DiscussMormonism.com

There are those on the right who decry the existence of the social safety net that was created in the New Deal. There are those who have made it their primary mission to dismantle that net. They assert that the net only creates dependence. Whether or not the net is popular with the public is another matter, one that depends partly on how the question is framed. If the discussion is benefits that the individual in particular needs and/or wants, then the net is popular. (see: tea partiers wanting social security left alone) If the discussion can be tilted towards welfare, and if the background of the discussion is that welfare has been historically (wrongfully) linked with minorities, then it is less popular. (see: Reagan’s buck)

One interesting phenomenon that occurs is when those who decry the existence of this net still end up using it.

There are famous examples, of course. Ayn Rand using social security and medicare when it was clear that her lung cancer would financially destroy her otherwise. (I understand that there are those who argue that Rand was not involved in this, but the fact is that the person invested with overseeing her financial interests thought she needed it.) Charles Koch letting Friedrich Hayek know he could qualify for social security and medicare. There are less interesting examples in everyday life, some of whom probably post on this board. I know examples in “real life” as well. There is always a justification of why that individual, in particular, deserves the benefit even when that same individual does not believe the benefit should exist at all. Those justifications don’t particularly interest me.

What interests me is what I find far more relevant: the fact that, even in the lives of those who assert that the social safety nets are destructive and ought to be eliminated, there are times when those same social safety nets provide those very individuals support that they need.

And that’s what the social safety net is about. I think there are legitimate causes for concern in some individuals for whom it becomes a way of life, and obviously better intervention is needed in those cases. But should those cases justify eliminating a system that benefits so many others, who never abuse it?

And how can people who have gone through circumstances in their lives when they really needed the social safety net take the position that it ought to be eliminated? If Ayn Rand got to a point in her life where she really needed medicare, could Ayn Rand, in good conscience, oppose it in general?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/ ... icare.html

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspo ... y_943.html

beastie wrote:There are those on the right who decry the existence of the social safety net that was created in the New Deal........

I hate saying this, but I don't think the rank-and-file angry Republican is bright enough to see the hypocrisy. They are against entitlements in general because the propaganda they feed of tells them to be. But if you were to suggest that they shouldn't draw Social Security or Medicare benefits because doing so would cause them to be victims of the nanny state they abhor, they'll say no way--they paid into those programs, and they are entitled to the benefits.

The fact that Romney and Ryan are now campaigning against Obama for cutting Medicare shows how they lack even a very basic grasp of the issues they are angry about.

Throwing in some details on that last example, the ACA creates giant subsidies in favor of the old at the expense of the young--that is one of the sausage-making parts of the deal that the AARP required in order to endorse the plan. Older folks are much better off now than they were before--the 700-billion notwithstanding.

If the Republicans wanted to make a valid argument about the ACA, a really good argument is that it is unfair to the young--old folks already are getting a great deal on other government programs, and this throws them even more benefits at the expense of the same folks that already have the bill for the rest of it.

But the Republicans aren't making that valid criticism: they are making an invalid criticism to the opposite effect, because they think they'll get more votes from lies than from the truth.

Analytics wrote:If the Republicans wanted to make a valid argument about the ACA, a really good argument is that it is unfair to the young--old folks already are getting a great deal on other government programs, and this throws them even more benefits at the expense of the same folks that already have the bill for the rest of it.

But the Republicans aren't making that valid criticism: they are making an invalid criticism to the opposite effect, because they think they'll get more votes from lies than from the truth.

The message undercurrent they are embracing is that Obama is stealing from older folks, who are entitled to their Medicare, to pay for health care for the undeserving and lazy (mostly blacks and illegal immigrants).

I don't think that's what's happening Krose. Rather the strategy is to create a wall of confusion to prevent people from voting against Romney on account of Ryan's entitlement reform proposals. It's not to make people think Obama is after their medicare so much as it is to have "low information" voters say, "I don't know what to think!" Because that is good enough to mitigate the damage. It's no coincidence this line got heavy play after Ryan was selected.

Just because you don't believe in socialism and you don't vote for it doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it. If I were not responsible for the taxes than maybe Beastie would have a point. But as long as I have to pay I believe I have as much right as anyone else to help. Of course that is hypothetical and even when I desperately needed it I was never eligible. Real world socialism is not even close to fair and I can share with you 1000s of cases of people who get things they don't deserve and people who should have been helped but were not. For those of us who socialism does not smile upon, don't be surprised when we say at the polls we'd rather take our chances wth the market.

ajax18 wrote:Just because you don't believe in socialism and you don't vote for it doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it. If I were not responsible for the taxes than maybe Beastie would have a point. But as long as I have to pay I believe I have as much right as anyone else to help. Of course that is hypothetical and even when I desperately needed it I was never eligible. Real world socialism is not even close to fair and I can share with you 1000s of cases of people who get things they don't deserve and people who should have been helped but were not. For those of us who socialism does not smile upon, don't be surprised when we say at the polls we'd rather take our chances wth the market.

Why were you not eligible? And can you share at least some of those 1000s of cases of people getting things they don't deserve, and the reverse?

Why were you not eligible? And can you share at least some of those 1000s of cases of people getting things they don't deserve, and the reverse?

Buying health insurance from the school was going to increase the amount of loan money I would have to take. I ended up suffering a very painful inguinal hernia, partly just due to the stress of trying to make the grade. My first quote was $10k to have it fixed. I called the welfare office. They said I'd have to come to an appointment before anything could be decided. I missed class to be told, "You're not pregnant and you don't have kids. Those are the only cases we're covering now." A lot of times you don't get a reason. You have to hire lawyers if you want to get that far and spend more money still. In WV the lawyer gets 1/3 of a permanently injured worker's workers compensation check each month as long as the worker lives. You're at the mercy of whoever is in charge of dolng out the resources. Now according to Obamacare, a nonelected group of appointed bureaucrets decide who gets healthcare. Working no longer betters your chances of getting medical help or attention.

A vietnam veteran was denied disability even though he had lost his leg at the hip in battle. Military pensions apparently did not contain a cost of living increase and his pension was now little more than $250/month. No help from the welfare office, even when he showed a copious number of deskjobs he'd applied for unsuccessfully.

I saw a fellow teacher recently diagnosed with cancer. When the school board got word of it, they immediately fired her. I doubt medicaid did much for her. I hope they at least gave her a few painkillers to ease her transistion out of this world. She was probably too sick to fight it and work the system the way you need to if you want to get money out of it.

Cases of abuse of the system

I was asked to sign a form for a lady to receive diability benefits because she had, "Dry eye." Yes, people get disability for this, apparently if your in cahoots with the all powerful distributor of the resources.

I was asked to sign a form to provide $1200/month disability payments to the parents of an 8 yoa girl with esotropia. First of all, "Why is an 8 yoa girl considered a wage earner in the family." Secondly esotropia while definitely a condition that requires medical treatment, is certainly not disabling for most jobs, and yet this child was rewarded permanent disability status for the rest of her life. This family had been pulling money for that each month since she was 2 yoa. This wasn't for medical treatment mind you, just straight cash.

Even with this living off disability isn't much of a living. Most of these guys work under the table. It's not always selling drugs but it's always something that can't be easily traced by the IRS. I'd ask people what they do for a living and there was a huge number of people employed as private investigators to track down medicare fraud, medcaid fraud, insurance fraud. It went on and on. Selling food stamps for cash that was supposed to give the kids some food, etc.

My point is that socialism is still unfair. It might give social justice to some, but it only does that by being unfair to another. It gives people an incentive to put their energy and mental power into professions like law or simply beating the system because that's what pays. People aren't motivated to produce something useful or create wealth and that is where the biggest loss comes in addition to the fraud. When a nations smartest people are becoming lawyers and politicians rather than scientists and engineers, the nation truly does start to digest itself from the insides.

Analytics wrote:The fact that Romney and Ryan are now campaigning against Obama for cutting Medicare shows how they lack even a very basic grasp of the issues they are angry about.

It always fascinates me how blatantly effective liberal brainwashing is....

All you have to do is talk to ANY Hospital administrator, Nurses that handle seniors, and even the seniors themselves, and they will tell you point blank that Medicare was SLASHED greatly by Obama. And I'm talking about even the regular folk who aren't political.

These Hospital and Nursing Home employees see how they don't get the same money they got before, right AFTER Obama's legislation. The seniors themselves see how they can't pay for the same procedures they used to, because they are now getting less!!!

You speak of "truth".... Buddy, you are FAR from it.
I've ridden the bus with Seniors, I've known several from many different hospitals that care for the elderly. You live in LIBERAL FANTASY LAND if you think Obama didn't cut Medicare and Medicaid.

ldsfaq,

I'm glad you chose to participate on this thread, because I'd like you to answer a question I asked on a different thread. I feel comfortable asking this personal question because I remember you openly discussing this on ZLMB.

Have you or your family ever received any form of government assistance? I remember you were out of work for a while with dependent children.

ajax,

I should be able to reply to you later after work. In the meantime, if you're interested, you may want to google "sjogren's syndrome".