Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Thorne]

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with socialism. American fear of the concept is depriving its underprivileged citizens of a decent living while its wealthy capitalist czars gorge like parasites off them and their labours.

The problem with socialism, as I see it, is that you wind up with an underpriveleged class who feel that they deserve everything they can get without working for it. They become true parasites, sucking from the government teat, which is kept full by the hard work of the middle class. The wealthy, in any society, will always reap disproportionate rewards, but they generally provide at least some jobs. The welfare class provides nothing but more mouths to feed and strident calls for free everything.

[gagged_Louise]

The problem with socialism, as I see it, is that you wind up with an underpriveleged class who feel that they deserve everything they can get without working for it. They become true parasites, sucking from the government teat, which is kept full by the hard work of the middle class. The wealthy, in any society, will always reap disproportionate rewards, but they generally provide at least some jobs. The welfare class provides nothing but more mouths to feed and strident calls for free everything.

You're free to view people who don't own their house and almost never have the money to go abroad as white trash who show they've never had the guts to make it into the middle class, but quite often, where people are landing in terms of work, and how fast they'll take off, is limited by restraints they don't control themselves and cannot "vote with their feet" to avoid. Lousy schools, outdated models of work, lack of a billfold of useful connections or "getaway money" isn't stuff that people choose to live with, they may not ven be aware of it.

The idea that people who are rich always deserve it would be reasonable if folks like Bill Gates or Nelson Rockefeller had dug their riches out of the barren rock, just by using their own ingenuity and hard work. Of course they didn't: Bill Gates or Larry Page (Google) may be businessmen of genius but they would never have got very far if they had had to work in a "free" economy without powerful public programs for engineering and computer facilities, libraries and education (how would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs have assembled a team or formulated their ideas if they'd had to literally go door-knocking and putting in small ads for money gathered from delivering the morning papers, instead of being at home in, and allowed into, a business and research community that was around before they came along?)

Of course if you treat the "underclass" (in America often the descendants of black slaves or of illiterate farmers from Asia and eastern Europe) as parasites and dumbheads and block their way to the good future, they are likely to keep on being criminals, hustlers, shirkers and liars - at least some of them - because that's all they get the place to do and that's the image of them projected everywhere. But it doesn't say much about their real potential. It's shortsighted to think that people from South Gate, LA and people from the Hamptons start from nearly the same baseline when it comes to education, money, health and exercise - or ability to get advanced work and get on the career ladder.

[MMI]

Gagged Louise, whom I'm becoming more enthralled by with every post she makes, says it all. What more can I add?

There are leeches in the "lower" levels of all forms of society. But they are relatively few in number. As I said in another post, very few people actually want to be a burden on society, and those who are have usually fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and will do almost anything to get back on thier feet again as quickly as possible. Dole is rarely sufficient to give anyone much more than a basic standard of living, even in welfare states.

No. I'm sorry to say it, but people who reject the provision of social assistance to the needy on the basis that it encourages the indolent to demand more and give less are wilfully blinkered if not totally blindfolded, and argue out of selfishness rather than any morally defensible position.

I should also add that any society that loses its working classes will cease to exist much more quickly than if the middle classes disappeared. It would probably benefit from the loss of its upper/ruling classes, because it could easily replace the jobs they provided by forming co-operatives or state-owned corporations. But I'm not arguing for communism, simply social conscience in the form of a health service accesible to all who need it.

[Thorne]

You're free to view people who don't own their house and almost never have the money to go abroad as white trash who show they've never had the guts to make it into the middle class, but quite often, where people are landing in terms of work, and how fast they'll take off, is limited by restraints they don't control themselves and cannot "vote with their feet" to avoid. Lousy schools, outdated models of work, lack of a billfold of useful connections or "getaway money" isn't stuff that people choose to live with, they may not ven be aware of it.

It was never my intent to label these kinds of people as trash, white or otherwise. Sure, there are many people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, are always on the bad end of every deal, unable to pull themselves up. And programs which help them, which give them the opportunities to get out of that rut can, and should be, of high priority in any society. But there are many who are more interested in what the government can give them rather than in learning what the government can do to help them build their lives. I have no problems with programs which teach people. I only question the efficacy of programs which give away benefits and priveleges to those who do not want to earn them and who will actively oppose anything which might force them to earn it.

The idea that people who are rich always deserve it would be reasonable if folks like Bill Gates or Nelson Rockefeller had dug their riches out of the barren rock, just by using their own ingenuity and hard work.

Rockefeller, of course, is one of those who inherited his wealth. While less impressive than someone who's earned it on his own, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Should we force people like that to give away all their money and start from the bottom? That's ridiculous!
But Bill Gates used existing infrastructure, the same kinds of things that anyone else could use, to identify a need, build a product to fulfill that need, market that product and create an empire from it. As far as I know, he didn't have any more to work with than anybody else could have access to, other than his own intelligence and abilities. Shall we condemn him because he was smart enough to recognize potential? Shall we strip him of his money, just because he did something we didn't think of? Also ridiculous.

It's shortsighted to think that people from South Gate, LA and people from the Hamptons start from nearly the same baseline when it comes to education, money, health and exercise - or ability to get advanced work and get on the career ladder.

Of course they don't start at the same baseline! And yet, there are many who manage to crawl out of the jungles of LA and become successful business men, or athletes, or even just good, hardworking middle class citizens. Sure, it takes more work than starting with money, and perhaps some lucky breaks. But it can be done. But if they're not willing to try, not willing to do the work, they will be stuck where they are, and they will teach their children to accept what they are, rather than work to make themselves better.

[voxelectronica]

Do people deserve universal health care? No.

People do NOT deserve medical coverage simply because they're alive and breathing. I as an individual have no obligation to keep another person alive and that is what my tax dollars would be going to. No one deserves the tax money I worked for, it's mine.

As you may be able to tell I'm a financial conservative... very conservative.

Regardless of if people DESERVE universal health care or not I do feel that as a country we have no reason to insure the health of all of our residence. As was pointed out, a healthy citizen is a working citizen.

I do *not* believe that the politicians in office can possibly do this without skimming off the top, taking their do's, being corrupt etc. Earmarks? seriously.

I believe in almost 100% privatized society. This is my *one* area that I believe should be socialized and it's not because my birth control cost me $50. It's because there is no reason why the poor in other countries should expect a healthier life than the middle class in this country. It's a matter of pride.

Also. I agree that most people don't want to FEEL like they are a drain on society but I think at this point (especially in American culture) there is an entire sect of our population who do not believe that's what they are. You have to first realize that you *are* a drain on society before you can feel some sort of remorse for that.

[gagged_Louise]

Most of this isn't going to be directly about health care or health spending but I'm taking the time to reply on some points from -mostly - Thorne's latest post because we're running into issues of social equality and the chances to realize your gifts in a modern society here, and these kind of underpin our reasoning about if public-funded health care.would be desirable or not.

Sure, there are many people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, are always on the bad end of every deal, unable to pull themselves up. And programs which help them, which give them the opportunities to get out of that rut can, and should be, of high priority in any society. But there are many who are more interested in what the government can give them rather than in learning what the government can do to help them build their lives. I have no problems with programs which teach people. I only question the efficacy of programs which give away benefits and priveleges to those who do not want to earn them and who will actively oppose anything which might force them to earn it.

Handing out money on a charity basis or earmarking small sums to be used for rent, food, children's allotments etc - while putting medical and education aid at a bare minimum - is one thing, empowering people to really get gping and kicking off the limitations of living in a chaotic, run-down neighbpurhood or having to accept working for 6 bucks an hour is another. You won't get poor people from the gutter to rise up by handing them fifty bucks a week and then keeping tabs on them every moment and treating them like they're stupids who are liable to toss away the cash on liquor or toys and then just ask for more, like they're children. The trend of policies in Amrica has been to push the wealth to the top - the finace crisis and the recession of late has made that really clear I think. And most American (or European) small businessers and artisans do not earn many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and are not in a position to expand their firms a lot. Joe the Plumber is not any plumber.

Rockefeller, of course, is one of those who inherited his wealth. While less impressive than someone who's earned it on his own, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Should we force people like that to give away all their money and start from the bottom? That's ridiculous!
But Bill Gates used existing infrastructure, the same kinds of things that anyone else could use, to identify a need, build a product to fulfill that need, market that product and create an empire from it. As far as I know, he didn't have any more to work with than anybody else could have access to, other than his own intelligence and abilities. Shall we condemn him because he was smart enough to recognize potential? Shall we strip him of his money, just because he did something we didn't think of? Also ridiculous.

No, of course Mr. Gates isn't to be stripped of most of his money, it's a more interesting issue if he (or Microsoft) should be allowed always to set their own prices no limits and exploit their advantage - and that's why they got those hefty penalties from the European Union competition overseers.

Bill Gates and his likes were able to concentrate on computers from an early age - to take just Gates, the mothers' association at his school bought a computer for him and he was able to take time off from regular classroom hours getting acquainted with computing and software from his early teens onwards.

At thirteen [ca 1968] he enrolled in the Lakeside School, an exclusive preparatory school. When he was in the eighth grade, the Mothers Club at the school used proceeds from Lakeside School's rummage sale to buy an ASR-33 teletype terminal and a block of computer time on a General Electric (GE) computer for the school's students.[12] Gates took an interest in programming the GE system in BASIC and was excused from math classes to pursue his interest.

I doubt they'd have done that for a black pupil who was at the school as a free charity guest and whose dad was an assistant plumber. And Silicon Valley or Stanford University aren't places that came into being from a bunch of empty-hands geeks standing outside the fold of the established economy; that's just the legend. To give Gates added credit, I think he's very aware that one can't sit around and wait for the market's invisible hand to do the trick, he made that plain in a tv interview I saw recently.

The internet, too, has been helped massively by public spending both in America and Europe - departments of defense, CERN (where the html language was developed), university pc networks, state telephone companies, the space programmes which freed up lots of resources and forced engineers to take on new challenges of developing faster chips and btter signal capacities, and so on.

I see we're moving onto the "spreading the wealth" tag here. I was trying to avoid any general discussion about socialism, I'm not an ideological socialist and it seems many Americans simply throw together social liberals, social democrats and stalinists. Planned command economy isn't my rallying cry (though it's a delicious irony that the private spending spree economy of the Bush era ended in the biggest socialization moves of modern American history: the buy-up of Fannie and Freddie and the bail-outs of banks, possibly of the big three car companies and then what...)

I'd agree with MMI that the American fear of everything that could remotely be called "socialism" is a leftover from the 19th century, and it's used as a tool by the fat cats who stand to gain from a highly moralizing attitude to money, a belief that society is about the survival of the fittest. Most companies today don't handle their budget planning as if it were a household budget, they plainly assume that they can get money - public money, by loans or from risk investors - if they need to expand. So it's not really about clawing a share of the market with what you got from the start, rather about what you can corner through alliances with other people, other companies. If they'd all started in a garage some of them would have foundered very soon, no matter how good the ideas.

It's an illusion I think that you can have a society that's 85% middle class. Neither the pure free market nor a state bolstered by ebullient welfare programs (which, by the way, isn't exactly how it looks in Sweden these days either) will lift everybody into the gilded middle class where your kids feel they can become anything, you have a year's wages on the bank, a stack of cd's and dvd's and a thriving pensions savings account. You seem to assume that the free market will perform that feat, and if some people don't get into the middle class it's a sign they were soft bags and deserve to be looked down upon or stepped on. Look, any modern society has a large working class, it's just that they don't always work in assembly-line factories or sweatshops..

Sure, it takes more work than starting with money, and perhaps some lucky breaks. But it can be done. But if they're not willing to try, not willing to do the work, they will be stuck where they are, and they will teach their children to accept what they are, rather than work to make themselves better.

Yes, there are leeches in any social class, or simply people desperate to cling to what they have. There's lots of children of the rich who take it for granted that they inherently deserve their handbags and jewellery, their designer clothes and their expensive education because they were born into it or because they think "Dad started from the bottom and now he's a CEO - and I've inherited his stamina so I have a right to that kind of respect". I'll just say Paris Hilton, she truly gave this arrogance a face when she got nailed for drunk driving and was sentenced to a brief prison term. There's many other examples.

George W Bush is reputed to have told a professor at Harvard Business School in the mid-1970s who showed the film The Grapes of Wrath to his students - he did this in order to show an angle of the 1930s depression that he realized many of them might not know from their own home background: "Why are you showing this commie movie? Look, people are poor because they're lazy!" Point taken. Of course the hobos in the film could have cut their beards and got a job, or if it were today, their children could have enrolled with the army and then had some of their college years paid for. So?

Also. I agree that most people don't want to FEEL like they are a drain on society but I think at this point (especially in American culture) there is an entire sect of our population who do not believe that's what they are. You have to first realize that you *are* a drain on society before you can feel some sort of remorse for that.

Excuse me vox, what kind of a height would that kind of condamnation be issued from? "Many people need" to have it rubbed into their minds that they "are a drain on society"?? I don't see what gives a corporate CEO, a senator, a US president, or even a bishop,a wife or a "staid middle American man" the right to spit people in the face like that. And for sure, some of the gist of those words was aimed at people you do not know. Everyone of us has a right to choose whom we want to mix with (though not all are in a *position* to make that choice freely, it's often about money and work) but there's no general right I think to just heave slop on a group of people you don't know.

[lucy]

Do people deserve universal health care? No.

People do NOT deserve medical coverage simply because they're alive and breathing. I as an individual have no obligation to keep another person alive and that is what my tax dollars would be going to. No one deserves the tax money I worked for, it's mine.

Of course it's not your money. If it were yours, it would be on your bank account.

I believe in almost 100% privatized society. This is my *one* area that I believe should be socialized and it's not because my birth control cost me $50. It's because there is no reason why the poor in other countries should expect a healthier life than the middle class in this country. It's a matter of pride.

If it's a matter of pride, then your pride is taking a bad beating right now. Because the poor in many other country within the OECD ARE in fact living a healthier life than the middle class in America.
Oh, did i mention that life expectancy and average body height (two of the easiest to measure and very informative indicators of wellbeing of a society) in America actually are sinking, whereas they are still growing in most other OECD countries?

[Muskan]

Of course it's not your money. If it were yours, it would be on your bank account.


it was his/her money before government confiscated it from him and termed that loot as TAX.

He was forced to sacrifice because he has the ability to earn more than others.

Such sacrifices can bring doom alone but no good.

[lucy]

Well, it's more or less agreed upon that governments need money (of course there's much debate about how much and how to get it and even more about how to spend it, tho. And those debates are necessary.)

If you can't agree with that, well, then you're living in the wrong world. Sorry, can't help you there.

[lucy]

[I]
Such sacrifices can bring doom alone but no good.

As far as i know taxing is not new, i bet there were taxes in ancient Babylon already. So, what about doom? Where? When? Did the whole world miss it's doomed for the last 5000 years?
Or is it just doom, but never doomsday? Then it wouldn't be that bad, i guess, since we live with it for the last 5 millennia.

[Thorne]

Well, it's more or less agreed upon that governments need money (of course there's much debate about how much and how to get it and even more about how to spend it, tho. And those debates are necessary.)

If you can't agree with that, well, then you're living in the wrong world. Sorry, can't help you there.

I agree, governments need money. And, while taxing isn't the only way to get it, it's better than outright looting. Not much better, but....

What I would like to see is for the taxpayer to get more say about how that money is spent. Sure, some has to go to defense. And some has to go to government salaries. And there are all kinds of other necessary areas where the money absolutely has to go. But there are also a lot of expenditures which are both unnecessary and undesirable, at least by the average tax payer. I certainly don't want to see my tax dollars being used to bribe foreign officials, regardless of who they are.

So why can't they include an optional questionnaire in the income tax statements we must file, and let the taxpayer distribute that discretionary portion of his tax dollars? So I can, for example, have more of my tax money go to parts of the budget which I deem more important, rather than to paying some so-called artist for pissing on a canvas. Or instead of paying some unwed junkie mother of four an allowance so she can buy another rock of crack. Or instead of giving money to a corporation which didn't have the brains to handle its own finances, and will likely not be able to handle its finances after getting the money.

Perhaps then we'll see more money going to what's really important. And if you think universal health care is important, then you could allocate more of your tax dollars to that.

Sorry for going off on a rant. I don't want to hijack this thread.

[gagged_Louise]

So why can't they include an optional questionnaire in the income tax statements we must file, and let the taxpayer distribute that discretionary portion of his tax dollars? So I can, for example, have more of my tax money go to parts of the budget which I deem more important, rather than to paying some so-called artist for pissing on a canvas. Or instead of paying some unwed junkie mother of four an allowance so she can buy another rock of crack. Or instead of giving money to a corporation which didn't have the brains to handle its own finances, and will likely not be able to handle its finances after getting the money.

Perhaps then we'll see more money going to what's really important. And if you think universal health care is important, then you could allocate more of your tax dollars to that.

Imagine the torrent of lawsuits from citizens vs the state that kind of model would produce! I don't want to think about it. On every level - county, city, state, federal - the state would fall prey to a million lawsuits from people who showed their "this is what I want my taxes to go to" cards from an election - not necessarily the last one - and claiming "my money hasn't been spent on this though you claim it was, you diverted it or you shirked the instructions - I refuse to pay for such and such,and I won't pay any more taxes for now until it's straightened out". And class actions and campaigns by churches and trade unions too, or even the mayorate of a city suing the state it's located in (if we suppose it's the USA). It would cripple any kind of political leadership or political negotiations.

In a general way, it would also reduce the citizen to a customer, choosing tasty alternative titbits for their own wallet - and a customer can be bought or bribed by the kind of deals that a politician - or somebody who isn't a politician, but clearly affiliated with the political world, like a general, a bishop or an influential businessman - would promise. If everyone decides their own peronal tax targets, the people become quite corruptible, because the election becomes stuff to buy and choose.

I'm not saying people don't vote from their long-term economic interests, but at least they mostly don't vote their leading men from the point of view that "he'll be very good as a personal business partner to me and other people I know".

I remember someone said in August that the looming bailout of Fannie and Freddie could not likely take place before the elections, because once it had happened, it would put the entire people - most of them, everyone who had a housing loan or who directly or indirectly owned bank or industry shares - in a sort of client position to the person - not chosen yet - who would be the next president: the guy they'd vote on. Now as both Obama and McCain supported the bailouts it didn't come to that - people did not feel their wallets were directly on the voting table, in the sense of who would promise the best conditions for this issue - but I still think it was a valid point.

[icey]

double post!

[icey]

it's always amazed me that the richest most powerful country in the world charges everyone for medical help even those that cant afford it!

I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

ok, i can appreciate what you're saying but and here's hoping it will never happen, you hit on hard times you have zilch and one of your loved ones or yourself needs treatment? perhaps serious and costly treatment, would you still have the same opinion?
and rather than argue that that would be different because you've previously always worked payed taxes etc therefore you've earned it...imagine you've been brought up in a life/world that never gave you any chance, born disabled or a million other things and you never had chance to earn a living pay taxes etc...then what? would you be less deserving simply because of circumstances? or would you be glad of that ''lethal government''
hell our nhs system may be under funded and might f**k up sometimes but if we didnt have it then my sister would have died when she was 11 and a few other people i know would either be dead or extremely ill (myself included lol) oh and yep my family have always worked and paid their taxes and ni!
im sorry but thats something i think the US does need to seriously think about and update.
at the risk of causing an uproar, im curious and this is a serious questionas i really dont know how the system works, do those who choose to join forces and fight in wars and get injured have to pay for their own medical care?? and please note i say those who CHOSE ...because i will be totally honest in my book it s sooo wrong and unjust if people CHOOSE to physically or mentally endanger themselves for a living and get paid pretty well for doing so get free healthcare in a system that doesnt normally work that way.

[bellelapine]

One of the massive problems that come from programs such as this is that people who are in true need are often the first ones denied such. It goes to those who never attempt to make out a living, who never try to scratch a way out of the gutter simply because they don't make any money nor ever have.
Case in point. My mother had a stroke last year. She has busted her ass for years (as has my father), paid her taxes and I had thought maybe paid her dues. She is disabled on her right side and has numerous other health issues now that prevent her from working. It took A YEAR for them to achieve any help whatsoever. And even then she had to take a psychiatric evaluation, a physical, a second opinion, a physical therapist's opinion, a 'work-ability' evaluation, ect. Now tell me why is it that programs that are put into place to help those in these dire situations get told things like "Oh I'm sorry your husband makes 1200 a month, your income is too high." Yet those who have never contributed a dime to society get handed money and a place to live (my parents were evicted the month after my Mother's stroke) because they opened their legs or because they were born in a bad area?
Why should my taxes go to people who depend on the altruistic beliefs of the populace when I can better put that money to those who get shafted? Or a savings account to prepare for my own illness or disability in the future?
If you're going to have programs to 'save the poor' why not have the programs be spread equally across the people who need it? Not tell them that I'm sorry Divorice your husband of 24 years and we'll talk. Not tell them, I'm sorry you're the wrong colour for assistance (My mom heard that one too).
This is very obviously a touchy subject to me.

[gagged_Louise]

bellelapine, do you seriously think that people who are genuinely poor do not sometimes get treated just as shittily as your mother? To turn your qúestion around: why should people who have tried hard to find a way out of a mess they did not choose themselves - bad state schools, closed circles of getting a decent job, illness - have to pay for the occasional cheating and hustling by some anonymous folks they have never met, but who happen to be living in the same kind of places and have more spacious consciences?

Unfortunately you can't sell yourself today - or begin to reinvent yourself - by saying "look, I have tried so hard for years and I have actually kept my nose just above the water, though the career path that I wanted and trained for hasn't got started yet". That kind of 'neat threadbare powerty' just isn't appreciated today, not in a world of flash wealth and celebs waving gold chains, furs, credit cards and diamond rings.

I don't have any trouble understanding why ghetto kids feel the glam gangster is a more inspiring role model than a dogged factory worker (soon unemployed and without medical insurance for his crumbling joints) or their 40-year old mom who just barely gets to pay the rent and keep them clothed - and who looks a bit haggard and ten years older than she actually is. You get nowhere today by trying to show off a facade of neat propriety and zero ability to break your own niches. And to achieve some lucky breaks and show off your talent often takes money. For better or worse, that's why people today, unlike in the 1940s, are not likely to accept the idea that keeping poor and proper but honest is all they should do.

[Thorne]

why should people who have tried hard to find a way out of a mess they did not choose themselves - bad state schools, closed circles of getting a decent job, illness - have to pay for the occasional cheating and hustling by some anonymous folks they have never met, but who happen to be living in the same kind of places and have more spacious consciences?

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

Then along comes a career politician (who's never had to pray that his paycheck would cover the bills, who never had to worry about stretching that little bit of ground beef to cover two meals, who never had to watch a family member die because of a lack of decent care) and tells me I have to pay for universal health care so the poor people can be saved.

Why save them? Let them die off naturally. Let them pay the price for their stupidity and for the stupidity of their parents. Why should my kids have to suffer because so much of my pay gets taken by the government to pay for lazy pricks who are only interested in their next fix?

If it were up to me there would be no government handouts except for those who have already proven their worth to society, the elderly who've worked their lives away to make a better world for their children. Need a handout? Ask the church, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army. That's what they do. And I don't have to support them in their futile actions. But don't ask for my help. I've gotten to where I am through my own hard work and the hard work of my parents, and their parents and their parents.

My ancestors came over here from central Europe with little of nothing to their names, not speaking the language (doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, here), without jobs and without help. Yet they managed to drag themselves up to a decent life, and to help their kids get started on an even better life. So don't tell me it can't be done! All it takes is hard work and determination. Something that government handouts can't provide.

[Thorne]

As you can see from the above post, I'm getting more than a little peeved about this subject. It's something I've heard over and over for most of my life, and I'm tired of people defending other people who have done nothing to merit such a defense.

So I'm opting out of this thread. I'm sure I've upset a lot of people here, and if so I'm sorry.

[bellelapine]

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

Then along comes a career politician (who's never had to pray that his paycheck would cover the bills, who never had to worry about stretching that little bit of ground beef to cover two meals, who never had to watch a family member die because of a lack of decent care) and tells me I have to pay for universal health care so the poor people can be saved.

Why save them? Let them die off naturally. Let them pay the price for their stupidity and for the stupidity of their parents. Why should my kids have to suffer because so much of my pay gets taken by the government to pay for lazy pricks who are only interested in their next fix?

If it were up to me there would be no government handouts except for those who have already proven their worth to society, the elderly who've worked their lives away to make a better world for their children. Need a handout? Ask the church, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army. That's what they do. And I don't have to support them in their futile actions. But don't ask for my help. I've gotten to where I am through my own hard work and the hard work of my parents, and their parents and their parents.

My ancestors came over here from central Europe with little of nothing to their names, not speaking the language (doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, here), without jobs and without help. Yet they managed to drag themselves up to a decent life, and to help their kids get started on an even better life. So don't tell me it can't be done! All it takes is hard work and determination. Something that government handouts can't provide.

Sir and I agree with you entirely. He would like to pass on His commendation to you and your family for understanding that there are no free rides in the world that only through hard work and honest labour (if labour is involved sometimes mental tasks can be trying as well) can you overcome obstacles.


Gagged_Louise : I have seriously been altruistic at times in my life only to have been told "You're the wrong colour for a scholarship"(despite having a 4.0 I wasn't needy enough), "Have a baby and we'll consider assisting you with your medical bills" (I had a tumor removed from my cervix). Now explain how in the hell anyone with half the brain I have or more of the brain than I have would TRY! if they are told...do this and you'll get it free? I've busted my ass my entire life so that people can pop out kids who will be taught that if they pop out a kid they can live for free too.
Yes somewhere every day someone is treated like shit. But not everyone you meet is worth respecting. Not everyone who cries they have repented, didn't have a chance or whatever their pitiful excuse may be worthy of anyone's help if they didn't actually try. Yeah I went to a shitty school...I went to a pretty damn shitty college (it lost it's accredation three times), but I struggled through and graduated. I got my diploma and I've moved into a better situation than my parents lived in. But I worked hard. I had parents who educated me that nothing was free and I'd have to scrape my knuckles if I wanted to get out of the dirt. I didn't take the handout, I wasn't even in the running for handouts based on how the government works.

If someone is legitimately disabled sure. I hope like hell they are getting all the government assistance they can possibly get. But when the day comes that I go to WalMart to put things on lay away for Christmas just so I can afford that Barbie castle for my daughter, and people on welfare are handing over cash and wearing so much bling my eyes hurt....there's a serious problem. And it's not just with universal healthcare.

[voxelectronica]

I'm with Thorn on this. I lived a better part of my life in and out of poverty. I knew my mother starved to keep me fed as best she could while she was working two jobs. Meanwhile my sister was running every scam in every government cheese play book so she didn't have to work so she could go get high with her friends, while my mom and i watcher her kid. which eventually turned into two kids.

The projects... I lived there. Children i plaid with are dead from drugs, gang violence, or in prison. Some of them never made it to their teens. Some of them left and are doing great things. There is a line, there is a difference. Those who left came from the parents who worked hard. Those children understood that there are people who have no understanding of work is.

There is a culture in this country that feels that is okay to take hand outs. That it's okay to do nothing. That it's okay to work the system and it's larger than this "small percent". I've seen it, I've lived it, I'm related to it. They don't see it is a helping hand, as a temporary situation. They see it as what they deserve. That's their attitude. That it's deserved.

Are there people out there who work HARD even though they are on assistance? yes. Are they still contributing? yes. but this idea that it's only a rogue person who is abusive is silly. It's not an issue of how they feel it's an issue of how they're taught. I'm not on any assistance. My sister still is and her children are. When you are raised seeing your parents do something without remorse you will do it too without remorse.

I don't say this from any height. I say this as a girl that makes 9.00 an hour who takes public transit to work. whose bank account was over drawn from her birth control. I've been to a well fare office in the past 6 months and I STILL donate money. I STILL volunteer. When there are generations of people who have been on well fare and who get their nails done... yeah I think that's a real issue.

[gagged_Louise]

Thorne: sorry but we don't live in the 19th century anymore - the immigration policies of the United States, and the amount of land, or easy work (factory, shoeshining, farmhand or house maid) you could find just by passing Ellis Island, to single out just those two things, have changed radically since then. Nothing is easier than saying "it worked in my great-great-grandfather's day so it must still be like that now".

[Ladymad]

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

After my mother passed away, I at age 16 was forced to care for my sisters, both younger than I, and my elderly grandmother, very sick with cancer. I couldn't go and get a job, because I needed to go to school - to better myself, to eventually get a university education and be able to support my family properly in the future. Thank god for Australia's bungled medicare system, which paid for my grandma's cancer treatments and the treatment my mother recieved before she died. Our PBS system ensured, through $5 for 3 months of birth control, that there would be no additions to our already struggling family.

If I had lived in the grand ole US of A, I wouldn't be at uni right now. My grandma would have been dead 12 years ago, the first time she was diagnosed with cancer. My mother, who had been chronically ill for the last 8 years of her life, would also have passed away much earlier. I would never be able to afford healthcare because to pay for what I needed at the time to support my family, I would have needed to leave school and find a job. So I would have found menial work, which never would have given me any opportunity for any actual advancement, leaving me forever stuck at the bottom rungs of the society.

Americas healthcare and welfare system systematically destroy lives. Through the denial of fundamental human needs like healthcare or adequate welfare for those in need, America pushes people further down when they need help the most.

My life would be fucked if what had happened here had happened in America... To me, it would not be worth living.

[denuseri]

Actually I have seen people in simular or worse circumstances than what have been described right beside me in the classrooms at college completely on a free ride where I have to take off to work in a strip club between semesters to make enough money to pay tuition..

Our Governement hands out lots of money to the people that are willing to look for it.

But not so much if you have a half way decent job or your spouse does or you are not both considered a minority.

I will fully agree our healthcare and social wellfare systems in all countires need to be re-worked.

But as I said before, after speaking to a lot of different health care proffessionals from a lot of different counties.......no one has it right yet.

[lucy]

I will fully agree our healthcare and social wellfare systems in all countires need to be re-worked.

But as I said before, after speaking to a lot of different health care proffessionals from a lot of different counties.......no one has it right yet.

You're definitely right on that, it appears as if America has it wrong the most, tho:
"Neue Zürcher Zeitung", November 20th, 2008 (sorry, didn't find a link to the online article, but it would be German anyway): US health care system now employs more people than the private industry and costs 16% of the gross national product.

That's a third more than the second most expensive health care system (Switzerland, 12% of GNP). And it still leaves out about 15% of the population.

So, to sum it up: America manages to have an extremely expensive health care system that doesn't even provide all it's citizens with basic health care. Could it be any worse?

[denuseri]

Yes it could, look at the majority of counties in the world where heath care isn't even an option unless it is provided by volunteers from other nations.

[lucy]

Yeah, ok, but then again, you don't want to compare "developed" countries like the US with, say, Burundi.

[denuseri]

Heath care is needed world wide, not just in developed nations.

[gagged_Louise]

Health care is needed world wide, not just in developed nations.

Yes, but the US is one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth, plus a massive producer of goods, services and science - and the American state certainly doesn't sit arms crossed when it comes to furthering business interests or the sanity of the economy (well, right now it's an issue of course how much you should do that at home, but...) Inasmuch as she has a right to tax her citizens under law, the US should be able to afford to care for the people who live there and work for her. Most advanced countries have free, public medical care with a decent level of ambition. The US is a standout here.

People dying early or getting crippled for life when that could easily be stalled is a huge waste to any country. It's not just about suffering, it's also about keeping up the economy and the power to defend yourself in the long run, and to make smart and strong people come moving in when they might as well go to India, Australia, France or Canada. I'm putting it like that, a bit utilist, because Thorne and others seem to insist that individual suffering, education or safe roads is nobody's business if you can't pay for it by yourself.

[MMI]

Why save them? Let them die off naturally.

People are stupid to be poor? Did I read that right?

Nazism has its place, I suppose, but in America?


I agree that there is no health system in the world that is perfect, and perhaps we can all learn from each other. However, where a nation knowingly denies medical assistance to virtually all of its needy for fear of accidentally providing succour to the dregs of society, then that nation is unspeakably selfish, spiteful and cruel.

TO BE IN NEED OF HELP DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DO NOT DESERVE HELP.

We who advocate "universal" health care supported by taxation are not saying, let's give all the tramps, hobo's, spongers, cheats and liars a free ride at the expense of all the decent, hard-working, god-fearing citzens who know what a dollar is worth, but not what compassion is, we are saying, let's do our best to make sure everyone gets the medical treatment they need, rather than just the treatment they can afford.

Belapine's illustration makes the point for me (which may come as a surprise to her!). Her parents had worked hard and paid taxes in a society which doesn't take care of its citizens' well-being except in rigidly limited circumstances, means testing being part of the conditions for qualifying for help. As a consequence, when her parents needed help, they were denied it because they "earned too much".

If they had been UK citizens, they would have worked just as hard, and paid taxes too, some of which would have gone to the NHS. When her mother became ill (whether she was rich, poor or simply comfortable), she would have received all the help she needed without having to fear bankruptcy or impoverishment. And she wouldn't find herself surrounded by drug addicts, drunks and the work-shy on her ward either.

She might have been even better of under the French, Canadian, Austrian or some other system, I cannot say. But unless she lived in a place like Bangladesh or the Congo, she is unlikely to have been worse off than under the American system.


Final thought: I suspect America's government supported health programmes actually are used by the dregs of society more, because no-one else is allowed to.

[wmrs2]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

Thorne, there are many great remarks made on this thread but your remark has as great of merit as any. As you point out, as long as there is a political system in any country, there will be sweet heart deals for those in power. Of course, it is possible to live in a country where the poor are in power and the hard working wealthy land owners are hanged or beheaded. But that sounds a little extreme but it has happened.

Every time I think my mind is made up about universal health care, I hear a very logical opposing view to what I believe. The ant and the grasshopper, at first thought I would like to allow the grasshopper to starve, after all, he should have planned better for the winter. This applies to those who bought homes that they could not afford. I am willing to let them sleep on the streets at first;but like the ant, I feel sorry for them.

If it were possible to have utopia health care, I would be for it. Sense I don't think it is possible, I am against it. The health care we have is the best in the world. I planned for health care when I entered the job market at the level I was happy with. My insurance company just paid a $200,000 yearly health bill for me. If health care was totally a government monopoly, I am sure that I would be dead. So would millions of others like me also. I am happy that there was the freedom to plan for my health care instead of trusting to Joe politician. It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health care. We have the right to health care if we have the wisdom to search in pursuit of happiness but the fellow who drunk beer at the bar while I studied in college does not have this right by his own choice.

Don't get me wrong, I like grasshoppers but it is hard not to step on them when they are all over the floor. Sometimes you must simply sweep them out the door. Seriously, I don't know what course to follow. Thanks everybody for offering your opinions to us that don't know.