Anit-Patriotism

[Xandax]

There is a lot of things in your posts @jopperm2 that I could start pointing at and that I could try and rebut with real life and hypothecial situations and questions - but I really can't be bothred, because most of it looks to be born of of selfisness, and - in my view - a lack of understanding of the ways of this world.

Granted - now that I'm healthy, working full time and not using any benefits from the government, I am a tad peeved at having to pay high taxes. However - when thinking that I've been able to study freely, have been unemployed a couple of times, injured and sick, and what else - then I am very thankfull that I pay taxes that goes to supporting healthcare, the educational system, unemployment benefits, daycare (although I don't have children), retierment for the elderly (which might disapeare before I get old enough to use it) and so on.

[jopperm2]

Perhaps it is selfish, but frankly I don't care about fellow man for the most part. What's mine is mine. I have been injured, unemployed, homeless, without insurance. All those things. I never complained. I still don't want those things.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Perhaps it is selfish, but frankly I don't care about fellow man for the most part. What's mine is mine. I have been injured, unemployed, homeless, without insurance. All those things. I never complained. I still don't want those things.[/QUOTE]

Well - if you don't care about your fellow man, and you don't want them to care for you - then it isn't just selfisness, it is arrogance. Do you really think you know what is best at this point in time, given what the situation could be in 5 years for you and/or your family - your daughter, mother, spouse, yourself?
So you haven't needed them in the past, and you haven't complained, but just think of how the situation altered when you got your daugther, or when you possible get another child, or grandchildren.


edit: I'm extremly happy to live in a country where I was able to get oppertunities I wouldn't have recived if it weren't for the healthcare system, the educational system, unemployment system. And I wouldn't wish for anything less for anybody else.

[jopperm2]

My daughter was already born when most of those situations happened and I got along fine, but to answer your question, whether I wanted or needed something is not the issue. I didn't have the right to have it so I didn't get it. The government is not a babysitter for it's citizens, or at least the US one isn't. It should only do what it is stated it will do. If they want to amend it to allow for otherwise then they should attempt to do so. If you ask me to pull you out of the water because you are drowning and I don't want to, you die. Doesn't matter if you deserved it, if it was your fault, any of that. What matters is that you couldn't save yourself and I didn't save you because I wasn't required to.

[jopperm2]

btw @ Xandax. If you have time I would encourage you to post anything that you consider to refute things I have posted. Despite how I may come off, I am rather open-minded and may change my opinion. I changed it once already because of the valiant efforts of SYM posters.

[fable]

I'm not talking about going back to Junglesque industrial revolution employee exploitation.

But you are. I mentioned a host of important social services, and you replied, "Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government." The question remains, who is going to provide these services if the government doesn't? The private sector has a truly terrible record in every country (not just the US) of offering these benefits without legal coercion. To rely upon the private sector to do it, is to agree that nobody will do it, in the end. Again, if you know otherwise and can show where 80-100% of several nations' social welfare needs have been met by private sources, state 'em.

I'm saying that you pay all these taxes to get government retirement, insurance, child care, etc. and you may not use it. I took one day off from work when my daughter was born. I don't use child care at all, I work about 41 hours per week. I don't want any of those services, yet I pay for them all. I'm not rich either. I'm far below median income for the US.

And therefore other people who are forced to work 60 hours or more a week to support their families, shouldn't have the opportunity to receive child care? As for the argument that "You shouldn't have to pay for what you don't use," that makes no sense to me. The social safety net is an extension of the Jeffersonian ideal, enshrined in the US Constitution. It acknowledges that the basic unit of humanity isn't a single individual, but humanity itself, and that the needs of all must be put ahead of the acquisitive selfishness of the privileged few. To put this in an anecdotal, personal perspective, I would rather not find out that "x many people" died on the streets of the US tomorrow, and then donate to a charity. I would rather that I could give my money in advance to the government, knowing they will fund homeless shelters and soup kitchens, so the deaths do not take place. This doesn't help me, true, but it seems part and parcel of being able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, and acknowledge that I belong to the human race.

The needs of Brooklyn, NY are way different than the needs of Ames, IA. But Ames ends up paying for Brooklyn.

I disagree: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a constant. Everybody requires shelter, whether they live on the Hudson River, or in the Corn Belt. If you work 60 hours a day, with no spouse, struggling to support a family, your need for federal childcare won't change depending upon your location. And this applies as well to the other welfare safety net provisions I discussed, above.

1> I think a lot of money should go to the military. Not most, not as much as we spend now(well, at least after we get the heck out of Iraq, I don't want our soldiers underequipped while they're there), but I still think it needs to be a lot. Militaries are expensive. I think we need to have the best military in the world bar none. We are the most powerful nation in the world, and I'd like it to stay that way.

This is simplistic. We're not discussing the relative importance of a large military vs a social safety net; when Clinton "severely" cut the defense budget (to hear the neo-cons howl), we were still so far ahead of everybody else's, afterwards, *that all the rest of the military budgets in the world combined couldn't touch ours.* Since then, we'd dug ourselves a $400 billion hole for a larger military--and as a result, we now have the weakest dollar against other world currencies since 1929. Several promiment governments, notably Russia and Indonesia, have announced that they are considering fixing their currencies to the Euro, instead of the dollar. In short, we are demonstrably far less powerful today, than we were before Bush took the White House in 2000. Cutting the military budget severely would not only help prevent our present economic deadfall; it would also allow the return of many social benefits that have been removed, and the addition of others--for a tiny fraction of the monies actually saved. Demonstrably more powerful, yet also taking care of our citizens that need the care.

I'm not saying there should be none of this. It shouldn't be federally funded though. I think a better alternative is for city or county governments to give incentives to NPOs that can provide these cheaply and to run shelters when necessary themselves.

Again, this has been tried. Over, and over. It has never worked. Incentives to industry to provide social benefits has failed everywhere. Please show me examples where it has worked without the legal teeth to enforce it--in which case, it ceases to be an incentive, and becomes a law.

It's not anyone who needs them. The rich can't use medicare even if they are unisured. So they end upi paying for a service for someone else who they don't know, and they have no choice in the matter.

Of course they don't, but it's part of the idea of providing a level of equity for those whoa re denied it on an admittedly unfair and biased playing field. Do you really think that the person who works hard for $25,000/year deserves to have his/her kid die for lack of medical insurance, when a person who works no harder for $500,000/year can easily afford to save theirs? Is that what life means to you? Make as much as you can, and screw everybody else? You bring up private charities--but that just returns to my initial comments, again, of a time when the government did nothing to help, and charities couldn't deal with more than 10% of the burden being forced on them--and that's only for basic housing and feeding, not for some of the other benefits we've discussed. Charities can't handle it. They've never claimed they could, and most repeatedly ask for the government to get involved. If you disbelieve this, do some reading on the Industrial Revolution in the north of Great Britain, during the mid-19th century, where the average life expectancy of the "industrial poor" was 28. They had charities, too: plenty of them.

[Xandax]

Warning - ramble alert It is almos dawn here and I've not been to bed yet

btw @ Xandax. If you have time I would encourage you to post anything that you consider to refute things I have posted.<snip>

Actually - I wouldn't really know where to begin, and my purpose here isn't to change peoples opinion. I just find your views disturbing and lacking of foundation in reality. However - I know this is often the case for people on other sides of the fences, and I know your views are not even that "extreeme" compared to many others.
Anyways - I'll take a wack at some of it.

Personally - my perspective is that I'm a liberal libertarian to use American political terms (liberal in Europe means something totally different then it does in the US, but in this reference it is used in US term). This might seem like a contradiction in terms, but from European - or at least Danish - viewpoint it is quite possible (after all - we do have about 8-10 parties, where normally 2-3 form government).
Anyways - this means that I generally view less interfering from the government into peoples lives as good, however - I recognize and accept that there are areas which is best left up to government to govern. Healthcare, education, children and elderly, unemployment, environment and many such things. These things are far to important to be left up to any sort of private interest and needs a somewhat impartial body to govern.
I'm enough of a capitalist (thanks to when I studied economics for free due to the social system in Denmark) to know that any corporation is in business to maximize profits. This means with for instance insurance companies that they are in it to make money. Thus I don't believe their best interest matches thoese of individuals (other then shareholders/owners - logical conclusion). This again means - that I would never trust to get the best medical attention if relying solely on insurance companies, because the best at many times also means more expensive, and thus - not in the interest of the corporation. The same goes with most other of the areas I’ve mentioned.

<snip>I also support a flat tax where the few will not be exploited for the benefit of the many. I was one of those people who rooted for the sheriff in Robin Hood. I realise that many times the rich have taken advantage of people to get the money that they have, but I don't think that justifies overtaxation to those with high incomes. If they have done something wrong then they should be made to pay restitution. Leave those who got their money legitimately alone. <snip>

Flat taxation would mean that the people with lower income pay relative much more then those with higher income for the same benefits. 25% of 50.000 are relatively speaking much more then 25% of 500.000 when you need to sustain a living for the amount of money.

<snip>
As for other countries paying more taxes than us, I realise this. I think it's rediculous. What benifit did those people who paid 100%+ taxes get? None likely
<snip>

Well – we have a health system that allows for treatment of illness in a government run health facility. If people wish they can pay to get treatment on private facilities, but even then some of the money follows the patient. So everybody is almost guaranteed treatment, even the people that can’t afford it themselves. I’ve personally utilized the facilities some times, as well has most of my family and friends etc. Now – we have payed over our taxes, so we don’t need to take out a private insurance policy – with all that can go wrong with those policies - to make sure that we can afford treatment.
Now – you personally – might not have needed medical care, and thus you are happy you don’t have to pay for a medical system over taxes. However – some people have insurance instead or get it covered from their workplace or pay per use(don’t know which category you fit in).
However – all these situations are basically the same as paying over the taxes with a few notable differences.
When paying over taxes, your money goes into a large pool of money, so to speak, that get spend on people in need – it might be oneself or it might not, however somebody is benefiting from this money by getting healthcare.
When paying an insurance company, the money goes into the company trying to maximize profit, and thus basically only benefits the shareholders until the day oneself need help. If receiving the healthcare coverage from a workplace, then it is basically a part of your salary. Thus you likely have a lower income then would have been possible without healthcare. This means you earn less money (to pay taxes from – remember the relative example from earlier), the company earns more benefiting the shareholders.
Pay per use is a dangerous method, because the price of treatment can go up drastically. Thus you might have saved money over taxes for a period of time, however – you might suddenly be positioned with a huge deficit because you can’t pay for treatment now. Thus benefiting nobody in the long run.
Now call me sappy or what else – but I would preferer that money I put into the system benefits people that needs it.

And this also extends to educational facilities. I’ve been able to study at the university – which I would never have been able to afford if not due to taxation and government spending. Then I was allowed to change my mind and start another education, still free of charge, and now I’m working a good job earning an okay living with which I’m paying taxes to pay back what I “used” when studying.
Now – instead of having to pay upfront for my educations, I actually “loaned” money from the government and could repay later solely due to taxation. And now – the money I pay in taxes can give somebody else the chance to educate themselves, just like I got the chance from other peoples taxes. Sure you could loan the money for real, but at what cost with huge interest, because of the uncertainty of the loan; or one can smooch of the parents if they could afford it.
Basically educational systems paid for over taxes gives people who have the skills, but not the financial means, a chance to educate themselves, instead of only providing those with the financial means the chance.

Future more –taxation also goes to the environment. The introducing of alternative energy for instance, which isn’t really profitable yet, and this means that private corporations have less inclination to invest in them, if not for some benefits. A government has more inclination to invest in it. Thus my taxes also goes to investing in alternative energy in Denmark – the placement of windmills, research in natural gasses, solar power and what not. And with the state of the environment today and the dwindling resources of fossil fuels, it is an important issue, and what is worse? Paying some money now and then perhaps improving environment or keeping it for oneself, and creating a dead world for ones grandchildren? Sure you could use the money you save on taxes to support Greenpeace or something else, but realistically – where would the money be best spend? With all the others investing in the same technology? Or spread out across smaller private organisations? Of course, if one don’t care or believe that the environment is going down hill, then such money is thrown away.

And I could continue all day (well - night actually) on this, but I think I've given enough examples. Even if I don't receive a benefit immediately from paying taxes, then others might receive a benefit from it as compared to nobody or a limited few. And when the time comes – I can receive the aid I need (unless of course the economical and political system has removed them), without going broke.

<snip>
All services I don't want to use.
<snip>

You may not want to use them now.
But instead of having a reduced salary; or paying an insurance company each month; or risk going broke when you do need them, wouldn’t it be more logical to pay a little each month over taxes, and let others that do need the services, get the chance to do so?
What if that guaranteed you that your family could go to school and get an education, guaranteed that they would receive care if becoming seriously ill and needing expensive treatment, could be allowed to keep your house if you lost your job. You might not want to use them, but your daughter might – but she doesn’t have the choice anymore.
You might not want to use them now – but as said in an earlier post – I find that attitude rather arrogant, because it is basically saying that you know best and you know best now. Things change in the blink of an eye, and with the current socio-economical climate in the world it is very likely that many things will change over the next decade.

<snip>
Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government.
<snip>

Fable has already touched upon this topic. So I see little reason to focus on this.
However it is naïve to think that a decent educational system would be possible without government control, that general medical treatment would be possible for people in need and so on.
It would only be for the wealthy, and then we have a modern day aristocracy, where people are born to their place in the world.

<snip>
As it stands now, I have no retirement. I get little vacation, I've been broke before, homeless even, but those are my options
<snip>

And it takes so little for your life to be turned upside down, for instance loosing ones job or becoming incapable of working; and then with no security system it isn't only you that suffers, but your entier family.

[Xandax]

<snip>
1> I think a lot of money should go to the military. Not most, not as much as we spend now(well, at least after we get the heck out of Iraq, I don't want our soldiers underequipped while they're there), but I still think it needs to be a lot. Militaries are expensive. I think we need to have the best military in the world bar none. We are the most powerful nation in the world, and I'd like it to stay that way.
<snip>

So you don't want to spend money for other people to get help, but you want to spend it on having the best(?) military power in the world? The most powerful nation, and you don't even want to take care of your citizen. Then what use is it being so powerful, if you want everybody in the nation to take care of him or her self.
Why is it more important to be powerful? A deterrent? Doubtful, when looking at how the conflicts of the world have changed, starting with the collapse of the cold war.
The anti-terrorist campaigns have gained little ground since 9/11 – which most would view as logical as well, because conventional military powers hold little chance of success against fanatics. However that is a completely different discussion, I just found it paradoxical that huge spending on something like the military is better then helping out somebody in need.

<snip>
I work about 42 hours a week and plan to retire modestly at about 65-70 years old, much better than that is a perk. Not something people are entitled to. Retirement is meant to take place when a person is no longer able to work, not so people can kick back for the last 10 years or so of their life.
<snip>

Retirement is meant to take place….
Show me where it says that retirement is supposed to be like that?
Able to work?
You make it sound as a forced labour camp, where people should work until they are worn out.
And what about people that aren’t able to hold down a job in their early life should they just be allowed to drift alone?
(oh - and 42 hours workweek isn't that extraordinary)

<snip>
I have never found the job market to be particularly bad. Perhaps that's just been the case where I have lived, but at any rate I can't really speak to this since I have never seen it. Obviously it is happening somewhere, but in my experience it is unbelievably easy to get a job in a week or less.
<snip>

Now this is just ignorance an mass.
According to statistics I’ve seen (just looked them up)– the USA have an unemployment rate of about 5.4% in 2004, that is a lot of people that are unemployed, and I would bet a huge amount of money that it isn’t everybody that is so voluntarily.
Maybe it is easy for a white male “young” American(suspecting this is your segment) to find work “over there”, but that is incredible ignorant to even suspect that it is the same for everybody.
But this is what you base your experiences on – similar to most others of your experience, notable the “services” and benefits from taxation. It shows a lack of empathy for placing yourself in others or even hypothetical situations and when you base your entire outlook on your current situation, it is again pointing towards what I mention as arrogance.

<snip>
Perhaps state run insurance plans with resonable rates would be better.
You pay a premium based on what your income is, approximately 20%(that's what I pay) and the state pays the rest similar to how a big company would do. The difference is that a big company decides they will pay x% and you pay the rest. With this program, you pay x% of the premium and the state pays the rest. The state could negotiate group rates with low bidding insurance companies the same way a business would. The state should also give tax incentives for businesses that have insurance plans. Many already do. Also I support increasing government grants for state medical school research projects
<snip>

And paying like that differs how, from taxation? Other then the fact that others might benefit from the taxation as well, as opposed to nobody or only shareholders in the company?
Pot, meet kettle, and boy it is black.
When you pay a monthly insurance amount, it is the same as paying it over taxes, except it is called something different, goes into a different pool and doesn’t benefit others that could need it, as well.



As I’ve said in my former posts, and this is with all due respect, but you strike me as selfish and arrogant or perhaps only narrow-minded, I can’t quite figure it out completely.
But I suspect it is because you only view the world from your own perspective (based on what I read throughout your posts), and thus perhaps lack empathy for other people’s situations, and the complexity of the world. Which I feel is quite visible with your “dog-eat-dog” attitude towards other people. The survival of the fittest – if people can’t fend for themselves, then you don’t need them around.
You state that people should only help themselves and not others, but one day you, or your family if not yourself, could very well be in a situation where you could need help of some sort. And you can deny that this day will come, but again that is likely also based on your own current perspective of life.
But I’m not surprised, and that was why I initial didn’t want to write something this long (I doubt it would be read anyway, and I’m extremely tried … middle of the night here ) or posing hypothetical situations, because I doubt your perspective would/could alter without some disastrous event close to yourself, based on what I’ve read here.

[Magrus]

@Xandax

I quite liked your posts, I agree with them.

For example, a guy I know locally was working for a friend as a sort of handyman. His friend owned a business, and would get calls to install or repair things and this guy would do whatever it was and it was enough money to get by paying for his family. Well, his friend couldn't afford insurance for the business, and neither could this guy, so no one had insurance in case someone got injured. The guy was working on a roof, and it was either work on this unstable roof or wait for another job to come in and not be able to feed his family. He fell off the roof, breaking both of his ankles. He can't work, can't feed his family, and in order to get disability to support even himself he needs to sue his friend, who doesn't have the money to pay him if it was successful in court. Now he has medical bills he can't pay, along with rent, food, etc.

The job market near me is HORRIBLE. This area is the home of a few worldwide companies (Kodak and Xerox for starters). For years, these companies were THE places to work. If you got into one of them, you were in for life and it was a guaranteed way to set your family up with a nice life. The last 20 years, it's not the same. Pay cuts and such ended that, less benefits and stuff. The last 10 years, if your in, your praying you don't get laid off once the engineers find a way to do something you do without you needed there. People have been laid off in droves every few years, leaving hundreds of families without an income suddenly and without warning from their bosses at times.

Kodak for one, is shifting over to digital everything, eventually all of the people who make all of the old camera's and film and process the old film and such will be phased out as the digital market is more profitable. Less people are needed for it, more computers and machines. So long as you have people to run the machines, theres really very little need for other people around. Once that happens, we could see close to 1/3 of the families in some of the towns around here suddenly moving or getting stuck on unemployment.

I'd say the government isn't doing it's job with the economy. It's suffocating and so are a good portion of the people along with it. Thinking that it's ok where you are and that it must be good isn't going to help anything, and I do believe it's why this country is run so poorly. The overall picture isn't being looked at by those in positions to change it, and by the masses. While certain areas might have a wonderful set up with things, if my area goes down in flames, chances are it will stagger yours as well in a backlash effect down the road. If the companies around here fail, your cameras, printers, copiers, the company making your contact solutions, etc will all end up off the map.

[jopperm2]

I'm going to have to answer each post individually in order to fairly answer everyone, so please be patient. Man, why do I get myself into these things?

But you are. I mentioned a host of important social services, and you replied, "Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government." The question remains, who is going to provide these services if the government doesn't? The private sector has a truly terrible record in every country (not just the US) of offering these benefits without legal coercion. To rely upon the private sector to do it, is to agree that nobody will do it, in the end. Again, if you know otherwise and can show where 80-100% of several nations' social welfare needs have been met by private sources, state 'em.

I think, as has been the case in the past, I wasn't clear enough in my posts. What I'm saying is this, I'm in favor of the 40 hour work week, workers comp, some sort of minimum wage, child labor laws, and all those other things that came out of organized labor after the industrial revolution. I'm not in favor of some social spending, mostly at the federal level, but I am in favor of other social spending. Also, I differentiate greatly between what individuals have to do and what businesses have to do. I think there is room to be more unfair in regards to taxation towards businesses than private citizens. I also don't have a problem with taxes on luxury items like alchohol and tobacco.

And therefore other people who are forced to work 60 hours or more a week to support their families, shouldn't have the opportunity to receive child care? As for the argument that "You shouldn't have to pay for what you don't use," that makes no sense to me. The social safety net is an extension of the Jeffersonian ideal, enshrined in the US Constitution. It acknowledges that the basic unit of humanity isn't a single individual, but humanity itself, and that the needs of all must be put ahead of the acquisitive selfishness of the privileged few. To put this in an anecdotal, personal perspective, I would rather not find out that "x many people" died on the streets of the US tomorrow, and then donate to a charity. I would rather that I could give my money in advance to the government, knowing they will fund homeless shelters and soup kitchens, so the deaths do not take place. This doesn't help me, true, but it seems part and parcel of being able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, and acknowledge that I belong to the human race.

First of all, I don't buy everything Jefferson ever wrote(I'm not saying you do though so don't be offended please). As has been mentioned in other threads I do give to charities and think that it is important to do if you can. I'm not saying that people should be dying in the streets I'm saying that homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. should not be run by the federal government. Also, I have never heard of anyone in the US dying ine the streets in my lifetime. I'm not saying that it can't happen, but it's far from a major problem.

I disagree: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a constant. Everybody requires shelter, whether they live on the Hudson River, or in the Corn Belt. If you work 60 hours a day, with no spouse, struggling to support a family, your need for federal childcare won't change depending upon your location. And this applies as well to the other welfare safety net provisions I discussed, above.

I think you missed the point of what I'm saying. State A has 1% of population in the above mentioned situation where child care is needed. They issue some cash assistance to those people to keep them at work. State B has 15% in that situation, they fund state run childcare and partially fund private facilities. State C has 30% in that situation, they have an elaborate complete childcare network where everyone with a low income gets free childcare. These situations I agree with. Obviously I'm not using real numbers, but I think it illustrates the point anyway. If we have a federal network like that in state C I think there would be a serious problem. State A ends up paying for it's people and half of C's, while B pays for itself and C isn't even paying for all of its beneficiaries. I'm not saying that this is a solution completely, but I am saying the individual states should be handling these situations.

This is simplistic. We're not discussing the relative importance of a large military vs a social safety net; when Clinton "severely" cut the defense budget (to hear the neo-cons howl), we were still so far ahead of everybody else's, afterwards, *that all the rest of the military budgets in the world combined couldn't touch ours.* <snip>

I wouldn't be opposed to cutting the military budget down to Clinton era numbers or maybe less, after the troops are out of Iraq that is. There were several military developments in those years that kept us well above everyone else.

Again, this has been tried. Over, and over. It has never worked. Incentives to industry to provide social benefits has failed everywhere. Please show me examples where it has worked without the legal teeth to enforce it--in which case, it ceases to be an incentive, and becomes a law.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying take the existing NPOs(United Way, Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc.), and have the state governments throw them some cashe to assist in operating in their areas. The second part of my statement was that the state governments, when necessary, would run their own shelters, etc.

Of course they don't, but it's part of the idea of providing a level of equity for those whoa re denied it on an admittedly unfair and biased playing field. Do you really think that the person who works hard for $25,000/year deserves to have his/her kid die for lack of medical insurance, when a person who works no harder for $500,000/year can easily afford to save theirs?<snip>

Here's where the real disagreement is. I don't believe people are equal, nor should they be. Someone needs to be on bottom for someone to be on top. I work for about $25k and it is very unlikely that no matter what happened to my daughter she would not die for lack of medical insurance. I have insurance. It's easily affordable at that income level. Even if I didn't have it, which for a period of time including her birth we didn't, she wouldn't have had any problems. BTW I haven't said here to scrap medicaid totally which is what you are implying here. Also, I didn't even imply here that charities could cover it all without government help, so there is no need to chastise.

[Magrus]

Also, I have never heard of anyone in the US dying ine the streets in my lifetime. I'm not saying that it can't happen, but it's far from a major problem.

This happens every year up where it gets quite cold, when the temperature drops below 0, you'll hear about the homeless freezing to death around here.

I work for about $25k and it is very unlikely that no matter what happened to my daughter she would not die for lack of medical insurance. I have insurance. It's easily affordable at that income level.

I know for my own family, my mother works for a hospital as one of there high level accountants, which is run by the local medical school here (University of Rochester FYI). You'd think that a hospital and a good med school would provide good healthcare, but no. One hospitals gone bankrupt around here int the last few years, and more are shutting down sections and renting them out as offices to cut costs down. They slashed the budget, and went from one of the best health care providers in the country to one that doctors laugh at. My mother was stuck with one she pays the same for, but the hospital save millions on by screwing over their employees, and because she can't afford to pay double what she pays for a decent package like the CEO, her doctors office told her to go somewhere else, they wouldn't take her healthcare.
Not only is the hospital reducing the quality of their care, they're treating their employees worse, which causes the employees to not care to work their any longer aside from a method to put food on the table.

[jopperm2]

@Xandax, good to discuss with you since I don't think I have had that pleasure yet. Also, the libertarians in the US don't believe in government protecting environment etc, but I understand you aren't American so I'm not going to pick on you for that.

This again means - that I would never trust to get the best medical attention if relying solely on insurance companies, because the best at many times also means more expensive, and thus - not in the interest of the corporation. The same goes with most other of the areas I’ve mentioned.

There are laws against this that I agree with and for the most part seem to work. Healthcare is an issue that does need some work, however.

Flat taxation would mean that the people with lower income pay relative much more then those with higher income for the same benefits. 25% of 50.000 are relatively speaking much more then 25% of 500.000 when you need to sustain a living for the amount of money.

I'm going to assume what you mean is that poor people have to by a certain amount of food, shelter, etc. that rich people also buy. This has been my argument against sales tax for years. This is why we have tax exemption and other such things. I wouldn't expect you to really know the ins and outs of US tax laws though. I make about $25k/year and my wife makes a small amount and we didn't pay taxes last year at all IIRC. There would be a minimum incom before you would be required to pay anything. That minimum would be based on what is required to have a decent amount of money to live on.

Now – you personally – might not have needed medical care, and thus you are happy you don’t have to pay for a medical system over taxes. However – some people have insurance instead or get it covered from their workplace or pay per use(don’t know which category you fit in).
However – all these situations are basically the same as paying over the taxes with a few notable differences.
When paying over taxes, your money goes into a large pool of money, so to speak, that get spend on people in need – it might be oneself or it might not, however somebody is benefiting from this money by getting healthcare.
<snip> Now call me sappy or what else – but I would preferer that money I put into the system benefits people that needs it.

You sap! J/K Sorry, I had to edit that section for length. The main problem I see here is that you are comparing the economy and healthcare system of Denmark to the US. Denmark is relatively small compared to America and I would assume that it's needs are relatively consitent across the nation. The US has large areas of low density, low poverty, and medium to small areas of very high density and high poverty. As well as variations on those. I'm not opposed to the Danish system in Denmark, but I don't think it is best for the US on a nationwide level. State-by-state maybe, but not nationally.

And this also extends to educational facilities. I’ve been able to study at the university – which I would never have been able to afford if not due to taxation and government spending. Then I was allowed to change my mind and start another education, still free of charge, and now I’m working a good job earning an okay living with which I’m paying taxes to pay back what I “used” when studying.
Now – instead of having to pay upfront for my educations, I actually “loaned” money from the government and could repay later solely due to taxation. And now – the money I pay in taxes can give somebody else the chance to educate themselves, just like I got the chance from other peoples taxes. Sure you could loan the money for real, but at what cost with huge interest, because of the uncertainty of the loan; or one can smooch of the parents if they could afford it.
Basically educational systems paid for over taxes gives people who have the skills, but not the financial means, a chance to educate themselves, instead of only providing those with the financial means the chance.

We have Pell Grants, fine to keep but I would rather see them done by states; Stafford and other types of loans at very low interest(2-4% usually, not based on credit at all) these are okay too; and a lot of scholarship programs so "people who have the skills, but not the financial means, [have] a chance to educate themselves." I don't think we need to nationalize education. Most people I saw in college shouldn't have been there anyway, they were wasting the time of the instructors.

Future more –taxation also goes to the environment. The introducing of alternative energy for instance, which isn’t really profitable yet, and this means that private corporations have less inclination to invest in them, if not for some benefits. A government has more inclination to invest in it. Thus my taxes also goes to investing in alternative energy in Denmark – the placement of windmills, research in natural gasses, solar power and what not. And with the state of the environment today and the dwindling resources of fossil fuels, it is an important issue, and what is worse? Paying some money now and then perhaps improving environment or keeping it for oneself, and creating a dead world for ones grandchildren? Sure you could use the money you save on taxes to support Greenpeace or something else, but realistically – where would the money be best spend? With all the others investing in the same technology? Or spread out across smaller private organisations? Of course, if one don’t care or believe that the environment is going down hill, then such money is thrown away.

You'll have to see some of my other posts in other threads, but I don't believe in this kind of spending. I don't believe in environmentalist alarmism so there is no need for spending.

And I could continue all day (well - night actually) on this, but I think I've given enough examples. Even if I don't receive a benefit immediately from paying taxes, then others might receive a benefit from it as compared to nobody or a limited few. And when the time comes – I can receive the aid I need (unless of course the economical and political system has removed them), without going broke.

The problem with this is that you probably won't collect on everything you put in. Wealthy people surely won't. What it boils down to basically is that you guys believe in those that have providing for those that have not and I don't. That part isn't going to change. Now I shouldn't say that I completely don't believe in it. I do give to charity and I do support some social spending thru state governments. I just don't think it is the resonsibily of the federal government in the US. In Denmark it probably is.

What if that guaranteed you that your family could go to school and get an education, guaranteed that they would receive care if becoming seriously ill and needing expensive treatment, could be allowed to keep your house if you lost your job. You might not want to use them, but your daughter might – but she doesn’t have the choice anymore.

She is the responsibility of my wife and me, no one else. Those that have children that they cannot afford, IMO, are criminals and should be punished as such. Parents should support their children until they die if they have to. Obviously that can't always take care of everything, but there are provisions for those circumstances.

You might not want to use them now – but as said in an earlier post – I find that attitude rather arrogant, because it is basically saying that you know best and you know best now. Things change in the blink of an eye, and with the current socio-economical climate in the world it is very likely that many things will change over the next decade.

I fail to see how this is the case, please explain.

And it takes so little for your life to be turned upside down, for instance loosing ones job or becoming incapable of working; and then with no security system it isn't only you that suffers, but your entier family.

I think I have already responded to this a few times.

[jopperm2]

So you don't want to spend money for other people to get help, but you want to spend it on having the best(?) military power in the world? The most powerful nation, and you don't even want to take care of your citizen. Then what use is it being so powerful, if you want everybody in the nation to take care of him or her self.
Why is it more important to be powerful? A deterrent? Doubtful, when looking at how the conflicts of the world have changed, starting with the collapse of the cold war.
The anti-terrorist campaigns have gained little ground since 9/11 – which most would view as logical as well, because conventional military powers hold little chance of success against fanatics. However that is a completely different discussion, I just found it paradoxical that huge spending on something like the military is better then helping out somebody in need.

I do think killing enemies is better than taking care of people that can't do it themselves, but what I meant by that was the the military budget will be large even if it is cut a lot. I think it is important the the US is the most powerful so that we can do things the way we want to do things and not be influenced by what the rest of the world wants. That's a whole other discussion as you said though.

Retirement is meant to take place….
Show me where it says that retirement is supposed to be like that?
Able to work?
You make it sound as a forced labour camp, where people should work until they are worn out.
And what about people that aren’t able to hold down a job in their early life should they just be allowed to drift alone?
(oh - and 42 hours workweek isn't that extraordinary)

That's what retirement has traditionally been, show me otherwise. People should work until they are worn out unless they have other income and want to take it easy on their own dime. Also, I didn't mean to imply that 42 hours is a lot. I only meant to imply that I work a normal amount of time. I used to work about 80 hours a week. That is a lot, but it isn't impossible.


Now this is just ignorance an mass.
According to statistics I’ve seen (just looked them up)– the USA have an unemployment rate of about 5.4% in 2004, that is a lot of people that are unemployed, and I would bet a huge amount of money that it isn’t everybody that is so voluntarily.
Maybe it is easy for a white male “young” American(suspecting this is your segment) to find work “over there”, but that is incredible ignorant to even suspect that it is the same for everybody.
But this is what you base your experiences on – similar to most others of your experience, notable the “services” and benefits from taxation. It shows a lack of empathy for placing yourself in others or even hypothetical situations and when you base your entire outlook on your current situation, it is again pointing towards what I mention as arrogance.

First of all 5.4% isn't that bad. Full employment in the US is about 4% frictional unemployment. So please don't call me ignorant and misspell En Masse in the same sentance. Also I said that I don't have a lot of experience in that section so my imput isn't really valuable there. I have had about 10 jobs over my lifetime in a total of four counties. That's not a diverse enough background for me to comment.

And paying like that differs how, from taxation? Other then the fact that others might benefit from the taxation as well, as opposed to nobody or only shareholders in the company?
Pot, meet kettle, and boy it is black.
When you pay a monthly insurance amount, it is the same as paying it over taxes, except it is called something different, goes into a different pool and doesn’t benefit others that could need it, as well.

You're wrong here. Insurance is vastly different than anything I have seen proposed by anyone in the US government.

I suspect it is because you only view the world from your own perspective (based on what I read throughout your posts), and thus perhaps lack empathy for other people’s situations, and the complexity of the world. Which I feel is quite visible with your “dog-eat-dog” attitude towards other people. The survival of the fittest – if people can’t fend for themselves, then you don’t need them around.

I never said that at all. I have said more than once that it is important to give to charity and some social spending is needed on the state level. Just because I don't believe in free college and early retirement I get made out as a bad guy. I know you didn't completely mean it like that, but trust me, I'm not a social darwinist.

You state that people should only help themselves and not others, but one day you, or your family if not yourself, could very well be in a situation where you could need help of some sort. And you can deny that this day will come, but again that is likely also based on your own current perspective of life.
But I’m not surprised, and that was why I initial didn’t want to write something this long (I doubt it would be read anyway, and I’m extremely tried … middle of the night here ) or posing hypothetical situations, because I doubt your perspective would/could alter without some disastrous event close to yourself, based on what I’ve read here.

As I have mentioned above I have never said that. Now let me let you into my background a little. I come from divorced parents, my dad died uninsured at the age of 47 of cancer, my mother has several disabilities and has trouble holding a job, my best friend needlessly died because of poor first responding systems, my wife is disabled, I left home penniless at age 18 and moved across the country, I don't have my degree completed yet due to various factors.. That should be enough. Please illustrate for me how this constitutes the above attitude.

[jopperm2]

@ Magrus, This is in reference to your post that starts like this.

I quite liked your posts, I agree with them.

As I have said before I can't comment on the job market too much because it's fine here. Understandably it is going to be poor other places.

In reference to the guy who fell off the roof, IIRC in Florida it would be handled like this: The guy running the show goes to jail for not carrying worker's comp or being an unliscensed contractor, whichever is the case. He would then be forced to pay the guy who fell restitution whether that person wants to sue or not. He would have the option of suing separately.

I think that's the way it should be, but I don't know what worker's comp laws are like in your area.

[jopperm2]

This happens every year up where it gets quite cold, when the temperature drops below 0, you'll hear about the homeless freezing to death around here.

Like I said, obviously it happens somewhere. I'm from Iowa and it gets just as bad, but we didn't have much in the way of homeless. Or they go south for the winter.

I know for my own family, my mother works for a hospital as one of there high level accountants, which is run by the local medical school here (University of Rochester FYI). You'd think that a hospital and a good med school would provide good healthcare, but no. One hospitals gone bankrupt around here int the last few years, and more are shutting down sections and renting them out as offices to cut costs down. They slashed the budget, and went from one of the best health care providers in the country to one that doctors laugh at. My mother was stuck with one she pays the same for, but the hospital save millions on by screwing over their employees, and because she can't afford to pay double what she pays for a decent package like the CEO, her doctors office told her to go somewhere else, they wouldn't take her healthcare.
Not only is the hospital reducing the quality of their care, they're treating their employees worse, which causes the employees to not care to work their any longer aside from a method to put food on the table.

That sounds like a problem with that hospital's management company. Not good for sure.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=jopperm2]<snip>
So please don't call me ignorant and misspell En Masse in the same sentance. <snip>
[/QUOTE]

When you are willing to debate this in danish, then please step forward
Untill then - I doubt I've got anything to debate with you again.

[jopperm2]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean that to come off as harsh as it did. Your English is great btw. We can try it French though if you like. j/k

[fable]

[QUOTE=jopperm2]What I'm saying is this, I'm in favor of the 40 hour work week, workers comp, some sort of minimum wage, child labor laws, and all those other things that came out of organized labor after the industrial revolution.[/quote]

How should society deal with a 40-year-old man with a borderline moronic IQ and no family? What about a single mother with three kids who wants to work, but can't leave them alone? What should be done with a 75-year-old man who's suffering from degenerative physical and mental conditions, and whose family has no health insurance, and can't afford to pay for him? Who will take responsibilty for dealing with these three instances where the failure isn't that of the individuals involved? Please do not regard these as isolated instances. The "poverty wards" of major hospitals have been stretched to overflowing in the last 4 years, since Bush gutted social services. They are now turning away cases on a regular basis across the US. And please don't do the "let charity deal with it" mantra; charities have repeatedly stated that they can't handle more than 10-15% of the load they currently have.

First of all, I don't buy everything Jefferson ever wrote(I'm not saying you do though so don't be offended please). As has been mentioned in other threads I do give to charities and think that it is important to do if you can. I'm not saying that people should be dying in the streets I'm saying that homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. should not be run by the federal government.

This begs the question, yet again: if you don't think the Federal government who should do it, who has the ability to do it? Industry has a miserable record, failing every time unless forced by law to do so. Charities say every year that they are not competent to handle anywhere near the load they receive. So who will pay for it, if the Feds don't? Please answer this.

Also, I have never heard of anyone in the US dying ine the streets in my lifetime. I'm not saying that it can't happen, but it's far from a major problem.

Not to mince words, but you are sadly misinformed about this. Thousands of homeless people die each year in the US, alone. Of course you're not going to see them. Of course, they're not a "major" problem--because it's a single death here and single death there, not on the news, just bums, so hey, who cares, right? After all, we always get all the information we need about everything that's important in our lives from the media, correct?

Start here to get some basic facts about the pamphlets you should send for, from a variety of organizations dealing with homeless issues in the US. Do some research. Think.

State A has 1% of population in the above mentioned situation where child care is needed. They issue some cash assistance to those people to keep them at work. State B has 15% in that situation, they fund state run childcare and partially fund private facilities. State C has 30% in that situation, they have an elaborate complete childcare network where everyone with a low income gets free childcare. These situations I agree with. Obviously I'm not using real numbers, but I think it illustrates the point anyway. If we have a federal network like that in state C I think there would be a serious problem.

Not at all, because no state can manage to provide at this time anywhere approaching the conditions you list for State C. If the federal government were to handle the distribution of funds for a uniform, well-inspected and regulated system of social care, all states would receive the same benefits. The patient suffering from Alzheimer's in State A, which can't afford any support for her, wouldn't be left to die in a poverty ward, without care, while State B, across the border, has the facilities to keep them comfortable until the end comes.

I wouldn't be opposed to cutting the military budget down to Clinton era numbers or maybe less, after the troops are out of Iraq that is. There were several military developments in those years that kept us well above everyone else.

That wasn't my point. My point, again, was that you seem to think one important reason we can't invest in a social safety net is that we need to "be strong" (whatever that may mean) by having the biggest military in the world. I've just pointed out that the largest military is bankrupting us and making us incredibly, economically weak. And that for a tiny fraction of the cost of the military savings we could make by reducing back to the Clinton figures, we could easily fund a strong social safety net. Please deal with the whole issue, not just with the small part about the military.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying take the existing NPOs(United Way, Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc.), and have the state governments throw them some cashe to assist in operating in their areas. The second part of my statement was that the state governments, when necessary, would run their own shelters, etc.

It's significant that none of the charities you mention have asked to be given federal funds to substitute for a federal safety net. To the contrary, they've lobbied heavily for the government to handle this, because a centralized bureaucracy is far easier to deal with than hundreds of minor bureaucracies with thousands of inspections and millions of rules and regulations. The Red Cross wants private donations, and matching federal grants. They don't want to be employed by the US government, or beholden to it.

And giving all the responsibilities to the state governments for a social safety net 1) doesn't mean a thing if the federal government keeps all the money, as it currently does, and 2) dozens of bureaucracies, each with its own rules and regulations that differ across states and with the feds, would make for a far greater level of chaos, disorganizatoin, and waste. One, centralized bureaucracy is the best way to handle it, provided the bureaucracy is itself carefully monitored and subjected to professional and Congressional scrutiny.

Here's where the real disagreement is. I don't believe people are equal, nor should they be. Someone needs to be on bottom for someone to be on top. I work for about $25k and it is very unlikely that no matter what happened to my daughter she would not die for lack of medical insurance. I have insurance. It's easily affordable at that income level. Even if I didn't have it, which for a period of time including her birth we didn't, she wouldn't have had any problems.

What if you lost your job tomorrow, and couldn't find a new one? What if you were in a serious, debilitating auto accident, with only limited chance of longterm (ie, 10-15 year) recovery? What if your health insurance barely covered your own injuries, and then your daughter was hit by a drunken driver, and also had bad injuries that needed regular physical therapy for years?

Similar scenarios I've outlined happen regularly. People do lose their jobs for no fault of their own, and their insurance. The US has lost millions of jobs over the last four years. Many people are hurting badly. Do you honestly possess such a limited imagination that you can't see any of this happening to you? And when it happens to others, do you really not care?

I really want an answer to that one. And please, don't make it another reference to industry-and-charity. We've covered that ground repeatedly.

[fable]

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Like I said, obviously it happens somewhere. I'm from Iowa and it gets just as bad, but we didn't have much in the way of homeless. Or they go south for the winter. [/QUOTE]

In 1999, a study done by the Iowa Department of Education and the Iowa Department of Economic Development found a total of 18,592 people who were homeless in Iowa. To quote the extremely detailed and meticulously scientific survey:

"...a segment of our population remains entrenched in poverty and at risk of losing their housing if there is a family crisis. Homelessness exists in rural and urban areas, and in low poverty and high poverty communities. Although various factors suggest different levels of vulnerability in diverse geographic areas, all parts of the state contain homeless and near-homeless people.

Single adults with children make up the greatest portion of homeless households. With this as the foundation, it is no surprise that children make up just over half the homeless population...

Half of all homeless households rely on income from employment. This suggests wages are too low for families to live securely even if employment is found, and that higher paying jobs are out of reach or unavailable to many...

This brief summary of findings likely defies the stereotype many Iowans have of the homeless that live among us. It may also cause a greater appreciation and empathy for those living in this situation as it becomes clear that more than half are children, and most adults are working to support their families. This suggests that most are trying to improve their condition, but remain victims of larger economic and societal forces."

You'll be happy to know that roughly 500 of these die each year. Unfortunately, a bunch of people with no self-dignity at all, roughly of the same number, add to the list during that time. So the number has remained fairly uniform and stable.

Possibly you missed evidence of all these people because you were so busy going south for the winter.

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=fable]State A has 1% of population in the above mentioned situation where child care is needed. They issue some cash assistance to those people to keep them at work. State B has 15% in that situation, they fund state run childcare and partially fund private facilities. State C has 30% in that situation, they have an elaborate complete childcare network where everyone with a low income gets free childcare. These situations I agree with. Obviously I'm not using real numbers, but I think it illustrates the point anyway. If we have a federal network like that in state C I think there would be a serious problem.

Not at all, because no state can manage to provide at this time anywhere approaching the conditions you list for State C. If the federal government were to handle the distribution of funds for a uniform, well-inspected and regulated system of social care, all states would receive the same benefits. The patient suffering from Alzheimer's in State A, which can't afford any support for her, wouldn't be left to die in a poverty ward, without care, while State B, across the border, has the facilities to keep them comfortable until the end comes.[/QUOTE]

Fable makes a great point here, both in this snippet and in another within his post above. Since I happen to work directly for a state agency that is involved in administering programs for people in Texas, I've been in a position to learn quite a few things. I see budgetary figures, print out fiscal reports for executives, handle the time and leave for over 100 employees, and sit in at meetings between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal entity that oversees the care of elderly, disabled, and persons with mental retardation and related conditions nationwide, and staff from my own agency. I take notes, draft meeting minutes, prepare Power Point presentations for delivery to Senator's offices on behalf of analysts, etc, etc...

First, I feel like a broken record here. I've pointed out again and again that states cannot handle things themselves. I have yet to see any real evidence to the contrary. My agency strives to remain in compliance with all federal mandates, thus maintaining an excellent relationship with CMS, so we don't sink our own ship. The funds are sparse enough as it is. They are getting leaner. The current recommendation from the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) here in TX for our agency: slash 7 million dollars.

Let me clue you in on what that means: one of the biggest problems the agency faces is recruiting and retaining quality and experienced staff. This is not only acknowledged by the Legislature and the Governor, but even by the bleeding for-profit Care Providers! Consultants and analysts were feverishly working on a project to address the staffing problems, and came up with the following recommendations to the Office of the Governor, and the Legislature: 1) Increase salaries so they are more competitive with the private sector (they are currently woefully lower than what's out there privately); 2) Increase the availability of training, and increase the chances for advancement; and 3) Offer incentives for experienced staff to remain within the agency. Needless to say, this ain't gonna happen.

Who stands to profit the most from things remaining the way they currently are? Who has been profiting the most from the reduction in the agency's ability to investigate, enforce, and otherwise regulate them to ensure they aren't neglecting people behind closed doors? The for-profit care providers, of course. They have quite the lobby...lots of money there. In fact, lots of money from other states, other countries, and from Washington.

EDIT: I know you live in a paradise up there, jopp, so this might be totally alien to you. Texas has over 1300 facilities which provide care for the elderly, disabled, and needy. This figure is a rough estimate since the 1300 are only those licensed...this does not account for the thousands more that are unknown. I have sat and read through the files during slow times and what I have seen has sickened me. One unlicensed facility allowed a resident to die and decompose in their room for 6 days before they were discovered by a visitor. Countless others commit medication errors which cost the lives of those under their neglectful care. Still others do not provide the federally mandated restraining systems that prevent Alzheimer's patients from wandering out of the facility and directly into busy highways, which happens more frequently than the media reports.

Another tale of woe: an elderly resident was harassed by another resident in a home, and complained that her leg hurt after the event. The staff there ignored her pleas as was usual. The lady's guardian visited later in the week and noticed that her affected leg was discolored, and swollen. The guardian was concerned and insisted that an examination be done. An x-ray revealed that her leg was broken. Come to find out, this facility had a history of not controlling residents with behavioral problems and dementia. They were cited, fined, and turned over to the Attorney General's office for action. The action is still pending in court, years later, and this facility is still operating. Why? Well, the owners of the facility keep changing...from one LLC to another.

The Regional offices are overloaded with complaints and requests for surveys and investigations. They simply can't handle the load. The state of Texas, even if they didn't slash the agency's budget, still can't address the problem adequately. They rely on federal assistance.