HR and Vacation
-
@Aaron said:
Unfortunately your employer doesn't look at it that way. He looks at the equation upside-down; your value is measured in hours per dollar/euro. Reduce the number of hours and you've reduced your effective value. Before, he was paying you (for example) $5 to work 1 hour (value = 0.2). Now he's paying you $5.50 for the same hour (value = 0.18). This is a lower value, not a higher one!
And of course the additional problem is that the employer doesn't foot any of that cost, the consumers of your product do. Now when every single person in the economy has the same loss of value due to a mandatory vacation minimum, that cost is tacked onto everything produced in-country. This gives a natural advantage to foreign-produced goods which will either put local employees out of work or will require tariffs that end up making foreign goods artificially expensive in an attempt to constrain competition. Hopefully you can all see that this is not a good idea. The end result is that the extra vacation time is not free, it comes out of everyone's pockets in three ways:
1) Goods (whether local or foreign in origin) are more expensive. This affects the poor more than the rich since they have a smaller disposable income and fewer options in circumventing high local prices.
2) Service-sector jobs that cannot be done overseas become more desirable to employees which lowers the value of those jobs. This lowers the wages these jobs pay. In some cases this may increase the supply of that particular service which will reduce the cost to consumers which at least offsets some of the economic effects. In many cases, though, the actual supply of service people will not increase fast enough which will result in no decrease in the cost of services.
3) The desirablility of investing in the local economy decreases as local and foreign money find more vital economies to invest in. This has a long-term impact on the economy which is not immediately evident but which can be very difficult to recover from.
Obviously Europe isn't doing badly economically, but I would wager that the increased expense of doing business there certainly is not helping the economy to be as vital as is possible. This may end up only reducing the economic productivity of Europe by the time lost to long vacations, but probably also has further implications that are more difficult to suss out.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
Also most/some euopeans have a 13th month or summer bonus, which means they don't really have to save up for your vacation.
So Europeans need their companies to force them to save because they can't do it on their own. That sucks. What if you prove you are capable of saving money, can you opt out of this scheme?
Evidently as jetcitywoman noted, you might benefit from some more control in your life as seemingly you all are living on credit and spending all your money in between paychecks.
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
Also i doubt there would be any use to such a research, every country has its pro and con points. simply offseting the cost of living to the average wage earned multiplied by the standard of living will be pretty much useless, as well as all the oh so much quoted GDP variants. I can tell you now, that US, canada or western europen countries will simply have a similar average. Wich can simply be described as "high". We earn a lot, we pay a lot and we can play a lot. Life for us is simply pretty good. putting a arbitary number to it tells us nothing unless you want to look at global economics, but those results don't impact our lives directly.
Actually, I feel the differences would skew towards the US quite a bit. Yes, we all have a good standard for living and if you are happy with your own, then more power to you. However, when it comes to understanding macro-economics, making wise business and investment decisions and implementing economic policy, it's useful to know what strategies are more successful.
Actually, i feel the difference would skew towards the netherlands quite a bit, but hey if you think you have it good, all the more power too you. However unlike you (apparently) i don't need to worry about macro-economics in my day to day life. I get more then enough money for a job i love to do, and have never felt held back to buy anything i wanted. But be my guest and keep on droning about how economics prove how much beter the average american has it, i actually find it quite entertaining to read. :)
-
@stratos said:
you all are living on credit and spending all your money in between paychecks.
I don't know who you are exactly referring to, but just because one retard is broke and doesn't understand how credit works doesn't mean everyone is.
I am certainly not, nor is anyone I know.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
It's a little shameful, but Americans tend to live on credit, or paycheck-to-paycheck.
Please don't say things like this. Perhaps you or people you know are pathetic enough to actually live like this, but it is not 'Americans' who lives this way. It is stupid people who live this way.
-
@stratos said:
Evidently as jetcitywoman noted, you might benefit from some more control in your life as seemingly you all are living on credit and spending all your money in between paychecks.
Wow, way to make up complete bullshit. I don't need my company to help me manage my money because I can do it well enough on my own. If people have trouble managing their money, is the proper response to make them responsible for their actions and expect them to learn or is it to take control of their lives and run it for them?
@stratos said:
Actually, i feel the difference would skew towards the netherlands quite a bit, but hey if you think you have it good, all the more power too you.
Well, since the Netherlands has a lower per-capita income than the US, I would say you are wrong.
@stratos said:
However unlike you (apparently) i don't need to worry about macro-economics in my day to day life. I get more then enough money for a job i love to do, and have never felt held back to buy anything i wanted.
Who said I need to know about it in my day-to-day life? As proven by this thread, quite a few people (Europeans and Americans) have a non-existant understanding of economics. I guess trying to dispel ignorance is now worthy of mockery. The vast majority of Americans don't know anything about economics, either, but they still do fine. However, a firm understanding of economics can help you make wise financial decisions, is useful in understanding policy debates and is just generally fascinating.
@stratos said:
But be my guest and keep on droning about how economics prove how much beter the average american has it, i actually find it quite entertaining to read. :)
I'm not trying to prove anything about America vs. The World, I'm trying to beat the ignorance out of people like you. If you want to live your life as a blissfully unaware idiot, not questioning the fundamental principles of nature and society, be my guest. But don't jump into this thread and act smug over your own incurious nature and your antipathy towards learning.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@jetcitywoman said:
It's a little shameful, but Americans tend to live on credit, or paycheck-to-paycheck.
Please don't say things like this. Perhaps you or people you know are pathetic enough to actually live like this, but it is not 'Americans' who lives this way. It is stupid people who live this way.
There are stupid people everywhere, of course. However, it should be pointed out that the massive amount of consumer debt is actually a sign of America's economic strength as well. Debt is a valuable commodity and properly used can be quite helpful. A good deal of the consumer debt Americans hold is being funded by foreign banks because the economic output of America is so massive that having American's owe you money is actually a pretty good investment. Meanwhile, some people get in over their heads but a lot of people who have quite a bit of debt are doing just fine because they were careful beforehand and didn't overburden themselves.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
Also most/some euopeans have a 13th month or summer bonus, which means they don't really have to save up for your vacation.
So Europeans need their companies to force them to save because they can't do it on their own. That sucks. What if you prove you are capable of saving money, can you opt out of this scheme?
Exactly. To get out of this scheme, you either move to another country (one without this scheme being mandatory) or become a freelancer.
BTW, the idea of mandatory saving, mandatory insurance etc. is that people cannot just take the risk and get a bit richer if everything goes well, but live on social wellfare if not. 'Cause a social state cannot simply let the less fortunate citicens starve. This way, the state partially avoids paying for "social gamblers".
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
Evidently as jetcitywoman noted, you might benefit from some more control in your life as seemingly you all are living on credit and spending all your money in between paychecks.
Wow, way to make up complete bullshit. I don't need my company to help me manage my money because I can do it well enough on my own. If people have trouble managing their money, is the proper response to make them responsible for their actions and expect them to learn or is it to take control of their lives and run it for them?
Well its nice to hear you are the exception, But i'm not making anything up, as i said, jetcitywoman informed us all that all americans live on a tight budget. Now i'm certainly not trying to imply that all americans live on a tight budget, but there must be some truth to her words.
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
Actually, i feel the difference would skew towards the netherlands quite a bit, but hey if you think you have it good, all the more power too you.
Well, since the Netherlands has a lower per-capita income than the US, I would say you are wrong.
Well i'll retract my statement, and redefine it.I feel the median per-captia income of the dutch is higher then that of americans.
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
However unlike you (apparently) i don't need to worry about macro-economics in my day to day life. I get more then enough money for a job i love to do, and have never felt held back to buy anything i wanted.
Who said I need to know about it in my day-to-day life? As proven by this thread, quite a few people (Europeans and Americans) have a non-existant understanding of economics. I guess trying to dispel ignorance is now worthy of mockery. The vast majority of Americans don't know anything about economics, either, but they still do fine. However, a firm understanding of economics can help you make wise financial decisions, is useful in understanding policy debates and is just generally fascinating.
You did when you started talking about it while i was talking about personal finance. I explictely stated that i don't think such numbers mean anything to the economic state of a person. I even added that they do have a significance when looking at global economics. And i'll concede that they might also be relevant on lower ecomic levels then global. But certainly not personal.
Trying to explain any subject is not worthy of mockery, however you came into this discussion starting to spouting economics while people where discussing personal economics. As in the reply i was replying too. That in my opinion deserves some mockery.
I'll agree that a level of economic understating will help keeping your checkbook in check, but the stuff you where mainly talking about has nothing to do with those kinds of things. Perhaps its different in the states, but here i don't have to know economic theory or global economic statistics to balance my book or decide which bank to get a account with.
@morbiuswilters said:
@stratos said:
But be my guest and keep on droning about how economics prove how much beter the average american has it, i actually find it quite entertaining to read. :)
I'm not trying to prove anything about America vs. The World,
You have hardly shown any evidence, but you are certainly trying to prove something.
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm trying to beat the ignorance out of people like you. If you want to live your life as a blissfully unaware idiot, not questioning the fundamental principles of nature and society, be my guest. But don't jump into this thread and act smug over your own incurious nature and your antipathy towards learning.
You'll be hard pressed to beat the ignorance out of me or people like me, because while it might amaze you i don't need to know or for that matter are interested enough to know about global economy. I think however that that hardly qualifies me as a blissfully unaware idiot. Although the blissful might apply. I do however question nature and society, i would even go so far as to say i have quite the interest in politics, but that has little or none to do with the economics you are talking about, although i'm sure you will disagree.
Also i'm not *jumping* into this thread, it was you who replied to me. And while you are implying to problem lies with the student, you would better look at the teacher.
-
@ammoQ said:
BTW, the idea of mandatory saving, mandatory insurance etc. is that people cannot just take the risk and get a bit richer if everything goes well, but live on social wellfare if not. 'Cause a social state cannot simply let the less fortunate citicens starve. This way, the state partially avoids paying for "social gamblers".
You can have mandatory private health insurance (my state does) without turning control of the healthcare system over to the government. I actually think it's sound policy to require individuals to carry their own health insurance, but Massachusetts will be the test of that. We require individuals to carry liability auto insurance because it forces individuals to take financial responsibility for their own accidents. Mandatory private health insurance forces individuals to take financial responsiblity for their health, but without the need for total government control. History has shown us repeatedly that governments are not good at providing services because there is no competition and no incentive to improve the system. When government fails, the solution is always more government. Even if you vote the idiots out of office and put new people in charge, they will still need more power or money to achieve what they have been tasked with. Meanwhile, you are undermining the freedom of individuals through violent coercion.
Mandatory saving is even more absurd. Individuals may make financial mistakes, but forcing them to save isn't going to prevent them. It's like suggesting that a child who fails a school exam should have the teacher take his exams from then on, so he will get a better grade.
-
@stratos said:
but there must be some truth to her words.
I suppose you might think this if you are in the habit of believing everything you read on the internet.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
There are stupid people everywhere, of course. However, it should be pointed out that the massive amount of consumer debt is actually a sign of America's economic strength as well. Debt is a valuable commodity and properly used can be quite helpful. A good deal of the consumer debt Americans hold is being funded by foreign banks because the economic output of America is so massive that having American's owe you money is actually a pretty good investment. Meanwhile, some people get in over their heads but a lot of people who have quite a bit of debt are doing just fine because they were careful beforehand and didn't overburden themselves.
As the sub-prime disaster would dictate. Is this why the US economy is sliding into recession and the US dollar is losing value?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Please don't say things like this. Perhaps you or people you know are pathetic enough to actually live like this, but it is not 'Americans' who lives this way. It is stupid people who live this way.
MasterPlanSoftware, clearly you are young/single.
Have a couple of kids, a mortgage, childcare payments, school fees, insurance/cars/house/health, gas, weekly grocery bill, doctors bills, entertainment etc etc etc, then make comment. The vast majority of working people live from paycheck to paycheck- and it has nothing to do with stupidity.
Life is easy when you are single.Perhaps one day you'll might there is more to spend money on than burritos, sodas, pc upgrades and a WoW subscription.
-
@matterific said:
morbiuswilters, this is just bizarre.
What are you talking about? You quoted my entire post, followed it up with an unintelligible comment and then proceeded to reply point-by-point. Make up your mind.
@matterific said:
@morbiuswilters said:
First, Americans are dissatisfied with everything.
Really? All of them? Wow, that sucks.Probably not all Americans, but it is part of the American culture to continually strive for improvement. A side-effect of this is that Americans often act very pessimistic.
@matterific said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Second, the US pays so much for healthcare because we are often on the cutting-edge of expensive new treatments.
The US actually spends very little on healthcare- we're talking universal healthcare, and not private healthcare. Americans spend a disproportionately high amount on health insurance compared with other OECD nations- chiefly for the reason that the US public system is so underfunded. In countries where there is a strong investment in public health- private health insurance is much cheaper.
The US has no "universal healthcare" but we do have government-funded healthcare -- about 1/3rd of all healthcare expenditures. The reason we pay more for private insurance is because there is no public insurance for the majority of Americans. So, obviously, if the money isn't spent publicly it is spent privately. And are you seriously so stupid to imply that public health insurance is free? The costs are being paid either way. Seriously, where do you get this stuff from?
@matterific said:
Health costs are not higher because as you say "we are often on the cutting-edge of expensive new treatments”
This is simply not true. New treatments are mostly the product of drug companies, many of which are not US companies at all (Bayer, Roche, Glaxso Smith Klein, Sigma spring to mind). The high cost of pharmaceuticals is a fact most of the world has to deal with.
Phramacueticals certainly make up a significant amount of healthcare expenditures, but what does it matter if they are US companies or not? We are paying for the development of expensive drugs and oftentimes the US leads the way in risky, new and expensive procedures and drugs, no matter where the corporation providing them is headquartered. We also spend a tremendous amount of public money on research at universities and labs, all of which goes to benefit the state of the art.
@matterific said:
@morbiuswilters said:
In fact, many times I probably would have qualified for welfare which has fantastic medical benefits (far better than what I get through my employer) but I was unwilling to go that route.
You just wanted to pay extra huh?
Um, no. I have my pride and am not willing to forcibly take money out of the hands of my fellow countrymen when I can find a way to manage on my own. I understand that the concept of theft must be foreign to you, but it violates my ethical principles.
@matterific said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Believe in your absurd, Communist system if that's what you want to do, but stop spreading bullshit. –
A typical reaction of the opinionated and ill informed morbiuswilters. If logic and argument defeat you, attack the man.
I didn't attack anyone, but you certainly did. I said the system was Communist (it is) and that the poster was spouting bullshit (he was). You also missed the massive amount of rational argument I posted. See, just because I end my argument with some "bad words" doesn't mean that I have failed to prove anything or that I am resorting to personal attacks. Meanwhile, nobody here has supplied compelling evidence or logic, instead demonstrating a lack of both repeatedly.
@matterific said:
@morbiuswilters said:
We also spend an amazing amount on people who have little chance of surviving, simply because most Americans won't accept death or defeat.
What are you advocating here? Some sort of means-tested euthanasia scheme? What was that about absurd?
Jesus, where did you learn to read? I didn't even put any kind of interpretation or opinion on the statement that we spend the most money on people who are dying anyway. In fact, my statement suggests that such struggle against inevitability is typical of American culture, nothing more. I don't actually know the right solution, but I do think Americans should probably be more willing to accept death rather than spending their life savings trying to fight it. But it's their money so damned if I'm going to tell them what to do with it, as you seem quite happy to do. My point was that a significant amount of the money Americans spend on healthcare is used to fight a losing battle and that this cultural difference between the US and Europe accounts for some of the larger amount Americans spend on healthcare.
Do me a favor, if you are going to reply work on your fucking reading comprehension. I do not want to write another post like this, where I have to break each sentence down and explain how you completely misunderstood it due to errors on your part. I take it you are not a native English speaker, which is fine, but please consider a situation where I was arguing with you in your native tongue and you had to spend most of your time instructing me in basic reading like I was a 3rd grader. Thanks.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You can have mandatory private health insurance (my state does) without turning control of the healthcare system over to the government.
So WTF is the big difference to our system anyway? Or, in other words: How exactly do you think our system works?
-
@matterific said:
As the sub-prime disaster would dictate. Is this why the US economy is sliding into recession and the US dollar is losing value?
I would say it's not at all clear whether or not the US is approaching recession. However, you apparently don't know that recession is a normal -- albeit annoying -- part of the business cycle. We've been having them for centuries and probably will for awhile. The sub-prime disaster was more a problem for Wall Street than the average American. Yes, the rising rates and delinquent mortgages are certainly bad for Americans, but the sub-prime problem was not caused by American consumers but instead by American investors. Savvy consumers might have realized the house of cards was going to collapse, but there was certainly little indication for your average homebuyer beforehand.
@matterific said:
MasterPlanSoftware, clearly you are young/single.
Have a couple of kids, a mortgage, childcare payments, school fees, insurance/cars/house/health, gas, weekly grocery bill, doctors bills, entertainment etc etc etc, then make comment. The vast majority of working people live from paycheck to paycheck- and it has nothing to do with stupidity.
You have no clue who MasterPlanSoftware is, yet you make assumptions about his life. What's more, children and marriage are financial committments as well as emotional ones and jumping into them when you are unable to meet those committments is the very definition of foolish. Still, some people do live paycheck-to-paycheck, but that often is a result of making poor financial choices and buying extravagances that are not affordable. You obviously have never had experiences with people from a wide range of economic backgrounds or you would be aware that the people who live paycheck-to-paycheck are often living beyond their means.
@matterific said:
Life is easy when you are single.Perhaps one day you'll might there is more to spend money on than burritos, sodas, pc upgrades and a WoW subscription.
Ahhh, the tired old "nerd with no life" joke. Not only is it not funny, but it's completely stupid. Thank you for reminding me why I support mandatory IQ tests in front of a firing squad, matterific.
-
@ammoQ said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You can have mandatory private health insurance (my state does) without turning control of the healthcare system over to the government.
So WTF is the big difference to our system anyway? Or, in other words: How exactly do you think our system works?
Your system is taxpayer-funded, correct? All citizens get the same basic health plan no matter how much they make? My system is paid for out-of-pocket. People are free to choose the level of benefits they desire, so long as they stay above a minimum level of coverage so they don't become a drain on the publicly-funded, need-based healthcare system. Also, I will restate that the plan in Massachusetts is a test of sorts. Nobody other US state has tried it yet and it's not been in place long enough to make any judgement as to its success. It is also not particularly popular in MA, which happens to be one of the more economically liberal states, which means it will be a hard-sell to other states unless it shows dramatic improvements over the system that has been successful in the rest of the states.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@stratos said:
but there must be some truth to her words.
I suppose you might think this if you are in the habit of believing everything you read on the internet.
Oh i'm sorry, i wasn't aware that sweeping statements like "some americans live from paycheck to paycheck" should be ignored as just internet rubbish.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Ahhh, the tired old "nerd with no life" joke.
On the other hand, I find living at home with my parents and commuting to the city to work, and having "no life" to be quite easy. I'll never play WoW though.
-
@matterific said:
MasterPlanSoftware, clearly you are young/single.
Oh really? So you know all about me huh?
@matterific said:
The vast majority of working people live from paycheck to paycheck- and it has nothing to do with stupidity.
This sounds more like you do, and you are projecting it to other people.
And yes, it does have to do with stupidity. It rests squarely on stupidity.
@matterific said:
Life is easy when you are single.
I would not agree with that even when I was single.
@matterific said:
there is more to spend money on than burritos, sodas, pc upgrades and a WoW subscription.
Yeah, ok I will take that under advisement. Except I am not one of the idiots living paycheck to paycheck. I wasn't stupid enough to spend my money on that crap, so I didn't put myself in that position like other morons.
-
@stratos said:
Oh i'm sorry, i wasn't aware that sweeping statements like "some americans live from paycheck to paycheck" should be ignored as just internet rubbish.
If your logic works at all, then you will realize that every country has people that live paycheck to paycheck and are in massive debt. So your argument was silly and stupid to say the least.
Also, you are getting these 'facts' from a person posting to a forum. Did you do any research? No? Then I guess my statement was perfectly correct and on target.
-
MasterPlanSoftware, it's obvious that you are quite young- simply demonstrated by the way you post.
Take as an example the "Behold! SpectateSwamp: The Stupidest Man on Earth" crap you include in your signature. I take it you built these sites? Regardless, this is juvenile to say the least, and something more akin to the activities of an insecure bully in junior high. In reading your post history I wonder if you yourself were the subject of bullying.
I’m amazed that you could be fucked spending the time arranging the hosting, dev etc for the thestupidestmanonearth.com for something that frankly says more about you that it does SpectateSwamp.
So what, SpectateSwamp may not get programming, but it doesn't give you the imprimatur to engage in puerile teasing? It an't funny. Indeed a better laugh is to be had here
Pretty much all of your posts are inflammatory, or defending your childish point of view against the shear weight of posts outlining a more adult stance. There is nothing funny or smart in what you say- and indeed much of it is really only for the edification of yourself and morbiuswilters.
Cheers
Over to morbiuswilters now
-
@matterific said:
I take it you built these sites? Regardless, this is juvenile to say the least
Yeah it couldn't be that it was a community project that many of us TDWTF readers contributed to.
@matterific said:
I’m amazed that you could be fucked spending the time arranging the hosting, dev etc
Yeah finding 15 minutes on a Saturday night was awfully difficult for me.
@matterific said:
Indeed a better laugh is to be had here
I agree, your inability to make a link is indeed something to laugh at.
@matterific said:
here is nothing funny or smart in what you say- and indeed much of it is really only for the edification of yourself and morbiuswilters.
Funny, sounds like you have been waiting for a long time to say that considering you did it with no provocation.
This post of yours is known as 'trolling'. Good luck with that, you won't be getting a whole lot of support here.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Do you even know what the argument was?@stratos said:
Oh i'm sorry, i wasn't aware that sweeping statements like "some americans live from paycheck to paycheck" should be ignored as just internet rubbish.
If your logic works at all, then you will realize that every country has people that live paycheck to paycheck and are in massive debt. So your argument was silly and stupid to say the least.
Also, you are getting these 'facts' from a person posting to a forum. Did you do any research? No? Then I guess my statement was perfectly correct and on target.
Morb stated that a summer bonus system is "bullshit" because he doesn't need his company managing his money. I replied on that that some of his country men might benefit from it since as you youself say, every country has people that live from paycheck to paycheck.
Now this might again be some "american" thing, but i hardly think my argument is silly or stupid.
But you know, just for you i'll start using sarcasm/toung-in-cheek tags, seeing as you can obviously get seriously confused by such remark. <toung-in-cheek> And it was in-fact a fact, seeing as jetcitywoman, did in fact say that</toung-in-cheek>
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Your system is taxpayer-funded, correct? All citizens get the same basic health plan no matter how much they make? My system is paid for out-of-pocket. People are free to choose the level of benefits they desire, so long as they stay above a minimum level of coverage so they don't become a drain on the publicly-funded, need-based healthcare system.
Not exactly. Basically, a certain percentage (currently 3.82% or so) of the income goes to the health fund. A lower limit exists for people who earn next to nothing, they don't have to pay (but they are free to do so if they want the insurance). There is also a reasonable upper limit for the contribution; currently the limit is reached with an income of about €55K. So the maximum contribution is a bit more than €2K p.a. The insurance also covers the medical treatment of spouses and kids without income. Actually going to the doctor costs a small fee, once per quarter. Getting prescription medicine costs a small fee every time. But people are free to have additional health insurance plans that cover e.g. more comfortable hospital places or expensive teeth implants that the mandatory insurance does not cover.
It's possible not to be insured at all (by not having a job and not being the spouse or kid of an insured person).
For self-employed people (businessmen, farmers etc.) different models exist, depending on the income. In the highest level (for people with an income of more than ~ €50K), they have to pay 20% participation for every treatment. And they have to pay the doctors in advance and get the money refunded from the health funds later. On the plus side, they are free to choose any doctor they want, even doctors that do not have a contract with the health fund (for the doctor, they are private patients*). But of course the health fund only pays those 80% of the price it would pay to doctors with a contract.
* When I was in that system, many doctors were surprised that I really wanted to pay cash instead of giving them a health insurance certificate, though.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>I actually think it's sound policy to require individuals to carry their own health insurance, but Massachusetts will be the test of that. We require individuals to carry liability auto insurance because it forces individuals to take financial responsibility for their own accidents. Mandatory private health insurance forces individuals to take financial responsiblity for their health, but without the need for total government control.
I always thought this was a sound policy until I saw the effects on auto insurance in Ontario. It seems to work fine in some U.S. states, but in other places (i.e. here) you get this sort of tacit collusion, or maybe it's just piss-poor industry-wide performance. Particularly when it comes to insurance, you're at the mercy of the general population, and enough careless drivers and/or outright fraud can create financial hell for everybody else.If you don't allow people to opt out entirely, then you remove a key factor in competitiveness. Companies then only have to compete with each other, whereas normally they also have to compete with nothing. So you end up with tacit collusion, like the gas stations - there's no deliberate price-fixing, but the pool of business is pretty much fixed, so as long as everybody is profitable, nobody wants to start a price war.
I'm sure there are ways of making it work, I'm just saying that a lot of care and forethought has to go into the process. If you tell an entire state that they must buy something as simple as a hamburger, and leave the rest to the dogs, you'll get chaos. Free markets depend on having "save/invest" as a spending option in order to function correctly. If you take away that option, then you need some system of regulations in order to prevent massive price inflation, and of course we all know what happens to heavily-regulated markets...
-
I assume that everybody knows that what I post is nothing more than my own opinion and point of view, so I don't state that on my posts. But unlike some people, I seem to have more of an open or inquiring mind of my fellow man. I don't live paycheck to paycheck either (anymore), but that doesn't mean I assume that all Americans are as rich as I am. I currently live in a pretty rich part of the U.S. - very close to Washington D.C. so our local economy tends to lag behind the national curve in it's ups and downs. Our housing market locally finally deflated last year, almost 2 years after the national average deflated. Gas prices are making things difficult here finally as well, only in recent months. There have been various articles in the Washington Post over the last few months about the effects of the local economy: first housing starts went down, then even the skilled immigrants couldn't get construction jobs so they had to get lower-paying lawn maintenance jobs, then it was noticed that the sub-prime fiasco actually hurt alot of the immigrants who came here and bought homes, so most of our local foreclosures affected them the worst. Most recently it was reported that many of our immigrant population is leaving. (Snarky comment: well, that's one solution to illegal immigration...)
I don't mention this to add yet another topic to the thread. But in this local area the immigrant population tends to be our poorer population - the ones who live paycheck to paycheck. You can't NOT see them because they do all of the routine jobs here. They are the retail clerks as well as the janitorial and other labor jobs.
Last year the Post published an article about how the poor people in the south-east quarter of D.C. had terrible grocery stores. The journalist went there for his research and found that the few stores in the neighborhood offered primarily junk food. If a person wanted fresh milk, lettuce or meat, they had to pay twice what I might pay at a high-end supermarket in my neighborhood. Richer people don't want to see it, but there is a price premium on poor people in this country.
Also, much like I enjoy reading about stupid code snippets and stupid users on this forum, I also enjoy reading about stupid and rude people on bitterwaitress.com. In addition to ranting about bad tippers, they talk about life as a server. Not all of them are students, many of them are "lifers". In America, servers are legally allowed to be paid by their employers less than minimum wage. Typically 2 - 3 dollars an hour. They're assumed (by the government) to make up the difference in wage by earning tips. While some bartenders and some servers at high-end restaurants can and do pull down $100K/year, a very large proportion of them barely scrape by.
Then too, just do a quick review of the help wanted ads or monster.com. What do nurses make? Truck drivers? Teachers?
Actually, I think I'm digressing. It doesn't matter what they make, so much as how much their living expenses are in comparison to their salaries. I remember when I was twenty, in my first full-time programming job that paid very well. I was earning $30K/year and could only afford a small apartment or condo. At the time, I was single with no kids. I had no cell phone, no television, a very old used car, only one credit card that I rarely used, and actually no computer. Very low expenses and still could only afford the minimums. Several years later, still single with no kids, I bought my first house. I was doing fine by that time, but still *just* making enough to get by with few luxuries. All the neighbors had two cars, kids, RV's or boats, the house - all on a single salary because the wives didn't work- and I remember wondering how in heck they could afford it all. After feeling "sour grapes" for a while, it finally occurred to me how they were doing it: they were living on credit.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
All the neighbors had two cars, kids, RV's or boats, the house - all on a single salary because the wives didn't work- and I remember wondering how in heck they could afford it all. After feeling "sour grapes" for a while, it finally occurred to me how they were doing it: they were living on credit.
Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone who does well is 'living on credit'?
-
Well, duh. Me. And apparently you. I think the problem you have is that you assume I'm generalizing to every single person in the U.S. which isn't the case. I'm not generalizing at all, just saying that many people do. How else does a man who works a clerical job, whose wife doesn't work, owns a house, an RV, two cars, pets and two kids (in the case of my former neighbors above) maintain all those expenses?
-
@jetcitywoman said:
But unlike some people, I seem to have more of an open or inquiring mind of my fellow man. I don't live paycheck to paycheck either (anymore), but that doesn't mean I assume that all Americans are as rich as I am.
I don't assume everyone is as rich as me. But no matter how little or how much you make taking on debt without a solid plan at paying it off is foolish.
@jetcitywoman said:
Most recently it was reported that many of our immigrant population is leaving. (Snarky comment: well, that's one solution to illegal immigration...)
Yeah, destroying the economy will generally push away people who moved here to find work. I guess it's also a "solution" to that pesky prosperity problem and the dark-skinned folks.
@jetcitywoman said:
But in this local area the immigrant population tends to be our poorer population - the ones who live paycheck to paycheck. You can't NOT see them because they do all of the routine jobs here. They are the retail clerks as well as the janitorial and other labor jobs.
Yeah, that's generally the kind of work unskilled laborers do.
@jetcitywoman said:
The journalist went there for his research and found that the few stores in the neighborhood offered primarily junk food. If a person wanted fresh milk, lettuce or meat, they had to pay twice what I might pay at a high-end supermarket in my neighborhood. Richer people don't want to see it, but there is a price premium on poor people in this country.
And you don't think it has something to do with poor people generally being less intelligent and not caring about things like healthy eating? If a small number of the poor aren't buying healthy food then it will cost more to keep it in stock and the price will be adjusted accordingly.
@jetcitywoman said:
In America, servers are legally allowed to be paid by their employers less than minimum wage. Typically 2 - 3 dollars an hour. They're assumed (by the government) to make up the difference in wage by earning tips. While some bartenders and some servers at high-end restaurants can and do pull down $100K/year, a very large proportion of them barely scrape by.
Then too, just do a quick review of the help wanted ads or monster.com. What do nurses make? Truck drivers? Teachers?
So your point is that people are paid for their labor what that labor is worth? How else should it work?
@jetcitywoman said:
Actually, I think I'm digressing. It doesn't matter what they make, so much as how much their living expenses are in comparison to their salaries. I remember when I was twenty, in my first full-time programming job that paid very well. I was earning $30K/year and could only afford a small apartment or condo. At the time, I was single with no kids. I had no cell phone, no television, a very old used car, only one credit card that I rarely used, and actually no computer. Very low expenses and still could only afford the minimums. Several years later, still single with no kids, I bought my first house. I was doing fine by that time, but still *just* making enough to get by with few luxuries. All the neighbors had two cars, kids, RV's or boats, the house - all on a single salary because the wives didn't work- and I remember wondering how in heck they could afford it all.
If you could "barely make it" on $30k a year, you have something seriously wrong. You either needed to move or actually take a look at your financial life and figure out where that money was going to.
-
@matterific said:
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Have a couple of kids, a mortgage, childcare payments, school fees, insurance/cars/house/health, gas, weekly grocery bill, doctors bills, entertainment etc etc etc, then make comment. The vast majority of working people live from paycheck to paycheck- and it has nothing to do with stupidity.
I wonder what it is you're trying to say here.Credit and debt are part of any economy. A healthy economy is simply the free and frequent movement of money or goods, and interest is one form of that - a time-tested, incredibly useful form. People lend money to make more money; other people borrow money to meet short-term commitments (in other words, they're buying time).
Mortgages, child care payments, school fees, and entertainment are all voluntary; you don't have to own a house, you don't have to have kids, and you can always find a less expensive way to entertain yourself. It sounds like you jumped into these commitments before you were ready for them, and now you're finding yourself unable to save any money. That's unfortunate for you. My parents had all of these commitments and then some, and managed to save up quite a bit. They also had debts; they paid them off and are now retired. Personally, I know I'm not ready for these commitments yet (except for the house), so I've chosen to put them off and build a savings; that way, I won't have to work as hard later on in life (although I may still want to).
If people are living from paycheck to paycheck then it's either because they choose to live that way or because they weren't responsible enough to plan ahead financially (or perhaps, are presently not responsible enough to limit their spending). It has nothing to do with where they are in life and everything to do with who they are. End of story.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
How else does a man who works a clerical job, whose wife doesn't work, owns a house, an RV, two cars, pets and two kids (in the case of my former neighbors above) maintain all those expenses?
I don't know, I am not one to make assumptions into his life.
However, my guess would be that he saves, invests, DOESN'T use credit (using credit never makes people rich), and makes intelligent spending decisions.
I am not sure how you think credit works, but based on your assessments here, I hope you never try it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't assume everyone is as rich as me. But no matter how little or how much you make taking on debt without a solid plan at paying it off is foolish
I agree 100%. All I'm saying is that there are lots of Americans who aren't as smart as we are. After all, *somebody* bought into all those sub-prime mortgages.
@morbiuswilters said:
If you could "barely make it" on $30k a year, you have something seriously wrong. You either needed to move or actually take a look at your financial life and figure out where that money was going to.
At the time, the bulk of it went to my rent. Many of my coworkers had roommates to share the rent. This was my personal choice though, and maybe a quirk: I preferred to live alone. I felt that roommates were fine for college students, but fully-fledge adults shouldn't have to double up on accomodations in order to live. I know lots of people do and there's nothing wrong with them. But it was my preference to not do that, and I felt that it was a little shameful that the local economy (this was in the bay area of California) was forcing adults earning decent salaries to live like students.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>How else does a man who works a clerical job, whose wife doesn't work, owns a house, an RV, two cars, pets and two kids (in the case of my former neighbors above) maintain all those expenses?
Are you asking us to speculate? Inheritance, personal savings, lottery winnings, side businesses, drugs, and the stock market are all possibilities.Many people make their fortunes through real-estate investments. Obviously you have to have a lot saved up in order to enter that market, but it's hardly outside the realm of possibility for somebody aged 30 or so.
If you're genuinely curious about this, why not ask instead of assuming?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I am not sure how you think credit works, but based on your assessments here, I hope you never try it
Oh, my credit rating is extremely high, no problems there. I'm very conservative with it. Unlike the mortgage lenders a few years ago when I was buying a home here who pre-qualified me for a million-dollar loan. Greedy idiots tried to sucker me in, but I was too smart for em. But I understand totally how less sharp people fell into the trap with the sub-primes. They make the offers look sooo sweet.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
Oh, my credit rating is extremely high, no problems there. I'm very conservative with it. Unlike the mortgage lenders a few years ago when I was buying a home here who pre-qualified me for a million-dollar loan. Greedy idiots tried to sucker me in, but I was too smart for em. But I understand totally how less sharp people fell into the trap with the sub-primes. They make the offers look sooo sweet.
So you argue that anyone doing well (house, new cars, rv, vacations, etc) is utilizing lots of credit, and then you launch into shady mortgage brokers? I think you are a little confused here.
The fact is you don't seem to understand that if his salary is so small that he wouldn't be able to look wealthier simply by using credit. He still has to pay all of that back, and most places wouldn't give you a loan when already stretched beyond your means. IOW, your assessment of your better off neighbor is laughable at best and kind of sad as well.
-
I don't know if you really misunderstand me or you're deliberately taking my out of context, but in any case I was only defending my opinion that many Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. I didn't mean to turn this into a thread about me.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
I didn't mean to turn this into a thread about me.
Protip: Writing a post full of 1st person references tends to accomplish this goal.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@jetcitywoman said:
Oh, my credit rating is extremely high, no problems there. I'm very conservative with it. Unlike the mortgage lenders a few years ago when I was buying a home here who pre-qualified me for a million-dollar loan. Greedy idiots tried to sucker me in, but I was too smart for em. But I understand totally how less sharp people fell into the trap with the sub-primes. They make the offers look sooo sweet.
So you argue that anyone doing well (house, new cars, rv, vacations, etc) is utilizing lots of credit, and then you launch into shady mortgage brokers? I think you are a little confused here.
I doubt she is trying to say anyone who is doing well is using credit. Mostly because people who are doing well don't need credit. What I read from her posts is that its very easy to fall into a credit trap if your not careful, and a chunk of those people won't find out the pit they are in until they find out they will be paying micropayments until the're dead.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
The fact is you don't seem to understand that if his salary is so small that he wouldn't be able to look wealthier simply by using credit. He still has to pay all of that back, and most places wouldn't give you a loan when already stretched beyond your means. IOW, your assessment of your better off neighbor is laughable at best and kind of sad as well.
So in your honest opinion which is statisically more likely
- he won the lottery
- he inherited enough money to live (substancially) above his wage
- next to his dead end job he's actually very proficiant at the stock market , but decided to keep his job anyway
- He buys most of his things on credit and is only barely staying afloat.
- other ....
-
In essence:
People in the US are "free", while people in Europe are "limited" by the mandatory services they receive from the taxes they pay.
The reality is: US citizens are only free in deciding wheither they want to play ball by the rules defined by their employers, or be poor schmucks. There is no "but you can choose to have more days off" because there is no choice. There is no union fighting for more vacation days, for sick days which support you while you are going through a grave illness. The only choice US citizens have, is to work to survive, and the system is built that anyone who is not able to work is dropped. A comforting feeling in a world where a large number of people are being personally affected by grave illnesses such as cancer, no?
But US citizens have the option to save, some say. I wonder how you can save, if you can make only what your employer wants to give you. If you then look into the difference per capita in what a US citizen makes versus a Dutch citizen, you might wonder how how exactly one can save up for any illness that would need medical attention, medical costs and more than 2 months of not being able to work.
No, I'm afraid the real WTF for many West-Europeans is that US citizens think that they are better off. US citizens are living the dream, allright, which many Europeans would consider to be a very scary nightmare.
A very funny side mark is that many Canadians think they are better off than US citizens. True, they are, but even the Canadian society has some harsh situations.
-
@stratos said:
Mostly because people who are doing well don't need credit.
Actually, people who do well typically have and utilize more credit than people who don't do well.
After all, not many lenders loan money to poor people.
@stratos said:
What I read from her posts is that its very easy to fall into a credit trap if your not careful, and a chunk of those people won't find out the pit they are in until they find out they will be paying micropayments until the're dead.
These people would not constantly be getting more stuff and living a higher lifestyle like you and JCW seem to think. Instead, they would be get poorer and poorer. I am not sure where you guys are getting this idea from.
@stratos said:
He buys most of his things on credit and is only barely staying afloat.
This would be my last option. Going into debt is only a temporary fix. It doesn't make you richer. I don't know why with the example JCW gave us people would even consider this an option.
@stratos said:
other ....
You mean like making wise decisions in life?
-
@wooter said:
People in the US are "free", while people in Europe are "limited" by the mandatory services they receive from the taxes they pay.
Yeah, that would be the long and short of it.
@wooter said:
The reality is: US citizens are only free in deciding wheither they want to play ball by the rules defined by their employers, or be poor schmucks. There is no "but you can choose to have more days off" because there is no choice.
Your first sentence is blatantly idiotic. Your second is untrue. Most employers are willing to negotiate things like paid time off or even to grant you unpaid time off if you request it. It all depends on the circumstance, but that's life.
@wooter said:
There is no union fighting for more vacation days, for sick days which support you while you are going through a grave illness.
Actually there are plenty of unions but collective bargaining tends to be a bad move for the individual.
@wooter said:
The only choice US citizens have, is to work to survive, and the system is built that anyone who is not able to work is dropped. A comforting feeling in a world where a large number of people are being personally affected by grave illnesses such as cancer, no?
Where do you get this from? Most people have some form of health insurance through their work or purchased indvidually. The uninsured usually choose to be uninsured, even though they can afford otherwise. For people who do not have the money, there are need-based programs and charities. Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?
@wooter said:
But US citizens have the option to save, some say.
Of course they do.
@wooter said:
I wonder how you can save, if you can make only what your employer wants to give you.
You can make what your labor and skills are worth. What else would you expect? This is seriously one of the most retarded statements I've ever heard. No matter how much or how little that is, you should be able to set some of it aside and save it.
@wooter said:
If you then look into the difference per capita in what a US citizen makes versus a Dutch citizen, you might wonder how how exactly one can save up for any illness that would need medical attention, medical costs and more than 2 months of not being able to work.
US citizens make about 33% more per-capita PPP than Dutch citizens, so I don't know what your first point is. Second, most people don't save up for unexpected medical expenses because there is this wonderful risk-pooling invention called insurance.
@wooter said:
No, I'm afraid the real WTF for many West-Europeans is that US citizens think that they are better off. US citizens are living the dream, allright, which many Europeans would consider to be a very scary nightmare.
Yes, but most West Europeans are horribly ignorant and misinformed. Not sure what you consider nightmarish, but given the numerous factual and logical errors in your post, I'm guessing it would be intelligence or accuracy. On the other hand, after reading your very astute reply, I think the whole world is better off if somebody else makes financial decisions for you.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@wooter said:
There is no union fighting for more vacation days, for sick days which support you while you are going through a grave illness.
Actually there are plenty of unions but collective bargaining tends to be a bad move for the individual.
That is que different to what is the case in Australia, where collective bargaining in general leads to better pay and conditions[0], a point which is accepted by both sides of politics, the difference being whether this is considered a good thing.
[0] The main exception to this was the mining industry, which was used by the previous government to show that individual contracts could be better than collective bargaining, but I don't know how valid these figures were. I have a strong suspicion that the effects were a lot smaller than were reported, since mining was in a major boom at the time.
-
This is a long thread, but there are a couple things that haven't been mentioned:
1. While the euopean politicians always say that the required time off is to give people a better quality of life, it's mostly to lower unemployement by making companies have to hire more people to get stuff done.
2. By having a 35 hour work week and 4-6 weeks of vacation, the price of "labor" increases, but the value of a "laborer" decreases.
3. It is not Communism that you are refering to Morbius, it is Socialism.
4. The reason the United States spend so much on health care is because the liberal politicians have recreated the worst parts of socialized medicin and tried to fit it in to our system. For instance, if a bum walks in to a hospital with some kind of condition, the hospital is required (and doctors specifically by the hypocratic oath) to get them at least to a stable condition to be released. This might costs many thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Well, of course the bum has no money, so the hospital passes that cost along to the other patients. The reason health care is so expensive is that we for some reason think that every single person should have access to the very best health care. I don't see why this should be the case though. Poor people can't have the best cars, houses or food. If we would let the bums and bastard factories die out then our health care would be a lot cheaper.
On a seperate note: This is my 1000th post!
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
...The fact is you don't seem to understand that if his salary is so small that he wouldn't be able to look wealthier simply by using credit. He still has to pay all of that back, and most
places wouldn't give you a loan when already stretched beyond your means.Although true in theory, and perhaps also in practice these days, the whole "sub-prime housing mess" occurred because for several years, big, well-respected banks were happy to lend money to people stretched beyond their means. And of course credit card companies have become infamous for offering credit cards to those who have no means to pay the bills (house pets, for example). Hey, if businesses always acted rationally, the TDWTF wouldn't exist.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
IOW, your assessment of your better off neighbor is laughable at best and kind of sad as well.
Although it may or not be correct, jetcitywoman's assessment isn't laughable. It is simply based on what the mainstream media tells us about the spending and savings habits of Americans. Those stories, in turn, are based on surveys and studies by, uh, well someone. Financial experts of some sort, one would hope. Anyway, jetcitywoman's premise is based on the "well known fact" that Americans spend beyond their means. Like most "well known facts," it may not be true, but at least there is some body of evidence to suggest that it is.Americans living beyond their means
Economy Fitful, Americans Start to Pay as They Go
Americans saving less than nothing
Granted, those of us that manage our money well don't get written about (that would a boring, dog-bites-man story), so maybe the conventional wisdom on this issue is skewed.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Your first sentence is blatantly idiotic. Your second is untrue. Most employers are willing to negotiate things like paid time off or even to grant you unpaid time off if you request it. It all depends on the circumstance, but that's life.
I'm betting if you would ask my wife, who's canadian, about job negotiations, she might have something to say as an ex-employment resource specialist. Not to mention that any "time off", paid or unpaid, is not paid during the period you have your time off. There is no hurt in Europeans taking 3 weeks off in July when a full paycheck is waiting for them by the end of July, compared only getting paid one week in July.
@morbiuswilters said:
Actually there are plenty of unions but collective bargaining tends to be a bad move for the individual.
Without collective bargaining, there would be no 8 hour workdays in Europe. There would be no 20 vacation days in Europe. There would be no 40 hours of work for one week. What there would be, is what we had around 1850: the aristocratic class had time, the working class had work. Surviving meant for that working class to work 16 hours a day. Not surprisingly, the same number of hours the US citizen and member of the working class is doing in the US.
@morbiuswilters said:
Where do you get this from? Most people have some form of health insurance through their work or purchased indvidually. The uninsured usually choose to be uninsured, even though they can afford otherwise. For people who do not have the money, there are need-based programs and charities. Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?
Now that's a lot of horsecrap. So, you are saying that a single mother working 16 hours a day is choosing to be uninsured? That someone working as a stock refiller at Wal-mart is choosing to be uninsured? Maybe you are talking about the same choice they have to accept or not accept the basic job offer in which the employer draws up the rules, because many people seem eager to fill those spots for the simple reason of survival.
@morbiuswilters said:
You can make what your labor and skills are worth.
Which, by your logic, then means that 50% of the working class can just drop dead on the spot? Because they choose to have crappy skills?
@morbiuswilters said:
US citizens make about 33% more per-capita PPP than Dutch citizens, so I don't know what your first point is.
If US citizens make 33% more, I start to wonder where all that money goes. In all aspects, Dutch citizens enjoy a higher standard living than US citizens.
It amazes me how ignorant you are about your own country. But I digress, this is exactly the reason why the US and its citizens will keep doing wrong what they were doing wrong before.
Let's just say, I enjoy living in a country where I can live and develop my life without a credit card. As far as my own financial decisions: I am a freelancer, and enjoy it's freedom, but understand and enjoy the social advantages of living in Europe.
-
@tster said:
1. While the euopean politicians always say that the required time off is to give people a better quality of life, it's mostly to lower unemployement by making companies have to hire more people to get stuff done.
Reduced work times (like 35 hrs/week instead of 40 or more) are an attempt to do that. Required time off isn't. Because that already existed when unemployment was not a problem at all, in fact, when many countries in Western Europe invited workers from Turkey etc. to get work done.
2. By having a 35 hour work week and 4-6 weeks of vacation, the price of "labor" increases, but the value of a "laborer" decreases.
The value of a worker depends on his productivity. Apparantly less work hours in general means less productivity, but there are many other influencing factors, too. BTW, just because the vacation days are mandatory, it doesn't mean they have to be consumed immedatiely. At least in my country, they can be "saved" for three years or so. And the exact "when" of the vacation has to be agreed on between employer and employee, so it probably won't happen during a very stressful periode.
4. The reason the United States spend so much on health care is because the liberal politicians have recreated the worst parts of socialized medicin and tried to fit it in to our system. For instance, if a bum walks in to a hospital with some kind of condition, the hospital is required (and doctors specifically by the hypocratic oath) to get them at least to a stable condition to be released.
A bum in Europe gets the same free treatment, so that is hardly the reason why the US spends more on health care than European countries.
-
@tster said:
4. The reason the United States spend so much on health care is because the liberal politicians have recreated the worst parts of socialized medicin and tried to fit it in to our system. For instance, if a bum walks in to a hospital with some kind of condition, the hospital is required (and doctors specifically by the hypocratic oath) to get them at least to a stable condition to be released. This might costs many thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Well, of course the bum has no money, so the hospital passes that cost along to the other patients.
You all know that I tend to agree with the Americans in matters like this but this time I would like to suggest you to think again. Maybe that's because I am a bloody europussy communist, but I don't see what's the problem with treating less fortunate people on my taxes etc. Even if he's a hobo and/or a drug addict and it's totally his own fault. I think that taking care of the weak, less fortunate, or just simply stupid members of our society is something that differentiates us from monkeys. I don't say they should recieve extra-hyper-luxury treatment, but a free 'adequate' treatment for poor people is a good thing.
People who can afford proper treatment should pay for it none the less.
-
@dgvid said:
, big, well-respected banks were happy to lend money to people stretched beyond their means
Right. And how wealthy do those people look now?
The idea that you can just keep spending beyond your means using credit does not hold water. It always catches up to those people.
@dgvid said:
"well known fact"
Well known facts learned from the media are garbage. People who believe everything they see in the media are not much better.
This entire thread's argument is based on Europeans and their perception of us through the media.
The fact that Americans would also try and defend and support these ridiculous claims about us is laughable. Or maybe I am thinking of pathetic.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
The fact that Americans would also try and defend and support these ridiculous claims about us is laughable. Or maybe I am thinking of pathetic.
Or maybe you think that just because something is stupid and unsustainable, it doesn't happen. As if all people were as intelligent as you are.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
This entire thread's argument is based on Europeans and their perception of us through our media.
FTFY
-
@ammoQ said:
@tster said:
4. The reason the United States spend so much on health care is because the liberal politicians have recreated the worst parts of socialized medicin and tried to fit it in to our system. For instance, if a bum walks in to a hospital with some kind of condition, the hospital is required (and doctors specifically by the hypocratic oath) to get them at least to a stable condition to be released.
A bum in Europe gets the same free treatment, so that is hardly the reason why the US spends more on health care than European countries.
Yeah, but your system is built around that. Our system is built to give rich people the best treatment, then the government comes in an tacks on "also gives the poorest people the best treatment." Nationalized system is built to give everyone decent medical care, so it's not as much a drain to give poor people good care because it was built that way.
