On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:02:52 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:
..

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost?

That was a good question, Jim. I thought about that now and then all
day while doing other things like driving,walking and takin' a crap.
It certainly is a cost in the sense that it isn't income or revenue.
My objection was to TMT's rhetorical construct "cost to society" but I
wasn't quite sure why.

I may not be the quickest frog in the race but I am one persistent
sonofabitch.

It seems to me that the term "cost to society" has pejorative
connotation because it's general and vague. Warehousing felons,
deterioration of work ethic and values, criminal corporate greed,
government corruption and natural disasters are "costs to society".

That seems different from a planned and expected cost to a
government-mandated and government-conducted program. The government
is not "society" per se. We as a society have a government but our
government doesn't define our society -- at least not yet. Its recent
attempts to do so have met with significant resistance.

Programs like social security and medicare tax the populace for
income that is distributed as benefits, according to plan, to seniors
who are past working age. Those benefits are not unfortunate "costs
to society" to be minimized or eliminated unless you subscribe to the
premise that a promise broken doesn't matter unless asserted by
lawsuit and **** the creaks who die before litigation is done.

The subject costs are planned and expected distributions of benefits
according to plan. They are unquestionably debits on the current
year's balance sheets of those plans but they're not "costs to
society" in the same sense as plague, famine, hurricane, corporate
greed or corrupt politicians.

If, after collecting taxes against promise for decades the promised
program-defined distributions are not anticipated or expected, then
the government running those programs is clearly deficient and
probably malfeasant.

BTW President Obama has stated repeatedly that the main objective
of health care reform is to address
the looming problem with the medicare system.
The way the current system is structured it won't be very long
and Medicare won't be able to fulfill the promises that it has made

Could be. So please show in this summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act
or any other summary of your choosing, how Obamacare contains specific
and particular remedy for "the looming problem with the medicare
system."

That Medicare crash-and-burn will not happen in his administration
so Obama could just like all the presidents before him
just say "its not my problem"

Indeed! Smoke and feathers, no honor among thieves.

Medicare with carefully-chosen supplemental insurance is working well
for us. That's not an accident. We've paid our dues, still paying
some. We're by no means wealthy but we are conservative in the sense
of planning carefully. We're pretty much apolitical, not partisans.
If you earn your living then you're probably paying your dues too.

The vast preponderance of voters are younger than medicare age, many
not educated in critical thinking so gullible to vague undefined
promises like "hope" and "change", would like to think that the
government can and will provide better, more efficient, more
economical health care than private enterprise has done.

That could be a good thing but I don't think the hastily-conceived and
partisanly-ramrodded Obamacare will get it done. I think we can and
must demand that our leaders do a much better job of viable long-term
planning.

Obamacare does seem to have overlooked the hippocratic oath required
of every physician: "first, do no harm".