America's aversion to socialism ?

[Evo]

There is only one acceptable answer, maine75, you will have to pawn something and send two steaks each to mheslep and WhoWee.

Do I have to say I'm kidding?

 

[WhoWee]

Well in my opinion $50 dollars for $200 worth of groceries is pretty darn good even if it did include $20 dollars worth of steak($16 after the sale). Maybe we shouldn't have gotten the steaks. Then of course we would gotten have $180 of dollars of groceries with $34 dollars of benefits.

Perhaps because we are able to do so well with what we are given my family should get less benefits. Maybe you think that would be a fair reward for the effort my wife puts into following sales and aggressively couponing. Since she is able to do that why not lower everyone else's benefits as well. Spread the program out as wide as possible. Those people who don't have the knowledge or opportunity my wife has will suffer but hey they should be grateful for what they get.

Then of course there will still be those people who thrive on lower amounts. People who get what they need and still have a little left over. They find the good deals on rice and beans and have a little left in the budget for something special. Then if you see them buying a steak or maybe some scallops or even just a candybar, you can know that you can cut everyone's benefits that much more.

From your first post, it sounds as though you're taking full advantage of the system - you should try to maximize your buying power.

Your earlier post:
"First in the interest of full disclosure I am currently unemployed as is my wife. We are both attending college full time and are receiving unemployment as part of retraining programs. She, I, and our 18 month old son (she was laid off the day he was born) are receiving Medicare (this is a step up for me my last job didn't offer insurance). We get subsidised day-care, WIC, heating assistance and food stamps as well."

 

[maine75man]

From your first post, it sounds as though you're taking full advantage of the system - you should try to maximize your buying power.

I'm sorry but what definition of maximize are you using. We purchased aproximatly $200 worth of groceries using about $50 worth of benefits. We are able to cover all our food needs for a month using what is supposed to be a supplemental amount thanks to our buying habits and we still have some left over.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm sorry but what definition of maximize are you using. We purchased aproximatly $200 worth of groceries using about $50 worth of benefits. We are able to cover all our food needs for a month using what is supposed to be a supplemental amount thanks to our buying habits and we still have some left over.

You want my definition of maximize? I'll feed the troll/be more specific - IMO - it's your responsibility to use your benefits in the most responsible way possible.

 

[maine75man]

You want my definition of maximize? I'll feed the troll/be more specific - IMO - it's your responsibility to use your benefits in the most responsible way possible.

So you don't feel quadrupling the purchase power of our benefits was responsible enough on that trip, we should have sextupled it instead.

 

[apeiron]

You want my definition of maximize? I'll feed the troll/be more specific - IMO - it's your responsibility to use your benefits in the most responsible way possible.

Your one dimensional thinking has trapped you in absurdity. Your notion that someone is beating the system by affording steak means that you think there should be tighter control here somehow. You want the very least money redistributed and that would eventually require taking away any last element of free choice. Complete state-imposed control over diet.

Of course, you don't actually want to end up following your own logic to that extreme, so instead become vague about what ought to be maximised in reality.

And much earlier in the thread I already made the argument about what social optimality is really about - a balance between competition and co-operation. That is what we should seek to "maximise" through political mechanisms.

This then breathes life into the discussion. Co-operative principles say set a reasonable food budget. Competitive principles say then let people chose how best to spend it.

In practice, you then have an incentive as a society to encourage individuals to make good choices. You can educate them to budget and eat healthy. This would allow you, if successful, to lower social costs - of medical bills more than actual food payments most likely.

So "maximise" is one-dimensional thinking. It forces you to want to minimise things to achieve a goal. Instead, politics ought to be about optimisation - setting the fruitful balance between the naturally complementary aspects of a system.

 

[WhoWee]

So you don't feel quadrupling the purchase power of our benefits was responsible enough on that trip, we should have sextupled it instead.

Again, you should make every effort to maximize the return on the benefit. If you could have sextupled it- maybe you should have(?) - I wasn't in the store with you.

 

[WhoWee]

Your one dimensional thinking has trapped you in absurdity. Your notion that someone is beating the system by affording steak means that you think there should be tighter control here somehow. You want the very least money redistributed and that would eventually require taking away any last element of free choice. Complete state-imposed control over diet.

Of course, you don't actually want to end up following your own logic to that extreme, so instead become vague about what ought to be maximised in reality.

And much earlier in the thread I already made the argument about what social optimality is really about - a balance between competition and co-operation. That is what we should seek to "maximise" through political mechanisms.

This then breathes life into the discussion. Co-operative principles say set a reasonable food budget. Competitive principles say then let people chose how best to spend it.

In practice, you then have an incentive as a society to encourage individuals to make good choices. You can educate them to budget and eat healthy. This would allow you, if successful, to lower social costs - of medical bills more than actual food payments most likely.

So "maximise" is one-dimensional thinking. It forces you to want to minimise things to achieve a goal. Instead, politics ought to be about optimisation - setting the fruitful balance between the naturally complementary aspects of a system.

In post 154, I stated
"IMO - the Government needs to spend taxpayer funds more wisely. The Government is the single largest consumer of retail food products - and pay retail prices. The Government should be buying meat, vegetables, fruit, and generic foods at a wholesale price (with an additional negotiated handling fee for the distributor) - not branded products at full retail."/I]

The competition should be at the producer level - where the system can realize the greatest savings and healthy selections can be identified.

 

[apeiron]

In post 154, I stated
"IMO - the Government needs to spend taxpayer funds more wisely. The Government is the single largest consumer of retail food products - and pay retail prices. The Government should be buying meat, vegetables, fruit, and generic foods at a wholesale price (with an additional negotiated handling fee for the distributor) - not branded products at full retail."/I]

The competition should be at the producer level - where the system can realize the greatest savings and healthy selections can be identified.

So you are arguing that diet should be socialised here? The government should take on the role of the consumer in the consumption~production dichotomy. It should make all the choices about what to buy, using its scale to drive the best bargain. The individuals concerned should have minimal freedom of choice so as to allow this to happen.

Of course, you are probably only saying this should be the situation for where state-machinery is applied. So for people who depend on state intervention, then they should accept complete socialisation. Which would then mean for all the rest - the norms of society - they could have the opposite situation of enjoying complete personal freedom (and responsibility).

We accept this two-tone formula for those who are incapable of choice/responsible action (the mentally ill, the criminal, etc). The state takes over their lives fully. So apply the same logic even to the more borderline cases, like social security safety nets where reasonably capable people get caught out by circumstances not of their making.

But this binary divide does not really work. It is obvious that it is better to continue to foster choice and responsibility as much as possible, even when dealing with the ill or criminal, let alone those thrown out of work.

Instead of trying to run two fundamentally opposed political systems in parallel, what we want is a theory of how to optimise a single system. That system clearly has to include both co-operative and competitive aspects. And to be simple, the balance would have to be scale-invariant - look the same over all scales of social organisation.

As an aside, if you are advocating government as an efficient purchaser, how does that stack up with military spending? One customer, many producers. Do goverments actually have a good track record in this regard?

 

[mheslep]

...

So the left vs right, conservative vs liberal, dichotomies become phony debates as all social/political systems have to strike a balance of competition and co-operation. And they would be having to do this across all scales of a society.

As many note, the US seems trapped in some strange internal war against itself. Politics looks quite dysfunctional - perhaps losing an external enemy in communism has something to do with this? Perhaps it is the high levels of economic inequality (IMO of course).

In my country, New Zealand, we went through a period of neo-liberal extremism in the 1980s. As an experiment, it now looks a dismal failure.

...

Then instead of labeling the US debate as phony, why not grant that some in the US are attempting to run their own liberal experiment (enlarge the state, control health care and other businesses), and further grant that the conservatives and libertarians think this will only lead to failure as it has in NZ?

 

[WhoWee]

So you are arguing that diet should be socialised here? The government should take on the role of the consumer in the consumption~production dichotomy. It should make all the choices about what to buy, using its scale to drive the best bargain. The individuals concerned should have minimal freedom of choice so as to allow this to happen.

Of course, you are probably only saying this should be the situation for where state-machinery is applied. So for people who depend on state intervention, then they should accept complete socialisation. Which would then mean for all the rest - the norms of society - they could have the opposite situation of enjoying complete personal freedom (and responsibility).

We accept this two-tone formula for those who are incapable of choice/responsible action (the mentally ill, the criminal, etc). The state takes over their lives fully. So apply the same logic even to the more borderline cases, like social security safety nets where reasonably capable people get caught out by circumstances not of their making.

But this binary divide does not really work. It is obvious that it is better to continue to foster choice and responsibility as much as possible, even when dealing with the ill or criminal, let alone those thrown out of work.

Instead of trying to run two fundamentally opposed political systems in parallel, what we want is a theory of how to optimise a single system. That system clearly has to include both co-operative and competitive aspects. And to be simple, the balance would have to be scale-invariant - look the same over all scales of social organisation.

As an aside, if you are advocating government as an efficient purchaser, how does that stack up with military spending? One customer, many producers. Do goverments actually have a good track record in this regard?

We had a thread (now locked) which posed the question "Should Poverty Be Comfortable?".

As per your question, I do think one way to entice people to return to the productive side of the economy is to limit choices (comfort) on the unproductive rail.

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules.

 

[turbo]

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules.

Please document this and show how this apocryphal statement applies to today's job market, in which the unemployed need not apply.

 

[apeiron]

Then instead of labeling the US debate as phony, why not grant that some in the US are attempting to run their own liberal experiment (enlarge the state, control health care and other businesses), and further grant that the conservatives and libertarians think this will only lead to failure as it has in NZ?

I said any debate which is framed as a binary opposition is phony. So any debate which seeks the mutality of the apparently contradictory would be non-phony (ie: worthwhile).

The OP raises the issue of America's aversion to socialism. We would seem to agree that something like socialism is always in fact necessary - just like something like individualism always has its place. So it is about that balance, and our modelling of that balance.

The thread has gone off in pursuit of an annecdote - someone bought steak on food stamps. This seems like evidence of an imbalance in the system. But on what grounds?

If you want to attack me rather than engage with the issues, then your choice. But I'm bored already.

 

[WhoWee]

Please document this and show how this apocryphal statement applies to today's job market, in which the unemployed need not apply.

Document what turbo - have you ever documented a recollection of an event in your professional career or personal life? The words "I recall" were intended to mean the same as IMO.

However, since you tried to introduce the President's strawman of the unemployed as a new class of minorities to be protected - let's take a look. Considering the priority of the task, perhaps the President should require the long term unemployed to prove they are trying to find work? Their log can serve as proof they were interviewed - have it signed by the potential employer. In the good old days the unemployment office assigned a case worker and they followed up with potential employers to determine why the unemployed applicant wasn't hired. Some old ideas are still valid.

 

[mheslep]

Sure, all sorts of things could be the case. And between us, I'm sure we could conjure up 100s of variables that go either way. But the gross figures don't give much evidence that the US has a "problem" with a socialist redistribution of wealth. So Russ's "theory" about socialism in democratic countries seems a little unsupported.

I don't know the definition of 'problem' here, but usually I think that discussion refers to who pays the tax burden, i.e. the commonly known figures (now): http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html" and so on. Some of that money goes back to the high earners when the government spends it. Yet we know some ~twenty million people in the US are public employees (all government levels), so before even looking at direct transfer payments (i.e. welfare) I conclude the US today is largely re-distributive.

If its effects are so inevitable and continuous, where is the evidence? In which democracies is socialism successfully gnawing away at wealth or income (or even health and education) inequality?

That's difficult to gauge from a snapshot of a given European country, especially varying by population and circumstance as they do. From what I can tell the relatively hard left governments come in for awhile, raising spending, taxes and labor controls dramatically, productivity falls, the jobless rate rises, on and on until people throw up their hands. Then a conservative government comes in and puts on the brakes: The Netherlands privatizes its health care system, Sweden provides universal vouchers to independent schools and so on. So, where possible, I suggest gauging the socialist action by result and not the country.

 

[apeiron]

We had a thread (now locked) which posed the question "Should Poverty Be Comfortable?".

As per your question, I do think one way to entice people to return to the productive side of the economy is to limit choices (comfort) on the unproductive rail.

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules.

Yes, but then I would question your idea of the great goal - maximising production.

Some might say the goal is actually maximising consumption (well, that is certainly what is being achieved).

And others that the proper global goal is maximising happiness (in whatever complicated way we then define it).

So I would ask why is production something to optimise a society around (the answer of course has a lot to do with out-competing other nations, and so ignoring the fact we live all on one planet).

To produce, you need consumers, so through that lens you can see why the state may still find it reasonable to pay the non-producers to consume.

Joking aside, the serious point is that if consumption is the flipside of production, then we need to consider not just the quantity but the quality of the production equation. Is there a point to people bloating their bodies with junk food and filling their garages with crap goods? Is a luxury yacht of any real value than another sinkhole to tip money down?

If you agree that what societies really ought to be optimised for is some agreed notion of happiness, then now what does that actually look like? Health and education for all. Comfort for those in poverty? Getting the unhappy rich off the treadmill of status symbol purchases?

Modern politics asks these sorts of questions. It is willing to discuss stuff like GPIs to replace GDP targets, Gini coefficients and other metrics upon which to measure "success".

This thread has developed as just another rhetorical back and forth that seems so particular to the political mood in the US at this moment in its history. Open the windows and let some air in!

 

[apeiron]

That's difficult to gauge from a snapshot of a given European country, especially varying by population and circumstance as they do. From what I can tell the relatively hard left governments come in for awhile, raising spending, taxes and labor controls dramatically, productivity falls, the jobless rate rises, on and on until people throw up their hands. Then a conservative government comes in and puts on the brakes: The Netherlands privatizes its health care system, Sweden provides universal vouchers to independent schools and so on. So, where possible, I suggest gauging the socialist action by result and not the country.

Yes, let's ignore the evidence that more redistributive economies are not inevitably self destructive in the way Russ' alleged and failed to support when asked.

You are actually agreeing with me in saying that well-organised systems are equilibrium-seeking. If there is a phase of becoming too constrained, then for a time there is a correction in the promotion of more freedom.

This is what a healthy society looks like. But then what is the society's model and the measurements it makes?

So whowee and Russ have made simplistic arguments in which action goes in only one direction, and we must wisely choose the right side on which to stand.

But you are making the case that politics is an experiment (let's model and observe, there are no axiomatic truths, such as morals). And also that a system involves the balancing of forces. We are not seeking the triumph of one principle over another. And you probably agree that to optimise a system correctly, you do need to identify the right thing to measure.

So the next step is to start arguing for some particular model that does all this. If we agree that politics is pragmatic, and that systems are balances of necessary contradictions, then what remains is to talk about the proper goal a political system ought to be optimising.

 

[turbo]

This thread has developed as just another rhetorical back and forth that seems so particular to the political mood in the US at this moment in its history. Open the windows and let some air in!

Consistent dysfunction. The two-party system in the US seems to be designed to let the elected officials collect tons of money while refusing to legislate.

One tool in the conservatives' bag is to call any program that filters money down to the middle-class and the poor as "socialism". Programs that shove money up to companies and wealthy individuals are called job-creating programs.

I am going to turn 60 in a few months. The Republican party that I whole-heartedly supported when I was too young to vote is now not worthy of my support. Individual candidates are, and will be, but I'm never going to throw blind support to the oligarch party by voting for their candidates in obscure fragmented county ballots.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, but then I would question your idea of the great goal - maximising production.

Some might say the goal is actually maximising consumption (well, that is certainly what is being achieved).

And others that the proper global goal is maximising happiness (in whatever complicated way we then define it).

So I would ask why is production something to optimise a society around (the answer of course has a lot to do with out-competing other nations, and so ignoring the fact we live all on one planet).

To produce, you need consumers, so through that lens you can see why the state may still find it reasonable to pay the non-producers to consume.

Joking aside, the serious point is that if consumption is the flipside of production, then we need to consider not just the quantity but the quality of the production equation. Is there a point to people bloating their bodies with junk food and filling their garages with crap goods? Is a luxury yacht of any real value than another sinkhole to tip money down?

If you agree that what societies really ought to be optimised for is some agreed notion of happiness, then now what does that actually look like? Health and education for all. Comfort for those in poverty? Getting the unhappy rich off the treadmill of status symbol purchases?

Modern politics asks these sorts of questions. It is willing to discuss stuff like GPIs to replace GDP targets, Gini coefficients and other metrics upon which to measure "success".

This thread has developed as just another rhetorical back and forth that seems so particular to the political mood in the US at this moment in its history. Open the windows and let some air in!

I would like to point out the difference between my use of the word "productive" and your reply that speaks of "production". A "productive" person in my example might be someone who pulls weeds, counsels abused women, licks stamps, answers telephones, helps unemployed persons complete an application, or manages email. A productive person may perform a personal service or build a skyscraper?

Your use of the word "production" infers the making of hard goods for consumption - there is a difference.

 

[kings7]

For what it's worth, Evo is absolutely right about disability fraud not being high and Medicaid fraud being very high (Medicare fraud is somewhere in the middle of those, but nowhere near Medicaid fraud since the requirements for Medicare are more similar to disability or SSI applications).

I'm a Financial Counselor at a "top ten" hospital in the United States (a very big one), and I can say with absolute certainty that there needs to be a major overhaul of all the systems. However, Medicaid and Medicare work out VERY WELL for the patients that use them, more or less depending on the state, and actually a lot better for the tax payers than most people seem to think. Some states are terrible with Medicaid and Medicare benefits (like Texas) and others are very good (like Michigan).

Now, through my six years of experience (well, three in the ER and three in Financial Counseling/PAS Financial Access) I've had much contact with patients with and without insurance, DHS workers, corporate officials, insurance companies, and government.

All that I can tell you is that when I imagine a country-wide healthcare system akin Medicaid but regulated better, I see it working very well. The key point is that MANY people have to contribute in order for it to be a societal benefit (kind of like how our taxes go to roads, police, fire departments, etc.). There's a critical mass of people at which the system becomes efficient. So in order for this type of system to work its best, everyone needs to contribute. I wonder if any economist has ever figured out what the exact number is... hmmm.

Anyway, social security is whole separate issue that I'm not as well-versed in. But there are my two cents on Medicaid, Medicare, and SSI. If anyone wants to know more details about what I know, feel free to ask here or PM me.

 

[WhoWee]

Consistent dysfunction. The two-party system in the US seems to be designed to let the elected officials collect tons of money while refusing to legislate.

One tool in the conservatives' bag is to call any program that filters money down to the middle-class and the poor as "socialism". Programs that shove money up to companies and wealthy individuals are called job-creating programs.

I am going to turn 60 in a few months. The Republican party that I whole-heartedly supported when I was too young to vote is now not worthy of my support. Individual candidates are, and will be, but I'm never going to throw blind support to the oligarch party by voting for their candidates in obscure fragmented county ballots.

I'll wager a bet that you didn't vote for this fellow turbo.
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/01/...-acts-to-ensure-state-benefits-go-to-mainers/

"AUGUSTA, Maine — As promised, Gov. Paul LePage dived into work on his first day in office and promptly sparked a political fracas by rescinding a policy that the new administration contends painted Maine as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants.

LePage signed an executive order Thursday evening directing all state employees to “cooperate with employees and officials of the federal government on all matters pertinent to immigration.”

LePage was asked during a brief exchange with reporters what prompted his decision to issue the order on his first day. Echoing comments heard throughout the campaign, LePage suggested that the order was part of his effort to make sure welfare and social service programs are not going to non-Mainers.

“We have got many fiscal issues, and I am intending to take care of Mainers first,” LePage said. Asked whether there was a big problem with undocumented immigrants receiving unwarranted benefits, the Republican replied: “I know of a few right now. We may not have many, but we have a few.”"

 

[WhoWee]

For what it's worth, Evo is absolutely right about disability fraud not being high and Medicaid fraud being very high (Medicare fraud is somewhere in the middle of those, but nowhere near Medicaid fraud since the requirements for Medicare are more similar to disability or SSI applications).

I'm a Financial Counselor at a "top ten" hospital in the United States (a very big one), and I can say with absolute certainty that there needs to be a major overhaul of all the systems. However, Medicaid and Medicare work out VERY WELL for the patients that use them, more or less depending on the state, and actually a lot better for the tax payers than most people seem to think. Some states are terrible with Medicaid and Medicare benefits (like Texas) and others are very good (like Michigan).

Now, through my six years of experience (well, three in the ER and three in Financial Counseling/PAS Financial Access) I've had much contact with patients with and without insurance, DHS workers, corporate officials, insurance companies, and government.

All that I can tell you is that when I imagine a country-wide healthcare system akin Medicaid but regulated better, I see it working very well. The key point is that MANY people have to contribute in order for it to be a societal benefit (kind of like how our taxes go to roads, police, fire departments, etc.). There's a critical mass of people at which the system becomes efficient. So in order for this type of system to work its best, everyone needs to contribute. I wonder if any economist has ever figured out what the exact number is... hmmm.

Anyway, social security is whole separate issue that I'm not as well-versed in. But there are my two cents on Medicaid, Medicare, and SSI. If anyone wants to know more details about what I know, feel free to ask here or PM me.

Have you noticed an increase of persons with dual eligibility status - including under 65 - over the past few years at your specific location (or statewide)?

 

[mheslep]

Yes, let's ignore the evidence that more redistributive economies are not inevitably self destructive in the way Russ' alleged and failed to support when asked.

You are actually agreeing with me in saying that well-organised systems are equilibrium-seeking. If there is a phase of becoming too constrained, then for a time there is a correction in the promotion of more freedom.

This is what a healthy society looks like. But then what is the society's model and the measurements it makes?

So whowee and Russ have made simplistic arguments in which action goes in only one direction, and we must wisely choose the right side on which to stand.

But you are making the case that politics is an experiment (let's model and observe, there are no axiomatic truths, such as morals). And also that a system involves the balancing of forces. We are not seeking the triumph of one principle over another.

I am seeking the triumph of some principles over the other. I don't grant that all the various political forms that have been or are being tried are swings about some natural equilibrium, I see most of them at least failures or even evil: fascism, dictatorship, communism, anarchy. These things should be fought, not just observed. I see them as diseases of the body if you will, and not as just another natural state.

You've said that liberal policies failed in NZ. Why is it 'simplistic' to object to there implementation here? Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[kings7]

Have you noticed an increase of persons with dual eligibility status - including under 65 - over the past few years at your specific location (or statewide)?

If you mean dual eligibility as in receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, or SSI and Medicaid, etc., then I have actually noticed a decrease.

Now, of course, this is just an anecdotal example, but when I completed last month's statistical reports and compared them to the end of 2009, many of the patient cohorts that were receiving Medicare as primary insurance and Medicaid as secondary (mostly those with disability under 65), a lot of them had been removed from Medicaid and now have no supplemental insurance at all.

Did I understand your question correctly?

 

[turbo]

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules.

Please provide factual, verifiable information. We can hear all this crap we need on the campaign trail and from right-wing media. Please back it up.

 

[mheslep]

For what it's worth, Evo is absolutely right about disability fraud not being high ...

Well I'd like to see the data. A friend, a military psychiatrist, just forwarded this

http://thoughtbroadcast.com/2011/09/04/how-to-retire-at-age-27/"

...During the interview, she told me, “I just got my SSDI so I’m retired now.” I asked her to elaborate. “I’m retired now,” she said. “I get my check every month, I just have to keep seeing a doctor.” When I asked why she’s on disability, she replied, “I don’t know, whatever they wrote, bipolar, mood swings, panic attacks, stuff like that.” She had been off medications for over two months (with no apparent symptoms); she said she really “didn’t notice” any effect of the drugs, except the Valium 20 mg per day, which “helped me settle down and relax.”​

...
Keisha is a generally healthy 27 year-old. She graduated high school (something rare in this community, actually) and took some nursing-assistant classes at a local vocational school. She dropped out, however, because “I got stressed out.” She tried looking for other work but then found out from a family member that she could “apply for disability.” She applied and was denied, but then called a lawyer who specialized in disability appeals and, after about a year of resubmissions, received the good news that she can get Social Security Disability, ensuring a monthly check.

 

[apeiron]

I would like to point out the difference between my use of the word "productive" and your reply that speaks of "production". A "productive" person in my example might be someone who pulls weeds, counsels abused women, licks stamps, answers telephones, helps unemployed persons complete an application, or manages email. A productive person may perform a personal service or build a skyscraper?

Your use of the word "production" infers the making of hard goods for consumption - there is a difference.

This is great. You believe in a definition of production that is based on co-operative, pro-social behaviour. You are against selfish individualism.

Now how do measure that kind of productivity in a society to know if your political and economics settings are increasing or decreasing it?

And applied to Maine75man's case, what does this focus on the pro-social imply?

Does his story suggest a couple who are more likely to have these pro-social attitudes and so we should be pleased that they even have a treat of a very occassional steak as some kind of socialised reward?

We are now getting into the nitty-gritty of what we actually want to achieve. And it is indeed a real social engineering issue of how to achieve it.

The problem with big government - of the sort you seem to both rail against and endorse - is that its scope for action is coarse grained. It cannot so easily get inside the behaviour of all those people relying on food stamps to set the balance that rewards pro-sociality and deters selfishness.

This was one of the reasons for the "third way" political experiment. Delivery of welfare through local NGOs. In some ways it has had good success, in others it has created fresh problems. And so the experiment goes on.

But sorry if your mention of "young idle men on benefits who could have been out working productively" threw me off track so that I thought you were talking about something else here.

It is now just so obvious that you were thinking about them helping little old ladies across roads rather than something so gross as contributing to GDP.

 

[kings7]

Well I'd like to see the data. A friend, a military psychiatrist, just forwarded this

http://thoughtbroadcast.com/2011/09/04/how-to-retire-at-age-27/"

I could probably spend some time changing ALL the names and QID codes on my excel sheets and HBOC documents to show you, however this is not conducive to my day.

I, too, wish there were better data out there that I could show you. I'm sorry that there isn't, although I'll try taking a good look in the coming weeks. I'm not here to "thoroughly convince" anyone, but I did want to point out things that I know from an insider's perspective. I'm lucky in that I have a lot of disparate life experience and it gives me a very good view on things.

Referring to that article is another story. I'll just number my points to make them easier:

1) It is VERY RARE that someone wants to suckle off of the teet of government like this hypothetical story. Republicans really like to enforce the idea that there are a bunch of lazy people out there that don't want to do anything. Of course they exist, but they are nowhere near the majority.

2) It's almost impossible to get approved for SSDI with a mental condition unless you're a veteran. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/

3) Doctors are notoriously hard on anyone under 40 who looks even remotely health applying for disability income.

4) The process is long and arduous. If Keisha is so lazy (also, let me take this time to point out the stereotypical name which reeks of, if not racism, racial superiority) she would not have the capacity to complete the process.

5) SSI and SSDI are given out at many different levels, and are based upon geographic region and several other factors. Most of the time it's barely enough to get by. It's not like the old "welfare" days. (PS - Welfare doesn't technically exist anymore... I hate when people use the word).

 

[kings7]

The article has more to do with problems in psychiatric diagnoses than in SSDI.

 

[apeiron]

I am seeking the triumph of some principles over the other.

Me too, of course. But it is the system's principle of seeking balance. That would triumph over unbalance approaches which tried to control the world by focusing on only one aspect of things.

I don't grant that all the various political forms that have been or are being tried are swings about some natural equilibrium, I see most of them at least failures or even evil: fascism, dictatorship, communism, anarchy. These things should be fought, not just observed.

Yes, all monotonic forms of control end in disaster. As people keep saying about the recent financial debacle, laisser faire capitalism is fine up until the point it breaks. Then you find yourself having to socialise the losses.

 

[WhoWee]

If you mean dual eligibility as in receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, or SSI and Medicaid, etc., then I have actually noticed a decrease.

Now, of course, this is just an anecdotal example, but when I completed last month's statistical reports and compared them to the end of 2009, many of the patient cohorts that were receiving Medicare as primary insurance and Medicaid as secondary (mostly those with disability under 65), a lot of them had been removed from Medicaid and now have no supplemental insurance at all.

Did I understand your question correctly?

You've noticed a decrease in the number of cases with dual eligibility Medicare and Medicaid - as people are being dropped by Medicaid? That's very surprising - but I don't monitor all of the states - specifically not Michigan.

 

[kings7]

You've noticed a decrease in the number of cases with dual eligibility Medicare and Medicaid - as people are being dropped by Medicaid? That's very surprising - but I don't monitor all of the states - specifically not Michigan.

It was surprising to me as well. In fact, as another anecdotal piece, I used to do registration in the emergency room. I used register a lot of patients with both Medicare and Medicaid. Recently, I spoke with a couple registrars and they didn't even know the correct financial codes for a patient with both insurances because it's so uncommon! This has been backed up by my stats as well.

However, I know that locally the county DHS and surrounding areas have been cracking down on a backlog of "suspicious" cases and cutting off a lot of people. This could just be unique to my area.

I know that about 90% of DHS's around the country experience a large backlog of some sort. A lot of the fraud problem would be solved with more workers. But more workers mean more cost. And that is obviously not an option at this point. It's a terrible cycle.

EDITED: For spelling.

 

[WhoWee]

Please provide factual, verifiable information. We can hear all this crap we need on the campaign trail and from right-wing media. Please back it up.

Are you kidding me turbo? Rules vary by state, but unemployed people can lose benefits if they refuse work that is offered.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/ui_law_qualification_issues.html#dq-sw

"V. Focus: Refusal of Suitable Work Top of Page

Section 207.047 of the Act disqualifies a claimant who, while in claim status, has refused a referral to, or an offer of, suitable work without good cause. A referral to suitable work can include the situation that occurs when TWC directs a claimant to return to his or her customary self-employment, if they have had their own business in the past. This proceeds directly from the work search and availability requirements that claimants must satisfy in order to be eligible for continued weekly UI benefits. In a nutshell, in all but the most unusual of cases, a claimant must be available and actively searching for full-time work while collecting UI benefits. Claimants are told that if they receive an offer of suitable work, they must accept it, unless there is some good reason not to do so, or else face disqualification. Such a disqualification is every bit as serious as a disqualification for quitting a job without good cause connected with the work or for being discharged for misconduct connected with the work.

"Suitable work", according to TWC, means work that would be in line with the claimant's prior experience or training. Section 207.008(a) lists several factors to consider:
the degree of risk involved to the individual's health, safety, and morals at the place of performance of the work;
the individual's physical fitness and previous training;
the individual's experience and previous earnings;
the individual's length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the individual's customary occupation; and
the distance of the work from the individual's residence.

Section 207.008(b) states that work will not be considered "suitable", and thus no disqualification will be imposed, for refusing to accept new work under the following conditions:
the position offered is vacant directly due to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute;
the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality; or
as a condition of being employed, the individual is required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining a bona fide labor organization.

TWC's Unemployment Insurance Manual adds that work will not be considered suitable if it "pays less than the claimant's wage demands which are considered excessive, unless the claimant has been informed that the wage demands are excessive prior to or at the time of the refusal of the referral or work offer."

Before TWC will assess a disqualification, the following criteria must be satisfied (as taken from the UI Manual):
A definite work offer or referral must have been made directly to the claimant, with an explanation covering the nature of the work, the wages, hours of work, job location, and other requirements. See AP&P, SW 170.10.
The work must be suitable per the requirements of Section 207.047 and 207.008 of the Act.
The claimant must have refused the offer or referral or failed to report to the employer when so directed."

 

[turbo]

Are you kidding me turbo? Rules vary by state, but unemployed people can lose benefits if they refuse work that is offered.

This has been in place for decades. Portraying this as a new development is unsupported, and you should provide decent documentation.

 

[Evo]

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules.

That's still the rule here, my ex was laid off due to a merger with a company that had the equivalent of his entire office at their corporate headquarters in another state, so they closed his entire office, and he had to constantly show that he was seriously job hunting.