Is that the goal, honestly?
Kimtsu stated " And how exactly was that outcome worse for the poor kid than if he’d died of a tooth infection through having no insurance to pay for any medical treatment at all?"
The outcome was no different for the poor kid, the outcome was worse for society as a whole because they incurred a cost where there wasn’t a need. This is where means testing might benefit us all.
It’s a bare minimum. And better than what would happen without government, which was my point.
And I guess my point is that we should be able to do better. If the government doesn’t or can’t, then that government is doing a shitty job.
That’s kind of ironic, when it’s your side that works constantly to keep the government from doing better.
Means testing the things that work or don’t isn’t keeping them from doing better, nor is it particularly helpful by calling things “your side/my side”
I think there is enough blame to go around
Could your share your views on the eradication of smallpox and the near-eradication of polio, the effect of that eradication on the poor worldwide, and the degree to which government is responsible for that?
Do you have any data correlating relative size of government (budget, employee headcount, whatever other metric you choose) with poverty rates by country? If not, then you are just cherry picking annecdotal evidence.
Would you expand on that to say that all the government does is good?
My thesis is more or less in line with Director’s Law: “Public Expenditures are made primarily for the benefit of the middle classes”. Moreover it seems to be that in the decades since that was first written, the shift has been generally towards the upper middle class and the rich. It’s certainly gotten farther and farther from the poor.
Who has even implied that? And how is that an argument against government helping people? If utter perfection is a necessary qualification for something to be worthwhile, then nothing is worthwhile and we might as well just curl up in a fetal position somewhere.
You understand my comments perfectly. Everything any government has ever done has been metaphysical perfection. I’m glad you asked such an insightful and broad question, and skipped over the whole part of any debate on why the government sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails. I doff my hat at your ability to cut right to the chase!
By trotting out one or 5 or 500 of the limitless things that the government has tried mightily to control, and done well at, you ARE doing that. You offered it up as PROOF.
Well that’s a bit of a different question from the title of this thread. Saying that public expenditures primarily benefit the middle class (or upper) is different than claiming that government never benefits the poor. In fact, many expenditures that primarily benefit the middle class have at worst neutral impact on the poor.
Perhaps you could explain how Medicaid, for example, primarily benefits the middle class or rich?
It is proof that the statement “government never helps the poor” is false. That is not the same as “the government always helps the poor”, which is also pretty obviously false.
I don’t feel that utter perfection needs to happen but it does need to strive for that perfection. The many allowances where the government throws there hat in that ultimately fail need to be rectified. It shouldn’t be just a “my bad”, they are using all of our money and while you might be all for it, I am not.
Not one single person in this thread has claimed that the government has NEVER helped the poor.
Disclaimer: And if they have, they are morons.
Let me guess: your “solution” is to cut off all government aid and let the poor die for their own good.
It is in government’s best interest to have a poor, second-class group of citizens. They will always vote for whoever promises to hand out the most goodies.
No. I believe that poor families should be allowed to send their children to good schools, rather than the current system where the government keeps them trapped in bad schools. (The government classifies half of its own schools as failing.) Voucher programs targeted towards the poor would allow poor children to get a decent education, while also saving money.
Well, it is A solution.
And before I am vilified for throwing a DTism back at Der Trihs no that isn’t what I’d do. I already told you, I’d means test programs currently in place and I’d do a much better job vetting things that would supposedly help.