[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

> I appreciate all the stats, but I don't think you answered my questions.
In the
> Friedman-esque world you desire, what becomes of the poor? Charity? What
> becomes of the single dad injured at work when we eliminate worker's
> compensation? How does he get medicine for his kids?

Even if we have eliminated worker's compensation, worker's disability
insurance is in full operation in all 50 states.  In addition to
unemplorment insurance, there is Incapacity Benefit (IB) for those incapable
of work through sickness and not entitled to statutory sick pay (SSP);
Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) for people who provide 'substantial care' for a
disabled person and are not working; Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for
the 'virtually disabled' under 65 who need personal care and/or mobility
needs; Attendance Allowance for those over 65 with personal care needs;
Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) for persons working more than 16 hours a
week with dependent children; Disabled Persons Tax credit for people working
more than 16 hours a week with mental or physical handicaps that put them at
a disadvantage in finding work.

Health benefits include financial help covering Prescriptions,
Dental/Optical treatment, Wigs/fabric support, and even fares to hospital
for NHS treatment.  This is applicable for those with children under five or
disabled children from 5-16 and includes
milk, vitamins and school meals.  The Maternal Infant Care Program recruits
and trains women to serve as partners during the prenatal through postpartum
period, offering transportation to appointments, childbirth education
classes, and weekly prenatal classes.  Womens Infant Care (WIC) is also
provided under this program, but apparently only to single mothers -- we
don't want to subsidize married partners.

Obviously, your dad is not going to be denied compensation for his injury or
medicine for his kids under this range of coverage.  Qualifying for any of
these beneifts will of course require that certain conditions be met, and
social workers in all states are available to provide advice at no charge.

> Also, I am forced to ask if you're "itchin' fer a fight" :-), as you
removed all
> points of agreement I had made and continue to characterize my position as
what
> Platt calls a "radical egalitarian" seeking to "eliminate wages". Do you
see no
> other alternatives than (1) no safety net of any kind, "law of the
jungle", no
> workers comp, no welfare, no social programs of any kind, and (2) complete
> redistribution of wealth, everyone living as moochers off the backs of the
> "producers"? I do.

Why waste space requoting what we agree on?  The best "safety net" is of
course personal health insurance, but this is getting more expensive as
physicians increase their liability insurance and the lawyers sue for more
compensation.  I've been fortunate in that my former employer's heath
package includes medical, dental and vision supplements for retirees.  Like
most companies today, the co-op payments have burgeoned to the point where
we've had to switch to an HMO program for basic medical coverage.

> Finally, you talk about the "comfort" of the poor in America, as a good
thing,
> and then seem to neglect that comfort was brought about by the very
programs
> you are condemning. Do you think we'd be better off if the rich-poor
divide
> widened? If the poor lived like they do in Indonesia and other
impoverished
> areas? Is that what you want to see?

If owning automobiles, TV sets and cell phones defines your "comfort" level,
I suspect that living on credit accounts as much for the relatively high
material standard of the U.S. poor as do government handouts.  Either way,
it's irresponsible behavior on the part of the recipients.  "Better off" is
one of those weasel-word terms, like "higher quality".  Certainly the
subsidized "victim" has less to worry about, but society as a whole suffers
from the exorbitant taxation required to support his kind.

The more we feel it necessary to bail out the weak and indigent in our socie
ty, the less we can expect of our nation's leadership in the world.  If
maintaining leadership is not important, and we insist on making everybody
"equal", then why not distribute the nation's wealth equally among all its
people?  Our national defense would suffer, academic and technological
progress would decline, productivity would fall because no one would want to
work, and the best hope for survival would probably be to reach a diplomatic
accord with the Islamists to handle our federal bureaucracy.

> Another question, the "crazy panhandlers" whom
> you see need psychiatric help ...should the state pay
> for that with your taxes?

Why not?  I'll quote the same Marxist axiom that Platt has often used: 'From
each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his need.'

> I'll just close seeking more agreement, and that is
> that I do feel it is an abuse of the system when the net
> for those who need a helping hand is used to sustain
> someone's livelihood who is otherwise capable of working.

Yes, abuse of the welfare system only increases the affront to the wage
earners who pay for it.

-- Ham