9-11 and other causes of death - Economic discussion

Rational discussion of "hot" issues that affect Asturias, the US, etc.<br>
Discusión racional de temas acalorados que afectan a Asturias, EE.UU., etc.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bob
Moderator
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:54 am
Location: Connecticut and Massachusetts

9-11 and other causes of death - Economic discussion

Post by Bob »

[Art: Please use this thread to Bob's question about the best use of public funds.

Because of this dislocation, the conversational flow may sound odd for the first messages in the thread.

I have moved any replies that deal with fear, 9-11, the Bush Administration, etc. to a different thread, here:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1238 ]

-------------------

I'm starting a new thread for this because I don't want it to be seen as a reaction to any particular point of view. It's not. I'm an academic and I have the luxury of time to devote to simply thinking about things.

It occurs to be however that as horrendous and tragic as the events of 9-11 were, the death toll was approximately 2752. At the same time, traffic accidents kill well over 40,00 Americans a year (43,220 in 2003 alone), many times the 9-11 toll. I don't have the figures for the Madrid bombing and Spanish traffic deaths at hand, but I assume that they are somewhat similar. This is of particular interest to me because I teach bioethics, and the allocation of public and private resources is a major theme in the course.

I also note that smoking kills about 440,000 Americans a year (by some reports), including 50,000 nonsmokers. One study found that raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes by 75 cents a pack would generate $13.1 billion in additional revenue per year and cut youth smoking by 13 percent and adult smoking by 3 percent, saving 1.2 million lives. I take no position on whether or not this is true (I am a nonsmoker)., but it does raise interesting questions.

I'm curious about where our members in the EEUU, Spain and other countries think public funds might best be spent to maximize public benefit (i.e., minimizing deaths) , and the reasoning behind their arguments.

Personally, I'm much more afraid to fly because of the possibility of mechanical failure, bad weather accidents, air controller error, or pilot error than I am because of any terrorist threat. It would be interesting to know if perceptions and opinions differ by country. Please let me know what you think. I'll share the results with my students. Perceptions, after all, are what make up our political realities.
User avatar
Xose
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Post by Xose »

Doh! You're right, Art. The topic of Bush gets me a little sidetracked! :oops:

I think that public funds would be best spent on the following things, in this order:

1. Education. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE to have a single crumbling school in a nation this rich. A more educated population is healthier, wealthier, and obviously smarter and better prepared to deal with all of the other problems our nation faces. This is the cornerstone in solving any of our problems, IMHO.

2. Health Care for every single citizen. Preventable diseases take up a disproportionate amount of tax dollars due to the lack of up-front care that uninsured and underinsured people cannot afford. The ER is not a good substitute for a doctor's office.

3. Defense. We must have a strong, reliable, well-equipped army. That army should then be used where it actually fights the people who hate us, not on misguided glory hunts for the commander-in-chief.

4. Housing. This is becoming a major problem in our society. We should set up a WPA type program that would have the dual benefits of providing good jobs for the underemployed and housing for the poor.
User avatar
Art
Site Admin
Posts: 4489
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:50 am
Location: Maryland

Post by Art »

Ah, yes, that's it, Xose!

Just to be clear, I think this is what Bob really wants us to answer:
Bob wrote:I'm curious about where our members in the EEUU, Spain and other countries think public funds might best be spent to maximize public benefit (i.e., minimizing deaths), and the reasoning behind their arguments.
----------------------

¡Ah, sí, eso es, Xose!

Para hacerlo evidente, pienso que esto es lo que Bob realmente quiere que contestemos:
Bob wrote:Soy curioso sobre qué nuestros miembros en el EEUU, España y otros países piensan: Cómo podrían los fondos públicos ser gastado para maximizar la ventaja pública (p. ej., reduciendo al mínimo muertes). Qué sea sus razonamiento que lo llevaron a esos argumentos.
User avatar
Art
Site Admin
Posts: 4489
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:50 am
Location: Maryland

Post by Art »

It's interesting that you ask this question, Bob. I've been thinking about this a lot as a result of Carlos' question here:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=592
I've changed my thinking as a result.


I think there are things that government can do fairly well and things that sometimes get in the way of our "healthy" functioning when government gets involved.

Health care I'm all for a single payer system, leaving open the option for citizens to see a private physician. We can see from the example of Spain that government can become the health care provider, give good service, and do it relatively cheaply. Apparently Canada's system is much less successful. So we're fortunate to have good examples of how to do it and how not to do it.

Our government already runs Social Security and Medicare very efficiently compared to similar private programs. There's no reason that anyone should have to worry about getting medical care or that anyone should go without. Also, if we want our businesses to be able to compete globally, we need to insure that they are not handicapped by having to greater pay health care costs than businesses elsewhere in the world. A single-payer system could accomplish all this with fewer headaches than we have now. Our irrational fear of "socialized" medicine is giving the rest of the world an unnecessary advantage over us.

Education We have years of experience with government-provided education, which now ranges from early childhood through graduate school and continuing education for adults. This should be supported by federal taxes so that poor districts are not disadvantaged. I don't believe education is the answer to all of our problems, but it is obviously extremely important in maintaining our economy, our technological edge, and even in fostering good citizenship.

Defense, Police, Border Control, Security Xose is right, this is an unavoidable responsibility of government. Of course, the forceful side of government can be used for ends that are contrary to our values of freedom, democracy, and justice. That's one reason why education is important so that we citizens will be able to recognize abuses and defend our values.

Democracy I think government needs to support democracy directly by financing elections, at least on the national level, but probably on all levels. In part this is to reduce bribery and other forms of corruption. When politicians collect money from special interests, it's inevitable that there will be corruption, as we're seeing now in DC. Democracy is supposed to be "of the people". It's become "of the corporations". Also, if we finance elections, we might eliminate some of the worse aspects of our elections. If funds are limited, perhaps there won't be as much negative advertising. A democracy could even promote more neutral forums for political candidates to talk about and debate their views on the important issues.

Regulatory Functions One of the best things about modern life is that government protects us (to some degree) from unsafe buildings, unsafe drugs, unsafe foods, unsafe working conditions, degradation of the natural environment, and the like. Just like the defense aspect of government, we need to watch what the government does in the regulatory area, so that it does get out of control, but overall, this is an extremely valuable function.

Culture Great civilizations are known for their culture: painting, music, architecture, drama, literature, etc. The government has the responsibility and resources to maintain our heritage and encourage future cultural blossoming. I'm not totally sure how this second part can be attained, but one simple thing is to help fund arts organizations which put the public in contact with contemporary artists of all kinds.

Assistance with Food, Housing, etc. There will always be people who are essentially wards of the state. We must provide humane housing, food, care, etc. for them. I myself have a brother who will never be able to provide for himself. It's important that the government care for people like him.

But where should government draw the line on public assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc.)? Clinton instituted time limits on welfare to try to get able-bodied people off the dole. That's probably a good thing, although it may be too rigid. Are there exceptions for the marginally functional? As we know now, the problem with programs like welfare is that some will see assistance as a way to avoid taking care of themselves. So how does government help people without encouraging dependency and irresponsibility? Do we need to provide a minimal level of support for anyone in need, perhaps so minimal that it's not attractive except as a temporary measure? Maybe, but another side of me argues that it's much cheaper to help house and feed marginal citizens than to house millions in prisons. I'll be interested in what others think.

Retirement Benefits I would like to see Social Security maintained. But a lot of the same issues come up with this as with welfare. Should everyone get Social Security? Politically, it certainly helps if everyone is expecting to receive benefits. Given that many Americans aren't saving for retirement, it's obvious that we're going to need Social Security. Maybe that's gives us a strong case for allowing more immigration: more workers to pay into the Social Security fund!

I'm sure I'm forgetting something....

------------------------

Es interesante que hagas esta pregunta, Bob. He estado pensando en este mucho como consecuencia de la pregunta de Carlos aquí:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=592
He cambiado mi pensamiento por consiguiente.


Pienso que hay cosas que el gobierno puede hacer bastante bien y cosas que a veces nos impiden en funcionar bien ["sano"] cuando el gobierno está implicado.

La asistencia médica Estoy completamente en favor de un sistema de un solo pagador, dejando abierto la opción que ciudadanos pueden consultar a un médico privado. Podemos ver del ejemplo de España que el gobierno puede hacerse el proveedor de asistencia médica, proveer servicio bueno, y hacerlo a un precio relativamente bajo. Parece que el sistema de Canadá es mucho menos exitoso. Entonces somos afortunados tener los ejemplos buenos de como hacerlo y como no hacerlo.

Nuestro gobierno ya controla la Seguridad Social y la Asistencia médico de una manera muy eficiente comparada a programas similares privados. No hay ninguna razón que alguien debería preocuparse de la adquisición de la asistencia médica o que alguien debería vivir sin tenerlo. También, si queremos que nuestros negocios sean capaces de competir a escala mundial, tenemos que asegurar que no son impedidos por la necesidad de pagar más para asistencia médica de que pagan negocios en otras partes del mundo. Un sistema de un solo pagador podría lograr todo esto con menos dolores de cabeza que tenemos ahora. Nuestro miedo irracional de medicina "socializada" da al resto del mundo una ventaja innecesaria.

La educación tenemos muchos años de experiencia con la educación proporcionada por el gobierno, que ahora se extiende de la niñez más joven hasta la escuela de graduado y la educación continuada por adultos. Esto debería ser apoyado por impuestos federales de modo que distritos pobres no sean perjudicados. No creo que la educación sea la respuesta a todos nuestros problemas, pero es obviamente sumamente importante en el mantenimiento de nuestra economía, nuestro posición de ventaja tecnológica, y aún en la crianza de la ciudadanía buena.

La defensa, la policía, el control de frontera, la seguridad Xose tiene razón, esto es una responsabilidad inevitable de gobierno. Desde luego, el lado poderoso de gobierno puede ser usado para los fines que son contrario a nuestros valores de libertad, democracia, y ljusticia. Esto es una razón por qué la educación es importante de modo que nosotros los ciudadanos sean capaces de reconocer abusos y defenderán nuestros valores.

La democracia pienso que el gobierno tiene que apoyar la democracia directamente por financiar las elecciones, al menos sobre el nivel nacional, pero probablemente sobre todos los niveles. En parte esto debe reducir el soborno y otras formas de corrupción. Cuando los políticos recogen el dinero de intereses especiales, es inevitable que haya corrupción, como vemos ahora en los acontecimientos corrientes. La democracia, como se supone, es "de la gente". Se ha hecho "de las corporaciones". También, si financiamos elecciones, nosotros podríamos eliminar algunos peores aspectos de nuestras elecciones. Si los fondos son limitados, quizás no haya tanta publicidad negativa. Una democracia aún podría promover foros más neutrales en que candidatos políticos pueden hablar de y discutir sus opiniones sobre las cuestiones importantes.

Funciones reguladoras Una de las mejores cosas de la vida moderna es que el gobierno nos protege (a algún grado) de edificios inseguros, medicinas no sanos, productos de alimentación no sanos, condiciones de trabajo no sanos, degradación del ambiente natural, y en otras modas. Igual con el aspecto de la defensa, tenemos que vigilar lo que el gobierno hace en el área reguladora, de modo que no salga del control, pero en general, esto es una función sumamente valuosa.

La cultura Sabemos las grandes civilizaciones por su cultura: pintura, música, arquitectura, drama, literatura, etc. El gobierno tiene la responsabilidad y los recursos necesarios de mantener nuestra herencia y animar el futuro florecimiento cultural. No estoy totalmente seguro como se logra esta segunda parte, pero una cosa simple es ayudar en financiar a las organizaciones de artes que ponen al público en el contacto con los artistas contemporáneos de todos tipos.

Ayuda con alimento, alojamiento, etc. Siempre habrá gente que es esencialmente pupilo del estado. Debemos proporcionar el alojamiento humanitario, el alimento, el cuidar, etc. para ellos. Yo mismo tengo un hermano que nunca será capaz de asegurarse el bienestar. Es importante que el gobierno cuida a la gente como él.

¿Pero en qué momento va el gobierno a decir basta sobre la ayuda pública (el bienestar, vales de comida, etc.)? Clinton instituyó plazos limitados sobre el bienestar para que conseguimos desengancharle a la gente sana de los subsidios. Esto era probablemente una cosa buena, aunque pueda ser demasiado rígido. ¿Hay excepciones para los quienes son pocos funcionales? Como sabemos ahora, el problema con programas como el bienestar es que algunos verán la ayuda como un modo de evitar cuidarse. ¿Entonces cómo puede el gobierno ayudar a la gente sin animar la dependencia y la irresponsabilidad? ¿Tenemos que proporcionar un nivel mínimo de apoyo a alguien que tiene una necesidad a corto plazo, quizás tan mínimo que no sea atractivo excepto como una medida temporal? Tal vez, pero un otro lado de mí argumenta que es mucho más barato ayudar con vivienda y alimentación a ciudadanos marginales que almecenar a millones en prisiones. Estaré interesado en lo que los otros piensan.

Pensión de jubilación Me gustaría que mantengamos la Seguridad Social. Pero este tema lleva muchas de las mismas cuestiones que el bienestar. ¿Debería cada uno recibir la Seguridad Social? Políticamente, seguramente ayudaría si cada uno espera recibir las prestaciones. Considerando que muchos Americanos no ahorran para su jubilación, es obvio que vamos a necesitar la Seguridad Social. Tal vez nos da un motivo fuerte para permitir a más inmigración: ¡más trabajadores quienes pagan en el fondo de Seguridad Social!

Estoy seguro que olvido algo....
Last edited by Art on Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eli
Moderator
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Luray, VA. US

Post by Eli »

I agree with Art and Xose, I wouldn’t prioritize it in the same manner though.

IMO it should be;

Education
Science: The pursuit of scientific knowledge, not only for knowledge in off itself but because over the last five centuries or so those nations that were first at acquiring scientific knowledge and were able to put it to useful purposes have risen to the top. There is nothing that makes me think this trend will be overturned in the future, if we allow our scientific community to fall behind due to lack of funding or moral concerns it will eventually translate into a secondary status for this nation. Scientific knowledge will allow us to not only prolong, but most importantly enhance our lives, while education will prevent us from needing as much health care. Funds invested in education could be thought of as preventative medicine.
Health care
Assistance with Food, Housing, etc.
Defense, Police, Border Control, Security

Since the following are associated with, but not directly related to minimizing deaths. I would add one and put them on a separate category in the following order.

Management and Conservation: The need to preserve the world as we know it is paramount. If we fail to do this and continue to add pollutants and destroy the natural ecosystems in which we depend on we are in effect destroying our own house. We fail to realize that we are blindly following the same steps that the Mayan, Cambodian and many other extinct cultures took. They had a tremendously successful culture, they fail to understand that not conserving their resources would end in their own destruction. For instance, we are fishing more than the world’s marine biomass can support by several orders of magnitude. In order to keep up with demand we fish in deeper and less able to reproduce stocks, at current rate of fishing without the estimated growth in the fishing industry accounted for in 2030 we will be able to harvest about one third as much as we harvest today, and we will have to share whatever biomass is available with (today’s) emerging nations, nations whose fisheries are almost non-existent today. The same applies to all other resources.
Democracy
Regulatory Functions
Retirement Benefits
Culture


I'm certain the list is bound to grow....

-----------------

Estoy de acuerdo con Art y Xose, sin embargo yo no los prioritisaria de esa manera.

En mi opinon debe ser;

Educacion
Ciencia: El adquirir conocimientos cientificos es primordial para todas las sociedades, durante los ultimas cinco centurias las naciones que adquirieron estos conocimientos y fueron capaces de usarlos para su beneficion se convirtieron en las naciones dominantes. No veo nada que indique que esta situacion va a cambiar en el futuro. Los conocimientos cientificos no solo van a prolongar nuestras vidas sino mejorar la calidad de vida, mientras que una sociedad educada no va a nesecitar el mismo nivel de atencion medica que una inculta al respecto. Los fondos invertidos en educacion se pueden considerar como medicina preventiva.
Asistencia Medica
Ayuda con Alojamiento, Alimento etc.
Defensa, Policia, control fronterizo, seguridad nacional

Ya que los siguientes estan asodiacos con, pero no directamente relacionados a minimizar los fallecimientos. Yo agregaria uno y los pondria en una categoria separada de la manera siguiente.

Manejo y Conservacion: La necesidad de preservar el mundo como lo conocemos es primordial. Si fallamos en conservar y preservarlo, si seguimos añadiendo polucion y destruyendo los ecosistemas naturales de los que dependemos estamos destruyendo nuestra propia casa. No nos damos cuenta de que estamos ciegamente siguiendo los mismos pasos que las culturas Maya y Cambodiana ademas de muchas otras culturas hoy extintas, solo que nosotros lo estamos haciendo a un nivel mundial. Esas fueron unas culturas sumamente fructuosas, pero no se dieron cuenta que sus triumfos estaban basados en la destruccion del medio ambiente. Por ejemplo, estamos pescando mas de lo que las reservas marinas soportan, y lo hacemos por varias ordenes de magnitud. Para poder seguir sirviendo al mundo la misma cantidad de peces que hacen solo unas decadas, estamos pescando a mucha mayor profundidad en ambientes marinos que por su propia naturaleza se reproduce mucho mas lentamente que los que pescabamos antes. A la velocidad con la que estamos destruyendo la biomasa marina (sin tener en cuenta el aumento de pesca en el futuro) para el año 2030 vamos a poder pescar apenas la tercera parte de lo que pescamos hoy dia. Y lo que pesquemos lo vamos a tener que compartir con las naciones economicamente emerjentes hoy dia, la pesca de esas naciones es casi inexistente hoy dia comparado con lo que va a ser en un futuro inmediato. Lo mismo se aplica a todos los demas recursos naturales.

Democracia
Funciones Regulatorias
Beneficios de jubilados
Cultura


Estoy seguro de que esta lista va a crecer...
Post Reply

Return to “Political Discussion - Discusión política”