[From Bill Powers (2011.07.14.1148 MDT)]
Martin Lewitt 2011 July 14 0952 MDT –
ML: Let’s discuss what the
“people with means” really have. What if that is really
just stock in companies they control and manage. Sure they could
sell the stock and become just consumers? How do they benefit
society that way? Did it ever occur to you that we are better off
having founders and managers “keep what they have” and that by
keeping it they really are sharing “it with
others”?
BP: Sure, but why do they have to have so much for themselves that they
don’t share? Are they that much more deserving than everyone else is?
I’ve met quite a few of them, and they range from selfish pigs to very
good people who care about others almost as much as they care about
themselves. They don’t just own stocks and manage companies (which any
reasonably competent person can do). Unfortunately, too many of them have
delusions of grandeur like those of John Galt, thinking that they’re some
kind of royalty who have to be coddled and reassured of their importance
by being given huge amounts of money and even huger privileges. They
think they’re the only ones smart enough to run things and (as imagined
by Ayn Rand) they threaten to take their footballs and go home if they’re
not appreciated enough, and see how the complainers like that. It’s sort
of grade-school braggadocio, or middle school on a good day.
I can forgive someone for having delusions until they start getting
dangerous.
BP earlier: You are proposing
that we evaluate the health-care system by how well it serves the needs
of those who don’t have to worry about how expensive it is. That, of
course, suits a small part of the population very well indeed. They are
quite satisfied with their health care and they can pay the premiums and
extras with ease.
ML: The current healthcare system does benefit a large supermajority of
the people, not a “small part”, it is one of the possible flaws
that they don’t have to worry about how expensive it is, that does lead
to over consumption, but it is a luxury system, with little queuing, and
fear or comfort based rather than science based cost effect levels
of screening for scary conditions.
BP: Yes, lots of people with insurance benefit from the health care
system, but not without worry and strain on the budget the way the
wealthy do.
Don’t 47 million people without health insurance weigh just a tiny bit on
your conscience?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737 . Doesn’t that large a
number, 15.8 percent of the population, rather defy your attempts to
minimize the problem? Or are you thinking that if only 15.8% are without
insurance, that isn’t much of a problem when so many people have it?
You know, if the people who have insurance were to contribute 16% of
their current premiums they could buy health insurance for those who
don’t have it. That would cost me $22 per month if my premiums are
average.
ML: I actually think the poor
are making the correct decisions, in most of the world there are more
basic priorities than healthcare, and forcing them to choose otherwise
via mandates is what would be inhumane. As it is there are already
too many mandates in the system that price healthcare out of their range,
e.g., having to see a doctor for prescriptions, or do you think the poor
are stupid too?
BP: So you recommend a system under which large numbers of people have to
make a choice between getting health care for their families and feeding
their families or themselves? If you have ever had to live on a limited
budget, you seem to have forgotten how that feels, especially if you’re
trying to take care of others beside yourself.
I’m sure you’re not really a cold, selfish, uncaring person, but the way
you’re putting spin on everything could mislead people into seeing you
that way.
BP erarlier: Understanding this
gives some hope of reforming the system, because it shows that at least
the rich do feel that their way of life requires justification, and that
deliberately shutting the poor out of the health care system or simply
being indifferent to their plight would be unacceptable – unacceptable
to others who judge them, certainly, but maybe in some small way
unacceptable even to themselves. If they can find a way to reason out
that it’s not their fault, they can feel free of guilt or at least
culpability. You are describing how they do that, and helping them do
it.
ML: Actually, it isn’t their fault, so finding a “way to
reason” that it isn’t, is not necessary. Apparently you think
merely having wealth makes it their fault.
BP: Their having enormous wealth (let’s use the right adjectives here)
qualifies them as persons of interest, at least. Variously attributed, it
has been observed that “Behind every great fortune there is a great
crime.” Those with great fortunes and those who depend on the owners
of fortunes for income do not normally agree with that, of course. Not
hard to figure out why.
BP earlier: Somebody famous
among Christians said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what
they do.” I wouldn’t presume to give advice to God, but to human
beings I will suggest that to understand all is to forgive all, so we
should focus on understanding what is really going on here, and do our
best to make it so clear that nobody can continue to pretend it’s not
going on.
ML: I try to have no pretensions.
BP: Try harder.
BP earlier: It should be quite
possible to find out which of these invented facts are true, which are
not true, and which are unknowable.
BP: No comment on this? I left out a category: facts which are held to be
theoretically true but are unverified.
ML: Donald Trump is not an
attractive persona, but I suspect that Buffet has done more good for
humanity than Ghandi, whose nationalistic independence movement cost
millions of lives, as India disintegrated in sectarian
warfare.
BP: Golly, I hadn’t realize that Ghandi caused all that destruction and
death. What an evil person! How could anyone have admired him for
persuading people to resist without violence, thus nefariously causing
the helpless British soldiers to fire their weapons in self-defense and
kill a few towel-heads? A few hundred, a few tens of thousands, what’s
the difference?
ML: Unfortunately, too many rich
have been duped into feeling guilty for their wealth, and few are as
capable of doing much good with it other than creating more wealth, than
say, Bill Gates is, who has proven as good a manager of giving as he was
of Microsoft. Buffet, as usually, recognized good management, and
will give his wealth to Gates foundation. Contrast that with a Ted
Turner who instead of working to create more wealth, is instead
purchasing large tracts of land for the benefit of buffalo rather than
the poor.
BP: So you think Ted Turner should use his wealth for the benefit of the
poor? Funny, I do too. Using common sense, of course: not every poor
person is that way involuntarily.
I suspect that with further back-and-forth this discussion will only
degenerate. I’m going back to what this discussion forum is
about.
Best,
Bill P.
···