Rebane's Ruminations
July 2013
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 5 July 2013.]

For years I straddled the fence on the legalization of drug use, especially seemingly benign versions like marijuana.  Then I finally got off the fence in favor of making the whole catalog of drugs legal since the war on drugs was not being won, and the collateral damage from the conflict took a horrendous toll on lives and freedoms (more here).  I cast my lot with those who counseled legalizing drugs, controlling their distribution at prices that made no one rich, and mopping up the human detritus pretty much as we already do with alcohol and illegal drug use.

The idea is to get the criminal element out of the business, and thereby greatly reduce the layers of well-funded law enforcement agencies that benefitted from the other side of that sorry business.  But that’s easier said than done since both the drug cartels and dealers agree with the feds that narcotics should remain on the wrong side of the law.  Today the promoters of marijuana use have made contentious inroads in several states to legalize both recreational and medicinal use of that dear little weed.  The resulting dust-ups have even reached the local levels such as we are witnessing here in Nevada County where one jurisdiction gives their approval for smoking pot under certain conditions, and another jurisdiction is adamant in saying ‘no way Jose’.

So far the main point of pot proponents has been that smoking it gives rise to no significant health risks and does serve to ease certain aches and pains in addition to soothing the savage breast.  But now reports have appeared in prestigious medical journals like Lancet and the Journal of Psychiatry announcing that “medical research shows a clear link between marijuana and mental illness.”  Well, I didn’t know that.


Moreover, the most apparent causal link is between smoking pot and schizophrenia, a widespread and most pernicious and debilitating form of mental illness that affects several times more people than are afflicted with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and even HIV/AIDS.  We learn that “less than one third of the people with schizophrenia can hold a steady job or live independently”, and that about the same fraction of homeless people suffer from the disease.

The really bad part of the evidence is that this effect is greatest after young people imbibe during their teens and early twenties.  Psychiatry says that all of us are predisposed to live near the edge of the “cliff of sanity”, and some come into the world closer to the cliff than others.  The evidence on marijuana consumption is that it pushes people even more toward the edge.  And those who started out closer to that precipice of insanity often get pushed over.

So this news is taking us into a new area in the legalization debate.  Dr Samuel Wilkinson of Yale’s Department of Psychiatry reports (here) on the connection between marijuana and mental illness.  He advises that we owe it to the mentally ill among us “and to society in general to consider all the facts, risks, and potential benefits before we embark on this drastic social experiment” of legalizing marijuana.  “If the end of Prohibition offers any historical precedence, once marijuana is legalized it will be all but impossible to undo.”

In this context we should consider the already tenuous cognitive state of our under-educated and uninformed electorate and workforce.  I believe that this research should be taken seriously and followed to wherever it might lead.  It should not be dismissed by marijuana proponents in a manner similar to how true believers in man-made global warming today have dismissed the new findings that dispute the long promoted yet scientifically contended views of the International Panel on Climate Change.

As I consider these findings, the response of Lord Keynes comes to mind.  When a reporter pointed out that the famous economist had flipped on a long held thesis.  He said, “When new information conflicts with a previous belief, I change my mind.  What do you do?”

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on NCTV and on georgerebane.com where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Posted in , ,

168 responses to “Mindbending Marijuana”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 615pm – The theory may have arisen in the late 1800s, but the behavior has been part of human behavior for millenia. People strive harder, most often for the benefit of all, when they feel that they can differentially benefit their their kin and themselves. If the rewards of such labors are removed or significantly diminished, all of society will suffer much more.

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar

    Okay George then what is the moral justification of government subsidized medical research if the end product is only available to the privileged?
    Also does your view of this also include education and housing for example?

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 643pm – Paul, this barn looks familiar. I don’t recall supporting government subsidized research for anything but national security and other constitutional prescriptions that one may be able to dig out. In any case, the end products have always been available to all over time.
    If government subsidizes pharma research to the point of taking out all risk, well then the market would instantly show it in low prices for all from the gitgo. Anyone charging higher prices would be out of luck on the next round of subsidy proposals. But apparently government insists on subsidizing to maintain control and then piles on market risk through regulations, tax codes, and tort laws. The socialists don’t understand any of this. Go figger.
    The feds shouldn’t be in the education and housing business. Their record there is atrocious.

    Like

  4. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, if you think a system can or should be designed to insure someone with money can’t get more expensive medical care than someone without money, I think you are deluding yourself.
    Everyone dies eventually; about half of your lifetime medical expenses are incurred trying to delay the inevitable outcome of your last illness. The key to reducing lifetime expenditures is to not fight Death when death will not be deterred. Do we do it by choice using our own assets, or do we do it by a bureaucratic ‘death panel’ that writes dispassionate rules that determines what the hoi polloi live and die by, with exceptions for the well connected?

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    I understand your position. In this case Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic disease that without treatment usually ends in death before teenage years. With treatment life can be extended to the 40’s on average and possibly beyond that with new treatments that I have referred to. There is no way anyone except the extremely wealthy can afford to pay for treatment out of pocket and those with the condition are not insurable. So in your view should we just let them die? The only option is some form of government assistance. Do you have any ideas about how to approach this and similar diseases?

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    We subside research all the time for all kinds of things through public supported Universities. Do you propose we eliminate that? What regulations do you feel are appropriate for approval of new medical drugs and procedures?
    I was not thinking specifically of federal subsidy for education or housing but tax payer support in general through local, State and Federal taxes.

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 851pm++ – Support housing and education through local initiatives (taxes and charities) if that is what the people in the region decide.
    Why take the profit motive out of developing life saving drugs? Would they be created with equal fervor when the reward is weekly wages from the government?

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    You seem to neglect the fact that drugs and treatments that cost $60,000 a year or more can only be paid for through government programs. That is likely recognized by the developers from the beginning since insurance will not cover those patients and, as I said, virtually no one can afford such treatments out of pocket. Do you see any other options?
    You refer to a “region” for support housing and education. Would that be at the County and City level? How do you see the State involved in this?
    By the way, thanks for the respectful conversation on this matter.

    Like

  9. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    GG asked: “Do we do it by choice using our own assets, or do we do it by a bureaucratic ‘death panel’ that writes dispassionate rules that determines what the hoi polloi live and die by, with exceptions for the well connected?”
    Great question, and it speaks directly to the heart of the matter. What single payer offers is a certain level of care that everyone accepts. If you want more coverage, and you can afford it, you are more than welcome to pay for that additional coverage.
    Single payers asserts that for very basic needs, everyone is covered. This is an economically sound policy because it precludes people from using the ER for simple tests and procedures. It’s like the gas tax; everyone pays in and the roads are nice.
    What we have now is a system where a small subset of people (of which I am an angry and outspoken member) subsidizing those who have great gov’t plans, or use the ER for their primary care.
    I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.

    Like

  10. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    I have moved mountains to take care of, support and enrich my loved ones. Guess that is survival of the fittest in a way. The person that can think quick on his feet and use his/her brains to outsmart, out think, and outmaneuver his/her competition in the market place/workplace is today’s survival of the fitness poster child. Don’t matter if you can’t throw a spear at your prey or if you are near sighted or are loonier than a hoot owl. The ability to adapt in a changing world (weekly if necessary) makes today’s champions.
    Hello my friend Mr. Ben. Noticed you omitted the Waltons from the list of big bad Pharma. Don’t the folksy Walton Clan from the precious Little House on the Prairie fame also own Wal-Greens?
    Ben, the fastest growing segment of drug addiction is woman 40 years of age and older popping pills. Also, true for men. The largest group of overdoses is now woman over 40 on prescription meds. They go running to the shelter of their mother’s little helper.
    I say we should outlaw scripts and those legal little pills that come in a variety of sizes and colors. They are killing people!!! Ban them now. Its them evil Waltons up to no good again. This time they are exploiting workers then knocking them off when they ask for a penny raise. Ban pills. Save us from ourselves. Save the down trodden.

    Like

  11. Gerry Fedor Avatar
    Gerry Fedor

    I have to wonder why CABPRO has not stepped up on the MMJ issue, as isn’t this a property right for people to grow their own medicine, or should CABPRO remove the PRO (Property Owners Rights) from their moniker?
    Is this is a question we should be asking their leadership, or are they just interested in a very small “Non-consequential” of property rights?

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Out of everything you said this is what stood out for me
    “You have to come back to the cold fact that enforced equality, in whatever dimension of society, means loss of liberty and lower benefits.”
    We have very different ideas on the meaning of equality and liberty. More than ever the way we perceive the world is the biggest obstacle to us seeing what we all agree on coming to fruition.

    Like

  13. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Bill,
    I don’t know what you are talking about with the Walton comment. The evil Walton family doesn’t own Walgreens. I am sure Walmart has put many local pharmacies out of business though. Forcing once business owners who invested their profits, time, and energy into the local community into becoming an employee of the giant wealth sucking retailer.
    Giant Wealth Sucking Retailer- Every time people who work in the community where they live shop at the Arkansas based store they send their energy, time, and wealth out of their community thus sucking the life out of the community. Can’t afford parks, schools, fix the potholes, and so on. To bring back to health care, the worst part of it the pay is so low at Walmart a huge chunk of their employees are encouraged to go onto to government social programs. In essence we are subsidizing Walmart’s wages and benefits to its employees.
    The store located in Porterville, CA about the population of Nevada County they Walmart received $14 million. One of the most profitable companies on the planet getting $14 million in subsides in a relatively small community. How is this correct.
    http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/subsidy_report.html?sub=U2FsdGVkX1*NRLSCk2KRrZmdFMzwzOle
    Unfortunately the cite doesn’t have Montrose, Colorado. I watched how first Walmart and then Super Walmart devastated Main St in that town. I was in my early 20’s and had never heard of Walmart. I shopped there because that is where most people in Telluride went because it was the first thing we came to on our 70 plus mile shopping trip. That is when I started to see how bigger/ inexpensive comes with a very big cost. By the time I was 30 I was boycotting the store and encouraged anyone with a sense of community to do the same.

    Like

  14. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 645am – We do indeed Ben. I have been writing about this difference for seven years. Glad you agree. The question is what do we do now as a nation when such a schism of reality exists?
    PaulE 1048pm – Yes, as has long been pointed out in these pages, the government has guaranteed us a mangled market, not the ‘free market’ that some wish and others rail against. Can we both agree that government should not be subsidizing drug development? And that they should be supporting legal reform in tort laws that boost such development costs through the roof. But in the final analysis, does everyone have the right to a life that has an unlimited draw on their neighbors’ wallet?
    The ‘region’ refers to whatever jurisdictions each state sets up at various levels. But we should puzzle on your former question of people just moving to states that have the biggest giveaways. For openers, states can impose length of residency requirements for receiving certain benefits. And, of course, there is always the option not to get overly enthusiastic about all the giveaways (wealth transfers).

    Like

  15. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Look to the past to see what has worked best for the most people and try to adapt to modern circumstances is the way to move forward. I suspect that this difference in world views will follow us to even the most blatant examples.
    Here is an excerpt from FDR in 1936.
    “That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy – from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man’s property and the average man’s life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.
    And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.”

    Like

  16. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 911am – “Look to the past to see …” Great advice Ben, have given it myself. But that doesn’t help us join our understanding of things. The people whose viewpoints we may represent to some extent don’t even agree on the definition of simple words and common notions (one reason for my including a Glossary in RR).

    Like

  17. Gregory Avatar

    “That is likely recognized by the developers from the beginning since insurance will not cover those patients and, as I said, virtually no one can afford such treatments out of pocket.”
    Paul, I think you’ll find if you have insurance when the condition is discovered, most insurance will cover it. No, if you don’t have insurance and then try to buy it after a child is diagnosed with a terrible disease, they won’t bite. They aren’t charities. At Roulette, you don’t place a bet on Red when you see the ball is glued in place on a Black or Green, and the insurance companies are the House.
    The problem remains risk pools and portability, and both are solvable with market oriented solutions.
    To the mad as hell and won’t take it anymore Mike, Obamacare should be making you even madder as hell, but you keep accepting the law as it was sold, not as it is.

    Like

  18. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So Gregory, George what options are there for those who have children born with that type of condition other than government assistance? Can you point me to any system anywhere in the world that has developed such a system or is it theoretical at this point. The golden age of capitalism in the 19th century just let people die. Are you saying the repurcussions of government assisted health care is worse than letting people die a natural death if they can’t affork healthcare? Many questions.

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 509pm – Following up on Greg’s 1050am, I think the onus is on the wrong foot (to mix metaphors). You are asking those who are on the paying side to solve all the problems that you folks on the receiving side consider to be the minimum requirements for your welfare utopia. We will beggar the economy and create a situation many times worse than now if your nostrums of unlimited taxes/premiums/fees for those who can pay to take care of the ever increasing fraction of those who cannot or will not. Nowhere is it written that everyone has an equal draw on my wallet. For those for whom this is still too obtuse let me spell it out.
    THE POORER WILL ALWAYS SUFFER AT HIGHER RATES AND GREATER INTENSITIES THAN THE RICHER, THERE IS NOTHING SUSTAINABLE THAT CAN BE DONE TO CHANGE THIS TRUTH, AND EVERY ATTEMPT TO DO SO BY FORCE WILL BEGGAR SOCIETY TO A UNIFORMLY HIGH LEVEL OF MISERY. IT WAS EVER THUS.
    The only way that the poor can be lifted is the way that they have already been lifted, by increasing the overall wealth of society so that more benefits will (seatbelt fastened?) trickle down to the have-nots. This has given our poor levels of income and care unimagined previously and still not available in the overwhelming part of the world.

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    I an not talking about a welfare utopia but extending the lives of sick children. The reality of what you propose is disturbing and depressing. The family I know and the children involved are real. If you had it your way they would likely be dead by now because they receive medical assistance from the government that has extended their lives and quality of life.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 638pm – The people I am talking about are also real, and they number in the millions. And the death rates of poor countries will go way above the anecdotal rates cited to start comprehensive social programs. You are proposing an unlimited draw on other wage earners income; that will not work as I have vainly attempted to explain to you. If you would put some sort of limit on the resources you want redistribute, then we could talk some sense in how best to do it. But none of you and your co-thinkers ever want to do that.

    Like

  22. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Why do you suspect that conservatives are the only ones who pay into the system?
    “I think the onus is on the wrong foot (to mix metaphors). You are asking those who are on the paying side to solve all the problems that you folks on the receiving side consider to be the minimum requirements for your welfare utopia.”
    As a society we all have things in common and our government is the big one and as a humane decent society we need to respect all people, even the poor, need access to health care from time to time. If a person is flying in first class and is coughed on by someone in steerage/ economy who has TB it doesn’t matter what kind of insurance program they belong. Disease much like bombs doesn’t discriminate.
    I have never seen numbers that show any other nation has as much debt as the US when it comes to health care and yet every citizen of these nations have access to health care.
    Compare International Medical Bills
    http://www.npr.org/2008/07/02/110997469/compare-international-medical-bills

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 811pm – never made the claim about conservatives. But I will bet the ranch that more liberals than conservatives are on the tit. And there is no way to get them off.
    I’m not ready to recircle the sustainable healthcare system barn. Just read my old comments.

    Like

  24. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    I would take that bet in a heart beat. In my family and wife side it is a big majority of conservatives on the dole. Just about every statistic I have seen on the subject suggests the opposite of your position.
    Here is one on the state level for a quick reference.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

    Like

  25. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    I guess you’re correct, you didn’t make the claim conservative but I read into it the Romney 47% statement and many of your previous statements towards various issues to lead me to that conclusion.

    Like

  26. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 921pm – An extremely surprising report, especially given that the overwhelming numbers of welfare recipients are in the blue states – e.g. one of three in California alone. What might skew the statistics is that the blue states have the big cities packed with both welfare recipients and businesses that hire workers and themselves pay taxes. Farm and livestock states send lower valued commodities to factories and plants that make finished products and are located elsewhere – Iowa exports corn by the car load, the Kellog Company is located in Michigan.
    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend

    Like

  27. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    I will tell you a personal story because that is what I do. My mom parents were two left wing radicals in New York during the late 20′- 60’s. My grandfather was a union organizer for steelworkers in his middle age to senior years. He worked on bridges before he lost his sight, he worked on the Golden Gate Bridge. My grandmother worked for the city of New York.
    My dad’s family have been ranchers and farmers for over a century. My grandfather and Great Uncle were bronco busters in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Jose area. My second family that I lived with basically every summer for at least a month of my childhood are fruit farmers. They moved to Yuba City from Santa Clara in the early 60’s and some of my other relatives moved to Live Oak and Grass Valley.
    Sometime during my life my mom called my very Reagan republican relatives on their use of subsides as welfare. They were pissed. She then followed it up with asking how they justified filing for unemployment when they didn’t need it. They didn’t talk to her for many many months. They would harvest their crops in mid summer and would go work in the cannery just long enough to collect unemployment and they would stop working. I am assuming it was Sun Sweet and they needed workers during the harvest and they had a early crops so it worked out well. They justified it by saying they would be stupid to not take advantage of it when they were eligible. My mom’s responded but you don’t need it. My mom grew up very poor in some of the poorest neighborhoods in New York and Pittsburgh.
    My dad grew up very poor in Monterey and San Jose. Rural poor is very different than urban poor.
    Don’t get me wrong I consider my relatives like my second parents and I love them very very much. They are both very political as my mom is and are vocal about it. Maybe you read my moms other voices on the red scare and Joseph McCarthy. She had intimate experiences with it with friends and her parents. My grandfather was arrested, beaten, and followed for years. This is why your idea of liberty and freedom is much different than my own since I have studied the history of labor and understand what the Capitalists/ Industrialists/ Royalists did to workers and those who tried to organize unions and still do today. My relatives and I have had some great long conversations about politics and these conversations have shown me that we agree on a whole lot more than we are led to believe by the Republican/ Democratic parties and the media. Only until 2010 when I ran for public office did it really sink in that I wasn’t a secret Democrat. We are agreeing on politics more than ever since we got rid of the partisan bs we are trained to have against one another.
    So the point of my story is that to my mom and her radical parents social programs are for when you need them not for when you can qualify for them. They other is conservatives just as liberals can exploit a program but the number of people who do such things has to be in the low teens or less. Why do people exploit such programs? I am not sure but what I am sure of my relatives are good decent human beings as are my parents and siblings who definitely fall a long way on the left side of the aisle.

    Like

  28. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Paul, sad news about your friend and his family. The law says that come Jan 1, they, you, me all have to get health insurance.
    A family of 4 making 50k a year will get a subsidy of a bit over 6k, or 500 clams a month. Unfortunately, United Health is the second big insurer that has pulled out of the individual health insurance market in California. Too much overhead to track individuals and not profitable. Individual and small tiny businesses only make up 7% of the California health insurance market anyway, which means the cost to buy health insurance out of an individual’s own pocket is going up. Going up for the younger people as well, right when they can least afford it. That’s the law. Hope your friend finds the means.

    Like

  29. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 10 July 2013 at 09:36 PM
    I think you might be surprised at the distribution of what you call “welfare recipients” in California, and the nation at large. The California Legislative Analysts Office did a report several years back identifying the ‘donor’ counties versus the ‘recipient’ counties in California of tax monies. (I am looking for the study so I can cite specifically and link and will when I can find it) The surprising result was that it was the blue counties, predominantly coastal and urban, pay more and receive less in California than the red counties, predominantly inland and rural, by a factor of about 1.4:1. Although urban counties had a higher number of Calworks recipients rural counties had a higher per capita number of welfare recipients. Another problem is how we define “welfare recipients”. Is welfare only Calworks and AFDC, or is it also farm subsidies, transportation subsidies, energy subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, and public works? Every study I have seen shows that ‘red’ states are beneficiaries of more expanded ‘benefits’ than ‘blue’ states are. Frankly I don’t necessarily think there is anything inherently wrong with that, it is a function of being part of a national and global economic system. But don’t you find it ironic that as you put it ‘businesses that hire workers and themselves pay taxes’ are located in blue areas?

    Like

  30. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Steve,
    I think we have an incentive problem in our nation not because we are a welfare state but rather we incentivize greed and so called easy money. Why does capital get taxed at a lower rate than labor? The misguided incentives are at the top not the bottom, which has led to the greatest inequality in 80 years.
    Like you pointed out I don’t hold a grudge against “red” counties or states because they receive more tax dollars. I believe we are the United States of America and we are all in this boat together. I have a huge problem with our defense/ offense budget that uses more tax dollars than the rest of the world combined. I have a problem with the Monsanto’s, Walmarts, Exxon’s and the big banks getting subsidized or bailed out when they don’t need it any longer.
    A hand up not a hand out

    Like

  31. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Yeah, I think what I was pointing out Ben is that a tax subsidy or incentive is no different than welfare is. We agree with each other [big surprise].
    The trick is to make rational choices about what we want to subsidize or incentivize. I would agree with George that we should be trying to reduce subsidies and incentives and get the private marketplace to act as the rational actor it should be. The problem is we disagree about how to get there. George identifies ‘welfare recipients’ as the problem, but the reality is many of those recipients would be adding to economic and social cost somewhere else if they were not on welfare under the current system. They would be in our emergency rooms, on our street corners, and in our prisons, and we would pay more to deal with the problem of poverty than we do now. The answer is creating wealth and distributing wealth more equitably across a broader cross section of society. Instead that wealth is going to defense contractors, banks, and corporate shareholders who are sucking on the tit, as George put it, and calling it ‘good business’.
    When I say we need to ‘internalize the externalities’, I mean we need to build the social cost into doing business and create and spread more wealth to a larger number of people. I am completely unashamed of that statement because that is what capitalism is supposed to do.

    Like

  32. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    California is a good example of what happens when the left gets an upper hand. Our little county used to be a hotbed of jobs and we had busy bees doing timber harvesting and before that mining, then housing . Same for most of the Sierra Counties. Then the left began there quest to lockup the forests and everything in them through laws and regulations. Spotted Owls, salamanders and now mercury hysteria have wrecked the jobs and forced many people to go begging.One only needs t see the flight of the young families to understand this. The coastal cities have been lucky with ocean views and silicon chips. The coast has been a draw for the rich since ancient times. So here in our State we have poor ag immigrants populating the inner part and the rich libs on the coast. Kinda odd since the libs say they are for the little guy. What a lie eh?

    Like

  33. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1045pm – Thank you for sharing more of your background. It paints a consistent picture with the ideology through which you have interpreted events and given prescriptions. You have now allowed to see how deep the roots of your beliefs are. (It is a reason why I contribute to My Story on RR.) Again, thank you.
    BenE & SteveF – My 936pm aside, yes it is always an incentive problem and matters not whether you are a zek in the gulag, a gangbanger’s mother in South Central, or a banker on Wall Street. An oft repeated truth on RR is ‘A good part of capitalism is that it games the system; unfortunately the bad of capitalism is also that it games the system.’ Our Founders tried to leave us an enduring system of governance that recognized that truth. We have turned that system on its head.
    And yes, wealth re/distribution is where it all winds up. (I always shock my conservative audiences with that pronouncement.) This will be even more true tomorrow than it is today because technology has created huge asymmetries in the abilities of people to sell their labor and garner wealth. Today these asymmetries can be reduced only by war (wholesale destruction of infrastructures and populations) or genomics (the modern version of eugenics). Neither of them are palatable public policy considerations.
    While we wait for fate or the Singularity (which also maps into fate) to decide, I have suggested that we consider wealth redistribution through a socio-economic environment that supports non-profit public service corporations.

    Like

  34. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    I did not read any of the comments above, so do not know if I am repeating anything previously mentioned. That said, the quote, “medical research shows a clear link between marijuana and mental illness.”, could be taken in a couple of ways (chicken or egg). The “Reefer Madness” establishment would say that marijuana will make you crazy. But, could it also be that people who are ill are medicating with marijuana (or alcohol, or whatever) to relieve symptoms?
    (From the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH),… “study shows mental illness associated with heavy cannabis use
    Ap​ril 2, 2013 – People with mental illnesses are more than seven times more likely to use cannabis weekly compared to people without a mental illness, according to researchers from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) who studied U.S. data.”
    http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/newsroom/news_releases_media_advisories_and_backgrounders/current_year/Pages/CAMH-study-shows-mental-illness-associated-with-heavy-cannabis-use-.aspx

    Like

  35. Paul Emery Avatar

    “You are proposing an unlimited draw on other wage earners income; that will not work as I have vainly attempted to explain to you.”
    Posted by: George Rebane | 10 July 2013 at 07:48 PM
    National health care systems are much more efficient than what we he have today or Obamacare. As long as we pay 17% of our GDP for poor and incomplete health care your statement may be accurate. Most countries that have national health care are in the 7-9% range. What you are saying is that we are better off letting them die, my friends children being an example, than to subsidize health care for those who cannot buy insurance because it is NOT AVAILABLE to them and, in this case, they cannot afford the $120,000 per year, in their case, to keep them healthy.
    George, perhaps abortion is the most efficient way to deal with this issue. If a soon to be born is diagnosed with a genitic disease, for example, why not just wack um if the family can’t afford the medical treatment.
    George, do you know anybody that can afford out of pocket medical expenses of $120,000 per year? Of course children are born to young parents who quite likely don’t have jobs yet that offer encompassing insurance.
    I think birth screening is the best way to protect the interests of the taxpayers that don’t want to contribute to national heath care for the needy.

    Like

  36. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    It’s also interesting that you believe that the government should not contribute to any research projects except military and national security projects. Coincidentally didn’t that kind of subsided research contribute to your prosperity?

    Like

  37. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 438pm – Did I just witness a limit of 9% of GDP being put on socialized healthcare?
    Re your 448pm – You have a jaundiced, albeit common to liberals, definition of government ‘subsidy’. National security is a constitutional mandate for government which is free to do its own R&D, and even manufacturing. But as screwed up as civil service and servants are, they would be putting the country at an unacceptable risk in doing that wholesale. This has been known for over two centuries. So they put out RFPs (in the Commerce Business Daily) for someone to do their work for them. I was among those who answered that call for about twenty years. And country benefited from that in more ways than you know.
    That kind of response is different from 1) the government assuming non-constitutional functions which then must be funded (subsidized), or 2) the government funding (subsidizing) other non-constitutional projects that are proposed by NGOs and other non-government types on their own initiative – i.e. to fulfill a non-anticipated need.
    But since one can also argue the benefits of some extra-constitutional government funded projects, this distinction is a bit difficult for everyone to grasp.

    Like

  38. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Where does farm subsidies come into this picture. Are they unconstitutional in your view?
    9% limit of GDP? Sure if it includes some form of universal coverage that other countries have provided. If they can do it why can’t we?

    Like

  39. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    “You have a jaundiced, albeit common to liberals, definition of government ‘subsidy’. National security is a constitutional mandate for government which is free to do its own R&D, and even manufacturing. ”
    I encourage you to go read Article I Section VIII US Constitution and the conservative killing “general welfare” clause. Also Alexander Hamilton’s Report On Manufacturing that was implemented in 1790’s and stayed in place until the 1980’s. It outlines how subsides should be funded and allocated as well as securing American manufacturing and national debt against foreign powers. Today our tariffs are so low they couldn’t fund the sanitary supplies for the federal government.

    Like

  40. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, the insurance was available to the parents of those boys before they were born (not that it’s ever a great health deal if not a tax free employee group benefit, thanks to lousy Federal tax policies), just as there is collision insurance available to you for your car before you get into the accident. After the accident, it’s called the repair bill, not insurance.
    What they need after the fact with the medical bills being far more than what they can afford is charity, not insurance, and I wouldn’t argue against that from a number of places, including the manufacturers of the drugs they’d sure like to have.
    Were the boys twins, and the first indication that CF was a danger to the couple?
    There’s a reason Mrs. Liam Neeson died in Canada and Princess Diana died in France of injuries that would have been survivable in the US. Those vaunted national healthcare systems have made choices that keep their costs down and people do die as a result. There are also horror stories of people’s woes due to the rationing of care by waiting lists in national systems. Canada has the safety valve for the wealthy(er) able to cross into the US if they don’t want to wait for a Canadian oncologist or cardiologist to fit them in, and while I do have low income friends who have gone to Mexico for inexpensive dental work, given the results, I wouldn’t recommend it.
    For the solution to our carbon woes and healthcare, I have two words… Soylent Biodiesel.

    Like

  41. Paul Emery Avatar

    So Gregory are you saying that couples should have health insurance before they have children? That would limit childbirth to the well employed or government workers. Do you know if health insurance automatically covers new births?

    Like

  42. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    There is a major difference between car and health insurance and that is car insurance is available for everyone albeit for escalating costs for higher risk drivers. That can’t be said for health insurance if you have any pre condition or risk.

    Like

  43. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    Your two anecdotal examples or how ever many you can find like them doesn’t even come close to the 45,000 people a year in the US who die because they cannot afford to go to the doctor.
    Our problem in the US it’s hard to create an efficient productive program when around 50% of the legislatures are constantly trying to undermine the program to make profits for private industry.

    Like

  44. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Reading the concerns of the two Emery’s on health insurance make me want to go hug a bunny.

    Like

  45. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Ben, perhaps 50% of the legislatures and states are not “constantly trying to undermine the program to make profits for private industry.” Maybe, just maybe, they just don’t like the program and don’t like the details and maybe, just maybe, they oppose for being an up and coming train wreck going to a village near you.
    Greg: Princess Di was alive before she was dead.

    Like

  46. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Bill,
    I wish I could agree with you but the Republican Party has gone insane and just about everything they are doing at this point in time is to undermine the Democratic Party. They are doing this because the writing is on the wall for the present day Republican Party and the only way they can survive without a total reformation is by showing how horrible their friends from across the aisle are in governing.
    Medicare Part C and D are perfect examples.

    Like

  47. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    This is bull shyte to the tenth degree. Only in America will you find fundraisers like this one.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151530634363601&set=a.196176108600.125352.196170158600&type=1&theater

    Like

  48. Gregory Avatar

    “So Gregory are you saying that couples should have health insurance before they have children?”
    Paul, only if the couple is on a middle class rung of the ladder and wants to remain middle class even after the development of an expensive illness or injury, may the Prophet Zarquon forbid. If they’re poor and don’t mind staying that way, no problem.

    Like

  49. Gregory Avatar

    “Your two anecdotal examples or how ever many you can find like them doesn’t even come close to the 45,000 people a year in the US who die because they cannot afford to go to the doctor.”
    Bull.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/

    Like

  50. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    Oh yeah an op ed piece from good ol Avik Roy. As Romney’s adviser on health care it was likely his advise that the poor have health care, they can go to the Emergency Room.
    Are you running out of ideas Gregory? Seems like you’re at the bottom of the barrel on this one.

    Like

Leave a comment