American Health care reform protests

[ali777]

ali, apropos your comments on the UK's welfare system/willingness of one section of society to eschew hard work whenever possible: I'm in complete agreement. This is what happens when for 40 years you have your nation's social agenda set by lunatic left-wingers, and never properly opposed by the centre-right.

It's a double edged sword... I'm all for the social services and protecting the people through benefits but I do acknowledge that it also creates laziness. Social services are good when they provide help for the genuinely needy. Sh*t happens, companies close, we lose jobs, etc. Having that safety net to fall onto is a no brainer.

I think that's where the Americans struggle as well. They think having an universal health system would punish the hard working people and reward the lazy people. They need to find that balance of supporting the needy without punishing the hard working people.

 

[Slartibartfast]

As much business as the most highly-respected experts, you just don't put as much store in their opinions.

You can go ahead and put as much store as you want in their opinions. Personally, I won't be doing that at all.

It was a half-jokey comment. Of course I'm not going to pay heed to the plumber's ramblings on what effect e.g. solar variation has on climate, but I'd listen and nod politely. I'm currently picturing you yelling at this poor bastard: "... and what damn business do YOU have expressing an opinion about climate change?"

But if the experts can't completely agree, and on occasion data is selectively used to further one side's case, how on earth did you come to pick a side?

Like I said before, I go along with what the consensus of opinion is -- or at least, what it appears to be. If that apparent consensus changes sometime in the future, so will my view.

If this consensus took a balanced view of all data available, and if the deliberately terrifying predictions they make weren't built on provably flawed computer modelling, then I'd also be happy to go along with it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's a double edged sword... I'm all for the social services and protecting the people through benefits but I do acknowledge that it also creates laziness. Social services are good when they provide help for the genuinely needy. Sh*t happens, companies close, we lose jobs, etc. Having that safety net to fall onto is a no brainer..

As you alluded to previously, it's this ability to live one's entire life on benefits (& more comfortably than if on a minimum wage job) that is most perverse/socially damaging. Don't have a job? Still want five children? No problem, the State will pay....

Question is, do you use the carrot or the stick? Lure people back into the workforce by upping minimum wage and/or using the tax system to make it financially attractive; or toughen things on the benefits side. Until the economy picks up I doubt any approach could make much of a difference....

 

[Old Baldy]

I continue to be amazed by what strong opinions so many lay people have about global warming. To me, it seems so obvious that it's a profoundly technical issue requiring the processing of vast amounts of measured data, along with some really sophisticated computer modeling.

Measured data isn't all in agreement and sophisticated doesn't guarantee accurate.

Oh yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. Which only reinforces the point I made above: if even the scientific experts can't completely agree on the issue of global warming, what business do cab drivers, grocery store workers, and plumbers have, in expressing their completely uninformed and worthless opinions?

You interestingly left out hollyweird actors/actresses.....hmmm?

 

[Old Baldy]

Aussie, we'll probably get some form of reformed healthcare. What form it takes will (IMHO) not include a public option but it will probably include more availability and more competition between insurance plans across State lines.

I don't see this as a one time solution. It will take time.

Personnally, I'm sure you aren't surprised to know that I abhor the public option ideology. To me it smacks of communism and the welfare mentality. Which, as a right winger, I abhor.

As a layman, it has always surprised me at how expensive medical care is. I don't see that changing in the future but it sure is expensive. Always has been and always will be.

I know we have to fairly pay for the expertise and costs of doctors and nurses to get their training, for research and development, for the cost of "machinery', etc., but MAN is it expensive!

 

[somone uk]

It's a double edged sword... I'm all for the social services and protecting the people through benefits but I do acknowledge that it also creates laziness. Social services are good when they provide help for the genuinely needy. Sh*t happens, companies close, we lose jobs, etc. Having that safety net to fall onto is a no brainer.

I think that's where the Americans struggle as well. They think having an universal health system would punish the hard working people and reward the lazy people. They need to find that balance of supporting the needy without punishing the hard working people.

i wouldn't accuse benefits of making people "lazy", i know people on the dole and they say they find it extremely demoralising, i could confidently say the vast majority of people on benefits WANT a job. but the problem is the vast majority of people who are on benefits for a long time are stuck in a vicious cycle, most jobs today are given to people who already have jobs and it creates this issue where you need a job to get a job
IMHO more should be done to make these people employable
i think less should be spent on university education and more on hands on apprenticeships etc

and of course the American universal healthcare system will punish those HARD WORKING shareholders who make money by owning pieces of paper and the LAZY manual labourers on low incomes are going to get a large pot of gold :woot:

 

[HughJass]

In its most basic sense I mean that people who choose England as a permanent base actually giving a crap about the country, its heritage, traditions, etc. and having some desire to interact with English society, rather than seeing it as simply a convenient place in which to improve their financial well-being.

but don't you agree that as long as people aren't committing crime, it's their right to treat it as a place to simply improve their financial well being? isn't that within the guidelines of a free society? I can't imagine that the top 1% of British born money earners could care about anything much else than how much cash they can generate, same as top 1% in any country...

I guess this all depends on what you consider 'having some desire to interact with English society' to mean...what exactly are we talking here?


Just trying to understand where you are coming from Slarti, maybe I'm not understanding you but you're arguments a little vague to me so far :dunno:

 

[HughJass]

yo Baldy!

Personnally, I'm sure you aren't surprised to know that I abhor the public option ideology. To me it smacks of communism and the welfare mentality. Which, as a right winger, I abhor.

don't you think the public option might be a good setup for those taxpayers who don't cheat them system though?

when I say 'a good setup' i mean more cost effective than their current health care provider options

you might even get converted Baldy, IMO there are very few on the right wing here who would want to completely destroy our public system

 

[s.a.f]

It's a double edged sword... I'm all for the social services and protecting the people through benefits but I do acknowledge that it also creates laziness. Social services are good when they provide help for the genuinely needy. Sh*t happens, companies close, we lose jobs, etc. Having that safety net to fall onto is a no brainer.

I think that's where the Americans struggle as well. They think having an universal health system would punish the hard working people and reward the lazy people. They need to find that balance of supporting the needy without punishing the hard working people.

i wouldn't accuse benefits of making people "lazy", i know people on the dole and they say they find it extremely demoralising, i could confidently say the vast majority of people on benefits WANT a job.

No they only want a job that would be a significant financial improvement on their benefits ie a person living comfortably off the state would only be willing to work if it meant he was elevated to a higher social status.
Someone mentioned before if you have a family in Britain its not worth working any job that pays less than £20,000.
Anyone who is unemployed could join a employment agency and have a work placement the very next day.

This is Tony Blairs fault Labour attempted to appease the underclass by throwing money at them and the whole idea has backfired big time creating a massive drain on the economy.

 

[Old Baldy]

yo Baldy!

Personnally, I'm sure you aren't surprised to know that I abhor the public option ideology. To me it smacks of communism and the welfare mentality. Which, as a right winger, I abhor.

don't you think the public option might be a good setup for those taxpayers who don't cheat the system though?

when I say 'a good setup' i mean more cost effective than their current health care provider options

you might even get converted Baldy, IMO there are very few on the right wing here who would want to completely destroy our public system

Yes, it would be great but the Congressional Budget Office has said the current proposal from Congress and the White House would substantially increase costs.

But, yes I think it would be great if it didn't cost so darn much money.

 

[somone uk]

[quote="somone uk":1e6t0pe0]

It's a double edged sword... I'm all for the social services and protecting the people through benefits but I do acknowledge that it also creates laziness. Social services are good when they provide help for the genuinely needy. Sh*t happens, companies close, we lose jobs, etc. Having that safety net to fall onto is a no brainer.

I think that's where the Americans struggle as well. They think having an universal health system would punish the hard working people and reward the lazy people. They need to find that balance of supporting the needy without punishing the hard working people.

i wouldn't accuse benefits of making people "lazy", i know people on the dole and they say they find it extremely demoralising, i could confidently say the vast majority of people on benefits WANT a job.

No they only want a job that would be a significant financial improvement on their benefits ie a person living comfortably off the state would only be willing to work if it meant he was elevated to a higher social status.
Someone mentioned before if you have a family in Britain its not worth working any job that pays less than £20,000.
Anyone who is unemployed could join a employment agency and have a work placement the very next day.[/quote:1e6t0pe0]
i somehow don't believe that, i mean can someone actually give a list of benefits that 1 person can have that would add to that amount?
the dole is only £50 a week that adds up to £2,500 a year not £20,000, i am pretty sure some people spend more than that on cigarettes

 

[ali777]

i somehow don't believe that, i mean can someone actually give a list of benefits that 1 person can have that would add to that amount?
the dole is only £50 a week that adds up to £2,500 a year not £20,000, i am pretty sure some people spend more than that on cigarettes

I don't know the exact numbers but I think the dole is more like £65 these days and more than £100 for couples? I'm not sure if that's £100 for the couple combined or each of the partners.

On top of that you have to add the housing benefits, council tax, etc.

Think about it in reverse. Let's say you are on 12k, you'd get about 9-10k after tax. Depending on where you live £200-500 a month for rent, 1k for council tax, etc. You'd be lucky to have 3-4k for personal expenses, which is the same as the benefits.

If you are in a couple, then it's a different story. £20k is a realistic number.

As I said in one of my previous posts, my housemate and I tried to calculate the exact number out of curiosity and we think the cut-off point is at around 12-13k.

 

[s.a.f]

i somehow don't believe that, i mean can someone actually give a list of benefits that 1 person can have that would add to that amount?
the dole is only £50 a week that adds up to £2,500 a year not £20,000, i am pretty sure some people spend more than that on cigarettes

I'm not talking about jobseekers allowance here, basicly if you have kids there is a huge list of benefits available they dont just give out money but they will house you and basicly pay for your living expenses.

Ok here's some examples I've seen, my sister worked for years and saved up to get a deposit and mortgage to buy her first home a newly built 2 bed semi. The woman next door was a single mother of 2 she had never had a job but her identical house was being paid for by the council, my sister worked everyday while this woman stayed at home watching tv all her lifestyle was easily as good (if not better) than my sisters she had a big tv, PC ect.

This is normal my cousin also recently purchased a new build home and tells me that his side of the street is privatley owned whilst the other is council houses. Everyday his side of the street gets up and goes to work whilst across the street all the curtains are still drawn and at night 1 side goes to bed early whilst the other side have their lights on until about 3am. But these people can somehow afford to smoke, drink and own cars and even have satelite tv.

A guy who used to work with me had 3 kids he was already living in a council house (which was regularly refurbished courtesy of the tax paper). He split up with his girlfreind and social services decided that he was the better carer and let him have the kids.
They give him a £850 a month 3 bed house and pay all the bills and just to really put the icing on the cake they even pay his gym membership! We see him all the time because he's out every friday and saturday night and just loves to tell us that how easy he has it.

The real scam however is working tax credit which basicly tops up the wages of part time workers to that of full time ones.

This government keep thinking that they can heal societies problems by doleing out more and more money to the lower levels of society but as comedian Jimmy Carr summed it up when he commented on the Governments plan to give a £300 lump sum to all lower income families - "Remember £300 can make the difference between a child living in poverty. Or a child living in poverty - with a playstation".

 

[somone uk]

The real scam however is working tax credit which basicly tops up the wages of part time workers to that of full time ones.
.

the porpose is to motivate people on benifits to WORK and FYI you can't get working tax credits unless you work about 20 hours a week

during the credit crunch though gordan brown has been jumping through hoops to help the rich and did close to f*** all to help the poor full time workers, thus houses got repossessed and jobs were lost

i do agree we need to make it beneficial to have a job and thus bring more people into work but saying that i don't know how many people don't work and are getting non JSA benefits, the thing is if we don't have these benefits we would have slums and tons of people living in what is effectively cardboard boxes, it would be like having england engulfed by bradford :shock: and as a west yorkshireman i would cry if the rest of britain was like that :shakehead:

 

[ali777]

i don't know how many people don't work and are getting non JSA benefits

The benefits bill right now is at about £75 billion a year. You could run a mid sized country with that money...

 

[s.a.f]

the porpose is to motivate people on benifits to WORK and FYI you can't get working tax credits unless you work about 20 hours a week

I think its more like 14hrs but still its money for nothing I would'nt mind only working a couple of days and still bringing home a full weeks wage. No half measures these people should be doing a full weeks work.

i do agree we need to make it beneficial to have a job and thus bring more people into work but saying that i don't know how many people don't work and are getting non JSA benefits, the thing is if we don't have these benefits we would have slums and tons of people living in what is effectively cardboard boxes.

Thats the situation that Labour have created, there are entire communities where living on the state is a way of life, look at that Karen Matthews with her tribe of kids, in her street that was a normal situation.

If it was'nt for the fact that these people had grown up with the belief that being a state parasite is a acceptable option, we would'nt be in this situation.
If it takes a few years of them having to suffer hardships (or maybe this would actually make them go out and get a job) IMO thats an acceptable price to pay to put a stop to this once and for all.

 

[oni]

It is 16 hours..................................................and all them new build "council" places are Housing association! That is another scam for another day........................................

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hi aussie, sorry for the delayed response. Busy, busy....

but don't you agree that as long as people aren't committing crime, it's their right to treat it as a place to simply improve their financial well being?

I'm more interested in the public's right to immigration of a type which is to their economic benefit and on a scale that doesn't create/reinforce divisions along ethnic/cultural lines. Labour's virtual open-door policy and the resultant sizeable flow of cheap labour into what, barring tiny Malta, is already Europe's most densely populated country, has failed on both counts and is broadly unpopular. You'd have to be a raving lunatic to believe that continuing along this same path will do anything but increase social tensions.

I can't imagine that the top 1% of British born money earners could care about anything much else than how much cash they can generate...

I don't know what the cut-off point would be for this top 1%, but I do know some fairly big earners and they aren't all self obsessed, money-grubbing parasites. They are, however, on the 'other side' of the immigration situation: they're not the ones obliged to compete for jobs or housing, dependent on increasingly stretched public services, or seeing 'alien' cultures alter their local environ.

Indeed.

 

[The Gardener]

Despite the rhetoric, illegal immigration in the US is something that the government has INTENTIONALLY turned a blind eye to.

As a matter of policy, the US treasury and Federal Reserve have been increasingly devaluing the dollar over the past few decades to counteract perennial trade deficits that are mostly driven by our ever-worseining dependence on imported petroleum. Normally, inflating a currency causes inflation, so to "mask" the inflationary effect the government has all but looked the other way on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration provides cheap labor, dilutes the labor base of the nation, and thus prevents the "wage/price spiral" that would have normally occurred.

 

[Optimistic]

With the USA considering a public health care system it's important that they look at the European systems that exist and not just the UK's NHS. The NHS is the only one that's paid for soley through taxation and is free at the point of use.

France, Germany and Scandanavia have compulsory health insurance systems that are funded with direct taxation too and are more complex, yet more efficient than the NHS.

Indeed, there are discussions in the UK recommending that the NHS be reformed along the lines of the French or German system.

Hopefully, if this does goes through in the US, the rest of the world can say welcome to civilisation America !