SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"Spending more on health care sounds like it should improve health, but our study suggests that is not the case and social spending could be used to improve the health of everyone," says Dr. Daniel Dutton, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. "Relative to health care, we spend little on social services per person, so redistributing money to social services from health care is actually a small change in health care spending."
Health care costs are expanding in many developed countries like Canada, and governments are seeking ways to contain costs while maintaining a healthy population. Treating the social determinants of health like income, education, or social and physical living environments through spending on social services can help address the root causes of disease and poor health. However, health spending continues to make up the lion's share of spending.
[...] The commentary author suggests governments should allocate social spending fairly for both young and old to ensure that the younger generation is not being shortchanged.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180122104016.htm
[Related]: The need for health in all policies in Canada
(Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:05AM (18 children)
Cue the resident trolls and sociopaths bitching about what a terrible affront to..... Nah, fuck it!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:21AM (17 children)
What right does the government have to extract from my my hard earned wealth with the violent imposition of tax (wealth re-appropriating) schemes, just for the social services that the TMB needs, like education and etiquette training? It just feelz wrong to me!
And has anyone else noticed the increasing Canadian influence on SoylentNews? One day, not too long ago, there was nothing on the front page that was not either about Canada or submitted by Canadians, or somehow involved maple syrup or Poutine and socialist medicine.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:44AM (8 children)
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:49AM
If you do not doubt, obviously you did not understand what I posted. In Irish myth, there is a story about the Salmon of Knowledge. Douglas Adams changed it iinto the "Salmon of Doubt".
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:48AM (6 children)
And yet, you went off and did it anyway...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:33AM (5 children)
And to remind some birds of carrion, disagreement is not a valid reason for down-mods. Instead, you should offer a valid rational argument in response to a parody of your position, which, by the way, is pretty funny, if I do say so myself.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:53AM (4 children)
He hasn't got one. On the other thread a ways back, he was reduced multiple times to rocking back and forth and screeching like an autist that taxes are theft because shut up you fucking commie moron cunt. I'm pretty sure the entire site has his number now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:43AM (3 children)
I admit I missed it. Should I be sorry about?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:42PM (2 children)
Well, you're one of the ones who had it before that. Basically, in the Davos topic, he's been reduced to shrieking at the top of his carrion-smelling flow-through lungs that taxation is theft and that's the bottom line, and fuck everyone else, no one is getting one red cent out of him.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:50PM (1 child)
Ah, sounds his "natural" reaction.
He's so keen to defend the rights of those who 'uck him deep I start to believe he likes it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:31AM
Oh, dear, c0lo!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by http on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:51AM (1 child)
We canadians don't have a freedom of speech clause or amendment in our constitution. If we talk shit about anything political, we can be denied health care. It's a strong incentive to go abroad and use aliases when we're having an election. Since our elections aren't on fixed dates like in USA, it's a low background noise spread over the entire year rather than all in two weeks.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:12AM
Hosehead!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:22PM (1 child)
If by wealth you mean the stuff you buy with money, well no. But if you mean US currency, then you really are mistaken; you may hold it, but you never own it. The government owns it; it lends it to the public, using banks as an intermediary, and then asks for it back, in the form of taxation. Taxation creates demand for the currency, and gives it value; it is no coincidence that a collapse of trust in government and unwillingness to pay taxes is correlated with unstable currency regimes, particularly prone to hyperinflation.
See, like vaccines, taxation isn't about you. Its about us, together. Tax dodgers are like draft dodgers; worthy of contempt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:11PM
no, the government doesn't own it. the international banksters wrested that control away when the federal reserve was formed. now they loan it to the fed gov and the fed gov uses our slave labor as collateral on the loan. they even made the us dollar a copy of the greenback so people would still think the gov owned the money. it's all a fraud.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:27PM (1 child)
What right have you to profit at the expense of your fellow man based on decidedly unnatural social constructs such as private property, designed specifically to be self-catalyzing engines of wealth concentration?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:15PM
Because they're the smart ones who figured it out!! Obviously it is their natural superiority at work and thus natural they should be awarded more of humanity's resources. Cause fuck you, I'd rather watch you die. Unless you need a shirt, then apparently you can have TMB's.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:58PM (1 child)
Why?
(Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:29PM
Oh, alack, alack! Oh woe is me! Oh how the strength of my butthurtitude doth scale the lofty heights of a zenithal singularity!
*Mods DOWN into the lowly depths of a nadiral singularity*
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:08AM (16 children)
Want a healthier population ? Give them free doctors, free proven meds, free exercise facilities, ban advertising, ban drive-throughs, ban home delivery of unhealthy foods, discontinue any help to obese people, force employers to install showers (or tolerate smells) ...
Easy, right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:37AM (12 children)
Only the smart people can be healthy. This means not just doing exercises and eating a healthy diet, but also not smoking tobacco, not drinking alcohol, not using other drugs... In other words, none of the "alternatives" of the TFA will have an effect.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:47AM (11 children)
Wait, weren't you lobbying for getting government out of the recreational drug business just a few weeks ago?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:33AM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:11AM (4 children)
Ok, so let me get this straight,
1) you say everybody should live drug Free.
2) you say everybody should be able to do any drugs they want
3) you say everybody gets free drugs, as much as they want
4) you don't say who will pay for all these drugs, and the hospital an medical costs caused by all this free drugs use. hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills picked up by who?
5) you seriously seem to believe there are no health effects to drug use! WTF?
6) you seriously seem to think tax payers should be forced to participate in and pay for this state sponsored suicide.
To this, I say fuck you!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:47AM
Are you off your meds? Again?
I mean, after all that socialised heath care contributed to their cost, you toss them aside, you tosser?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:24PM (2 children)
People can think that's the ideal reality without also thinking it's actually reality.
Who pays for our current system when people overdose and cannot afford health care? You don't seem to understand that our system right now is actually more expensive than trying to prevent these health issues in the first place. You might ask, 'How can we afford to help these people?' I say that we can't afford not to do it.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)
And you don't understand that the GP was not suggesting ANYTHING that would prevent these health issues. Simply providing recreational drugs free of charge in any quantity in the (implied) hopes that the drug abuser will overdose and die early.
Government provided free drugs to help speed your way to the grave.
Nice job AC.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:17PM
Do you have a special club for clueless people? Oh right, the Republican party!
Sorry it was too easy, and we all know Democrats are the height of wisdom and purity!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:49AM (2 children)
Normal, sane, strong people do not need any drugs.
Whose definition of normal is the correct one? Or, for that matter, drug
And, come to that, normal (however defined) sane, strong people do have accidents and diseases, so it's a pretty good proposition that normal, sane, strong people will, at some time be likely to want analgesics and/or need antibiotics if they are not to have foreshortened lives.
If you are talking about recreational drugs, then that will rule out theobromine (chocolate), caffeine (tea, coffee), ethanol (beer, wine, spirits), nicotine (tobacco), capsaicin (chili, pepper, ginger), myristicin and elemicin (nutmeg), and a whole host of other chemicals that may not be psychoactive, but make food taste nicer, but are not necessary for human health. If you only ate or drank what you physically needed, it would likely be quite a bland diet. You can choose to be a ascetic if you want, but most people wouldn't.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:50PM
Nice job of hair splitting.
Of course he was talking about recreational and addictive drugs.
Provided FREE by the government, with your tax dollars, in some kind of hitleresq genetic cleansing exercise. But hey, carry on with your nit picking while avoiding the actual implications of such a government funded culling.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:11PM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:29PM (1 child)
With that attitude, I assume you never consume coffee, chocolate, aspirin, or any other mind-altering drugs, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:27PM
If those things significantly altered my mindset, I would avoid them. But they don't. They have an effect on many people, sure, but not to the extent of other drugs like marijuana. I see no problem with saying you think recreational drug use should be legal while also saying that you prefer that people would not use them. Of course, other people don't have to listen to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:05AM
On the other hand, how do we optimize profit? Sell product, sell services, advertise advertise advertise.
Adverts when you read, adverts on your phone, adverts when you drive, adverts when you fly, adverts when you wait, adverts when you play, adverts when you go out, adverts when you stay in, adverts when you take a leak.
I wonder which path we took in the USA?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:20AM (1 child)
Should probably have government inspected sensors on fridges and other home food storage areas to read barcoads (or better yet some sort of fancy spectroscope) that makes sure you didn't bring home any illegal food supplies. We surely have to protect the public from themselves.
Plus the sensor could trigger dhs to come take your kids at the same time
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:52AM
How about tax the hell out the providers of junk food. Perhaps you may even get to fill that black hole you call deficit.
What, raising taxes on negative externalities is such a heretical idea? It makes the free-market fairy collapse with seizures?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:16AM (3 children)
Get your hands out of my pockets.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:22AM
Eight-ball in the corner.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:34AM (1 child)
Have you seen the Oscar-nominated documentary on your dream society [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:41AM
Try again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:44AM (3 children)
if taking profits from good, honest, companies isn't enough, this paper argues for wealth redistribution?
"My comatose 96yo grandfather *deserves* $10,000 a day medical care, godammit!"
https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-2418194773.html [axios.com]
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/big-business-health-care/ [upenn.edu]
America, where the people getting screwed will fight for the rights of those getting the money to screw them harder.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:02PM (2 children)
We (or those before us) already decided that your "comatose 96yo grandfather" deserves the best medical care available regardless of cost. This article isn't about that. It's about how you can make the cost of that care cheaper, which is actually far more important than talking about who's paying that cost.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:09AM (1 child)
Most people seem to think this decision is past tense and set in stone, but mark my words. That's a discussion we, as a society, are going to have to retread.
At present, very simple math can tell you that the average person dying uses hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. The average price of death is going up, as well. We are close to if not already past the point where - at current pricing - when the demographics advance another 15-30 years we cannot support that. As a thought experiment: when routine medical care for an average person over their lifetime eclipses their actual lifetime value to society, that is where it will break. We're closer than most are willing to admit or recognize.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:08PM
We need to have a broader discussion about how health care is discussed to begin with. Questions about medical care are always presented at a time of crisis, and keeping the person alive by any means necessary is the default option. How could any caring person ever choose to unplug grandpa?
Of course, if grandpa were lucid enough to ask, he'd probably opt for Do Not Resuscitate. But tons of money is tossed toward basically prolonging unnecessary suffering.
It's not fundamental human nature, either. Chinese families tend to choose with high frequency to keep grandpa out of the hospital without even telling him he has a terminal illness. This is in a culture with a history of ancestor-worship, where the spiritual belief is that grandpa is going to have a hand in your fortune from beyond the grave.
Meanwhile, in America, we are saddled with this medieval Christian notion that killing oneself is wrong, even if it is to end suffering. The idea had some merit when "killing oneself" was not something you could do easily by inaction. But now it's just objectively cruel.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:53AM (3 children)
There are definitely social services that could be improved that would help keep a population healthier, so that there would be less need for medical services. But those aren't the social services that typically get the money. E.g. football stadiums don't do nearly as much good for a population as 1/10th the amount spent on local basketball courts open for 24 hour use.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:27AM
Stadiums are one of those things that should really be private (though I allow for modest exceptions in the case of public schools) and which should generate a profit. So they shouldn't be receiving public funding at all in the private cases and little public funding in the public case. Obviously, that doesn't work in practice, but I don't think it's because it's an ineffective social service, but rather for reasons of corruption, incompetence, and status signalling that would hurt any social service in the same situation.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:45AM (1 child)
Basketball courts? Right righter local gang hang out something by the government. Because even grandpa on baby girls can run up and down the court. Unless they get stabbed. But hey HiThere got his favorite pass time funded.
Social services are government social workers intruding into everyone's daily lives, teaching you how to scrub the toilet and showing up weekly to make sure you did it. There's not a shred of evidence they improve any ones health. But the do breed a sense of dependency don't they!
My neighbors got caught up in that racket. The finally moved out of town (while remaining self-employed servicing marine engines) just to get away from the nagging nosy social workers. Now the county busy bodies are on their case.
Victimhood is a full time job.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:58PM
Giving children something to do besides get in trouble is good, full stop. It doesn't have to be basketball courts, but a well lit slab of concrete with hoops is a common good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:01AM (5 children)
Sounds like socialism.
*loses shit instantly*
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:12AM (4 children)
Well, at least we got some shit out of you, without having to violently impose laxatives and a high colonic.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:27AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:43AM (2 children)
Not through your mouth/fingers on the keyboard, no.
If it does happen to you, seek medical help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:47AM (1 child)
Poor khallow. Shall we start a kickstarter for his medical bills?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:54AM
I'll contribute only for the first half. I mean the 'kick' one.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:30AM (7 children)
It will not "improve the health of everyone". Rich and upper-middleclass will not get healthier from more social spending.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:57AM (2 children)
Promise?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:48AM (1 child)
After age 25, everyone is in decline.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:15AM
Well I guess I have declined about as far as I am going to, at 2307 years old.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:58AM (1 child)
Provided they hire good guards (or pay off the local crimelord), buy a nice high walled compound and pay for good kidnap insurance (just in case). It's strange how an oligarchy becomes the trap that ensnares the oligarch, and for ever decreasing returns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:52AM
Violent crime between people who don't know each other is not a public health problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:32PM (1 child)
Actually, that false. Consider the flu; the chance a person gets the flu is statistically dependent on times they are exposed to the flu (this is usually even true if they have been vaccinated). The spread of a virus can achieve a critical threshold such that it can't be stopped from spreading to the entire population (in some ways this is very similar to critical mass in nuclear fission). Therefore, the effectiveness of a vaccine to prevent the incidence of the flu in a population crucially depends on what proportion of people in the population are vaccinated. The more people are vaccinated, the fewer exposures anyone is likely to get, the fewer times people will actually get sick.
A social service that makes flue vaccines available freely to everyone, even, for example, made available to students (with parental) consent would be a tremendous boon to society, and very effective use of tax dollars. Fewer hours sick, or taking care of the sick, means more economic productivity. More economic productivity means everyone is richer. Being richer, it turns out, means that life is less stressful and less unhealthy.
Everyone is so focused on the individual that they (sic) fail to see the forest for the trees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:55PM
So is there a country that has substantially reduced the incidence of flu? And anyway, it sounds like you are advocating more health care spending (free flu shots), not less.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:31AM (14 children)
I imagine this will sink into the pond without even a ripple. Throughout the developed world, this is a huge problem. How can you be fair to the younger generation when there's all these generous giveaways to older generations like health care and public pensions?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:15AM
Hey its not the boomer's fault that you didn't just walk up to the CEO of the local industry, shake his hand, and ask for a job. You could have been ceo by now but instead you fail to make good eye contact and aren't willing to scale a 12ft electric fence.
Boomerism - Fuck you I got mine
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:34AM (8 children)
when there's all these generous giveaways to older generations like health care and public pensions?
It's easy. Hey, Costa Rica does it.
Of course, they gave up their aggressor forces.
...decades ago.
Costa Rica Has Healthcare, Education, & Pensions For All Because They Scrapped Their Army In 1948 [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:59AM (7 children)
Are you suggesting we have a world army to enforce sovereignty of all so that we don't need to keep wasting money posturing at each other?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:01AM
Does it seem so preposterous? Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:10AM (5 children)
No, just that if any country were to give up theirs, they could put the money to much better uses! And how that applies to the one country that spends in excess of ten times what any other country does, and complains about how it cannot afford health care, and (coming soon, courtesy of Paul Ryan) old age pensions, is left as an exercise to the very stupid American who asked the question in the first place.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:05AM (4 children)
Or, if the idea of giving up the army altogether is a step too far for some people, how about just... you know... spending a bit less on it? I mean the US could probably cut its military budget in half and still have a world-class military. Hell, if they just spent that remaining half better rather than on massive high-tech corporate-welfare bullshit boondoggle fighter plane projects and such, and maybe cut down on the number of pointless foreign invasions they carry out, they probably wouldn't even have to face any reduction in military manpower or effectiveness at all. Imagine that! Just as much military for half the price!
Now, imagine what good things could be done for US taxpayers with a spare $390000000000.
Same advice applies to many other first-world countries.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:09AM
Correction: $290000000000. Fat fingers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:06PM (2 children)
Hear, hear. Spending all your military budget on pie-in-the-sky next-gen technology is (part of) how the Nazis lost WW2 while inventing ballistic missiles and getting most of the way to the atomic bomb. Which ended up being used against its ally.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:24AM (1 child)
The most advanced thing that Heisenberg and his guys had looked like tinker toys. [google.com]
The Nazis Were Nowhere Near Making An Atomic Bomb [acs.org] image [acs.org]
There's a stage play called "Copenhagen" which proposes the notion that he was purposely thwarting the Nazi effort.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:58PM
Those uranium cubes would make an awesome set piece to a Bond villain's lair.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:00AM (3 children)
Having a balanced budget and controlling/regulating the markup for pharma [statista.com] and heath services [medicfootprints.org]?
How do you think USA got to have a life expectancy under 70 [wikipedia.org] and yet the highest cost of heath care per capita [wikipedia.org] by far?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:34AM (2 children)
Further, you might have missed the part where I mentioned the entire developed world. The US isn't the only culprit here.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:50AM
May not be a problem common to the "the entire developed world" as you suggest.
Seems like Finland has quite a good school and healthcare (which includes elder-aged) without putting the two in conflict. Which suggest it is possible to not experience "this [is a] huge problem".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:54PM
Whataboutism, the last resort of the clueless.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:34AM (2 children)
Hippocrates — 'Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.'
No income = no food = weak/sick
Poor education = taking the wrong food/medicine = sick.
(Score: 4, Informative) by linkdude64 on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:23AM (1 child)
Jack in the Box, Pizza Hut, McDonalds, and Burger King all accept EBT in california.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:44AM
I grew weary of microwave burritos. I bought them frozen so EBT would cover them, then heating them in the microwave ovens most convenience stores have.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:36AM (7 children)
"Want a Healthier Population? Make your rich companies actually pay their proper taxes and spend it on Social Services"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:36AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:22AM (4 children)
Then obviously they're not paying "proper" tax now are they. They may be "legal", but that doesn't mean it's proper or appropriate.
What people seem to forget is that taxes for business only applies to actual PROFIT. And it's only a percentage of that profit. All the reinvestment, all the advertising, all the wages, all the equipment all the supplies and travel expenses are taken out before they even tax them on anything. This is meant to make sure you can't run into the negatives from taxation - you can't be bankrupted by it unless you're trying to do things under the table (hiring illegal immigrants for pennies compared to minimum wage for instance) at which point that's their fault. The problem is that corporations refuse to hand over any of the actual profits, so they start looking into extremely creative methods to dodge the tax they would have owed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:49PM (1 child)
It's not actual profit till someone claims it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:57PM
I think the last few large discussions have melted your brain.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:18PM (1 child)
> The problem is that corporations refuse to hand over any of the actual profits
Actually the problem is that "actual profits" are a purely fictitious accounting construct and can easily be made to be any number you want, and can be shifted between tax jurisdictions at will using using transfer pricing, "intellectual property" (which doesn't physically exist but conveniently has any value you like), offshore loans and a million other tricks which actually have perfectly legitimate business uses in some cases, which makes them difficult to ban.
Actual cash is not a fictitious construct, is a lot harder to fake, and businesses that run out of it tend to expire rapidly, problem is we don't tax actual cash or cashflow or turnover, and any attempt to do so will run smack into a good hundred years+ of international tax treaties that are all based on the assumption that it is profits that are taxed. Hence sorting out corporate tax avoidance requires coordinated action at international level - don't hold your breath waiting for that.
Can try and tax cashflow / turnover indirectly with sales tax and/or VAT - but both those have their own faults and avoidance problems.
One thing we should be doing is cracking down on businesses that say one thing to investors about profits and another to the taxman - saw a multinational do this a couple of years ago, one week investors were told (I am pretty sure by a director) "our UK business is very profitable" and the next week the taxman was told "our UK business is running at a loss". Both of those cannot be true, and making false statements to investors _or_ to the taxman is an offense. Was it investigated? Guess. Multinationals change what their "profits" are all the time without penalty. This is the sort of thing that needs to stop.
Report a loss for tax (in X jurisdiction) = cannot pay dividends in X jurisdiction. Oops, that'll hurt the share price.
Report a loss for tax (in X jurisdiction) = management in X jurisdiction cannot take performance bonuses. Oops, that'll hurt.
["but what if they have international parent company share options" - well then they get 100% tax on any benefit because they didn't contribute to the success because on their own admission they _lost_ the company money]
And so on.
Of course then X jurisdiction becomes a really expensive place to do business and hence an expensive place to buy anything and the whole population complains that their country is a Rip Off.
Might as well just concentrate on taxing/charging the people - after all what is a corporation if not a collection of people?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:02PM
That's common sense, not a problem. And if you're not collecting the taxes, then you don't have to care whether it's a profit or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:44AM
Profit is normally what is taxed.
Though there are some people talking about taxing money transfers between companies, to avoid multinationals moving their profit to whichever country has no taxes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:43AM (6 children)
I am absolutely serious. I have a "Housing First" apartment whose rent is paid by the Federal Housing and Urban Development administration.
When I was homeless, or from time to time staying in my Mom's guest room I was always getting picked up by the cops who would take me to a mental hospital - while wearing handcuffs.
The concept of Housing First is that it's far cheaper to pay the rent for homeless people than it is to pay for mental hospitals and jails.
I don't have a clue how many times I was put back in the booby hatch while I was homeless. I'm serious: I have lost count.
I've been in my apartment since May 2016. I'm not on Section 8 it is "Permanent Supportive Housing" which means my rent will get paid for the rest of my life if I'm not able to pay for it myself.
My electricity too.
Having a stable place to live enabled me to get back to work as a software consultant [soggywizards.com].
I used some of my pay to purchase a Mac mini and an iPhone 7. I will buy a MacBook Pro sometime soon. That will enable me to use the two-machine debugger to develop Mac OS X drivers.
While working out of my paid-for-by-the-government-tit home.
Having this work enables me to pay a portion of my rent. I expect to pay the whole thing after my next income recalculation.
I'm also going to buy a car. It's not so I can get to my current client's office - because of traffic it is faster to take public transit.
But having a car will enable me to take on clients whose offices aren't on any of the bus routes.
It will also enable me to pick up dates in my wheels rather than asking them to meet me somewhere they have to get to on their own.
And finally it will enable me to perform at Open Mics. I own quite a good quality but very lightweight keyboard.
Some of my possessions don't jive with my homelessness. For example I keep my bus pass in a hand-stitched Italian leather card wallet that I bought at the Men's Furnishings department at Macy's.
Before I went looking for a card wallet I was completely unaware that there even was such a thing as Men's Furnishings.
I inherited a really top-quality contractor's table saw from my grandfather. Saws like that cost a grand or too.
It's not common for homeless people to have enough tools that they could build a house with the aid of just one low-paid helper.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:51PM (5 children)
I'm waiting for an anonymous coward to argue that this would ultimately lead to a reduction or elimination of homelessness. It could even lead to universal basic income. And god forbid that poor people might get health care! What would our society come to without poverty, homelessness and hopelessness.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:00PM (4 children)
> What would our society come to without poverty, homelessness and hopelessness
What would you hope for if you had everything?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:23PM (3 children)
Taking a lesson from observing the lives of people who are on the opposite end of poverty, people are never satisfied. Always wanting more. There is no amount that is enough. These might be people who you could say "have everything". Yet they are unhappy. They may be "medicated" by lots of toys and distractions. But still basically unhappy.
Trying to make everyone happy should not be a goal. But one goal could be to try to reduce the wealth divide. Raise the bar of the lowest income to a level where their own drive to have more will enable them with the opportunities to better both themselves and everyone else with their efforts.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:51PM (1 child)
There is probably quite a bit of selection bias in that sample. What kind of people would seek to make that much money after they've already far exceeded the point of simply living in luxury?
Studies have shown that there is a diminishing return in increased happiness with increasing income and beyond a certain, not so high, point they stop being correlated.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:01PM
As for the continuing to seek making more money, what you say is for people not insane with greed. Some people never have enough and are compulsively driven to acquire more wealth -- and probably not by "earning" it but by figuring out how to game systems, exploit others, etc. Those people will continue.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:18PM
> But one goal could be to try to reduce the wealth divide.
Which wealth divide?
The one where the richest 5% of the world complain about the richest 0.00001% having too much, or the one where the richest 5% use a quarter of the resources and 80% of the world lives on less than $10 per day? Reducing the former doesn't help most of the world, reducing the latter would make almost everyone in the developed world pretty _un_happy.
Or maybe you want to address the wealth divide organisations like Oxfam tend to refer to - using net asset value, which makes out that the poorest people in the world are recent ivy league law and medical graduates (a very flawed measure, see e.g. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding-up-the-wealth-of-the-poor/ [reuters.com] )
Maybe you could just address absolute poverty - say take half the wealth off the top 10 richest and use it to eliminate world extreme poverty, except it wouldn't take that much any more (you'd need half roughly the wealth of the top 10 today if it was 1980ish, but now you'd only need about a fifth, why? - because the amount of absolute poverty has been declining fast anyway, even as the world's rich have got richer - see e.g. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png [ourworldindata.org]
Maybe it is all a matter of perception of poverty (from https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty [ourworldindata.org] ):
- in other words those in rich countries believe poverty has increased, those in poor countries believe the opposite, so are things actually getting better or worse? Kind of important to know that before changing what we are doing...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:07PM (2 children)
They're the same thing. Almost. Because many people have a very limited view as what they define as "health" spending, and many people either don't know or don't believe in the concept of Social Determinants of Health.
Here's how it was explained to me in class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11xLlwKgWc [youtube.com]
So you can either pay for social programs, or you can pay for the medical bills. OR you can totally not care / decide it shouldn't be your problem or wallet, in which case you are a selfish and greedy individual.... for whom we'll still care for if/when your life changes out of your control and you wind up on the dole, too.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:58PM (1 child)
They are kind of the same thing but are typically not treated in the same way either in budgetary location or in control of outcome (what the money is spent on).
E.g. in the UK:
Most health spending is national via the NHS, and controlled - you cannot get the money for your prescription and go spend it on a different drug for instance.
Most social _care_ spending however, is local, which leads to inefficiency/conflict where, for example, a local authority delays providing social care support for someone who needs it to leave hospital ("bed blocking"). The local authority thus "saves" money (and local officials get bonus due to money "saved"), but the cost of the hospital bed is more, so the taxpayer loses money.
Also, most national, and much local, social spending is uncontrolled in terms of outcome - the money is handed out and you can spend it on what you like. It may get spent on things that will improve health, but all to often it won't. There isn't a way to fix this without resorting to authoritarianism - e.g. you get given enough money for food but it can only be spent on healthy food and trading your food for unhealthy stuff or booze or fags becomes a crime.
The real problem is that when social spending is proposed as a cure for social-correlated health problems there is an implicit assumption that the problems are caused by lack of money, rather than excess of stupid. This ignores the people who "haven't got enough money for food", but are chain-smoking in the food bank queue (I know of food bank volunteers who have quit because of that). It ignores the people who are stuck in an in-work benefit system that reduces their benefits when the minimum wage goes up so when they get a payrise they end up with same or less - but they are working out how much and if they can afford to eat using the calculator on their brand new contract iPhone (seen that one personally).
You can fix a lack of money with money, you can't fix stupid with money - you just end up with stupid rich folk instead of stupid poor folk, and you kill the aspirations of the next generation who wonder why the heck they should learn things and do well in exams at school when stupid gets more money.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:03AM
Here we call rich rednecks "CUBs" or "cashed up bogans" (bogans being Australias term for rednecks/chavs/working-class-ppl). Yes, there doesn't seem to be a cure for stupid (the drinking binges and car accidents just became more expensive), but strangely the next generation who grew up during our mining boom seemed to have much more sense and were doing more with their lives. Unfortunately I was in a state that voted in a right wing government (I live in Townsville, Queensland), and just as the mining boom cooled the government imposed crushing austerity... it was a one two combination. The crime rate doubled, we had an ice epidemic, and there are talks of harsher penalties, vigilantes and curfews. This is in a city with a wide economic base which can, and historically has, weathered economic downturns much better. With this lost generation we're in danger of the "new normal" Keynes warned was always the danger of imposing austerity.