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.
Because many Americans believe in the American Dream myth and still fancy themselves cowboys and pioneers of the old West. They can't believe life has changed from 1817 to 2017.
I understand that. But do poor children choose to be impoverished. 1/5 go to bed hungry. Did they decide that?
What about the blind and cripples? Did they decide those infirmities would be some sort of governmental gravy train?
What about NAIRU? The non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment which requires a pool of unemployed labor to keep inflation at bay. Should we resign that unemployed labor pool to poverty and life on the streets?
I think we need a robust safety net for these types of people...sort of like, I don't know, social insurance against that misfortunes and depredations of society and life.
Once the gravy train is decommissioned, the lazy and those that can't keep from inseminating any female that walks by will get the picture.
The deserving needy will always be taken care of through charity, not Big Gummint.
Ask those on the left. I suggested implementing a 25% national VAT tax in the US (like many Scandinavian/European countries have) to fund single payer national health care, and those on the left just about had a seizure over that. They want single payer national health care, but they DON'T want to pay the taxes needed to fund it. Go figure... /SMH
Many on the left fail to realize that even Seniors have to PAY for their Medicare... Monthly premiums, co-pays, deductibles, prescriptions aren't covered, and only 80% is covered. Seniors must buy an additional supplemental insurance policy if they want prescriptions and the other 20% covered.
Both parties don't want increased taxes. The left wants social services, but no increased taxes to pay for them. The right doesn't want the social services or increased taxes.
Having high taxes would be kind of crummy, but not having to ever deal with insurance again would be great. You just go to the doctor when you need to. No worrying about $1000/mo family premiums, copays, deductibles, coinsurance, etc. With the current system, billing is always very random. You never know if you'll receive a $25 bill in the mail or a $2500 bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
What myth?
The myth is that if "you work hard enough, you can be anything you want to be". That might have been the case when half of the professions we have today didn't exist, there was free/cheap land available, large global corporations didn't exist, companies actually respected their employees, and having a higher education degree was somewhat rare (meaning everyone was on an equal playing field).
My grandfather doesn't have a college degree at all, but he was able to work his way up from a low level technician to a division manager during his career. No way would that ever occur today unless you've got a degree.
Who are you to judge? Better to leave social decisions to a qualified social worker. A social worker has been trained to determine whether someone is deserving of help. They're not just throwing money at anyone, they're helping people who are down on their luck. The social services need reforming, it's true. No one should be on food stamps or welfare forever as a life style. There have to be limits except in cases where the person is disable or elderly and can't help themselves. This country is divided by extremes--all or nothing, a lot of people don't see that there are shades of gray in between.
It's grammatically incorrect to put into quotation marks something I didn't say.
I specifically said I'm willing to help people in need. So why did you feel you needed to lecture me?
Most people in the US support social programs. Oh they may huff and puff when they turn off Breitbart for the evening but when grandma needs nursing care or little Jimmy gets a broken arm they'll apply for that public assistance faster than a prom date's panties drop.
Basically it's all just hot air. Look to Appalachia as a prime example.
The UK ranks better than the US in almost any health category like infant mortality etc. If you are wealthy, yes the US has hospitals worth traveling to. For the bottom 80% not so much. Thousands in the US die because they will not see a doctor about a minor issue before it becomes a major issue due to bills. Pricing is hidden. Etc.
You can quote facts and figures all day long. Have you actually lived it? Have you lived in the United Kingdom, and used the National Health Service? I have, first hand. My wife nearly suffered a burst appendix because of the wait times associated with getting her into surgery. Post surgery, she spent the next 2 days in a 10 bed open bay ward, with patients being treated for everything from cancer, to pneumonia. This open bay room had unscreened windows that opened to street level on a major thoroughfare. Nothing like a healthy dose flying insects and diesel fumes to speed the healing process.
Everyone in the U.S. has access to care now. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat patients. We have Medicare, and Medicaid. Everyone is required by law to have insurance now. It sounds as if you just want free care, no matter how much it lowers the standard of care, so long as you don't have to pay, and everyone has the same lower level of care. Duly noted.
A large portion of Americans seem to be against social programs even though it may be for the common good. When there is talk of the (on average) much better social programs in many European countries the general response is "well, they have to spend more on taxes". To which I ask.....so? If it meant far better health care, far better maternity leave, etc. isn't that worth it? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
Well....there was a study done at Harvard that asked:
......The behavioral explanations also seem very important. Racial fragmentation in the US and the disproportionate representation of minorities among the poor has clearly played a major role in stopping rich-poor redistribution within the US, and, indeed, across the world racial cleavages seem to serve as a barrier to redistribution. This history of American redistribution makes it quite clear that hostility to welfare comes in part from the fact that welfare spending in the US goes disproportionately to minorities. Also Americans dislike redistribution because they feel that people on welfare are lazy.
Europeans feel that people on welfare are unfortunate. Apart from the fact that in the US there is indeed a higher connection between effort and earnings than Europe, we don't know what explains these differences in beliefs.
Our bottom line is that Americans redistribute less than Europeans because (1) the majority believes that redistribution favors racial minorities, (2) Americans believe that they live in an open and fair society and that if someone is poor it is their own fault, and (3) the political system is geared towards preventing redistribution. In fact the political system is likely to be endogenous to these basic American beliefs........
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.
