Birthright

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement, and why?

America is a wealthy country. Its citizens, simply by virtue of being Americans, are entitled to a share of its material wealth--an American birthright. Therefore:

Every citizen has an inalienable right to the necessities of life--adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This right is conferred regardless of circumstance, ability, age, or class. It is the task of the government, therefore, to ensure that no American dies of, or suffers from, inadequate nutrition, lack of shelter, exposure, or lack of medical care. The government can and should allocate, as the primary item on its budget, sufficient funds to ensure that all these things are available to any American who needs them---in much the same way that a family, or an individual, provides for its own material well-being first and foremost.

Quote: mkl654321

American citizens, simply by virtue of being Americans, are entitled to ....

This is exactly the kind of elitist thinking that causes other nations to hate Americans and to fly planes into buildings.

Quote:

Every citizen has an inalienable right to the necessities of life--adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care

Well, it's what people in our prisons get.

Okay, a caveat on "adequate."

But still, prisoners generally look healthier and better fed than a number of street people I've encountered.

Its called 'sharing the misery'. In the old Soviet Union, you really couldn't complain because everybody was just as miserable as you were, while waiting in line for toilet paper and bread. They drove shoddy cars and lived in shoddy tenements, but at least it was something. And look how well that worked out. In the 1980's, 40% of all factory workers were legally drunk at any given time. I don't know what it is today, probably higher. Happiness for everybody.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

This is exactly the kind of elitist thinking that causes other nations to hate Americans and to fly planes into buildings.

What an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

The sentiment is not "elitist". You really should read what you're responding to before opening your mouth. I am saying (for the purposes of RATIONAL discussion) that because America is a wealthy country with immense resources, anyone who is an American is entitled to a share of that wealth, i.e., a minimum standard of living.

If you want, insert "Swedes" and "Sweden" into that statement instead of "Americans" and "America", and it mirrors almost exactly the social and governmental philosophy of that country.

People hate us and fly planes into our buildings because we want America's resources to be devoted to America's people? That's ELITIST? Sweet Jesus, I'll repeat myself, what an unbelievably stupid thing to say!

Anyone in America is entitled to a share of the wealth. All he has to do is earn it, work for it, inherit it, whatever. Oh, wait, you mean should it be GIVEN to him for doing nothing but being born here. Like welfare. The Great Society. Don't teach anybody how to fish, just make them dependent and give it to them. Yeah, that worked out real good..

Quote: EvenBob

Its called 'sharing the misery'. In the old Soviet Union, you really couldn't complain because everybody was just as miserable as you were, while waiting in line for toilet paper and bread. They drove shoddy cars and lived in shoddy tenements, but at least it was something. And look how well that worked out. In the 1980's, 40% of all factory workers were legally drunk at any given time. I don't know what it is today, probably higher. Happiness for everybody.

No, it's not called "sharing the misery", because it isn't always misery that is shared. If you got an equal share of the resources in a poor and dysfunctional country, at least you didn't get LESS than that, and mathematically, it wouldn't have been possible to give anyone any more than that without consequently depriving someone else.

The Soviet Union was "miserable" because it had a politicized class structure, an unwieldly centralized government, an an atmosphere of repression and intimidation. None of those things were a direct consequence of socialism/communism. Stalin, and his inheritors, were brutal paranoid assholes. They would have impoverished their country under ANY system of government.

You are making the assumption that because many disfunctional countries called themselves "socialist", that socialism itself is dysfunctional. Nothing could be further from the truth. The trouble has been, there have been very few socialist countries that also had rule of law and social equality. The few that have had those things--Sweden, and pre-unification West Germany, to name two--have prospered.

Quote: EvenBob

Anyone in America is entitled to a share of the wealth. All he has to do is earn it, work for it, inherit it, whatever. Oh, wait, you mean should it be GIVEN to him for doing nothing but being born here. Like welfare. The Great Society. Don't teach anybody how to fish, just make them dependent and give it to them. Yeah, that worked out real good..

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Don't appoint yourself God and decide whether a person has worked hard enough to deserve to live. Give everybody the basic necessities of life, whether they've "earned" them or not. I'm glad you understand.

Why is that so abhorrent to you, is what I'm wondering--is it any skin off your nose if some "bum" gets something to eat and a place to sleep out of the rain? How does that diminish you?

Quote: rxwine

Well, it's what people in our prisons get.

Okay, a caveat on "adequate."

But still, prisoners generally look healthier and better fed than a number of street people I've encountered.

Exactly. We provide for the basics for the lowest levels of society--convicted criminals. Why? Because it would be inhumane to starve them or deny them medical care. Now if you're EvenBob, you argue that they're criminals, they don't deserve decent treatment (ESPESHULLY NOT WID MY DADGUM TAX DOLLERS!), and they should just be allowed to die. After all, anyone who doesn't work as hard as Bob does deserves to die, right?

Quote: mkl 654321

The trouble has been, there have been very few socialist countries that also had rule of law and social equality. The few that have had those things--Sweden, and pre-unification West Germany, to name two--have prospered.

What is "social equality"?

Sweden has one of the highest tax rates in the world. They achieve "social equality" by taking money from the hardworking, successful people and allocating it to others who are either incapable, or unwilling, to work to achieve a comfortable life style. I, for one, do not define this as "prospered".

Life is not fair. Should someone who has reached the limit of their abilities by cooking french fries in a fast food restaurant have the same lifestyle as a competent technician or professional? I don't think so.

People unable to care for themselves should be provided with the necessities of life. People unwilling to work are a totally different story.

Quote: mkl654321

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Don't appoint yourself God and decide whether a person has worked hard enough to deserve to live. Give everybody the basic necessities of life, whether they've "earned" them or not. I'm glad you understand.

Why is that so abhorrent to you, is what I'm wondering--is it any skin off your nose if some "bum" gets something to eat and a place to sleep out of the rain? How does that diminish you?

We already do it, its called welfare. Its wasn't meant as a lifestyle, but for generations that how it turned out. Why work when you can get paid for sitting in your underwear watching TV all day. And for the bums, we have homeless shelters, they've been around for decades. I'm not sure what you're getting at, all of that is already in place.

Quote: mkl654321

Exactly. We provide for the basics for the lowest levels of society--convicted criminals. Why? Because it would be inhumane to starve them or deny them medical care. Now if you're EvenBob, you argue that they're criminals, they don't deserve decent treatment (ESPESHULLY NOT WID MY DADGUM TAX DOLLERS!), and they should just be allowed to die. After all, anyone who doesn't work as hard as Bob does deserves to die, right?

England had debtors prisons for hundreds of years. They eventually closed because people would go in, realize they could live without working, raise families, and have it better than on the outside. So they never left and often their children never did either. Offer a person the lowest common denominator, and they will often take it. Never underestimate the laziness of the common citizen.

Quote: mkl654321

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement, and why?

America is a wealthy country. Its citizens, simply by virtue of being Americans, are entitled to a share of its material wealth--an American birthright. Therefore:

Every citizen has an inalienable right to the necessities of life--adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This right is conferred regardless of circumstance, ability, age, or class. It is the task of the government, therefore, to ensure that no American dies of, or suffers from, inadequate nutrition, lack of shelter, exposure, or lack of medical care. The government can and should allocate, as the primary item on its budget, sufficient funds to ensure that all these things are available to any American who needs them---in much the same way that a family, or an individual, provides for its own material well-being first and foremost.

Hey! Sounds great! So next time you settle in at your favorite table game make sure equally share your bankroll around the table and if you're fortunate enough to win make sure you distribute the wealth evenly around the table before you leave.

Folks, please don't feed the trolls.

Quote: AZDuffman

Folks, please don't feed the trolls.

I'm still trying to decide whether mlk is the latest troll/scourge of the forum. To me, he seems to flip between outrageous proposals and extremely good contributions. Guess maybe he has me fooled so far. If I were convinced of his degenerate status, I would have blocked him by now. As long as he is also making frequent, insightful, and polite posts, I will keep reading (even if some posts get me close to fuming.)

Well I will work hard, I want to work, and I feel every working person should get a living wage and affordable health insurance. Every American citizen should have a right to be able to live off a 40 hour work week. They may not need a mansion but should be able to live in a small home and have food without seeking social services.

Quote: Doc

I'm still trying to decide whether mlk is the latest troll/scourge of the forum. To me, he seems to flip between outrageous proposals and extremely good contributions. Guess maybe he has me fooled so far. If I were convinced of his degenerate status, I would have blocked him by now. As long as he is also making frequent, insightful, and polite posts, I will keep reading (even if some posts get me close to fuming.)

My problem is even his good contributions almost always include something like:

Quote:

What an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

or a different rude comment. If it weren't for people saying stupid things every once and while, the board wouldn't flourish. You can debate someone without saying that their opinion is stupid. While mkl attempts to be above the fray as an educator and scholar, his unprofessional responses to those with whom he disagrees lower my impression of him the same way spelling and grammatical errors lower his impression of others on this board. This kind of flaming wasn't present before his arrival. The problem is the forum WILL suffer in the long term because of these types of posters. It will make certain people wary about posting for fear that their question or comment will be mocked or derided. It will make new arrivals read the threads and wander away before seeing the truly good discussions about gambling that used to be common. If I found this board today rather than last year, I probably wouldn't have returned a second time. And perhaps the worst consequence is it could make people have a more negative impression of the Wizard. As much as he supports free speech and open dialogue, I doubt he enjoys seeing some of our veteran posters being beaten up for speaking their mind the same way they always have.

Just my opinion.

Quote: cclub79

My problem is even his good contributions almost always include something like:

Quote:

What an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

or a different rude comment.

Yeah, there does seem to be an attitude problem. And an unnecessarily offensive way of communicating with others. But even that disappears every once in a while -- it's as if he slips a little and lets a decent chap show through. I don't know for certain which one is the disguise.

Also, there have been a number of previous posters (you've been around here longer than I have, so you probably can recall a few names) who also were quite rude and who were insistent that their (illogical) ideas on gambling, tipping, politics, whatever were absolutely handed down from God and that the rest of us imbeciles should be burned as heathens because we didn't worship at that altar. But most of them seem to depart after doing their damage. Most of them that I recall (over the past six months) never made a useful contribution that I could detect. That's where I think mkl might be different, even if his bluster presents many of the same negative characteristics.

But I could be wrong. That has happened before.

Quote: Doc

Also, there have been a number of previous posters (you've been around here longer than I have, so you probably can recall a few names) who also were quite rude and who were insistent that their (illogical) ideas on gambling, tipping, politics, whatever were absolutely handed down from God and that the rest of us imbeciles should be burned as heathens because we didn't worship at that altar. But most of them seem to depart after doing their damage. Most of them that I recall (over the past six months) never made a useful contribution that I could detect. That's where I think mkl might be different, even if his bluster presents many of the same negative characteristics.

But I could be wrong. That has happened before.

I know to whom you refer, but they never seemed as mean-spirited. Also, they usually kept their damage to their own threads regarding their systems or allegations.

Well, I guess I'll leave it with my previous last comment: "But I could be wrong. That has happened before."

I'm outa here for about two weeks, having fun away from the world of computers and the internet. While I'm gone, why don't all of you figure out for me whether mkl has any redeeming traits. If not, see whether you can trick JB's new forum features to get a universal block imposed on the offender. Then I won't get bogged down in this topic again when I return. I will probably have forgotten all about it by then.

Quote: timberjim

What is "social equality"?

Sweden has one of the highest tax rates in the world. They achieve "social equality" by taking money from the hardworking, successful people and allocating it to others who are either incapable, or unwilling, to work to achieve a comfortable life style. I, for one, do not define this as "prospered".

Life is not fair. Should someone who has reached the limit of their abilities by cooking french fries in a fast food restaurant have the same lifestyle as a competent technician or professional? I don't think so.

People unable to care for themselves should be provided with the necessities of life. People unwilling to work are a totally different story.

And the conservative wingnut ideology says that anyone who accepts public assistance is an undeserving slacker.

That ideology refuses to see that society as a whole--including all those hardworking, successful people--benefits from giving a safety net to the unsuccessful. So their lack of success might very well be due to laziness, carelessness or stupidity--so what? Who would make such a value judgment, that those who are on the bottom of the heap do or do not deserve to live?

Quote: EvenBob

We already do it, its called welfare. Its wasn't meant as a lifestyle, but for generations that how it turned out. Why work when you can get paid for sitting in your underwear watching TV all day. And for the bums, we have homeless shelters, they've been around for decades. I'm not sure what you're getting at, all of that is already in place.

It's in place, mostly through private charities. And as you--I'll concede--might not be aware, the existing facilities cannot come close to serving the need. Last winter, in my home town, three homeless people froze to death during a series of cold snaps because the shelters were already full--the shelters say they turn away three out of five people who want a bed. In your universe, those people DESERVED to die of exposure, because they weren't hardworking souls like yourself.

And if you think everyone gets "welfare"--wrongo, boyo. Only people with children do. In any case, your objection stinks. I'm perfectly willing to let some people be "free riders" if that ensures that no one dies, frozen to death under the railroad overpass. I guess that makes me a socialist.

Quote: wrongway

Hey! Sounds great! So next time you settle in at your favorite table game make sure equally share your bankroll around the table and if you're fortunate enough to win make sure you distribute the wealth evenly around the table before you leave.

Asinine, and inappropriate analogy.

Quote: mkl654321

So their lack of success might very well be due to laziness, carelessness or stupidity--so what? Who would make such a value judgment, that those who are on the bottom of the heap do or do not deserve to live?

I know. They can live at your house. Problem solved.. Is your name Jesus? Do you have a Savior complex?

Quote: mkl654321

Asinine, and inappropriate analogy.

So you want us to share what we have, but you don't have to? Thats a true Socialist agenda, congratulations. Always spread OTHER peoples money around, never your own.

Quote: Doc

I'm still trying to decide whether mlk is the latest troll/scourge of the forum. To me, he seems to flip between outrageous proposals and extremely good contributions. Guess maybe he has me fooled so far. If I were convinced of his degenerate status, I would have blocked him by now. As long as he is also making frequent, insightful, and polite posts, I will keep reading (even if some posts get me close to fuming.)

What I'm having trouble understanding is why so many people consider my idea "outrageous". I feel like I'm in deepest darkest Arizona, surrounded by ten-miles-to-the-right-of-Michael-Savage conservatives. The consensus seems to be that we all live in our own separate vacuums, and we don't owe nobody nuthin'. Charity is weakness. Compassion degrades the species. Those who don't WORK Goldurnit should be allowed to die.

I suppose that it's an alien sentiment (to the bunch here) to think or say that we are all, in fact, interdependent, and that each man's death diminishes me. That seems to be the resurgent sentiment in this country--partly a reaction to recent liberal excesses: "I've got my stash, so fuck you."

And at least YOU, Doc (unlike some posters) realize that I actually wish to engage in discussion. The mythical "troll"--an artifact of internet-kiddie culture--actually doesn't exist. What you do, if you're an internet kiddie, is use that label to mean "someone with whom I disagree". Oh, he's a troll! Neener neener neener I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUUU!

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Well I will work hard, I want to work, and I feel every working person should get a living wage and affordable health insurance. Every American citizen should have a right to be able to live off a 40 hour work week. They may not need a mansion but should be able to live in a small home and have food without seeking social services.

Careful, the neocons on this board are getting ready to stone you to death, you commie.

Quote: mkl654321

Careful, the neocons on this board are getting ready to stone you to death, you commie.

I'm starting to convert. Where can I sign up for the free goodies? Are the meetings at MLK's house?

Quote: cclub79

My problem is even his good contributions almost always include something like:

or a different rude comment. If it weren't for people saying stupid things every once and while, the board wouldn't flourish. You can debate someone without saying that their opinion is stupid. While mkl attempts to be above the fray as an educator and scholar, his unprofessional responses to those with whom he disagrees lower my impression of him the same way spelling and grammatical errors lower his impression of others on this board. This kind of flaming wasn't present before his arrival.Just my opinion.

Sorry, but the comment I replied to--that tried to justify the mass murder of Americans because somebody thought we were ELITIST--was indeed spectacularly stupid, and crass and insulting to boot. It fully deserved the response I gave it. I am no more inclined to "debate" such a gross and disgusting idea than I am to debate the rightness or wrongness of the Holocaust with an American Nazi.

You are incorrect, I believe, in characterizing even my strongest responses as "flaming", although that's a subjective term. In any case, you're entitled to your opinion.

These discussions are categorized for a reason. If someone doesn't want to read non-gambling discussions, it oughta be pretty durn easy for him to avoid them.

mkl: Generally I agree with you. Basic needs only though. No free computers, cell phones, or other handouts. Simple food stamps, 200 square feet of living space per family member, and free health care. Even better: make them work. Give them a government job that pays minimum wage and make them work it.

Quote: boymimbo

mkl: Generally I agree with you. Basic needs only though. No free computers, cell phones, or other handouts. Simple food stamps, 200 square feet of living space per family member, and free health care. Even better: make them work. Give them a government job that pays minimum wage and make them work it.

This is sounding better and better. Free food, free housing, free transportation, free health care. And a job I can't be fired from. I want to be a sports reviewer. Can I work out of my free home? Are free liquor and cigars in the deal? I drink Kettle One vodka. Maybe we can get liquor stamps with the food stamps.

Quote: EvenBob

This is sounding better and better. Free food, free housing, free transportation, free health care. And a job I can't be fired from. I want to be a sports reviewer. Can I work out of my free home? Are free liquor and cigars in the deal? I drink Kettle One vodka. Maybe we can get liquor stamps with the food stamps.

We already know you're agin this idea, Bob buddy. You mind is stuck in cement. Probably it would be a good idea if you just went somewhere else now--your dissent has been duly noted and recorded, and you're getting REALLY redundant.

Just noting in passing: boymimbo's idea said that he would "make them work", so those benefits would not, in fact, come "free free free free", as you put it.

Quote: timberjim

What is "social equality"?

Sweden has one of the highest tax rates in the world. They achieve "social equality" by taking money from the hardworking, successful people and allocating it to others who are either incapable, or unwilling, to work to achieve a comfortable life style. I, for one, do not define this as "prospered".

The problem with current and past social welfare states is that once they start taxing and providing these blanket benefits, they failed to make the "working class" (those paying for it all), a privileged class. You know, you walk in, and get to go to the head of any line of non-workers, Your affairs in all things are expedited ahead of non-workers at no extra charge. You get to wear or display some sort of symbol or recognition of your working status that these others don't get.

People wouldn't starve, and others might get more satisfaction with the situation.

edited = like communism or socialism but without the classless society part.

When we ignore the wisdom of the Bible, this is the nonsense that gets proposed, amazing!

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Well I will work hard, I want to work, and I feel every working person should get a living wage and affordable health insurance. Every American citizen should have a right to be able to live off a 40 hour work week. They may not need a mansion but should be able to live in a small home and have food without seeking social services.

So, how much extra are YOU willing to pay for each and every service you get so the person at the fast food place can raise their family of four? There is no "right" to material things. You get a living wage by educating yourself with skills that make your labor worth that wage. Why should someone be forced to pay a higher wage to a person without skills just because it is a "living wage?" Whatever happened to renting a room or having roommates and living on the cheap while you work your way up the ladder?

And where and when did having health insurance become a prerequisite to basic survival in the USA?

Well, I am willing to pay something and do pay something, and it seems to work out fine here. Yep, my health care isn't perfect, and my taxes are higher, but I feel alot more secure knowing that I can make it to the emergency room and not have to worry about the bill.

I guess in the mighty U S of A, there are no such thing as insurance companies denying coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions. There is no such thing as medical bankruptcy which essentially destroys a family. There are no families having to declare bankruptcy because they have a job at a small business (the driver of America) who doesn't provide health insurance (so that they can stay competitive with the new Walmart up the street who only provides health insurance to their full time workers), but their child got, say, leukemia. Perhaps one of them is an employee at a major corporation who laid them off, and the employee can't afford the 17 K/year for COBRA health insurance, but they can afford a cheaper plan with little benefits, only to find out that he can't get insured.

You're absolutely right. There are a small percentage of people who just want handouts. They want to sit at home, play on their government funded X-Box 360, cell phone, and computer, and buy junk food, get drunk, and perhaps make their extra money growing weed, or creating meth in their bathtubs. And in Obamaland, apparently, all of America will turn out this way, just like it is here in Canada. Here in Canada, our casinos are empty because no one can afford to play. Our jails are overflowing. Our unemployment rate is 0 percent because no one is working and doesn't want a job because the government pays for everything. We have no roads, no hospitals, because no one is working. Hell, I quit my job two years ago and have been writing on this forum while I wait for my welfare check to arrive and the delivery from the government with my weekly shipment of beer and back bacon.

But AZ, you don't get it. America needs the taxi drivers, Walmart workers, the Wendy's drive through worker, hotel workers, home depot employees, and hotel workers, and they can't all be illegal immigrants working under the table. Some people just don't have the skills to go through life, get the grades to attend college, can afford to pay for said college, and make enough money to live a decent life or even to take care of themselves. America needs these people. There are plenty of Americans who just do things that way, only to graduate from college to find themselves in a terrible recession and can't find work. What happens to them when they get sick? There are plenty of Americans who get laid off of their industry after working for 10 years. Perhaps they lose their jobs because they are too sick to work. Some people can't work their way up the ladder.

And AZ, you do pay for other's healthcare already. When someone declares bankruptcy due to medical conditions, the bill never gets paid. The corporation simply raises the costs for everyone else and you pay anyway. It's not a tax. The company you work for (or your daddy works for) just pays more. Because they pay more, they lose their customers to another company who offshores part of their labor force. And you wonder why America is where it is today.

mkl is suggesting socialism. I suggest that America insures everyone, because I believe that sickness should be treated whether you make $10,000/year or 1,000,000/year. I suggest that the minimum wage should be high enough and taxes be low enough to allow the minimum wage earners to make enough money to eat and live. To me, that means about $400/month for groceries, $100/month for transportation, and $500/month for lodging and utilities. What's $1,000 a month, about $7 / hour before FICA and taxes? For that employee to have adequate health insurance, that minimum wage goes from $7 to $10.33. Can a small business afford that?

How does Walmart reduce the cost of the goods they sell? Volume purchasing, customer service, incredible inventory management, and a barebones wage structure to their employees? Most countries manage their health care because they find that they get their goods and services for less when the prices for these are regulated. They allow the corporations to make a profit by letting them sell their goods at a lower price but still maintain profitability. They pay their doctors and nurses less than their American counterparts but well enough for them to live a very good life for the advanced services they provide. These countries believe that because getting sick is a random event that people shouldn't be disadvantaged because of that.

America is known for its charity and compassion. Isn't it? Being healthy is one thing that every citizen should be guaranteed to have, so that they can climb that ladder you talk about.

Quote: mkl654321

Every citizen has an inalienable right to the necessities of life--adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This right is conferred regardless of circumstance, ability, age, or class. It is the task of the government, therefore, to ensure that no American dies of, or suffers from, inadequate nutrition, lack of shelter, exposure, or lack of medical care. The government can and should allocate, as the primary item on its budget, sufficient funds to ensure that all these things are available to any American who needs them---in much the same way that a family, or an individual, provides for its own material well-being first and foremost.

There used to be a whole string of countries run on this principle. The most prominent of them was called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." I lived, and part of my family was born and lived in one of their "fraternal socialist" neighbors. The way this system worked was that everybody had nothing, and if you didn't like it, and dared say anything against it, you were liable to have a knock on the door in the middle of the night and *POOF*.

Some people just don't learn. Not only does this idea not work, the very principle itself is despicable. It goes against human nature and uses the power of the collective government to subordinate every right of the individual. This is emphatically the opposite of the principles upon which this nation was created and rose to greatness.

Yet they still teach it at Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where a certain apt pupil is doing his best to put theory into practice once again, with high minded rhetoric. Sigh.

You can have *both*. Go to Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Canada. We aren't perfect, but we aren't complaining either. Canada is a capitalist state with a reasonable social safety net. Ignore the 13 trillion dollar debt. Put your head in the sand and not find any solutions. The problem with America is that only the very best prosper, and the middle class is sufferring today. Blame Obama if you want, but this train wreck's been coming for a long time.

Quote: boymimbo

Well, I am willing to pay something and do pay something, and it seems to work out fine here. Yep, my health care isn't perfect, and my taxes are higher, but I feel alot more secure knowing that I can make it to the emergency room and not have to worry about the bill.

This is possible w/o the government running things. Just buy yourself a hospitalization plan.

Quote:

But AZ, you don't get it. America needs the taxi drivers, Walmart workers, the Wendy's drive through worker, hotel workers, home depot employees, and hotel workers, and they can't all be illegal immigrants working under the table. Some people just don't have the skills to go through life, get the grades to attend college, can afford to pay for said college, and make enough money to live a decent life or even to take care of themselves. America needs these people. There are plenty of Americans who just do things that way, only to graduate from college to find themselves in a terrible recession and can't find work. What happens to them when they get sick? There are plenty of Americans who get laid off of their industry after working for 10 years. Perhaps they lose their jobs because they are too sick to work. Some people can't work their way up the ladder.

Ah, the "the only jobs out there are at Wal-Mart and McDonald's" defense. Taxi drivers can actually do pretty well if they hustle. College is not required to "make it." America always needs truck drivers, welders, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, auto mechanics and a host of other trades. We didn't get to be called "the land of opprotunity" for nothing. The thing is, you don't get ahead by sitting around just waiting for the governemnet to help you, one must actually do something. A welder needs to take a welding course, get hired, and keep learning. Somehow people made it thru who knows how many depressions worse than today from 1776-2008 without socialized medicine.

Quote:

And AZ, you do pay for other's healthcare already. When someone declares bankruptcy due to medical conditions, the bill never gets paid. The corporation simply raises the costs for everyone else and you pay anyway. It's not a tax. The company you work for (or your daddy works for) just pays more. Because they pay more, they lose their customers to another company who offshores part of their labor force. And you wonder why America is where it is today.

I'd rather pay that way than have my freeedom of choice taken away and quality of care lowered. No idea why you are bringing in offshoring of jobs into it. Lower skill jobs will and always have moved to offshore locations. It is called "creative destruction" and without it an economy will not continue to develop

Quote:

What's $1,000 a month, about $7 / hour before FICA and taxes? For that employee to have adequate health insurance, that minimum wage goes from $7 to $10.33. Can a small business afford that?

No, small business cannot afford s 34% increase in their labor costs. If we do what you suggest people will go from earning little to earning nothing. That unskilled but motivated kid will not be able to get the mop-job at a business where he may get to know people and work his way into a better job. And "kid" is right. Most people earning minimum wage are young and in need of skills. Getting them into the workword at minimum wage is better and cheaper than all the "government training" programs ever invented.

Quote:

How does Walmart reduce the cost of the goods they sell? Volume purchasing, customer service, incredible inventory management, and a barebones wage structure to their employees? Most countries manage their health care because they find that they get their goods and services for less when the prices for these are regulated. They allow the corporations to make a profit by letting them sell their goods at a lower price but still maintain profitability. They pay their doctors and nurses less than their American counterparts but well enough for them to live a very good life for the advanced services they provide. These countries believe that because getting sick is a random event that people shouldn't be disadvantaged because of that.

And Wal-Mart is known for lower quality good, lower service levels, and plain-looking stores. A reason many people liek myself prefer Target, or sometimes Macy's. I don't know ab out you, but I want choice beyond Wal-Mart level health care.

Quote:

America is known for its charity and compassion. Isn't it? Being healthy is one thing that every citizen should be guaranteed to have, so that they can climb that ladder you talk about.

Free health care is NOT a right. Rights come from your creator and take from no one else. Free health care takes from your neighbor. And besides, we have plenty of programs like medicaid for the truly indigent.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why should someone be forced to pay a higher wage to a person without skills just because it is a "living wage?"

And that my friends, is the source of inspiration for nearly all labor movements.

I'm not saying you have to pay a living wage, of course. You can do want you want.

I tried to get medical they said I can only qualify if I am disabled or on welfare. Why would a college graduate want to be on welfare?

Quote: mkl654321

We already know you're agin this idea, Bob buddy. You mind is stuck in cement. Probably it would be a good idea if you just went somewhere else now--your dissent has been duly noted and recorded, and you're getting REALLY redundant.

Just noting in passing: boymimbo's idea said that he would "make them work", so those benefits would not, in fact, come "free free free free", as you put it.

See? The free ride hasn't even been set up yet and I'm already been deemed unfit for it. And they wonder why it never works. Sheesh.

It seems that much of this discussion has centered around health care. I am self employed and provide my own health insurance. Last fall I had some serious health issues arise. My doctor immediately ordered complete blood work and an MRI. I had the MRI the next morning. This was Friday. On Tuesday I was with a specialist who ordered more tests and a CAT Scan. I had the scan Thursday and was back with the specialist Friday. He ordered more tests to confirm his diagnosis and by the next week I started my treatment.

Can you supporters of socialized medicine honestly say that I would have recieved such prompt care under the system you want? I grew up in Niagara Falls and my Grandfather was Canadian, so don't tell me how great their system is.

I have sacrificed (my choice) to provide my family with quality healthcare. I should not be forced to sacrifice to provide for your family.

There's no need to be forced to pay for fire department costs or police either to cover other people's needs if you don't feel you need them yourself.

Quote: DeMango

When we ignore the wisdom of the Bible, this is the nonsense that gets proposed, amazing!

When we think that the Bible is anything but a series of books of allegorical poetry, and start believing it as literally "Gospel" truth, we turn our brains into mush and abandon rationality.

I guess Jesus shouldn't have helped that beggar by the side of the road; he should have strangled him.

Quote: boymimbo

I guess in the mighty U S of A, there are no such thing as insurance companies denying coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions. There is no such thing as medical bankruptcy which essentially destroys a family. There are no families having to declare bankruptcy because they have a job at a small business (the driver of America) who doesn't provide health insurance (so that they can stay competitive with the new Walmart up the street who only provides health insurance to their full time workers), but their child got, say, leukemia. Perhaps one of them is an employee at a major corporation who laid them off, and the employee can't afford the 17 K/year for COBRA health insurance, but they can afford a cheaper plan with little benefits, only to find out that he can't get insured.

You're absolutely right. There are a small percentage of people who just want handouts. They want to sit at home, play on their government funded X-Box 360, cell phone, and computer, and buy junk food, get drunk, and perhaps make their extra money growing weed, or creating meth in their bathtubs. And in Obamaland, apparently, all of America will turn out this way, just like it is here in Canada. Here in Canada, our casinos are empty because no one can afford to play. Our jails are overflowing. Our unemployment rate is 0 percent because no one is working and doesn't want a job because the government pays for everything. We have no roads, no hospitals, because no one is working. Hell, I quit my job two years ago and have been writing on this forum while I wait for my welfare check to arrive and the delivery from the government with my weekly shipment of beer and back bacon.
.

The majority of respondents apparently think that the situation described in your second paragraph is the case. For whatever reason--I hate to call it personal selfishness and greed--they are absolutely LIVID at the idea that anyone should receive social welfare, even at a level only sufficient to maintain life. The person who WILL NOT work is as unworthy of life as the person who CANNOT, in these people's view. They refuse to see the value that you mentioned of helping the disadvantaged, and yes, the incompetent, the lazy, the ill-educated and the ill-thinking. In their minds, THEY are worthy of society's benefits, but below some cutoff point, other people are not. It's a loathsome and uncompassionate mindset that ignores the fact that the comfy couches they rest on were built by minimum-wage workers, who were laid off when the couch market went south. Once again, every man's death diminishes me--including that guy who froze to death last winter when the shelters were all full.

I would also hate to think that your more enlightened mindset is due to the fact that you're Canadian. Here in the U.S., we have this "rugged individualism" mythology-based mindset that rewards personal isolation and any kind of sense of community responsibility. Of course, this mythology is just that--a fiction: the fur trapper of the early 19th century was dependent on the price of hats in Europe for his living. And the rugged individual who settled the West later on in that century had more often than not left his hometown not because he wanted to, but because he had been kicked out. We created a culture of bandits, thieves, misfits, and irresponsible adventurers, and then (possibly because, against all odds, it worked) proceeded to glorify that culture.

At any rate, it looks like the blunders of the ruling party are going to get it booted out of power come November, so we can anticipate a return to the ignorant theocracy of the recent past. Maybe I'll move to Canada, where the health care is either fantastic or awful, depending on whom you ask--but at least I'll get to spend loonies instead of dollars. Worth the price of admission.

Quote: CrappedOut

There used to be a whole string of countries run on this principle. The most prominent of them was called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." I lived, and part of my family was born and lived in one of their "fraternal socialist" neighbors. The way this system worked was that everybody had nothing, and if you didn't like it, and dared say anything against it, you were liable to have a knock on the door in the middle of the night and *POOF*.

This is a very tired argument, in that anyone wishing to rail against social welfare programs points at the former Soviet Union and jumps up and down, saying, "Look! Look! This is what happens when you feed people at soup kitchens!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!! AIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!"

The failures of the USSR were due to its being run by a cabal of paranoid thugs, the country being micromanaged, and badly at that, and not the least because the country was poor and desperately uneducated. While communism was inefficient and unwieldy, communism in itself wasn't the reason the place was so dysfunctional.

In any case, the comparison isn't valid. There is no such thing as a "slippery slope", and implementing an incremental change doesn't mean we would then zoom all the way over to being the Soviet Union II, any more than drinking beer and eating pretzels would inevitably lead to one's becoming a Nazi.

Canada's health care system is both fantastic and awful. It's great if you have to go to the hospital for an operation or have emergency care. It's great for long term and managed care. It stinks when you are on a waiting list for non-urgent care, like that MRI, or to see a specialist. The waiting lists are much longer than Canadians like. But we're all insured, and most Canadians, including myself, wouldn't give it away for anything.

I've lived in the US for 3 or 4 years and have been insured in the United States, and let me tell you, it was awesome. American health care is fantastic when you are insured. The problem is that health insurance is extremely expensive, and whether it's hidden in Medicare, you self-pay or, or your employer pays it, something is wrong when the country spends 17 percent of GDP on health care (more than anyone else) yet leaves 40 million uninsured and countless millions more underinsured. If your employer is paying it, that is a huge benefit that drags down the performance of the entire company.

Quote: boymimbo

I've lived in the US for 3 or 4 years and have been insured in the United States, and let me tell you, it was awesome. American health care is fantastic when you are insured. The problem is that health insurance is extremely expensive, and whether it's hidden in Medicare, you self-pay or, or your employer pays it, something is wrong when the country spends 17 percent of GDP on health care (more than anyone else) yet leaves 40 million uninsured and countless millions more underinsured. If your employer is paying it, that is a huge benefit that drags down the performance of the entire company.

First, the "40 million uninsured or underinsured" is a flawed figure. There is no real definition for "underinsured" in health care. In homeowners insurance you can say you are underinsured if your coverage is less than the replacement cost of the house, or better yet less than the cost to cover the liens on the house. Even then, maybe my house is worth $250K, my insurance is $200K but I am fine if I have $50K in liquid assets. In health care terms, Obamacare requires a certain kind of policy, covering preventive care. Myself I really want a policy with say a $2-5,000 deductible since it is after all, "insurance" and I don't with to pay thousands more for first-dollar coverage. I am still able to function perfectly well in society, yet the government would call me "underinsured."

The uninsured number is high becauese plenty of people are uninsured by choice. When you are young and healthy, whny pay $500/monmth for somehting you will not use. A few monthe between jobs and why get coverage if you feel fine?


The proof is how many americans want no part of Obamacare. The only ones that do seem to be ones who feel it is not "fair" someone makes a profit on anything and the ones who want "free health care." If we had 40 million uninsured, there whould not be so many democrats in congress trying to hide their votes for it.

As to 17% of GDP, we spend more here in the USA because we want Wynn-level care not Circus-Circus-level care.

Now I know who you are. Always read posts, its a dead give away. Ken