The Welfare State

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:37 am

If you view this, please comment. Your views make this interesting,even if you are outside the US.

We have a Senator from Illinois who is making a big deal about the fact he is taking no money from lobbyists in order to avoid being influenced. Not reality of course, but it sounds good at a town hall meeting. On the other hand this same fellow has no problem throwing out tax break promises for the elderly to win their votes which is relevant given that the voting rate for 55 and over was 72% in the 2004 election compared to 47% for 18-24 year olds. Talk about influence peddling.

But that is not the point of all this.

What scares the heck out of me is the philosophical direction in which we are heading, if this is the change we are seeking, then in fact we are simply heading toward a welfare state. Is that what we really want, the government funded by the relatively few paying for the many, a structure that discourages risk and reward and investing and bettering ones self and encourages accepting the mediocre status quo? Should we set standards that encourage people to look to the government more and more and to be encouraged to get by on the largess of the system as opposed to always striving for better? :-1

Consider this, the Obama campaign wants to set the tax code so that seniors (many of whom have no mortgage, debt or are unaffected by any credit crisis and have accumulated a lifetime of assets) earning not more than $50,000 pay no taxes. An Obama advisor, Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard says “We want seniors to share in the middle-class tax relief and to simplify the tax code for people we (exactly who is we?) are not getting a lot of revenue from. And the rest of America professor, what about the people who apparently are paying for all the Congressional goodies? And why do people need tax relief? Because taxes and spending are too high perhaps?

By the way, about 40% of Americans already don’t pay any income tax. About 16 million seniors didn’t file income tax returns (out of 38 million) and of the ones who did 5 million didn’t pay any taxes because of low incomes (which one might surmise was the case during their working lives as well – low income that is).

The Obama clan also wants to give “working families up to a $1,000 tax credit “to offset the cost of the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. And of the course the credit would be payable even to people who do not pay income taxes. I would call that about as close to federal welfare as you can get. If you are no longer going to contribute toward Social Security but will receive a benefit, what do you call it?

Of course there are the other seniors, the wealthy ones with incomes over $250,000 who would have the pleasure of paying higher taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Don’t seniors already get double exemptions, a senior standard deduction and a portion of Social Security benefits being tax free, but hey, they do vote, right Senator?

Another Obama adviser Jason Furman notes, “If you’re providing a tax cut, it’s unfair to say that people who are working deserve one and senior citizens don’t. Really, have you considered that the working people are paying for 100% of the cost of Medicare Part A and 75% of the cost of Medicare Part B and 50% of the cost of their parents and grandparents Social Security?

Obama advisors also say seniors are not seeing their Social Security benefits keep pace with rising costs. Was it ever supposed to? It was supposed to be a base for income, a starting point, part of ones income. And, the absurdly structured inflation indexing already part of Social Security is one of the big reasons it is in financial trouble.

We hear a great deal about being “fair about “working people, about “seniors and tax cuts and credits funded almost exclusively by wealth transfer of one form or the other and yet we hear very little about cutting spending, more efficiency, really simplifying the tax code, restructuring Social Security and Medicare. They are not vote getters of course. So who is doing the influence peddling now?

If you love all this election year tinkering with tax goodies you will love it when the two 300 pound gorillas are taken on. Medicare and Social Security will turn the next generation of Americans into Swedes.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:58 am

There are two kinds of politicians:

1. Those who want to simplify the tax code.

2. Those who want to use it as a tool to manipulate the masses.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:25 am

Here are some interesting comparisons.

Most European nations have what you would think of as Welfare states. Despite this shocking waste of resources, (looking after the basic needs of citizens), the Eurozone is outperforming the US economy rather dramatically, with far more stable budgetary situation, a stronger monetary framework, a much more equal distribution of wealth, much better levels of health-care for all, better performing manufacturing and exporting sectors, far higher levels of energy efficiency for consumers and industry. Crucially, a lot less money has been wasted on bubbles in meaningless house prices or worthless junk bonds and derivatives over the last 15 years, and more invested in research, development, and infrastructure. In fact, 8.5 million jobs were created in the Eurozone in the past 3 years. If having a welfare state is such an ideological nightmare, that turns people into zombies taking checks from the government, how is any of this possible?

Anyway, how could you know what an America with a welfare state would be like? You have never had a welfare state, so you have nothing to base your fears on as far as I can see, the nearest thing you have is Canada, which is hardly noted as a "failed communist" state is it? Most western countries that have welfare states, seems to be perfectly capable of also running successful free-market economies, (and have far more cohesive societies as well). In fact, the less neo-liberal policies of the European economies seem to have actually turned out to be a little more sustainable than the "borrow now pay the saudi's later, to hell with the peasants, lets outsource everything to make our capitalist class rich" model that the US has used for the last 30 years and that nations such as Britain and Ireland have followed and are now in exactly the same disasterous situation as the US.

I think you are just as brainwashed by emotive and poltically motivated economic theories, (which BTW are directly responsible for the economic disaster than the global financial system is currently enduring) as your ideological opponents. Economics may be an art, but you can't re-invent gravity, and you can't eat money. In the US, you have sacraficed the concept of society being something that should be a shared space and resource (among all citizens), for the sake of the most short-term profiteering and reckless financial policies in modern history, so I would be careful about lecturing people on the evils of the European social model.

I'm not arguing that the incentive to work should be removed, or that people should expect the government to look after them because they are not prepared to look after themselves. I am saying that you can tell what a society values by the way it treats its poorest most powerless members, not by how it fetes its super-rich super-powerful elite and their self-serving philosophies.

Victoria · Post by **Victoria** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:21 pm

Galbally;902386 wrote: Here are some interesting comparisons.

Most European nations have what you would think of as Welfare states. Despite this shocking waste of resources, (looking after the basic needs of citizens), the Eurozone is outperforming the US economy rather dramatically, with far better current budgetary situations, a stronger monetary situation, much more equal distribution of wealth, better levels of health care, better performing manufacturing and exporting sectors, far higher levels of energy efficiency. Crucially, a lot less money wasted on bubbles in meaningless house prices or worthless junk bonds and derivatives, and more invested in research, development, and infrastructure. In fact, 8.5 million jobs were created in the Eurozone in the past 3 years. If having a welfare state is such an ideological nightmare, that turns people into zombies taking checks from the government, how is any of this possible?

Anyway, how could you know what an America with a welfare state would be like? You have never had a welfare state, so you have nothing to base your fears on! Most western countries that have welfare states, seems to be perfectly capable of also running successful free-market economies, (and have far more cohesive societies as well). In fact, the less neo-liberal policies of the European economies seem to have actually turned out to be a little more sustainable than the "borrow now pay the saudi's later, to hell with the peasants, lets outsource everything to make our capitalist class rich" model that the US has used for the last 30 years and that nations such as Britain and Ireland have followed and are now in exactly the same disasterous situation as the US.

I think you are just as brainwashed by emotive and poltically motivated economic theories, (which BTW are directly responsible for the economic disaster than the global financial system is currently enduring) as your ideological opponents. Economics may be an art, but you can't re-invent gravity, and you can't eat money. In the US, you have sacraficed the concept of society being something that should be a shared space and resource (among all citizens), for the sake of the most short-term profiteering and reckless financial policies in modern history, so I would be careful about lecturing people on the evils of the European social model. I'm not arguing that the incentive to work should be removed, or that people should expect the government to look after them because they are not prepared to look after themselves. I am saying that you can tell what a society values by the way it treats its poorest most powerless members, not by how it fetes its super-rich super-powerful elite and their self-serving philosophies.

Well said. My thoughts exactly

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:31 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;902316 wrote: [What scares the heck out of me is the philosophical direction in which we are heading, if this is the change we are seeking, then in fact we are simply heading toward a welfare state.

What, exactly is wrong with a "Welfare State"? In Europe "Welfare" refers to a governmental concern for the welfare of all citizens.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;902316 wrote: Is that what we really want, the government funded by the relatively few paying for the many,

"funded by the few"? we all pay for it. Even those who are unfortunate enough to be jobless, they too are economically active.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;902316 wrote: a structure that discourages risk and reward and investing and bettering ones self and encourages accepting the mediocre status quo?

????????????

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;902316 wrote: Should we set standards that encourage people to look to the government more and more and to be encouraged to get by on the largess of the system as opposed to always striving for better?

We don't "look to the government" our governments look to us.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;902316 wrote: By the way, about 40% of Americans already don’t pay any income tax

If this is fact, your taxation system is really ficked up.

IQUINNSCOMMENTARY;902316 wrote: f you love all this election year tinkering with tax goodies you will love it when the two 300 pound gorillas are taken on. Medicare and Social Security will turn the next generation of Americans into Swedes

That might help the US. Currently (2007 figures) the US has the 9th highest GDP in the world. Sweden, however (according to the same analysis) is 6th. The EU is ranked 1st.

I don't know of any member country of the EU which is not a "Welfare State".

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:33 pm

Quinn: 40% of Americans don't pay income tax? Where do you get this fact from? Are you including children and the elderly?

This is pretty wild use of figures. If you are making them such a basis of your argument can we have some context or better, source, for them?

Or is the story about people in some parts of the US on average earnings being too poor to rent accommodation and having to live in their cars true? At present it has as much credibility.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:18 pm

Chookie;902615 wrote: What, exactly is wrong with a "Welfare State"? In Europe "Welfare" refers to a governmental concern for the welfare of all citizens.Our cultures are too different to compare here. We have completely different views of the role of government. In fact government is a misnomer in the US. Not sure what term we should be using though.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:19 pm

I find these posts interesting and informative and certainly a different perspective to comprehend.

First let me reiterate that nobody is talking about shirking our societal responsibility to care for the truly indigent, but should we consider people earning $50,000 a year in that category just because they are seniors? Should not everyone have some responsibility to contribute to society no matter their income?

As far as Europe goes, it seems to me that many European countries are facing the same problems as the US and worse in terms of funding the promises made to an ever growing older population and a smaller working group. Promises that to keep will mean higher and higher taxes will it not? France and Germany seem to have their share of economic troubles. How can you have a competitive productive economy if you have government rules limiting the work week? How is building in the cost of pensions into gasoline taxes not regressive?

I make no claim to being an expert on the global economy, but I do know that for the past century the US has been the economic driver of the world economy. That is no longer true and is becoming less so every year, but in the past the rest the world depended to a great extent on the buyers in America including those we now call poor.

By the way, the "poor" in America may not be exactly what is perceived. Yes, there are way too many real poor but we tend to lump in many others. For example, 70% of the poor in American own their own home. Poor people have cell phones, cable TV (perhaps not the premium channels) and eat out quite often. The average income in America is nearly $50,000, so does the average American deserve not to pay any taxes?

I agree that the US economy is in shambles mainly from a combination of greed and stupidity and simple momentum caused by a flurry of political talk, news reports and the like. The reality is that now the ball is rolling it will take some time to fix, but the vast majority of Americans are not affected as one may surmise. Those who have not lost their job or gotten themsleves into unmanagable debt (which is the vast majority although you would not know from the press) are not doing too badly, except now dealing with inflation which is not a new thing and we have all gotten through it before. Consumer confidence is way down and spending is up...go figure.

If you add up all the CEOs, hedge fund managers and Wall Street millionaires and billionaires they represent an insignifcant part of the American society and yet to hear the reports they are the cause of the the working American's suffering. That's nonsense, just like free trade and a global economy are the scapegoats.

Most millionaires in America are self-made small business owners who work endless hours a week running their businesses, who are not greedy or ostentatious and not part of the financial sector in crowd.

Europe and other parts of the world have benefited greatly from the US outsourcing move. I deal with a company where our claims are processed in Ireland and another where our call center is in India. Should we take all that back and will the rest of the world be better off and will America?

Bottom line is that government or perhaps society has an obligation to care for the truly needy, but beyond that an aggregate obligation does not exist in my view and where it becomes a crutch, it simply makes people less willing to do more for themselves and a greater dependency on society as a whole. Perhaps if I grew up in another part of the world, I would get it, but a large government role in the welfare of citizens simply does not compute with me.

I want a chance to get as far as I can, achieve as much as I can (and I am not talking just money) and provide for my family with the least help from anyone or any government. I buy the idea that we are entitled to no more than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My father was a used car salesman, nobody in my family went to college, my parents could not afford a home until they were 60 and then only because my sister and her family lived with them. My parents lived on Social Security and nothing more until they died. Now I realize I probably grew up poor by today's standards and my parents certainly in their older years were poor, but they didn't know it and didn't ask for anything and could not understand people who did.

With very few exceptions anyone in America can get their piece of the pie if they try, many don't and they become what their father were and one has to assume they are content and all the while envious of others, but in the final analysis whose fault is that? The Senator from Illinois who is an amazing achiever himself would have us believe that the fault lies with those who did achieve and now must pay more than their fair share as a penalty for those who did not.

My barber who works six days a week and cuts hair for $9.00 (less than half the going rate) and who still has his strong Italian accent has a vacation home and a 34 foot yacht. I can just see a news crew following some politician into his shabby barber shop for a chance to talk with an average "working" American (and immigrant no less).

Ya gotta love it.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:41 pm

Clodhopper;902657 wrote: Quinn: 40% of Americans don't pay income tax? Where do you get this fact from? Are you including children and the elderly?

This is pretty wild use of figures. If you are making them such a basis of your argument can we have some context or better, source, for them?

Or is the story about people in some parts of the US on average earnings being too poor to rent accommodation and having to live in their cars true? At present it has as much credibility.

The 40% number is out of an article in the June 28th Wall Street Journal.

And, yes there are people who for a time live in their car and there are others in big cities who live on the street and who refuse to go into shelters that are provided because they are such horrible and dangerous places. They are not average Americans making $50,000 a year, they are typically unemployed. And many are mentally ill. And in New York at least, many got on the street because politicians years ago threw them out of mental hopstals because the hospitals were not a fit place to live we were told. Now, there is something for society to be ashamed of.

In New York City one of the most expensive places to live, the starting salary for a police officer is under $30,000 a year and yet society has not jumped up and said, "Hey, nobody can live on that." but they do complain about high property taxes. In many places our teachers earn barely a living wage which could easily be fixed, but would mean higher property taxes. And guess what, in many states we get to vote on the school budget and no other budget. You can guess what happens. Seniors who have no children in schools at the time vote down school budgets because they do not want their property taxes to go up. On the other hand teachers typically enjoy very good state operated health and welfare and retirement benefits.

There is a lot society can work on.

Let's take an average person in my town. They pay income tax, state income tax which together average about 30% of income, they pay 7% sales tax on what they buy, they pay 7.65% of income for Social Security and Medicare taxes and they pay property taxes which average about $9,000 a year (my state is the highest in the US) and they pay a small tax to the state that is used to fund unemployment benefits and short term disability benefits. The average income in my town is about twice the national average, yet these people are already paying nearly 47% of their income in taxes not counting sales tax.

What is fair 50% 70% or more since they earn twice as much as the average?

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:59 pm

Chookie;902615 wrote: That might help the US. Currently (2007 figures) the US has the 9th highest GDP in the world. Sweden, however (according to the same analysis) is 6th. The EU is ranked 1st.

I don't know of any member country of the EU which is not a "Welfare State".

Here are the most recent world GDP per capita top 100 rankings, what were you saying about the EU and many countries in it? It appears to me that the US is the only country of any significant size in the top 25 or more and the only one not a welfare state too boot. The EU is 34th.

1 Luxembourg $80,800

2 Qatar $75,900

3 Bermuda $69,900

4 Jersey $57,000

5 Norway $55,600

6 Kuwait $55,300

7 United Arab Emirates $55,200

8 Singapore $48,900

9 United States $46,000

10 Ireland $45,600

11 Guernsey $44,600

12 Equatorial Guinea $44,100

13 Cayman Islands $43,800

14 Hong Kong $42,000

15 Switzerland $39,800

16 Iceland $39,400

17 Austria $39,000

18 Andorra $38,800

19 Netherlands $38,600

20 British Virgin Islands $38,500

21 Gibraltar $38,200

21 Canada $38,200

22 Australia $37,500

23 Denmark $37,400

24 Sweden $36,900

25 Belgium $36,500

26 Finland $35,500

27 United Kingdom $35,300

28 Isle of Man $35,000

29 Bahrain $34,700

30 Germany $34,400

31 San Marino $34,100

32 Japan $33,800

32 France $33,800

33 Spain $33,700

34 European Union $32,900

35 Italy $31,000

35 Faroe Islands $31,000

36 Greece $30,500

37 Monaco $30,000

38 Taiwan $29,800

39 Israel $28,800

40 New Zealand $27,300

40 Slovenia $27,300

41 Cyprus $27,100

42 Brunei $25,600

43 Liechtenstein $25,000

43 Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) $25,000

44 Korea, South $24,600

45 Czech Republic $24,400

46 Macau $24,300

47 Malta $23,200

48 Bahamas, The $22,700

49 Estonia $21,800

49 Portugal $21,800

49 Aruba $21,800

50 Trinidad and Tobago $21,700

51 Saudi Arabia $20,700

52 Greenland $20,000

53 Slovakia $19,800

54 Barbados $19,700

55 Puerto Rico $19,600

56 Hungary $19,500

57 Oman $19,100

58 Seychelles $18,400

59 Latvia $17,700

60 French Polynesia $17,500

61 Lithuania $16,700

62 Poland $16,200

63 Netherlands Antilles $16,000

64 Croatia $15,500

65 Guam $15,000

65 New Caledonia $15,000

66 Botswana $14,700

67 Russia $14,600

68 Virgin Islands $14,500

69 Malaysia $14,400

69 Chile $14,400

70 Gabon $13,800

71 Costa Rica $13,500

72 Libya $13,100

73 Argentina $13,000

74 Venezuela $12,800

75 Mexico $12,500

75 Northern Mariana Islands $12,500

76 Iran $12,300

77 Mauritius $11,900

78 Bulgaria $11,800

79 Turks and Caicos Islands $11,500

80 Kazakhstan $11,100

80 Romania $11,100

81 Antigua and Barbuda $10,900

82 Uruguay $10,700

83 South Africa $10,600

84 Lebanon $10,400

85 Belarus $10,200

86 World $10,000

87 Brazil $9,700

88 Turkey $9,400

89 Turkmenistan $9,200

89 Dominican Republic $9,200

90 Cook Islands $9,100

91 Panama $9,000

91 Azerbaijan $9,000

92 Anguilla $8,800

93 Macedonia $8,400

94 Saint Kitts and Nevis $8,200

95 Algeria $8,100

96 Thailand $8,000

97 Belize $7,800

97 Suriname $7,800

98 Serbia $7,700

99 Peru $7,600

99 Palau $7,600

100 Tunisia $7,500

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:15 am

Quinn: Thank you.

47%??? Must admit it sounds as though you are already paying tax (if you PAY tax) at a higher rate than we do here! My rule of thumb when working out what a salary is worth after all deductions is to deduct 35%. It seems to work for average earnings. I've never earned enough to qualify for the higher rates and I'm afraid I know nothing about them beyond the way they work, which is that if you earn £100,000 and the higher tax band applies at £60,000 you'd pay basic rate tax on the first £60,000 you earned and the higher rate on the next £40,000 - you do not pay the higher rate on the whole amount.

Something that occurs to me is that when you earn a lot (whatever a lot is!) money is different from when you earn too little: Money for the poor is food, housing and clothes. The rich can take those things for granted, as well as the holiday home, the third car and the pool. How much do you want? After a while money is just a way of keeping score and I have much more sympathy with high tax at that level - where money is vanity more than anything else.

We have a similar problem with the mentally ill: many institutions were closed and the inhabitants put back into society under a system called "Care in the Community" which appears to have been a system whereby a schizophrenic would be asked to collect his own drugs and self administer so the taxpayer didn't have to pay a professional to do it. The result was a number of deaths as some poor loon who'd forgotten his medication obeyed the voices in his head and knifed a completely innocent passer by. To be fair I've not heard a story like that in a while now, so maybe the system is improving.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:18 am

Accountable;902678 wrote: Our cultures are too different to compare here. We have completely different views of the role of government. In fact government is a misnomer in the US. Not sure what term we should be using though.

Believe it or not I would actually agree with you there. Pinch the best ideas and adapt them by all means but stop expecting to find some panacea that does answers all your concerns. Remember the past but move on, society changes and what worked in the past may be inappropriate in the here and now. You used to lynch black people as dangerous radicals if they spoke of equality and poor people didn't get to vote until they were wealthy and definitely no women so change is possible.

Forget the hang up about big government and start asking what should the government and politicians do for your votes and tax dollars. You seem to have a culture where suggesting that govt get involved in making things better is viewed as communism. Forget left/right politics and high minded debates about whether socialist policies are appropriate or not-you don't have any socialist politicians or policies in the states you just think you do. Even in the EU socialism has moved on and what were the main tenets -state control of the means of production etc. have been abandoned as just not practical. There are some areas where most would agree state control is necessary and definitely corporate activities should not just be given free unrestrained rights to do what they want.

Everybody at heart wants government to get involved in caring for them. If you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to pee in the drinking water because it affects your health does that make you a radical if you want the practice controlled? (have a look at some of the 19th century arguments whether city sewerage should be financed out of local taxes or not. Why should the rich pay for the welfare of the poor is not a new issue)

Everybody accepts restrictions on their freedom for the sake of society they live in. You give the police the right to arrest you for instance but control how much power they have- Everybody accepts they pay taxes for things that are of no immediate benefit to them-like fire engines. How often has your house burned down?

Everybody accepts and knows that at some point they will need medical care. if you are really unlucky the means of paying for it may not be available to you at the time you need it most,-perhaps through no fault of your own so why is the concept of paying so that it is available should you need it regardless of your ability to pay at the time so is it not enlightened self interest to make sure it is-just in case.

Why is it a federal issue and not state by state?

I posted this in another thread but it is perhaps more relevant here

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 56091.html

Quite a number of similarities in the fears being expressed but the outcome of it all was acceptance of the principle of a free health service for all, paid for out of general taxation, had been won. Politicians here tamper with that principle at their peril.

Biggest problem you have in the states is you don't seem to believe you have the right to even talk about it.

posted by quinns commentary

Let's take an average person in my town. They pay income tax, state income tax which together average about 30% of income, they pay 7% sales tax on what they buy, they pay 7.65% of income for Social Security and Medicare taxes and they pay property taxes which average about $9,000 a year (my state is the highest in the US) and they pay a small tax to the state that is used to fund unemployment benefits and short term disability benefits. The average income in my town is about twice the national average, yet these people are already paying nearly 47% of their income in taxes not counting sales tax.

Do you have to pay for your own medical cover over and above that or is that the medicare?

posted by quinns commentary

As far as Europe goes, it seems to me that many European countries are facing the same problems as the US and worse in terms of funding the promises made to an ever growing older population and a smaller working group. Promises that to keep will mean higher and higher taxes will it not? France and Germany seem to have their share of economic troubles. How can you have a competitive productive economy if you have government rules limiting the work week? How is building in the cost of pensions into gasoline taxes not regressive?

Yes we do have similar problems and we'll deal with them in our own way. so should you yours. I think you are in deeper **** than we are.

Too true building taxes on to petrol is regressive- indirect taxation penalises the poor unfairly, not being entirely stupid the electorate know that. You are looking at the last days of the Labour party-at least in the short to medium term as a viable political force in the UK (IMO anyway). Labour will lose the next election and Gordon Brown will probably lose his seat. Perception is all - they are perceived as having ballsed up the NHS as well, disbanding the scottish regiments pissed of most of his OAP constituents as well so he's really screwed.

quins commentary

What scares the heck out of me is the philosophical direction in which we are heading, if this is the change we are seeking, then in fact we are simply heading toward a welfare state. Is that what we really want, the government funded by the relatively few paying for the many, a structure that discourages risk and reward and investing and bettering ones self and encourages accepting the mediocre status quo? Should we set standards that encourage people to look to the government more and more and to be encouraged to get by on the largess of the system as opposed to always striving for better?

Good question, you need to talk about it amongst yourselves. You kind of miss the point of it all a structure that discourages risk and reward and investing and bettering ones self and encourages accepting the mediocre status quo?

Doesn't have to be that way, if it helps people out of poverty and provides opportunity then that is good for the economy in the long run. The feckless poor will always be with us just writing them off and advicating letting them sortt themselves out is not terribly constructive

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:10 am

Everybody at heart wants government to get involved in caring for them. If you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to pee in the drinking water because it affects your health does that make you a radical if you want the practice controlled? (have a look at some of the 19th century arguments whether city sewerage should be financed out of local taxes or not. Why should the rich pay for the welfare of the poor is not a new issue)

Perhaps that comment says it all in capturing the differences we share. I do not believe that is the case in the US, some perhaps but not close to everybody. Clearly there are areas where government is necessary in enacting laws to protect all because it is equally clear that humans have done a pretty poor job of it over the centuries. The more a government (whatever that may be) "cares" for people the more dependent they beccome on it and the more power it gains. That's no problem when it is a fair and functioning government run by the people and controlled by the people, but it seems to me there is great risk in that as well. I'd rather not take that risk.

Do you have to pay for your own medical cover over and above that or is that the medicare?

Medicare is only a program for people age 65 and older and it does not cover all medical expenses. To be fully protected a person with Medicare must buy supplmental coverage which can cost in the area of $250 per month per person. On top of that they can buy prescription drug coverage for another $25-40 per month and their premium for Medicare alone is another $100 per month and goes up each year. So a senior living on Social Security alone at say $800 per month cannot afford all the pieces of Medicare and likely goes with only basic coverage. There are some state programs that cover medication for the poor. This is why our Social Security system was never designed to be the single source of retirement income and yet many Americans live their lives as if when they reach age 65 the "government" will take care of them.

You will get no argument from me that the US health care system is royally screwed up and we have not even discussed the vast majortiy of Americans who are not age 65.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:41 am

Let me say, that I am not anti-American, I actually quite admire the US, and think that there is a lot about the American philosophy that I agree with, but certainly not all of it. I would also say that absolutely Europe has its own problems, and the issues of pensions and entitlements is certainly a big one, though it varies from state to state across the EU, but all recognize that something has to change. Where I would agree with your sentiments is that generally self-reliance, thrift, responsibility, and practicality are the values that should be enforced within society both by governments, and by people themselves through experience and culture.

Unfortunately its exactly the opposite of all those values that have been pushed for decades in the English speaking world, indulgence, entitlement, pointless luxury, parochialism, irrationality, and retreat into fanciful philosophies to justify all of it. To be honest, if what is happening now is the reckoning, it is a reckoning that has, in all truth, been well-earned. I just see that process of decadedent waste, based on the ideology that everything is about markets, as being most apparent in the US, which at once strides the world like a colossus, but also seems utterly parochial to its approach to a very fast changing world, where the old certainties of unquestioned power and control are just no longer the case.

The nearest parallel I can see is that of Britain in the early 20th century, which went from being the global hegemon to near bankruptcy in the early 1920s, through massive debts run up through war and the costs of imperium and the pax Britannica, linked with a total refusal to accept the Britain of that time needed to change and reform itself, (as well as a blind indifference to the reality that the world was rapidly changing at the time, and the certainties that the world's greatest empire was founded upon had ceased to hold). Britain has suffered a huge relative decline since those days, and is still emotionally incapable in some ways of readjusting to its modern role as a major European power, but not a major global power by itself.

I don't think America will suffer the same type of decline in the 21st century, and remains strong in many ways and will remain so, but certainly the age of American hegemony is over already, and we all have to adapt to a new world where many other regions have finally caught up with the West in terms of power and influence, how the West will respond to this relative (but not absolute) decline, will shape the future of the next 50 years.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:04 am

posted by quinns commentary

Perhaps that comment says it all in capturing the differences we share. I do not believe that is the case in the US, some perhaps but not close to everybody. Clearly there are areas where government is necessary in enacting laws to protect all because it is equally clear that humans have done a pretty poor job of it over the centuries. The more a government (whatever that may be) "cares" for people the more dependent they become on it and the more power it gains. That's no problem when it is a fair and functioning government run by the people and controlled by the people, but it seems to me there is great risk in that as well. I'd rather not take that risk.

I perhaps phrased it badly I should have said we all accept government involvement and regulation in our lives and in some cases demand it.

But there is a very different attitude. What you see as dependency on the government we see as us telling the government what we expect it to do-or else. We voted in the welfare state and the use of progressive taxation to re-distribute wealth. social justice means govt is used to make sure everyone gets a fair chance. It's got bugger all to do with making things easy for people who can't be bothered.

Americans seem to see government as something disconnected from them that they can't control and they have no right to control or ask it to do anything. It seems in the land of the free you are not supposed to make any demands of the government you elect. You also seem terrified of your government getting too much power. which is odd since you would have to vote for them getting the power in the first place and what you give you can also take away.

We had this debate a long time ago. The US didn't. I posted the links cos I thought you would recognise some of the same objections being put to the welfare state that you are putting now. Our overwhelming response to those objections was we're having a welfare state. It is not something imposed on us as you seem to believe- we demanded it then and demand it now.

You need to decide for your selves what you want and since you live in a democracy where even the poor get to vote who knows what the outcome will be.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:28 am

We need a flat tax- (2080*current min wage).

The end...

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:02 am

gmc;903168 wrote: posted by quinns commentary

I perhaps phrased it badly I should have said we all accept government involvement and regulation in our lives and in some cases demand it.

But there is a very different attitude. What you see as dependency on the government we see as us telling the government what we expect it to do-or else. We voted in the welfare state and the use of progressive taxation to re-distribute wealth. social justice means govt is used to make sure everyone gets a fair chance. It's got bugger all to do with making things easy for people who can't be bothered.

Americans seem to see government as something disconnected from them that they can't control and they have no right to control or ask it to do anything. It seems in the land of the free you are not supposed to make any demands of the government you elect. You also seem terrified of your government getting too much power. which is odd since you would have to vote for them getting the power in the first place and what you give you can also take away.

We had this debate a long time ago. The US didn't. I posted the links cos I thought you would recognise some of the same objections being put to the welfare state that you are putting now. Our overwhelming response to those objections was we're having a welfare state. It is not something imposed on us as you seem to believe- we demanded it then and demand it now.

You need to decide for your selves what you want and since you live in a democracy where even the poor get to vote who knows what the outcome will be.

you say that in every thread regarding americans and it just isn't true. How do you think most of our laws are made? It's because the people push for something to change and it does.

If we don't have something here that you do, like universal health care, it's because we don't want it not because we're "too scared" to ask for it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:40 am

gmc;903101 wrote: Forget the hang up about big government and start asking what should the government and politicians do for your votes and tax dollars.Gov't (US federal, that is) should project its energies outward as protection for us from those who would do us harm. No services; nothing directed inward beyond interstate commerce (highways). As for tax dollars: give most of 'em back.

gmc wrote: You seem to have a culture where suggesting that govt get involved in making things better is viewed as communism.Nah, just oxymoronic. Government-sponsored improvement, military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, thunderous silence, ........

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:08 am

rjwould;903408 wrote: What has changed in the past 25 years, Sunny?

Depending on who you listen to, most Americans not only want national health care, but also want a single payer system.

Our government is responsive to those whom vote, but the problem there is that rather than working to make it easier to become involved in the voting process, our two party system actually discourages voting.

We will get national heath care now though, but only because corporations are now really feeling the pinch in this area. They can no longer compete for qualified workers, as our health care costs are way out of proportion.

It funny that the health care paradox would be used in the past to discourage self employment, but its the truth. Many many people, especially the young whom are physically and mentally strong were pushed into corporate or company employment because they could not afford the initial startup costs of a small business along with health care costs to boot, so that filtered out many who would have tried.

The tax argument is a red herring. If the people in this country really wanted to reduce taxes we would demand a reduction in the defense budget.

exactly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:09 am

rjwould;903408 wrote: What has changed in the past 25 years, Sunny?

Depending on who you listen to, most Americans not only want national health care, but also want a single payer system.My kneejerk reaction was "BS!" Then I ran out to google some backup. It was embarassingly easy to find out that you're right. I found a story about a poll, then found the poll itself. LINK

Interesting read.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:14 am

well, I think polls are bs, except for the ones here of course.

*I* have never been asked to participate in a poll. :-3

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:26 am

sunny104;903354 wrote: you say that in every thread regarding americans and it just isn't true. How do you think most of our laws are made? It's because the people push for something to change and it does.

If we don't have something here that you do, like universal health care, it's because we don't want it not because we're "too scared" to ask for it.

I know I do. Because it seems to be a common theme that you can't control your government and are afraid of giving it too much power. Good grief you even insist in being armed in case you are oppressed and the government tries to take away your freedom. Why? what are you afraid of.

eg.

quinns commentary

The more a government (whatever that may be) "cares" for people the more dependent they beccome on it and the more power it gains. That's no problem when it is a fair and functioning government run by the people and controlled by the people, but it seems to me there is great risk in that as well. I'd rather not take that risk.

posted by sunny 104.

it's because we don't want it not because we're "too scared" to ask for it

i didn't say scared but you do seem to think you don't have the right to ask and that do so leads inevitably to communism. The favourite objection to things lijke socialised medicine seems to be big government bad-oppress the people.

Quinn asked for views from outside the states. I'm giving mine and you don't have to share it. I'm not claiming to be right but I have that perception gleaned from forums like this. Just as some posters here seem to think we all live in terror of criminals because we don't have guns.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:06 am

gmc;903432 wrote: I know I do. Because it seems to be a common theme that you can't control your government and are afraid of giving it too much power. Good grief you even insist in being armed in case you are oppressed and the government tries to take away your freedom. Why? what are you afraid of.

eg.

quinns commentary

posted by sunny 104.

i didn't say scared but you do seem to think you don't have the right to ask and that do so leads inevitably to communism. The favourite objection to things lijke socialised medicine seems to be big government bad-oppress the people.

Quinn asked for views from outside the states. I'm giving mine and you don't have to share it. I'm not claiming to be right but I have that perception gleaned from forums like this. Just as some posters here seem to think we all live in terror of criminals because we don't have guns.

so you are not open minded enough to consider what I told you. I guess when it comes to America or Americans you believe if it isn't negative it can't possibly be true. :wah:

It's funny to me that the people from other countries that are the harshest critics of us are the ones who have never been here.

But of course you know everything about us anyway because you watch Friends every week and the occassional Hollywood movie and you vacation in Croatia each summer. :wah:

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:14 am

We will get national heath care now though, but only because corporations are now really feeling the pinch in this area. They can no longer compete for qualified workers, as our health care costs are way out of proportion.

Now here is something I know a little about, health care.

In 1978 I wrote an article about the rising cost of health care, about the portion of the cost of a car going to health care for GM, about the fact we could not tolerate health care rising a 9-10% a year, etc. If you read that article today you would have no idea it was written 30 years ago. And guess what, little has changed and that is because the majority of Americans are still satisfied with their health care, employers are not, govenrment is not but the average person is, why I don't know, except they don't use it or it is largely being paid for by someone else. Every President since Nixon has said they were going to deal with the health care problem, none have and in fact they made it worse along the way.

Take the Medicare prescription program pushed by the Bush administration with no idea what it would really cost and how it would be paid for. So now it is in place and critics, largely Democratic, are not concerned about the new liability created, but rather that it is not suffiently comprehensive and that seniors have a burden for presscription drugs...you mean compared to when they had NO coverage a couple of years ago? :-5 We are our own worst enemy.

The problem is we don't know what the problem is. The problem is cost and not the uninsured and yet we try to solve for the uninsured first.

Ask any politician to define "affordable" health care for you and see what happens. What you think is affordable is not likely to be in agreement with the next guy and that's the problem. Here is a simple example, the typical employer who provides health benefits spends about 8% of payroll on that item so logically to provide that benefit to the entire country the cost would be in that range, thus to provide health care will require all Americans to pay an additional 8% of their total eanrings in a new tax and then since health care will continue to rise at a rate greater than wages the tax rate will have to increase each year. Health care in the US is already closing in on 17% of GDP, it's not hard to do the math.

When we get national health care through, how will that control costs? Today the government controls Medicare costs simply by limiting payments to doctors and hospitals and then the costs are passed along to private payors, mostly employers. If everyone is in a common government system, there is no one to pick up that slack so what does that mean? (see the previous paragraph)

It means to control costs there will have to be some form of rationing plain and simple, pre-set budgets, setting priorities for certain procedures, long waits, denying procedures, etc. Because if it is business as usual costs will not be controlled. Even if there is an initial savings from all the better administration (not likely at all), the RATE of increase and all the things that affect it have not changed.

That may all be ok, but let's hear a politician tell us the truth about what it all means and how it will be paid for. :rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:46 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;903471 wrote: [...]

It means to control costs there will have to be some form of rationing plain and simple, pre-set budgets, setting priorities for certain procedures, long waits, denying procedures, etc. Because if it is business as usual costs will not be controlled. Even if there is an initial savings from all the better administration (not likely at all), the RATE of increase and all the things that affect it have not changed.

That may all be ok, but let's hear a politician tell us the truth about what it all means and how it will be paid for. :rolleyes:A great PBS show Frontline addressed the issue with this report. Sick Around The World , which looks at five countries' healthcare systems. Here's an excerpt from the conclusion I copied from the transcript. Sorry for ruining the plot.

What I've found is that it's not all "socialized medicine" out there. Many countries provide universal coverage with private insurance, private doctors, private hospitals, using market ideas that might work for us.

But here's the thing. These capitalist countries don't trust health care entirely to the free market. They all impose limits.

There are three big ones.

First, insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care.

Second, everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor.

Third, doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices.

Can Americans accept ideas like that?

Well, the fact is these foreign health care ideas aren't really so foreign to us. For American veterans, health care is just like Britain's NHS. For seniors on Medicare, we're Taiwan. For working Americans with insurance, we're Germany. And for the tens of million without health insurance, we're just another poor country.

Another thing that was brought up over and over was that doctors aren't allowed to make what they can. Their salaries are severely limited compared to our dorctors'. Naturally that risks promoting medicrity.

Not only that, drug companies make all their profits for R&D off of us in the US because of price controls everywhere else. Our costs would be sharply reduced if everyone allowed market forces to work.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:49 am

rjwould;903481 wrote: [...], Just watch how many follow this post up with talking about Chappaquita instead of the subject of health care (if they have the nerve to now that I've raised it first).
Win/win for you, eh? If they bring it up you can say 'tolyaso!' If they don't, you can claim credit for that as well.

Next time, send someone (even me) a pm with your prediction, then you can pounce when they prove you right.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:56 am

sunny104;903463 wrote: so you are not open minded enough to consider what I told you. I guess when it comes to America or Americans you believe if it isn't negative it can't possibly be true. :wah:

It's funny to me that the people from other countries that are the harshest critics of us are the ones who have never been here.

But of course you know everything about us anyway because you watch Friends every week and the occassional Hollywood movie and you vacation in Croatia each summer. :wah:

Of course I will consider it. Quinn asked for views from outside the US. I gave him mine. I don't really care whether you think it accurate or not. I don't actually claim that it is accurate like many perceptions it probably isn't- You do seem to me to have a problem even discussing the concept of a welfare state in a dispassionate manner-personally I hope I'm wrong. Besides do you really care what a foreigner thinks?

We've had exactly the same kind of discussion over this issue sixty years ago. When it comes right down to it it boils down to do you accept the principle of a welfare state or not? This was a major political issue here as well and you will no doubt have gathered from the UK posts that in US terms most of us would be on the far left of the political spectrum and the answer is an overwhelming yes when it comes down to things like the welfare state. It still a major political issue but rather about what next to make it better. The debate about whether we should have it or not is over.

You will never get 100% consensus or work out a perfect solution so it boils down to where the voting power lies.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:24 pm

There is a very simple solution to make healthcare cheaper.

Stop running the provision of basic healthcare for profit.

Provide it as a service, the same way you provide roads, bridges, damns, police enforcement, national defence, and governance itself. The UK average healthcare costs per person are far lower than the US's and yet Britain has a completely universal healthcare system that is free at the point of treatment, available to every man woman and child in the country, and funded by central government!

Think about that, Britain has both private and public healthcare systems, running parallel to each other, but most people still use the NHS which is a much loved (though often argued about) British institution, and yet somehow they are able to treat people for cheaper than is possible in the lean mean, economic American healthcare system where everyone must pay for everything. Was that says to me is that the people who run the system, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, etc are fleecing your population by profiteering in the guide of treating people.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:54 pm

Galbally;903687 wrote: There is a very simple solution to make healthcare cheaper.

Stop running the provision of basic healthcare for profit.

Provide it as a service, the same way you provide roads, bridges, damns, police enforcement, national defence, and governance itself.You don't honestly believe construction contractors don't make a profit building roads, bridges, and dams, do you? I like the misspelling, though. ;)Galbally wrote: The UK average healthcare costs per person are far lower than the US's and yet Britain has a completely universal healthcare system that is free at the point of treatment, available to every man woman and child in the country, and funded by central government! At a loss, according to that documentary I linked.

Galbally wrote: Think about that, Britain has both private and public healthcare systems, running parallel to each other, but most people still use the NHS which is a much loved (though often argued about) British institution, and yet somehow they are able to treat people for cheaper than is possible in the lean mean, economic American healthcare system where everyone must pay for everything. Was that says to me is that the people who run the system, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, etc are fleecing your population by profiteering in the guide of treating people.and you'd be wrong. Understandable, ot having all the facts. I mean, if you're going to compare the systems, compare them. You're comparing two vehicles by having been a passinger in one and seeing pictures of another in a magazine (magasine?).

What training do doctors and nurses of all the different specializations have to go through? What is the cost? To whom? How much do they make in salary and benefits, generally? What hours are they expected to put in to get that salary? What motivation is there to lure the truly great minds into the field, and keep them there?

There are hundreds of questions such as these that no one asks. We all simply say "mine's better because it's mine" and throw rocks at the other.

I guess I'm just tiring of comparing our biscuit to your scone.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:47 pm

Accountable;903709 wrote: You don't honestly believe construction contractors don't make a profit building roads, bridges, and dams, do you? I like the misspelling, though. ;)At a loss, according to that documentary I linked.

and you'd be wrong. Understandable, ot having all the facts. I mean, if you're going to compare the systems, compare them. You're comparing two vehicles by having been a passinger in one and seeing pictures of another in a magazine (magasine?).

What training do doctors and nurses of all the different specializations have to go through? What is the cost? To whom? How much do they make in salary and benefits, generally? What hours are they expected to put in to get that salary? What motivation is there to lure the truly great minds into the field, and keep them there?

There are hundreds of questions such as these that no one asks. We all simply say "mine's better because it's mine" and throw rocks at the other.

I guess I'm just tiring of comparing our biscuit to your scone.

I take your points. The difference is that the NHS is not an institution designed around the making of money, obviously there is a profit motive involved in the provision of certain things within system, outside contractors, caterers, hospital suppliers, car park management companies, etc etc. But the system itself is public, like the BBC, its purpose is to deliver health care, not make money for shareholders. Do you get the point about that?

I will get you the figures for the amount of money spent per capita on health care in Britain and the US, and I can assure you its lower in Britain. There are issues about excellence and standards, and modes of delivery, and all of that, I wouldn't say that the NHS is perfect or near the best in the world, but it certainly functions, and more cost-effectively than the US system. I don't think its comparing like with dislike, it just seems like it to you, because public health care is such an anathema in the US, about on a par with having to use trains instead of cars.

The reason I am bringing it up, is because Quinn wants a discussion on US healthcare, and this is a useful point, as there is going (obviously) to be a big debate about Public Health Care, during this presidential campaign. Its probably going to be turned into an argument against "communism" by the back door, and a call to ensure that the liberty to die on your own, of tuberculosus, untreated in your apartment is maintained.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:49 pm

BTW, I am not using my own country's system in Ireland, as its so appallingly bad, its probably worse than the US one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:21 am

Galbally;904153 wrote: I take your points. The difference is that the NHS is not an institution designed around the making of money, obviously there is a profit motive involved in the provision of certain things within system, outside contractors, caterers, hospital suppliers, car park management companies, etc etc. But the system itself is public, like the BBC, its purpose is to deliver health care, not make money for shareholders. Do you get the point about that? I do.

Galbally wrote: I will get you the figures for the amount of money spent per capita on health care in Britain and the US, and I can assure you its lower in Britain. There are issues about excellence and standards, and modes of delivery, and all of that, I wouldn't say that the NHS is perfect or near the best in the world, but it certainly functions, and more cost-effectively than the US system. I don't think its comparing like with dislike, it just seems like it to you, because public health care is such an anathema in the US, about on a par with having to use trains instead of cars. In a nutshell, I don't understand why my tax dollar, which I could otherwise use to take care of myself and do other good things as I choose, should be taken and used to pay for the healthcare of those who can afford it (or could, if healthcare taxes weren't so damned high). I don't begrudge the truly poor paid healthcare; that's the role of state & local government.

Galbally wrote: The reason I am bringing it up, is because Quinn wants a discussion on US healthcare, and this is a useful point, as there is going (obviously) to be a big debate about Public Health Care, during this presidential campaign. Its probably going to be turned into an argument against "communism" by the back door, and a call to ensure that the liberty to die on your own, of tuberculosus, untreated in your apartment is maintained.Ignoring the ever-so-subtle barb at the end

, nobody's going to sue the word 'communism' but self-responsibility and independence are precious things that an increasing number of Americans are glibly tossing away, without regard for the consequences. Again, said with the understood caviat that I'm only talking about able & capable Americans, not the poor, elderly, etc.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:56 am

rjwould;904473 wrote: Taxes are high because of defense, no other reason. Why is it when taxes are talked about in the U.S., defense is not even mentioned?
As a percentage of GDP, defense spending is too high, no question. But defense is an inarguable responsibility of the federal gov't. Welfare is not.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:14 am

Galbally;904155 wrote: BTW, I am not using my own country's system in Ireland, as its so appallingly bad, its probably worse than the US one.

I never really get that perception you all seem to have. :-3

There's no where in the world I'd rather be when I need to see a doctor or go to a hospital. :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:27 am

rjwould;904519 wrote: So, lets get defense reduced and our tax money back. Now THAT's something we agree on.

rjwould wrote: The states are beginning to take care of heath care individually anyway. If it were done on the federal level it would be more uniform and get done quicker (that is if the will was there).Uniform is not better. Uniform is just uniform. Keep it at the state level and let each state decide their own levels and structures. That would encourage benchmarking and finding new and better ways. Keep the bureaucracies as small as possible. That's how to do things quickly. Making it federal might - might - put things in place quickly, but improvements will happen at a snail's pace, if at all.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:40 am

rjwould;904551 wrote: It will of course be more expensive that way, don't you think? I would assume that if people want to reduce taxes, they would also like to keep expenses down via costs?Depends on the state. Don't forget about quality as well. As you've said till you're blue in the fingers, our culture is based on competition. Different states with different systems will bring inevitable comparisons, sparking outcries to be better.

Personally, I'd rather have my own money to pay for my own health issues. I want my freedom and the responsibility that goes with it, even if it costs a few bucks more.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:42 am

rjwould;904524 wrote: Come on, Sunny, surly you understand that that is because you're American and its probably all you know when it comes to health care services.

Fact and figures tell a different story than that BS we're fed by Fox, CNN, MSNBC and AM talk radio.

why are you assuming that? You know nothing about me. I wouldn't make a statement like that did if I didn't know what I was talking about. AND, I don't need TV to tell me how to feel about something. I'm talking about personal experiences.

You on the other hand have never mentioned being outside of the US and yet you seem to automatically assume the grass is greener somewhere else.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:01 am

rjwould;904581 wrote: I've been to France, Hong Kong, Japan and the Philippines to mention a few, Sunny. But that means nothing unless I've been in any of those countries long enough to really experience their cultures to understand. So in the end, all I really have is facts and figures.

my husband and parents are from other countries and I've been to 5 or so other countries myself but still I go by personal experiences and not what other people tell me I should think

I also know what friends and family members have experienced in their countries and I still stand by my statement of rather being here than anywhere else.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:21 am

rjwould;904587 wrote: Do you think you could afford losing a finger tip? Do you think I got a good deal? The fact is, it wasn't so difficult a job to do. Simply cut the bone off and stitch it up. You think thats worth $18,000.00? Its a little bloated if you ask me, and thats personal experience.

One of my daughters went into the emergency room with stomach pains, over $9,000.00 and almost a year later, they still haven't figured it out.

don't you have insurance?? :-3

it cost me $5 to have my babies and that included the entire thing; office visits, lab work, delivery and whatever else. And, I had a private room and bathroom for the entire process.

On the other hand, my sister in law in Ireland had to labor in a room with 7 other women and they paid $1500 on top of the coverage they had which was a combination of "free" and private. She pays for private insurance through her employer.

Which experience would you choose for your wife or daughters?? :p

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:32 am

sunny104;904594 wrote: don't you have insurance?? :-3

it cost me $5 to have my babies and that included the entire thing; office visits, lab work, delivery and whatever else. And, I had a private room and bathroom for the entire process.

On the other hand, my sister in law in Ireland had to labor in a room with 7 other women and they paid $1500 on top of the coverage they had which was a combination of "free" and private. She pays for private insurance through her employer.

Which experience would you choose for your wife or daughters?? :p

The Irish Health Care system is a total shambles, and a national disgrace, there is no argument from me there. Though you are treated for free if you can't afford it. Though its very basic healthcare, and if you have any serious problems you are pretty screwed unless you can afford to have health insurance, or even better can stump up the cash! Oh if only! Unfortunately the Irish system is about to get a lot worse as the country is essentially broke. Wow, thats going to be fun. :-5

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:42 pm

rjwould;904787 wrote: No, I don't. I'm one of those who pays for my health care. My wife has insurance through her employer but spouses were dropped because of cost. Incidentally, her insurance is very good. My daughter OTOH now has insurance which includes copays and $1,000.00 annual deductible and costs her $200.00 monthly (shes 19), but her problem began before she had this current job, as her previous employer didn't offer any insurance coverage.

You asked me if I had insurance as if you would be surprised. Are you not aware that there are at least somewhere around 50 million people in this country without health insurance? I'm happy you believe your taken care of, but thats not the situation for many, many people. Its a big country.

A man one of my kids works with recently lost his home and all his possessions because he had a heart attack which cost him a total of $250,000.00. I don't know all the details but I know he had since lost his job and went to work where my daughter works. Shouldn't be like that.

Are you aware that horror stories notwithstanding the average person without coverage is in that state about 6 to 9 months before they again have coverage?

I am going to start a thread on health care and use my 47 years in health benefits to really get some discussion going.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:21 pm

rjwould;904854 wrote: My wifes late brothers first wife fought cancer for about 5 years, she finally succumbed to the disease about 18 years ago. They had a good health insurance policy. He was self employed, owned a fleet of 'Mr. Softie' trucks on Long Island and most of the food concessions at some of the race tracks on the eastern part of Long Island. A good, profitable, hard working business. Incidentally, it killed him, eventually.

Anyway, back to his wife and cancer. His policy had a $1,000,000.00 coverage limit on any one incident, and by the time his wife had died, he had to declare bankruptcy. The million dollar threshold was reached within the first 3 years. He saw it coming early on and signed everything, including his home and business over to his eldest son.
I truly don't mean this as cold as it'll probably come out, because nobody deserves to suffer cancer or to suffer having a member of their family with cancer.

He gave everything over to his son. If he dadn't, are you sure he would have gone bankrupt?

My point is, anecdotes abound, and no system is going to keep everybody in every situation from harm. I think that self-determination is more important than national healthcare. I truly believe nanny-government services harm society in the long run.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:59 am

rjwould;904787 wrote: You asked me if I had insurance as if you would be surprised. Are you not aware that there are at least somewhere around 50 million people in this country without health insurance? I'm happy you believe your taken care of, but thats not the situation for many, many people. Its a big country.

.

I'm surprised that people don't take more responsibility for themselves.

if we couldn't afford insurance, I know I have other options. For instance there is an insurance for children offered in Texas where you pay approximately $20-40 dollars a month, depending on what you earn, for your child to be fully covered. Immunizations are free for children without insurance. There are free clinics and/or hospitals in the city.

I could get a job at Walmart, even part time employees get insurance. I could go back to driving a truck. A lot of local companies pay for 100 % of your benefits.

My point is there are options out there and it's frustrating when it seems like some people just want to sit back and wait for the government to do everything for them and then complain when something goes wrong.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:00 am

rjwould;905311 wrote: Your children's example is government funded.

Walmart just recently began offering benefits to its employees due to pressure.

I seem to remember reading that the trucking industry has been going the way of the soda industry, making as many as possible independent drivers in order to shed expenses. I would check with your former employer to see if the benefits package is in fact the same as it was even just a few years ago. Health care costs have skyrocketed for companies over the past 4 or 5 years. Thats why so many in the business community are now on the national health care bandwagon.

yes, the childrens insurance is government funded. The free clinics and hospitals would be, too. The point is that help is already there. Why aren't people taking care of themselves then? I'm sure there are a lot more ways that people can get help or help themselves but they're not. Why is that??

As for trucking, the benefits you get are still good. I drove for a few different companies and nothing has changed. And the local ones also do offer great benefit packages.

You're not really getting my point and you try and tear apart every statement I make as if I don't know what I'm talking about. Play nice! :p

There are plenty of jobs out there that offer health care coverage and there are plenty of options that can take care of a persons health care needs for free or for a very low cost already.