The Left's Big Pitch: Embrace a Worse Life in the Name of Equality - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15260218
The Left's Big Pitch: Embrace a Worse Life in the Name of Equality
Ben Shapiro, December 22, 2022

This week, The New York Times released a long expose of the shortcomings of the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Long cherished as a crown jewel of Left-wing governmental policy, the NHS has been plagued by massive resource shortcomings, requiring rationing of critical infrastructure and care. Now, citizens are waiting up to 12 hours for ambulances. "It's a near-crisis situation that experts say reveals a breakdown of the compact between Britons and their revered National Health Service," the Times reported, "that the government will provide responsible, efficient health care services, mostly free, across all income levels."

There can be only one excuse for such signal failure to serve the prosperity of your citizenry: the chimera of equality. This, in fact, is the clarion call of the Left: that human beings sacrifice well-being and prosperity on behalf of the cult of equal distribution of resources. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, says as much in his book, "The Great Narrative": we should dispense with economic measures like gross domestic product (GDP) in favor of "what matters most: climate action, sustainability, inclusivity, global cooperation, health and well-being." In fact, says Schwab, "We might even find we can live with such a scenario quite happily!" The end goal will be ending "inequality and the unfairness that underpins it" by enshrining "universal provision of social assistance," which will require that governments "rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their roles."

Closer to home, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie says the same when he argues in favor of government nationalization of all wealth and then redistribution of that wealth on a per capita basis... every generation. This would amount to a complete rupture of property rights -- and this in turn would mean the end of innovation, since societies that dispense with property rights and profit margins regress into stagnation and then economic collapse. But at least we will have achieved Bouie's goal: equality! 

Indeed, members of the political Left are constantly asking citizens to simply reframe their perspectives on prosperity entirely. Jerusalem Demsas, writing in The Atlantic, calls on Americans to rethink whether homeownership is worth pursuing, explaining, "pushing more and more people into homeownership actually undermines our ability to improve housing outcomes for all." Indeed, rather than all aspiring to buy houses and some succeeding, Demsas calls for "public investment in rental-housing quality" as well as government "rent-stabilization policies." None of this will make it easier for anyone to own a home, but it will make everyone more equal in their government-sponsored tenancy.

President Joe Biden's entire economic agenda is built around the notion of economic mediocrity rooted in a self-proclaimed higher justice. Paul Waldman of The Washington Post posited this week that Biden had launched an "economic policy revolution" rooted in fighting "inequality." This would require "more active government intervention in the economy." 

And we will all learn to love such intervention, because it will be done in the name of a higher value: equality. Not equality of rights, but equality of outcome; not equality of value, but equality of resources. The problem with this philosophy is that it removes the incentive for all that creates prosperity: work, creativity, thrift, responsibility. And removing that incentive means more misery for everyone.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 48638.html
#15260305
@BlutoSays

Health & Happiness

A British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. In The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, he and co-author Kate Pickett found that what the healthiest and happiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared.


:)
#15260311
ingliz wrote:
@BlutoSays

Health & Happiness

A British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. In The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, he and co-author Kate Pickett found that what the healthiest and happiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared.


:)



That's real world stuff.

Bluto never goes there..
#15260313
BlutoSays wrote:
United Kingdom



It's not just health care.

Right wing policies that increase income inequality have had a deleterious effect on many government programs. Infrastructure spending is roughly at the OECD average, but they needed to do more than that since Thatcher started in with her trickle up fantasy.
#15260355
ingliz wrote:@BlutoSays

Health & Happiness

A British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. In The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, he and co-author Kate Pickett found that what the healthiest and happiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared.


:)



Well, Dick can keep "studying". Dick must remove all the other factors between multiple societies and attribute the difference to equitable sharing. Dick doesn't do dat.
#15260357
late wrote:It's not just health care.

Right wing policies that increase income inequality have had a deleterious effect on many government programs. Infrastructure spending is roughly at the OECD average, but they needed to do more than that since Thatcher started in with her trickle up fantasy.



Hmmmm. Bracket one-sixth of the economic output of the country for national healthcare and send it to providers by policy through mandate. Now THAT'S what I call trickle up.

I'm sure the irony is lost on your dumb ass.
#15260398
BlutoSays wrote:
Hmmmm. Bracket one-sixth of the economic output of the country for national healthcare and send it to providers by policy through mandate. Now THAT'S what I call trickle up.

I'm sure the irony is lost on your dumb ass.



Let's start with how well health care performs:

Image

The cost is less than half what our is, and midpack for OECD countries:

Image

It's also worth mentioning that one of the most common causes of bankruptcy, in the US, is the costs of health care. And that the lack of health care gives diseases places to hide and spread. That's why even poor countries mostly have some sort of national health care.

It's the sane thing to do...
#15260855
late wrote:Let's start with how well health care performs:

Image

The cost is less than half what our is, and midpack for OECD countries:

Image

It's also worth mentioning that one of the most common causes of bankruptcy, in the US, is the costs of health care. And that the lack of health care gives diseases places to hide and spread. That's why even poor countries mostly have some sort of national health care.

It's the sane thing to do...




You need a citation for your first graphic. You meld shit together with different meanings and contexts and then give no sourcing information. You do this repeatedly. ALWAYS give attribution and credit.

The costs and charts are not all encompassing. They do not include every country and leave out some major countries. The British NHS is all but broke. No...wait. It is broke.

More than that, we followed YOUR pleas for OBOBOCare. And here we are. Medicare, medicaid, the VA, EMTALA enacted everywhere without reimbursement, "risk corridors", universal this, public option that, programs at the state level everywhere to pay for non-payers and YET with all your plans in effect, here we are with you democrats whining about more, more, more. What a surprise!!

Why should we listen to you and your plans to make things "better"?

The more you leftists do, the more things turn to shit.
#15260869
Pants-of-dog wrote:
If I had to guess, the chart showing the USA having a worse performance than any developed country is probably from the Commonwealth Fund’s analysis of mortality amenable to health care.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/intern ... ealth-care



It's the Peter G Peterson Foundation, just like the other one.

I didn't bother with a source because it was not needed. We've been the most expensive for a long time.
#15260873
BlutoSays wrote:You need a citation for your first graphic. You meld shit together with different meanings and contexts and then give no sourcing information. You do this repeatedly. ALWAYS give attribution and credit.

The costs and charts are not all encompassing. They do not include every country and leave out some major countries. The British NHS is all but broke. No...wait. It is broke.

More than that, we followed YOUR pleas for OBOBOCare. And here we are. Medicare, medicaid, the VA, EMTALA enacted everywhere without reimbursement, "risk corridors", universal this, public option that, programs at the state level everywhere to pay for non-payers and YET with all your plans in effect, here we are with you democrats whining about more, more, more. What a surprise!!

Why should we listen to you and your plans to make things "better"?

The more you leftists do, the more things turn to shit.


Yeah except the facts prove you utterly wrong.
#15260911
@BlutoSays

A study that looks at mortality amenable to health care looks specifically at those diseases and injuries that can be treated in order to save someone who would otherwise die.

Doctors use this measure to see how well medical systems work.

If you have a lot of people dying from an easily treatable disease, it shows that the medical system is failing these people.

Note that the USA does worse in this regard than any developed country, and worse than several developing countries.
#15260917
Pants-of-dog wrote:@BlutoSays

A study that looks at mortality amenable to health care looks specifically at those diseases and injuries that can be treated in order to save someone who would otherwise die.

Doctors use this measure to see how well medical systems work.

If you have a lot of people dying from an easily treatable disease, it shows that the medical system is failing these people.

Note that the USA does worse in this regard than any developed country, and worse than several developing countries.



Commonwealth Fund: "Our Scorecard ranks every state’s health care system based on how well it provides high-quality, accessible, and equitable health care."

"to become an antiracist organization. "

" inclusive environment."

"articulate a vision for a truly national public health system,"

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/about-us



YUP. They're all about the woke! So they'll publish anything that enhances their view and discard anything that doesn't. They're all about redistributing income for "the greater good"..... AKA Marxism.



More to the point: Fentanyl overdoses become No. 1 cause of death among US adults, ages 18-45: 'A national emergency'.

- https://www.foxnews.com/us/fentanyl-ove ... ath-adults



Your answer to that "otherwise die" problem is what, since NUMBER ONE death numbers are so f'n important to you?????
#15260919
At this point, I am becoming bored of people refusing to address evidence and simply dismissing the authors of the evidence as liars.

@BlutoSays, your rebuttal is a fallacy called an ad hominem.

Wince you cannot refute it, the evidence stands. No doubt you will now swear at me.
#15260920
BlutoSays wrote:
redistributing income



Here's for a *post-capitalist* redistribution-of-wealth:



'additive prioritizations'

Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.

So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.

tinyurl.com/additive-prioritizations



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15260948
BlutoSays wrote:I guess you'll have to square that with POD and late since they are telling you things are shit.

Now get on it, Pugs!


Do some research there are plenty of statistics available about health care spending and health care results.

You just accept propaganda from extremely dubious source like Tucker Carlson.

Make an effort to inform yourself. Regurgitation of other people's opinion and propaganda is what you do here.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I have never been wacko at anything. I never thou[…]

no , i am not gonna do it. her grandfather was a[…]

did you know it ? shocking information , any comme[…]