Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 08, 2005, 05:15:19 pm
-
Today I find out that I have joined your ranks. I am one of the 45+ million people in this country who possess no health insurance.
-
What's health insurance for?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What's health insurance for?
[color=66ff00]A lack of NHS.
Seven hundred billion dollars for weapons. I need say no more.
[/color]
-
Yeah, think of what a couple of cruise missiles and 3 metric tonnes of anthrax could do to clear the waiting lists.
-
What...?
Anyway, health insurance (you were probably being sarcastic, but still) is in case you get injured ort something and require a hospital stay, the insurance pays for (or should pay for) some of it. I believe it also gives moeny to your loved ones after you die.
-
And what if you get injured and have no money? Say if you're homeless and get hit by a car.
-
Then you get Shifty Pete down in the alley to operate. I hear he spent a few years in med school, though most of the time he was tripping on acid.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And what if you get injured and have no money? Say if you're homeless and get hit by a car.
You will still get medical care but owe a massive bill to the hospital. X-Rays usually cost somewhere near $100 without insurance I think just as an example.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Today I find out that I have joined your ranks. I am one of the 45+ million people in this country who possess no health insurance.
Eh, cheers! Congrads! Glad to have you with us Kosh!!!
Eh, dam america.. and our electromatic bombs... um..:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Swantz
You will still get medical care but owe a massive bill to the hospital. X-Rays usually cost somewhere near $100 without insurance I think just as an example.
So the right to life isn't a sacred right.
wow, sucks to be American.
-
If you're in an auto accident, you could lose your home. A 3 day hospital stay with treatment for such a thing would cost well above $100,000. This is no joke or exageration. Truth be told, many people who lose their homes, lost it because of no medical insurance.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I believe it also gives moeny to your loved ones after you die.
That's life insurance.
-
And to think they almost hung Hillary for trying to get a US NHS.
-
it wouldnt be so bad if our hospitals spent more money on trained professionals and less on expensive diagnostic machines. you go to a hospital and after an $200 mri scan, 2 x-rays ($100 each) and some ultrasound (another $100), the doctor gives you a $0.50 asprin and sends you on your way. they spend more on tests than treatment. it is possible to diagnose 90% of medical problems with 5 minutes of q & a with a qualified doc. also you have wuss syndrom, people think every little thing is life threataning and have to run to the er. flu shots for example. most people get sick on the shot alone. last time i had the flu was 3 years ago, and it didnt last more than a day and a half. sure beats getting sick from the flu shot, and then getting the flu when it doesnt work.
-
Originally posted by vyper
And to think they almost hung Hillary for trying to get a US NHS.
Of course. NHS is a dirty, dirty socialism. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Originally posted by aldo_14
So the right to life isn't a sacred right.
wow, sucks to be American.
There is no right to life. There is a right (in theory) not to die from X and Y and Z, but outside of that - **** happens. The arguement can be made that the state isn't responsible if you get sick or injured, so they are under no obligation to help you out. Of course, many would beg to differ, and I would partially agree. But people do not have a right not to be f**ked over by life.
-
Actually I just remembered a good example:
When I broke my arm a while back the medical bill was somewhere in the order of $6000 I beleive. But I have insurance :D
-
Originally posted by Nuke
it wouldnt be so bad if our hospitals spent more money on trained professionals and less on expensive diagnostic machines. you go to a hospital and after an $200 mri scan, 2 x-rays ($100 each) and some ultrasound (another $100), the doctor gives you a $0.50 asprin and sends you on your way. they spend more on tests than treatment. it is possible to diagnose 90% of medical problems with 5 minutes of q & a with a qualified doc. also you have wuss syndrom, people think every little thing is life threataning and have to run to the er. flu shots for example. most people get sick on the shot alone. last time i had the flu was 3 years ago, and it didnt last more than a day and a half. sure beats getting sick from the flu shot, and then getting the flu when it doesnt work.
[color=66ff00]Actually it wouldn't be so bad if malpractice insurance didn't cost a ****ing fortune because money grabbing asshats want to bleed the system dry.
The hospitals are mired in high paid suits passing the buck to the lowest end of the 'food chain', medics are assualted by both patients and their families/visitors and the only people really getting any benefit out of the whole affair in the long term are lawyers.
*fumes*
[/color]
-
Don't trash the American Dream, dude.
-
What, you mean suing the pants off someone for millions of dollars? ^_^
HMOs aren't going to give up their moneymaker without a fight. It'll be a long struggle for national healthcare here. We have as good a chance of seeing national healthcare as we do of a free college tuition.
-
This makes me miss the military medical system (the one I grew up with, not the ****e you lot get today).
Of course, I'm not so sure how I feel about socialized medical systems. I wasn't too impressed with TQEH in Adelaide of late. Their poor aftercare is a direct cause of me spending 2mos salary on emergency plane tickets recently.
-
I'd much rather have a quirky socialized insurance system than no insurance.
Just for the record, the cost of just having all 4 of my wisdom teeth removed is a little over $1,000.
-
This is one of the many things I have never really understood in american society. In here health insurance is something you naturally have, you don't need to actually get and pay for it. The state pays for our health insurances, and in a way we pay it pack in form of taxes. But its not something that people will lose their homes over, or actually get in any sort of financial trouble. At least not that I am aware of. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So the right to life isn't a sacred right.
wow, sucks to be American.
With every right comes a responsibility.
With the right to life comes the responsibility to pay for it, obviously.
:p :rolleyes:
-
weird. in oz we ***** and moan about medicare (our healthcare system) and how the gov's screwing it all up, but it's actually quite good. i don't think anyone's lost their home or something similar because of hospital debt. and they emphasise in our course the importance of a good history-taking- 90% of disorders can be diagnosed, or at least can be suspicioned, on a good history. tests are only ordered when absolutely required for treatment-regime determination purposes or differential diagnosis (oh yeah, and the other 10% undiagnosable stuff) because most of them are frickin expensive.
-
hey, why spend money on something that can help lengthen human life, when you can spend it on something that dramatically shorten it?
-
was that sarcasm? i don't have any sarcasm receptors. you have to tell me these things.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Fury
This is one of the many things I have never really understood in american society. In here health insurance is something you naturally have, you don't need to actually get and pay for it. The state pays for our health insurances, and in a way we pay it pack in form of taxes. But its not something that people will lose their homes over, or actually get in any sort of financial trouble. At least not that I am aware of. :nervous:
What it comes down to is three things:
1.) Social Darwinism
2.) Whenever americans here the word "tax" they go into a fit about how awful they are. Despite that, they still demand good police, a good education system, and (most importantly) good roads. They seem incapable of making the connection that all those things are funded by taxes. When you cut taxes, performance in all of those things goes down hill.
3.) American stupidity.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
was that sarcasm? i don't have any sarcasm receptors. you have to tell me these things.
very much so.. this forum needs sarcasm tags.:p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Of course. NHS is a dirty, dirty socialism. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
There is no right to life. There is a right (in theory) not to die from X and Y and Z, but outside of that - **** happens. The arguement can be made that the state isn't responsible if you get sick or injured, so they are under no obligation to help you out. Of course, many would beg to differ, and I would partially agree. But people do not have a right not to be f**ked over by life.
Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines a right to 'life, liberty and security of person'.
I view this, combined with Article 25 and possibly 28 & 22 - and general human decency (this being the most important reason IMO) - as supporting a right to have treatment available for illness. In which case article 2 would make allowing or denying treatment based upon the ability to afford it also be wrong.
(http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
Originally posted by Descenterace
With every right comes a responsibility.
With the right to life comes the responsibility to pay for it, obviously.
:p :rolleyes:
So poor people deserve to be ill and die?
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Actually it wouldn't be so bad if malpractice insurance didn't cost a ****ing fortune because money grabbing asshats want to bleed the system dry.
The hospitals are mired in high paid suits passing the buck to the lowest end of the 'food chain', medics are assualted by both patients and their families/visitors and the only people really getting any benefit out of the whole affair in the long term are lawyers.
*fumes*
[/color]
layers have their dirty little hands in many aspects of american life. its just something that happens in a government that requires endless beurocracy to function properly. its just as bad as the dependancy on expensive to operate diagnosis hardware. pressure from lawsuits makes hospitals want to be more sure about how accurate a diagnosis is. so they are gonna force tests on people who cant afford it. so its simply another factor, malpractice causes lawsuits, which causes the need to have malpractice insurance, which forces hospitals to be more perfect in their operation (which is more expensive). insurance companies jack people, lawyers jack people. hospitals jack people to pay off the lawyers and insurance companies. if you have health insurance, you will probiblly get jacked by your insurance company. if you dont have insurance you are just screwed. yep, sounds like the system is working fine.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So poor people deserve to be ill and die?
This forum definitely needs sacasm tags.
-
Or in this case, Sarchasm tags.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
That's life insurance.
Some insurance.. hehe
Btw, what American Dream? **** the system and squeze money out of the middle class people for your own petty self interest? Sure some dream.. oh wait, its reality.
-
I think the original American Dream comment was also sarcastic... :p
-
Oi gevalt. I was joking. Do I seem like someone who believes in crap like that?
-
We pay tax's big time to fund our healthcare system. I prefer it this way. The government pays money when I need it...
Glad I don't live down there...
-
But high taxes don't have to equal good everything, just take Sweden.
We have an effective tax rate of ~50%, first 30% comes off your salary, then everything you buy have some tax on it, that I can't remember the english word for it, that usually is 25%, some stuff like food and "culture" (books and crap, might even include video games "soon") have lower whilst alchohol and tobacco have much higher.
Still we have awfull eldercare in most places, schools are crap in the bigger cities, there are too few police officers (in the "county" I live in we have no full time police, just one guy who is here two days per week, the "county's" population is around 10 000) and we have had major cutbacks on our military (not saying that this is a bad thing, since the russian ain't a problem these days).
But the health care is pretty good here, 'cept for dental care which costs an arseload since they changed the insurance system for it. You used to pay ~20% of it yourself whilst insurance (that you get from the state) covered the rest, now it's the other way around and it makes it pretty damned expensive to go to the dentist if you don't have a job title of "CEO" or something else that grants insanely high salary.
-
If you are talking about taxes on imported goods, the correct term would be a tariff. I'm also glad to see both sides of the story here. I wish we would at least give national healthcare a try, but then again, I also wish for the right to a higher education, with the bill footed by Uncle Sam.
The thing most of us dislike about taxes is that a big portion is not going towards my/our interests. Most of our taxes go to social security, followed by military after that, then I believe medicare/medicaid. I can't speak for the general public, but the military certainly isn't in my interests. Then you have those people who whine about the ones that take advantage of government programs, such as welfare, and they get pissed over that. There are some people with food stamps that eat better than those that don't have them, another common complaint. People on food stamps probably eat better than I. >.<
There are ways to deter moochers, but tax-haters don't want you to know that, because they're only looking out for themselves, which I can't blame them for, but I disagree with.
-
Originally posted by Tieowbeijas
But high taxes don't have to equal good everything, just take Sweden.
We have an effective tax rate of ~50%, first 30% comes off your salary, then everything you buy have some tax on it, that I can't remember the english word for it, that usually is 25%, some stuff like food and "culture" (books and crap, might even include video games "soon") have lower whilst alchohol and tobacco have much higher.
I presume you mean VAT (value added tax IIRC)
-
But high taxes don't have to equal good everything, just take Sweden.
Higher taxes do not necessarily mean better everything, but there is a greater chance of it being better. I have a perfect example of that:
The prison system in my state.
Some of the prisons have been having to prematurely release some of its prisoners because the state doesn't have the money to keep them in jail. Even though they are releasing people for non-violent crimes, it still makes people uneasy.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So poor people deserve to be ill and die?
Let's take this as non-sarcastic.
No, poor people don't deserve to be ill and die. On the other hand, why should some poor sod have the right to make a claim on another poor sod's hard work and effort? Where's the personal responsibility in that?
Yeah, that's the extreme opposite case. I suggest that the basic tension between "its your problem if you're sick" and "everyone has the right to health care" should produce the proper balance in any stable, democratic society.
Good luck finding one though.
-
@american dream thing -- i was being sarcastic also, i knew you didnt beleive in that.. lol
@tax talkers-- i see a new HLP Revolution sturring.. lol like the American Revolution over tea tax.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Let's take this as non-sarcastic.
No, poor people don't deserve to be ill and die. On the other hand, why should some poor sod have the right to make a claim on another poor sod's hard work and effort? Where's the personal responsibility in that?
In a similar vein - how can you be more or less responsible for a life threatening illness or injury based upon your finances?
My contention would be simply that the NHS principle is sounder than the US principle in terms of basic human 'goodness'.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
We pay tax's big time to fund our healthcare system. I prefer it this way. The government pays money when I need it...
Actually I've read that the USA spends a larger percentage of taxes on healthcare than Canada... yet Canada has public healthcare. Funny eh? (This was in a WHO report IIRC. If I find it I'll post it)
Edit: Okay, nevermind. It was from a Wikipedia article with no citation.
But I could find some data showing that Canada spends less of its GDP on healthcare than the United States. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/18/35044277.xls
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Actually I've read that the USA spends a larger percentage of taxes on healthcare than Canada... yet Canada has public healthcare. Funny eh? (This was in a WHO report IIRC. If I find it I'll post it)
The US spends a larger percentage of the GDP on health than any other nation on Earth.
It was in the WHO 2000 report in case you're still looking. I linked to a PDF of it a few weeks back.
-
That might have someting to do with the fact that drug industry has everyone popping 16 pills a minute for non-existant disorders and normal human stress. Particularly scummy is that they're directly hurting hundreds of millions of people worldwide by lobbying against cheap, generic drugs in favour of their $300 medication for an AIDS patient in the slums of South Africa.
-
Where the hell does it all go?
-
Into the pockets of the HMOs in large part no doubt.
-
On the other hand, why should some poor sod have the right to make a claim on another poor sod's hard work and effort? Where's the personal responsibility in that?
That is absolute bull****. So, if I am walking across a crosswalk when the signal says to walk, and then some drunk driver comes barreling down the road, and I am not able to get out of the way in time and he/she hits me, then by your reasoning it is my fault I got hit and that my parents should lose their house to pay the medical bills.
Sometimes injuries and illness cannot be avoided, so why should we be punished for being unlucky?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
In a similar vein - how can you be more or less responsible for a life threatening illness or injury based upon your finances?
My contention would be simply that the NHS principle is sounder than the US principle in terms of basic human 'goodness'.
You ignored the second half of what I said. It really goes hand in hand with what you quoted, and shouldn't be taken seperately. I'll answer your question as if I only said what you quoted, however: You are always completely responsible for your own health and well-being. Bad things happen and you can't necessarily control when you get sick or what you get, but you bear complete responsibility for the medical care you require to become well again. [Side note: I firmly believe that everyone is responsible for their own well-being at all times, no matter what outside forces act upon them. Accepting--no taking--responsibility for yourself is the first step in controlling your life and fate. This is an absolute belief, which means it is not entirely practical. Practicality dictates compromise in this as in all things. Reality doesn't often allow people the luxury of absolutes. End Note]
Finally an observation: Goodness is relative. I don't recommend using it as a meterstick for anything that involves differences of political belief, social systems, religion, etc. I rather consider it a necessary evil that I pay taxes for other people's benefit, not my own. Others contend that taxes used for the benefit of the less fortunate is a good thing. Neither is actually good OR evil.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
That is absolute bull****. So, if I am walking across a crosswalk when the signal says to walk, and then some drunk driver comes barreling down the road, and I am not able to get out of the way in time and he/she hits me, then by your reasoning it is my fault I got hit and that my parents should lose their house to pay the medical bills.
Sometimes injuries and illness cannot be avoided, so why should we be punished for being unlucky?
Try again. I'm telling you that if Aldo gets drunk and runs you down as you walk across the street, that's not my problem. You're the poor sod who shouldn't, by my reasoning, have a claim on me (the other poor sod). Aldo is the one you need to talk to.
Sorry Aldo. You're just convenient. :D
-
And in case I'm not clear here:
My practical opinion: social health care is generally the best solution I've experienced.
My political opinion: social health care places a burden on me to support some schlub that has nothing to do with me besides living in my country.
Please keep in mind that both opinions can coexist simultaneously and in a completely non-contradictory way in my head. :D
-
people need to aproach government and social systems from an engineering standpoint instead of just tweaking things that apear wrong. were using a system that was created before we were capable of determining all the factors. so the existing systems dont take certain patterns into account. its like putting a supercharger a rusty old car.
-
My practical opinion: social health care is generally the best solution I've experienced.
My political opinion: social health care places a burden on me to support some schlub that has nothing to do with me besides living in my country.
That is a complete contradiction.
Social health may put a "burden" on you, but isn't lending a helping hand to others in need one of the best things that a human being could do?
Let me put it another way, how would you feel if you were that poor "schlub"? I doubt you would feel very good if you lost your house to pay the hospital bills.
But I am starting to believe that it is the social heath care in other developed nations (like Canada, Germany, etc) that has made sure that price of healthcare hasn't spiralled out of control over there (unlike here).
-
Originally posted by Kosh
That is a complete contradiction.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
-Walt Whitman
-
I don't think it's a contradiction. It's just ideals vs. what works in practice. There're plenty of things that people believe in, but wouldn't want to be implemented in practice.
For example, religion. There are many Christians who would certainly like everyone to act like and be a Christian (that's part of being a Christian), but they still want it to be separated from government.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You ignored the second half of what I said. It really goes hand in hand with what you quoted, and shouldn't be taken seperately.
No I didn't - I just edited it for brevity - what do you think the 2nd paragraph of my post was about? The NHS principle would be referring to said proper balance.
Originally posted by mikhael
I'll answer your question as if I only said what you quoted, however: You are always completely responsible for your own health and well-being. Bad things happen and you can't necessarily control when you get sick or what you get, but you bear complete responsibility for the medical care you require to become well again. [Side note: I firmly believe that everyone is responsible for their own well-being at all times, no matter what outside forces act upon them. Accepting--no taking--responsibility for yourself is the first step in controlling your life and fate. This is an absolute belief, which means it is not entirely practical. Practicality dictates compromise in this as in all things. Reality doesn't often allow people the luxury of absolutes. End Note]
I don't think you can really take responsibility of a random event like illness or accident. Under a system of paid healthcare, it means you need a vast amount of money just because of what might happen next time you step outside the door.
I can take & do take the best possible care of myself, but it's simply not feasible for me to cough up a few tens of thousands if some daft bastard hits me with a car. And if that said daft bastard can't cough up money in a civil action (which is a long-winded process hardly inductive to emergency care), then I'm still screwed.
Especially in the cases where the healthcare system itself plays a role in illness, which can happen....
Point being, there are some things which individuals cannot take full responsibility for, simply by dint of being human. One is random health problems (which are random and can be demonstratably down to outside influence), another example could be for example the police service (most/many people will never be affected by crime, but still pay taxes which fund said service - ditto military, fire service, coastguard, and many others).
So you can't measure individual benefit anyways; because a) you don't know if or when you'll need that service and b) you don't know what else that service has done to indirectly protect you (in the case of health - preventing a possible pandemic, or simply you having to do extra work because your colleague is off sick)
Originally posted by mikhael
Finally an observation: Goodness is relative. I don't recommend using it as a meterstick for anything that involves differences of political belief, social systems, religion, etc. I rather consider it a necessary evil that I pay taxes for other people's benefit, not my own. Others contend that taxes used for the benefit of the less fortunate is a good thing. Neither is actually good OR evil.
Obviously so. I'm just supporting my opinion of this; I'd say taxes are a necessary evil, but that the (my) measure of their 'goodness'* is in the application. So taxes for social welfare, healthcare IMO good, taxes for arms spending bad, etc.
*god, that's a crap word to use......
-
Originally posted by Kosh
That is a complete contradiction.
Social health may put a "burden" on you, but isn't lending a helping hand to others in need one of the best things that a human being could do?
Yes, but I am not and should not be obliged to do the right thing. There is not law that says you have to be a nice guy. If you want to take all your money and make it up into a big pile, it's your money so it's your choice..
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
I presume you mean VAT (value added tax IIRC)
That is probably it.
Originally posted by Kosh
Higher taxes do not necessarily mean better everything, but there is a greater chance of it being better. I have a perfect example of that:
The prison system in my state.
Some of the prisons have been having to prematurely release some of its prisoners because the state doesn't have the money to keep them in jail. Even though they are releasing people for non-violent crimes, it still makes people uneasy.
That's somewhat... stupid...
Of course (non tax related) prisoners can sort of walk out of our prisons with a little help, or just run away when they are out on permission (or whatever it's in english).
-
How is it stupid? They had no choice.
And I think the term you are looking for is "out on parole".
-
No it's not parole, they simply get let out for a while and then get put back in, if the convict did something really serious (like murder) then they often have someone with them to make sure they don't run of.
Stupid was just bad wording on my part, a better word would be... "bad".
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So the right to life isn't a sacred right.
Only when you're unborn... :blah:
-
Nooooo! STFU! Please for the love of god don't bring that into it...
-
I say we merge all of the abortion threads from the start of the forum until now into one, and see if the vBB code can take it. My money is on the thread breaking.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, but I am not and should not be obliged to do the right thing. There is not law that says you have to be a nice guy. If you want to take all your money and make it up into a big pile, it's your money so it's your choice..
By that statement, we should all live in anarchy; no government, no police, and soforth.
Taxation is a part of the society we choose to live in (the choice being in terms of what humanity has evolved its society & culture to be); the reward system of taxation is simply the continued existance of such a society, albeit with it's inherent faults intact.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Only when you're unborn... :blah:
Not really relevant or applicable here.
Abortion is an issue of defining what is (the beginning of, specifically) life, not what constitutes staying alive (and even that has to be weighed within the context of what could be defined as the maximum expectation of treatment).
-
Originally posted by Tieowbeijas
But high taxes don't have to equal good everything, just take Sweden.
We have an effective tax rate of ~50%, first 30% comes off your salary, then everything you buy have some tax on it, that I can't remember the english word for it, that usually is 25%, some stuff like food and "culture" (books and crap, might even include video games "soon") have lower whilst alchohol and tobacco have much higher.
Still we have awfull eldercare in most places, schools are crap in the bigger cities, there are too few police officers (in the "county" I live in we have no full time police, just one guy who is here two days per week, the "county's" population is around 10 000) and we have had major cutbacks on our military (not saying that this is a bad thing, since the russian ain't a problem these days).
But the health care is pretty good here, 'cept for dental care which costs an arseload since they changed the insurance system for it. You used to pay ~20% of it yourself whilst insurance (that you get from the state) covered the rest, now it's the other way around and it makes it pretty damned expensive to go to the dentist if you don't have a job title of "CEO" or something else that grants insanely high salary.
As far as I understand it...I think it was Sweden who beat out Canada for several years in a row now as the best place in the world to live which included things like healthcare and general health of the population.
And we have what you have too...big taxes on income and big sales tax. The provice gets a cut and the government gets a cut. The Canadian government gets GST 7% (goods and services tax) and Ontario government takes PST 8% (provincial sales tax). PST varries per province.
All originally ment to be temporary short term things that have lasted for years and years.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
That is a complete contradiction.
Social health may put a "burden" on you, but isn't lending a helping hand to others in need one of the best things that a human being could do?
Let me put it another way, how would you feel if you were that poor "schlub"? I doubt you would feel very good if you lost your house to pay the hospital bills.
It is a contradiction. Life is full of them. I admit there's a contradiction and yet I still believe both things. Wilde once said, "The wise contradict themselves." Likewise, F. Scott Fitzgerald observed, "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." I don't know if I'm wise, but I know I can still function.
On "Best Things":
One of the best things a human being can do is look up at a helping hand and say, "No thanks, I have the strength." Likewise, lending a helping hand is a wonderful thing. On the other hand (the one not on loan, I guess) requiring that someone lend a hand, demanding that someone co-opt his labor for the benefit of anyone else is not "one of the best things that a human being can do." Do you see the difference? I might choose to give aid, but I should never be REQUIRED to give aid. When you REQUIRE me to give aid, you've taken my choice and the product of my labors: you've robbed me.
On Feeling:
It doesn't matter how I 'feel' about not being able to pay my hospital bills. I incur debt, I must meet it. Its my responsibility. Not yours. Not my mother's. Not your sister's. Not Aldo's little dog Skippy with the one bad leg and gimpy eye. Mine. Only mine. I won't 'feel' very good, but that doesnt matter a rat's ass.
Imposing societal obligation based on "feelings" leads to all sorts of stupidity.
Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't think you can really take responsibility of a random event like illness or accident. Under a system of paid healthcare, it means you need a vast amount of money just because of what might happen next time you step outside the door.
My point is that you can't take responsibility for the illness, but you can take responsibility for the treatment.
I really do agree with you, though, Aldo, as I was trying to explain to Kosh above. I doubt he'll get it though.
-
all irrelevant mik
that "required helping hand" helps keep capitalism stable
-
I respond in kind: you're wrong.
-
except not
those "required helping hands" keep the wealth disparity and poverty rates from rising above levels which would destablized the economy. Under the current jackasstrations tax cuts which overwhelmingly favor the top 1% the wealth disparity is rising alarmingly while simultaneously the national debt is balloning faster than ever before.
There wouldn't be a problem with social security if the budget was left balanced - part of the 'debt' is us borrowing from ourselves: from the SS trust fund.
-
kneecapping corporations when they directly atack the competition rather than out pompeteing them, keeps capitolism stable. getting corperate cash out of the government keeps capitolism stable. takeing my hard earned paycheck and spending it on things I don't want, does not keep capitolism stable, it changes capitolism into socalism, and socalism is crap.
-
bobboau: you're half right
pure socialism is crap
pure capitalism is crap
you _have_ to help out those who cannot help themselves otherwise the system does become unstable [crime rate ++, etc]
and helping out the left fortunate isn't socialism - learn the definition of the ****ing word http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism --- i'm sick and tired of otherwise intelligent people throwing around the words "socialism" and "communism" for any program they don't like just because it helps out other ****ing people
don't be so ****ing greedy.
You REALLY want to lower you taxes? let's bring back the late clinton years - after he had worked out a balanced budget - and AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A BALANCED BUDGET IN ALL BUT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS and then once the debt is paid off we can cut a lot of taxes while simultaneously increasing socialprograms - and still have a surpluss of cash
even better
a) become a net creditor
b) make the military spend efficiently
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
takeing my hard earned paycheck and spending it on things I don't want, does not keep capitolism stable, it changes capitolism into socalism, and socalism is crap.
Your cash is spent on things you may not want with the understanding that someone else's cash will be spent on something you do want. That's what we call a society.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Your cash is spent on things you may not want with the understanding that someone else's cash will be spent on something you do want. That's what we call a society.
DING DING DING - We have a winner!
-
[Seinfeld]You know, I pay all these taxes but the only public services I really use are the post office and the lines on the road. So basically, I pay all this money just so I can mail letters and drive straight.[/Seinfeld]
:nervous:
:p
-
Originally posted by Kazan
except not
those "required helping hands" keep the wealth disparity and poverty rates from rising above levels which would destablized the economy. Under the current jackasstrations tax cuts which overwhelmingly favor the top 1% the wealth disparity is rising alarmingly while simultaneously the national debt is balloning faster than ever before.
There wouldn't be a problem with social security if the budget was left balanced - part of the 'debt' is us borrowing from ourselves: from the SS trust fund.
Much better. your prior post made an assertion with no backup.
Now, you may wish to go back and reread what I said, you seem to be missing my point as much as Kosh.
-
Greed is good. Selfishness is good. There's nothing wrong with being greedy.
-
it is socalism if it's forced, if you have no choice. if wealth is redistributed to others who get it for no other reason than being born.
now, it might not be very nice sounding, but if someone else is incapable of suporting them selves, it isn't my problem (or it shouldn't be, currently I have no choice in the matter). if they are driven into crime and are imprisoned for the rest of there lives, if they starve, if they get hurt and bleed to death on the streets, it isn't nice, and I'm sure they don't like the situation, I wouldn't if I was them, but it's not my problem. I will not suport loosers, and if I find myself as a looser, I will not accept forced help. if the people who cannot suport them selves are allowed to fall, we will be better as a whole, but if you take from the healthy to keep the weak alive and consumeing, we are going to colapse. I ask, you, what would likely happen if you took a population of some animal, and for an extended period of time took resouces from those who were able to gather them and gave it to those who were incapable or unwilling? for someone who beleives so strongly in evolution, you have supriseingly little faith in it. as a theory you know it has some qualities, one of wich is you can make predictions, what happens if you take resouces from sucessfull organisms (ones wich devote energy to gathering what they need and useing it apropriately) and give it to unsuccessful ones (wich have a net loss of resouce gathering potential)?
I think it set's up an environment wich selects for organisms wich do not devote effort to gathering there resources and become dependent upon the redistributeing force (you or in the case of people socalistic governments (sevrices)) to survive the redistributeing is dependent upon the productive members of the population wich are being selected against, because they are useing energy for no to little (or at least less) gain. eventualy the dependent group will totaly deplete the productive capacity of the productive group makeing it a net loss to be productive, and a net gain to simply consume and devote all energy to reproduction (because you don't need to do anything else), so the producers will be forced to either become consumers or work themselves into exstinction. the population becomes entierly consumer, and is dependent upon the redistributeing force, wich now has nothing but a net loss to distribute, the system will either colapse or the redistributine force will have to start forceing people to work, telling them what to do and how, and when.
currently I could probly have a higher income if I simply sat on my ass and colected unemployment, do you have any idea how demoraliseing this is? and do you have any idea how hard it would be to get off of wellfair and get paid less to do more work? this is the primary problem with all socalistic systems, it's more benifical to the individual, especaly on the lower economic levels to simply not work.
as far as I'm concerned the best environment for human civilization is capitolism that is managed only so far as to keep the corperations from gaining controle over the government (and thus becomeing a facist state wich is just as bad as comunistic from my perspective)
now, I will admit that there are some socalistic pollacies that don't have this negitive effect, the biggest one, being public schools. everyone should get a chance (not that everyone must be made to start at an equal level), there should be some minimum threshhold that if you have the will you can climb to success from. childeren must be requiered to attend some form of school, and the government must ensure that some form of education is available in all reagons.
but as I have brought this point up, it should be noted that no matter how hard you try not everyone will win.
yes, we need to spend less.
_much_ less.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Your cash is spent on things you may not want with the understanding that someone else's cash will be spent on something you do want. That's what we call a society.
well, why don't I spend my cash on the things I want and other people spend the cash on the things that they want, that way at least the government spending would be representative of the wants of the population.
you know I honestly would be far less mad with haveing a huge chunck of my money taken away if I had some sort of budgetary oversight, I would almost consiter that far. if you simply made the procedure for redistributeing to what you wanted over the default an opption, the vast majority of people would not be bothered to change from the default.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Greed is good. Selfishness is good. There's nothing wrong with being greedy.
Yeah there is something wrong with being greedy. It's called Enron, and Arthur Anderson, and Global Crossing, and Worldcom, and Marth Stewart, and Adelphia amoung others.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well, why don't I spend my cash on the things I want and other people spend the cash on the things that they want, that way at least the government spending would be representative of the wants of the population.
Because the money you pay in taxes is less than you would pay if you had to buy services yourself, and to a single mother who has to choose between eating dinner and taking prescription medication, that makes a difference.
you know I honestly would be far less mad with haveing a huge chunck of my money taken away if I had some sort of budgetary oversight, I would almost consiter that far. if you simply made the procedure for redistributeing to what you wanted over the default an opption, the vast majority of people would not be bothered to change from the default.
I believe that's called voting for a political candidate who shares your fiscal philosophy.
-
but none do.
-
Well, I guess that's the snag in the democratic process, isn't it?
-
only our variation of it.
we could fix it, the method I sugest would help to that end.
-
I believe you're putting the cart before the horse. I suggested that your idea for budgetary oversight already exists in the form of voting. You vote for politicians who want to allocate resources to the things you feel are important. If there aren't any such candidates, you're always free to become an activist.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Yeah there is something wrong with being greedy. It's called Enron, and Arthur Anderson, and Global Crossing, and Worldcom, and Marth Stewart, and Adelphia amoung others.
What was wrong with all the people you listed is not "greed" but stupidity.
Intelligently greedy people acquire in secure ways. These people acquired their money (or sought to avoid the loss of money) in risky ways (cheating generally).
Don't confuse greed with stupidity.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
My point is that you can't take responsibility for the illness, but you can take responsibility for the treatment.
I really do agree with you, though, Aldo, as I was trying to explain to Kosh above. I doubt he'll get it though.
Isn't paying tax taking responsibility if said taxes pay for your healthcare, though?
-
aldo_14: indeed it is. And people would pay less in health insurance if the government did it intelligently then they would individually because the increase in negotiating power combined of the 'individuals' combined with the decreased overall risk to the insurance companies
We also have to get a handle on the otherside of the equasion: the exhorbitant [sp?] prices hospitals and pharmeceutical companies charge because they can get away with it.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
What was wrong with all the people you listed is not "greed" but stupidity.
Intelligently greedy people acquire in secure ways. These people acquired their money (or sought to avoid the loss of money) in risky ways (cheating generally).
Don't confuse greed with stupidity.
These were rich people who decided to commit serious felonies and rob other people of their life savings so they could become even richer. The fact that it was stupid only increases the sheer scope of their greed. Greed doesn't keep going until it reaches the edge of the law, then say, "Woah there! Time to reign it in!" It will carry you wherever the spoils are.
-
I don't know. I'm a greedy ass bastard, but I don't break laws to further my greed. It's simple logic: breaking laws incurs loss in terms of time, money and production. Taking a slower path helps to maximise profit over time.
Aldo, you are the only one who seems to have a clue. :D
-
Problem with greed is that it's like power. It can corrupt quite easily.
-
I can let meat spoil. Does that mean unspoilt meat is bad?
-
only if your an idoit, what wouls a greedy person want, 100 million dolars for the rest of there lives or 110 million for two years followed by fifteen years of prison and supseqent poverty?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I can let meat spoil. Does that mean unspoilt meat is bad?
Of course not. But to use your analogy I can let meat spoil. That means that if I don't want that to occur I need to take steps to prevent that.
-
Naturally. And thus, greed is good, as long as the greedy take steps to not let themselves become stupid. Like Bob said, I'd rather have a hundred million to spend in freedom, than a hundred ten million that get me put in jail. I like being free to spend my money.
-
I don't claim to understand the kind of greed that landed those people in jail, but considering how common it is for rich people to endeavor to become richer, and with such tenacity, I have to believe that it's a compelling force.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Naturally. And thus, greed is good, as long as the greedy take steps to not let themselves become stupid. Like Bob said, I'd rather have a hundred million to spend in freedom, than a hundred ten million that get me put in jail. I like being free to spend my money.
I agree but my point is that like power the more money you have the more it corrupts you. Not a single person Kosh mentioned actually needed the money.
And they were only the ones who got caught. Bill Gates, richest man in the world risked having his company broken up due to his greedy, monopolistic practices.
Greed is good but you can have too much of a good thing.
-
Greed is good but you can have too much of a good thing.
Absolutely.
And they were only the ones who got caught. Bill Gates, richest man in the world risked having his company broken up due to his greedy, monopolistic practices.
Question: What do you call 50,000 nerds playing monopoly?
Answer: Microsoft
I believe that people should find a balance between greed and kindness towards others. This way you can have the best of both worlds.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I believe that people should find a balance between greed and kindness towards others. This way you can have the best of both worlds.
That's what I thought too, and I was just about to go out and tell the whole world, when I discovered that we've been trying that since Day 1.
-
NB: bit late perhaps, but this is an interesting comparison; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/business_comparing_welfare_states/html/1.stm
-
Interesting.
Doesn't anyone else think it is really sad that the richest country in the world has almost 1/4 of it's population in poverty?
-
I think it's sad anyone lives in poverty.
-
Yeah, but it is MORE sad when you have a government and a culture who do not care about people who are less fortunate then they are.
The number of poor people is growing, not shrinking. The number of middle class people in this country is shrinking. Not a good trend.
-
But the Natural Selection must go on!
-
A large portion of the middle class really isn't doing much to help itself, though; the amount of stuff being bought on credit is going through the roof. I see it all around me, especially with automobiles and houses. People are buying things they just can't afford, which is exactly what was happening in the 1920s.
-
But the Natural Selection must go on!
Let's see you live in poverty with no way out and see what it does for your disposition.
-
You know, there is a way out. It's called hard work. Sure it may suck, but it gets the job done.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
You know, there is a way out. It's called hard work. Sure it may suck, but it gets the job done.
Uh-oh...
(http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/grenade.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
You know, there is a way out. It's called hard work. Sure it may suck, but it gets the job done.
No, there isn't. Many people who live in poverty work a lot more than you probably do. People in poverty sometimes work two jobs. Do you do this? I doubt it.
Like I said, lets see you live this way and see what it does for your disposition. Perhaps then this BS I keep hearing from you will disappear.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
You know, there is a way out. It's called hard work. Sure it may suck, but it gets the job done.
Is this speaking from personal experience or a broad sweeping generalization that makes you feel better about the crippling unfairness of the modern world?
-
Personal experience has it that it's pretty easy to get A paying job. Not necessarilly a fun job, but a job none-the-less.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
No, there isn't. Many people who live in poverty work a lot more than you probably do. People in poverty sometimes work two jobs. Do you do this? I doubt it.
Like I said, lets see you live this way and see what it does for your disposition. Perhaps then this BS I keep hearing from you will disappear.
You know what one of the biggest reasons for this is? It's addiction. Addiction to smoking, to drinking, or to drugs.
People need to take personal responsibility for themselves and take action instead of whining about how unfair the world is. That's just life, and life is tough.
And yes, I currently have two jobs.
-
I agree. Those 70 million people living in poverty all need to stop being lazy and turn their lives around.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
crippling unfairness of the modern world?
Wait, wait, wait... Modern world? In the modern world people have so many more oppurtunities than any generation before, yet people have also abandoned a sense of responsibility and work ethic. The world is not nearly as unfair as it used to be.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I agree. Those 70 million people living in poverty all need to stop being lazy and turn their lives around.
Not stop being lazy, they need to take responsibility for their lives and get motivated to take control.
Is there a recurring theme here or what?
-
Whatever you want to call it. Like I said, if that quarter of the nation would just work hard, we'd have virtually no poverty.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Not stop being lazy, they need to take responsibility for their lives and get motivated to take control.
Is there a recurring theme here or what?
See Poor People -> Blame the poor for own suffering -> Insert head into anus -> See less poor people -> Remove head and see poor people again.
Repeat as required.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
You know what one of the biggest reasons for this is? It's addiction. Addiction to smoking, to drinking, or to drugs.
Do you have any actual evidence for this? Any proof of causality or correlation? And proof that - even if there is some link - that said addiction is the cause of poverty and not in fact caused by the effects of poverty?
Originally posted by Deepblue
People need to take personal responsibility for themselves and take action instead of whining about how unfair the world is. That's just life, and life is tough.
And yes, I currently have two jobs.
It appears your approach is that everyone who doesn't have a job, doesn't want one. That people only become poor because they deserve to. That's complete and utter bollocks, and it's a sham of an excuse chosen simply to avoid addressing the social issues behind it, and possibly realising there are some hard questions to answer beyond blaming the poor for being poor.
And yes, the modern world is still unfair. Anything with that sort of rich-poor divide has some sort of inherent flaw - if the worlds richest nation has such a large percentage of people living in basic poverty, surely it raises issues about that countries fairness in terms of, say, access to education and employment opportunities?
The US has one of - if not the - life expectancy and child death rates rates of any modern western country. In 2002, 34.6m Americans were officially living below the poverty line, 31m deemed to be 'food insecure' (did not know where there next meal would come from). In 25 major cities the need for emergency food relief rose 19%; there are more now living in poverty than in 1965. Between 12 and 13.6 million are unemployed, underemployed in part time jobs out of financial necessity or have simply given up looking for work (the US government massages the figure by ommitting the latter 2, which most european countries count in calculating their unemployment figures).
More than 20 states lost over 20% of manufacturing jobs in the 98-03 period. Only 3 saw growth (none remained static; the rest all lost jobs). I don't need to mention that the manufacturing sector is a key employer of 'less skilled', i.e. less educated and usually lower class, workers.
And you think it's just down to individual laziness?
-
Yeah, pretty much. Humanity in general is a pretty lazy bunch except for the few who advance and move the world. If everyone in the world dedicated themselves completely to the common cause the world would be much more productive.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
You know, there is a way out. It's called hard work. Sure it may suck, but it gets the job done.
Hard work doesn't come easy you know. I tried to make it on my own. I did this to go to a better school, have a better life. I was set to stay with a friend, and start anew. Well, my friend screwed me over and backed out last minute. This was already after I flew to the other side of the country. I'm lucky I knew someone else, and he let me sleep on his floor in his dorm, while every day, I was out looking for a job and a place to stay. Unfortunately, no one was hiring, figures in a college town. I did find places to stay that would be affordable though. I ate two meals a day at Subway. I trudged mile upon mile. I walked so many that my shoes almost wore all the way through. I had a change of plans after about a month concerning my education and returned home. I was lucky I had such the option. Not everyone has options. Sometimes people are backed against a wall. They not only only have physical barriers, but mental ones as well. It's not easy to keep a bright outlook when things look so dreary.
My outlook changed while I was on the edge of poverty. I can see how so many people wind up poor or even homeless. It only takes one, unforseen event beyond their control to flush everything down the toilet. It is very hard to get on your feet without a little help here in the US.
And we as a world have the ability to end all poverty, yet we don't. Technically, money = power. Therefore, I think the rich feel if there were no poverty, they would have no power. Then what point is there to life for them?
-
Bah.
There's a way out of poverty, and it involves humility, sacrifice and dedication. Do what I did when I was a homeless college dropout. Join the damn military, get some training, make something of yourself. Don't like the military? There's any number of other organizations that will train someone for free and put them to work.
-
Yeah, cause I really want to die in a war I don't believe in we are currently involved in. :rolleyes: I wasn't homeless, but I was staring that right in the face. I'm employed by a temp agency now when I'm not in school. Not all poor people are lazy and stubborn. It's those kind of stereotypes that are used to justify poverty when there is no excuse.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Yeah, pretty much. Humanity in general is a pretty lazy bunch except for the few who advance and move the world. If everyone in the world dedicated themselves completely to the common cause the world would be much more productive.
Whose common cause?
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Yeah, cause I really want to die in a war I don't believe in we are currently involved in.
I MAKE THIS POST FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Bah.
There's a way out of poverty, and it involves humility, sacrifice and dedication.
You don't seriously believe that, do you? It involves being as greedy, corrupt, self serving and manipulative as you can get away with. It involves being functionally without morals.
Show me one Fortune 500 company which practices humility, sacrifice or dedication.
Originally posted by mikhael
I MAKE THIS POST FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE! :rolleyes:
Yeah, but were you in the military (OK, Army or Marines) when there was a war on? In any case, isn't the average pay for an enlisted person (I don't know the term, you know - a grunt) something along the lines of 20k per year? I would imagine that there are more effictive ways to prosperity?
-
We weren't talking about becoming rich. We were talking about getting out of poverty.
When I was in the Navy, I was making around $35k/yr with all my allowances. All my electricity, water, rent, food and all my work clothes were paid for. I mean, really, $35k/yr liquid income is nothing to sneeze at.
Hell, its more than I get now after the bills are paid.
Inerestingly, my time in the Navy was spent in places considered war or danger zones, but I was never near any kind of conflict. Why? because I worked the system well. The military is more than the infantry, and its more than front line conflict. *gasp*shock*amazement*
-
I'm surprised Kazan missed it.
Let's churn out a few facts on healthcare:
fact: the top healthcare systems are public based
fact: US private healthcare is ranked 34th in the world (source: W.H.O.)
fact: healthcare, like all other basic services that requires complex skills has an unflexible demand related to the price
fact: unchecked unflexible demand always leads to high prices
fact: in the US healthcare (and insurance!) costs MUCH more than what the average EU taxpayer pays in taxes for it (you can compare the average monthly cost for insurance with the percentage of the budget a nations spends on healthcare and then relate it to GNP)
fact: there have been some attempts in EU to privatize healthcare, ALL resulted in prices going up
basic deduction: public healthcare is more efficent
basic deduction 2: you would spend less on taxes than you spend on private insurance, this reinforced by fact: the state doesn't need to make a profit from your taxes.
about social security: it's HIGHLY inefficent in the US, the equivalent programs in EU are much more optimized and it's harder to exploit them...
A few tips:
Generics keeps NHS spending in check.
Cash handouts are to be made on the condition one is willing to accept any kind of work will be offered (with extremely limited exceptions).
Also: the mass buyouts made by a NHS are usually at a lower price than those made by a bunch of hospitals separately.
Unrelated tip:
Get those wimp lawsuits out of the courts, it will seriously limit the exploits of the various systems.
-
You people, I said repeat the cycle I stated. Some of you are lathering, rinsing AND repeating.
Not aimed at the last post btw.
-
In this country, poverty and lack of access to healthcare are intertwined.
But yeah, this thread has gone kind of off topic, even though they are kind of related.