Universal Health Care

[nancy_dalrymple]

Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues.[3] In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime’s rule.[citation needed]
[edit] Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has “comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility.”[7]

The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[8] About 29% of Canadians’ health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[9] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[10] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[11]

The Canada Health Act of 1984 “does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services,” but provides financial disincentives for doing so. “Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed,” according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[12][13] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that “the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.” The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system. But not if the public system fails to deliver reasonable service as to quality or timeliness, as the court found in this case.[14]
[edit] Perú
On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS). [15][16]
[edit] United States
See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1][2] The government directly covers 27.8% of the population[17] through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRICARE.[18][19] Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[20] However, this unfunded mandate has contributed to a health care safety net that some analyses say is increasingly strained.[21] Certain types of medical spending and particularly health insurance benefit from significant tax subsidies; in particular, employer-sponsored health insurance is a non-taxable benefit. In all, government spending accounted for 45.1% of total health spending in the U.S. in 2005.[22] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at more than 15% of GDP, a greater portion than in any other United Nations member state except for the Marshall Islands.[23]

Whether a government-mandated system of universal health care should be implemented in the US remains a hotly debated political topic, with Americans divided along party lines in their views of the US health system and what should be done to improve it. Those in favor of government-guaranteed universal health care argue that the large number of uninsured Americans creates direct and hidden costs shared by all, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.[24] Opponents of government mandates or programs for universal health care argue that people should be free to opt out of health insurance.[25] Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care provided to them by their government.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

In lieu of a national program, supporters of universal health care have sought implementation of such programs at the state and municipal level. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health care system by mandating that residents purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007.[26] The City of San Francisco is also undertaking a universal health care system for uninsured residents.[27][28] Hawaii has, since 1974, required employers to provide employees working more than 20 hours per week with a comprehensive health insurance plan.[29] California, Maine and Vermont are also considering or seeking to implement universal or near-universal systems.[30]

Since 2005, Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut has developed relationships with several key groups that would be instrumental in creating broad change in the health system, including medical societies, hospitals, businesses, labor and clergy.[31] In January 2009 the foundation unveiled SustiNet, a proposal for a statewide health care plan for Connecticut that would provide residents with their choice of health coverage and care regardless of their employment status, age, or pre-existing conditions.[32]

[edit] Asia
Brunei, China,[33] Hong Kong SAR, India[citation needed], Kuwait[citation needed], Qatar[citation needed], UAE[citation needed], Saudi Arabia[citation needed], Israel,[34] Japan, Malaysia[citation needed], South Korea, Seychelles[citation needed], Sri Lanka,[35] Taiwan,[36], Pakistan and Thailand have universal health care.

[edit] China
Main article: Healthcare system reform in the People’s Republic of China
Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the goal of health care programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources.[citation needed]

China is undertaking a reform on its universal health care system.[citation needed] The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS), is a new 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical cover is 50 yuan (US$7) per person. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). The system is tiered, depending on the location. If patients go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme will cover from 70-80% of their bill. If they go to a county one, the percentage of the cost being covered falls to about 60%. And if they need specialist help in a large modern city hospital, they have to bear most of the cost themselves, the scheme would cover about 30% of the bill.[37]

On 21 January 2009, the Chinese government announced that a total of 850 billion yuan will be provided between 2009 and 2011 in order to improve the existing health care system.[38]

[edit] Hong Kong
Main article: Healthcare in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[39] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for men,[40] which are the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.[41][42]

There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.[43]

[edit] India
Main article: Healthcare in India
India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India,[44] provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.

Most government hospitals do not require payment from people below the poverty line, proof of citizenship or residency. Government hospitals in some parts of the country and some private non-profit (including teaching) hospitals charge a nominal fee to prevent abuse of the system. Most hospitals are operated on an annual budget allocated by the government, and do not rely on individual billing. These hospitals also provide better amenities (such as private air-conditioned rooms) if the patient can afford to pay. However, they charge less than comparable private hospitals.[citation needed]

Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres. These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses. The primary health centres are staffed by general practitioners (primary care physicians), nurses and midwives trained in labour and delivery. Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).

There is alot of information out there on this subject, alot of pro’s and con’s, but i do know you better be careful what you wish for! Government does not treat our boy’s in uniform to great so just figure how you will get the short end of the stick! Love of Christ Nancy Now would you like to know the Bad stuff?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

"What Mean These Stones MEMORIAL DAY!
May 25, 2009

“When your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean these stones? Then ye shall let your children know.” (Joshua 4:21-22)

The poet George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” In the life of every nation, there are “memories” that must be preserved if that nation is to retain an awareness of its unique role among the nations of the world–indeed, among the long list of nations throughout history.

Long ago, God Himself instituted “memorials” so that the key events of history might be remembered. The rainbow was to remind God of His covenant to preserve life on the earth after the awful destruction of the Flood (Genesis 9:8-17). Jacob set up a stone after he had seen the ladder and spoken with the angel of the Lord (Genesis 28:12-22). Joseph insisted that the children of Israel take his bones with them into the land of promise (Genesis 50:25).

In our text, Joshua is told by the Lord to take 12 stones out of Jordan and make a monument to commemorate the beginning fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham centuries earlier. That day, Israel was to enter the “promised land” and start its conquest of Canaan.

The Memorial Day that we celebrate in the United States began with the ending of the Civil War. Since then, our country has added many memorials. Each of them, whether a mere plaque, a lone statue to a notable person, or a vast and sweeping edifice, are all intended to “remember” some significant event and the people who made history during that time. Typically, we honor the dead who paid the ultimate price that we might live on–and we should. There are others, though, whose sacrifices in time and treasure were enormous. May our thanks this day “remember” all of them.

GOD PLEASE BLESS AMERICA THANK YOU LORD!

 

[Diamantina]

I am on Medi-Cal, the California version of Medicaid, because of my disability and low income (I am also on SSI). I believe that state-provided health care can work in principle, although I am often disappointed with the way it turns out. The state pays back health professionals for my treatment. But I have to call at least five or six specialist physicians before I get in touch with one who accepts Medi-Cal. This is because the state offers a low reimbursement rate for doctors. Often enough I’d rather deal with mild to moderate chronic pain, or acute severe pain, on my own rather than having to call doctor after doctor who will not see me.

As for being without health insurance, I am reminded of my brother. He has no health insurance. He is young and relatively healthy and so didn’t used to worry about it. But last October he had to have an operation for a detached retina.

He tried to make appointments with several ophthalmologists but no one would accept him because of his lack of insurance. He ended up in the emergency room of the county hospital, which has to accept all comers. His operation was a success. The support services in the hospital left something to be desired but at least he didn’t have to pay for it.

I believe that if health insurance, food and housing are not guaranteed human rights, they should be. The U.S. Constitution is not sanctrosanct (sorry for the misspelling) and its authors were not directly inspired by God. It is not Holy Writ: it can be changed.

 

[atassina]

I keep hearing Americans talk about how great the Canadian system is. As some have pointed out, it isn’t. we have unbelieveably long waiting lists for urgent surgeries…many up here are going down to the USA for medical care. On the other hand, after seeing Sicko I wouldn’t want to have to pay for surgery in the USA either. My conclusion is that both systems are junk, but the American one is worse.

Question: How is it different when you have just the state providing health care, and when you have just a couple of megacorp. style HMO’s charging insane amounts of money for the simplest medicine, as well as finding every possible reason NOT to give you the needed care to save money.

I wonder if it’s possible to have a state system in which those who sign up pay taxes, but also to have private HMO’s where people can go.

State run offers no choice. Private means choice. I do not want to pay for other people’s choices

 

[EnchantedEve]

I believe that if health insurance, food and housing are not guaranteed human rights, they should be. The U.S. Constitution is not sanctrosanct (sorry for the misspelling) and its authors were not directly inspired by God. It is not Holy Writ: it can be changed.

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. Rights are those things we are born with to defend and embetter our being. We are not born with the ability to obtain healthcare and housing, and while important, it is impossible for the State to guarantee these as rights and since they are not inherent, all men cannot possibly have them guaranteed without cost and harm to other men, and no right does that.

 

[mary_bobo]

2/3 of the American people are in favor of a single payer healthcare system. Please don’t fall for big insurance companies advertising campaign that would equate single payer with socialism. We spend 30% of our health dollars on paying insurance companies’ advertising, huge CEO salaries, profits and administrative costs.
Medicare is expensive because it covers the 20% of people who are most likely to be ill. If everyone were included in the risk pool, the costs would be evenly spread and would go way down.

From Physicians for a National Health Program website:
"The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do."

Savings on paperwork!! What entity requires things in triplicate? The government. The paperwork for anything involved in government is time-consuming and costly. And there are many people who are without health insurance by choice. They are young and would rather have “goodies” rather than pay for insurance. They just don’t think they will need it in the near future. And you mention administrative bureaucracy in hospitals, what about the government? It is the ultimate bureaucracy. And in Canada, while wading thru the bureaucracy, people die. No thanks.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. Rights are those things we are born with to defend and embetter our being. We are not born with the ability to obtain healthcare and housing, and while important, it is impossible for the State to guarantee these as rights and since they are not inherent, all men cannot possibly have them guaranteed without cost and harm to other men, and no right does that.

Exactly-

Our ability to exist as social beings requires that we always maintain a balance between rights and responsibilities.

One person’s right to those things that are necessary for life may depend on the responsibility of other people to provide those things.

But the same people who cry out that their rights are being neglected due to their lack of healthcare are loathe to protect the rights of other people in society…these people have no problem asking the government to take away the rights of those same people they depend on for their basic needs.

When a person “demands” their “rights” without any regard for their responsibility, they are committing an offense against the whole of society because they are setting themselves above the rest of us as an elite class of people who have the unique privilege of reaping the benefits of society without bearing any of the responsibilities.

That’s why I find the following post from “Diamantina” so offensive and grossly out of touch with what it means to be part of society…

Originally Posted by Diamantina

He tried to make appointments with several ophthalmologists but no one would accept him because of his lack of insurance. He ended up in the emergency room of the county hospital, which has to accept all comers. His operation was a success. The support services in the hospital left something to be desired but at least he didn’t have to pay for it.

I’m sure that some people think that is a positive story about a person who needed help and found it, courtesy of the government.

But read that last line again…

“…but at least he didn’t have to pay for it.”

This comment clearly demonstrates how the poster has no understanding of how the government enabled her brother to completely ignore his responsibilities, much less how he violated the rights of those people who helped him.

I would be ashamed to be related to an admittedly young and healthy person who accepted free healthcare just because they didn’t want to work a little extra and pay for their own insurance.

 

[mary_bobo]

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. Rights are those things we are born with to defend and embetter our being. We are not born with the ability to obtain healthcare and housing, and while important, it is impossible for the State to guarantee these as rights and since they are not inherent, all men cannot possibly have them guaranteed without cost and harm to other men, and no right does that.

In this country we have equality of opportunity, we do not have equality of outcome–nor should we.

 

[Diamantina]

In this country we have equality of opportunity, we do not have equality of outcome–nor should we.

I do not think that there should be absolute equality of outcome, but I do think that outcomes should not be allowed to go below or above certain levels. Flatten the pyramid, but not too much.

As for my brother, he is a (not-too-successful) actor and musician. Yes, if he had had a different job, or if he had been more successful in his career, he might have been able to buy health insurance. But I thought that in the United States, people are encouraged to follow their dreams. People should not be afraid to follow their dreams just because (for example) they might go blind if a detached retina is not treated due to a lack of health insurance that they cannot pay for. Thank God for the county hospital! The only way in which I might be “ashamed” of my brother is that he is an (unbaptized) agnostic who frequently takes God’s name in vain

 

[Oscarthecat]

I do not think that there should be absolute equality of outcome, but I do think that outcomes should not be allowed to go below or above certain levels. Flatten the pyramid, but not too much.

Certain levels?
That is simply ridiculous- what you’re proposing is that we punish those who achieve beyond a “certain level,” and reward those who fall below “a certain level.”

What you’re suggesting is that we hamstring the most successful in our society, without any awareness that your system would curtail their achievements, and effectively cripple the natural progression of our entire society.

Consider, for example, if we capped Bill Gates’ income…he would have naturally reduced his efforts and parsed his achievements over a much longer period of time-- not to mention the fact that all of the people who now benefit from his philanthropic efforts would be made to suffer.

Or how about this- why don’t we cap the levels doctors are allowed to earn? How many good doctors working right now would be able to afford to pay off their student loans if you arbitrarily reduced their income? I can tell you with absolute confidence that my brothers and my wife would not be able to repay their student loans from medical school if you reduced their pay.

Or, how about this…why don’t you let the government reduce YOUR pay for a while and see how much you like it. Given that the lowest earners in the US earn much more than many average earners in other countries, I’m sure that I could find plenty of people around the world who think you earn way more than you should, and would be more than happy to relieve you of the burden of your income.

Better yet…why don’t you stop coveting what your neighbor has earned, and stop feeding into this bizarre form of cultural suicide known as “THE WELFARE STATE” that rewards failure and punishes achievement.

As for my brother, he is a (not-too-successful) actor and musician. Yes, if he had had a different job, or if he had been more successful in his career, he might have been able to buy health insurance. But I thought that in the United States, people are encouraged to follow their dreams. People should not be afraid to follow their dreams just because (for example) they might go blind if a detached retina is not treated due to a lack of health insurance that they cannot pay for. Thank God for the county hospital! The only way in which I might be “ashamed” of my brother is that he is an (unbaptized) agnostic who frequently takes God’s name in vain

Part of being an adult means finding the proper balance between fulfilling our responsibilities and pursuing our dreams.

I don’t expect you to pay my way while I follow my dreams.

I am absolutely offended that you expect other people to work hard and stifle their own dreams in order to subsidize your brother while he follows his dreams.

Tell your brother to get a job that can pay his bills while he’s busy following his dreams.

I’m sorry that I’m being harsh, but I think that people grab onto these socialist platitudes because it makes them feel good, but don’t appreciate the historical evidence of how disconnecting the natural relationship between achievement and reward has destroyed the human spirit throughout human history.

 

[Oscarthecat]

People should not be afraid to follow their dreams just because (for example) they might go blind if a detached retina is not treated due to a lack of health insurance that they cannot pay for. )

People should absolutely be afraid to follow their dreams if it means that they might starve, or suffer debilitating medical problems.

Fear is natural and should be taken seriously!!!
That fear should encourage them to proceed with caution.
That fear should drive them to take precautions to prevent those calamities.

Fear helps us to re-evaluate our priorities and consider all of things at stake in our lives.

Yes, I am free to make the choice to ignore consequences and follow my dreams, but that freedom means I have to live with those consequences.

It is commendable for you to willingly choose to bear the consequences of another’s mistakes-

But it is an absolute sin for you to impose the consequences of one person’s choices on someone else.

This is a key to our Christian faith. Christ chose to bear the burden of our sins…if Christ did not freely choose to suffer for our sins His suffering would not have the same value.

Charity cannot not come through taxation and redistribution.

 

[Diamantina]

Certain levels?
That is simply ridiculous- what you’re proposing is that we punish those who achieve beyond a “certain level,” and reward those who fall below “a certain level.”

What you’re suggesting is that we hamstring the most successful in our society, without any awareness that your system would curtail their achievements, and effectively cripple the natural progression of our entire society.

Consider, for example, if we capped Bill Gates’ income…he would have naturally reduced his efforts and parsed his achievements over a much longer period of time-- not to mention the fact that all of the people who now benefit from his philanthropic efforts would be made to suffer.

Or how about this- why don’t we cap the levels doctors are allowed to earn? How many good doctors working right now would be able to afford to pay off their student loans if you arbitrarily reduced their income? I can tell you with absolute confidence that my brothers and my wife would not be able to repay their student loans from medical school if you reduced their pay.

I believe that student loans are wrong. If one can be admitted into a college and cannot pay the entire way, then the government should pay the rest of the cost. Elementary and secondary education in the United States are free: I believe that undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate and professional education should be as well. I would not have been able to pay for my BA if not for a huge subsidy from the California Department of Rehabilitation that paid for my student fees, books, supplies and a computer (all because of my disability and to make me ready for the workforce). I lived at home with my mother when I was going for my BA, and when I went on to grad school, the Dept. of Rehab. would not pay for housing. I had to take out student loans, since I had no income. However, when I could not finish grad school due to illness and my doctor thought that my condition was incurable, the student loans (all but $5000, anyway) were discharged. Hooray!

Or, how about this…why don’t you let the government reduce YOUR pay for a while and see how much you like it. Given that the lowest earners in the US earn much more than many average earners in other countries, I’m sure that I could find plenty of people around the world who think you earn way more than you should, and would be more than happy to relieve you of the burden of your income.

I am on SSI because of disability, and do not have an earned income. I used to receive $907 a month: now I receive $870 a month because of the budget crisis in California. I give $300 a month to my mother because I live with her, and she needs the money. I usually give $5-$10 a week to my parish, not to mention my volunteer activities (religious education, lectoring, EMHC, Legion of Mary). I am also a Lay Carmelite. As for other activities, I contribute to Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, Fellowship of Reconciliation, War Resisters League, Alley Cat Allies and several other groups. I think that the average worldwide income should be raised to an acceptable level. I would be willing to give up to $50 a month to insure this, if there were a suitable foundation that I found trustworthy. This would be a sacrifice for me, but I do not want to be a hypocrite

Better yet…why don’t you stop coveting what your neighbor has earned, and stop feeding into this bizarre form of cultural suicide known as “THE WELFARE STATE” that rewards failure and punishes achievement.

As someone who in the eyes of the world is a failure (cannot work, thrown out of grad school) and who receives benefits from the welfare state, I take a wee bit of offense to that

Part of being an adult means finding the proper balance between fulfilling our responsibilities and pursuing our dreams.

Agreed. And I, at 42, am probably not entirely an adult according to your definition. Thank goodness I have never married, never had children and have remained a virgin! (I am attempting to discern whether God wants me to become a consecrated virgin living in the world.)

I don’t expect you to pay my way while I follow my dreams.

That is a shame. I believe that one reason government exists is to distribute taxpayers’ money “while you follow your dreams”.

I am absolutely offended that you expect other people to work hard and stifle their own dreams in order to subsidize your brother while he follows his dreams.

Tell your brother to get a job that can pay his bills while he’s busy following his dreams.

I want everyone to fulfill their dreams, sir! I don’t want their dreams to be “stifled”. Surely there is some way they can work hard and fulfill their dreams at the same time…

My brother has been looking for a day job, but – what can I say? Times are not the easiest, and my brother’s work ethic (except when it comes to the Beatles, Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond, etc.) is not the greatest. He has to present himself better, I suppose, and hope that a job in a guitar shop or as a studio musician (or suchlike) becomes available. When the work environment interests him, then his work ethic is excellent. When the work environment bores him, well… It is a shame, for he is almost 34. Thank goodness he is not married! If he does marry, I hope he marries a lawyer or doctor or other affluent woman, so he can become a househusband and stay-at-home dad. He’d be good at that, I think.

 

[cynic]

Certain levels?
That is simply ridiculous- what you’re proposing is that we punish those who achieve beyond a “certain level,” and reward those who fall below “a certain level.”

What you’re suggesting is that we hamstring the most successful in our society, without any awareness that your system would curtail their achievements, and effectively cripple the natural progression of our entire society.

Consider, for example, if we capped Bill Gates’ income…he would have naturally reduced his efforts and parsed his achievements over a much longer period of time-- not to mention the fact that all of the people who now benefit from his philanthropic efforts would be made to suffer.

I’m sorry that I’m being harsh, but I think that people grab onto these socialist platitudes because it makes them feel good, but don’t appreciate the historical evidence of how disconnecting the natural relationship between achievement and reward has destroyed the human spirit throughout human history.

While I don’t disagree with this reply in regards to capping incomes, it seems simplistic to suggest that economic gain is the only motivation for work. An engineer’s daily work for example may involve more mental application and/or stress than that of his employer, who has the ability to earn far more. Socialist countries with highly graduated tax systems (so high that it’s virtually an income cap) still produce science and engineering graduates (the Bill Gates example). But by your reasoning, nobody would bother doing anything difficult, work wise, unless maximum potential reward were available to them, and that just isn’t true.

 

[cynic]

Diamatana, that last post suggests that you could be… in for a beating!:stretcher:

 

[EnchantedEve]

I do not think that there should be absolute equality of outcome, but I do think that outcomes should not be allowed to go below or above certain levels. Flatten the pyramid, but not too much.

As for my brother, he is a (not-too-successful) actor and musician. Yes, if he had had a different job, or if he had been more successful in his career, he might have been able to buy health insurance. But I thought that in the United States, people are encouraged to follow their dreams. People should not be afraid to follow their dreams just because (for example) they might go blind if a detached retina is not treated due to a lack of health insurance that they cannot pay for. Thank God for the county hospital! The only way in which I might be “ashamed” of my brother is that he is an (unbaptized) agnostic who frequently takes God’s name in vain

I have to disagree again. I followed my own dreams and got married (lost my parent’s coverage) and started a business (could not afford coverage). I knew the risks up front. If I choose to follow my dreams and it is at the risk of losing some securities, that is my choice. I cannot expect that others should pay to assure my dreams come true. Dreams often remain just that because they are risky, and not easy to choose. I think that is how we know if it is really worth pursuing, if we decide to go for them anyway. Is that not what makes achieving them worthwhile?

 

[mary_bobo]

I do not think that there should be absolute equality of outcome, but I do think that outcomes should not be allowed to go below or above certain levels. Flatten the pyramid, but not too much.

As for my brother, he is a (not-too-successful) actor and musician. Yes, if he had had a different job, or if he had been more successful in his career, he might have been able to buy health insurance. But I thought that in the United States, people are encouraged to follow their dreams. People should not be afraid to follow their dreams just because (for example) they might go blind if a detached retina is not treated due to a lack of health insurance that they cannot pay for. Thank God for the county hospital! The only way in which I might be “ashamed” of my brother is that he is an (unbaptized) agnostic who frequently takes God’s name in vain

Indeed people should follow their dreams, but realize that if there dreams are not financially productive that they might wish they had done something most reasonable. Dreams can be hobbies. We have a responsibility to do for ourselves and not expect our neighbors to take care of us while we pursue our dreams.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I believe that student loans are wrong. If one can be admitted into a college and cannot pay the entire way, then the government should pay the rest of the cost. Elementary and secondary education in the United States are free: I believe that undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate and professional education should be as well. I would not have been able to pay for my BA if not for a huge subsidy from the California Department of Rehabilitation that paid for my student fees, books, supplies and a computer (all because of my disability and to make me ready for the workforce). I lived at home with my mother when I was going for my BA, and when I went on to grad school, the Dept. of Rehab. would not pay for housing. I had to take out student loans, since I had no income. However, when I could not finish grad school due to illness and my doctor thought that my condition was incurable, the student loans (all but $5000, anyway) were discharged. Hooray!

Where does the government get the money to pay for these programs?
By taxing the products of our labor.

But I’ll get back to that in a minute, because it ties directly into something you say later…

I am on SSI because of disability, and do not have an earned income. I used to receive $907 a month: now I receive $870 a month because of the budget crisis in California. I give $300 a month to my mother because I live with her, and she needs the money. I usually give $5-$10 a week to my parish, not to mention my volunteer activities (religious education, lectoring, EMHC, Legion of Mary). I am also a Lay Carmelite. As for other activities, I contribute to Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, Fellowship of Reconciliation, War Resisters League, Alley Cat Allies and several other groups. I think that the average worldwide income should be raised to an acceptable level. I would be willing to give up to $50 a month to insure this, if there were a suitable foundation that I found trustworthy. This would be a sacrifice for me, but I do not want to be a hypocrite

This is becoming way too off-topic.

Suffice it to say, you should do some reading on the relationship between wealth creation and wealth redistribution. When you punish those who create wealth for society, by taxing them and redistributing the products of their labor against their will, then those productive members of society either leave your society or they simply stop being productive.

Stalin tried what you’re talking about- killed many of his greatest producers- the inventors, thinkers, and entrepreneurs- because simply refused to produce after constantly having their innovations, their work, and the products of their labor stolen from them by the government.

As someone who in the eyes of the world is a failure (cannot work, thrown out of grad school) and who receives benefits from the welfare state, I take a wee bit of offense to that

Why do you take offense? Seriously, based on everything you’re saying, why would you take offense at my comments regarding the welfare state?
I am asking that question in all sincerity, and really hope you respond.

That is a shame. I believe that one reason government exists is to distribute taxpayers’ money “while you follow your dreams”.

This ties into what I said I’d get back to later…

If you believe that, you must also believe that the government exists to take from one group and give to another.

If you believe that, then you must also believe that the government must somehow deal with those people who don’t want to give away the products of their labor.

If you believe that, then you must advocate the use of government force against anyone who doesn’t agree with your values.

If you believe that, you believe in violence.

Jesus did not teach violence.

I want everyone to fulfill their dreams, sir! I don’t want their dreams to be “stifled”. Surely there is some way they can work hard and fulfill their dreams at the same time…

Yes, people should work hard and pursue their dreams at the same time. That would be nice. But if circumstances don’t line up that way, then people need to take responsibility for themselves and their own lives.

You may have a legitimate disability, and I don’t fault you for that- my father accepted disability for years before he died. He hated every minute of it, but it proved to be a valuable lesson in humility for him- without that experience he would have died a very different person.

However, you need to consider that God made life challenging for very good reasons- both to inspire us to compassion and charity toward others, but also to force us to strive to be our best.

The nanny state you propose is simply poisonous to the human spirit.

 

[sharmin]

No…what he is saying is that anyone has the ability to further their potential here. And how many people work for less then $10 today? And who are they? Generally, teens! Jobs that pay $10/hr or less…are not meant to be careers…they are meant for those who are working on furthering their education, acquiring more skills and planning for future careers.

Um, I know at least a few adults making that much,trying to raise a family. It must be nice to live in your world.

 

[sharmin]

cynic;

It can be, if one works hard enough at academics or sports.

What about the learning disabled? Those with low IQs? Should they just deal because “life sucks”?