Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(191)
-
▼
November
(19)
- Star Tribune Bashes Charter Schools
- Paid Flex Time
- The Managment Perspective
- Healthcare, Ethics and Cannibals
- Learning, Giving, Empathy, Rewards
- RAS Useful Links
- A Strange Character
- RAS Campaign Finance
- RAS Board Mtg and Action Plans
- RAS Climate Measurement and Management
- Perils of Rating Teachers
- Great Ways to Treat People
- GV gets Best Citizen Group Award
- RAS Community Common Goals
- It's not me, It's them
- Crucial Conversations
- RAS Campaign Funding?
- Election Day Coverage
- District 281 Robbinsdale Questions
-
▼
November
(19)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
10 comments:
in response to "a society of cannibals"
What triggered the growth in government was the election of a few people who, very mistakenly, assumed that government could actually solve problems by taking from one citizen and giving to another. It is still going on. Candidates don't go to Washington to protect us from one another but to "fight for us," that is, to get us a bigger slice of the other person's pie. You are correct, it is the same selfish, thuggish mindset with which the unions destroyed GM. The chicken didn't come first, it was the egghead liberal mindset that government knows best, and that liberal government is the highest morality. That's B as in B, ...
You have essentially paraphrased correctly, yet I'm sure you thought I would object. The Bible says "Let him who will not work, not eat." I have long believed that even the "incapable" should and could do SOMETHING to justify the care that private charity would provide for them. Even a paraplegic could create talking books for the blind, for example, though the assistance they would require to do so would cost more than the value received, EXCEPT for the value to human dignity.
Maybe an example would help. A man in our small town had 8 children. He had worked two jobs for many years so that his home, big enough for the kids, was fully paid for. He broke both legs in an accident and, of course, had the kind of jobs that this cost him both of them. Welfare turned him down flat because of the big "asset" he had in the house, so our church stepped in with groceries, meals, Christmas gifts for the kids, clothing, etc. When the fellow was back on his feet, we found him a new job and stopped all assistance. He thanked us. That is the way charity is supposed to work, and does work.
"... what should we do with those that can not get reasonably priced insurance due to a pre-existing condition?"
Your question presupposes the answer, but I will give you mine nonetheless because I am certain it differs from yours. The short answer is that "we" should do absolutely nothing, since it isn't our problem or our responsibility. Now if by "we" you mean the government, then there is a great deal that could be done. In no particular order:
--Permit unlimited sale of HSAs or catastrophic-only policies.
--Permit the sale of insurance across state lines to foster competition.
--Transfer the tax break from employer to employee for health insurance. Making insurance portable means far fewer pre-existing conditions.
--Reduce or eliminate all mandates on what insurance must cover, to reduce costs of policies and make all of them more affordable.
--Convert Medicare and Medicaid away from fee-for-service and eliminate first-dollar coverage, both of which will reduce cost-shifting to private insurers.
--Tort reform to reduce insurance costs.
The problem you cite is, essentially, CAUSED by existing government intervention in the health care marketplace. The solution is NOT to increase, but to carefully remove government interference, to minimize the cases of pre-existing conditions and to make insurance prices more "reasonable" (i.e. lower) for everybody.
Hi J,
You have not sold me on the "chicken and egg" yet. A few people do not pass laws, a majority does...
I am happy to hear about your chuch's volunteer action. Those stories give me joy and renew my faith to some degree. Just wondering, how small of a town and were the family members of the Church? (ie my hometown church has ~200 members in a town of ~300 people)
Can't argue with you, good make work projects help people's dignity. Sounds like what the government tries to do in many areas. I would guess probably not too successfully from your viewpoint. I don't see for profit businesses taking this work on without a healthy subsidy.
The uninsurable person problem will not be solved by the ideas you posted. They may reduce premiums overall with other potential risks, however no business is willingly going to take on a guaranteed expense that exceeds the premium paid.
So back to the question: What do we do with them? Have them "not eat"...
By the way, I wouldn't run to the Bible. I am pretty sure there are more verses on "compassion, love and giving", than "hoarding and make them stand up for themselves no matter what". However, I could be wrong about that.
Golden Rule
Compassion
Love
Would you please put a J. at the end of your posts? I have a terrible time getting my Anons confused... It would really help.
Thanks for your thoughts...
Other Readers, What do you think regarding this terribly complicated subject? Where else do our wallets and religions get more intertwined than what to do with those less fortunate than ourselves?
My loaded question for Christians is" "What would Jesus do?" Please feel free to substitute a name that has similar meaning for yourself. (ie Confuscious, Gandhi, Mohammed, Buddha, Mother Teresa, etc)
"A few people do not pass laws, a majority does..." There's that egg again. If Obamacare passes Congress, will it be because a majority of Americans want it? I think not.
"how small of a town and were the family members of the Church?" About 30,000 people, and no, not before and not after.
"I don't see for profit businesses taking this work on without a healthy subsidy." How will we know, so long as government insists on taking it over? You might be surprised at how charitable for-profit businesses, non-profit businesses, and private charities would be given the opportunity and necessity.
"The uninsurable person problem will not be solved by the ideas you posted." I disagree. The things I outlined should reduce premiums by about 50%, and cut the number of people losing their insurance (when they change jobs) and not being able to be re-insured because of pre-existing conditions by as much as 80%. After that, you have to recognize that, of the 30 million or so currently uninsured, half are already eligible for existing government insurance but don't take it, and the other half can afford their own but don't take it. The whole "uninsured" and "pre-existing condition" memes are just liberal talking points-- convenient victims to justify more government. This health care bill is NOT about solving these problems; it will make matters worse.
That's the biggest problem with government, that they must always frighten us with some "crisis" for which more government-- the government we get by electing THEM, naturally-- is the "only" solution. If we want health care made right, we will find a way to deliver it just like we deliver frozen fish sticks, automobiles and life insurance, based on the free market, thus producing the greatest good for the greatest number.
Name submitted on request. :-J
Taking a different track, your philosophy and beliefs seem to revolve around "government" being a separate entity. A thing that grows voraciously and with purpose.
Isn't government actually a mirror of the population of the USA. Therefore the only way to fix "government" is to fix the "citizens"? (ie personal responsibility, generousity, character, civic minded, less self centered, etc) Then they will elect better politicians and not buy into attack ads?
I am truly impressed that your church identified an unrelated person in need and helped them. I think if we had more examples like this, government may actually shrink.
Thank you for leaving the J. it really helps me to have some idea who I am corresponding with.
"your philosophy and beliefs seem to revolve around "government" being a separate entity. A thing that grows voraciously and with purpose."
Exactly right! And it isn't just my philosophy, but the fundamental nature of the beast. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has been a truism since the Caesars. Every organization exists to continue to exist, and to grow wherever it is allowed to do so. Governments will abrogate power, authority and money onto themselves. It's what they do, unchecked.
You are making the chicken-egg argument again. Americans are still the most compassionate, friendly and generous people on Earth. But we have been told consistently by our politicians that THEY will "take care of the poor" and discharge our duty of Christian charity for us, and we have done thus done two things wrongly: 1) we assumed we could abdicate that very personal responsibility without consequence, and that having a cold impersonal government steal from one to give to another didn't violate the commandment against stealing or the opportunity to love they neighbor, and 2) We didn't tell them to stop, or fire them when they TOOK that responsibility from us, along with the cash we would have used for such charity.
Government not only doesn't do charity well-- it is ineffective and counterproductive-- but it CANNOT do charity at all. The personal connection at the heart of true charity doesn't exist in government, because it lacks both the "cheerful giver" and the "thankful receiver" necessary to the process.
Let us have no more of it, starting now. If we have a "problem" as a society, let us as a society, NOT as a government, decide what it is and solve it. 100 years ago the nation did exactly that, forming the Salvation Army, Red Cross, and other great charitable institutions. The free market produced those entities; it could again.
J.
I thought about posting this crazy idea separate, however we will give it a test run here. Make sure you are sitting down for this one...
"God (choose yours) tried for thousands of years to nudge wealthy humans to share their good fortune and help those that were not so lucky. He/she did this through the words of Prophets, Pastors, Rabbis, Wisemen, Priests, Nuns, etc. Repeatedly they spoke of charity, self sacrifice, giving, tithing, respect, peace, etc. Instead of listening to and living by these scared words, people actually turned their back on the words and stopped going to their places of worship. This way they had more time to build their portfolio, and did not need to hear the words that made them feel guilty for their hoarding ways.
God, being wise and all powerful became weary with the foolish and self centered ways of many humans. He/she nudged people to create democracies that could serve as an equalizer to force the rich to practice charity, self sacrifice, giving, tithing, etc. They would also work to protect human dignity around the world.
Though it was a bit inefficient, it did create a lot of jobs and support the goal. God was very happy at last..."
Now, I know it is a bit of a stretch. However, it makes sense to a strange mind like mine... Especially with the progressive tax rates.
The Lord works in mysterious ways...
There is a flaw in your grand scheme. God has succeeded wildly at persuading wealthy individuals to share their wealth. It is a common theme of many religions including no religion at all. The great charitable institutions in the US were founded by people like the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Mellons. Wealthy patrons are the mainstays of almost every charitable institution even today.
Even were we NOT as generous as our religion would have us be (and we cannot really be expected to), it is no reason to expect government to take that role. It cannot and should not. Even those who say it can and should do not truly believe it. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett recently had an opportunity to provide a huge charitable donation-- about $70 billion from their combined fortunes-- by overpaying their federal taxes. Instead they established the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, shielding that fortune from taxes, and giving directly to charities of their choice rather than the choices of politicians and bureaucrats. I don't know that either of these men is particularly religious; I assume they're simply working their way up Maszlow's Hierarchy, just like the rest of us, and government shouldn't interfere with that. It is oppressive and destructive of our humanity.
I feel like we need another example, here. A family in town recently lost their home to fire, on a Friday night, I believe. By Monday, after Sunday services at the three churches in town, the family was in temporary quarters with groceries, furniture, clothing, blankets and a few toys for the little kids. Now, which government program would/should/could cover that, and why? God doesn't move in mysterious ways as often as He does right out in the open.
There are cases where the extremely wealthy have chosen philanthropy. In a large part because it was a way to cut their tax bill significantly.
And likely because as with the rest of us, every year "brings us closer to God". (ie literally, figuratively, spiritually...) With some of the early tycoons, they may have needed to try and buy some serious forgiveness for past sins...
Remember, the "government" or "citizens" technically paid for half the philanthropist's charity with lost revenues. (ie they had to be made up somewhere) The democracy does use the carrots and sticks very well to guide wealthy folks back to the giving path.
I mean my family can give 10% and it only really costs us 6% due to the tax benefit. Man, that is some great motivation. That devine nudge was really working when they set that charity write off policy. "Choose your charity and fund it, or pay us and we will."
I am happy that some wealthy people do give significant amounts. I give quite a bit of credit to the tax code, and wish there were more philanthropists at all income levels.
Strangely, I think your comments support my theory more than they discredit it. Thanks for the thoughts.
I've got to start focusing on the next post, anyone have different thoughts or want to chime in support of these ideas???
Not so fast. I knew somebody would bring up the tax break angle, as if charitable giving were simply some raw self-serving calculation rather than true compassion. Calculate this: If I give $100 to a charity, above and beyond my standard deduction (charitable giving up to that point gets me no tax advantage at all), I get to deduct the whole thing from my taxable income, thus saving me, let us say, $40 in taxes. Why would I spend $100 to "save" $40? It doesn't make sense, unless I get some "other" benefit.
Now imagine that the government gives me a $100 tax break, rather than spending it on some wasteful welfare boondoggle. I could give the whole thing to charity and it would not cost me a thing! Not only that, it would do a lot more good than a government dollar, wasted as they often are.
Do the math. Add up all of the government "charities" (i.e., transfer payments and benefits) and you get a number somewhere north of $700 Billion per year. With ~35 million people below the poverty line in the US, last I checked, this comes out to $80,000 per year, every year, for each poor family of four, in addition to their under-poverty income. Why is anybody poor? Compare that to a local charity I support, who last year, for roughly $200,000, took 27 families out of poverty and made them self-sufficient.
I will say it again: government has no business trying to do charity work. It should be left entirely to the free market.
J.
Post a Comment