The Big C

[dadagoboi]

We have many evolutionary urges that society demands we suppress.  Playing the biology card denies the existence of free will and the ability to reason.

If you can identify an unhealthy lifestyle and continue to pursue it you are either sick or careless.  Sick, you need help.  Careless, you deserve the consequences.

'Eat Less, Move More' is a fairly simple concept.

[uwe]

Ah, Free Will!!! Another Rush name check. ! - )

[dadagoboi]

Ah, Free Will!!! Another Rush name check. ! - )

Actually Catholic school religion class.  I'm a Luddite, prog rock baffles me.

[OldManC]

Ayn Rand is the patron saint of this laissez faire capitalism gone wild. 

I think this explains more about Ayn Rand than all the other comments. Not to argue anything about her character or whether her philosophy was valid (though I like many of her premises), but the 'gone wild' part is the exact opposite of the kind of capitalism I envision when reading about Howard Roark or Dagny Taggart. There are characters in Rand's fiction that certainly resemble the ruthless, take no prisoners, screw everyone else 'capitalist' types you hear about in business (whether today or 50 years ago), but they're the bad guys in her stories. This topic is too varied and complex to do any justice in an internet forum, but I don't think Rand would be a fan at all of today's version of 'Capitalism' (in which 'crony' seems to have far more weight than accomplishment or innovation).

Kenny, you make some great, if sad points about the NHS and the practical realities of what I know of as single payer healthcare. Again, it's a broad topic but it's sad to think of how many people who need that help could fall through the cracks when the only safety net is the monolith in charge or running it all.

[Freuds_Cat]

Ah, Free Will!!! Another Rush name check. ! - )

Had a band for 5 years with that name back in the 80's. Did well locally, good bunch of musicians.

[Dave W]

PPS: I have a hunch that ole Ayn, though she had officially a hetero-relationship/marriage, was a, what's the official term used here again?, a, uhum, "doughnut bumper" too. Being lesbian doesn't prevent you from having irksome political concepts. ; - )

I don't think so. By all accounts she was aggressively heterosexual. Ever read about the history of her long-running affair with the much younger Nathaniel Branden and the fallout when he left her for a woman his age?

I'm not exempted, either...I graduated from college at 170 lbs and just dropped 12 pounds to back off from 202 down to 190.  Being 60 years old is no excuse, either.  I'd be a lot better off at 180.

I weighed myself this morning and I'm at 163 (at age 63). That's a few pounds less than when I graduated from high school. Not bragging, I just don't eat nearly as much as the people I know who complain about their weight. I couldn't possibly eat that much.

Unfortunately some muscle loss comes with age. My weight is about the same but the pounds have rearranged themselves. 

[uwe]

Frau Rand's anti-collectivist obsession was such that she despised any kind of getting together of people for a common goal (outside of family relations). As such, lobbying groups, political parties, industry associations, religious groups, cartels and labor unions - all things that make capitalism run smoothly most of the time - were all of potentially evil nature to her - the individual, the sacred ego over everything! Her vision of a society would be one constantly de- and reconstructing itself as new generations of brilliant-minded and gifted individuals step forth pushing away the old ones. She would't have let the investment banks or AIG be saved, but hope that from their rubble something newer and better would arise. It's an ideology - not unlike communism btw in that respect - that projects everything into the future, ignoring history and being callous about the present which to ayn Rand is always just a roadblock to the greater things that will flow from that one holy source of innovation and progress, the superior individual human mind. The more you think about it, the more it transpires that it is an utterly unrealistic concept which explains why she never had a major following even among conservatives, but remained a political/philosophical cult. And Rome was not only not built in a day, but also not by an individual, but by a collective - like all civilisation.

"Again, it's a broad topic but it's sad to think of how many people who need that help could fall through the cracks when the only safety net is the monolith in charge or running it all."

Ah, George, that conservative nightmare/demon of the big bad state, an evergreen topic. Would you be more agreeable to non-private healthcare if it was mandatory on a state level? On a county level? On a village level? Monliths can be cumbersome and inefficient, yes, but they also spread risk on many shoulders. If you fear that a national health insurance will let people fall through the cracks, then what is the crack-sealing alternative? Has free market health insurance created health insurance for everyone who needs it in the US? There was obviously a demand, but over the last 100 years I did not see tens of thousands of small, highly efficient and financially stable insurances spring up in the USA that could give health cover to anybody who wants and needs it. So for once the market forces were at a loss to rectify a problem of large parts of the population. How come? Show me that army of entrepreneurial dwarves that will do the job of the perceived monolith and seal all the cracks. I haven't seen it. Not only Atlas would shrug at that. ; - )

Can we now get back to our other evergreen subject of anal fears, fixations and f***ed-up jokes?!

Uwe

[Chaser001]

Years ago, mostly during the 90s, I spent a great deal of time reading philosophy books, mostly existentialism.  Eventually, I realized it made more sense to spend my free time attempting to get better on bass.  So, I have to admit that my knowledge of philosophy is incomplete.  This has been interesting, though.  It makes me think even less of Ayn Rand. 

[Barklessdog]

in which 'crony' seems to have far more weight than accomplishment or innovation

I think this is what applies to all parties & governments, it's the way business is done, through greed & self preservation. They all look great on paper or promise this & that, but it always seems to come down to money & power, never the common man.

I live in the land of "cronies" (Chicago). I don't care what party, they always seem to be on the take for someone of "their" interest here. Its also the way one is elected. You can't run a campaign without a lot of money. Where does one get that money? 

[uwe]

Communal government - in any country and under any system - is always the one most prone to corruption. You can't really run a city in a dogmatic, alienating way, so you make compromises and do favors ... it's a breeding ground. The only cure is having a change of city government now and then, that doesn't stop corruption, but it prevents that it is always the same group of people profitting from it! Give everyone a chance to be corrupt once in a while and things even out in the long run. My cynical two cents!

[OldManC]

Uwe, I don't claim to have the answer for health care (universal or otherwise) but the U.S. model has been intertwined with government and employment for at least a generation longer than I've been alive, so even at its best over the last 60+ years it was a model of inefficiency. That being said, there have still been many, many organizations dedicated to making sure health services were available to those who couldn't afford it. I didn't hear of many (if any) such groups in the UK when I lived there, seemingly because health care was 'taken care of' by the state (other than for those who could and did choose to pay for private insurance, even there). I wasn't all that aware of such things back then so they may have existed (charities that helped locally, rather than in Ethiopia or wherever), but I'm genuinely curious if there are such groups in the UK or Europe?

My grandfather delivered something like 3000 babies in his career as a doctor and was probably paid more in chickens than dollars (when he was paid at all). He did it because he loved babies and felt it was his duty to help those who needed it, whether they could pay or not. I often hear about Doctors Without Borders and many other such groups, and while I applaud and appreciate what they do, I wonder why there aren't such groups that work toward providing that kind of service closer to home. Even lawyers work pro bono sometimes!

[Chaser001]

Politicians "failed to address the root problem, Americans pay 50% more for doctors, hospitals and drugs, than subscribers to national health plans in Germany, France and other decadent socialist European countries." Yet, insurers hate reform, will self-destruct America first.

That's a quote from an article I just happened to be reading a few minutes ago.  I won't quote more because even though it is written by a business analyst, there is a lot of political discussion in the article, too.  I think the guy's name is Paul Farrell, though. 

[dadagoboi]

Communal government - in any country and under any system - is always the one most prone to corruption. You can't really run a city in a dogmatic, alienating way, so you make compromises and do favors ... it's a breeding ground. The only cure is having a change of city government now and then, that doesn't stop corruption, but it prevents that it is always the same group of people profitting from it! Give everyone a chance to be corrupt once in a while and things even out in the long run. My cynical two cents!

Problem as I see it is that the new crooks are the same as the old crooks.  Not much difference on the national level between the dems and repubs in outcome for the average person.  The top 1% of our citizenry controls 24% of the country's wealth.  They are for the most part quite happy with their health and retirement plans.  Wars only affect their children for the better (higher corporate profits from an industry very few dare question).  On the local level the changing of administrations is almost always a passing of the baton to your kid or crony, especially in Chicago or Louisiana.  Unfortunately it doesn't even out. There's is a permanent and growing underclass that receives little real benefit from the system in the US.

Uwe, I don't claim to have the answer for health care (universal or otherwise) but the U.S. model has been intertwined with government and employment for at least a generation longer than I've been alive, so even at its best over the last 60+ years it was a model of inefficiency. That being said, there have still been many, many organizations dedicated to making sure health services were available to those who couldn't afford it. I didn't hear of many (if any) such groups in the UK when I lived there, seemingly because health care was 'taken care of' by the state (other than for those who could and did choose to pay for private insurance, even there). I wasn't all that aware of such things back then so they may have existed (charities that helped locally, rather than in Ethiopia or wherever), but I'm genuinely curious if there are such groups in the UK or Europe?

My grandfather delivered something like 3000 babies in his career as a doctor and was probably paid more in chickens than dollars (when he was paid at all). He did it because he loved babies and felt it was his duty to help those who needed it, whether they could pay or not. I often hear about Doctors Without Borders and many other such groups, and while I applaud and appreciate what they do, I wonder why there aren't such groups that work toward providing that kind of service closer to home. Even lawyers work pro bono sometimes!

Re the current state of U.S.healthcare vis a vis the rest of the industrialized world I recommend Michael Moore's "Sicko".  Except for the silly segment on Gitmo all in all it's pretty objective.  I don't think the richest country in the world should need charity health care.

[uwe]

Charity versus welfare (or healthcare) state ... George, you sure have a knack of picking fundamental topics!!! Ok, where's my can opener for this can of worms ...

1. Charity is commendable. Even in the most welfarishest of states it still will make sense.

2. There is an interdependency between charity and governmental distribution of welfare aid. The US has more of the former and less of the latter, in Europe it's the other way around. There is a cultural divide here.

3. Charity is basically anti-democratic. It sees the wealthy few giving to the perceived needy AND worthy. And - another issue - the perceived needy AND worthy are all too often the "human baby seals" as opposed to, say, "orphaned cobra babies". A foundation donating money for the resocializing of former sex offenders just doesn't sound as good as one financing aids research or the education of - danger!!! stereotype approaching!!! - black teenage single moms in Chicago. There is also the issue that whenever a huge wealth is donated to something good, it is usually tax efficient and thus withdraws funds from the state. I know, George, your argument would be "so much the better, the state is an inefficient money waster, charity is effective and actually gets things done!" And that has a true core.

4. The welfare state is blind. And to a degree it is good (or sensible) that it is, because that way the "orphaned baby cobras" get something too. Think of the blindfolded symbol of justice, it is a meatphor for neutrality. Welfare is neutral, charity isn't and it doesn't have to be.

5. We all know that welfare can be addictive, there are generations of people who never get out of it in the US and in Europe. It becomes a way of life. That is not a good thing. I'm the first to say if you get money from the state, it's only fair that you work for it (if you healthwise can) and if that means cleaning public parks so be it. But charity has issues too. The black teenage single mom in Chicago probably doesn't care whether the money comes from the Chicago municipal welfare authority or from the George Carlston & Sons Foundation. If you're hungry enough, any hand is good enough not to be bitten. But let's take the Midwest auto worker, all of the sudden out of a job and his tried and trusted health insurance, with a wife with freshly diagnosed cancer who gets shafted by her (additional) private health insurance because she didn't disclose how her aunt in Montana died of breast cancer. Would you rather see her supported by charity or by a welfare/healthcare system that is basically a contract between the people to finance individual need via the solidarity of all? I would prefer welfare to charity, though I'd be thankful for and humbled by both. To me, welfare/healthcare should finance the bare necessities and the ability to flow with the economic lower quarter of society, charity should pinpoint additional need and that is where it makes perfect sense and is, yes, more effecient and more targeted than that oafish blind welfare/healthcare state.

6. Going back to item 2: There is no doubt about charity culture being more prominent and more widespread in the US than in Europe. But that doesn't mean that it's unheard of here. When the Spouses Gates erected another charity foundation (all credit to them for that) in the US some months ago, there was a discussion in the German media about why nothing of the sort happened here and professional charity foundation advisers said "it does happen here, but people like to keep their anonimity about it". And they don't donate hundreds of millions like Herr and Frau Gates (mainly because we don't have that many billionaires in Germany), but rather tens of millions and single digit millions. And, yes, it's tax efficent here too. Why are they so secretive about it? Culture. I'm not insinuating that there is anything overt, much less obscene about the Gates charity work in the US, but in Old Europe it would be regarded as noveaux rich. You wait until you die here before you let your charity foundation go public. That said, charity work - doesn't anything in this world? - has become more Americanized in Germany too in recent years.

Do I work pro bono? Some, but certainly not as much as I could. Without eishing to sound arrogant, I can donate money more easily than time. And the money from one billable hour of mine can do more good than if I worked that hour pro bono. Edith and I support Amnesty International, a couple of newspaper subscriptions in a home for the elderly, ad hoc stuff such as this year's Chile earthquake and the Pakistani flood, the usual Christmas stuff. I pay church tax even though I am a card-carrying agnostic and have alienated myself from any belief in a higher being since I was about 10 years old. Church tax in Germany is mandatory unless you opt out. I haven't (to the despair of my tax advisor) because the churches in Germany, when they are not occupied molesting altar boys, support hospitals, kindergartens, orphanages, schools, charitable work etc. Of course I could donate the respective percentage of my income tax to charities directly, but I'm a lazy bum and don't want to be bothered with the burden of the selection. Other than that I shun legal tax reduction schemes (again to the despair of my tax advisor and all those wealth and asset managers at my bank - LOL -, you should see how their faces whiten when you tell them "if this investment brings tax benefits, then that rules it out for me") and pay my 42% German income tax gladly, hoping some good might come out of it, blind welfare state or not. I've had free schooling and a free law degree from the behemoth state, I'm ok with giving something back, even if the Autobahns are not free, they tend to be clogged!

Uwe

[Psycho Bass Guy]

The top 1% of our citizenry controls 24% of the country's wealth. 

Not so. The top 1% in the US holds about 90% of its wealth. The top 5% stretches it to 95%. The top 1% pays 24% of its taxes: different matter entirely.