|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 14, 2012 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But isn't a good health insurance to expensive for poor people? I've read that millions of people in the US don't have one.
Good health insurance is too expensive period, but the problems with health insurance in the US can't be summed up by a trite argument like "see, capitalism is bad", and simply making all healthcare "free" isn't going to solve the problem. It'll just create new ones. I've talked about my views on healthcare here before, so I won't belabor the point, but a great deal of the problem derives from the way people view health insurance, and that's a problem you can't regulate yourself out of. What you can, as a government, do is tort reform. Limitations on what people can sue over would drive all of healthcare costs down, including malpractice insurance, but since most congressmen are lawyers, what do you think the chance of that ever happening are?
Thing is, xerox, that I'll be the first to agree that the healthcare and education systems in the US have a lot of problems - and maybe Europe does do some things better. [Although I've seen no convincing arguments that this is the case - since most arguments in internet fora boil down to ridiculous (capitalism bad, socialism good) statements that are as wrong as they are irrelevant.] But the issues with the US healthcare and education systems have no bearing on whether the US economic model is good or not. If anything, I'd argue that the recent trend toward more government oversight (meddling) in these systems is what is causing a lot of the problems I've pointed out - and that's a trend TOWARD Europe and not away from it.
As a final remark on the topic, I'll say that the whole argument may be based on the fallacious assumption that all people are identical, a kind of fallacy of false choice. Just because a more socialistic model may work in Europe doesn't mean it may also work in the US. We're very different cultures, after all. What works for the goose may not work for the gander, and there may not be one "best system", as everyone seems to think there is.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2012 09:40 PM |
|
|
HealthCARE is not healthINSURANCE.
Healthinsurance is an insurance like every other - generally there are a lot of DIFFERENT ones that basically follow the line, the higher the premium the more the insurance pays.
Now the POLITIC thing/question here is basically the same as with MINIMUM WAGE: should there be a MINIMUM Health Insurance (for an affordable premium) that everyone MUST have (premium paid by state in welfare cases), because everyone SHOULD have that much "security" in terms of their own health. Note that this is especially interesting for children (who can't do that for themselves).
I seriously don't think that the point is debatable: as a human society we are obliged to help each other - to save each other's life, if possible; and someone has to PAY for it.
What IS debatable, is of course the way this is done. Personally I think it makes a lot more sense for the state to provide BASIC (BASIC!) health care for everyone for free, instead of forcing people to have a minimum insurance - it's just insurance agencies making money with that. Comparable with schooling. State provides a certain level of health care with certain services - the rest being up to everyone and their purse.
So basically the British system.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2012 10:25 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:25, 14 May 2012.
|
Diablo, if you want to derail discussion, you can do it at another forum.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2012 10:36 PM |
|
|
Gunfred:
You'd be surprised. A lot of people won't take low-paying jobs when a higher-paying job is unavailable, and rather stay unemployed.
Zenofex:
Quote:
Issue is X gets 1 while Y gets 1+n of resources which are globally and locally limited and they both need. Instabilities - clashes of interests, revolts, wars, etc. Something unclear again?
Yes, everything you said is unclear. You didn't explain anything.
Quote:
Like I said, your point is "people think and behave incorrectly according to the theory so people need to change their thinking and behaviour and all will fit in."
No, it isn't, my point is that government policies encourage behavior that would otherwise be much more costly. If you're single, don't have a job (or have a low-paying job), and don't have much of a support network, having kids is a bad idea, but with the welfare state, it's not as bad as it would be otherwise.
Bak:
I don't blame poor people for taking welfare. I'd do it if I were in their place. It would make little sense to not make use of a program that was available to me. I do, however, believe that it would be better if it was severely reduced, as it decreases the incentive to work. It also encourages bad social norms.
JJ:
Living in society does not require giving up individual rights - only the recognition of other people's rights. "Right" does not mean the ability to do whatever you want. Rights don't even exist outside of society, so talking about giving up rights to be in society is incoherent.
Also, there is another solution to the problem of wanting to take what the rich have - and that's not being envious. Come on, do you really need a mansion, an expensive car, several big-screen TVs, etc? What would that add to your life? What matters is being happy, and if you're not happy now, how will getting a Lamborghini change that? I'm not rich, but I don't envy the rich, simply because I don't want to do what some of them do (I don't want to be a brain surgeon or an investment banker and work 100 hours a week), and I don't want much of what they have. As long as you can afford food, health care, and other basic things, the rest of your well-being is entirely dependent on how you are (and other things you can't buy), not what you own. You don't need a high salary to be happy, and if you're happy, there's no reason to be envious of those who have more stuff.
And I fundamentally disagree with the premise that in society, we have to help each other. Most people are strangers to each other, and people are not obligated to help strangers. People are not allowed to aggress against each other, but nor are they obligated to do anything for them. Sure, it may be praiseworthy to help - I think it is - but that's not the same as having the duty to help.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2012 10:47 PM |
|
|
I'm pretty sure severely reducing wellfare would have an impact on increased crime rates as more poor people would be forced to turn to crimes.
You asume that there are jobs for everybody all the time and that is an extremly idealistic thought.
However I think its reasonable that wellfare is cut if the person depending on it isn't even bothering to search for a job or studies.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:40 PM |
|
|
I don't want to backseat moderate or anything, but I thought this topic was about dealing with immigration, and the issues associated with it.
We're busy talking about Economics and Healthcare now, which are like the grapefruit and the strawberry to this topic's apple.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 12:05 AM |
|
|
Xerox:
Most criminals in the US don't steal with the goal of maximizing the value of their loot in mind. Stealing expensive stuff and selling it is not what they generally do. They steal to get stuff they can pawn off to finance their drug habit.
And if you're skilled and are willing to work for a relatively low wage, you'll probably be hired.
Lexxan:
Unfortunately, the current discussion is relevant. Immigration has both positive and negative effects. Abolishing the welfare state would cut down on many of the negative effects, but there are some here who are against that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 12:12 AM |
|
|
Some are against abolishing welfare? More like the vast majority.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 01:18 AM |
|
|
|
First step would be to completely abolish welfare for those not having the nationality. They will hurry to learn the language, get a job then obtain on this base the nationality (for example, french one can be get after 5 years of working in). In the mean time, propose them self-paid insurance, as in the states. Good bye random immigration.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 01:23 AM |
|
|
We also need to abolish the policy that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen regardless of how your parents got here. There's no sense in that at all.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 01:24 AM |
|
|
|
With the Somalian 6.34 fertility, compared to 1.3 European one, it makes sense...for them.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 01:44 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 01:58, 15 May 2012.
|
Removing welfare is a gambit whose political and social consequences might well outshine the economic benefits, and I can't think of an administration that would risk its hide doing that. Not even in America. A series of intelligent reforms would do the trick in a far gentler and safer manner. What Salamandre just proposed seems like a viable start to me personally, for instance, though we didn't go into details and there's a lot of room for failure in them.
The problem is that we're living in a world where the majority of people believes in a set of human rights which often conflict themselves - anyone seeking public support for any welfare reforms he thinks of is therefore shoved into an erotic sandwich between those who prefer the protection of every man's right to not live in a trashcan, and those who prefer the protection of every man's entitlement to his earnings. No matter how you turn yourself, you can't give in to one side without sticking it to the other, which is why pretty much no one's touching the subject with a five foot pole. Barring Obama, who can afford screwing around with healthcare and whatnot, considering the state of his current political opposition.
Thus the arse-for-brains current system continues indefinitely, with both sides agreeing only on the fact that it's horrendous, and no one wanting to risk the other side dragging it further toward their chosen human right. This will last until someone comes up with a completely neutral way of making it better so that no one really minds except of course the obligatory Tea Party and whatever its leftist equivalents are over there.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 02:00 AM |
|
|
An unspoken and severe complication to either abolishing or vastly reducing the welfare system that isn't being mentioned is: minors.
A disproportionate number of people on welfare are single parents. You take away the welfare check from them and you take away the welfare check from the kid. Solution? Well, you can propose calling her/him an inadequate parent and snatch the kid away, but there's a problem: the kid loves the parent and is deeply psychologically attached to them. You take an 8 year-old away from its mother and put it in a foster home and whether it's a good foster home or a bad foster home, it's proven to be followed with a host of problems with the kid; arguably worse than if the kid simply stayed with their underachieving parent. You can also make an argument that taking the kid away is itself an incentive for the parent to get their **** together so they can be re-evaluated by the court and get kid their kid back, but there are very strong ethical concerns with that, because in that scenario you're essentially using the child's well-being as a bargaining chip. Sometimes it would work and sometimes it wouldn't, and either way the child is likely going to come out damaged from the entire event of being tossed around and having no secure, clearly-defined guardian. This is why decisions to take children away from parents are so precarious in nature and courts are very hesitant to do it. Even if they're a pretty lousy parent, putting the child in a much better environment - and yet without their parent - is still extremely hard on them.
For the people that believe the responsibility of supporting yourself rests squarely on your shoulders, I doubt any of them would extend that same standard to minors. So even if you were to take a big leap and presume that the world would be better off if the people on welfare were left out to dry, you're still faced with putting together a presentable solution to minors (preferably without resorting to fascist measures. Don't get me wrong: I love a good old-fashioned genocide as much as the next guy, but it tends to upset people).
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 02:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Good health insurance is too expensive period, but the problems with health insurance in the US can't be summed up by a trite argument like "see, capitalism is bad", and simply making all healthcare "free" isn't going to solve the problem.
Why not create classes then? Making healthcare free for everybody and special "Health care",for those who have money, available.
Simply leaving people die from tuberculosis is not fine.
Quote:
What you can, as a government, do is tort reform. Limitations on what people can sue over would drive all of healthcare costs down, including malpractice insurance, but since most congressmen are lawyers, what do you think the chance of that ever happening are?
Nothing?
Quote:
As a final remark on the topic, I'll say that the whole argument may be based on the fallacious assumption that all people are identical
Hmm,in nearly every matter we are the same. Name me one human being who does want to be homeless,have no income, pay extra taxes or be in debt?
Of course there are differences in social norms, mind sets and so on.
While people in the US might think its normal if you pay 10000$ for your university,that is not the same in europe because its not a norm.
Quote:
Just because a more socialistic model may work in Europe doesn't mean it may also work in the US. We're very different cultures, after all.
Sure. You will have to learn to adapt a better mindset then.Its kinda like post communist Poland,DDR and so on.
Quote:
What works for the goose may not work for the gander, and there may not be one "best system", as everyone seems to think there is.
Certainly, everybody should know that there is no perfect system but certainly a perfect problem, that of money.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 02:40 PM |
|
|
I think there's a lot of "more money for my group" when considering immigration. The total amount of money (ressources) is of course limited and the more people who don't give a net total in growth means in average less money for those who actually contributes no matter how little.
It's still a no-go to divide upon such easy defined groups simply because the average contribution tells you next to nothing about the individual. At least not when only looking at a persons origin or the origin of his family.
In any case, I don't really think this is an issue about money. Money is just the division of ability to apply ressources. If the amount of money doubles, the amount of ressources won't double, as such everything would merely be twice as expensive, in stead of everyone being twice as rich. If we all thrive to better the world for all of us through Ingenuity and invention, in other words, through united investments in research and safety, the amount of ressources would go up like it has been doing the latest couple of years. It's not the amount of money any given person have which have any value, it's the total amount of ressources said society can give.
The more people who live in any given society, who gets educated by said society, will naturally be able to help with researching and thereby accelerating the advancement of our freedom and safety.
Which is also why educations should be free (or to say it more generally, knowledge should be freely distributed) in the sense that all of us pays so everyone can get the best possible education, thereby help improving society which means more ressources, which means better education, etc.
A counter argument is typically that these people will merely move away to other countries. Countries with a lower tax rate or better research facility. What I think is left out of this argument is that all nations on our entire planet is interacting. If Hungary manages to get some technological breakthrough which helps the hungarian population, then this advantage will spread to the countries around and eventually spread even to the poorest of countries in the world.
Further more, in countries of high taxes, it merely means the total sum of money is less and the money which is used combined is higher. Since it's the amount of ressources which defines the value of each coin, and this amount is unchanged, it merely means that in these countries, there's likely to be a higher possibility for high safety and freedom.
It does not mean this model is ideal, what would be ideal is if money were not required at all, as in the ressources were infinite in the sense that everyone would always have whatever they wanted. Even then, high tax countries sadly seem to be more affected by bureaucracy in the very negative sense.
So all in all, I think it'd be far for the best to welcome people no matter their origin or past history. Then let people decide by themselves if they want to contribute or not and if they want to be part of the society in other ways than just live in the country for however long they wish. Why? Because we're all humans, and it's human nature to have interests.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 09:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are right, I'm referring mostly to Greece, although I don't think it's fair to just "skip it" because it's convenient to do so.
I'm not suggesting to skip it because it's inconvenient but because Greece's case is so extreme that I wouldn't even consider it related to the whole welfare discussion. 2 extra salaries per year and such when your country is sucking foreign funds for many years are no welfare, more like a deliberate spoiling of the population for political purposes.
Quote:
However, also consider Southern Italy - govt half-baked government welfare and infrastructure development programs devestated the area in the 1950s and it still hasn't recovered
Southern Italy is less developed than Northern Italy since before WW2, that's a regional inequality problem, not related to the welfare. Every country has similar issues - more developer vs. less developed regions, welfare or no welfare.
As for Spain - I haven't checked their case in details, will need to do some research first.
Quote:
Yes, everything you said is unclear. You didn't explain anything.
That's a pity, because I think I was pretty clear.
Quote:
If you're single, don't have a job (or have a low-paying job), and don't have much of a support network, having kids is a bad idea, but with the welfare state, it's not as bad as it would be otherwise.
Yes, there is a problem with the state providing aid for new children no matter whether their parent(s) actually work or are even intending to work. The system has flaws - imagine that! - but they are not beyond repair. You haven't proven anything though, let alone that the people will stop breeding irresponsibly if there was no welfare. Check Africa for a few hundred million examples.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 10:27 PM |
|
|
Bak:
If you tried to enact what Salamandre suggested, you would be met with cries of "Racism!" It's an improvement over the status quo, but many people would see it as discriminatory against immigrants. If an immigrant is starving, how is that any better than a native-born citizen starving?
blizzardboy:
On the other hand, if you reduce the cost of having children (as current policies do), people will have more of them. If having a kid would break the bank, fewer people would have kids. And with the current system, there's no way to tell how much welfare money is going to the kids and how much the parents are spending on themselves.
The problem suggests a (temporary) controversial solution: pay people to get sterilized. For example, $1000. Then they won't have kids. Poor people tend to have shorter time horizons, so they're likely to have it done before they have kids. This will eventually reduce the number of children dependent on welfare, making its abolition more palatable.
Zenofex:
Your tone has become uncomfortably hostile and I don't think I'll continue this discussion with you for much longer if it doesn't change.Quote:
You haven't proven anything though, let alone that the people will stop breeding irresponsibly if there was no welfare. Check Africa for a few hundred million examples.
Africa (and other poverty-stricken areas) are different because kids eventually pay off there. In Africa, you incur a cost when you have a kid, but when they reach a certain age, they can do useful things and pay for themselves. Not so for poor people in modern countries - what useful things can a 12-year-old do, especially for someone who's in the ghetto?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem suggests a (temporary) controversial solution: pay people to get sterilized. For example, $1000. Then they won't have kids.
Even better: pay them to commit suicide. That way they can help their relatives survive... oh, wait, that's what the terrorists already doing.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 10:46 PM |
|
|
But wouldn't encouraging people to have less children have catastrophic long-term consequences?
In most of the modern countries there is a growing demographic problem where the amount of old people are increasing and the amount of newborns are decreasing. This means that we'll have to:
A). Encourage people to have more children.
B). Make people retire a lot later.
C). Increase immigration, probably from undeveloped countries where fertility is high. But this likely creates segregation and social and economical problems.
D). A combination of some or all of these.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 15, 2012 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If an immigrant is starving, how is that any better than a native-born citizen starving?
Promising free welfare for only having your feet on foreign soil is an open door to everyone, no matter he can or can not speak the language, he is or not educated, he can do or not a job. In theory it would be a marvelous thing, in practice, countries opposed to immigration already reached and even went beyond their capacity. From a strictly patriotic point of view, I would say it is better that a non native one is starving instead of a native.
Just compare it with a family structure and mechanism. What is better for a family member: having his family starving or someone he does not know or care about? Because a choice has to be made, unfortunately.
More and more actions in our lives require responsibility and have consequences. Moving from your native country to foreign lands is on the top of them. Do it if you can afford and fight for your survival, nobody is willing to respect parasites.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
