malice wrote:I won't argue counterfactuals. We have no clue if they were successful or not because we don't know what life would have been like without them.
sorry, but this is just silly. of course we know what life would be like without medicare and medicaid.
[/quote]
No, we actually don't.
malice wrote:the country lived without these programs for generations. and people died younger, old people lived in poverty and poor people did both.
To provide a response, people also died earlier prior to the advent of the industrial revolution. Economics was called the dismal science because it was thought that growing an economy would lead to population expansion and since they considered the food supply as static, everyone would starve to death. Something wasn't accounted for there (technology) because they seemingly were very wrong. Living standards, population, the economy, and health increased in tandem. It's the economy, stupid.
malice wrote:
and yes, I understand there were additional factors that have increased the well being of people in general,
This is the one line that made sense.
malice wrote:
but don't for a minute assume those two governmental institutions haven't provided a huge portion of the benefit.
I am not "assuming" anything. I'm stating a fact. It's a counterfactual statement to say that medicare/medicaid and even social security have been "successful". Look up the definition of counterfactual, if you want to argue.
Then, afterwards, stop making assumptions of your own.
malice wrote:
I'll be happy to put you in touch with my dad who grew up during the depression and he can tell you all about what life was like without those programs.
No, please do... not... put me in touch with your dad! lol.
It was a fucking depression. Maybe that's why life was tough without "those programs"? How do you or he or anyone know what life would be like now without something we've had for a ridiculously long time?
malice wrote:
was the instituting of these programs just some whim the administration had to exercise their control over the population? no, it was a response to the general well being of the country and the people who were too poor to take better care of themselves.
Why are they too poor to take care of themselves? Perhaps, focusing in on that, would help the situation rather than years of national arguments on a subject matter, that when implemented, got 6. Fucking. People. To. Sign. Up. For. It. On. The. First... Day. 6 People!
malice wrote:
That's improving the circumstances of the weakest of us in this society in order to benefit the entire society. how does that not make sense to even you, friend?
Because you have no idea if it's improving circumstances overall, or for the weakest. You are assuming. Your making assumptions about everything. The only thing I'm assuming is that you're doing all of the above while waving your Obama sticker in the air. It's kinda nauseating.