Is this a redo of the WPA?

[trickery dickery dock]

The fall of this country has been going on steadily since the liberals turned the stock market adjustment of 1929 into the Great Depression. Somehow they've managed to control congress steadily since that time, and despite the efforts of great men like Reagan and Bush, we've only continued to seal our fate by regulating and taxing ourselves to death. The troubling thing is that few people have called them on this, and now, we're about to desend into the biggest hole ever, one which we dug ourselves with comrade hussein's "let's throw everyone's money away package."

Seriously, I think you need to pass an economics exam before they let you vote (or would that be racially biased, hmm?).

Spending money we DON'T HAVE is bad.

Strangling the FREE MARKET is bad (how are we going to save manufacturing jobs when companies have to pay unnecessarily high wages, get sued by OSHA and pay people to be careless and have accidents? I'm not in manufacturing but I really don't blame them for exporting jobs to Malaysia, for I would do the same!)

Giving money to people who don't deserve it is BAD. I heard a story the other day about how someone overheard a conversation between a welfare queen who hasn't had to work a SINGLE DAY IN HER LIFE because she is collecting welfare and child support. Our productivity is dropping because WE'RE PAYING PEOPLE TO BE LESS PRODUCTIVE.

[erooMynohtnA]

I am paying plenty for my healthcare. And I managed to hit the annual out of pocket max in one day with my seizure in January. So that was a quick $2k. Nothing that I could have done would have prevented the aneurysm from forming and popping or my seizures for that matter. I have epilepsy as it turns out. But I digress again. It seems to me that in the countries where I have worked with a socialized medical program everyone hates it. When I set up shop in the UK we could not hire engineers until we created a "top up" program that duplicated the US plan as close as can be. When I opened an office in Toronto recently the gentlemen we hired on as Managing Director said we needed a seperate plan over the national health and an RRSP retirement plan.

What I am saying is that I don't want to see my options limited. I don't want to pay for the people that work the system. Look how much welfare fraud there is. Recently a woman was arrested for collecting it in 4 states. IL, WI, MN,IA. she just drove in, got her check, cashed it and drove to the next state. That's appalling. I work hard, why should I pay for her benefits?

This is the basic problem I have with your statements. They're full of rhetoric that just doesn't apply to your situation at all. It's just not accurate.

Given what your healthcare costs are and what you would be paying in increased taxes, how can you possibly say that you don't want to pay for other people? Unequivocally, other people will be paying for you.

Even if you didn't have the condition you have (which is sucks, not taking shots at you about that, and you do deserve care and swift recovery [and you're a nice guy]), you would not be paying for others. If you make anywhere close to average income, you're not going to be paying anywhere near enough to offset the cost of healthcare your family receives.

The line you should be quoting is "I do not believe the top 1% should be paying for the bottom 90%."

That's the way the income tax works. The top pays for services the poor and even middle class are provided Even a flat income tax works that way. The top pays more. 10% of a 50 people making ten thousand is a lot less than 10% of a million. If you raised the $150,000 from them then split it to provide them a community pool, the guy with a million paid for 66% of those poor children's splashes. If you think that's morally wrong, that's fine. Good luck reforming that.

Most people who claim they don't want to pay for others don't realize that they're also receiving welfare from the upper crust. It's not in the form of a check, but it's in the form of police, firefighters, hospital, parks, and highways that they didn't chip in their "fair share" to have. I don't see how this escapes people, even those in who have several credits of faith-based-business.

[trickery dickery dock]

That's the way the income tax works. The top pays for services the poor and even middle class are provided Even a flat income tax works that way. The top pays more. 10% of a 50 people making ten thousand is a lot less than 10% of a million. If you raised the $150,000 from them then split it to provide them a community pool, the guy with a million paid for 66% of those poor children's splashes. If you think that's morally wrong, that's fine. Good luck reforming that.

Most people who claim they don't want to pay for others don't realize that they're also receiving welfare from the upper crust. It's not in the form of a check, but it's in the form of police, firefighters, hospital, parks, and highways that they didn't chip in their "fair share" to have. I don't see how this escapes people, even those in who have several credits of faith-based-business.

Are you related to michael moore? Or does having that as a last name just make you stupid automatically?

First who says income tax is a good thing?

Second do you think its morally right that people don't work hard enough to support their own children?

And as a matter of fact many people do realize this, which is why many of us are calling for privatization. (By the way, my family has actually worked for a living, and as a result, we ARE "upper crust," so don't you accuse me of being a welfare-riding monkey)

[telkanuru]

As someone who makes $20k a year and would be unable to afford cost of living if I weren't bumming off the 'rents, I call bull**** on the idea that people who don't make a lot of money don't work very hard.

[Greybeard]

Well, I am hardly a gazillionaire. I am lucky enough to be able to provide for my family but also my twin grandsons. They and their mother have lived with us since the boys were 6 months old. But that's another story.

I have been able to have excellent care thanks to my insurance. I have worked hard to get to where I am and it is no breeze to maintain it. I did not take umbrage at your comments on my condition. From an early age I was taught that if you want something, work for it. When I was 12 I wanted a 3 speed English racer. My parents could have purchased it, but they told me if I wanted it to earn the money. So I got a paper route and mowed lawns. Aside from the satisfaction of having it, my parents taught me a very good lesson.

I didn't just walk into a basketball scholarship, I had to practice like crazy and I was fortunate to have had some amazing coaches. Is everyone on welfare a lazy bum, of course not, sh!t happens. It is the group who feel they are entitled that burns my butt. I have a cousin who hasn't quite left the 60's that works the system for his income and drive me crazy. I am ashamed to claim him as family. Those are the types of people for whom we should not be paying. How is spending more what we don't have going to help? More bureaucrats. It is like in the movie "Dave" when he has his accountant friend come to the White House and he says "If I ran a company like this I would be out of business" Talk to people from socialized medicine countries, they hate it. I have just been lucky enough to have had the care I do.

Oh, and is the Brat House still open on Stae Street?

[erooMynohtnA]

Oh, and is the Brat House still open on Stae Street?

Brat House, I'm not familiar with, but if State Street Brats is what you mean, it's doing well. Might be a rename.

[erooMynohtnA]

Are you related to michael moore? Or does having that as a last name just make you stupid automatically?

First who says income tax is a good thing?

Second do you think its morally right that people don't work hard enough to support their own children?

And as a matter of fact many people do realize this, which is why many of us are calling for privatization. (By the way, my family has actually worked for a living, and as a result, we ARE "upper crust," so don't you accuse me of being a welfare-riding monkey)

I am only related to Michael Moore in the sense that we all descended from the same ape strain (or in your case, imaginary white people, probably blue-eyed blondes). I guess I'm his cousin. I guess I'm your cousin too. Really, I'm your brother. Pray for me.

There are many equitable ways to tax people. However, there is no way to skim off the top of so many people quite so efficiently than by just using the number of dollars they're paid. You may appreciate the increased bureaucracy required of other methods, but I'll stick to sleeker government.

I think it is neither morally right nor morally wrong that people do not work enough to support their children. It just is.

I think you'd like to think you're upper crust, but you have the indignant yet unassured stink of an upper middle class child all over you. Plus, I'm not sure you can count supping at a rich parent's teat as being personally wealthy. I would call convincing your parents to happily fritter away money on Bible camp more parasitic than anything else. You have to work at least as hard as Paris Hilton to do that, so you're in appropriate company.

However, there is good news in all of this. Our Glorious Leaders have seen to it that your parents' wealth is being redistributed to more worthy causes, such as my indoctrination at the Liberalbot Factory, which we call a University, here in the regular world.

[trickery dickery dock]

As someone who makes $20k a year and would be unable to afford cost of living if I weren't bumming off the 'rents, I call bull**** on the idea that people who don't make a lot of money don't work very hard.

Maybe you should spend less time on the internet and more time taking night classes so you won't have to keep working at McDonald's.

[Phaeton]

The mean income for someone with a doctorate degree, combining race and gender, in 2004 was 78 grand. In 2006 the average income of the top 1% of earners was $1.8 million dollars. We're looking at a massive income disparity between two groups that are relatively well off, (mean income in the United States is what, 50 grand?) and groups that both generally highly credentialed.

At some point, the marginal value of each dollar begins to decrease rapidly. We are facing a situation where we have people so rich that they really don't benefit from it all that much. That dollar is "worth" a lot more to someone who needs healthcare or other basic services.


I look at nations with large income disparities and I see a lot of instability. Look at South America. Venezuela in particular. Part of the reason Chavez was able to take power was that those that had money kept it among themselves, and poverty lead to social instability.

People often forget that welfare was first widely implemented by a very conservative man, Otto von Bismarck. He realized that welfare programs were necessary for social stability and to keep the more liberal (socialist etc) parts from getting more support.

There are somethings in which the entire nation benefits if everyone has. Literacy. The ability to vote intelligently. Good health. How many dollars a year are lost to illness? I imagine a lot. How many needlessly? I imagine a lot more.

Everyone ends up paying for the poor and sick. The question is how do we want to do it. Politically? Socially? Do we want to pay the money up front? Or feel it creep throughout the economy?

[NGV]

Talk to people from socialized medicine countries, they hate it.

Huh, that's a pretty strong claim. Any chance that you have any evidence to back it up, other than some obviously worthless personal anecdotes?

I'm guessing not. Here's some actual evidence.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=927

[I_luv_saber]

Well, I'm married to one who hated it

At any rate, I don't really trust the statistics either way (I've seen some that point the other direction as well)... with popular opinion polls such as these, they tend to be extremely skewed in my experience.

I think there are lots of people who hate the system, and lots of people who love it, and lots of people who don't really care either way. As long as people are covered medically, they're happy (generally).

I will note, however, that whether or not a system is popular does not make it better or worse.

I will also note that in Europe, there are other factors at play as well. I know, at least in Hungary, a large part of the reason there is not much movement to change is simply inertia, and a still very communist feeling about (in addition to a plethora of other reasons). Comparing the US to Europe in this regard is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. There are just far too may differences (geography, population densities, culture, blah blah blah) for good comparisons and statistics between the two.

$.02

[tchwojko]

http://www.healthcare-now.org/illnes...-bankruptcies/

The healthcare system is just fine as long as you don't get surprised by a serious illness.

[Phaeton]

Well, I'm married to one who hated it

If I may ask what country is your spouse from?

From my experience Israeli and Brits aren't big fans of their socialized systems, while Spaniards, Canadians, and the French are a bit more amiable to how things work. That's because not all socialized healthcare systems are created equal. Just because it's being done doesn't mean it's being done well. Look at the disparity between the systems in France and Israel.

We're never going to get a single payer healthcare system in the United States. Our left (Democratic) party would be to the right in most any European country. We have strong insurance lobbies and a public that's scared of public involvement in health.

We need a domestically grown solution that is particular to this country. I'm not sure I have one, but one needs to come along.

[jeff]

Phaeton, please add to your list Germany, France, Switzerland, Sweden (actually: toss in the entire Nordic part of Europe). All of these countries are extremely enthusiastic about their healthcare systems. In fact, even with UK and Canada, the programs are viewed as being flawed but essential. Nobody wants to eliminate them - they just want them to be better.

Little facts to deal with: UK pays about 7.5% GDP for its healthcare, and gets results similar to ours for mortality - but we pay twice as much. France and Germany pay more than UK (in the 8% and 9% ranges) but still far less than we do - and their citizens live longer and at better health than we do. We have a worse system by any measurement basis for population health you would use: eg: infant mortality or lifespan.

Certainly, if you have money you can get excellent healthcare in the US, and with shorter time periods. Actually, our system rewards doing procedures whether truly indicated or not (providers are paid to do them, and risk getting sued if they don't do them, no matter how marginal the justification) which both drives up costs and subjects people to unnecessary pain, risk and suffering. On the other hand, if you don't have coverage, you are truly screwed in our country. Get sick -> lose your job -> can't get insurance do to pre-existing condition. Game over.

Greybeard, I sympathize with your situation, but hope you realize that you could easily be in a situation where you would have to bankrupt yourself in order to survive, due to the way our system works. I hope you realize that your anecdotal stories really don't add up to much. Welfare cheats are irritating, of course, but (a) their impact on total costs is a tiny percentage - when they actually exist instead of being made up from whole cloth, (b) being against universal healthcare because there are welfare cheats is talking about two completely separate things and (c) even if they were related, it would be like saying "because some police have been bribed, there should be no police at all". It makes no sense.

Speaking of "makes no sense" - the idea that the '30s were better, or that the liberals caused the Great Depression is completely nonsense. Tin foil hat loony tunes. The US is stronger, more prosperous, safer and fairer than it was in the 30s - and very much of that is because of "liberal" policies.

[trickery dickery dock]

ILuvSabre has it right, 100%. But I'd like to add in the fact that the money 'wasted' on healthcare costs isn't vanishing, its DRIVING THE ECONOMY. In some cases, it is being wasted on scummy lawyers and lazy greedy idiots who want to sue doctors. The real solution is tort reform.

[Phaeton]

Phaeton, please add to your list Germany, France, Switzerland, Sweden (actually: toss in the entire Nordic part of Europe).

I definitely should have if I wanted a more exhaustive list to prove my point. But be careful about speaking about Norway and Sweden in the same breath. I don't know if there is any real animosity between them, but I do remember the Age of Conan forums, where everyone's favorite hobby was watching the Nords and Swedes flame each other . Maybe Scandinavian is a better choice.

And yes, while I find Scandinavia to be an amazing place, where the left has made what looks to be a utopia, I highly doubt anyone can recreate it. Too much of it is regional history and geography. Too much of it is cultural.

Great post the way. You have some reserved rep. after I spread some around.

[jeff]

Thank you, Phaeton - I appreciate that.

Yes, "Nordic" is not the best word to use. There are still hard feelings over the wars between Sweden, Norway, and Denmark - the word "Scandinavian" is the better choice.

[NGV]

Thank you, Phaeton - I appreciate that.

Yes, "Nordic" is not the best word to use. There are still hard feelings over the wars between Sweden, Norway, and Denmark - the word "Scandinavian" is the better choice.

Actually, the term "Nordic model" is frequently used when talking about social welfare policy in Scandinavia.

[jeff]

Oh, so maybe I was accidentally right

[I_luv_saber]

If I may ask what country is your spouse from?

Hungary.

We're never going to get a single payer healthcare system in the United States. Our left (Democratic) party would be to the right in most any European country. We have strong insurance lobbies and a public that's scared of public involvement in health.

We need a domestically grown solution that is particular to this country. I'm not sure I have one, but one needs to come along.

We've had this discussion before, and my personal preference is towards something like the Swiss model (perhaps not exactly, but close) which basically, for the most part, leaves the actual healthcare and insurance in private hands, and simply controls it by regulation. Basically, indirect not direct control.