The united states Economy

its.fubar

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
316
is there any truth to what the republicans would have us believe when they say the economy is recovering?

9 million unemployed and many more you have given up looking ?
the dollar twenty percent lower than what it was?
the Euro ten percent higher than the dollar ?
many Americans cannot afford prescription drugs in the U.S.?

is this what is meant to be a recovery by republican standards?
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Unemployment is at about 6% in the US (Forbes, 10/15/03). I don't see this as being all that high. Especially when compared with the EU which routinely has unemployment figures about 10%.

What country are you from its.fubar?

Based on the stocks that I own the economy does seem to be doing just fine. All of my holdings are up for the year. The Dow is up 15% for the year and the Nasdaq is up 40%. WTF is not good about that?

And what is your deal with constantly talking about prescription drugs? From what I've seen, no one really cares that much about that topic around here. Your local nursing home might be a better place to talk about it.

If you want to make claims, please back them up with news articles and figures.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I care, about both topics. "Jobless recovery" means that busineses are becoming more valuable (richer) without giving anything back. On one hand, part of the business where I work as a trainer is teaching the unemployed new skills, but since most of the guys I know who have finished high levels of training are still underemployed (e.g. part-time work at a grocery store, having finished multiple IT certs). Makes me wonder whether I mihjt be next. I'm sure others here have similar stories.

Drug costs? I pay about $260 a month for antidepressants. My personal insurance doesn't cover anything related to mental health and only covers drugs under certain circumstances anyway. $260 a month is a lot like a car payment... and since my depression is now a pre-existing condition, no future insurance I have will ever cover it. But hey, it's only money, right? Why would I want to have $200 extra dollars in my pocket, monthly, and affordable, useful medical care from say a national health coverage policy?
 

its.fubar

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
316
timwhit said:
Unemployment is at about 6% in the US (Forbes, 10/15/03). I don't see this as being all that high. Especially when compared with the EU which routinely has unemployment figures about 10%.

What country are you from its.fubar?

Based on the stocks that I own the economy does seem to be doing just fine. All of my holdings are up for the year. The Dow is up 15% for the year and the Nasdaq is up 40%. WTF is not good about that?

And what is your deal with constantly talking about prescription drugs? From what I've seen, no one really cares that much about that topic around here. Your local nursing home might be a better place to talk about it.

If you want to make claims, please back them up with news articles and figures.
No it may not be all that high but the Europeans are not saying the economy is getting better,but you can always ask one all two or even more of the 9 million if they think the economy is getting better also?

It depends what you make a comparison with, stocks that have risen 40 percent of this years low is still very low compared with two years ago the people that lost money then are still not smiling and I suppose they don't think it's much of a recovery.

I suppose the people that cannot afford prescription drug in the U.S. do not have computers also ?

are you suggesting that what I have stated is not correct ?
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Merc: I said that no one cared about the topic of prescription drugs, because in a different thread its.fubar brought up the same topic without any replies to that specific topic. I guess I was wrong about that.

Economy getting better is not synonymous with lower unemployment rates. Take any Econ 101 class and you will learn that. My argument is that the stock market is making a good recovery for this year.

its.fubar said:
It depends what you make a comparison with, stocks that have risen 40 percent of this years low is still very low compared with two years ago the people that lost money then are still not smiling and I suppose they don't think it's much of a recovery.
The market was unnaturally high in the spring of 1999 when it was at its highest. Of course people aren't happy that the market made a correction. I have never met anyone that liked having less money. But, that's not the point I was trying to make. The point was: the market is higher now than at the beginning of the year. THIS IS A GOOD THING. I have more money, my dad has more money, and millions of other people who have money invested have more money.

I suppose the people that cannot afford prescription drug in the U.S. do not have computers also ?
That wasn't my point. My point was that you brought up your argument about prescription drugs in a different thread and it got no responses. So in order to sustain your craving to anger people, you decided to bring it up again. Well congratulations, you got 3 responses about it already.

And once again, you have quoted no figures other than 9 million Americans are jobless. Good supporting argument.

From what country do you type your insightful posts?
 

its.fubar

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
316
timwhit Are you suggesting that something is better than nothing and that is acceptable or is this what a republican would call a recovery?

it might be the beginning of the end of the recession but it is not a recovery by any means and it doesn't matter what G W "B for Buffoon" Bush says or does he cannot make the facts anything else the USA is still in a recession and he will not be in the white house after the next election.

as for prescription drugs do you not think that everybody should have the same possibility in being able to afford these drugs regardless of their standing in society?
 

it's-fubar

What is this storage?
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Messages
16
its.fubar said:
timwhit Are you suggesting that something is better than nothing and that is acceptable or is this what a republican would call a recovery?

it might be the beginning of the end of the recession but it is not a recovery by any means and it doesn't matter what G W "B for Buffoon" Bush says or does he cannot make the facts anything else the USA is still in a recession and he will not be in the white house after the next election.

as for prescription drugs do you not think that everybody should have the same possibility in being able to afford these drugs regardless of their standing in society?
Dear poser - Do you have any clue as to what a recession is? Enomists define recession as being a decline in gross domestic product for two consecutive quarters. America is not in a recession. If you are going to imitate me do try to know what it is you are talking about lest you embarrass us both.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Mercutio said:
and since my depression is now a pre-existing condition, no future insurance I have will ever cover it.
I had to get my own insurance when I turned 25 because my parents insurance would no longer cover me. Unfortunately, there was a lapse due to a lack of specific communication on the matter between my dad's company and him.

So when I got my own insurance, I was responsible for 100% of my asthma medication costs ... for the first 12 months. I stayed with them for a few years and then when I switched insurance companies the costs were equivalent.

You may be able to get a mental health rider added to your insurance.

Moral to the my story: If you can help it, don't let your insurance lapse.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Mercutio said:
I care, about both topics. "Jobless recovery" means that busineses are becoming more valuable (richer) without giving anything back.
This makes companies sound like charities. Companies are only obligated to employ enough people to keep the place running. "Jobless recovery" can mean companies have become more efficient in operations. This theory seems to be the one most prevalent today.
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
- The stock market is, as usual, rising too quickly. This will bring about another correction, although probably nowhere near as severe as in '01. I think a Dow of 8700-9200 is reasonable, but beyond that it seems to be overvalued. (I like what my 401(k) is doing as much as the next guy, but I think the current value levels are unrealistic)

- Companies are becoming somewhat more efficient. However, when new jobs are being created, more often they are going off-shore. This hurts the US economy in the long run.

- The corporate culture of publicly traded firms is still concentrating on having good quarters. Gone are the 3 & 5 year plans. Firms do not seem to be planning long-term. Which, of course, eventually leads them to troubled times and the eventual merger/buyout/takeover.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I am aware of that.

HOWEVER current economic policies in the US have been sold as "promoting job growth". This has not happened even though current economic indicators show that our economy *is* growing.

So what are businesses doing with that money if they aren't expanding?
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Mercutio said:
I am aware of that.

HOWEVER current economic policies in the US have been sold as "promoting job growth". This has not happened even though current economic indicators show that our economy *is* growing.

So what are businesses doing with that money if they aren't expanding?
Typically what manufacturing companies do with their money during lean times is investment in infrastructure. In general make investments that will pay off some now but the big payoff comes when the economy picks up and they can do the same amount of business as before but faster or better quality. Or they horde it waiting for another shoe to fall.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,980
Location
Flushing, New York
Mercutio said:
So what are businesses doing with that money if they aren't expanding?
How about giving CEOs ridiculous pay packages and golden parachutes? This is what I think is mainly wrong with businesses in this country-the huge gap between the lowest paid worker and the CEO. If jobs are being moved overseas, and costs cut in other ways, then the money saved should not go to overpay CEOs. Rather, the price of the product should be lowered. I'm all for fair compensation, but not when you have the ones actually doing the grunt work making $10 an hour while the CEO gets $10 million plus a percentage of the profits. This is all the more obscene as a pay package tied in with profit encourages laying people off and overworking the remaining work force(i.e. give them a stupid title to make them part of "management" and you no longer need to pay them OT). Today's CEOs are for the most part such an unimaginative bunch it makes me puke. You increase profits by increasing your business with innovative new products, not by laying people off.

Why would I want to have $200 extra dollars in my pocket, monthly, and affordable, useful medical care from say a national health coverage policy?
While you might benefit(and you undoubtably deserve to in light of all the taxes you've paid), the problem with national health coverage(or any type of medical entitlement for that matter, such as Medicare or Medicaid) is that the healthy end up paying for the sick. You'll get people like me who haven't been to a doctor in 20 years being forced to pay yet another tax for something that will probably never pay them even 10% back in benefits. Even worse, government insurance and in fact any system where somebody else pays the bulk(such as private insurance) discourages many people from taking any responsibility for their health. Right now preventable diseases like diabetes, heart disease, strokes, joint problems, etc. are increasing in record numbers because people get fat, don't excercise, and then run to the doctor when things stop working crying "fix me, fix me, I don't want to die!" Of course, most of them would never have gotten to that state if they had to pay out of pocket for all the fancy drugs keeping them alive(in fact, many could get off those drugs entirely by losing weight and exercising). But since they don't pay much, if anything, they simply don't care to do anything for their health.

Fact is medical entitlements are rising faster than inflation, and if not reigned in sooner or later will result in bankruptcy at all levels of government. Basically then, no prescription drug coverage, no national health care, and let's phase out Medicare, private insurance, and especially Medicaid entirely. Go back to a user pays system, get the lawyers out of medicine(frivolous malpractice suits are a big force behind rising medical costs), and maybe the price of medical care will drop to a reasonable amount again that people can pay out of pocket. Thanks to the factors driving up the cost of medicine, I couldn't afford a thorough yearly checkup even if I wanted to. I'd rather avoid doctors entirely if possible anyway as they'll usually want to prescribe something, even for a healthy person.

Another grip I have with insurance is that it if I work for a company that offers it as part of the employment package, to me it is almost worthless. About the only thing I would use are the dental benefits, and those are usually the worst part of an insurance package. I'd rather the company just added the $5000 or so the insurance costs them to my pay(and do the same with the matching Social Security, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc.). I can put it to better use sticking it in a mutual fund and drawing upon that when any emergencies pop up. I don't care if others won't necessarily do the same. I shouldn't have part of my compensation put into an almost useless benefit package because doing so benefits the incompetent majority. Yet another example of society catering to the lowest common denominator if you ask me.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Are we each responsible for everyone else's medical care?

We have always been a country of self relient people until recent history. Is moving away from that principle to one of relying on one another through the Government a good thing? Or bad?

What consequences to our society are there of becoming a society where we rely on each other through the Government and the Taxes they collect rather than each person relying upon themselves? What are the pros and cons of this?
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
q: Why shoud we, as a nation of self-reliant individuals, pay for public education, even if we don't use it?

a: Because doing so improves the quality of life for our communities and our nation(s).

Employers that provide health insurance to you and your family aren't doing it out of the joy of socialist brotherhood or even the happy thought that they actually care about you. They're doing it because they want you at work as much as possible, earning money or being productive.

Yet when this same idea is applied to everyone, large numbers of conservative-types get up in arms about the mere idea that some of their money might go to this service. Even if you take the "But how does this benefit me?" stance, it's probably a good idea, since widely available and affordable health care might very well prevent the spread of some diseases (do you all know TB is making a comeback in this country?) and prevent down time among the service-industry workers we rely on.

I can't say I've ever directly benefitted from the federal court system, but I'm happy to pay for it, in case I do. Many Americans haven't gained anything from rural electrification, the wars on drugs or terror, farming subsidies, SEC or the National Parks programs. Yet universal health care - something that would be a genuine benefit to millions - seems to lead to knee-jerk negative reactions.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Don't read any particular attiude into the questions I posed. I think it's helpful to view such things as universal health care as a deper level than we typically do. That is to go beyond the obvious benefits and look a little further down the road to see where such things will lead us as a nation and decide if that is the direction we truly wish to go in.

It is not a question of "how does this benefit me?" The question many conservatives are asking is "Will I get my money's worth". And that is an appropriate question to ask. After all it is we who must pay for this health care system through our taxes. Certainly there is nothing wrong with asking if the money that you earn and pay in taxes is going to be used productively.

My question though is "will it benefit us as a nation in the long run?"
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Mercutio said:
They're doing it because they want you at work as much as possible, earning money or being productive.
Health insurance was not common until WWII. It only became common as an incentive to women to come to work for them rather than the other guy. The benefit had been in place for so long that once the men returned this benefit was expected.

The companies are few and far between that consider their workers partners rather than resources.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
flagreen said:
Are we each responsible for everyone else's medical care?
Any evoluated nation should offer free health care (EFFICIENT health care, ours' free but down right slow). While it's true many, if not most people have life styles that are irresponsible and therefore should contribute to the health services more than others, everyone can suffered from a serious injury or sickness at one time or another.

With a health care system like yours, one's life can be ruined by a simple unlucky accident (a fall in stairs caused by a slippery step, for instance). I have no idea how much health insurance cost in the States, but I'm sure many people can't afford it. Among those, hospitalisation can literally break their lives. Is that normal for a nation who (wrongly) prouds itself as the nation where everyone has a fair chance to succeed, no matter what social class they are from? IMO, it's hypocrisism from the selfish, immoral and wealthier class.

flagreen said:
It is not a question of "How does this benefit me?" The question many conservatives are asking is "Will I get my money's worth". And that is an appropriate question to ask. After all it is we who must pay for this health care system through our taxes. Certainly there is nothing wrong with asking if the money that you earn and pay in taxes is going to be used productively.
I'm pretty sure it's more about "how does it benefits me?" for most of the poeple backing the right. But for the minority who thinks "Will I get my money's worth", I'll answer this : no in therm of $$ investment, but yes if you look at the moral side of the question. In my book, everything that's public is unefficient by definition. So of course, money sent to health care won't be as effectively spent as if it would be by a private enterprise. However, since it's probably the single way to provide health care to the poorer class, well it clearly worthes it IMO. Ways to improve this efficiency would be to regulate the unjustified earnings of health specialists and the exagerated prices that pharmaceutic corporations ask for their medications.

Besides, if "Will I get my money's worth?" was so important for the conservatives, why do they support the insane expenses your current administration allows for totally inefective and unneeded military actions everywhere around the globe where United States have no business to be? Anyway, if United States would be as enthusiastic to spend public funds to enhance the life quality of its own citizen rather than protecting the interest of its small but powerful upper class, it would have far fewer problems with antipathetic nations and it would be a better place to live.
 

blakerwry

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Oct 12, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
Kansas City, USA
Website
justblake.com
I dont get my money's worth now without health insurance... as longa s I get more of my money's worth with a national health plan I'm all for it.

I do agree with jtr that people should take more responsibility for for their own actions and life-style choices. Chain smoking, being an alcoholic, and other abuse of controlled drugs should pretty much eliminate you for being elligable. People should also be responsible for their diet/exercise so that preventable diseases like diet related diabetes and obesity are no longer a problem.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Well Bill, the first thing we'd have to do is pick a model for coverage, then determine how much it cost, and then extrapolate a few decades. Is that what you're proposing?
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
There is a lot of speculation going around that someone could be poor enough that they could not get either emergency care or advisory/preemptive medical care.

Forget statistics, can anyone provide even an anecdote that this is true?
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Ok my fault, I did not make myself clear. Forget about health care for the moment.

What I am asking is this -

Is it a good thing to be a nation of self relient individuals who provide for themselves?

Or is it better to be a nation of individuals who all rely on the government to meet their basic needs?

What are the pros and cons of each way of life as you see them?
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,980
Location
Flushing, New York
flagreen said:
What I am asking is this -

Is it a good thing to be a nation of self relient individuals who provide for themselves?

Or is it better to be a nation of individuals who all rely on the government to meet their basic needs?

What are the pros and cons of each way of life as you see them?
The problem with the second model is that it has already been tried and failed miserably. Just ask our friends in the former USSR how wonderful life was when the individual's only purpose was to serve the collective. This failure wasn't necessarily due to any fundamental flaw in Marxism but rather its failure to account for human nature. Most people will only do something that is in their own interests. If such action also benefits the collective then all well and good. In general, however, behavoir that benefits the collective must be forced as it is often counter to what benefits the individual. This applies even in so-called free countries. While paying taxes may benefit the collective, most people will not voluntarily pay those taxes without the threat of punishment.

The biggest problem with any universal benefit is that some will benefit more than others, and also irresponsible individuals will be shielded from the direct consequences of their actions. Human nature being what it is, this encourages further irresponsible behavoir. Look at auto insurance, for instance. Driving habits are worse than even because you are mostly shielded from the financial effects of poor driving(most people are too stupid to think about the health effects). If people were routinely bankrupted by people they injured in an auto accident suing them, I tend to think they would be more responsible behind the wheel. Welfare and Medicaid provide another great example. Why stop having babies or leading an unhealthy lifestyle when the taxpayer will bail you out time and again? To add insult to injury, in places like NYC Medicaid has even paid for fertility drugs for people on welfare(not sure if that's still the case). This is the ultimate in brain-dead public policy.

The only way to encourage responsiblity is to make people suffer the consequences of their actions. I'm all for helping people who come upon hard times through no fault of thier own. To not do so would be callous. However, I draw the line where a person has caused their own situation. And that is the very problem with universal anything. Another big problem is that politicians end up with solid voting blocks by dispensing these goodies. This isn't a good thing as these benefit programs have resulted in one fiscal crisis after another, and have rarely lived up to their hype. LBJ's so-called war on poverty has cost the taxpayers $5 trillion so far, and poverty levels now are higher than they were before it started. Doubtless if not for some half-hearted attempts at welfare reform, the situation now would be even worse.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I'm not sure if it was on-line or off but someone I know once said that where public services are concerned, demand will grow to meet supply.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
I tend to agree with you jtr1962. Socialism sounds good in the offing but the jury is still out on whether a nation which adheres to such a philosophy can be sucessful in the long run. It will be interesting to follow the sucess or failure of the "Socialist Democracies" of Europe.

The weakness I see with not relying upon ourselves idividually to be responsible for our own welfare is that there will always be those who will not contribute to the common welfare of others. Yet these same individuals will not hesitate to take advantage of every benefit such a system has to offer. And can we really blame them? Why should they work hard or even work at all if they are going to be "taken care of" no matter what anyway? Certainly this is not true of all. There will be a considerable number who will continue to be productive even though they know they are essentially supporting far more than just their own. But which group will grow in numbers as time goes on? If it is the latter group than than fine. But if it is the former group, the "takers" for lack of a better name, then will a socialist system not collapse of it's own weight before long? The latter group the "givers" (no pun intended) have little incentive to grow in numbers whereas the former group the"takers" have every incentive to increase in numbers and why not? Human nature is what is - we are not all equal in anything other than in our basic God given human rights. The loafers, the poor, the greedy and the rich will always be with us no matter what form of government or economic system we may live under.

This is not to say that certain basic services should not be provided by government. Things such as our providing for our common defense. Public utilities and public safety have long been provided by the government and funded by our taxes.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Howell said:
I'm not sure if it was on-line or off but someone I know once said that where public services are concerned, demand will grow to meet supply.
That's what worries me. Well said.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
It's my belief that health care should be considered a basic service.

Does anyone think that a sick person shouldn't be cared for just because s/he doesn't have a Free Pass from BlueCross?

Does anyone actually think people will go out and get sick on purpose?

"Quick, breathe on me, Mr. SARS patient, so's ah can gets me some o' dat gub'mint free health care!"

The system works pretty well in Canada. So well that our FDA has to issue phony warnings for USians to not buy Canadian drugs, 'cause they're so much cheaper.

Canadians (and Brits) who want faster/better care, and can afford it, can pay a private physician. I see no reason why private practice should be incompatible with some kind of universal care.

Here we are, richest nation in the world, and 1/3 of our citizens have no health care coverage. Are you all willing to say "I got mine." to 60-odd million and rising people who evidently don't have it together enough to find one of the employers generous enough to continue offering medical coverage in the face of costs that have spiralled beyond comprehension in the last 10 years.
 

its.fubar

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
316
And just another thought on health care, what about the twelve 1/2 million people in the USA below the poverty level are they expect to keep quiet because they cannot afford the medicine they may need to be healthy and just die in the streets ?
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
There's a grocery-store employees strike going on here. Reason: health benefits are being cut and employees are being asked to pay more for it.

I heard on the radio that the public subsidises Walmart. They don't offer health-insurance (or it's woefully inadequate), so when a Walmart employee falls sick he/she ends up in the emergency room and gets free treatment. Walmart is moving into the grocery business big time, and the old-time grocery chains are worried sick. In response, they are cutting health benefits to "level the playing field".

The employees say this is the beginning of the end of health benefits, so they won't let the cutting begin.

The "experts" say unless healthcare is reformed, more and more people will be losing their health benefits.
 

its.fubar

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
316
mubs As you say they will probably get emergency care and free treatment at that particular time but do they Get the medicine they will possible need afterwards?
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
flagreen said:
The weakness I see with not relying upon ourselves idividually to be responsible for our own welfare is that there will always be those who will not contribute to the common welfare of others. Yet these same individuals will not hesitate to take advantage of every benefit such a system has to offer.
As related to my quote earlier, the cost models for these programs are usually wrong because they fail to take into account how many people that do not need it (who were previously paying their way) will start taking advantage of the new service. It's not magic. If you make something attractive to people with no money, it's also going to be attractive to people with little money.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
There have been many good points raised for both sides of the health care question.

If health care should be considered a basic government provided service, shouldn't the provision of food also be considered a basic government service? If not, why not? What is the difference?
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Most states offer food aid to the poor already. Here in Indiana we call it EBT but most people still use the generic term "food stamps" People who use it aren't necessarily on welfare. A lot of them work, but can't afford to feed their families.

People on food stamps can only buy certain products - not everything is free.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Mercutio said:
Most states offer food aid to the poor already. Here in Indiana we call it EBT but most people still use the generic term "food stamps" People who use it aren't necessarily on welfare. A lot of them work, but can't afford to feed their families.

People on food stamps can only buy certain products - not everything is free.
True enough. But then the Government also provides Medicare, Medicade and Social Secutrity health benefits as well.

But a universal food program does not exist here in America. As with Medicare, Medicade and Social Security certain criteria must be met to qualify for Food Stamps. Not everyone qualifies for either food stamps or for health care. Certainly food is every bit as important, if not more so, than health care is.

If the Government is to provide universal health care doesn't it only make sense that they provide food and shelter as well since the state of one's health is to a great degree dependent on the quality and availability of these other basic needs? Isn't it shooting oneself in the foot not to provide these things too?
 

blakerwry

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Oct 12, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
Kansas City, USA
Website
justblake.com
There is no need flagreen.


There is a need for affordable healthcare, the supply is short and the demand high.

There is currently no problem finding affordable housing or food in the US as a whole. For people that have problems doing these things on there own there already exists programs to help them.

What would be nice is if we could do something like this for healthcare so that healthcare becomes affordable to atleast the majority if not almost everyone.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,362
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Ever hear of Section 8 Housing, Bill?

Granted, I'm not sure the federal government still specifically funds that program, but there certainly are government funded programs for providing shelter to those who can't afford it (I know, for example, that when Chicago demolished Cabrini Green, a lot of its residents were given vouchers for public housing in Danville, Illinois, where my grandmother lives).

A LOT of people can't afford health care. Some of those people qualify for Medicaid, but the fact that there's 60-odd million folks in the US whose lives would be utterly destroyed by a long-term illness or serious accident speaks very highly of the need for more attention.

One of my co-workers had a baby three years ago, with a serious heart condition. She had no insurance for herself or her family. He spent almost the entire first year of his life in a hospital. $280,000 worth of medical bills, which, because of some clever lobbying on the part of the health care establishment, she's going to making payments on until the end of time, because even if she declared bankruptcy, she's still liable for medical care.

Adequate pre-natal care might've found the problem. Maybe someone could've advised her not to bring the baby to term. But once the kid was born, she really didn't have a choice but to allow the hospital to do whatever it wanted. Which was $280,000 worth of somethings.
 

its.fubar

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
316
That is outrageous Mercutio what you have described, no where in Scandinavia or the Majority of EU country's would anyone been put in such a situation,there is much wrong in Europe today but health care is not one of them,in the Scandinavian countries they have decided that anyone that needs medical care would be charged around about 10,00 $ per day regardless of the operation they would need and I believe it is very much the same in the rest of the EU country's How is this done, people have decided that paying higher taxes is the best way for the majority and it seems to be a sensible attitude Considering what you have Wrote,I would hasten to add there is a growing far right percentage of people trying to change the situation to something like what you have in the USA because they seem to think there will be a great deal of money to be made from the sick It will also never cease to amaze me how far people will descend to this level of republican greed.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
If there is no problem finding affordable food or housing than why do we have federally assisted housing programs and food stamps? We have these programs precisely because for many people these things are not affordable. This is same reason in fact why have Medicare and Medicaid.

Yet we are talking about government administration of health care for every single individual and not just for those who cannot afford it.

To my way of thinking this is the same as if we were talking about government administration of food resources because not every one can afford food without help.

The same could be said of housing.

What is the difference?

As a point of interest, Americans pay less out their pockets per capita as a percentage of overall national health care expenditures than do Canadians (per the World Health Organization) even though Canada has a national health care program. What does this tell us?
 
Top