A Plan to Replace the Welfare State

[Colleen Thomas]

RA Actually, I hope some thoughtful, serious commentators on the left do chime in with criticism that actually addresses the real concerns and issues. I think there are two possible appoaches.

First, that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the welfare state in terms of its fiscal sustainability or its ability to effectively solve social problems. (I can't wait for these.)

Yes, that is the answer. It's supplied by history. Any open minded person can easily google about, for instance, health care in Sweden and Finland, and see that it's working, and costs are contained. The Swedes have supplemented government heathcare with a bit of private enterprise and supplementary private insurance. (They now have a greater percent over 60 than do US or Canada, so they are up that road a bit further, in terms of facing a problem.)

Libertarians and Randist are passed by, even in the US. Most people concede a role of government in regulating and directing the economy (if only through fiscal means), and most people have liked or accepted government delivery of some services, such as old age pensions.

Contrary to amicus, Murray and others, problems have been or are being solved democratically,-- and 'nuking' evil government and gently encouraging [mandating, requiring] 'responsibility' (e.g., putting private accounts in place of social security) through devolving everything to the individual and to 'free market' forces are simply retrograde and fantastical schemes arising out of these persons' ideological dreams and private interests.

Murray himself cannot be consistent, since he 'gives' people the 10K (of their own money) and then off the top, mandates that 3K go to (private) health insurance. By his own argument, this puts people's lives, for a key area, in the hands of (health cos. such as Kaiser Permanente) bureaucrats, and inclines them to live in a slack, unproductive and non transcendant manner.

He further has to 'stipulate' that this works, that there's no health cost inflation, and that Kaiser lowers its profit to care for the diseased crackheads.

And since that stipulation doesn't work, Roxanne adds another stipulation, a socialistic one (i.e. inconsistent with her own views)--the Gov is going to tell Kaiser et al. that they must insurable the 'uninsurable.'

I need alittle clarification. Is murray's idea 10K per person, of which they must spend 3K on insurance?

Or is it 10K per person, with an additional 3K healtcare policy provided?

 

[Pure]

to clarify

according to the numbers Murray crunched, it's 10 K with 3K _required_ to go to health insurance, i.e., 7K disposable. [of course these are not 'hard' figures; he concedes it might even be 3800 that is needed.]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

according to the numbers Murray crunched, it's 10 K with 3K _required_ to go to health insurance, i.e., 7K disposable. [of course these are not 'hard' figures; he concedes it might even be 3800 that is needed.]

Right. So the plan is for me to just die.

Can't say I have lot of enthusiasm for that.

 

[Pure]

for you to die?

no, no, Colly,

you see, with human nature no longer distorted through 'welfare,' your neighbors will be bring over food, and the local parish will always have it side door open to dispense food (generously donated) to the truly pathetic who can show up.

and don't forget that you in fact represent thousands---all you need to do is have a big picket in front of Kaiser Permanente and chant we want affordable insurance! $3000 is all we have! .

when you reason with their executives*, you will say, "Look, take on a few of us basket cases: your profits might decline from 10% to 7% but your generosity will make your own heart burst."

They will do their best to accomodate your needs--after all, people's health needs are Kaiser's business!

---
*find some of those rational Rand types.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

no, no, Colly,

you see, with human nature no longer distorted through 'welfare,' your neighbors will be bring over food, and the local parish will always have it side door open to dispense food (generously donated) to the truly pathetic who can show up.

and don't forget that you in fact represent thousands---all you need to do is have a big picket in front of Kaiser Permanente and chant we want affordable insurance! $3000 is all we have! .

when you reason with their executives*, you will say, "Look, take on a few of us basket cases: your profits might decline from 10% to 7% but your generosity will make your own heart burst."

They will do their best to accomodate your needs--after all, people's health needs are Kaiser's business!

---
*find some of those rational Rand types.

Thanks but no. Staravtion is a better way to go than freezing to death under an overpass. I hate the cold.

 

[Pure]

here's my question, colly,

why do you think Murray doesn't just hand out the money? (as some commentators have noted, this is a variant of Milton Friedman's 1979 'negative income tax')

why semisocialize health care?

i suspect it's because Americans are generally concerned. or is it because having the sick 'out there' is an embarrassment to the plan for a shiny new US.

so Murray says, "We'll take care of that."

Yet here is Murray philosophizing:

The welfare state says of too many important functions in life, “We’ll take care of that.” The natural human response is to say, “Okay, you do it.” And in this transfer of responsibility the welfare state has drained too much of the life from life.

one might wonder, why doesn't Murray, for instance, socialize a 'retirement plus' plan? i.e., mandate that 1K be put away every year so that one's retirement needn't but at 10K, but say, at 20 K?

(don't forget that many people are supplementing the 10K; i.e., they are allowed to make 10 or 20K on top of the 10K and keep it. There is, iirc, no incremental clawback, till they make 30K on top. hence retirement at 10K would not be very attractive, even to the uninsured Walmart employee)

ADDED: It's not come out well in this thread 1) that supplementation is allowed for the low and low middle folks, and 2) that there is an incremental clawback of the 10K, starting at 30K in other income, with a $5000 clawback ceiling. That is, iirc, the person making 50K or more loses $5000 and gets to keep only the remaining $5000.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

why do you think Murray doesn't just hand out the money? (as some commentators have noted, this is a variant of Milton Friedman's 1979 'negative income tax')

why semisocialize health care?

i suspect it's because Americans are generally concerned. or is it because having the sick 'out there' is an embarrassment to the plan for a shiny new US.

so Murray says, "We'll take care of that."

Yet here is Murray philosophizing:

The welfare state says of too many important functions in life, “We’ll take care of that.” The natural human response is to say, “Okay, you do it.” And in this transfer of responsibility the welfare state has drained too much of the life from life.

one might wonder, why doesn't Murray, for instance, socialize a 'retirement plus' plan? i.e., mandate that 1K be put away every year so that one's retirement needn't but at 10K, but say, at 20 K?

(don't forget that many people are supplementing the 10K; i.e., they are allowed to make 10 or 20K on top of the 10K and keep it. There is, iirc, no incremental clawback, till they make 30K on top. hence retirement at 10K would not be very attractive, even to the uninsured Walmart employee)

I don't know J. I just can do the math.

At 7K a year, I'd have to get rid of my truck, as I couldn't afford gas, inspection, maintenance or insurance.

No way I'm getting housing for less than 700 a mnth here. If I could find a place in bad enough repair or in a bad enough part of town, i still couldn't afford water, sewage, electric or heating oil.

So even if I did manage to get a roof over my head, I would still freeze in the winter.

I couldn't afford ood. I couldn't afford books, or a somputer, so that's an end to my writing. And my social life.

I can only conclude that in Mr. murray's opinion, society at large would be ebtter off without the likes of me.

Wghich actually is prety damned depressing.

 

[Pure]

don't forget Colly,

that the ultimate intent is to inculcate 'responsibility,' which the lower income folks just don't have. the 'costs' --losing a few-- are incidental.

these ideologues are like the Pope, who says no condoms for AIDs persons *since that encourages promiscuity.*

BUT for the sake of argument, suppose there were to be an 'urban supplement' and you[and other like you] could get 15K per year PLUS the 3K guaranteed health policy covering drs., drugs, and hospital with purely nominal copayments.

After all, Murray says the US is AWASH in money. (He neglects to say how much is 'plastic').

Assuming more generous figures were allowed, what do you see as effects of The Plan? What are the effects on McDonald's employees?

---
Here's an interesting little article about how The Plan fits with M's other ideas, that some people are by nature and genetics, lazy, stupid and unproductive.

Tuesday, April 4, 2006
The Bell Curve II: Sly social experiment?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_438413.html


Friday, March 31, 2006 Charles Murray wrote in "The Bell Curve" that IQ has more to do with destiny than social planners would tolerate. He also noticed that aptitudes differ among ethnic groups and that there are innate differences between men and women. Mr. Murray's conclusions were an outrage, not as scientific untruths, but as heresies. The engineers of equality are not daunted by impossibility. By God, we must all be regarded as equal -- even when we are not and cannot be made so. In Murray's latest, he proposes doing away with the entire welfare state, including Medicare and Social Security.


Murray substitutes a $10,000 annual payment to all Americans 21 and over and not in jail. The payment starts declining with a salary of $25,000 until it hits a bottom of $5,000, when one's salary reaches $50,000 or more. A portion must be set aside for medical insurance.

Murray contends in "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State" that his plan would help the poor and allow Americans to save for retirement. This is a big change. Or is it?

Perhaps we read slyness in Murray he has not earned, but we'll give it a shot.

After a generation or two, let's see which people have used the $10,000 as an opportunity to enhance their long-term quality of life and see who have not. Then an enterprising author -- Murray already is 63 -- would write a sequel. The title? "Vindication: The Bell Curve II."

 

[amicus]

Gauche...."...Originally Posted by amicus

That is the driving force behind the Gauche's and the Pure's, they want unbridled control and power over others.

amicus...



Can't speak for pure (he defends himself much better than I) but I'll thank you not to put your tainted philosophy in my mouth.

Nowhere have I ever espoused communist government, nor yet supported those governments which claim to be communist. I have only ever supposed in as valid a philosophy as yours Horatio, the politics of communism.

Being Amicus I wonder if you can grasp that concept?..."

~~~~~~~~~~


So Gauche does not advocate socialism or communism? Ah, okay, my bad in thinking you actually took a solid position on something.

I should have known that if you did, it was surely mispoken and the liberal left has no certainty, no 'absolute' positions on anything.

Sorry...


amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

thought not.

 

[Couture]

Regarding the stock market and retirement accounts, the worst compound average growth rate, using constant dollars, for any 45-year period in the history of the stock market was 4.3% from 1887-1932. Call it 4 percent. At that rate a young woman who puts $2,000 each year in an S&P 500 index fund will have $253,000 after 45 years, with which she could purchase an annuity worth about $20,500 a year.

How much do you reckon $20,000 is gonna buy me in the year 2045? At equivalent rates of inflation I'll be living on $2 grand per year. Hey Roxanne, if you see anyone selling pop for a nickel and homes for 20 grand like they did 45 years ago, you just let me know hon.

 

[R. Richard]

How much do you reckon $20,000 is gonna buy me in the year 2045? At equivalent rates of inflation I'll be living on $2 grand per year. Hey Roxanne, if you see anyone selling pop for a nickel and homes for 20 grand like they did 45 years ago, you just let me know hon.

Assuming that the young lady started today, at age 18, contibuted the 12.4% currently being withheld for SS [half from the young lady and half from the employer] and continued until age 65, she would be making $28.52 per hour and would have a yearly income of $59,313.56. She would have $640,606.54 in her retirement account [using an inflation rate of 3% and a yearly return of 6%, about half the normal 12% stocks usually return] she would have a yearly income in starting year dollars of $38,436.39 or $18.48/per hour. The annuity rate would be dependent upon life expectancy at the time of retirement.

Using the same assumptions in inflation adjusted dollars, she would be making $28.52 per hour and would have a yearly income of $59,313.56. She would have $1,469,196.62 in her retirement account. The annuity rate would be dependent upon life expectancy at the time of retirement.

 

[Couture]

Assuming that the young lady started today, at age 18, contibuted the 12.4% currently being withheld for SS [half from the young lady and half from the employer] and continued until age 65, she would be making $28.52 per hour and would have a yearly income of $59,313.56. She would have $640,606.54 in her retirement account [using an inflation rate of 3% and a yearly return of 6%, about half the normal 12% stocks usually return] she would have a yearly income in starting year dollars of $38,436.39 or $18.48/per hour. The annuity rate would be dependent upon life expectancy at the time of retirement.

Using the same assumptions in inflation adjusted dollars, she would be making $28.52 per hour and would have a yearly income of $59,313.56. She would have $1,469,196.62 in her retirement account. The annuity rate would be dependent upon life expectancy at the time of retirement.

How many stocks does it take to support a population of aging baby boomers? How much is a stock REALLY worth? I have stocks that are now worth fractions of a cent. A social contract to support your partnts and the people who helped pay for your education, pave your roads, and create the companies we work for is not such a bad thing, when they can no longer work isn't such a bad thing.

You may get a better return from stocks than your health insurance plan too - if you never need health insurance. However, if you get cancer you may find the insurance priceless.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't know J. I just can do the math.

At 7K a year, I'd have to get rid of my truck, as I couldn't afford gas, inspection, maintenance or insurance.

No way I'm getting housing for less than 700 a mnth here. If I could find a place in bad enough repair or in a bad enough part of town, i still couldn't afford water, sewage, electric or heating oil.

So even if I did manage to get a roof over my head, I would still freeze in the winter.

I couldn't afford ood. I couldn't afford books, or a somputer, so that's an end to my writing. And my social life.

I can only conclude that in Mr. murray's opinion, society at large would be ebtter off without the likes of me.

Wghich actually is prety damned depressing.

All the great rational ideologies; capitalism, communism, corporatism, socialism; are based on what can be measured. In such beliefs if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist.

So an individual is reduced entirely to a producing-consuming economic entity. The more you produce and consume the more important you are.

Very important things like love, imagination, ethics, wisdom, or on the other side, pain, despair, alienation, can't really be measured and so do not exist.

People like you and me, Colleen, don't really exist. We, according to rational analysis, neither consume or produce much. Our real gifts, and our real burdens, cannot be measured at all and so do not impinge upon the awareness of ideologues.

So our survival is of no consequence in the search for a perfect world.

 

[Pure]

Hi RR,

RR: Assuming that the young lady started today, at age 18, contibuted the 12.4% currently being withheld for SS [half from the young lady and half from the employer] and continued until age 65, she would be making $28.52 per hour and would have a yearly income of $59,313.56. She would have $640,606.54 in her retirement account [using an inflation rate of 3% and a yearly return of 6%, about half the normal 12% stocks usually return] she would have a yearly income in starting year dollars of $38,436.39 or $18.48/per hour. The annuity rate would be dependent upon life expectancy at the time of retirement.

Since you've got the software and the algorithms, would you give us her retirement account balance factoring in: dental surgery at age 30, $5000, breast surgery at age 40, $10,000 and heart surgery at age 50,
$100,000.

 

[oggbashan]

Will the Chinese agree?

The significant proportion of the US's national debt held by the Chinese means that that country has a right to say how you spend your GDP.

Would the Chinese agree that funding welfare that way was a good way to pay interest on your country's debt?

Og