Published on October 6, 2007 By Artysim In Politics
During my time at JU I've seen repeated postings arguing against welfare, universal health care, and the role of the government in society proper. Obviously this is a real sticking point with many of the fine users here, and to be honest I've learned quite a bit from reading posts that come from the other side of the fence. To be fair, I do in fact agree with some of the main arguments against welfare. For example, it can definitely encourage complacency and some people will try to abuse the system rather than use it for its' intended purpose. Every system, whether public or private, will have its' flaws. But does that mean it should be abolished entirely? I do believe that welfare, social security (retirement) and government mandated healthcare are absolutely essential for any modern democratic nation to thrive. Why? There are many reasons. Please bear with me as I launch into another misguided rant.

First off, all developed countries in the modern world have these things in place, and the U.S sticks out like a sore thumb among them as one of the only nations that doesn't have universal healthcare. I'm sorry Americans, but I've visited your fine country quite frequently and Medicaid is a sorry, underfunded, over-stretched piss poor example of anything that could ever closely resemble universal care. Why do all these other countries have socialized medicine, welfare, etc? The answer has nothing to do with "left vs right" or democrat vs republican, liberal vs conservative or any such nonsense. There was no vast left wing conspiracy that gripped all these other countries and tricked the poor fools into adopting socialist policies. The answer is quite simple; they learned that we're all in this together. Other nations have learned that if they provide a social safety net that largely guarantees the average citizen a decent quality of life, people actually are happier and more willing to work. Yes, some people will always try to find ways to get on welfare and stay on welfare indefinitely, and unless they have some kind of ailment or disability that prevents them from working, those people are indeed a leech on the system and need to be dealt with. But that's a matter of finding and correcting an abuse of the system, not a problem with the fundamentals behind it.

All of the other developed nations at one point in time had no social safety net that people could turn to when they fell on hard times, and these were not nice places to live (unless you had money, in which case, who cares right?) Perhaps you are familiar with Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" and "Oliver Twist"? While these are famous stories that have been hollywood-ized several times over, they were actually written as social commentary about life in 19th century industrial-revolution England. Child labour. No laws governing how employers could and couldn't treat their employees. Sixteen hour workdays with no guaranteed minimum wage? Now that's progress baby!! If you got sick from all the smog and ash that covered London then (and many people did die from respiratory ailments because of it) you were useless to your employer, and literally discarded onto the streets. Hope you get better on your own, because you sure as hell can't afford a real doctor! There were charities and hospices around at the time that were dependent on donations to operate, but they didn't have nearly the amount of funding and resources necessary to provide a true hand to all the needy (hey, that sounds like a good point for the government to step in!) The United States of today isn't 19th century England, so how can you compare the two? I'm using it as an example of how things were for other nations before, and still could be if the U.S continues on its' path of "privatize everything, and remove all government regulations!!"

Social safety nets are just like the army. When times are good and a nation is at peace, people start asking why all that money needs to be spent on those big ol' ships and tanks and planes. It's been proven time and again, no one likes a soldier until the enemy is on your doorstep, and then everyone loves a soldier and cries "hallelujah, kill the somna bitch!" The same goes for welfare. When you're doing good, have a decent job and paying the bills it can be hard to rationalize giving a big chunk of your pay to the government so that they can take care of "lazy poor people who don't wanna work like me!". What happens if you get sick and need care under a privatized system? The way that I see it, unless you're very well off you're still screwed even if you have health insurance. Unless you're Bill Gates and can pay the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket, you use your health insurance policy. Assuming that someone from this private health insurance company, who is NOT a doctor, decides that your policy covers the care recommended by a real doctor, they pay for your care, and yay for you, you get to live another day. And to penalize you for living, your insurance company has decided that since you actually have now used medical services your risk (liability) has gone up and so now you have to pay a higher premium. Get sick again..... oooh, now your health insurance company might decline paying for your care. Could be that your need to live is starting to affect their profit margin, and we can't have that now!

So why haven't Americans seen the light as to the benefits of socialized care for all citizens? In my humble opinion there's a disturbing trend that I've noticed when I visit my American brothers and sisters- I call it the "I've got mine" mentality, and it bears no political affiliation- it's present in both liberal and conservatives (in my humble opinion). It's the attitude that everyone is on their own, the only rule of the game is to look out for #1, and if someone gets in the way of your goal or is going after the same thing you are, don't work together, stomp the fuck out of the guy and take the prize for yourself! Now please do not misunderstand me- this is not a rant against Americans, nor am I trying to attack your way of life. I am trying to understand it. What I see regularly is good hardworking people turned against each other by a system that encourages competition over cooperation and operates under a sink or swim mentality. If you make it that's great, if you don't too bad, hope you enjoy the pine box coffin and better luck next time, chump! In my opinion, running a country under the ideal that everyone is a rugged individual who has to fend for themself is not workable in the present day. Maybe back in the days of the wild west, when you had pioneers who were literally on their own did you see that, but that time is no more. Many nations in the world have moved on to universal programs that look after all citizens, that acknowledge that everyone is truly all in this together. When will this happen for the U.S? Or will it ever happen?

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 06, 2007

good to see you posting here.

While I agree that some kind of health care for everyone should be available, I disagree that the government is the one to operate it, the American government is like the worlds largest sponge the more water {money} you make available to it the more it soaks up. This should be done by big business that has a track record of handling things right because the American government sure does not.

I have argued against life time welfare unto the third generation of a family getting it. Welfare should be a hand up till you get on your feet limited in amount of years it can be drawn on.

on Oct 06, 2007

First off, all developed countries in the modern world have these things in place, and the U.S sticks out like a sore thumb among them as one of the only nations that doesn't have universal healthcare. I'm sorry Americans, but I've visited your fine country quite frequently and Medicaid is a sorry, underfunded, over-stretched piss poor example of anything that could ever closely resemble universal care. Why do all these other countries have socialized medicine, welfare, etc?

Who, specifically, are these "developed" countries you speak of?

Secondly, the quality of health care in the United States is extremely good -- if you have health insurance. 

If I need my gall bladder removed, I can get it done within a couple of days in the United States and it costs me virtually nothing out of pocket. The same is not true in Canada, UK, France, or Germany.

In the United States, I can make a doctor's appointment with the doctor of my choice and go in the next day. So if I have a sore throat or some other piddly thing I can get in right away.  The same cannot be said in Canada, UK, France, or Germany where (according to people there) getting an appointment that week is very problematic, especially during certain times of the year.

In the United States, hot weather means our air conditioner bills goes up.  In France, it means thousands of people in the government run hospitals die.  I don't think I've ever heard of a case of someone dying in a US hospital to heat stroke due to external weather conditions.

95% of Americans either have good health insurance or can afford good health insurance.  That leaves 5% (which admittedly is about 15 million people) who are citizens of our country who can't afford good health insurance. 

I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of health care that 95% have in order for the bottom 5% to have "Free" access.

So why haven't Americans seen the light as to the benefits of socialized care for all citizens? In my humble opinion there's a disturbing trend that I've noticed when I visit my American brothers and sisters- I call it the "I've got mine" mentality, and it bears no political affiliation- it's present in both liberal and conservatives (in my humble opinion). It's the attitude that everyone is on their own, the only rule of the game is to look out for #1, and if someone gets in the way of your goal or is going after the same thing you are, don't work together, stomp the fuck out of the guy and take the prize for yourself! Now please do not misunderstand me- this is not a rant against Americans, nor am I trying to attack your way of life. I am trying to understand it. What I see regularly is good hardworking people turned against each other by a system that encourages competition over cooperation and operates under a sink or swim mentality.

Americans would call this self-reliance.  Yes, our culture values self reliance.  We frown on those who cannot take care of themselves. 

It's not a matter of selfishness, it's a matter of valuing our own independence. Americans, even on a per capita basis, give more to charity individually than any country in Western Europe or Canada.

Those who feel the government should take care of everything tend to give up their own individual responsibility -- even in the area of charitable giving. 

Americans believe people should be responsible for their own lives. But that has nothing to do with generosity. Feel free to name a country whose citizeny are more generous than the people of the United States.

on Oct 06, 2007
First off, all developed countries in the modern world have these things in place, and the U.S sticks out like a sore thumb among them as one of the only nations that doesn't have universal healthcare.



the US is carring all of these countries.
on Oct 06, 2007
it can definitely encourage complacency and some people will try to abuse the system rather than use it for its' intended purpose



welfares true intended purpose was to keep the status quo. if you got on you couldn't get off.
on Oct 06, 2007
First off, all developed countries in the modern world have these things in place,


it doesn't matter if 99% of everyone is doing something. if it is wrong it is wrong.
on Oct 06, 2007
wow your seco0nd article and a feature! good work!!
on Oct 06, 2007
there's a disturbing trend that I've noticed when I visit my American brothers and sisters- I call it the "I've got mine" mentality, and it bears no political affiliation- it's present in both liberal and conservatives (in my humble opinion).

Great article. And yes every system, even those managed by private businesses, has its flaws which need to be corrected. The points quoted above are the main reason we here in the States cannot get our system to cover all of us one way or another. If we dont like the European model, we should get one that we think is better provided it achieves the main objective which is: meaningful health care affordable by all. Those who are not covered now drain our resources one way or another. The fact that we dont see that drain directly in front of us doesnt mean it is not there.
on Oct 07, 2007
LW:

I've never liked that story. It may seem very clever-clever, but all it really illustrates is that the daughter has the common sense of your average cabbage.

What she really should have answered was that Mary would be a patently incompetent worker but an ornament to any party, so by giving her extra points the world would be disadvantaged by putting her to the wrong purpose.

Better to leave her with a 2.0 and let her get into entertainment, where her talents would be put to best use. That way clever daughter will be able to do the job she deserves and help pay for her idol whose artistic life she clearly admires.
on Oct 07, 2007
so by giving her extra points the world would be disadvantaged by putting her to the wrong purpose.


and yet we do it every year by allowing kids who haven't learned the subject to advance to the next grade or graduate.
on Oct 07, 2007
Better to leave her with a 2.0 and let her get into entertainment, where her talents would be put to best use.


so your advocating strip tease.
on Oct 07, 2007

I've never liked that story. It may seem very clever-clever, but all it really illustrates is that the daughter has the common sense of your average cabbage.

What she really should have answered was that Mary would be a patently incompetent worker but an ornament to any party, so by giving her extra points the world would be disadvantaged by putting her to the wrong purpose.

Better to leave her with a 2.0 and let her get into entertainment, where her talents would be put to best use. That way clever daughter will be able to do the job she deserves and help pay for her idol whose artistic life she clearly admires.

It's still a valid analogy.  Look at what ThinkAloud wrote above:

"we should get one that we think is better provided it achieves the main objective which is: meaningful health care affordable by all"

Note the subjective word "meaningful".  

Medical care is expensive.  And as a society, we have demonstrated time and time again that we make no distinction between life threatening and life inconveniencing. 

Should a bum on the street be given a free heart transplant because he needs it to live?  Should the life long drug addict be provided a home dialisis machine for his failing kidneys?

The people who argue that the current system is more wasteful than what they propose haven't been doing critical thinking.  Uninsured person going to the ER to take care of a heart attack is expensive.  Paying for same person to get a tripple bypass is more expensive.

Most people I know who want universal health insurance also know very little about economics. Insurance isn't magic. It simply is a means of distributing cost.  Giving insurance to free riders increases the cost of the non-free riders disproportionately.

I pay for my insurance indirectly as part of my compensation from my employer. I realize that I am paying for other people to get surgery that I may never need. But I also know that those other people are paying into the system as well.  It is, ironically, very close to the concept that liberals like - we are all in this together.

But what liberals now want is the next step - not "we're all in this together" but to basically saddle us with parasites in the most literal sense.  People who are not paying in but are free riding.

I don't want to pay for the tripple bypass of someone who isn't paying into the system. If a liberal feels differently, then they should look at starting a charity because that is what we're talking about.  Because when some liberal advocates that we should have the government do it, what they're really saying is that I should do it for them because, let's be honest, it's going to be paid for overwhelmingly by the top 10% of income earners.

 

on Oct 07, 2007
No, an entertainer doesn't need a college degree - but it's the best work experience outside the industry!
on Oct 07, 2007

Draginol,

Who, specifically, are these "developed" countries you speak of?
Secondly, the quality of health care in the United States is extremely good -- if you have health insurance.
If I need my gall bladder removed, I can get it done within a couple of days in the United States and it costs me virtually nothing out of pocket. The same is not true in Canada, UK, France, or Germany.

You kind of just answered your own question there. Canada, the UK France and Germany are all members of the G8, so that qualifies us as developed countries. And just to put things in perspective, the US is ranked # 37 in comparison to other nations healthcare systems (Canada is 33, Cuba is 39 I think) The argument that if you get sick in universal healthcare you will have to go on a long waiting list to get necessary treatment is mostly bunk. I'm not here to get into a pissing contest over who's healthcare system is better, but please do know that most of the stories you've probably heard about the horrors of socialized medicine were probably peddled to scare you. There's no long wait times, if you get sick, you make an appointment and go see a doctor just like you would in the U.S. Only there's no worries over the cost of it, as it's covered by your taxes.

Goto http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm and scroll down to see the per capita comparisons of healthcare costs, you'll see that the U.S spends much larger amounts per person. The sad truth is, a lot of the additional cost is going to give the health insurance companies their cut of the profit and is not actually going to help people get treatment or buy shiny new machines.

Thinkaloud, Moderateman, Little-whip, danielost, Cacto and Jythier-

Thanks for your replies and enlightening discussion- little-whips story about the young woman in college reminds me of the story of the ant and the grasshopper. You know the one where the ant is working all summer long to store up food while the grasshopper just fools around, and then come winter time the grasshopper is asking the ant for a handout?

I do indeed agree that equal opportunity and equal results are two very different things. Where I live if you're aboriginal the government will send you to the university or college of your choice free of charge. They'll cover your transportation, living expenses, tuition and textbook fees etc. Ideally, everyone that would ever be offered something like that would take advantage of the opportunity in a heartbeat. Sadly, I still see many of them trapped in the destructive lifestyle of alcoholism and homelessness. Even though it's their choice, I believe society should at least give them the opportunity to try and make something of their lives if they decide to. When I pass a homeless person on the street I don't throw money in their hat, because I know that we have social programs in our community (largely paid for by taxes) that will give them food and shelter. But in  order for them to get these handouts, they have to abide by the rules of the shelter and the "no drinking" rule is real doozy for them. But if they want to turn their lives around, there are mandated programs called "step-up" that will help them get on their feet and get their act together. And I'm proud that my taxes go to pay for that.

I guess what it all boils down to is we are our brother's keeper. I believe that as a member of a town/city/state/country it is everyone's responsibility to look after everyone else. Now no one has the time to go around and check on everyone else, so that's what the gov'mint is there for!

 

 

on Oct 07, 2007
...
on Oct 07, 2007

Secondly, the quality of health care in the United States is extremely good -- if you have health insurance.


Same is true in western Europe.


If I need my gall bladder removed, I can get it done within a couple of days in the United States and it costs me virtually nothing out of pocket. The same is not true in Canada, UK, France, or Germany.


That surprises me. I don't know about Canada or France, but in Germany I have never heard anything like that.


In the United States, I can make a doctor's appointment with the doctor of my choice and go in the next day.


Same in Germany and Ireland according to my experiences. When I lived in Germany I had the state-sponsored health insurance, now in Ireland I have private health insurance.


So if I have a sore throat or some other piddly thing I can get in right away.


Never had a problem in Germany or Ireland.


The same cannot be said in Canada, UK, France, or Germany where (according to people there) getting an appointment that week is very problematic, especially during certain times of the year.


I would be curious to learn who those people there are, because I have lived my whole life in Germany and Ireland and have NEVER experienced any of these things, neither with GP appointments nor with surgery.

I think you are falling for what European wanna-be "libertarians" want to be true. I have seen German "libertarian" Web sites making such statements, but all anecdotal evidence I have collected in my life says the opposite.

I don't know about the heat wave and deaths in hospitals in France. But France tends to be a bad example for socialised anything.

I can tell you from just last week's experience that here in Ireland you can get a GP appointment just by showing up at the GP's office and a blood test the next morning in a public hospital. GP costs 50 quid, blood test cost nothing. I'm not sure how the American system of making an appointment and going in the next day is much faster.

Frankly, I think that a law that gives free health care to reasonable wealthy people who simply decided not to pay for health insurance although they could is a very bad idea, but the public healthcare system here in Europe has never failed me or anybody I know.

(Except for German underpaid dentists who seem to be a lot worse than Irish highly-paid dentists. Apparently, it is the mix that makes the system work.)

3 Pages1 2 3