Eventually, the supreme court ruled that citizens had no rights to money they had contributed to social Security, which could be used for any purpose that Congress thinks appropriate, and that any benefits from Social Security, or none, are entirely at the discretion of Congress. Meanwhile, the socialized medical system in Canada accomplishes rationing with waiting lists. Many patients simply do not survive until they are due for care. The ability of Canadians to go to the United States for treatment may now be cut off by Obamacare, increasing the stress on the canadian system. Return to text Rent-seeking, public Choice, and The Prisoner's Dilemma, note 4, positive, negative and Zero sum Games If books can be had much cheaper from Ireland (which I believe, for I bought Blackstone there for 24s. When it was sold in England at 4 guineas ) is not this an advantage, not to English booksellers indeed, but to English readers, and to learning? In transactions of trade, it is not to be suppos'd that like gaming, what one party gains the other must necessarily lose. The gain to each may be equal.
Free personality theories Essays and Papers
The sophistry involved theory seems to be the impression that "insurance" necessarily will cost less than the full cost of benefits. But if insurance is turned into a political program, in which benefits are concentrated but costs dispersed, but costs are not actually dispersed, the deception quickly erodes any benefit derived from actual insurance, let alone from a market distribution of goods. Meanwhile, the sort of people who promote medical "insurance" as a right of citizenship, or even of non-citizenship, are hostile to the operation of markets and wish for all goods to be politically distributed. That the economies of both true insurance and of markets are abolished meanwhile means that the economic characteristics of socialism - increasing costs and declining quality, with political favoritism - begin to work their magic. Whereas the dynamic of markets is to decrease costs and increase quality by capital investment in innovation and productivity, the political approach to limiting costs is rationing (tempered, of course, by political favoritism). This is already evident in the theoretical background of the supporters of the socialized medicine in "Obamacare." They all advocate, and the legislation mandates, a federal board (the Independent payment Advisory board, or ipab) that will approve forms and levels of care, and the suitability. In 2009, when Sarah Palin labelled such a board a "death panel this was protested as a distortion or even a lie; but limiting the care of the elderly, especially terminal care, had long been advocated. In 1984, richard Lamm, the democrat governor of Colorado (19751987 had famously said, "we've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids. Meanwhile, while the denial of care by insurance companies has been the stuff of indignant protest, and of Michael moore movies, medicare already has a record of denying care more frequently than insurance companies. Socialists like moore either do not realize, or disingenuously conceal, the circumstance essay that the federal government (no more than moore's beloved Cuba ) is under no obligation to provide any care its bureaucrats do not judge expedient, while insurance companies are contractually obligated, with the. This is similar to what happened to the original Federal assurances about Social Security.
If you have paid for "insurance" that will cover the shot, and the insurance company pays for everyone's shot, then there is no pool of risk. Everyone has simply prepaid for the shot. This may involve some economy, since the insurance company gets its revenues up front and can discount what it has earned from holding your money; but the savings here for you are marginal. Ultimately, most of the cost of the flu shots must be born by the insured. The more things that are added to "insurance" that are not risks but certainties, such as routine doctor visits, birth control, and other predictable expenses, the more expensive the "insurance" will be, since the number of beneficiaries will approach the actual number of the insured. There shredder is no genuine economy to such an arrangement, and no reason, except political deception and economic ignorance, to call it "insurance.". This reality seems to be lost in most of the public discussion of medical insurance.
As i understand it, the. Federal Reserve is presently buying 60 of United States Treasury bonds, which means that the federal government is simply creating and printing much of the money it is spending. Sooner or later, this debasement will create a period of explosive inflation. The mention of Medicare and Medicaid brings me to something that most people now think of as a matter of insurance: Health care. In popular apple and political discourse, however, what is commonly called "health" or "medical insurance" is not actually insurance at all. This is because current forms of medical "insurance" are not primarily matters of pooling risk. If you know you are going to get a flu shot every year, and your "insurance" pays for the shot, there is no uncertainty and no risk gender involved. You are not at risk of getting a flu shot. You know you are going to get one.
In 2012, the only national politician who had the courage, or foolishness, to actually say this, was governor Rick perry. It was probably foolishness, since perry later demonstrated that he had difficulty remembering his own political talking points. Periodically, claims are made that Social Security is financially sound at least until the 2030's. However, this prediction is based on the judgment that the "Trust Fund" represents real assets. Since it doesn't, the day of reckoning for Social Security is when it ceases to run a surplus in its own revenues and begins cashing in its Bonds with the Treasury. At that point, the Treasury loses the revenues it has been drawing from Social Security and must begin returning the sums that it previously took, using its own taxing and borrowing powers. This day may have already arrived as I write in 2012. Thus today payments for Social Security, medicare, medicaid, and interest on the national Debt currently consume federal revenues in their entirety. All the rest, including the whole defense budget, must be borrowed.
Personality Theories Essay example for Free
But there has never been any separate tax or assessments for making Social Security viable as a system of disability payments. Such payments would be drained from general Social Security revenues, regardless of how early or how many workers became disabled. They might be supported the rest of their lives, having contributed only a nominal amount to the system. At the same time, the aging of the baby boom generation, and the drop in birth rates, meant that the ratio of workers to beneficiaries (retirees the disabled) would drop, perhaps disastrously. In preparation for future shortfall, social fourth Security taxes were raised in the 1980's in order to run up a surplus, a trust Fund, that could be tapped in the future at need.
This was a fraud, since the surplus has always simply been given to the Treasury, which issued United States Treasury bonds to the social Security Administration and then spends the money on current Federal expenses. The "Trust Fund" is therefore a room full of paper, whose value depends entirely on future federal revenues, which can only be obtained by taxing, borrowing, or debasement. The surplus gained through present Social Security taxation thus must be resupplied all over again by future federal taxing, borrowing, or debasement. Because of this, democratic Senator Daniel Patrick moynihan (19272003 who had his moments of marvelous clarity and honesty, said that the "Social Security Trust Fund" was simply a box that, when opened, would contain nothing but a piece of paper that said, " five trillion. Social Security is thus not insurance, but a ponzi scheme, in which present benefits are paid from present revenues, ultimately of the Treasury, regardless of future liabilities essay and promises.
An argument could be made that this was necessary in the emergency of the depression; but of course, once established, federal programs continued to exist, and only the rare, heartless crackpot ever tried to remind the nation that the continuation of such things was unconstitutional. What does "constitutionality" matter when so much good can be done? But then, the moral and prudential principles, not just of relief, but also of insurance, began to be undermined by the very forces of the political provision of goods that i am considering. Thus, in the United States "Social Security" was introduced in 1935 as part of New deal legislation. It was presented as a pension plan, where workers paid into their own account, with their contributions matched by employers, from which they would draw in their old age.
A pension system is a form of insurance, previously provided by many businesses and mutual aid societies, which is subject to actuarial realities. At its inception, however, social Security had nothing to do with sound principles of insurance and was entirely a plan for the political provision of benefits. As long as the number of workers was vastly larger than the eligible number of retirees, the system could continue along; and no one would think of it as benefiting a limited political constituency, since anyone who paid in and lived long enough would. Who could object to that? Unfortunately, two realities would undermine the solvency of the system. One was that it was expanded to cover disabled workers.
Essay template discussing The personality Theories - third Edition
Welfare payments to people living on their own, or only "indoor relief. The poor houses and essay work houses. Outdoor relief would avoid the scandals of filth or cruelty that often embarrassed the latter institutions. Outdoor relief, however, then required supervision,. "social workers who would make sure that the recipients actually were in need and were not engaged in immoral (and so socially and prudentially "unworthy activities. Foster care for orphans, of course, was the "outdoor" version of orphanages, even as it also required supervision by social workers - generating its own corresponding stories of neglect, cruelty, and abuse. The depression overwhelmed most charitable institutions, including government ones, and opened the way even to federal relief programs, such as Aid to families with Dependent Children, despite there being no constitutional provision for such things.
Government run poor houses, work houses, and orphanages were, in turn, infamous as unpleasant and even cruel places. In part, this was deliberate. As Benjamin Franklin said, it was not proper to make anyone "easy in poverty." In a 1766 essay, "The Encouragement of Idleness Franklin said: i am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy report in poverty, but leading or driving them out. In my youth I travelled much, and i observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. This was all based on a moral distinction between the "worthy poor who were willing to work but were in difficulties through no fault of their own, and the "unworthy poor who were actually seeking to avoid work and sought support through fraudulent or dishonest. Private charity, which was largely religious in motivation, was very serious about this; and the able bodied were frequently required to do some nominal amount of work for the charity before being fed, for instance, in their soup kitchen. In public institutions of "relief much of the debate was about whether there should be provision of "outdoor relief.
instance, still distinguish the (Catholic) Knights of Columbus. Some of the fraternal societies famously survive, like the masons, or are still engaged in conspicuous charitable works, as with the Shriners; but most, like the Fraternal Order of Eagles, may strike people as useless and ridiculous. Nevertheless, modern insurance companies often display evidence of their origin. It is not difficult to guess where companies like fireman's Fund, Traveler's, or State farm Insurance came from. Purely fraternal lodges, however, sometimes had names that sounded like professional associations, such as "Woodmen of the world.". The function of mutual aid societies has been all but destroyed by the belief of many people, and its political implementation, that the government should handle many of their essential purposes. This shift was accomplished largely thanks to the Great Depression, which damaged the economical viability of societies, many of whose members became unemployed and were unable to keep up their dues. These difficulties allowed those who had always believed in socialism, that government should provide "social" insurance for everyone, to make political inroads. Indeed, it had long been the practice of government to provide the ultimate backstop to the private institutions that, in the 19th century, provided most of the charitable aid to the poor.
By buying insurance, they have chosen to pay some money to pool their risk. Because not all the insured will apple actually suffer harm, the cost of the insurance will be much lower than the cost of the actual harm that will happen to a few of them. But should that harm happen, they will be protected. This is a sensible and prudent business - although economists have noticed the " moral hazard " that those with insurance may be less careful of their well being, since they feel protected against the consequences of possibly imprudent actions. The cost of insurance for particular threats can be determined mathematically, once the incidence of harm has been studied and actuarial tables can be compiled. Some of the earliest insurance was created at Lloyd's Coffee house in London, opened in 1688, where sailors and merchants met to chat and then began creating insurance policies for their ships. This institution still survives as Lloyd's of London, presumably without the coffee. In the United States, a great deal of insurance in the 19th century began in mutual aid societies, which offered various benefits to their members, including medical and life insurance.
Personality theories;Type and Trait essays
Rent-seeking, public Choice, and The Prisoner's Dilemma, note 3, supermarket Insurance and Mutual Aid Societies. A case that looks rather like the political distribution of benefits is insurance. The cost is distributed among a body of payers, the insured, and the benefits are concentrated on a small body of beneficiaries, those who have experienced a loss and have an insurance claim. However, the insured enter into this relationship voluntarily, because they understand the principle by which this works. The insured are a group that are at risk of some kind of harm. They own a ship, which may sink. They drive a car, which may be in an accident. They own a house, which may burn, be burglarized, or be damaged in a storm or earthquake. Or, like all humans, they may be vulerable to disease or early death.