conclusion of your logic...

Yes, my invention occurs within an economy. As well, it occurs within the globe. Should I therefore distribute my earnings to all 6.5 billion? I mean, we're all on this planet together. And, wait...why limit it to people. Animals have rights too. As do insects...we never talk enough about the genocides we commit against insects. Should a portion of my gross revenue be distributed to such causes?
Ok, I too can be silly.

Sure, we must live withing limits, and, the nature of capitalism is to force us to reach those limits via the pricing mechanism.

The billionaire didn't make that money due to greed. I highly doubt the founders of google and yahoo were inspired by greed. Their form of entrepreneurship has a different ethic of motivation.

But, yes, the successful ones rake in the big bucks. And, don't they deserve it? I say yes, as they contribute to countless lives with their services. And, it's not force or authoritarian rule which leads to these profits...it's the force of the market.

And, these other people, in society, who you want these profits re-distributed to. What did they do? Is sitting on a couch, watching tv, and being 'part of society' mean that you get funded by working people? Where are those 'limits'?

Where are limits when it comes to having children you can't afford? We speak of the 'limits' of the greedy (or lack thereof)...but, where are the 'limits' on the other side? There are 'limits' to goofing off; people need to study and invest in their future. They don't, usually.
There are 'limits' to eating...they dont...we have obesity like no other nation. There are 'limits' to consumption...it's usually the poor (as a percentage of their wealth) who have no sense of 'limits' there.

I do understand what you're saying about greed...but, the motivation to make money (what you call excessive money) requires a contribution to society. Even the hedge fund trader is doing us a service.

[Icarus]

And, Lafayette...

The only way to ensure 'long term durable employment' is to acquire the skills the market rewards, and be ready to adapt when it changes.

Look at the graduates of our top law schools, business schools, med schools, etc. They are the models to replicate. They studied, competed, got into top schools, and will get good jobs. Those jobs will require a lot of hard work, and they will get rewarded with good wages.

But, they will insure their own careers with savings (and not have children quickly), and they will continuously re-educate themselves just in case things change. Skill acquisition, saving, re-investment in educational/social capital, and awareness of the market are the norms of capitalist society.

Any other behavior is risky. That's what the working classes need to understand, and change. Making 20 bucks an hour sounds great...but, one shouldn't take that wage level, and assume they can raise a family. They have to save first, and continue to move up the skill ladder.
They don't. They have children, they buy things they can't afford...and then complain when the circumstances change.
The answer isn't to redistribute more...the answer is to alter their behavior.

[Cyrille]

"Even the hedge fund trader is doing us a service.
"

I think there's a dis- missing there.

[calmo]

Ah. This funny service business, but the expression misleads us (I speak personally)

"doing us a service"

in the same field (vs in the same sense) as the variations on "making lunch": "having lunch" and "doing lunch". The key is "doing", not "service".

Ok, I'm done and yo been serviced.

[evagrius]

"So, my answer to you is...no. The mistake the poor parent made was having a child before they could afford it. They shouldn't be able to externalize the costs of raising a child to the social whole."

Damn right! Away with the manger story of Christmas. Joe and Mary should have given it some thought.

( And for those who know the story- Mary should have said to Gabe, " Sorry. No can do. Joe's got to build up his (401)k plan, I've got to finish high school and tech training, and we haven't gotten the down payment on our house yet)".

[Patricia Shannon]

Cyrille,

I don't have a working computer, much less internet access, at home, and I can't access my hotmail or yahoo e-mail from work, even if I wanted to. It's been so long since I've been to the library, I think my hotmail accounts have died anyway, because the last time I sent an e-mail there, for archival purposes, they bounced.

You should be able to put a comment on my blog, if you like. I might have it so that it doesn't appear until I've cleared it, I'll check later today.

[Patricia Shannon]

Icarus says... Lafayette:

The technology billioinaire is so, because he (usually 'he') designed, developed, and/or deployed something which the rest of said 'thanks' to by giving him our dollars. In fact, it was so nice, his contribution, that we gave him umpteen dollars. That's it. Outside of the Enron scenarios, normal, daily 'business' accumulates profit if they offer something of value, in exchange.

This is often not true. The people who get rich are not the innovators. Those who get rich are more often those who wait until somebody else spends the time and money to develop something new. Then they steal the idea and make a lot of money, because they don't have the development costs to pay back. Also, those who get rich are not those who invent the best thing, but those who are best at marketing.

Examples are IBM and Microsoft.

Waffle House literature, and news stories about it, talk about how it was founded by two men starting a single restaurant, one of whom had worked at another restaurant. They don't mention that one of those men was the son of a banker, and his father provided the money to start up the restaurant.

90% of small businesses fail. The people I have known who started small business, putting in many hours, ending up losing their life savings and being worse off.

[anne]

About computer and Internet use, about which I care to know little, I know there are remarkably inexpensive computers new and used as well as an Internet service provider called NetZero that costs less than $10 a month for thoroughly reliable service. Also, I am told that Gmail, which is free, is vastly superior to Hotmail though I have never used Hotmail.

[Patricia Shannon]

Thank you Anne. Since I am having to spend my saving of two years on a cataract operation in one eye, and things are insecure at work, I am keeping my spending low. The "permanent" employees have been advised not to make any big purchases, and I am just a contractor.

[Patricia Shannon]

Also, Anne, I am going to make some (modest) political contributions, which I feel are of much more inportance to my individual future and the future of our country and world. Besides, I don't have air-conditioning, central heat, or hot runnig water, so spending money on a computer is not high on my priorities. Although, if I weren't having to spend more than twice as much as I expected on a cataract operation for one eye, I would be bringing out a CD with a song I wrote and one by another person on the same subject. I feel if someone creates a good song, they have a duty to the song to try to do something with it. Our songs are very well received by those who've heard them, so I feel that if I had enough money to spare, it would be a reasonable investment (aka gamble). But of course, no matter how good a song is, success is a long shot. So Icarus will criticize me for not taking the risk, and if I fail, he will criticize me for taking the risk.