| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 12:13:07 PM | |
|
Personaly, I think that in this issue, trying not to get hurt is really beside the point. I dont know a single person that hasnt had treatment for something. We always can, and we do get hurt, sick, injured, and when that happens we should have healthcare. It is called insurance for a reason.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:47:23 AM)| |  | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I am not a huge advocate of social programs, surprisingly enough. A lot of what BS said is how I feel. I think socialized benefits have taken a wrong turn and become this leviathan that is out of control. Having said this, we are living in a country that spends hundreds of thousands a year on researching ways to reduce the smell of pig farms, yet we have people suffering with no health care..UNTIL they are throw in an ambulance and taken to a hospital. THEN, the state picks up the ENTIRE tab!!! Sometimes, this is HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars with NO reimbursement, yet they will not devise a system that provides for minimal preventive care. That simply makes NO sense. The money is being spent anyway! And MORE of it! Just on the back end.
I do not smoke. I do not drink. I drive but, fortunately, I have not had an accident and I have not had a ticket in twenty years. Doesn't mean much when some drunk plows into my car and kills me but, the point is, I try to live a life that is at least somewhat safe and healthy. If I contract some kind of disease, I want to know that I can afford to get treatment. I do not want a stipend every month for my "suffering". I just want to know that I can go get my medications and have a doctor guide me to recovery. It is ludicrous to suggest that such a desire is unfair. |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:47:23 AM | |
|
I am not a huge advocate of social programs, surprisingly enough. A lot of what BS said is how I feel. I think socialized benefits have taken a wrong turn and become this leviathan that is out of control. Having said this, we are living in a country that spends hundreds of thousands a year on researching ways to reduce the smell of pig farms, yet we have people suffering with no health care..UNTIL they are throw in an ambulance and taken to a hospital. THEN, the state picks up the ENTIRE tab!!! Sometimes, this is HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars with NO reimbursement, yet they will not devise a system that provides for minimal preventive care. That simply makes NO sense. The money is being spent anyway! And MORE of it! Just on the back end.
I do not smoke. I do not drink. I drive but, fortunately, I have not had an accident and I have not had a ticket in twenty years. Doesn't mean much when some drunk plows into my car and kills me but, the point is, I try to live a life that is at least somewhat safe and healthy. If I contract some kind of disease, I want to know that I can afford to get treatment. I do not want a stipend every month for my "suffering". I just want to know that I can go get my medications and have a doctor guide me to recovery. It is ludicrous to suggest that such a desire is unfair. |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:34:10 AM | |
|
And there is one thing I just have to comment on... Smokers not having the right to healthcare because of our habbit? We pay taxes since we buy our first pack. I doubt that there is a country in Europe that doesnt have at least a 100% tax on tobbaco. We not only cover the expenses of treating smoking related diseases, we go way beyond that.
So, if I ever get lung cancer, I will expect a full, public treatment, the best that money can buy. |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:30:54 AM | |
|
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:23:00 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:23:00 AM | |
|
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:04:28 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:04:28 AM | |
|
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:43:57 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:02:27 AM | |
|
And of course, tax payers and patients are not the same people at all... Right?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, May 18, 2009 10:52:53 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | Health care is not a right. It is not given to anyone as a sense of entitlement. Certainly not anymore than leading a healthy lifestyle. If you practice good health, then you should be justly rewarded or subsidized in some regards for that decision. If not, then treating your ailment with taxpayers dollars should be questioned. Smokers, drinkers, substance abusers, those who do not practice safe sex, those who do not wear helmets while cycling or riding a motor scooter. These are all choices we make. And if those choices are somehow compromised by our poor judgement and poor decision making, should it be my moral oblgation and responsibility to allow my hard payed tax dollars to treat your misfortune? a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, May 18, 2009 10:52:53 AM | |
|
| Health care is not a right. It is not given to anyone as a sense of entitlement. Certainly not anymore than leading a healthy lifestyle. If you practice good health, then you should be justly rewarded or subsidized in some regards for that decision. If not, then treating your ailment with taxpayers dollars should be questioned. Smokers, drinkers, substance abusers, those who do not practice safe sex, those who do not wear helmets while cycling or riding a motor scooter. These are all choices we make. And if those choices are somehow compromised by our poor judgement and poor decision making, should it be my moral oblgation and responsibility to allow my hard payed tax dollars to treat your misfortune? a. Hammerstein |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 9:43:57 AM | |
|
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:39:41 AM | |
|
Ah! At last! A subject with which I have personal experience and can speak from there safely!!!
Most of you are aware of my situation and the events that led up to my current condition. I have not really hidden it as I have nothing to be ashamed of, given that I truly did NOT want to stop working! I loved my job and I miss it very much to this very day. Having said this, I know first hand that the United States has a dismal healthcare system. Dismal. We have some of, if not THE best, doctors in the world but our system is horrible. I have TWO examples!!....
I worked for twenty years in the same industry. Most of that time I was with the same company. I paid tens of thousands of dollars PLUS into a system (matched by my employer) that was (allegedly) designed to "protect" me in the event of a medical disaster. As many of you remember, when that day actually came, I was put through a living hell. Nearly three years of mistreatment, denials, legal fights and whatnot...all to get the benefits for which I had paid my whole working life.
Had it not been for GREAT insurance and a good pension, I would have been destitue. And NO ONE would have given two shakes about me. Now, the Princess suffers from a debilitating, hereditary blood disease. She cannot work. She is barely able to function in a capacity that would be considered "normal" on many days. She has applied for help with medical treatments and been denied. Over and over. We are not able to insure her privately because of her disease, even though she needs minimal treatments (phlebotomies, blood checks, medication). NO insurance company will cover her at ANY price and the government says she is not poor enough! I cannot work so she cannot get coverage from me. Long story short, she suffers and we slowly go broke pulling money from savings to pay for her REQUIRED treatments. If we do not, she dies. Period.
We live in the richest country on earth. I love this country and you all know that. I am heartbroken when we get the letters of denial because she gets SO hopeful that someone will help her and we continue to be told, NO. Yet, they approved her son on the first request and he HAS insurance through her ex-husband (his dad).!!! How can this country turn its back on the citizens that need it so desperately?? She is not asking for a monthly check!!! She is only asking that they help her get the treatments she MUST have.
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:40:57 AM |
|
| [ron h] Monday, May 18, 2009 5:06:39 AM | |
|
Unfortunately, we are at the present time (and have for many years now) been paying the price for abuses by the previous generation(s), before welfare reform...I remember in the 70's up to the mid 80's, welfare abuse was rampant...the more kids a single mom had the more cash and food stamps you got, no limits!!!...A typical scenario would have a mother claiming welfare for 'X' amount of kids and don't know where the father is (he was usually living with her and holding down a job, but not in all cases) and they would have yet more kids...ppl on welfare would be living better than ppl who were actually working and paying their bills...there was no looking for the father or home inspections...reform has done a lot to change all that, some States require the welfare recipient to attend schooling/training to become self supporting, some States have a 'cap' for the length of time you can receive benefits and when that time expires you're on your own...when training is involved, the State will pay for the training, but you have to go...there are loopholes still, and some deserving ppl do fall through the cracks, as nothing is foolproof...but we have come a long way...have a good one, must go to work as I don't get welfare...lol!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:53:33 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I absolutely think that the office that does welfare should investigate, and try as best as it can to prevent abuses. I guess that it will never be 100% abuse-proof, but I certainly dont think that just because some people abuse it, that those that really need it should be left without it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning strat...I do have to chime in on this part of the conversation...when someone applies for Gov. aid, assuming the laws and regulations are relatively the same, the office that one applies to has to investigate the claimants claims of poverty (or whatever)...considering spapad was technically still married, they probably saw fit that her husband should be obligated to cover her medical...all offices are like that, they'll take care of (partially or in whole) if there is no other obligated party to do so...but that doesn't apply to everyone...women, infants and children take priority, it is very. very rare that a male is able to collect any kind of Gov. aid unless they are disabled or are single, jobless parents, and even then they have to sign a document allowing them to garnish wages at a later date when they are back on their feet, but not women (at least in Indiana)...and if a woman with child(ren) is on Gov, aid, they get the SSN of the father and track him down and garnish his wages to help recover their costs...in no way or at any time can someone just walk into an office and walk out with benefits that day unless it is an emergency and you can prove it...usually you get to the interview stage and you're handed a piece of paper that requests a boat load of information, most of which you don't have with you, then another appointment once you've gathered all the info, then an investigation (yes, they will come to your home and inspect!!)...it's quite a lengthy process...our hospitals are only legally bound to stop the bleeding (life saving measures) otherwise, you are on your own...this is how welfare/Gov. aid works here (in general)...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:54:53 AM | |
|
Same here. The only way it should be, imo. Health is a right, not a commodity.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Ellieke from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:27:04 AM)| | | Ellieke wrote: | | In Belgium everybody had medical care. You can buy more if you want but you don't need to.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:53:33 AM | |
|
Well, I absolutely think that the office that does welfare should investigate, and try as best as it can to prevent abuses. I guess that it will never be 100% abuse-proof, but I certainly dont think that just because some people abuse it, that those that really need it should be left without it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:37:38 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning strat...I do have to chime in on this part of the conversation...when someone applies for Gov. aid, assuming the laws and regulations are relatively the same, the office that one applies to has to investigate the claimants claims of poverty (or whatever)...considering spapad was technically still married, they probably saw fit that her husband should be obligated to cover her medical...all offices are like that, they'll take care of (partially or in whole) if there is no other obligated party to do so...but that doesn't apply to everyone...women, infants and children take priority, it is very. very rare that a male is able to collect any kind of Gov. aid unless they are disabled or are single, jobless parents, and even then they have to sign a document allowing them to garnish wages at a later date when they are back on their feet, but not women (at least in Indiana)...and if a woman with child(ren) is on Gov, aid, they get the SSN of the father and track him down and garnish his wages to help recover their costs...in no way or at any time can someone just walk into an office and walk out with benefits that day unless it is an emergency and you can prove it...usually you get to the interview stage and you're handed a piece of paper that requests a boat load of information, most of which you don't have with you, then another appointment once you've gathered all the info, then an investigation (yes, they will come to your home and inspect!!)...it's quite a lengthy process...our hospitals are only legally bound to stop the bleeding (life saving measures) otherwise, you are on your own...this is how welfare/Gov. aid works here (in general)...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:37:38 AM | |
|
Good morning strat...I do have to chime in on this part of the conversation...when someone applies for Gov. aid, assuming the laws and regulations are relatively the same, the office that one applies to has to investigate the claimants claims of poverty (or whatever)...considering spapad was technically still married, they probably saw fit that her husband should be obligated to cover her medical...all offices are like that, they'll take care of (partially or in whole) if there is no other obligated party to do so...but that doesn't apply to everyone...women, infants and children take priority, it is very. very rare that a male is able to collect any kind of Gov. aid unless they are disabled or are single, jobless parents, and even then they have to sign a document allowing them to garnish wages at a later date when they are back on their feet, but not women (at least in Indiana)...and if a woman with child(ren) is on Gov, aid, they get the SSN of the father and track him down and garnish his wages to help recover their costs...in no way or at any time can someone just walk into an office and walk out with benefits that day unless it is an emergency and you can prove it...usually you get to the interview stage and you're handed a piece of paper that requests a boat load of information, most of which you don't have with you, then another appointment once you've gathered all the info, then an investigation (yes, they will come to your home and inspect!!)...it's quite a lengthy process...our hospitals are only legally bound to stop the bleeding (life saving measures) otherwise, you are on your own...this is how welfare/Gov. aid works here (in general)...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:10:34 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Ellieke] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:27:04 AM | |
|
In Belgium everybody had medical care. You can buy more if you want but you don't need to.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:10:34 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:10:34 AM | |
|
Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:31:03 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:31:03 PM | |
|
Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:12:59 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:12:59 PM | |
|
It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:44:25 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:08:00 PM | |
|
True. Well, I guess a couple of millions wouldnt hurt me. Im that modest. Dont expect it tho, thats why I dont play it. I figure its best to keep the money that I would spend on it, and I dont mean to risk it all for a fortune.
Kinda like starting a business, I guess.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:50:34 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | want and expect are different. I sure as hell want to. expect to is different. but I saw a study a while ago that 10% of canadians are counting on the lotto for their retirement. thats stupid
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Frankly, I dont think most people want to "win the lotto", or are at least not seriously expecting it. A normal, decent life would suffice, at least for me.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | its harder, and it also is unlikely people will try. its the same with the lotto, more people buy when the prize is 40 mill than 2 mil. your odds of winning are the same, and realy, 2 mil is a good prize, but its not inspiring.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:44:25 PM | |
|
Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
