Technology vs. Reality

[maat55]

IMO, due to the increase in technology and it's products, we are chasing many more wants than ever before. Some of these wants/needs come in the form of healthcare, cell phones etc.

Before the 20th century, most of our energy and resources were concentrated on survival, today we seek toys and healthcare that was not available in the past.

The problem is, we have a certain amount of resources to chase a certain amount of product.(wants, needs, etc.)

Due to technology, the desire between want and need is huge. There is a lot to want and need, but a limited amount of resources to get them.

Healthcare creates a big struggle in this area. Many neglect to prioritize funding for possible healthcare needs in the attempt to have other less important things.

It's my position that we cannot have everything. Each of us has to choose what is more important and act responsibly about providing needs first before wants.

Government due to our irresponsibilty or it's desire to buy votes, is attempting more and more to provide these needs despite our inability to prioritizr for ourselves.

It seems to me that there are two paths to choose from: Freedom and capitalism which requires the individual to fend for themselves or Socialism where the government takes freedom to offset the irresponsibilty.

Or is there a middle ground? So far the middle ground results, IMO, produce massive debt and dependency with no insight as to which road should be pursued.

Any thoughts?

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by maat55

IMO, due to the increase in technology and it's products, we are chasing many more wants than ever before. Some of these wants/needs come in the form of healthcare, cell phones etc.

Before the 20th century, most of our energy and resources were concentrated on survival, today we seek toys and healthcare that was not available in the past.

I'm going to refrain from commenting on the government issues, but this part is something that I'm not sure I agree with. I think there have always been "toys" and "technology" that people lusted after. Certainly, the nature of those items has changed, but when I was little it was a transistor radio, then it was a portable cassette recorder, then a Sony Walkman, then a Commodore VIC-20 computer, then a CD player then an MP3 player. First folks had radios, then black and white TVs then color TVs then a Betamax video recorder then a VHS recorder, then a DVD player, then a DVR. Cars have only been around for a little over 100 years and the options and technology available constantly change.

At the same time, the relative cost of many items has decreased over the years. We spend a smaller percentage of income on food, for example, than we did a generation or two ago. The same is true for basic clothing needs.

You mentioned healthcare. While it is true that we spend a lot more on healthcare today, we also benefit tremendously in the process. The average lifespan in 1900 was 49. Today, it is nearly 80.

I totally agree that people have lost the ability to prioritize and distinguish wants from needs. I think the current economic downturn is helping with this as people are forced to cut back. Hopefully, many of these people will realize that they can live just fine without the stuff they've been cutting back on or cutting out and keep living leaner when things get better.

[maat55]

[quote]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

I'm going to refrain from commenting on the government issues, but this part is something that I'm not sure I agree with. I think there have always been "toys" and "technology" that people lusted after. Certainly, the nature of those items has changed, but when I was little it was a transistor radio, then it was a portable cassette recorder, then a Sony Walkman, then a Commodore VIC-20 computer, then a CD player then an MP3 player. First folks had radios, then black and white TVs then color TVs then a Betamax video recorder then a VHS recorder, then a DVD player, then a DVR. Cars have only been around for a little over 100 years and the options and technology available constantly change.

I should have been more specific about the past. Our age group and even sometime before us has seen the explosion in technology. I was refering to the very early 20th century and earier. Example: I've seen statistically that before the 50's only 2% of households had a mortgage, today about 2% don't. This is partly because we have so many other things to spend money on, even healthcare has many more products(for lack of a better word) than ever.

You mentioned healthcare. While it is true that we spend a lot more on healthcare today, we also benefit tremendously in the process. The average lifespan in 1900 was 49. Today, it is nearly 80.

Healthcare is a worthy expenditure. But because many people think they are indestructable, they ignore it's funding beit through savings or insurance, which leads to government involvement.

I totally agree that people have lost the ability to prioritize and distinguish wants from needs. I think the current economic downturn is helping with this as people are forced to cut back. Hopefully, many of these people will realize that they can live just fine without the stuff they've been cutting back on or cutting out and keep living leaner when things get better.

The difference between now and 100 years ago is tremendous. We had much less government intervention and far fewer want related products. I believe this explosion in wants and the irresponsible desire to have them is forcing gov. more and more to step in. I think this is the basis for the rival between philosophy's as to how to deal with the problem.

Most people know how I feel about this and I understand the other side view. But either way, right or wrong, it is not being handled properly if we cannot get the financial aspect under control.

[GREENBACK]

The first cave man with nothing more than a rock to hunt with saw his buddy carrying a spear had to have one and look what it's led too

Seriously, A few generations ago people had less free time and life wasn't as easy or convienent as it is today so maybe they just didn't have the time or discretionary income for a lot of wants. They also didn't have to constantly look at modern glitzy ads and commercials telling them to buy,buy,buy.

I'm not making excuses for those who overindulge in their spending but their are a lot of people pushing products to people that should practice more self control but don't.

Technology is a great thing that will continue to evolve as long as humans are around but with it has to come responsibility.

[GREENBACK]

It will be interesting to see how much goverment plays a role in our lives after this economic debacle is behind us. Most, if not all, socialist societies were created when some form of authority stepped in and "fixed" their problems.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

: Technology is a great thing that will continue to evolve as long as humans are around but with it has to come responsibility.

Responsibility is the key, technology has it's good aspects and bad. It's our ability to govern it properly is the problem. The less candy in the store, the more vegetables you will buy.

I believe in a balanced budget. If you get one thing, you will have to miss out on another. Our society is like children wanting both at any cost, thus massive debt.

The big question is: Should I be responsible? Should the gov. make me responsible? Or is there a compromise that keeps the budget in balance.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by maat55

The big question is: Should I be responsible? Should the gov. make me responsible? Or is there a compromise that keeps the budget in balance.

I believe, as you do, that personal responsibilty has to rule. Many in society have failed to accept this. The gov't is treating these people like they are the spoiled children of bad parents (gov't), thus the approach they are taking.

The best way for the gov't to make people responsible is to let them fail miserably and them pick themselves up imo.

[jIM_Ohio]

The middle class is also much bigger now than at any point in the past. Technology and demand bring prices down, and HC is not a want, it is a necessity. It's costs go up, but I would mention this more because of government corruption than free market principles.

Health care needs competition.

If the HC companies made it easier to get their coverage (thru non work/employee status), I think costs would get under control.

The question do the HC companies WANT to allow private coverage. I realize it exists now, but it is much more expensive than other methods.


If the playing field was leveled I thin competition would improve things. Level meaning- either ALL people get HC with private insurance or ALL people get HC thru employer or ALL people get it thru gov't sponsored plan.

Because around 70-90 percent of people are insure thru employers, little incentive to tap into the private market.

[Seeker]

[quote=maat55;198617]

I was refering to the very early 20th century and earier. Example: I've seen statistically that before the 50's only 2% of households had a mortgage, today about 2% don't. This is partly because we have so many other things to spend money on, even healthcare has many more products(for lack of a better word) than ever.

I'm not sure I agree with this. It used to be that rent was very much affordable as a portion of income.... now, those of us who do not rent (in the cities) are paying a mortgage that is almost the same that we'd be paying in rent (so the portion of monies spent for that "shelter" is greater than it was say in the 1950's). So which is better if the costs are similar?

Healthcare is a worthy expenditure. But because many people think they are indestructable, they ignore it's funding beit through savings or insurance, which leads to government involvement.

Healthcare and the rising costs are a big part of the problem. The fact that people live longer means more costs. After mid-age, most people have come to terms with the fact that they are not indestructable. The fact is we don't really know how much money we will need in the future to plan for these things. One person may live to a very ripe old age and never need medical attention, another may not. How can we foretell?

The difference between now and 100 years ago is tremendous. We had much less government intervention and far fewer want related products. I believe this explosion in wants and the irresponsible desire to have them is forcing gov. more and more to step in. I think this is the basis for the rival between philosophy's as to how to deal with the problem.

Most people know how I feel about this and I understand the other side view. But either way, right or wrong, it is not being handled properly if we cannot get the financial aspect under control.

no disagreement here. I don't think you really need to go back 100 years.... just 50 will do.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

HC is not a want, it is a necessity.

Jim, I think on a fundamental level, that's true. The problem is what happens beyond that level. Healthcare is just like many other things. They start out as needs and get morphed into wants. For example, I'd say having a telephone is a need but having call waiting, caller ID, voice messaging, 1.9GHz cordless with multiple handsets is a want.

The same applies in healthcare. Getting medical treatment is a need. Getting your every ache and scrape attended to by a highly trained professional or getting a costly branded prescription medication when a dirt cheap generic would do the job is a want. Getting an x-ray when you fall off a ladder is a need. Getting an MRI when you wake up one morning with a stiff neck is a want.

If and when we find some practical way to eliminate the wants from healthcare we will get costs under control.

[maat55]

[quote=Seeker;198640][quote=maat55;198617]

I'm not sure I agree with this. It used to be that rent was very much affordable as a portion of income.... now, those of us who do not rent (in the cities) are paying a mortgage that is almost the same that we'd be paying in rent (so the portion of monies spent for that "shelter" is greater than it was say in the 1950's). So which is better if the costs are similar?

I would agree that shelter costs are higher now than in the past and I would say that home ownership is the best option. I don't know why there were so few mortgage in the first part of the century, less ownership sounds like a good reason. And I would say that the invent of Sallie Mae & Freddie Mac are the reason ownership sharply increased. I also think that under certain regulation, they are a very usefull for society as a whole.

Healthcare and the rising costs are a big part of the problem. The fact that people live longer means more costs. After mid-age, most people have come to terms with the fact that they are not indestructable. The fact is we don't really know how much money we will need in the future to plan for these things. One person may live to a very ripe old age and never need medical attention, another may not. How can we foretell?QUOTE]

I agree with all these points. But ignoring the possibility of future HC costs and instead using those funds to buy goods and services is irresponsible. Thats why we buy insurance, many choose to forego the insurance and buy cars etc. After an emergency, we are left paying the bill. This is the in between area where free interprise pays the bill and we pay higher HC costs. Gov. wants to come in and use a more socialistic approach the same as SS and medicare. National debt is the result of gov. intervention.

Either way, it ends up a Ponzi scheme. Whatever way lowers the costs and does not run up the national debt, is ok by me.

[Goldy1]

I agree healthcare is a need. One of the things that churns my stomach about healthcare is noninsured people being charged up to 3x more for the same service and those covered by contracted rated thru insurance companies. I read there are obsene amount sof money spent on administration.
I honestly wish we had national healthcare in some respect or a natioanl pay into it system. It always bothered me that the government will fully subsidize care for families who do not work and have multiple kids etc., but yet will let a middle class person become destitute paying off medical bills. I am just saying, fine help the poor, but what about the middle class guy who toils, loses his job, and falls off a ladder? Why is he so forgotten? Why is he so undeserving?

Also many people do not take good care of themselves. What is the incentive to take good care of yourself if no matter what you have free healthcare?
I have been shopping for individual healthcare lately for my husband. Even with medical billing experience, it has been one of the most boring, confusing, and frustrating things I have ever done.

[PrincessPerky]

I think wants are not all that much bigger now..just less useful.

100 years ago you wanted fresh fruit in December, so you worked hard and built a root cellar.

Now you want a big screen TV.. so you (hopefully) work hard and buy one.

both will feel good when you get them and for a great deal of time after, but only one is really useful.

Also the view on debt has changed, there were always deadbeats, but they used to be 'outcasts' or at least when the debt caught up with them they were, now we have to be nice to the poor dears who lost all their money gambling, drinking or whatever. (not that I have no sympathy, just that I feel we have gone to far-especially when the gov't steps in to be the big bro)

I think the biggest problem with socialized care is the idea that all folk should get the same level...I think all socialized help should come at the lowest levels. No paying $30 a month for a mcmansion. or being able to buy $800 worth of groceries on my tax dollar, or having a free ride to tons of ultrasounds just to see the baby.

How about a free dorm/clinic/soup kitchen/education center in ALL cities. I would glladly support free BASICs to all, but I dislike the attempt to take Healthy Non working Joe and put him in a house bigger than mine, with food better (or at least more expensive) than mine getting his girlfriend more expensive maternity care than I (though I feel this last cheap homebirth was the best!). Not to mention the free football, science labs and lunches his kids get.

I have nothing against football, just wonder why my tax dollar has to pay for it. Nothing against ultrasound, but again why do I have to pay for it? Nothing against science, but why pay for all kids to learn how to make salt when 90% of them don't care? Nothing against shrimp...but umm if I have to pay for it I would rather eat it myself. Nothing against lunch, just dunno why my tax dollar is paying for kids to eat burgers and fries and then later get free high blood pressure medication.

If we stop trying to do/be everything (and failing) we could scale back to the basics, and then maybe make a dent in the homeless, malnourishment, and illiteracy rates.

[jIM_Ohio]

Socialized care is not the only way to make health care fair.

The biggest factor in whether or not someone has good healthcare is who they work for. It is not whether their company carries Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Aetna or any other carrier.

It is not based on city the person lives in or the access to the care that city's health care network makes available.

It is who a person works for.

Level the playing field- make Health care work the same way car insurance does.

Car insurance- if you have car, you are REQUIRED BY LAW to have it. It comes in many shapes and sizes, and some people choose to get their car fixed without ever notiftying their insurance company.

Health insurance- pass a similar law- if you are the age of majority, you are REQUIRED BY LAW to carry Health insurance.

There are obvious implications that this punishes the poor, IMO the poor are the ones not working, so tell them to get a job, then we fix the next problem.

If you use the insurance too much, what you pay increases.
If you use the insurance not much, your premiums decrease.

Certain government requirements could also include that the insurance company cannot cancel a policy for a given time period (3-5 years).

This would then allow people to shop and compare Aetna to Blue Cross for example- and these companies would then price their products competitively to all.

Right now Aetna might market themselves only to employers larger than 100 or 1000 employees (so they make a profit) and there is little incentive to insure the individual.

[Seeker]

Health Care Statistics | Health Care Problems

There are people who do work and have insurance coverage, but it's considered "insufficient."

There are people who are working, suffer an injury, and then are "unemployed" because their employers have to continue the business (ie. "find someone else who can perform").

There are retired people who cannot work and whom have a growing need for medical attention.


This is a percentage breakdown for a budget:

It Pays to Do the Math In the Budget Game
Personal Budgeting - Monthly Spending Guidelines

2nd link allocates 2.3% for "savings" and 3.9% for "health care". If your family survives for 1 year on a $40k income net, would $1560 begin to cover your out-of-pocket expenses for medical for the year? This is exclusive of taxes and exclusive of insurances; it in fact assumes "health insurance coverage" has been taken out of the income.

1st link allocates 7% for "savings" and 3% for "health care".... hmmmmm

"Housing" (at least in California) amounts to somewhere between 25% - 38% of income unfortunately. Food is somewhere in the 10 to 20 % range depending on how many people comprise "family" and how often dining out takes place.

So where does budgeting's breakdown occur? Every family puts together their own list of needs; every family should have a budget and know where the money is going. And planning for the future needs to fall on each of us -- it's our future that depends on it.

What about vision and dental? Is that lumped in with "health care"?

I think rising costs with medical is the problem. Drug costs are a problem. Health of Americans is not getting better.

Jim,

If you use the insurance too much, what you pay increases.
If you use the insurance not much, your premiums decrease.

What if the medical need is due to an accident? Not that person's fault. Should they have to pay more because of a new need that shouldn't have happened in the first place? Or do we having more suing and counter-suing taking place in the legal system?

What if the person who needs health care cannot work? What if that person cannot afford anything but the bare necessities just to keep him or her alive? What if there's a drug that would help or even cure, but it's not accessible financially? What if there's a surgery that cannot be paid for?

Certain government requirements could also include that the insurance company cannot cancel a policy for a given time period (3-5 years).

I as an individual like this.... but no insurer would go for it. Their insurance rates would rise. Some people would not be "insurable" at any cost.

This would then allow people to shop and compare Aetna to Blue Cross for example- and these companies would then price their products competitively to all.

Right now Aetna might market themselves only to employers larger than 100 or 1000 employees (so they make a profit) and there is little incentive to insure the individual.

Not sure I see it this way either.

There's a lot of medical descrimination in the US right now. Making individuals pay for car insurance is one thing (if they drive and choose to incurr the costs associated with driving)...

But having individuals go out there and "negotiate" health care with one or more particular insurers, wouldn't work either. There would be a "collaboration" and in fact there's already a "proof" of insurability required for some type of life insurances. There's also "pre-existing condition" clauses. There'd be "waiting" periods while the centralized database is checked out.

It'd only get worse having individuals try to negotiate aside from business. And what if we lose our job? You know how many people would stop paying for insurance entirely -- no matter need. When there's no money, people sometimes do things not always in their best interest.

[Johansen8]

I've seen self-checkout counters, self-checkout libraries, robots performing surgeries, computers taking out most of the work like telemarketing, etc.... How will the future be mankind's if technology, even though created by mankind, will soon take over occupations humans are becoming to take advantage of?

[Goldy1]

Yes I was at the local grocery store the other night. They have dozens of lanes and only 2 were manned by an employee. They have this no limit sel fchack out lanes and the 6 or so of them had long lines. It is despicable. It's like a machine does the job or the human has to be a machine. They time the clerks and have minimum speeds they must keep up with.

[disneysteve]

I almost always pick self-checkout when it is an option. Very few stores around here offer it - just Home Depot and WalMart. It is much quicker generally. I wish the supermarkets did offer it. Especially when you just run in for a few items, it sure beats standing in line behind folks with a cartful of stuff.

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

I almost always pick self-checkout when it is an option. Very few stores around here offer it - just Home Depot and WalMart. It is much quicker generally. I wish the supermarkets did offer it. Especially when you just run in for a few items, it sure beats standing in line behind folks with a cartful of stuff.

The trouble is when there are more self checkouts than clerks and lines at all of them!

back to insurance, requiring coverage doesn't work, I didn't ask to be born, but with car insurance I can choose NOT to drive (BTW, I don't)

requiring care on kids I might understand, (and we have) but on self..

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by Goldy1

It's like a machine does the job or the human has to be a machine. They time the clerks and have minimum speeds they must keep up with.

Why is this bad? If the machine is more efficient, why not use it?