Lord. I forgot. It's like quick sand. One can't have a succinct response... an avalanche of words seems to be the only answer...
Everyone, I'm going in...
^Advances in medicine, good sir.
Right... advances in medicene. And I'm sure NONE of the money for that came from Federal monies. It was just TOTALLY the free market.
...And, again, I'm sure it was TOTALLY private money that contributed to those advancements.
If it had been--i.e., had the Federal Government not meddled unconstitutionally into the affairs of the private sector--it would have been even more succesfull than it actually was.
Well reasoned response. One that is TOTALLY unprovable. But, there you go.
Neither one of us can prove that either way.
All we can say, for a fact, that government funding medical research, either given to universities, or to private institution through grants, helped advance medicine.
There have been advances in medicine over the centuries without the "assistance" of government bureaucrats.
That's right. And when did we start seeing a significant INCREASE in the life span of humanity?
And I'm sure you have heard all the cries (made by the Left as well as the Right) against evil greedy pharmaceuticals who supress competition...through lobbying the government, and their friends in the FDA.
Yeah. What's your point? Are you saying a company shouldn't have a right to make a profit from their work, by using the government to enforce that?
Now, there have been companies that have taken undue advantage of the FDA and patent laws, but, why do you think companies shouldn't make a profit? Should they give it away? I'm confused, are you a libertarian or not?
Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?
You're right, we don't need the government, I should totally trust the company what they tell me is in the food and water they sell me. Like, why would a company LIE?
As for education--have you SEEN how educational standards fell...AFTER the federal government got involved?
Give me a date. Because, until recently, like the past 15-20 years, the public school system seems to have been pretty good. If not great. So, let's be a tad more specific, shall we?
Besides, one could argue, the public school system started falling apart when the right decided they wanted to include such stellar ideas as Intelligent Design.
Except I'm not the one defending your POV. You are.
Yeah. So? I chose a date. At random. You don't seem satisfied with that. So... why should I keep doing your work. I think I defended my point pretty well. Why do we live without the Government involved in our lives, well, in 1919, you were gonna live 40 years LESS. Done and done.
He had intended seniors to get Social Security a few years before their deaths (again, the retirement age). He did not intend for seniors to retire 20 or 30 years before they die, and then be on the dole for that long.
Have you asked him? Seriously though, so what? Some of the Founder of this country owned people. Should we go back to that?
The reason WHY FDR thought we should have Social Security hasn't changed, just how long.
As it were...FDR himself described the welfare system in general as a "narcotic" and a "subtle destroyer of the human spirit". He had intended to phase it out when the Depression ended--and it was therefore, theoretically, no longer needed.
Links?
However, I don't entirely disagree. But sometimes people need help. Sometimes they need government to step in and say, here's a roof over your head for you and your family, we're gonna help you get back on your feet.
You know what's a subtle destroyer of the human spirit? Some of the language aimed at those on welfare. It's dehumanizing. It's belittling. People need help, not to be kicked while they are down.
Of course, he died before he could do that--Truman kept it in existance--and Johnson expanded it.
Good for Johnson. Thanks for Medicare!
Exactly. He found one--because he was of sound body in mind. I respect him in the highest degree for looking for work, and not resting until he got one.
Which doesn't actually address the point. The point you were making is there is some Federal voodoo making people retire early. Is there? Is there material from the government that says, hey, retire! It's the easy way to live!
You find me that document, and then I'll believe you that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wants people to retire while they are still of strong mind and body.
Currently, it's just when people are ELIGIBLE. Ie, the power is in the hands of the individual when they want to start collecting.
That is why you'd best get private insurance long beforehand. As it stands, the S.S. lockbox is actually incentive not to get such insurance beforehand, because the government's already providing for it. That's why it's best to wean the country off the dole. More on this later.
I'll tell you my story. I can't get health insurance on the private market. I can't. I have a pre-existing condition. One that is NOT life threatening, nor requiring of medication.
I applied to three places, each turned me down. I even offered MORE money.... you know, trying to make the free market work. They said no.
So, now I'm in a state program.
AND, perhaps the situation is, the company you work for provides insurance while you are with them, but don't after you leave, retire, what then? Should they have been paying for something all along? Have two insurances?
AND, Social Security has nothing to do with medical insurance. You're thinking of MEDICARE.
Social Security is there to help people in retirement who may not have made a lot of money in their lives, OR, I don't know, had their 401Ks wiped out by the whims of some selfish CEOs.
Frankly, one could easily argue that the reason retirement insurance is not a prominent in the private sector is because of the government cornering the market!
One could argue that. But that would be wrong.
I'll explain the reason why insurance won't cover me.
Insurance is a bet. I'm betting that I'll get sick, and the insurance is betting I won't. They look at my health situation, and go... hmm... he's got a condition. He's not a good bet for us.
Same thing with the old. They aren't good bets. They will COST THEM MONEY.
It's not about the market, it's about the bet.
One could argue that the insurance companies WANT the Government to continue to provide Medicare for the elderly... it means less payout for them.
However, if the person is of sound mind and body--and if insurance companies were allowed to compete across state lines--the chance increases that bigger names such as Blue Cross Blue Shield would market to such people--again, provided the government would not corner the market.
It's not about the market and competition. If you were paying for someone's health care, would you rather have someone that is young and healthy or someone who is older and healthy?
Which one?
Probably the young and healthy. Why? Because that young and healthy person most likely won't have the same issues that someone who is 70 and healthy will have.
No, not directly. It is the low retirement age which indirectly does so for many.
Not cut--reformed, with a voucher option added, for those who prefer the superiority of private insurance. With more and more senior citizens choosing that path, our country can be weaned off of Social Security.
What happens if you are in a healthcare facility... what happens when the voucher money runs out?
As Lwaxana Troi noted in "Half A Life" (TNG), you can't just assume that once you've reached a certain age, you're no longer able to contribute to society.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Nor is it an argument against Social Security.
But, ok,
On the contrary. I am pointing out that it is, frankly, irrational to use a "set" age as the standard for retirement.
As I said, maybe we need to change the age of Social Security eligibility.
But, that's not what you are ultimately arguing for... you want to get rid of it.
But the problem of health and security doesn't change. It still exists. Maybe not so much at 70, but at 80? 85? Yeah, still there.
