Poverty and Health Care

[Traveler]

In the year 1960 the most complete censes was conducted by the United States of America. At that time and according to the censes; if just 2% of the gross national product of the USA was transferred to the poor then poverty would cease to exist in the USA. The intellectuals and scholars debated the various aspects of this concept but by the late 60’s that idea had caught on with political “liberals”.

The idea was considered noble and opposition was soon labeled as cruel heartless conservatives while proponents called themselves compassionate liberals willing to care for the poor. Think of it – just 2% was all that was needed to end poverty.

The political initiative was given the name of “The Great Society”. But it did not work and fell a little short. So it was argued that the idea was good but the money required was underestimated. Thus with just a little more money we could still eliminate poverty in the USA according to plan. Then a little more was added again. After a while it became obvious that we could not eliminate all facets of poverty but we did have an “obligation” to help the poor and that ending The Great Society would be “mean” spirited and hurt the poor.

The reason that I am writing this post is to make a point. The point is: If the concept of The Great Society had worked there would be no talk of a need today for “Health Care Reform” for the sake of the poor. There would be no reason to assist the poor with health care because there would be no poor to help. The only reason that health care is even on the table is because of the total and complete failure of The Great Society as political and economic experiment. By the fact that we are considering “Health Care Reform” that does not seek any vestment from the poor proves that we have learned nothing from the continuing failures of the entitlement granted by the failure of such concepts that defined the something for nothing of The Great Society.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Traveler, even if Nixon had not dismantled the Great Society programs, what does this have to do with people not having adequate health insurance coverage? Even those above the poverty level may work for a small business that has no health plan or else have a preexisting condition, that health care plans will point to, in order to disallow needed health care.

[Maxel]

Moksha:

The moral of the story is that throwing money at the poor won't fix their problems. It hasn't when America has tried it in the past, and it won't in this latest incarnation of nationalized healthcare. However, many of us haven't learned the lessons the past has to teach us.

[tefor]

Unfortunately, throwing money at the poor seems to be a lot easier than spending time with them to help them work out their challenges; that way, people can let the government take care of them and forget they exist.

When families (immediate or extended) and communities are unable or unwilling to help out the less fortunate, the government tends to step in to fill the void.

[Maxel]

Big Government has always been the adversary's response to the family and community. Thanks for pointing that out, tefor.

[Moksha]

Moksha:

The moral of the story is that throwing money at the poor won't fix their problems.

Man, is this ever a tired cliché. John D. Rockefeller used to throw dimes at street urchins. That is the closest this cliché has come to being real. Social programs aimed at the poor have made their existence more bearable and has perhaps stemmed the tide of rebellion at the time when the stability of society may have been undermined by rampant poverty.

It hasn't when America has tried it in the past, and it won't in this latest incarnation of nationalized health care.

Neither of us is old enough to remember the tenor of American life prior to the enactment of Social Security, but those were hellish times.

However, many of us haven't learned the lessons the past has to teach us.

Wish people could have learned the lesson of the Vietnam War before we became entangled in Iraq. As far as health care goes, I an hoping enough have learned the lesson of Abel's death in being their brother's keeper, as well as the lesson of being like the Good Samaritan.

[Just_A_Guy]

Neither of us is old enough to remember the tenor of American life prior to the enactment of Social Security, but those were hellish times.

Liberals can't have it both ways. Either it worked (in which case, why are you asking me for more money?) or it didn't (in which case, why are you asking me for more money?).

[jadams_4040]

In the year 1960 the most complete censes was conducted by the United States of America. At that time and according to the censes; if just 2% of the gross national product of the USA was transferred to the poor then poverty would cease to exist in the USA. The intellectuals and scholars debated the various aspects of this concept but by the late 60’s that idea had caught on with political “liberals”.

The idea was considered noble and opposition was soon labeled as cruel heartless conservatives while proponents called themselves compassionate liberals willing to care for the poor. Think of it – just 2% was all that was needed to end poverty.

The political initiative was given the name of “The Great Society”. But it did not work and fell a little short. So it was argued that the idea was good but the money required was underestimated. Thus with just a little more money we could still eliminate poverty in the USA according to plan. Then a little more was added again. After a while it became obvious that we could not eliminate all facets of poverty but we did have an “obligation” to help the poor and that ending The Great Society would be “mean” spirited and hurt the poor.

The reason that I am writing this post is to make a point. The point is: If the concept of The Great Society had worked there would be no talk of a need today for “Health Care Reform” for the sake of the poor. There would be no reason to assist the poor with health care because there would be no poor to help. The only reason that health care is even on the table is because of the total and complete failure of The Great Society as political and economic experiment. By the fact that we are considering “Health Care Reform” that does not seek any vestment from the poor proves that we have learned nothing from the continuing failures of the entitlement granted by the failure of such concepts that defined the something for nothing of The Great Society.

The Traveler

It also proves that the "haves" for the most part refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion for the "have nots". even if the "have nots" are hard working patriotic honest and stallworth american citizens.

[bytor2112]

It also proves that the "haves" for the most part refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion for the "have nots". even if the "have nots" are hard working patriotic honest and stallworth american citizens.

Evidence? Sources? Total baloney....as usual. Who are the haves? How did they become the haves? Who are the have-nots? How did they become the have-nots? Who decides?

[bytor2112]

Social programs aimed at the poor have made their existence more bearable and has perhaps stemmed the tide of rebellion at the time when the stability of society may have been undermined by rampant poverty.

It has also been a trap for many....generations. The point is not whether we should help the needy....of course we should. The question is how much should we help? And when is enough.....enough? If we are to provide a social welfare network for those who are truly up against it....let's do it on a grand scale. Rather than a ridiculously small check and an apartment to live in for a few years, I would rather see the needy helped "out" of there bad situation, rather than just given the ability to barely stay afloat. Much could be achieved if DC would stop wasting tax dollars and act responsibly with our money. The reason I am opposed to health care reform is that the government screws up everything it touches and it will not serve the needs of the people.....and we are broke!!!

Simple economics folks. A finite amount of tax revenue cannot service the existing debt, much less take on the crushing burden of an even bigger debt.....a debt that will never disappear.

Edited October 25, 2009 by bytor2112
S sticks on laptop!!! Arghhh

[Palerider]

The Gov't can't solve all of our problems...they can't run the Post Office, and on and on.

[Dravin]

Bytor, you know as well as I that the only way to help or have sympathy and compassion is through the instrumentality of the government, no other way exists. Therefore if you don't support all government social programs billed as for the benefit of the "have nots" ipso facto, you refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion for the "have nots". Now Republicans are richer than Democrats (reference), we also know that republicans are opposed to social programs billed as for the benefit of the "have nots".

It all gels together:

1. You can only help or have sympathy and compassion through the instrumentality of the government.

2. Republicans are richer, aka the "haves"

3. Republicans (aka "haves") are against social programs, aka help, sympathy or compassion (because it can only happen through the instrumentality of the government).

Ergo the haves, being against social programs, refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion. The logic is undeniable.

/me removes tongue from cheek using crowbar.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Dravin

[talisyn]

It also proves that the "haves" for the most part refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion for the "have nots". even if the "have nots" are hard working patriotic honest and stallworth american citizens.

Obviously the 'have-nots' were not valiant enough in the pre-existence to have been born in comfortable circumstances.

[Moksha]

Ergo the haves, being against social programs, refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion. The logic is undeniable.

If only this could be written off as a joke, then we could all laugh heartily. The proffering of piousness is wonderful if it matched by action. The doing of good in bulk needs to come by concerted action rather than occurring spottily or in piecemeal fashion. By social compact, the government stands as the concert conductor for such action. Those who continually stand against such social programs in well-heeled clothing, may protest that inwardly they care, but in action are ravening naysayers.

[talisyn]

I think we're looking at this all wrong. Let's look at the problem from a different angle. We've been told over and over the millenium can happen now, in our own lives. What does that entail? I mean besides family home evening and temple attendance (both very good, btw). What societal changes need to take place to ensure the poor (who are always with us, just check the NT) have sufficient to their needs? What can we do, imperfect as we are, to help the work along? I would say pray for our leaders. Not just the ones we agree with. Ask for the blessing of discernment and honesty to be bestowed upon them. We can work wonderful changes on a state level, and then a national level. We are the American people (well most of us ), we are powerful, and we can be the change we wish to see in the world.

[Dravin]

If only this could be written off as a joke, then we could all laugh heartily.

It can because it is a conclusion based on flawed logic. Government programs are not the only way to help the poor or show compassion, so we can not assume (logically) that those who don't support X government program do not help or support the poor, though we can conclude if you are in support of said government program that they don't support them in the same way you do, but that they don't support them at all is not a conclusion that can be drawn.

Anyway, as the haves pay taxes and those taxes support social programs I guess they do support the poor. So even if we were to assume only those who support various social programs support the poor they do in fact support the poor. Of course that assumption is flawed. Bill Gates, one of those haves, he has this foundation, called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it helps the poor. Guess it is possible to help the poor without being a government or via a government program. There are also various charities and organizations, they also lack government status and yet they help the poor. One can also, though not quite as loaded as Bill Gates, help the poor without any programs, government or otherwise, by providing individual help.

I guess you can help and have compassion on the poor without supporting some various social program of the government or another. That is why we can have a hearty chuckle, because that the only way to help is not through the government is so blindingly obvious that the conclusion that if you aren't for some random government program you have no compassion is laughable in its logic and pretense. Now are there those that don't support government programs and lack compassion? Surely, just as there are those who support them and lack compassion, but it isn't a given. Treating it like it is, that is when the chuckles start.

By social compact, the government stands as the concert conductor for such action.

Depending on who you ask, a large part of the social compact of which the government is involved is property rights, of which money is included. Personally I don't have any money for the government to take, hopefully I will someday so how they plan on spending that money and if it is achieving its goals is of interest.

I don't have a problem with social programs, but the mantra of, "You don't support this particular program or you question its effectiveness or the ability of the government to manage it effectively you ipso facto have no compassion!" gets old because quite frankly it is false. You want to argue that you feel X social program should be maintained/supported even despite possible inefficacy go right ahead, even claim compassion as your reason. However, it does not follow logically that if you don't support X social program, or feel it is ineffective and a waste of money that one has no compassion. It could be the case, but it isn't a given.

Heck, who is more compassionate? He who supports a program that is more effective and has less overhead (meaning for the same amount of money more people can be helped)? Or he who supports a program with significant overhead meaning that less of the money that is donated makes it to those it is intended to help? What about a program that is efficiently run but has questionable practices and effects (say the made up Cadillacs for the Poor, even with low overhead surely a better use of the money could be discovered)? And finally what about a social program that actually through various reasons makes the situation of those it is supposed to help worse than it was? Why shouldn't we question if the way money is being spent is the most effective possible? Cries of, "Incompassionate person! How dare you question if spending money like we are, or if something proposed will actually help anything or is worth the cost?" doesn't help a honest discourse and introspection that can help make the social programs that exists or are proposed better. It is no more conducive to finding solutions than cries of, "Where is your patriotism!" when discussing foreign policy or the one that steals the ability to think and reason the most, "Think of the children!"

P.S. In the future Moshka using a conclusion based on intentionally flawed logic isn't the most convincing route to go. Especially when directed at the person who used the intentionally flawed logic in the first place to reach the flawed conclusion.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Dravin

[Traveler]

One of the problems about the economics of poverty is that there is more than one reason there are poor. As I have thought about this I have decided that there are 4 basic economic structures of poverty. I list them as follows:

1. Those that are poor because of substance abuse (drugs or alcohol or other)

2. Those that are poor because of physical or mental handicaps or disabilities.

3. Those that are poor because of current low economic value within a society.

4. Those that are poor because they refuse (dropped out) to be part of the economic system – a term often used is a hobo.

Please note the following:

Attempts to help group #1 is likely to end up being and enabling factor in their behavior and could even make their condition worsen.

Most attempts to help group #2 must be a commitment for life and may require that the needy be managed and cared for. There may be times for less commitment for some individuals but for the most part help will not modify the continuing need.

Attempts to help group #3 present the only possibility for solving their poverty problem.

Attempts to help group #4 are not likely to change any behavior patterns.

What troubles me is that many do not understand what I tried to communicate in my post to start this thread. That is that back in 1960 we could end poverty by transferring 2% of our gross national product to the poor. Currently with all the poverty help programs in place we are transferring well over 15%. More than a 700 percent what is really or should be needed. Which means that we have at least 600% waisted - and by giving any more money into any government poverty program as currently being defined will only increase the waist.

What we must understand is that à transferring economic wealth does not address the problem of poverty. In fact it can be argued that poverty is worse today than it was 50 years ago.

I am disappointed that some want to play a blame game and say that it did not work because Nixon dismantled welfare payments to poor. Or the blame of this political party or that political party for not managing poverty programs correctly. My main point is twofold:

One: solutions based on economic commitment only are known and proven not to work. If this concept could work we would not need a government health care program for the poor because there would not be any poor. We may need health care reform but it would not be because of the poor.

Two: that because there is more than one kind or type of poor, there cannot be one solution to fit all mentality. But because the government, by law, cannot discriminate (which is another way of saying recognize different types of poor) any program which uses government money to help the poor by definition will fail 3 out of the 4 types as a best case scenario and fail 4out of 4 in any scenario but the best case.

I had hoped to spark some thinking of how we can move forward with new ideas that might have some possibility of doing some good but that does not look to be in the cards – at least in the responses I have seen thus far.

The Traveler

Edited October 25, 2009 by Traveler