I went through two life-saving surgeries, and one that improved my quality of life so much I sometimes can't believe it myself. Have four degrees, currently doing a PhD that doesn't feel like a decade-long indentured servitude. Debt, medical or otherwise? Zero. And I worked shitty jobs through more than half of that education just to support myself. It was miserable despite all the safety nets I could get. Not even for a moment I thought "that person's life is nowhere as shit as mine, give me their social aid!" It's not collective responsibility or socialist indoctrination or whatever polysylabic name substacks crowd[0] made up for it. No, it's basic humanity and empathy. We can talk about those. We can talk about differentiating self-interest vs avarice, from ethics to economics (hell, you no doubt have means to school me on both). But having a talking point about how others not suffering through same burden is making you feel bad by diminishing whatever 'sacrifice' was made is some kindergartner-level problem the author has to grow through. Exercise for the reader: convince me I'd fare better, or at least not worse, under American conditions. [0] - EDIT: For the record, I don't particularly care for their political views. Or, for that matter, yours. Hell, I like you the same either way. This is just my new blanket term for their generally shoddy scholarship, from misapplying geology and biology to fumbling at basic modelling, they seldom speak with any of that reason or rationality they espouse.
Clickbait title aside, this 1400-word essay argues for one thesis: under socialism behavior which is praised is not rewarded and behavior that is condemned is rewarded. The cases provided support this thesis, and I think it's completely fair to debate whether they are representative or cherry-picked, or whether they represent unwanted side effects of policies that are overall a net positive. A medical condition requiring surgery is not a behavior (if it wasn't something like a liver transplant for alcoholism), so it seems like a peripheral example. Of course I am very happy you were able to get the care that so improved your life quality, whatever the source. Cool, I prefer better/worse discussions to binary good/bad. Searching for the nearest parallel story available, I found the story of Matthew Fentress: Heart Disease Bankrupted Him Once. Now He Faces Another $10,000 Medical Bill Three years later, in 2017, Fentress' condition had worsened, and doctors placed him in a medically induced coma and inserted a pacemaker and defibrillator. Despite having insurance, he couldn't pay what he owed the hospital he went to in Louisville, Ky. So Baptist Health Louisville sued him, and he wound up declaring bankruptcy in his 20s. This starting point seems no better than your situation: working a shitty job that doesn't pay enough to cover health care. Getting sued by a hospital is clearly a low point in life, but at least bankruptcy offered a way out. Personal insolvency is fairly generous in the United States, allowing a fresh start with forgiveness from most obligations. Your credit score (which determines your ability to get loans at a favorable rate) is trashed for 7-10 years, then the bankruptcy is supposed to be off your record. Bankruptcy is relatively popular in the United States, and it promotes risk-taking in business. For individuals, it's a concern that so many people rely on it, but I suppose it's better than debtor's prison or being saddled with debt forever. Poland only recently allowed personal bankruptcy. Back to Matthew. The insurance from his job paid $28,920, leaving a debt of $10,092. $5,000 of debt from his 2017 hospital visit was discharged in bankruptcy. Another hospital visit a year later was covered by hospital financial aid. Matthew believed he would not qualify for more financial aid, so he arranged a payment plan of $500 per month to pay down the $10,092, a significant hardship on his cannoli-stuffing salary. Later, "A hospital representative suggested Fentress apply for financial assistance. She followed up by sending him a form, but it went to the wrong address because Fentress was in the process of moving. In September, he said he was finally going to fill out the form and was optimistic he'd qualify." "I don't have hope for a financially stable future," he says. "It shouldn't be such a struggle." [Cherry-picking disclosure: I found this story yesterday, looking for something parallel, and just now found the update below.] Moved by plight of young heart patient, stranger pays his hospital bill A retired college professor in Las Vegas saw Matthew's story on TV and donated $5000 toward his medical bills. The hospital (which claims it "consistently has encouraged Mr. Fentress to apply for financial assistance") then covered the rest of the bill after he sent a copy of his paycheck. So comparing outcomes, both you and Matthew got life-improving treatment, though he may have had more headaches and paperwork. In the end, it doesn't sound like he actually paid a lot out of pocket (but a full accounting would include tax payments and pay withholding for insurance). His credit is wrecked for a few more years. There's a lesson that money was available if he just asked for it, so self-advocacy helps. And of course, getting your story on TV makes a difference. That probably makes Matthew's story very atypical, but we would need some careful research to see how much this kind of "basic humanity and empathy" makes a difference. I'll note that "The U.S. is the No. 1 most generous country in the world for the last decade" and it probably helps that wealth-building capitalism is promoted in the U.S. The source puts Poland at #86 of 126 on a survey about helping strangers, donating money to charity, and volunteering. Perhaps when the state does more of the humanity and empathy work, people feel less obligated to contribute.convince me I'd fare better, or at least not worse, under American conditions
Matthew Fentress was just 25 when he passed out while stuffing cannolis as a cook at a senior living facility six years ago. Doctors diagnosed him with viral cardiomyopathy, heart disease that developed after a bout of the flu.
Financial fears reignited this year when his cardiologist suggested that he undergo an ablation procedure to restore a normal heart rhythm. He says hospital officials assured him he wouldn't be on the hook for more than $7,000, a huge stretch on his $30,000 annual salary. But if the procedure could curb the frequent extra heartbeats that filled him with anxiety, he figured the price was worth it. He had the outpatient procedure in late January, and it went well. Afterward, "I didn't have the fear I'm gonna drop dead every minute," he says. "I felt a lot better." Then the bill came.
As Fentress tries to move past his latest bill, he's now worrying about something else: racking up new bills if he contracts COVID-19 down the road as an essential worker with existing health problems and the same high-deductible insurance.
Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system. The issue are limited resources (potentially) not allowing for everyone to achieve the plateau where most people are content. What differs are the means of aiding less fortunate people. What doesn't is that there will always be a subset that abuses whatever system they're under. No, but delineation here is moot: both are required for continued survival regardless of behavior. The burden on one's life afterwards, however, shouldn't be predicated on accidents -- of birth or otherwise. To my knowledge, not everyone in the US gets health insurance at work. And $7400 per year is no small expense, regardless if it comes from tax to the state or private provider. I'll look more into this, but I do distinctly remember all US postdoc applications I've seen emphasizing you're gonna buy your own. This is a much, much broader topic, though I'd like to apologize if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic. For what it's worth, people contribute to WOŚP and our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so. Some will never. Most think it's enough, and prefer to give it to a reputable foundation instead of some by-cause. Many give money )often not insignificant money) to church, and that's another can of worms, but the distribution of this charity differs by parish. Not all are equal, so you'll see ones with shelters, soup kitchens, care and active programmes to help people get on their feet... and places sporting some bitchn' marble statues. As for helping people on the street, there was some study where they put a kid without shoes or coat outside in different countries and looked how long it took for someone to lend aid. Poland was also on some ludicrously low in that rank, but that's because I can guarantee you that most folks believed it's a setup for pickpockets or, what article argues, people believing that person probably already abuses social aid, doesn't contribute etc etc etc. Because that's the anti-social aid propaganda here, and has been so for years. We also have a 500+ program, where (skimming the details) you get extra 500 PLN per child per month and some extra perks/aides regarding school and daycare, and if the father can't pay alimony, the state covers the difference or pays some it's-complicated sum. There's been a huge stink over some couples abusing it that completely ignored tens of thousands legitimate cases, too. I prefer to help on the off-chance the person is in genuine need. I remember buying some extra food, giving them to a homeless man, and he just tossed them away after making sure there's no booze. So instead of writing a think-piece about perils of charity perpetuating abuse and laziness, I took it out of thrash and gave it to someone who used it. I wish to be able to offer some book that'd serve as a good introduction to Polish condition that's simultaneously in English and not utter garbage though.under socialism behavior which is praised is not rewarded and behavior that is condemned is rewarded. The cases provided support this thesis, and I think it's completely fair to debate whether they are representative or cherry-picked, or whether they represent unwanted side effects of policies that are overall a net positive.
A medical condition requiring surgery is not a behavior (if it wasn't something like a liver transplant for alcoholism), so it seems like a peripheral example.
The insurance from his job paid $28,920, leaving a debt of $10,092.
Perhaps when the state does more of the humanity and empathy work, people feel less obligated to contribute.
No need to apologize; I didn't get that message. I don't know if Americans are more humane or empathetic, that kind of thing is interesting to research but hard to measure. I suspect that having more wealth than most other nationalities enables Americans to be generous without feeling the same sacrifice. That's great, but if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it just suggests that they believe the organization will do more good with the money than the government. The U.S. version allows taxpayers to reduce their declared income by the amount donated to a charitable organization. So if you donate an old car valued at $500, and you are in the 15% tax bracket, you'll owe $75 less tax. Charity is hard to do well. Thanks for sharing your perspectives.if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic
our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so.
A government successfully working around its own (built-in) inefficiencies is a good thing, regardless of the message it sends.That's great, but if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it just suggests that they believe the organization will do more good with the money than the government.
I agree this is true. Probably no society has operated on the principle of a single sentence, but in this kind of conversation there must be some simplification, so: Under capitalism, the natural human tendency to seek to improve one's life is compatible with the greater good. By producing more of value to others, one becomes better off. Under the Marxist slogan, the natural human tendency to seek self-improvement promotes antisocial behavior. Regardless of how much you produce of value for society, you will get the same amount—what you need. If you want to improve your life by increasing time spent in leisure or with family, the incentive is to conceal your ability to produce. If you want to improve your life by receiving more, the incentive is to exaggerate your needs. This article simply argues that both sides agree on the principles that hard work is virtuous and dishonest parasitism is bad, but only one side provides incentives in alignment with those principles. The issue of distribution, addressing poverty, will never be completely resolved, because no approach is perfect. But it's clear what generates poverty-relieving wealth. In the United States, capitalism runs rampant, and some people get wildly rich, leading to inequality. The fifty states can be ranked by GDP per capita and they range from New York at $90,043 and Massachusetts at $86,942 down to Arkansas at $44,808 and Mississippi at $40,464. The GDP per capita of the United Kingdom is $40,284. By this imperfect measure, half the countries in Europe are poorer than the poorest American state.Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system.
this is a misrepresentation of both marxism and modern socialist theory derived from marxism - that famous slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was something marx said about the ideal communist society where work is no longer necessary to survive and is instead something people do because they want to do it - it's a biblical paraphrase and is not the entirety of communist theory - any more than any slogan sums up an ideology. if you divorce something from context and misrepresent what it's saying, again, you can make anything sound impossible and ridiculous. do you really think that comparing GDP, "this imperfect measure", is at all an appropriate way to compare the welfare of the people living in two areas? are you joking? does that pass the smell test for you?
Agreed, it is a misrepresentation, and there are comments on the article to that effect. Huemer may be wrong to represent that line as a "core socialist ideal." It still seems realistic to me that socialists and capitalists alike consider work that contributes to social welfare as virtuous, and dishonest parasitism as bad. In any case, I described the sentence as merely a slogan, with the qualification that it is a simplification. Marxism may be an unrealized abstraction, but the two policy examples are concrete and real. Is there no tension between these ideas? • Warren believes that it is good when people earn money and pay off their loans. • Warren advocates a policy that rewards people who did not pay off their loans. or • Self-reliance through employment is better than unemployment and dependence on aid. • Unemployment benefits reward unemployment and discourage employment. This is not a proof that student loan forgiveness or unemployment benefits are bad, that the costs outweigh the benefits. It's a concern, it's a problem, it's something advocates should address. "Most, perhaps almost all, left-wing economic proposals create perverse incentives." Loan forgiveness will benefit one set of people (university students who are generally more affluent already) and harm another (future students facing ever-higher tuition and debt promoted by the intervention). There is a lot of literature on welfare cliffs, where people will lose money if they increase their income by working more and therefore become ineligible for a public benefit. There are also efforts to address these problems. Perhaps some discussion is worthwhile? GDP is imperfect for a lot of reasons and has been widely criticized. It is not easy to compare happiness or welfare between countries. Can you suggest a better measure, rather than simply criticizing my efforts? It seems that greater income is correlated with greater well-being. Everyone quotes the famous Kahneman study showing that "there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000" in emotional well-being and ignores the previous sentence saying "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily." Another study shows increase in both measures without limit. People sure seem interested in getting more income, whether or not it solves all of life's problems. Even if bliss peaks at $75,000, that's slightly above the U.S. median income and well above the European average. I don't hear anyone arguing that socialism creates wealth, it is all about distribution. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, and we have an engine that works for that purpose.
All other considerations aside, methodologies of those studies were substantially different. One was an app that asked the same person 50 times on average, the other was an interview conducted by a human that called random people. Honesty of interviewee under those different circumstances aside: EDIT/Addendum: I wonder to what level the numbers in those studies are cultural. I'm not average by various measures, but I'm actually pretty content with my money and it's just a tad over $9k/year, below average even in Poland. Maybe it's because I still vividly remember living on less than half that, but most my needs are met and it's enough. Maybe the gauge isn't invariant here.It seems that greater income is correlated with greater well-being. Everyone quotes the famous Kahneman study showing that "there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000" in emotional well-being and ignores the previous sentence saying "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily." Another study shows increase in both measures without limit. People sure seem interested in getting more income, whether or not it solves all of life's problems.
Even if bliss peaks at $75,000, that's slightly above the U.S. median income and well above the European average. I don't hear anyone arguing that socialism creates wealth, it is all about distribution. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, and we have an engine that works for that purpose.