Still looking for an answer

[PBzeer]

I'm still looking for someone to explain why government should provide things to people that they are able to provide for themselves, the essence of social democracy. It's what I call the social hammock, as opposed to the social safety net.

Let me define those terms, as I am using them, so everyone is clear about what I am saying.

Social Safety Net - government programs to assist those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for themselves, whether physically or mentally. And those, who are temporarily unable to (for which the assistance is temporary, like unemployment insurance is supposed to be).

Social Hammock - government provides things, such as healthcare or rent subsidies, as a couple of examples, for those able to provide it for themselves.

Now, some claim that social democracy provides "equality of opportunity" by providing a hammock. As if this somehow means everyone starts from the same place on their journey through life. But this, clearly, isn't true, for regardless of how much is provided, there will always be those with more advantages than others. Which means you aren't providing "equality of opportunity", you are trying to narrow the advantages that some have over others.

How is this, a proper function of government?

[mdbee]

in a socialistic government.

Originally Posted by PBzeer

I'm still looking for someone to explain why government should provide things to people that they are able to provide for themselves, the essence of social democracy. It's what I call the social hammock, as opposed to the social safety net.

Let me define those terms, as I am using them, so everyone is clear about what I am saying.

Social Safety Net - government programs to assist those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for themselves, whether physically or mentally. And those, who are temporarily unable to (for which the assistance is temporary, like unemployment insurance is supposed to be).

Social Hammock - government provides things, such as healthcare or rent subsidies, as a couple of examples, for those able to provide it for themselves.

Now, some claim that social democracy provides "equality of opportunity" by providing a hammock. As if this somehow means everyone starts from the same place on their journey through life. But this, clearly, isn't true, for regardless of how much is provided, there will always be those with more advantages than others. Which means you aren't providing "equality of opportunity", you are trying to narrow the advantages that some have over others.

How is this, a proper function of government?

[bwalker42]

true true

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

I'm still looking for someone to explain why government should provide things to people that they are able to provide for themselves, the essence of social democracy. It's what I call the social hammock, as opposed to the social safety net.

Let me define those terms, as I am using them, so everyone is clear about what I am saying.

Social Safety Net - government programs to assist those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for themselves, whether physically or mentally. And those, who are temporarily unable to (for which the assistance is temporary, like unemployment insurance is supposed to be).

Social Hammock - government provides things, such as healthcare or rent subsidies, as a couple of examples, for those able to provide it for themselves.

Now, some claim that social democracy provides "equality of opportunity" by providing a hammock. As if this somehow means everyone starts from the same place on their journey through life. But this, clearly, isn't true, for regardless of how much is provided, there will always be those with more advantages than others. Which means you aren't providing "equality of opportunity", you are trying to narrow the advantages that some have over others.

How is this, a proper function of government?

PB, I doubt any rational responsible adult actually supports your "social hammock" - what happens is that the social safety net gets distorted through selfishness, greed, politics etc. As I said in a debate on a similar topic - we will always have some freeloaders and deadbeats with us - they want the hammock and too many politicos etc. are willing to provide it to get their vote.

As you well know, we differ re: health care - the reality is that far too many people are NOT able to provide it for themselves, insurance companies put profit ahead of lives and so forth. You have to factor in that ALL corporations meet the essential definition of psychopathy - a corporate organization has no conscience. Also money ALWAYS has the final say in any corporation.

Before you blast or dismiss me as a left wing loonie, I speak from nearly 40 years experience in management in the corporate world. Whenever I heard the expression - "a business decision" - I always wanted to get my back into a corner because I knew it was code for - "we're going to screw the staff and customers to make a few more bucks".

[Mark1948]

SJB provides the interocular revelation - corporate greed and corporate welfare are major issues. We have a local bank exec that basically drove poor loan policy to expand the empire ending up with a failing institution and gets a parachute of $24 million. Where is the logic in that.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

the reality is that far too many people are NOT able to provide it for themselves,

First, the percentage of people without access to healthcare insurance in the US is nowhere near the 10%+ it was reported during the Obamacare fiasco. (A third of the people referred to in this way are here illegally. Another third don't know that they've already earned care or don't like the care they qualify for. The last third combines people transiting from one job to another, professional young adults who opt for higher paychecks, people who are taking the first steps towards starting a business and, of course, people without healthcare insurance. So the numbers are way, way off. That in addition to the fact that it's illegal for any hospital to turn away anyone who shows up in an ER with any ailment at all.)

Second, it's the regulation/nationalization of healthcare that makes healthcare so expensive. Thee's nothing about healthcare that exempts it from this economic law. From mandates - why should I have to pay for fertility treatments, acupuncture, chiropractors, shrinks etc, if I'm not interested or can't afford these options? - to Medicare/Medicaid not covering their bills, passing on the 10-15% difference to those who pay privately, to FDA testing costing over a $1B for many drugs, to allowing other nations to set price caps, etc., etc., etc., it's the government that makes healthcare as expensive as it is.

All this being separate from the fact that healthcare should cost a lot. We want the field flooded in cash because we want the very best minds working in this field, we want profit-motivated innovation, etc.

insurance companies put profit ahead of lives and so forth

.

That's fiscal reality, brother. Under a less regulated/collectivized system, insurance companies would be able to spell out their terms more accurately than they do, would be free to offer essentials only policies, etc (catastrophic insurance without superfluous mandates costs about as much as the average American's cell phone bill.)

They'd also be addressing the needs of a very different market, as most people would have saved enough by the time they'd retire to not need so-called comprehensive coverage. That's in addition to the massive competition insurers would be up against if current regulations - mandates, state borders, etc., - were lifted.

Patients would have far more autonomy and their healthcare funds would be invested in the economy until they needed them, not thrown away with little more than a government IOU offered in return.

(Thanks to massive regulation and the redistribution insurers are forced into, today's medical insurance companies are private only in name. They do not represent what would be available under Capitalism (same is true for the entire US medical system, BTW.))

You have to factor in that ALL corporations meet the essential definition of psychopathy - a corporate organization has no conscience.

You have to factor in the power of a truly free consumer, the options that would be on offer in a truly free economy, the deterring effect of a government focussed solely on Rights protection, etc. (For all the noise, there's very little insurance company misconduct given the laws and environment they operate under.)

Also money ALWAYS has the final say in any corporation.

Whereas government gets to print it as it pleases, passing on the consequences to the next generation, or the one after that, etc. Fact is, we can only afford what we can afford. There's only one economic model that maximizes both return on dollars spent and the capacity to earn more dollars.

Before you blast or dismiss me as a left wing loonie, I speak from nearly 40 years experience in management in the corporate world.

We all speak with corporate experience of one degree or another, both as employees and consumers. We also speak from experience as citizens compelled by ever-growing governments.

And again: first hand experience, in and of itself, isn't an argument. At best, that experience gives you the insight to make a solid case. Whenever you're ready . . .

[LandLocked66c]

Money beats Soul, every time - Jim Morrison

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by LandLocked66c

Money beats Soul, every time - Jim Morrison

That notion has been around for a long, long time. It's founded on a very irrational moral standard, one that has very little to do with the human experience.

Besides, aren't government types also vulnerable to the same sort of corruption?

[LandLocked66c]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

That notion has been around for a long, long time. It's founded on a very irrational moral standard, one that has very little to do with the human experience.

Irrational to who? U, me, everyone? Everyone has there own reality/rationale...

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Besides, aren't government types also vulnerable to the same sort of corruption?

Is this a rhetorical question?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by LandLocked66c

Irrational to who? U, me, everyone? Everyone has there own reality/rationale...

That doesn't mean that there isn't an objective reality/rationale. (There'd better be. Without one you and I couldn't communicate as much as we have.)

Is this a rhetorical question?

Sort of.