Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, but that disqualifies you and roseba and myself, because said boomer feels insulted by lowest common denominators like us. Lol
And she has decided on how many children people should have, typing frantically from her studio in the Bronx.
The next step is to feel maligned by us because of her superior status, like poor Dr Herta Oberheuser at the Nuremberg doctors trial.
What could a smart MD or any PhD wearing her degrees on her sleeve ever do wrong?
All doctors ever do is for the good of humanity. But, they can peg losers like you and I, in order to tell us we are not up to the task, and when that is not enough, they dispose of them, in spite of that superior classical "European" education which they wear on their "virtual" sleeve, and on the other; a swastika.
You also notice how some good "virtual" doctors have such scientifically dedicated minds that they can peg all people on welfare as "Welfare Queens with 5 worthless offspring, systematically.
There.
So, I just looked up the number of people who receive welfare benefits in Canada. It is a bit difficult to find the exact number, but it seems to be 1.7 million people.
So, Canada has a 37.5 million population, of which 1.7 million receive welfare.
The US has a 330 million population, of which 52.2 million receive welfare.
Why does Canada not admit more poor people (considering that it is so sparsely populated), and why is public assistance offered to such a small number of people in Canada? Does selective immigration and the relatively small outlay of public money for welfare reflect a Nazi social policy? Or does it represent sanity, which enables the quality of life, and a solid social safety net for true emergencies, to exist successfully in Canada?
You assume A LOT about people based on very superficial information; how they look, their class etc. Many do, but many don't profess to be highly educated and worldly while still spitting out frankly, lower-educated beliefs about others. You can excuse those who haven't had the education. it's inexcusable coming from the mouths who
Actually, I do not base anything on how people look or what their class is - I repeat, I have known in the course of my nearly 60 years a lot of poor people who were intelligent, sane, resourceful, and all the amazingly good things imaginable. They looked all sorts of ways, and if I said they were poor, obviously they came from poverty class. The fact that I even come to post on this forum, or that I have a crashpad in Parkchester, should tell you that I am oblivious to people's look and class. I obviously picked Parkchester for convenience (including relative safety), not because most people in Parkchester look sophisticated and are high class :-).
I work in a profession in which very educated professionals deal very directly with grisly facts of life, without much chance for interposing any "sophistication" filters. My social opinions are not based on "beliefs" but on things that I have seen, and these opinions are very characteristic of almost anyone in my profession in the US, though you would not know that without talking to physicians privately (or anonymously :-). So, what you frankly consider "lower educated opinions" are frankly the majority opinions in certain professions that require high education, in the US (not in Eastern Europe... I don't keep up with Eastern Europe). Of course, we are civilized and professional with patients, and of course we would never discuss our social and political opinions with someone who came to see us regarding their appendicitis, and of course we will offer maximum quality care even to people we find disgusting... but later in the lounge, we will discuss among ourselves just how disgusted we are. If you consider my opinions in any way extreme, I can tell you that I am not remotely as socially/politically p****d off at welfare state and the size of taxes as most people in my profession in the US are. It has nothing whatsoever to do with where I grew up, it has all to do with the reality which I continuously experience.
Actually, I do not base anything on how people look or what their class is - I repeat, I have known in the course of my nearly 60 years a lot of poor people who were intelligent, sane, resourceful, and all the amazingly good things imaginable. They looked all sorts of ways, and if I said they were poor, obviously they came from poverty class. The fact that I even come to post on this forum, or that I have a crashpad in Parkchester, should tell you that I am oblivious to people's look and class. I obviously picked Parkchester for convenience (including relative safety), not because most people in Parkchester look sophisticated and are high class :-).
I work in a profession in which very educated professionals deal very directly with grisly facts of life, without much chance for interposing any "sophistication" filters. My social opinions are not based on "beliefs" but on things that I have seen, and these opinions are very characteristic of almost anyone in my profession in the US, though you would not know that without talking to physicians privately (or anonymously :-). So, what you frankly consider "lower educated opinions" are frankly the majority opinions in certain professions that require high education, in the US (not in Eastern Europe... I don't keep up with Eastern Europe). Of course, we are civilized and professional with patients, and of course we would never discuss our social and political opinions with someone who came to see us regarding their appendicitis, and of course we will offer maximum quality care even to people we find disgusting... but later in the lounge, we will discuss among ourselves just how disgusted we are. If you consider my opinions in any way extreme, I can tell you that I am not remotely as socially/politically p****d off at welfare state and the size of taxes as most people in my profession in the US are. It has nothing whatsoever to do with where I grew up, it has all to do with the reality which I continuously experience.
If you aren't then why do you bring it up all the time? DOTH protest too much! You asked about Canada... They have a much larger safety net and better regulations. These things do not operate in vacuums. Most social conservatives worried about people below the poverty line almost universally worry about these things without taking the rest into account. It's lazy pontificating at best, or selective knowledge. It's a form of cognitive bias.
So, I just looked up the number of people who receive welfare benefits in Canada. It is a bit difficult to find the exact number, but it seems to be 1.7 million people.
So, Canada has a 37.5 million population, of which 1.7 million receive welfare.
The US has a 330 million population, of which 52.2 million receive welfare.
Why does Canada not admit more poor people (considering that it is so sparsely populated), and why is public assistance offered to such a small number of people in Canada? Does selective immigration and the relatively small outlay of public money for welfare reflect a Nazi social policy? Or does it represent sanity, which enables the quality of life, and a solid social safety net for true emergencies, to exist successfully in Canada?
Welfare programs in the US vs Canada. Two very different things.
Welfare programs in the US are probably more far-reaching in that they cover Medical assistance that in Canada would be limited to dental, or optometric care for people who can't afford it. The rest of health care is covered by a universal program.
Obviously, the numbers in the US are bloated by the extent of coverage. I mean, most people on welfare in the US work when and where work is available. Four hundred some dollars per month doesn't pull you out of poverty, and there are plenty of low paid jobs, we look around us and know that this is a fact of life. Another fact of life in the US is the bloated cost of healthcare, and medications. Canada is the second in line, and it is on average half the cost of prescription drugs in the US. Research and production is vast in both countries, and governments in all states and provinces deal with the cost with varying degrees of accomodation to big and small Pharma.
If you have a large part of the population covered by private insurers at a high cost, those who have none or less coverage are stressed from having to supplement in case of need. Of course, the welfare class is less inclined to worry about it, but not so much the middling classes, those who have to worry about higher ed and other costs. That is where the US model of trying to provide small amounts/school lunches/freebies is lacking in scope because it backs down on universality vis-à-vis Insurance lobbies.
Insurance companies are not about to approve any program that slashes the cost of hospital, clinical, therapeutic care or medications because this means deflating their profit margin. It's a situation where
the cost of higher education for a doctor, and specialist also drives the cost of healthcare higher than other industrialized countries, and the wheel keeps turning and isn't about to stop...
Welfare programs in the US vs Canada. Two very different things.
Welfare programs in the US are probably more far-reaching in that they cover Medical assistance that in Canada would be limited to dental, or optometric care for people who can't afford it. The rest of health care is covered by a universal program.
Obviously, the numbers in the US are bloated by the extent of coverage. I mean, most people on welfare in the US work when and where work is available. Four hundred some dollars per month doesn't pull you out of poverty, and there are plenty of low paid jobs, we look around us and know that this is a fact of life. Another fact of life in the US is the bloated cost of healthcare, and medications. Canada is the second in line, and it is on average half the cost of prescription drugs in the US. Research and production is vast in both countries, and governments in all states and provinces deal with the cost with varying degrees of accomodation to big and small Pharma.
If you have a large part of the population covered by private insurers at a high cost, those who have none or less coverage are stressed from having to supplement in case of need. Of course, the welfare class is less inclined to worry about it, but not so much the middling classes, those who have to worry about higher ed and other costs. That is where the US model of trying to provide small amounts/school lunches/freebies is lacking in scope because it backs down on universality vis-à-vis Insurance lobbies.
Insurance companies are not about to approve any program that slashes the cost of hospital, clinical, therapeutic care or medications because this means deflating their profit margin. It's a situation where
the cost of higher education for a doctor, and specialist also drives the cost of healthcare higher than other industrialized countries, and the wheel keeps turning and isn't about to stop...
I don't think we can compare any way of life in a developed nation with the US because no one component operates in isolation.
I don't think we can compare any way of life in a developed nation with the US because no one component operates in isolation.
Yes, I also heard a lot said about the fact that the US cannot adapt the model from Europe or Japan or Canada. Fair enough, the model the US chooses is its own, but I think that Bernie Sanders and Obama have been targets of calumny by the industry that focussed on the concept that Americans will be robbed of their choice of insurance. In Canada, you can buy extra insurance for private care if you want to, dental care is covered by private not universal like European plans.
-But the crux of it is this; that private insurers are behind the government schemes in all countries, anyway. In the US, it is more about keeping the costs as high as can be borne by the insured, that's about it.
-The other difference is that the lack of affordability restricts its use to a higher stressed middle class beholdened to the system.
If you aren't then why do you bring it up all the time? DOTH protest too much! You asked about Canada... They have a much larger safety net and better regulations. These things do not operate in vacuums. Most social conservatives worried about people below the poverty line almost universally worry about these things without taking the rest into account. It's lazy pontificating at best, or selective knowledge. It's a form of cognitive bias.
My questions about Canada were of course rhetorical, I know how they have "a larger safety net and better regulations". They require most people to pay into the safety net (rather than less than half of the population paying for the entire population), they do not permit a wide and routine abuse of welfare funds, and their immigration regulations are aimed at keeping the total population low as well as relatively skilled. That is all, there isn't any "rest" to take into account, so there is no cognitive bias.
But you are right, I caught a bad habit of fairly frequent posting on this forum... with your resulting impression that this forum or its usual topics greatly matter to me. I really should stop, not because your impression means anything, but because a public forum habit really is a waste of time :-).
Being a clueless kid and being a parent are two completely different things. Please just stop. You have no clue what you are talking about. I assure you of that.
Okay, I do intend to stop (though not because of being clueless, but because I'm wasting too much time here :-). But since your opinion is that parenting is about love, and money is so much less important, I think that points to the perfect solution for the US welfare burden: since parenting is not particularly about money, let's completely stop giving any financial support to people who are getting it for their kids, let's discontinue tax breaks for having kids, let's abolish school taxes, let's de-fund everything that has to do with kids - since love is so much more important for parenting than money. I totally support that notion - welfare queens can raise their offspring on love only, and I get to keep the part of my hard-earned money which I am right now required to turn over to them. Please tell the government the same thing that you told me - that they are childish and clueless when allocating so much money to child services, since good parenting is about love and not money.
Incidentally, there is a form of tax that I do support, and that is sales tax including VAT (I agree with a lot of Yang's financial solutions in general). Interpersonal commerce should be taxed in such a way that people pay tax for products and services they are using - not pay tax so that somebody else can use products and services for free! I am not the one that should be funding someone else's use of baby products - the parents should be paying for them, AND be paying tax on them (and I'll gladly pay my own tax on transportation and accommodations when traveling, because travel is something I love, and am aware that things I love DO cost money, and I do plan them accordingly).
Welfare programs in the US vs Canada. Two very different things.
Welfare programs in the US are probably more far-reaching in that they cover Medical assistance that in Canada would be limited to dental, or optometric care for people who can't afford it. The rest of health care is covered by a universal program.
Obviously, the numbers in the US are bloated by the extent of coverage. I mean, most people on welfare in the US work when and where work is available. Four hundred some dollars per month doesn't pull you out of poverty, and there are plenty of low paid jobs, we look around us and know that this is a fact of life. Another fact of life in the US is the bloated cost of healthcare, and medications. Canada is the second in line, and it is on average half the cost of prescription drugs in the US. Research and production is vast in both countries, and governments in all states and provinces deal with the cost with varying degrees of accomodation to big and small Pharma.
If you have a large part of the population covered by private insurers at a high cost, those who have none or less coverage are stressed from having to supplement in case of need. Of course, the welfare class is less inclined to worry about it, but not so much the middling classes, those who have to worry about higher ed and other costs. That is where the US model of trying to provide small amounts/school lunches/freebies is lacking in scope because it backs down on universality vis-à-vis Insurance lobbies.
Insurance companies are not about to approve any program that slashes the cost of hospital, clinical, therapeutic care or medications because this means deflating their profit margin. It's a situation where
the cost of higher education for a doctor, and specialist also drives the cost of healthcare higher than other industrialized countries, and the wheel keeps turning and isn't about to stop...
Excerpt: Four hundred some dollars per month doesn't pull you out of poverty,
Opinion: I think there is much more to it than that........
Knew someone around 2010 ....had a $1,200 N.Y. apartment studio paid for by N.Y. Housing......$800 a month disability.....
$400 a month food stamps not including medical coverage,transportation an many other amenities for free free free.....
Laid around the house all day watching T.V. and complaining about their personal unfairness and treatment.
Doing almost as good or better than people working for a living. Welcome to N.Y. where you can ride the coat tails of the
working class and complain.
Excerpt: Four hundred some dollars per month doesn't pull you out of poverty,
Opinion: I think there is much more to it than that........
Knew someone around 2010 ....had a $1,200 N.Y. apartment studio paid for by N.Y. Housing......$800 a month disability.....
$400 a month food stamps not including medical coverage,transportation an many other amenities for free free free.....
Laid around the house all day watching T.V. and complaining about their personal unfairness and treatment.
Doing almost as good or better than people working for a living. Welcome to N.Y. where you can ride the coat tails of the
working class and complain.
At least the disability fund was something this guy paid into while working (ie, he paid half of FICA taxes for disability insurance - his employer paid the other half), and if he was legitimately and truly disabled(????), the disability insurance fund exists to insure against health risks that could render a person unable to work.
But I am talking about free services (funded by working people's earnings) for people who never contributed a cent to any common insurance fund, and aren't affected by any disability. The decision to have kids when you don't work and can't support kids is not a disability, but a calculated plan to make someone else pay for your kids' support (and incidentally for your own support - that is how welfare mothers make their living, by having kids, because kids are funded by welfare). Biologists who study bird behavior have a term for that: brood parasitism. Why would a cuckoo build a nest and sit on eggs, when it can just unobtrusively place its eggs into some other bird's nest, so the other birds can wear themselves out building the home for, taking care of, feeding and protecting the cuckoo's offspring? (plus I understand cuckoo chicks are biggish and aggressive, and will often kick out the biologic offspring of parent birds to the ground, and thus kill them). That is where the phrase "being cuckolded" comes from - since in the old days before contraception being "cuckolded" carried a potential of having to raise and support kids of some other biologic father (for whom the legal father definotely would NOT care :-). Only now the taxpayers are being cuckolded - through paying for welfare expenses, healthcare cost, cost of crime, and all other expenses that welfare queens generate. The cost to support 52.2 million people (or about 17% of the population - every 5th to 6th American, who lives off of other people) is not negligible to the remaining 83% Americans, particularly to those 82% who need their earnings to support themselves first.
Considering that people on welfare use healthcare services A LOT (and disproportionately more than those who pay for thosed services), and considering that I work in healthcare, I know just how much exactly the taxpayers pay to provide free services for VERY useless and socially undesirable people (and here I am not talking about what most welfare recipients look like or what their class is - I am talking about their usual behavior: disruptive, aggressive, ENTITLED). I do not see why tax money (or anything else) should be used to incentivize parenthood among such people.
PS - also, I think the Canadian poster to whose post you replied must be a Francophone, which is the likely reason for his non sequiturs (one of the problems that Roseba found in a list in Wikipedia :-). It would be hard for me to talk about this in French too.
Last edited by elnrgby; 01-10-2020 at 08:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
