[ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie Apocalypse!)

[Omar Rahman]

> 
> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
>> ?Annual appropriations are divided into 12 separate pieces of legislation:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool thanks Omar.  Let us look at these please.
> 
> 1.     Agriculture?
> 
> OK agriculture.  Why do we need government to be involved in that?  Why?  In the old days we set up subsidies for farmers to not grow stuff.  It was a means of price support, which we no longer need, given international markets.  We had the notion of subsidizing excess food production in case a world war suddenly takes huge numbers of people away from normal food production.  That paradigm is ever more outdated as fewer and fewer people are needed for both agriculture and military: both tasks are mostly done by machines now.  Does anyone think we face a world war 2 style conflict in which millions of guys face each other at short range with rifles?  Nah.  Get rid of the Department of Agriculture.

In general I'm in favour of subsidies only to support farmers in times of disaster or to encourage new types of production that might not be initially profitable. So generally we should remove a lot of subsidies. The problem with that is that other countries have lots of  subsidies and/or cheaper costs due to the artificially high American dollar. One solution to this is to take such countries to task for breaking 'free trade' provisions. Another is to let the presses roll until a can of pop costs $100. Another is to adopt a global currency and let the markets sort it out. Or a mix of these things.

But, aside from subsidies, the Department of Agriculture does lots of other things that we need. You know that thing with the cows and the transformation of grass into methane.....something like that. (/joke If it weren't for Agriculture most Red States wouldn't have any culture at all! /endjoke)

> 
> 2.     Commerce,
> 
> Why do we need a department of commerce?  Let states regulate commerce.  I don?t see anything in the constitution which justifies having that department.

Even if it wasn't specifically listed in the constitution, the fact of which I haven't ascertained, it doesn't mean that having that power is unconstitutional. Case in point, "Obamacare" was held to be constitutional even though there is nothing in the constitution about healthcare mandates.

Aside from this, what 'special power' do states have to govern commerce that the federal government doesn't or can't possess? As an engineer Spike would you like one of your rockets to have 50 parallel incompatible control systems? Do you really think that that would be more efficient? Or that it would even work? This goes for most of your arguments that powers should devolve to individual states.

> 
> Justice
> 
> Justice is a good thing.  Keep it unchanged.
> 
> , and Science,
> 
> Science is a good thing.  Freeze or reduce pay slightly.  They will not leave.  There are fewer attractive options for scientists now than there once was.
> 
> 3.     Defense?
> 
> This can be greatly reduced.  With a military the size of the ours, it is too tempting for a US president to use it, even when the consequences would likely be catastrophic. Examples, Iraq, Afghanistan, and narrowly averted recent use in Syria.  Keeping an enormous military force has been nothing but trouble for the US for a couple decades: everyone expects us to use it to help them.  They fooled us into going into Iraq, then very nearly fooled us into going into Syria, all because we have this absurdly oversized military.  Reduce it.

As a thought experiment, what would happen if 'by accident' we gave the Defence Department and Homeland Security Department budgets to the Justice, Science, and Education (and maybe a few other) Departments and vice versa? I have no fear for the long term security of the United States. The military budget is literally weakening the country. The Budgeteers, like generals, are 'fighting the last war' and by that I mean the Cold War. That's the one, if you remember, that we won by literally outspending the Soviets until their economy collapsed. We shouldn't now defeat ourselves with the same weapon.

> 
> 4.     Energy
> 
> Why do we need government involved in that?  Let energy companies run energy policy, and let them compete.  Hell they could raise their own mercenary armies to defend far-flung oil fields and supply lines, hiring the locals to do the defending.  If the result is the cost of oil rose to what it really costs to get the stuff out of the ground and delivered safely, well so be it.  We pay for it anyway.  Then we wouldn?t need government subsidies on domestic alternatives: they would become cost effective even sooner with cost savings all around.

Sure, let the energy companies do their own security work. Most of the threats to American security are actually threats to 'American' financial interests. 'American' in quotes because can anyone really say that the Oil Majors are American? But for their sakes we have done things like depose the duly elected government of Iran in a coup.  (And we are surprised that they a still pissed off about it!)

> 
> and Water,
> 
> Water is a good thing.  Leave as is.

Water is the most important thing even. Without it nothing else is possible. LIfe, health, agriculture cease without it. As I'm sure you're better aware than myself that space exploration and settlement is waiting on being able to secure large amounts of water than almost anything else. (Big rockets...check! Power sources...check! Habitation modules...check! Water to keep the biologicals bio and logical...um......in orbits where you'll get hit or not present in useable densities on the ground.) As someone one said, :You can't drink the oil. You can't eat the money."

> 
> 5.     Financial Services,
> 
> I do see that we need to make interest payments, in full, on time.  Much of that goes to foreign bond holders.  If we default on that and they stop loaning, evolution help us.  Leave as is.  Note that if the borrowing limit is hit, the government still has income: people still pay taxes.  This revenue can cover interest payments with change left over to actually run the government.
> 
> Regarding foreign investors, I do wonder what this must look like to them.  We have admitted we cannot operate on the taxes we collect, we cannot live the life to which we are fondly accustomed on the money we make.  So now we depend on foreign investors to loan us money to pay them the interest we owe them?  And we are debating whether we will allow ourselves to borrow more?  And still they lend?  Why?  What am I missing here?

Why is that first hit of heroin, crack, etc. free? Why do they keep giving it to you when you try to get clean? Because then you're 'their bitch' as they say.

> 
> 6.     Homeland Security
> 
> Reduce it.  We went all those years without it, we can slim down on it now.

Yup, we have lots of spy agencies who are already doing more than we probably really want them to do. Hello to the NSA observers of the Exi list! Does an actual NSA person read this or do we only rate keyword skimming? We really should name our observer, I suggest #NSA_SEEL. I found a nice verb as a synonym for blind: seel - sew up the eyelids of hawks and falcons

> 
> 7.     Interior and Environment,
> 
> Reduce it some.  The big battles are long behind us now.  Notice how clean the air has become just in our lifetimes.  I do congratulate those who fought and won those struggles. It worked.  The air is clean now.  Reducing the EPA will not suddenly cause car companies to stop using catalytic converters, and besides, both those tasks could be done on a state level.

Here I disagree, the EPA is critically underfunded. As science and technology progress, we hope at an exponential rate, the need for someone to oversee what we can and can't release into the environment is magnified. As before, devolving this power to the sates does not add either legitimacy or efficiency. *copy*

> 
> 8.     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
> 
> All four of those could and probably should be done on a state level.

*paste* As before, devolving this power to the sates does not add either legitimacy or efficiency.

> 
> 9.     Legislative,
> 
> So we have seen.

Yes. All this hullabaloo, mostly in Red States, to ensure that voters are qualified to vote and it turns out that any pet chimpanzee in a gerrymandered district with a psychotic billionaire holding their leash can get elected.

> 
> 10. Military and Veterans,
> 
> Veterans no change.  Military: size reduction.  We won the wars, now we should offer every enlisted an option to bail with an honorable discharge, no questions asked.  Ossifers get a 10% reduction in pay, other benefits unchanged.  Most will not leave.

Yup, take care of the veterans for they have gone to the closest thing to hell that we know of. The next major war will be the 'drone war' and every teenager seems to be in active training with their consoles and computers already so we don't need so many active duty personnel. We probably need to recruit more psychologists, psychiatrists and ethicist now so that when the 'drone war' starts we can move beyond seeing our enemies as 'bug splats' waiting to happen. Why, when, and how we wage war are essential ways for judging the moral quality of a civilisation. Hooray for diplomacy being able to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

> 
> 11. State and Foreign Operations,
> 
> No comment.

To comment, or not to comment, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Comments,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of comments,
And by opposing end them: 

I too shall comment not lest our commenting comments beget.

> 
> 12. Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.
> 
> Transportation: the big costs are behind us now that the interstate highway system is complete.  Don?t build more of them.  Housing and Urban Development: do that on a state level.  I see no reason why the fed should be involved in housing at all.
> 

Hyperloops anyone? Maintenance of existing infrastructure is underfunded. State level? *paste* As before, devolving this power to the sates does not add either legitimacy or efficiency.

> 
>> ?These are funded by by appropriations that could be blocked by a slim majority of refuseniks?
> 
> 
> 
> But recall that ObamaCare was passed without senate debate because one party had a temporary supermajority, which is 60 out of 100 seats.  With that, they could force a vote on a bill which was never debated on the senate floor, since it only required a senate simple majority to pass.
> 

Not debated on the floor does not mean it wasn't  debated. In fact many, myself included, feel it was watered down with too many compromises.

> 
> 
>> ? or potentially by a simple filibuster in the senate?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Back when ObamaCare was crafted, any actual debate of the substance of the bill was called a filibuster.  How strange is this, when actual debate about the content of a bill being crafted in private is called a filibuster.  The contents of the bill created in private was not on the public record.  So now we have an absurdity: nearly all the commentary in the historic record of the US senate with regard to ObamaCare was read into the record by Tea Party guy Ted Cruz.  Historians will find this most amusing: the US passed the biggest change in the structure of government without public debate.  This led to such howlers as the speaker of the house commenting that we need to hurry and pass this bill so we can find out what is in it.  Cannot they see this would lead to all manner of mischief?  Once we pass it and find out what is in it, that no one likes it, for instance, or that it is unworkable.  We find out that the whole scheme really depends on young and healthy peo!
> ple buying overpriced health insurance.  If they don?t come, the scheme doesn?t work.  They aren?t coming.
> 
> 
> 
>> ?The American system of government is based on a system of "checks and balances"?
> 
> 
> 
> Ja, and that system is defeated if one party holds all three seats of power and a supermajority in the senate, as we saw.  The government was given unlimited power.  They immediately abused it.
> 

That's not a bug that's a feature of the system. If the democrats in the  Legislative branch had had more spine they really could have done almost anything. Campaign finance reform, a balanced budget amendment, reversing 'Citizen's United', the list goes on and on. Instead they wasted their chance by compromising to implement a version Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan.

> 
> 
>> ? The President and the Senate have made it clear that they do not accept this "legislation by appropriation" and insist that "Obamacare" be funded. The Supreme Court has upheld it's constitutionality. That's 2.5 branches of government in favor of "Obamacare" vs. 0.5 branches against. Time to check your balance I'd say?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  Now what happens when we check our balance, it is zero, so we need yet another increase in debt limit?  We set a precedent that the government cannot stop borrowing, that it must borrow just to pay ordinary operating expenses.  Then the check on our balance must come from our creditors.  We will not like the way China runs this place.
> 
> 

Totally with you on that. We need to get our financial house in order. We will not enjoy 'being someone's bitch'. They will make us do things with our offices and orifices that we do not wish to.

> 
> 
> 
>> ?Mr. Sowell may be right that "legislation by appropriation" isn't new, but he is wrong to imply that this is a sensible way to govern?
> 
> 
> 
> We must check our spending, or China will do it for us.  We will not like it.
> 

Agreed!

> 
> 
>> ?And to Spike,
> 
> 
> 
>> ?The Government is running the exchanges and regulating the market: these activities cost money and do not raise money?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy solution: let the insurance companies run the exchanges, leave the market regulation to the states.  Open it up so that anyone can buy insurance from any state.  That creates fifty competing markets, regulated by competition among states.
> 

*paste*As before, devolving this power to the sates does not add either legitimacy or efficiency.

First rule of state regulation is: we do not recognise out of state regulation. So I think you mean 50 fragmented markets, where if you step over some line on a map 'Procedure A' is or isn't covered. Very logical, we all know that our medical needs are determined ultimately by our position on a map and not on the conditions within our bodies.


> 
> 
>> ? The legislation is supposed to be cost neutral to the public as an aggregate. (Hopefully cost beneficial if this experiment in mixing free markets and universal coverage works out.) Perhaps you are proposing the introduction of fees into the markets so that it would be self-supporting, yes Spike? ;)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that clarification.  If the whole notion relies on young and healthy people picking up the bills for the old and sick, this whole scheme will fail.  Here?s how you will know: count the number of people who are young and healthy who opt to buy into the exchanges rather than pay the tax.  Notice no one will tell us how many are doing it.  I suspect it is few, and I don?t blame them: health insurance for a young healthy person is a bad deal, even after the tax penalty is taken into account.
> 

This is in some ways the heart of the matter. Statistically, it is a bad deal for a young person to pay for a system that they will probably not need "right now". Just as an old person with no hope of cryo-presevation or life extension has no interest in paying for the development or maintenance of infrastructure they they will probably never use. This is the the fundamental problem of most libertarians. Libertarians generally believe that people will 'take care of themselves' and 'need freedom from external control' and with a bunch of hand waving everything will somehow 'work'.

And the strange thing is: they're right. As we evolved from our apelike ancestors we were free, completely free. We could run away from our troop, join another troop, live alone, find our own food, etc.

And guess what, organised groups, which shared their resources, propagated their culture, etc. outcompeted and out evolved their 'freer' brethren who now sadly found primarily in primate exhibits in our zoos.

And because the young person might have an accident "right now" and need care so that "sooner or later" they will be an old person who needs health care is why we socialise these costs. Also, the old person from my example might go to 'Place X' and walk across "Bridge Y" thereby showing a reason for him to pay for the development and maintenance of infrastructure.

Ideally, this insurance shouldn't be private, it should be public. It offends me that some corporation with access to 'big data', advanced analytic methods, and an army of lawyers can essentially profit from misfortune.

> 
> 
>> ? So even if we do have revenue coming in which exceeds our interest payments we have no legal way to pay it without an (You know what's coming don't you?) appropriations bill?
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this.  The government can still issue checks to bond holders on executive order to the federal reserve.  This may be demonstrated in 9 days.  Good chance what might happen is the house would pass a midnight bill authorizing it on the 17th.
> 
> 

I defer to you in this as I'm not sure of the legalities or what will happen. In 9 days, if they push things that far, I hope that someone pulls some legal rabbit out of a hat (or out of their ass for that matter, it matters not where from, just that the rabbit appears) and the bills get paid.

> 
>> ?I've lived all my life in countries with universal health care, Canada and Poland, except for 2 years in the US where I wasn't covered. Thankfully I didn't get seriously ill in the US. Personally I like knowing that I'm "covered"?
> 
> 
> 
> You were always free to buy health insurance or pay for it out of your personal funds, even in the US.  I have heard this so often from people who came to the US from Europe especially.  I recommend if you want to be in the US and not buy health insurance, that you keep your citizenship, or maintain dual citizenship.  Then if you get sick, head on back to the homeland for treatment.  Otherwise just buy health insurance: it has always been there.  Ja it is expensive, but the way we do healthcare in the US is expensive: we charge those who have insurance more to cover the bills of those who do not.  That is what caused this whole mess to start with.
> 

I was young and healthy and took the logical risk......while knowing that I could probably just run back to Canada to get health care and/or declare bankruptcy to avoid debts piled up by any emergency care (thus passing my financial responsibilities on to rate paying policy holders in classic 'freeloader') or that my Dad is a doctor and my Mom is a nurse and 1/2 my family in Pakistan are doctors. In short, I had options and in the end I didn't get unlucky.

I would consider myself to be a (very?) atypical case. What matters is the general person, one without my options, and they need health care.

About the cost, there are 2 things wrong with health care in the US in my opinion. One is more or less specific to the US and one is almost universal.

The specific: US health care is run at a profit generally for the benefit of insurance companies and lawyers.

The universal: Doctors operate as a guild and limit the supply of new doctors to keep prices up.

Solution to the specific problem in the US requires a cultural shift away from litigiousness and towards a 'not for profit' insurer.

Solution to the universal problem is taking place in the form of the rise of 'nurse practitioners' and expert systems. Hooray for "Doctor Watson"!

> 
>> ? It builds trust in society?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed sir.  ObamaCare has created more distrust in society than I have seen in my lifetime.  I predict catastrophic failure of the whole venture.
> 
> 

It is surprising to me that someone trying to look after the nation's health generates more distrust than the NSA (hello #NSA_SEEL!) monitoring all our communications but I cannot deny that at least in some quarters that this is indeed the case.

> 
>> ? and makes us richer ?as a nation?. Regards, Omar
> 
> 
> 
> Ja, what happens if we build it, but the young and healthies do not come?  Where are we then as a nation?  We mostly took apart a system which kinda worked, Medicare, defunded that and substituted one which looks like a failure right out of the starting gate.  I will change my mind as soon as I see jillions of healthy young people flocking into the exchanges and actually buying the insurance.  Right now the system is crashing under the load of millions of old and sick people struggling to opt in, and millions of healthy shoppers who see the price tag and decide to opt out.  Omar, I admire your idealism, but I think this scheme will fail spectacularly.
> 
> 
> 
> spike
> 
> 

If the young do not come they will be fined. Also, parents are able to keep their children covered until they are 26. And, speaking as one parent to another, while my son might or might not appreciate the value of health insurance before he reaches the age of 27, I certainly do.

Though I thank you, you need not think me idealistic, I am quite the realist in this as I have participated in two national health care systems. Of all the countries in the world the US and Canada are perhaps the most similar. If the system does fail spectacularly you need look no further than your northern border for a system to adopt. A very real system, with the complications and problems of any real system, that works. Works at a fraction of the per capita cost of the American 'system'.

A good read is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States


As a last item, what does any of this have to do with Extropianism you ask? Lots, politics and morality are not going to go away, and as we approach a potential BRANCHING POINT in evolution politics and morality may become more important than ever.


Best regards,

Omar Rahman

P.S. This went much longer than I intended and I don't have time for a good edit so please be merciful in your interpretations of any errors I have made. As I always I am open to correction of any factual errors I have made.




 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131009/b58b0759/attachment.html>