Entitlements

[TheLonelySquire]

TheLonelySquire wrote:
1. Health care from cradle to grave.

Yes because healthcare is unafforable in the US unless you are Bill Gates or Ted Turner.

TheLonelySquire wrote:
2. Day care.

No
Yes but not in the sense that it is 100% free for someone, you still have to pay tuition, I like the idea of state run schools and universities like what we have now instead of an all private system.
No
We have that now in the form of food stamps.
I think there should be some decent public transit as an alternative to having a car to get everywhere.

TheLonelySquire wrote:
7. Retirement income.

We have that now in the form of social security.

TheLonelySquire wrote:
8. Burial plot.

No

Notice the majority of these things the US has in some form except health care which I point out is unaffordable unless you are super rich. There are countries with a lot less and the government is nothing but a really strong army and those places tend be in the third world.

Leroy, see I think that health care needs to be made affordable and available to those that are able to work. Of course those that cannot need to be helped. But let's focus on making it affordable, not letting government actually run the system. Cause bad things happen in terms of efficiency when that happens. Look at virtually any other government agency.

 

[Arrqh]

I mean there's gotta be a way to have private health care that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Something not run by the government.

Then why hasn't anyone done it?

If we are to take the extreme capitalist viewpoint... that competition drives all markets and an open system gives the best results... why is it that in the US health care is both more expensive and of lower quality then anywhere else in the world?

I don't think people are "entitled" to health care. I think that if the US government provided health care as one finds in other places in the world, the bottom level of coverage would rise and the inevitable refocus on preventative care instead of expensive emergency care would lower costs for everyone involved. Framing it as "entitlement" simply avoids the actual, practical issues. It's not about what people are entitled to, it's about what's best for society as a whole... and for all the individuals who make up that society. And it's also about what's the most cost-effective.

 

[Canadave]

Don't forget about the UK. That's just as much an immigration haven as the USA is.

Though proportionally, Australia and Canada attract more than either of them.

 

[Michael Chris]

No to all of the above. However, if there is a need it should be met. Whether that is through private channels, non profits, or the government does not really matter to me.

 

[Michael Chris]

Don't forget about the UK. That's just as much an immigration haven as the USA is.

Though proportionally, Australia and Canada attract more than either of them.

I have no idea about Australia, but I can definitely believe that about Canada. I have known several people who gave up on immigrating to the US and did Canada instead. That said, of course, the populations are way smaller.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I mean there's gotta be a way to have private health care that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Something not run by the government.

Then why hasn't anyone done it?

If we are to take the extreme capitalist viewpoint... that competition drives all markets and an open system gives the best results... why is it that in the US health care is both more expensive and of lower quality then anywhere else in the world?

I don't think people are "entitled" to health care. I think that if the US government provided health care as one finds in other places in the world, the bottom level of coverage would rise and the inevitable refocus on preventative care instead of expensive emergency care would lower costs for everyone involved. Framing it as "entitlement" simply avoids the actual, practical issues. It's not about what people are entitled to, it's about what's best for society as a whole... and for all the individuals who make up that society. And it's also about what's the most cost-effective.

There is a solution to any problem. But the answer isn't in allowing the government to run it. That's simply ludicrous. You think they can make it run efficiently? You really do?

And the US has the best doctors and best hospitals in the world.

 

[Canadave]

Don't forget about the UK. That's just as much an immigration haven as the USA is.

Though proportionally, Australia and Canada attract more than either of them.

I have no idea about Australia, but I can definitely believe that about Canada. I have known several people who gave up on immigrating to the US and did Canada instead. That said, of course, the populations are way smaller.

Canada gets 250,000-300,000 immigrants in an average year, and I think Australia gets 200,000-250,000, if I'm remembering all the numbers correctly. In other words, each of us recieves the equivelant of about 1% of our population in immigrants every year, a huge percentage for a developed country.

 

[Michael Chris]

Though proportionally, Australia and Canada attract more than either of them.

I have no idea about Australia, but I can definitely believe that about Canada. I have known several people who gave up on immigrating to the US and did Canada instead. That said, of course, the populations are way smaller.

Canada gets 250,000-300,000 immigrants in an average year, and I think Australia gets 200,000-250,000, if I'm remembering all the numbers correctly. In other words, each of us recieves the equivelant of about 1% of our population in immigrants every year, a huge percentage for a developed country.

Oh, most definitely. I applaud Canada and Australia for that. I was just saying that comparison between percentages might be a bit misleading due to the massive population differences. Even by raw numbers Canada and Australia hold up quite well! The US naturalized just over a million people in '08 compared to nearly a 1/3 of that in Canada. Quite an impressive feat for Canada given that it is only 1/10 of the population of the US.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Then why hasn't anyone done it?

Probably because the people who can don't want to.

The heath care system isn't about curing illness and saving lives, it's become about funneling money from one powerful lobby to another.

Just last month my brother had simple out patient-procedure. My parents got the bill from the insurance company and it had the actual total cost listed at $80,000 ($1500 of they had to pay.) He was in and out in less than a day.

Now I have to think that if someone added up the total cost of very thing: the operating room time, the doctors' and nurses' salaries, the equipment, etc, I doubt the total cost would be anything near $80,000. Somebody's making a shit load of cash and the skeptic in me thinks that some of those somebodies are lawmakers.

I guess it ultimately comes down to two questions:

Do you believe health care is a basic human right? And if so, should a human right be turned into such an skewed form of capitalism?

 

[Arrqh]

There is a solution to any problem. But the answer isn't in allowing the government to run it. That's simply ludicrous. You think they can make it run efficiently? You really do?

And the US has the best doctors and best hospitals in the world.

If there's a solution to every problem, then the people involved in the health care system in the US have totally and completely failed to find it. If they can't do it, and pretty clearly that's been the case, then someone else needs to step up. If the only body that can do that is the government then so be it... because that is preferable to what we have now.

Having the best doctors and hospitals in the world (have a source for that?) is however quite meaningless if people don't have access. And right now? People don't have access. It would be like saying country X has the best firefighters in the world but they don't have enough gas for their fire engines.

At the end of the day, it is totally and completely demonstrable that public health care systems in other countries, such as Canada and the UK, don't suffer from the same problems that we do in the US. Sure... they have their own problems. But in my opinion, their problems are a lot easier to manage. So I'll say again... I don't care about "entitlements" and I don't really care who administers or funds the health care system. All I care about is that it is improved. And if the government is the only one who can do that, then so be it.

 

[Michael Chris]

I guess it ultimately comes down to two questions:

Or one question and a N/A!

 

[TheLonelySquire]

There is a solution to any problem. But the answer isn't in allowing the government to run it. That's simply ludicrous. You think they can make it run efficiently? You really do?

And the US has the best doctors and best hospitals in the world.

If there's a solution to every problem, then the people involved in the health care system in the US have totally and completely failed to find it. If they can't do it, and pretty clearly that's been the case, then someone else needs to step up. If the only body that can do that is the government then so be it... because that is preferable to what we have now.

Having the best doctors and hospitals in the world (have a source for that?) is however quite meaningless if people don't have access. And right now? People don't have access. It would be like saying country X has the best firefighters in the world but they don't have enough gas for their fire engines.

At the end of the day, it is totally and completely demonstrable that public health care systems in other countries, such as Canada and the UK, don't suffer from the same problems that we do in the US. Sure... they have their own problems. But in my opinion, their problems are a lot easier to manage. So I'll say again... I don't care about "entitlements" and I don't really care who administers or funds the health care system. All I care about is that it is improved. And if the government is the only one who can do that, then so be it.

I'm not saying that the system doesn't need to be repaired. It does. I just disagree that the government running it is the answer.

 

[Scout101]

I'm wondering what you folks believe about the following. This is specifically for the USA residents.

Feels like a setup, but I'll give it a go anyway, I guess...

Every person is entitled to government assured:

(Yes or no answers are fine)

1. Health care from cradle to grave.

Yes. Minimum levels of service, at least. Can make a tiered systems where you pay for more options, faster appointments, specific doctors, etc. Preventative care is MUCH cheaper and better for the patient than emergency care once the minor problem has become an emergency. Should also reduce the number of people that are injured and cannot work, if you provide a way to care for the injury before it becomes permanent.

2. Day care.

No. Pay your own way, decide to stay home, etc.

3. College education

Undecided. College costs have exploded out of control, so something needs to be done with this, to be sure. Assuming no financial aid, it's not hard to come out of a normal college with a Bachelor's degree that will result in $30-40k a year, but have $150k or more in loans. maybe something (which some states already do) where if you get above a certain GPA in high school, you're comped with free tuition at the state school? Allows everyone that is trying hard enough (usually a B average in those programs) access to a decent education, but you've still gotta pay up if you want a private school.

4. Place to live.

Another tough one. Yes, in the sense of a place to live, ie shelters, or a helping hand for low-income situations. Not everyone deserves a 4000 sq ft mansion with pool, though, which is how people act.

5. Food.

Yes. Whether through the government, church groups, etc, we're way too frigging along to be watching kids starving in the streets. Not gonna get a lot of steak, but this should be part of the safety net. Not so great that people WANT to be on it (like the broken welfare system), but enough that no one goes without, or has to rummage through trash.

6. Transportation.

No. How would you even do this? In urban areas, could offer discount bus or subway passes to low-income groups, but what do rural areas get? Cars? Horses? Bikes? Just no. Get a ride, or live closer, or figure something out.

7. Retirement income.

Not really, no. Personal responsibility. Again with the minimum level needed for survival (food, clothing, shelter), but shouldn't be enough to be comfortable on, and should disappear once you reach a very low threshold. Want a good retirement? Plan for it, save up, and don't piss it all away early. Universal health care would probably stop the bleeding in many of these cases...

8. Burial plot.

No. Another thing to save for, or get life insurance. You don't get a spot of land and a headstone for nothing. Can't have bodies laying around, so could offer some sort of cremation or other burial service, but nothing that would be very desireable, just a way to take care of a health hazard to the rest of the population

 

[tharpdevenport]

Without getting too deep into any of them:

1. Health care from cradle to grave.

No, no one should be entitled, and this Obama bullshit Bill is a joke. Hillary wanted to do pretty much the same thing as I recall.

2. Day care.

No, having a child is a personal choice. We should not have to pay for someone's personal choice of giving birth; you either have someone to take care of the kid, or can afford to pay for it, you don't expect other people to pay your kid's way because the mother isn't prepared to handle HER responsibility.

3. College education

No, this should be left to the state. If they want to help their citizens and employ a smarter crop of workers, then they can help.

4. Place to live.

While I don't think we should be paying for people's shelter, at the same time no one should have to live on the street, bushes, cars, nasty homeless places. I think on a basic level of "we give a shit", we shouldn't let anybody fall threw the crack and everyone should want to help of their own free will. And those boozed or drugged out of their mind living homeless -- no "personal choice" there, we round them up and fix those bastards; we draw a line and say no more.

5. Food.

No one should starve. Maybe another state matter. But there are plenty of jobs right now out there, but the people and jobs are scattered about. A program to relocate people to those jobs, and train then -- even if older than 24 (a stupid limit set by the Job Corps).

6. Transportation.

No everybody lives within walking distance of things, nor does every city have a bus system and those buses don't run at every hour or go to every area -- saying people should "just take the bus" isn't the answer for everybody. I think it's a city's responsibility to provide transportation to anyone who is out of reasonable waling distance to work, food, or has medical issues that prevent them from getting any place on their own.
And even transportation for those who are in walking distance, if there is adverse weather (high winds, rain, lightening, hail, so forth).

7. Retirement income.

I don't know, but what I do know is my grandmother put in a regualr long working life like anybody else, but in the end can't afford all her medication, and bills at times. It's sort of like she was used up by the work force then given a big "fuck you" finger when she could no longer work. But at the time American shouldn't have to pay people's retirement.

8. Burial plot.

No.

 

[Arrqh]

I'm not saying that the system doesn't need to be repaired. It does. I just disagree that the government running it is the answer.

The government running it is a vastly superior option to what we have now.

Look, the US doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are other countries and other systems that we can compare and contrast to. And countries with government run health care systems have problems that are much more manageable then ours and their overall quality of care is better.

I care a lot less about political ideology then I care about making sure everyone has a minimum standard of care and access to the specialized care that they may need. What are your priorities?

 

[auntiehill]

I'm wondering what you folks believe about the following. This is specifically for the USA residents.

Every person is entitled to government assured:

(Yes or no answers are fine)

1. Health care from cradle to grave.

YES. Good health care shouldn't be only for the rich.

2. Day care.

Partially, yes. We should offer more help to poor families seeking daycare while they are at work.

3. College education

Undecided--while I think it is something everyone should have, it's not something everyone wants or could achieve. But we should definitely make it easier for people to afford.

4. Place to live.

YES.

5. Food.

YES.

6. Transportation.

Partially. The government should invest far more in public transportation; that is certain. But I don't think it could ever realistically be free. In my part of the country, public transportation barely exists.

7. Retirement income.

YES. We have social security, but it's highly doubtful it will exist 30 years from now.

8. Burial plot.

YES. But we kind of already have that--it's usually known as "potter's field."

 

[Alidar Jarok]

1. Health care from cradle to grave.

Yes. At this point, it makes more sense to have it than not to. Doesn't have to be free, but it has to be affordable.

2. Day care.

I think if a person works so they can't take care of their kid (single parent) they can devote part of their salary for day care.

3. College education

Out of curiosity, why did you just mention college education? High school, middle school, and elementary school education are also entitlements. They're just entitlements that have existed in our country since the time Puritans founded Massachusetts Bay colony. For this one, free eduction is no, but affordable education is yes (basically, grants, scholarships, and loans. Like now, only with efforts to reduce the crushing debts that affect people after they graduate).

4. Place to live.

Affordable, not free

5. Food.

For those who can't afford it, yes.

6. Transportation.

Not really

7. Retirement income.

Yeah

8. Burial plot.

No

 

[Deckerd]

Don't forget about the UK. That's just as much an immigration haven as the USA is.

Oh, I know the UK has their fair share. I don't think the total # in the past 200 years is on the same scale however.

The total and diversity in the past 2,500 years is probably second to none, however.

 

[Plecostomus]

Attitudes need to change about transportation. Yes I know America is the Car Culture Of The World but when it comes right down to it... cars are a cause of some of our biggest problems.

The culture right now states that if you do not have a car you are somehow less a being than someone who owns one. Some places you are considered a slackoff deadbeat one step below chronic criminals if you take the bus or ride a bike

I know a person who drives her car one and a half miles to work every day, she's 400 pounds. She also feels her wages should float higher when gas prices rise. Heck alot of people around "here" feel the same way.

If we could overcome the whole "car as measure of personal worth" and "status symbol" mentality we would reduce our dependency on foreign oil AND we'd stop being a society of ever-fattening people. You lose alot of weight when you bike three miles to work. Or walk.

Bus systems, trains, subways... all neglected in these parts because Real Men and Woman own cars or they aren't worth talking to. Get over that, and we'll see some real positive societal changes.

 

[tharpdevenport]

And when that happens (about NEVER -- but I agree with you), I'll open a bike selling business.