Amen, sister. We’ve spent years fluctuating between barely making and barely not making it. We have had the immense pleasure of receiving free or reduced meals for our son in public school and the proud joy of applying for unemployment benefits after a lay off or job relocation.
The judgement people express over “welfare queens” is astonishingly ignorant, and often expressed to people whom they have no idea are actually receiving those services (talk about a foot in the mouth!). Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could experience the “luxury” of cashing a government assistance check or paying for groceries with food stamps?
I can see both side of this. I absolutely think the welfare/food stamp program is there for people who need it, and I am so glad that it’s there to help people who run into rough times.
But on the flip-side, I believe the teachings of the LDS church does NOT help:
1) Get married - do not delay
2) Have children, as many as the Lord will allow - and do not delay
3) Be educated
4) Stay out of debt
There are very, VERY few 21-22 year olds who can accomplish all of these things and not be living in poverty when the DH (usually) is at his first job (and first salary), and the DW is home with 2 or more children. It’s not a recipe for success.
But if someone needs help, by ALL MEANS, take the assistance. But if that’s a lifestyle, and not simply a means to help, then that makes me crazy. I have seen more and more Mormon families who are living 100% off the government and trying to have another child.
“For I was anhungered, and you shook your head indulgently at me and clucked your tongue. I was thirsty, and you offered to sell me water from a bottle if I would pay you. I was naked, and you had me arrested for indecency; I was in prison, and you executed me.”
Also:
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men conservatively, because liberal is something God would NEVER be.”
Chandelle, I am sorry if my comments made you feel belittled. For the record, I am not opposed to medicaid, welfare, food stamps, student grants, etc. - programs that help people when they need a hand, or that help people who are unable to help themselves (mentally or physically).
I also am not rich and did not grow up rich. It got even worse when my dad walked out on us when I was 14. The church paid our mortgage and utilities for a time, we received food from the Bishop’s storehouse, we qualified for free lunches from the school cafeteria. One Thanksgiving our youth drove Thanksgiving dinners around to “poor” families in the ward. I was mortified when the driver of my car turned and asked me how to get to my house so we could take my family a turkey. I moved out at 18 and got myself through college. I feel like I’ve literally crawled my way out of poverty and have been trying to help my family members do the same. I am grateful for the assistance we received to help get us through.
And, I also don’t support universal healthcare as outlined by either of the two major Democratic nominees (well, now just one). On the other thread, I was trying to convey that yes, I can still be Christ-like and charitable without supporting universal socialized programs. I recognize there are problems with our healthcare system. I recognize there are people without insurance (about half my family included). But, I also don’t think socialized medicine is the answer. A HUGE part of the healthcare problem is runaway costs, and I don’t think it addresses the heart of those costs. And I don’t think my position on this makes me un-Christian.
Obviously I didn’t convey that message very well, and I apologize.
Please know if you ever need a western-type doctor again, DH will do what he can. We don’t have an x-ray machine at our house of course, but he’d still do what he could to help and I’m betting we have other doctor friends who would help for free as well. CALL us if you need us. I’m glad your kiddo turned out to be OK though!
Your comment about giving money to people on the street caused some much needed reflection for me, for which I thank you. When I lived well below the poverty line, I carried an extra sack lunch with me every day as well as bus fare and a map to the closest shelter from my house (in the winter those shelters can be great, even though a lot of the homeless people I talked with hate them in general). And we very often had someone even poorer than us sleeping on our couch (retrieved, of course, from the curb on garbage day and cleaned meticulously by us).
At my very poorest, when I could not really afford even an apple and a sandwich a day (I usually had an apple for breakfast and half a pbj for dinner, and still felt spendy), I still managed to give that apple away to street people because I knew I could have the pbj at night. Now I sometimes consign apples to the compost pile because I’ve forgotten and left them on the counter too long. I am, quite frankly, ashamed.
Now that my family and I live just under the mean income for this country, I no longer remember to carry the sack lunch. We don’t have people living with us as often, though on occasion. I donate more money to charity now than I used to, but it’s probably a statistically smaller proportion of the money that passes into my hands than I gave away when I had so much less to give. financial cushion has made me less soft, and that is not good. Thanks for the reminder: i need to be better.
observer, your comment is an important one and addresses a few issues that i left out in my post. we DID get married ASAP. getting married was good for us because we were living stupidly, financially, and as soon as we got married we straightened out our act. we cut up our credit cards, stored food, simplified our diet, generally started living way below our means. but we did a) get married right away, b) have children right away, and c) not have a good job right away - we were both still in school and had entry-level jobs and it’s hard to move above that when you have kids right away. i’m not blaming the church because those were OUR choices. and plenty of very good church members interpret things very differently, but we felt called by the spirit to live that way, so we did. as a now-former member, i’m not too sure what to think about that anymore…but i don’t have regrets. if not for our children, we’d probably be sitting much prettier financially, but everything else would be much uglier.
stephanie, you and i have disagreed on almost everything to this point, but on this one i think we can see eye-to-eye. i also am not impressed by either D nominee’s healthcare plan (haven’t checked the primaries yet, so i’m not sure which one it is now!). i’m not a democrat - they’re not liberal enough for me :), and i’m not sure who i’d vote for. but anything that gets us a little closer to equality is good by me - i’m not looking for perfection here, just progress.
janet, curb furniture is the BEST! i can’t believe what some people will throw out! we actually don’t own any of our furniture right now, not even our bed; it all came with the rental and it will stay when we leave. and you’re such an incredibly beautiful person; i love to hear about your commie life.
thanks for the kind comments so far. i actually didn’t know that i’d been linked here until i got a flood of comments into my inbox. i shot an email to mfranti wondering what was going on, because i’d considered posting it here before realizing that i probably couldn’t actually handle the personal attacks on my character or assumptions about my choices. ani difranco said it best: “i have to act just as strong as i can/just to preserve a place where i can be who i am.” i’m not very strong. but i got suspicious from all the unfamiliar commenters, and here i am. naughty naughty, mfranti.
Too bad, Chandelle: Not Ophelia picked it up, not mfranti. And none of us know where N.O. lives Anyhow, it’s a good post. Most of us don’t really know how food stamps and stuff work. It’s good for people to know!
Almost all of us need some help at some stage. Many of us are lucky enough to get it from our parents/other family members. Some of us are not. Thank goodness governments exist to provide a safety net for those who need it.
I am so, so tired of people who don’t know poverty making judgements about people who are living in poverty. There but for the grace of God . . .
i submitted the post to mfranti last night and then immediately retracted it. i also almost took it off my blog because, ya know, sometimes you write things in a fit and then you come back later a little bit ashamed (though that IS how i feel, i CAN have a bit of temperance about it). she said that she was going to talk to the other permas about posting it without allowing comments, which i thought would be lame. so i thought she might have conspired with NO. thanks for finding it worthy of being posted either way. passion, i got, but sometimes, not foresight.
Already knowing I am one of the least popular people around, I’ll make one more comment.
I have a good friend who comes from an EXTREMELY wealthy family. When her husband was in graduate school, her parents (who lived in a Mcmansion) bought them a house in the same neighborhood. All of her daughter’s clothes came from a boutique. She was in dance lessons and a top-notch preschool - all paid for by the grandparents. She was also on WIC because “technically” they didn’t have an income. I know that the house, clothes, preschool, vacations, etc. were all “gifts” and grandparents can give what they choose, and I know it is not my place to judge, but it just doesn’t seem right to me.
I also have a good friend who comes from an upper-middle class family, has an MBA, and is divorced with a child. She lives with her parents in ONE of their homes and chooses to work just enough so that she can earn spending money but still get state sponsored health insurance. She has a private trainer, etc. We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have discussed health insurance several times. Her position is that we need univeral health insurance for people like her who “need” it. Huh?
I hear about stories like this where, IMO, the system is abused. And then I hear stories like chandelle’s (which I really appreciate, so thank you for posting, and please forgive my comments), and it just feels wrong. There are people who need help, and they should get help. I am not even sure exactly how to solve the problem of abuses of the system, but it really kind of makes me angry because it contributes to mistrust, out of control costs, people judging ALL people in the system, etc. - all of which hurt the people who really need help.
stephanie, i know people who have abused the system too. well, actually, just one person, one family, who abused the system so wildly and with such corruption that it was hard for me to be around them - and they abused not only the system but their families and friends and anyone else with cash in their wallets or money in the bank. that was rough, and sometimes i just wanted to shake them and shout about how hard they were making it for the rest of us. i DO believe such stories are few and far between, but they exist, sure.
Stephanie- I like your comments. It sounds like you’re struggling to figure this out. Nothing wrong with that.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 3, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
Honestly, I think that part of my problem is that there are a lot of people in both my husband’s and my families (not just the two living with me), along with several friends, who are comfortable living off of others (not just me, but the church, the government, etc.) It probably warps my sense of reality a bit because it feels like “a lot” of people want other people to take care of them. Guess I need to get out a bit more.
Stephanie, you apologize for hurting someone and for misreading their text and intent. That makes you admirable in my book, even if I don’t agree with you on a variety of things. I imagine a lot of people would say the same.
Stephanie, there will always be people who will exploit the system. I am sure, when there was no life on earth except single-cell aomebas, there were still some aomebas who exploited the system. That in and of itself should not be enough to delegitimize the system, because there is still geniune need.
This is a perplexing situation- you are in need, your family is in need and perhaps a government-based medical program would be of help. I get perplexed over the whole thing- probably because I fantasized about socialized medicine before I lived in a country with socialized medicine- and realized that I still didn’t qualify for coverage the bulk of medical expenses that my body seems to like to incur. It was cheaper – read that again CHEAPER- for me to have private insurance in the US than it is here (taxes and co-pays). In Chantelle’s situation, you would likely have all of your expenses covered for your son- but I am not so sure about the issue when you were 18- it might have been up to the government to decide your need. Keep in mind, my FIL had prostate cancer, and the government decided that he was in dire need- so he went on the 2 year waiting list for our state to have it treated. In the meantime, he paid out of pocket to have the cancer removed – I don’t think he would have lasted for the 2 year waiting period. To me, socialized medicine is just the government as a single fat-ass HMO, telling me what it thinks I need, rather than listening to me or my doctor. At least with private insurance, I got to choose my own HMO coverage based on my own needs….
That in and of itself should not be enough to delegitimize the system, because there is still geniune need.
Indeed. Americans seem to be able to accept in principle a criminal justice system that goes to great lengths to avoid type I errors (innocent is pronounced guilty) at the expense of committing a few type II errors (guilty is pronounced not guilty).
Against this backdrop, the hue and cry against welfare when someone is discovered to be abusing what little there is to be had is bewildering–rather than suffer a small margin of error in the service of the greater good, many seem willing to throw the baby out with the bath water and cut welfare entirely in a zealous effort to stamp out abuse.
It was cheaper – read that again CHEAPER- for me to have private insurance in the US than it is here (taxes and co-pays).
That could be, but in the socialized western European country where I live the health insurance component is lumped in with the unemployment insurance, pension (by far the biggest chunk), housing tax and so on. The overall social security tax is probably more than private health insurance in the US (about 19% of gross salary), but the actual health insurance portion is exceptionally reasonable and much less than the equivalent coverage in the US; there’s just no way to pick and choose whether you will subsidize housing or save for retirement and separate health insurance from those costs.
Peter, that’s an excellent point. I’ve heard some Americans argue that it doesn’t matter that innocent people die via the death penalty - I’ve actually heard one American say that he would rather die wrongly than due away with the death penalty. That’s a life, not just a bit of money.
It’s worth remembering (re: taxes in Australia) that we don’t pay state income taxes or property taxes; just Commonwealth taxes and GST; so that means that my tax burden is considerably less here. It’s also worth remembering that Australia has had record surpluses for the past several years (eg, we aren’t billions of dollars in debt - sooner or later the US taxpayers are going to have to pay for this war). As I recall the only part of my taxes that are identified as going straight to Medicare is the Medicare Levy, which has just been drastically reduced this year; there is no other breakdown on the tax form to say what goes where. As Peter says you don’t pick and choose what goes to housing or to retirement or to family payments, etc.
(Having said all of that it is kind of sucky to be childless in Australia since there are really good family benefits, which you only get if you’ve got kids.)
Me and my mife and my baby are all covered with a health insurance provided by my company. If i end my contract here, and go back to the Philippines, we will be paying for all the bills except of course if you can work to a company who will shoulder the insurance of you and your family. What’s the difference? Why is it in other countries health or medicare is so important while others don’t mind that people are dying? in here, abundance of money, and care for people, in my country, corruption and self service.
Very interesting read–you’ve certainly faced some difficult challenges and I appreciate your willingness to share them.
I get a little confused about the notion that taxes are “gifts” from us to the needy. The government provides a safety net of sorts, but it isn’t a gift and I don’t think Jesus (for those who would bring him into the conversation) ever advocated political solutions to these temporal challenges. I’m the first to agree that giving to your fellow humans in their time of need is a great good , I don’t see the government as doing that particularly well. And it certainly isn’t a “gift” if you go to jail for not “giving” it. How do you equate taxes and gifts?
I don’t see the government as doing that particularly well
I’m curious–do you believe that government is inherently incapable of providing for its citizens for structural reasons, or are you simply noting inefficiencies where the rubber hits the road? What do you imagine the role of government to be if not to intervene on a large scale when its citizens need help? Surely any government can do more to enhance the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of its organization, but to dismiss one of its most important functions out of hand?
Anyway, I agree that taxes are hardly a gift, though I do believe that they are an obligation.
A few years ago, DH was between jobs and we had food stamps for a couple of months to make sure we had food on the table for our 4 children. I had a “friend” that would come into my home and help herself to the food in my cupboards. Her reasoning was that her husband was employed and was paying taxes, therefore the food I bought on Food Stamps was hers to take whenever she pleased. (we are not friends anymore)
I also believe any system that is set up to help those in need will be abused, including Relief Society. We have a family in our ward that is planning on moving out of state but can’t sell thier house. The RS has stepped into help since the husband has gone ahead to work. It has been 4 months now, they recieve 2 meals a week with babysitters provided 3 days a week so the mother can get away from thier kids. The YW are also going over to clean her house every week. She is also recieving help from her in-laws, so she has babysitters 5 days a week. Now it is great that the ward wants to help out, but there are not the only family in need. She is not working, why can’t she prepare her own meals and clean her own house and who wouldn’t love free babysitting 5 days a week? Their house is overpriced for the market here and nobody sees any hope of it selling. She is planning on being here for at least another year, including having the ward take care of her when she has her baby in a few months. I don’t see any difference between her and a “welfare queen”. She is abusing the system, taking time and resources that could be used elsewhere. And yes, she is asking for all this help.
Sorry if this came off as a rant, but it annoys me when people that could take resposibility for themselves expect others to take care of them and the consequenses of thier bad choices.
Here’s a good song my gal Jolie sings about being a poor girl. I love the line, “I’ve got a couple of foodstamps/ and a caffeine buzz…/Oh maybe I’m a poor girl/But I don’t worry about it none/Maybe I’m a poor girl/But I don’t worry about it none/When this world comes crashing down/I know that I’ll be standing in the sun/I’ll be standing in the sun.”
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 4, 2008 @ 7:26 am
This is the last post I will be making at FMH.
I am saddened by the fact that so many of you jumped on the bully wagon concerning socialism vs. libertarianism. I have stated over and over that there is a huge difference between Christ asking us to be charitable and the government TAKING funds with force.
I thought this was a forum where various beliefs could be discussed evenly, but when 3 posts come out with one stance and ‘bully’ the other viewpoint to the point that only one defender is left having to backtrack from all the angry permas - it shows it has a political motivation and that’s not what being LDS is about. - (to push one political agenda).
I do not believe FEMINISM = SOCIALISM and am troubled by how many of you attack those who feel as I do (including me).
I do not believe Christ has anything to do with taxes and forced socialism.
I do not believe that my ideas are any less valid than yours and to have 3 posts aimed at stomping on them is very disheartening as a feminist who tries to simply be another side of the ‘clear majority’ here.
I do not come from a priviledged life… I grew up with a single mom who didn’t have anything. We lived in an apt with roaches and never took anything from the government. (she worked 2 jobs to support us). We did go to the Church and family, and that is how it should be. That stated, I’ve seen so many abuses in ‘the system’ including the FLDS that I stand by the notion that the government shouldn’t ‘take from one’ to ‘give to another’. It should be up to the individual.
I also do not feel infastructure needs (and the taxes that go with them) are the same as a socialist agenda and to imply that I don’t want roads is non-sequitor.
Anyway, clearly my voice is not wanted here and I will leave. If the permas feel they can bully all those who disagree by using this platform for their ’socialist’ stance.. then so be it… take care
I felt sorry as i read what Chandelle has written. Honestly I never thought that it is happening there in U.S. I grew up in the Philippines, had seen how many Filipinos lived in poverty and I never seen or heard that our government has helped anyone. Its worse to see that most of the corrupt government officials are enjoying the money that’s supposed to be used to help those who are in poverty. Still you guys were blessed because somehow, someone- if not all, are given help by your government.
Anyway I’d like to comment on what observer has said regarding what was taught in the church. Me and my husband got married very early, my husband is working here in Saudi Arabia but he is not making that much money. We started renting a small room back in the Philippines. We just had a box for our table, no chair, not even a bed. We moved here in KSA after 3 months and I got pregnant. I wonder how we are able to make it with his salary, he never got an increase yet we were able to get the things we needed. One way or another there are blessings coming from members and friends- for which we are grateful for. still we are renting a small room- not a house. We have no savings, but not in debt. I wonder how when we have a baby now yet nothing has changed. I would agree He will always prepare a way for us if we follow his commandment.
I could have waited few more years and pursue my career in accounting.But I don’t think I will be as happy as I am now with my daughter and husband.
ujilapani, i understand your question and i don’t have a great answer, except that i believe that everyone should have healthcare and right now the government can fulfill such a need better than i can as an individual. again, not lookin’ for perfection here. i don’t believe that individuals can fulfill such a great need - especially in this country, where such an enormous segment of the population believes that people deserve what they get if they suffer, and even die, because they are poor.
In Utah 100,000 of the 300,000 uninsured are children, the great majority of whom qualify for SCHIP but whose parents have not had them enrollled. From what Chandelle says about her husband’s income, it sure sounds like her kid(s) qualify. Also, if you show up at the emergency room uninsured they will immediately enroll you in Medicaid, if you qualify–I know Medicaid is for very low income, so you might not qualify. Sounds like you live on the west side fairly close to the 4th S free clinic where you could also have taken your son.
I worked for the Utah Dept Of Workforce Services as an insane intake worker for a while and don’t remember all the qualifications necessary but Chandelle is right, qualifying is not easy–not true for SCHIPS though. Adults without children get practically no help unless there’s mental illness.
Having grown up in a Western European country with universal health care, I’m firmly opposed to it. Yes, there are people who need assitance and those should get it from society and all of us thru govt, but govt is far less efficient as delivering any service and should be used when only absolutely necessary. One of several reasons for high health care inflation is the inadequate govt reimbursements rates to providers and hospitals which means they charge all of us thru our insurance to cover the underpayments. Another reason is over-utilization as when we demand the newest, expensive allergy med advertised on TV when a Sudafed tablet costing a few pennies a pill would do or an M.R.I. when a X-ray would suffice.
Massachusetts’s attempt at universal health care is NOT the way to go, They did nothing to reduce the cost of care, only mandated “affordable insurance’ and are now facing costs several times greater than anticiapated with no way to pay for it.
Having worked with at risk populations in the Salt Lake area, I will say that there were some wonderful, hard-working folks I was so happy to be able to assist with state and federal programs but I left because of the others, and because I was in great danger of becoming a cynic.
I’m a moderate Republican, living on Salt Lake’s East side with 2 SUVs in the garage, but walking and biking everywhere I can–that’s the European in me still alive after 35 years in the U.S.
chandelle, glad we can agree on something. I am sorry if my comments ever feel like an assault on your character. We have different ideas on a lot of things, but I do respect you and where you are coming from. (And I think I come across more harshly in text).
Quimby and Peter, I think you misread my intent in sharing the stories of abuse (and actually, I thought of another. From what I understand, the FLDS intentionally commit welfare fraud). My point is that here is how someone like me perceives the situation: I pay taxes and they support programs. I have no problem with that. My current tax rate is manageable (although Quimby had a good point - federal income tax is practically nominal compared to state taxes, FICA taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, sales taxes. One of my complaints with current Republicans in office is that they say “I’ll keep your taxes low” *wink* *wink* and just add a “tax” in another area). Anyways, back to story. But, knowing that there are abuses in the system, when someone comes and says, “Give a little more. You need to pay more in taxes to help more”, I step back and say, “Okay, have we controlled all the costs? Are there loopholes in the system that are wasteful?” And there are. Not just with abuses (and the situations of fraud on the part of individuals is probably just a small, small part of the abuse in comparison with the fraud on the part of some health care providers and insurance companies), but with our whole U.S. healthcare system of HMOs. There are so many inflated costs. The major HMOs are operating more like oligopies. I’d like to look at where we can be more efficient before just throwing more money at the problem. That doesn’t mean I am against the programs themselves - I just don’t think the proposed solutions solve the problems or really help. My point is: let’s make sure the people who need help are getting it. Part of that is being efficient. If we controlled the costs, we could actually help more people on the same amount.
ujlapana, is your “gift” comment directed at me? I wasn’t referring to taxes as gifts. I was saying that when a parent buys a home, preschool, clothes, etc. for their children, that is a gift.
Peter, I agree that taxes are essential. But, we are out of control with our spending in the U.S. Our government is wasteful and inefficient - on both sides. There is as much corruption and self-serving in the Republicans as the Democrats in congress. Both are complicit. Considering that, I personally prefer the presidential candidate who is saying “Let’s get this out-of-control spending under control and keep our taxes down” to the one who is saying, “More government, more government, more taxes”. Of course, promises don’t always translate to results (our current administration is a pretty good example of that. Has probably hurt the conservative cause more than anyone else I can think of), but I still agree with the ideas more on the right.
Cindy, that is a really disappointing story. People like that hurt conservative causes as much as people committing welfare fraud hurt liberal causes. It’s really too bad we all can’t be more considerate and thoughtful of each other.
IMO, this healthcare problem is going to have to be solved in a bipartisan fashion. We don’t really help by standing in a box and demonizing the other side (not saying that anyone here is doing that - just talking in generalities). I read over both McCain’s and Obama’s health care proposals again last night. I prefer McCain’s, but honestly, there are parts of Obama’s that I agree with too. That’s kind of been my point throughout (again, probably not made well) - neither party has a monopoly on all the best ideas, and if either side “wins”, there will be a lot of angry people leftover. Both sides think they are “right”. I think we need a lot more working together and discussing the problems than calling names.
My comment is not showing up, so here it is again. Sorry if it is a repeat:
A utopian society would be ideal. Theoretically, I prefer the United Order. The problem is human weakness: greed, pride, dishonesty, lack of integrity. Ironically, IMO, these are the same human weaknesses that are causing the existing health care system in the U.S. to fail. It is too bad we can’t solve the human weakness problem. In the Book of Mormon, when the people are living Zionist principles, they have all in common, no poor among them, and EVERYONE becomes more prosperous. It’s an interesting phenomenon that doesn’t seem to make sense from a self-preservation point of view.
However, we can’t solve the human weakness problem because of this free agency thing, so IMO, a capitalist system (with proper regulations to provide protections) does a better job of protecting individual liberties and providing the opportunity for prosperity (both on a micro and a macro level) than socialism.
And that said, our current health care system is something that I think can be solved by navigating more to the principles from the right, but definitely not without input, ideas and insight from the left. I guess that’s where I stand, so I’ll stop thinking outloud.
I thought this was a forum where various beliefs could be discussed evenly, but when 3 posts come out with one stance and ‘bully’ the other viewpoint to the point that only one defender is left having to backtrack from all the angry permas - it shows it has a political motivation and that’s not what being LDS is about.
elise, what are the 3 posts? i’m pretty sure my biking post has nothing to do with bullying capitalists (or maybe it does, hmmm……)
anyways, Not Ophelia merely put a link to an opposing viewpoint of one of our readers, who, if you didn’t notice, didn’t argue with your opinion. she thought to post her response to your views on her own personal space and fMh thought it was lovely and linked to it.
your views are welcome here, it’s when you speak of the poor as “them” and “they” and lump the poor into a leaching, lazy, government teet sucking group that we (the permas) get frustrated.
nobody said you couldn’t express your opinion here. you’ve done it on other threads and the permas never chided you (or did they)
I tried to apply for foodstamps when I was a single, working, college-student parent and got turned down because I had too much. Let me tell you… the people on food stamps actually NEED them. I needed them, and even I could not get them.
Elise, I understand where you are coming from. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to stand up for what you believe and not back down. I’ve agreed with you on some things and disagreed on others, but I have appreciated that you are a strong, opinionated woman.
After my first few days on FMH, I vowed to never come back, but it is just too addicting (ask my husband - he tried to change the filter so I couldn’t access it. To be fair, I have asked for help for my “addiction” LOL). Then, I was publicly [almost] asked to leave. But, a kind permablogger (who may want to remain anon - I’m not sure) convinced me to come back and give it a try. It is sometimes hard because I have to both: 1. seek not to offend and 2. seek not to be offended. I admit that I am learning a lot. Considering that my objective in life is to “find truth”, and I really don’t have an agenda to push (besides just trying to share what I have learned if I think it might help someone else), I have learned a lot from this site. It’s not always comfortable, but I like interacting with people who have different views. Not to say that I really have made any friends here (I was honestly astonished at the kind words directed my way earlier in this thread), but I do enjoy being here.
I would give you a suggestion to take a step back (or a break for a few days to cool off) and try again, really being careful to 1. seek not to offend, and 2. seek not to be offended. It is HARD. I seem to offend people easily. But, your opinions do have value and are legitimate. You just have to be careful in the delivery. And put yourself in the shoes of the people you are speaking to. It may even sometimes change your views. (I’m learning the hard way - but I am still a Republican and I still tick people off when I bring up politics).
But, a kind permablogger (who may want to remain anon - I’m not sure) convinced me to come back and give it a try.
aw shucks…
and stephanie, that’s mighty kind and good advice. to anyone reading any blog.
this is not personal. these threads would not be nearly as interesiting or thought provoking if we all kept our mouths shut and said, “yes, that’s nice”
many of us have done that for way too long, wouldn’t you say?
#40 That’s you?! I wondered initially if it was the same “Stephanie” who had posted before but concluded that it couldn’t possibly be because the other Stephanie was so self-righteous and defensive and the new Stephanie was so earnest and inquisitive, although the two did seem to share a political bent…I am ridiculously impressed with you, Stephanie. I don’t agree with some of your opinions but I’ve never seen anyone apply themselves to being open to divergent views as rapidly as you have. It’s a skill I wish I had. When I’m wounded or defensive I comfort myself by thinking terribly unkind things about the offending person. Cold comfort. Oh, who am I kidding, sometimes it can be very comforting. Yours is infinitely better, though. Good on you.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 4, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Thank you, CWC. I have been working on my humility.
#40 That’s you?! I wondered initially if it was the same “Stephanie” who had posted before but concluded that it couldn’t possibly be because the other Stephanie was so self-righteous and defensive and the new Stephanie was so earnest and inquisitive, although the two did seem to share a political bent…I am ridiculously impressed with you, Stephanie.
i’m pretty sure that’s about the nicest compliment one could ever receive.
Has Mr. Chandelle considered a career change? Something with a higher salary and good insurance?
The company I work for recruits all over the mountain west, provides very good insurance, prorated based on salary level. Starting salary well into the 1% range of the global rich list.
Stephanie, you’ve inspired me to submit my first ever guest post, “Learning From the Other Side,” which I will finish and submit as soon as my little 6 month old tires of having his tummy bitten. As long as he’s squealing delightedly, I am captive to his cuteness…maybe we can work on a joint post in the future?
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 4, 2008 @ 11:51 am
I for one am a big Ayn Rand fan. (*ducks to avoid swooping blows* ). My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged, and I would recommend it to anyone whether they subscribe to Rand’s objectivism or not just ‘cause it’s a fantastic story and an American Classic.
I do not find that liking and even mostly subscribing to the philosophy presented in Atlas Shrugged contradicts my beliefs in the gospel. The United Order will work when Christ is in charge of it, and I don’t believe before that. Until then, it’s up to individual people to choose to be Christ-like. I don’t see how forcing people to pay for Universal Healthcare is Christ-like. It eliminates personal choice as to what we do with our money. And in fact, I feel that any form of government socialism in our current mortal state is closer to following Satan’s plan due to the elimination of choices.
I do believe that there is and should be a safety net for those people who for whatever reason fall on hard times and need some help getting back on their feet. We currently have a program in place for that, and while yes, it needs improvement, is much better than forcing everyone under a universal program.
Last year, a close relative of mine died due to Amyloidosis. He was blessed enough to have good health care insurance from his employer after an early retirement (early only because of his illness), and so was able to undergo the expensive treatments and experimental medications necessary to prolong his life for two years. Now, that wasn’t long, but who can measure the value of two years? He was able to spend time with his children and his wife, time he wouldn’t have had under a universal healthcare system, because if the US had socialized medicine during that time, those treatments wouldn’t have been made available to him.
but govt is far less efficient as delivering any service and should be used when only absolutely necessary.
Martie,
Are you talking about the government of any particular country? Or are you talking about government in general? If so, what is it about government that makes it inherently worse than any other human endeavor at providing services on a large scale? What would be better–well-meaning but incompetent volunteers? Profit-driven corporations who consult actuarial tables before weighing the cost/benefit of treating your illness? What third way would you recommend?
35:
government is wasteful and inefficient
Stephanie,
True, but what’s the alternative? Government is here to stay–why not work to improve its effectiveness and enhance its efficiency as an alternative to paying the taxes it demands but running away screaming when it plows that income back into the health of its taxpayers?
Peter, you’re kind of making my point for me, but I don’t necessarily feel that the government would plow the income back into the health of the taxpayers. I think it sounds good, but that a lot of it would be wasted in the same inefficiences and fraud if that isn’t fixed first.
Stephanie–I’ll agree with you that the government is inefficient. However, I’d like to point out that companies aren’t better–in fact, when it comes to health insurance companies, the government is more efficient. In this article it’s suggested that nationalized health care would save enough to cover all the currently uninsured–without asking anyone to spend more. They also note (speaking of the medicare drug bill),
At present, Medicare’s overhead is less than 4 percent. But all of the new Medicare money – $400 billion – will flow through private insurance plans whose overhead averages 12 percent.
So, yeah, in terms of efficiency I’d rather give money to the government, which seems to spend more of the money we give it on actually covering people. If the insurance industry were actually more efficient (as so many economists say they should be) I’d have no problem just staying with the current system. As it stands, we Americans spend more than any other industrialized nation in order to not insure more than 10% of our population. Seems less than efficient to me.
nb–Why will the United Order suddenly work once Christ is in charge?
I’m sorry-just not getting you good people.
Both graduates,married a man with good prospects and did the right thing for us,went ahead and had the babies.Took out the mortgage.Next month the job ends-not redundancy so no pay out.and so it goes-25 years and counting both been out of work too many times to count,and yet he worked days and I worked nights when the work was there.My point is we tried to do the right thing,but it’s the economy dummy.We are at the mercy of forces bigger than ourselves and i am so grateful to live in a state that gives basic maintenance and here in the UK hooray for socialised health care with all of it’s inadequacies and inefficiencies.I challenge you to find me the woman with diabetes who thinks otherwise.I just don’t care if I pay more into the system than I get out,because I am my brothers keeper and I don’t know any doctors!These things happen to real people,not just losers,and we’re all just a day away from a crisis.You heard it first here.
I’m going to try and post one last time and see how ‘hammered’ I get. I’ve never gotten personal with any post, yet Chandelle’s post was a direct reference to my comments I made. That stated, what I’m about to say I do it in the spirit of peace and not trying to attack.. I speak the word “you” generally and am simply using the posters story as the situationaly example since it was put out there for the sake of argument. so take it for what’s it worth…
1) In every single profession there are trade offs. For Mr. Chandelle, I’m sure there are aspects about his career that he loves - otherwise he wouldn’t be doing it. Loving one’s work is a luxury and the trade off could be earning potential. I’m also quite sure he is home more often than others in a profession that makes more, but expects 80+ hours a week in work.
That said, it was a choice to pick a profession and the pros and cons that go with it. If you aren’t happy, then leave the profession and go to a higher paying one (they are out there as another posted listed). I’m a little put out that when someone has a lower income profession - but has other benefits I listed above, they expect to be floated financially by others who picked professions that make more but have other negatives that go with it (time, stress, etc etc).
For me, the thought some feel entitled to help just because they are in low paying professions bother me. Get a 2nd job, or switch jobs… yes, you may love what you do but again.. that’s a trade off right? But to expect my family to be FORCED to help your family through social taxes really bothers me. We make sacrifices, albiet different ones, but we do too… and so in the end, our sacrifices mean less since the point of them was to earn more for various objectives and it is taken from us to help out your family due to your decisions.
2) Yes we need preschool workers… but I believe that the markets will fuel a higher wage if people refused to work there based on the low salary. Demand would increase wages and in the end, I would pay more to put my kid in it (which I would gladly do as that is my CHOICE)… Just like when fast food couldn’t find workers, they had to increase the wage so too does the market play out when supply and demand are leveled.
3) I believe no one should feel ‘entitled’ to support from the ‘whole’ because they are “down and out”. Just because you are barely making it, doesn’t mean society should jump in to help. I’ve known many people who were very poor and chose not to use entitlements… they DID move themselves by their boot straps and were better people for it. They worked sometimes 3 jobs at a time, and mainly taught their children how important education is. Their children learned from the parents and became financially successful due to the parents ethic.
4) I do believe in helping others, as does the Church. I believe it should be done freely, without force from the Government and by way of the Spirit. If that means someone is stingy with their income, they will reap the consequences eternally, but I do not believe Jesus ever wanted a nation to become that of coercion and force.
Well.. that’s it. It’s very hard to feel that all the permas are on one side of the issue (and subsequently posted blog links favoring that side) but not posting any well thought out arguments on the side. There are points on both sides and to only showcase one side doesn’t make those who feel different feel very welcome when they know they will get attacked immediately by everybody. Anyway, I got an email saying someone liked me… so I”m hoping that’s the case. I enjoy FMH and was really hurt that permas are only ’showcasing’ the side they agree with.
Elise–Maybe we look at putting money into social programs differently. I’m all for putting money into social programs because I see them as an investment in human capital. The money the government spends on educating its populace and creating a healthy, productive workforce comes back many times in terms of increased taxes and a better quality of life for everyone. I get the impression that’s not how you see government welfare–is that right?
nb–Why will the United Order suddenly work once Christ is in charge?
Because Christ is a perfect person with a perfect understanding of each of our needs/feelings/desires. He is just and fair. He will know how to execute the United Order in such a way that is totally fair to all those who choose to enter into it. I also have faith that he will be able to do this without hindering our individual choices, after all, in the pre-existence, he was the one who was all for personal agency and choices!
Elise,i enjoy having an opportunity to hear how this works for you.But here’s the thing.Changed profession several times and worked the multiple jobs.Refused to go to the state and educated ourselves several times over.Have no family.Several bereavements and long term sickness in several family members concurrently,limiting time available for work.Now too old to be interns.Thank God for the NHS.This stuff happens to the self reliant and educated too.I wonder if there is some way we have brought our ill-health on our selves?Perhaps we overworked.
You are correct Kristine, I do not view government welfare in the same way you do. I can understand the government getting involved in the event of a catastrophe / short term emergency, but when people feel the government or rather society “owes” them something because they don’t make as much as others… for whatever reason, that’s where I take issue, and like nb said, I too believe that the law of consecration is just because Christ is at the head. We will be FREE to decide to participate, it will be fair to all, everyone will do their share, and no one will be able to ‘abuse’ the system like happens often now.
thanks you guys… With how the other post was abruptly stopped and then this new post put in… (and since I was the Ayn Rand person)… I felt pretty low this morning…
I’ve never tried to be offense and the funny thing is my ward thinks I’m too liberal for them.
One of my children is extremely successful in her field.I believe it is her responsibilty to help her brothers and sisters.Are we not all brothers and sisters?Whilst we must always address waste and fraud,I would far rather err on the side of safety in knowing that my brethren and sisters were provided for than hold onto my hard earned cash.In fact I consider it my privelege to contribute to the commonwealth as I am able.Our family motto has become-’it is the job of the strong to help the weak’ I’ts been a hard lesson to learn.
I see your point, and I agree that it is very important to help our fellow human-beings out when they need it. Like the hymn says: Because I have been given much I too must give.
The point is to where and how much should be up to our own choice. (Hopefully with prayer and inspiration from above involved!) However, the government forcing our wealth away from us is not a choice, it’s tyranny. I want to choose where my money goes and how much. I have been blessed with a paycheck, that money is now under my jurisdiction and I am responsible for where it goes. I am grateful for that responsibility and that blessing. It should be up to the individual to be their brother’s and sister’s keepers. We should be allowed those blessings, not robbed from it by the government!
Elise - ever thought about starting a mormon-libertarian blog? - I’ll be happy to come up with some posts!
For me, it’s about CHOICE - tithing is a CHOICE and no child should be forced into it. I believe your daughter should be able to learn and decide for herself how to handle her wages and labors. If she sees and feels prompted to help her siblings, then so be it. But if said siblings EXPECT help from her… then really, who needs the lesson in humility? What of brothers and sisters that are ‘idle’? Should we support them in their idleness? I know some who rather than attempt to save themselves.. wait and wait for assistance.
D&C 42:42, “Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.”
For me, one should never be FORCED to help others, it should be by the spirit. And those receiving help should never wait around expecting it either. They should be working diligently in finding solutions for themselves and for their future generations -education. The Church, when it attempted the law of consecration was very particular about how much work/tithe each family was putting in. They wanted fairness and were rather strict about work ethic.
Elise - ever thought about starting a mormon-libertarian blog? - I’ll be happy to come up with some posts! —- nb
I’d be so there. And welcome all the Repubs, Democrats, Socialists, Communists too! There’s so many sides of the same coin… to me it ALL falls down to agency and Freedom.
I’m not a big hitter in the health care debate (I’m still learning about a lot of it) (so be easy on me), but I would like to know, honestly, what is the difference between using government money to provide things like universal fire and police protection and using government money to provide universal health care? And I don’t think that “emergency” status argument cuts it–police and fire depts. are called for a range of situations and help us in day-to-day situations. I don’t see health care as being all that different–you have emergencies and you have day-to-day stuff.
I’m interested in learning more about the Swiss system. I watched the Frontline report ‘Sick Around the World‘ when somebody linked to it here on fMh (I think it was Lisa), and while they spent the least amount of time on Switzerland, it seemed like the most promising system, with the closest conditions to our own–including the opposition to it before it got voted in (barely). Now many former critics & naysayers are quite supportive of it.
MAC–it may be a luxury, but it’s a luxury that benefits us all. If people are happy at work, they tend to be more productive, both producing and earning more. There really is benefit to making sure people are doing things they enjoy and are good at.
The problem with that is not every job or title could be enjoyable - but it must get done. How many of us want the title of Trash Collector or Cattle Culler
I think the joy is that you know you did an honest days work for an honest days pay… To me, you don’t have to ‘like’ the job to be happy in life - and if you have a choice between making more or liking your profession.. that will be a choice up to you.
Elise-of course it is essential that she choose to help her brethren and sisters.It is essential for her progression for her to get her head around her responsibilty for her brethren and sisters.Would it be right for her to choose to do otherwise with the time talents and abilities that have been provided for her from our resources?As parents we would be distressed were she to choose otherwise,especially knowing as we do how generous her siblings are with what they have to give her,and would give her more had they more to give.
Can people in Australia, Canada, or Switzerland sue their health care providers? Malpractice insurance premiums for Ob-Gyns in the U.S. now exceed $100,000 per annum. In order to bring costs down, it would seem to me that we need to fix that, but I don’t know how. When the government is directly involved, can people sue the government if there are problems? I hope somebody who knows can tell us.
Police and fire services are generally very localized, and are funded for the most part from taxes that are collected locally.
There is nothing to keep a community from instituting a local health care scheme. There would be local accountability and there the cost would be visible to the payers in the form of property and excise taxes. The market drivers would be similar to those which motivate communities to improve their school systems in order to attract the right kind of residents.
The analogy is actually pretty strong, you want to see what health care would look like? Think US public schools, some very good, some very, very bad.
Granted, not all jobs are fun, but to be honest, the best paying ones are the ones that require much effort be expended in prepping for them. The choice isn’t usually between well-paying and enjoyable–it’s between expedient now and moderately well paying, or poorly compensated now with the promise of greater compensation later.
The idea of finding joy in “an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” is theoretically fine. Real life is, of course, much more complicated than that. Many of the sorts of less desirable jobs out there are not only less stimulating, but don’t provide compensation adequate to meet our needs. In other words, the worker is providing an honest day’s work, but they are not receiving an honest day’s pay.
Further, I think there are many careers out there for which the term “honest day’s work” is a misnomer. Oh, they may be perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the world. But our standards should be higher. For example, when I got my degree in graphic design, there were many jobs available working for firms doing marketing for Ford, or Frito Lay, or various console gaming companies. But is it really an honest day’s work to essentially be involved in selling things people don’t need (and which are actually unhealthy for them), for money they don’t really have, in order to make enormous profits for people who are already loaded? I don’t really consider that an honest day’s work. Is day trading really a noble profession? Or all those who sucked people into loans they couldn’t really afford, and caused this housing fiasco? What many of them did was perfectly legal, and even industry standard. But was it really an honest days work?
So I really do believe there is more to just liking whatever job you happen to find available, or to get whatever you can find to make money.
it may be a luxury, but it’s a luxury that benefits us all. If people are happy at work, they tend to be more productive, both producing and earning more. There really is benefit to making sure people are doing things they enjoy and are good at.
There may be a benefit, but not a net benefit.
I would love to not have to work the hours that I do and make the sacrifices that I do so that my family is financially secure, has good insurance and a pension.
If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.
So, MAC, how would you characterize the net effect of the GI bill on our national economy, since that was a government subsidized program that allowed an unprecedented number of people to go to college and work at previously unobtainable white collar jobs? ‘Cause everything I’ve ever seen says investing in the earning power of WWII veterans was an incredible plus for this country economically.
Many kids drop out of school to help their parents in the short term, only find it would have been better to let said parents struggle and help them and themselves better through education.
There’s a book (true story) - “THE GLASS CASTLE” I really loved which had parents doing EVERYTHING to undermine their kids yet the kids ended up successful on their own while the parents ENJOYED staying homeless. They enjoyed the lifestyle.
Derek,
I too am a designer and nothing we market is ‘needed’… We don’t sale water, nor the Gospel, nor veggies etc. etc. I choose my clients and turn down some (like annoying MLM companies - usually in Provo) because I disagree with the premise. That is a LUXURY I have because my husband supplies the majority of income. If I had to feed my family, I would be less discerning.
Unless you are in the service industry, you will find that most jobs aren’t ‘needed’ so you can’t look at it like this. Like anyone needs a couch from RCWilleys… etc. I am proud of earning a wage for my efforts… but graphic design is not my love.. it is a means (money) to be able to do my love… sculpture.
kristine - that article is put forth by a group with a liberal agenda, so I have to take it with a grain of salt. Honestly, I just don’t believe the numbers. I think that government is inefficient because it doesn’t have an incentive to be efficient. Need more money? Tax the people some more and print more paper money. Private companies have an incentive to reduce waste because they have the goal of profit. Whether you want to argue that profit is “waste” is debatable.
I learned a lot from deregulation of electricity in Texas. Supposedly deregulation was supposed to bring in this free market that would bring down costs. Actually, what happened is that the company that controls all the infrastructure is now a monopoly that is not regulated. So, they charge as much as they want to the “free market companies” and we get to shop from those. What a joke. Some industries aren’t meant to be completely free market.
In the case of health care, I don’t know. It’s not a single commodity like electricity. But, currently, the insurance companies are acting like an oligopy. I think regulation to control that would be effective - one place to start.
Mark, tort reform would also be a great place to start.
Elise,
Jeanette Wall’s book literally changed my life. It kind of gave me a road map about how to make sense of my own childhood. I love that book! (ps: i nearly named my daughter elise…instead it’s her middle name) ♥
Yes, Elise little that we market is needed. But far to much of the marketing industry simply promotes conspicuous consumption and wealth redistribution to those who already have. Not a very moral system. And I don’t buy the typical libertarian/objectivist line that they’re “just filling a need.” No more than pimps or drug dealers. We need to set our sights higher. “In the world but not of the world” should mean more than just low hemlines, high necklines, and silly expletives.
Stephanie–I don’t buy the argument that private companies have more incentive to reduce waste than the government does. Private companies spend quite a bit more on administrative costs than medicare and medicaid do (12% vs. 4% of budget) because they habitually deny claims. It’s not more efficient to do things that way, but it’s the way the business works–deny everything and make customers jump through as many hoops as possible to have a claim paid.
Have you read about Walmart lately? They are getting into the health care field and making ‘basic’ things very affordable with little overhead. I get my prescriptions there without insurance and pay $4. They also do childhood vaccienes and asthma care etc etc… NOw that they are doing it, others are following and all are hell bent to lower the costs… King Soopers and walgreens offer $4 prescriptions now too.
This is an example of how if you allow a competition in a free market society to happen, it will be quicker, more agile, and less red tape than any governmental dept - PLUS we don’t have to pay for it… Walmart front it’s own profits into the clinics. I posted a link on the c-section post describing some really cool things going on in the private sector that Bush promised years ago for gov health care and still isn’t being done.
My grandpa was in the legislature and he always said any change in the Government is like trying to make a sandstone arch with wind and water.
Of course, for a true libertarian, Wal-Mart and its incredible reliance on corporate welfare should raise all sorts of hackles. Too few supposedly free-market advocates realize that corporatism has little to do with a free-market.
Elise, I think you might be assuming a lot about chandelle’s husband. I don’t know him personally, so I don’t know why he is a preschool teacher. There could be a multitude of reasons. I think it is dangerous to jump to conclusions about his choice of profession (it might not even be his profession - it might be a temp job to get them through). Here are a couple of other things I have learned on this blog:
1. Be sure to try to clarify the intent, assumptions, implications of anything before making a judgement call.
2. Better yet, withhold judgement, particularly with regard to a specific person.
3. Be sure to read any comment several times before responding. A lot of the time I will find that I misread it the first time.
Elise, I like you. I want you to stay. I, too, am [almost] libertarian. If I were chandelle, I would jump all over you right now for making assumptions about my husband and his current job (for example, and let me reiterate that I don’t know chandelle’s husband, but I have a brother-in-law who will probably only ever make minimum wage. He just doesn’t have the capacity to do more. If he gets married and decides to have a family, his wife will likely have to support them). In fact, I kind of want to jump all over you on chandelle’s behalf. But, I’m going to refrain and just suggest that you carefully read your comments before posting them to see if they could be hurtful.
Your opinions on choosing a profession are very valid. I agree with them. But, the assumptions with regard to his particular job are what get me.
Also, IMO, there is a more liberal bias here on FMH. And I get jumped on a lot. But, it’s still fun.
But far to much of the marketing industry simply promotes conspicuous consumption and wealth redistribution to those who already have.
TRUE TRUE TRUE
kristine, okay, I am going to agree to disagree on this one. Yes, private companies can waste, but I think the government is a huge, wasteful mess, and I am not crazy about the idea of throwing more money at it.
how would you characterize the net effect of the GI bill on our national economy
Not quite sure why you are asking me this question, but since you did, I will respond.
If you are talking about the educational benefits of the current Montgomery GI bill, it all depends on which degrees are selected by the recipients.
Though the GI bill does not exist as an entitlement program. Participants choose to contribute to be eligible and the legislation is written so that it is considered compensation.
That said, to suggest that the renumeration that our servicemen and women receive for their service is some sort of welfare may raise a few hackles.
“If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.”
which I think completely misses the point of subsidizing educational opportunities. Allowing people to pursue education, and paying for basic necessities while they do it, is an investment in the future earning potential of those involved–both for the individual and the government in terms of tax receipts. It’s not just about having a more enjoyable job, it’s also about having a better-paying job, and, especially in Chandelle’s husband’s case, performing a job that is needed in our society.
The only reason I used one person’s profession as the starting point of my argument is because it was put forth as such. They posted their very personal story as an attempt to illustrate a concept and persuade readers to understand their side. Indeed, the opening sentence of was “It is a thing of persuasion and clarity and heart-rending reality.” I’m simply showing the other side of the story given the facts listed that’s all.
We do the same every post when someone posts their story and issue - remember Eric and his “should my daughter get baptized?” post. People used Eric’s situation/story to either debate against it or promote. Eric put it out there and thus it became a stance in the posts. We all speak from personal experience… I think everyone does and a lot post their personal experiences here. That doesn’t mean they are off limits to point out differences or contradictions you see.
It is very true I know nothing but what was posted. I don’t know the history, nor do I claim to know it of any particular person. To post a personal story for a motivation on why ‘Ayn Rand’ posters are wrong, then expect all the (or just me) Ayn Rand posters to stay mum out of respect is, I hope not what was intended. otherwise it’s like… “Here’s my personal feelings about why welfare is important but no one can say anything contrary or if you find holes in my argument.”
Dang, I can’t link to the post (work firewall prevention– grrr). Can someone tell me if Chandelle works? Certainly living on one low-paying income (it appears her DH is a pre school teacher) would be a really tough road. But did Chandelle know his choice of profession beforehand? And if she did, certainly she was prepared and accepting of the hardship? And if not, there are ways to ease that burden, correct? Since I can’t link to the post, it may be addressed in the article.
What did Elise say that was so offensive? What post #? I tried to re-read some of hers and all i saw was an observation that if a person chooses a profession that is lower paying and has no benifits, that is their choice and they shouldn’t feel entitled to other’s in this country to support them. —That’s an opinion, how is that offensive? Was there another post I just missed?
I don’t understand how anybody who has witnessed true poverty could possibly believe in libertarianism.
Several years ago, I was a student at a prominent Egyptian university that catered for very wealthy Egyptians and ex-pats. I was not wealthy; I was having to stretch my limited college funds to afford the tuition, room and board. Almost immediately, I formed a friendship with a small group of American students, who in turn formed a friendship with a small group of Egyptian students. The Egyptian students were the elite of their society: they drove Mercedes, had unlimited pocket money, frequented expensive nightclubs and five-star restaurants. They were also nice, funny people. I liked them. I wanted to hang out with them.
Almost every evening, they would pick us up in a fleet of brand-new vehicles, and we would go out on the town. They would debate where to go - This nightclub is terrific, or, That restaurant has the best lamb, or, Why don’t we do this instead? And I would sit quietly in the back seat, furtively counting my pounds and figuring out how best to spend them: Well, if we go to the nightclub, there’ll be a cover charge, but cokes are cheap so I should be able to cover the cover charge and a coke. Well, if we go to the restaurant, I’ll take advantage of being white - they won’t kick me out if I only order a drink and I’m white - I’ll just order a thalib and nurse it, and I’ll say I’m not hungry, and I’m sure Jill won’t mind if I take a bite off her plate. I was, without a doubt, the poorest person in the car.
And then, inevitably, as I was worrying about my lack of money, I would look out into the street and see a man crossing the street on his hands because he had no legs; or a child digging through a pile of rubbish, the tell-tale pot-belly belying the fact that he hadn’t eaten in far too long; and suddenly I would be ashamed: I was rich. I was the richest person in the world.
When I tried to point out the legless man, or the starving child, my Egyptian friends would shrug and say, “Yeah, someone should do something.” Someone - but not them. Private individuals do not step into the void. We are too selfish, too self-centered, to care. When Reagan turned the mentally ill into the streets, who stepped in? When the housing market took a dive and working poor had to vacate, who stepped in? Nobody cares about the poor; it is much easier to say, “Well, they brought it on themselves; they should have made better choices.” But the boy who is digging through trash to find something to eat - he did not bring it on himself. The man who got in a car accident and lost his legs and with it, his livelihood - he did not bring it on himself. They are victims of circumstance.
The free market won’t solve the problem. Corporations care only for the bottom line. They don’t care for the poor; they don’t care for the environment; they care for their shareholders. Individuals won’t solve the problem. They care only for themselves. So who is there to care for “the least of these”? In a Western-style liberal democracy, there is only the government.
“If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.”
I am still not sure how you connected that particular reference to educational assistance.
If my dream is to raise fancy guppies, or write a boring auto-biography, or whip up patchouli scented vegan soap to sell at the local farmer’s market, wonderful. But if that fails to provide food, shelter, clothing and medical care for my kids, well then, shame on me. The solution isn’t to go on some anti-capitalist tirade, the solution is to go out and get a job that provides some security.
The free market won’t solve the problem. Corporations care only for the bottom line. They don’t care for the poor; they don’t care for the environment; they care for their shareholders. Individuals won’t solve the problem. They care only for themselves. So who is there to care for “the least of these”? In a Western-style liberal democracy, there is only the government. ——————Quimby
Wow… tell that to the Charities around the world doing good. My husband is joining Engineers without Borders to build wells (out of our own pocket)… Tell that to the Churches… did you know Christian Charities helped more Katrina victims (and still are) than Government? P.S. The mississippi gov is diverting Gov funds to build roads for Casinos instead of housing…
Government is a slow moving, potentially corrupt agency that TAKES peoples money and doesn’t use it the best. Have you not read about all the ‘insider contracts’ with Katrina and how much was wasting was going on?
I believe it’s the individuals that DO make the most difference, whether Mother Teresa, or Bill Gates. Through the Spirit of God they are prompted to give ‘Freely’.
Quimby, you make a very crucial point. I don’t believe government is the only, or the entire, solution for social injustice. But I absolutely believe that it has a role to play. On my own blog, I wrote a trilogy of essays regarding social justice and the conservative and libertarian critiques of social justice. One of my primary points about the libertarian critique is that while it (libertarianism) on one hand is based on the very important principle of freedom, its argument is substantially weakened by the fact that few if any libertarian voices are actively promoting a comprehensive, sustained, effort to act compassionately and promote social justice through voluntary methods. Instead, they choose to focus on self-reliance, and individual enterprise. Ultimately, they either covertly (in the case of Friedman) or overtly (in the case of Rand) promote greed and selfishness. Libertarians, Objectivists, and others of the Friedman/Rand ilk need to remember that the Savior never promoted those values.
Dead wrong about the charities and Katrina, Elise. The Road Home $$ being used to help people rebuild their homes in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast has a budget of $7.5 billion. Charity can’t touch that.
I wonder if anyone else sees the irony in Elise complaining that Bush didn’t do enough for Katrina, when Bush espouses the closest thing to liberatarianism we have seen in a president in a very long time . . . .
To be fair, Quimby, Bush doesn’t espouse anything like libertarianism. He promotes corporatism: do whatever it takes to promote business and wealthy elites (who happen to be his buddies), even when it means sacrificing market principles. Corporate welfare for Wal-Mart and Exxon, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, allowing Enron to come in and craft the federal energy policy…Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of libertarianism because of the selfishness/self-centeredness/lack of compassion at the root of the arguments of so many of its advocates. But if we are going to be honest, we should distinguish between the intellectually consistent and fairly honorable political perspective of libertarianism and the completely morally bankrupt corporatist ideology.
Elise, I never said that private organisations do nothing. I said that private individuals fall far short. There is a distinction.
As a theory, libertarianism collapses very easy upon itself. It is not a stable, sustainable political theory, and it is certainly not practical. Again, go back and read your social contract theory.
Derek, that’s a very fair point. But even so, Bush would like to see a social contract that is reduced to nothing more than post office and military - which is very much your classical libertarianism - although I’m pretty sure if push came to shove he’d also include “money for his cronies”. And I would still argue that libertarianism is not intellectually consistent; it is a very weak political system.
I’d actually say that money for his corporate cronies has always been near the top of his agenda, Quimby. But at this point, I’m quibbling. I do indeed have strong reservations about libertarian ideology.
Derek, I’m not disagreeing. I should have been clearer: Publically he likes to play at being a libertarianism. He would only come out and admit to money for his cronies being near or at the top of his agenda if push came to shove. Privately, it’s all about more money, more money, more money.
Although, to be fair, when I was studying politics - way back in the good ol’ days of Clinton I - Jimmy Carter was always brought up as an example of politicians helping themselves; apparantly he pushed for quite a few bits of legislation that were incredibly beneficial to peanut farmers.
If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.
someone has to be a teacher, a fire(wo)man, police. someone has to be the phlebotomist?who takes your blood to test for cancer and someone has to be the nurse who cares for your child after she’s broken her arm. again, not high paying careers but the individuals who do those “selfish self-fulfillment” occupations are very necessary people.
and don’t get me started on our men and women who serve in the military and what they make for a living…
and for the record, those careers i mentioned (just a few of so many) used to be decent family supporting occupations until those greedy bastards at the top decided to do all they can to do away with the (a real- bona fide , you know, the group of people that made this country so strong) middle-class.
so to tell someone to just go out and get a better, higher paying job is insulting.
in fact,let me try it.
quit your current job and go find a career that will pay you double.
There is a theory that a middle class is the hallmark of a developed society, and that it is only through the emersion of a middle class that a society can advance from developing to developed.
If we work within that theory, does that mean that the disappearance of a middle class will mark a regression from developed to developing?
And don’t forget the importance of the troisieme etat - they were responsible for the French Revolution, after all.
which is perhaps a very relevant point if we’re going to be talking about military income - in recent coups, almost all of them have the hallmark of the military overthrowing the government, often because of lack of income . . .
Teachers make decent wages when you also combine their excellent healthcare benefits and pensions/retirements. (Here it starts at 40K and can go to 60K)
Same with Police/Fire
If you are in the Armed Force you get premium health care too and retirement if you stay in for just 20 years. - no other program offers such benefits at a 20 year point.
You may not make 80K, but with benefits it is a nice profession - even still Mfranti. There are costs and benefits to everything.
My hubby makes more earnings, but there are many costs along with it.
The point is… not one profession you described will keep you in poverty and needing welfare… (the point of the argument) so what exactly is your point?
I’m not sure where it became about making lots of money. I don’t think anyone on any post says that is the goal.
If you are happy in your job and can feed your kids (as any of the professions you listed can) great. If you aren’t happy, move to something else. There’s opportunity everywhere…
If it weren’t for the final three words I’d think perhaps you had read your Socrates after all . . . But then I can’t imagine a libertarian agreeing to something as radical as free borders so that we can all move to find the state that best suits our desires.
1. yes, i work. i work part- to full-time from home transcribing psychological evaluations. the work and pay are both erratic, but i can stay home with my daughter, who is 18 months old, too young to be in school.
2. my education costs $100 a month. yes, it is a luxury. but in a year, willow will be old enough to be in her father’s class and i will be finished with my degree and ready to open a practice. that will improve our financial system immeasurably.
3. for this one big issue, i will repost a couple of comments from my blog.
it’s not just about job satisfaction, as to why my husband is at his “dream job” (not really, just a step in that direction) versus more financial security. the truth is that this job has provided us with more financial security than we’ve ever had. for the first time in our marriage we have enough money to fulfill our basic needs such as rent, food and utilities. and the reason that that is so is because when we had kids, and the strain of full-time work and full-time school being 80 miles apart became too much, my husband dropped out of school to take a higher-paying job that had benefits, which most people were of the opinion was the responsible thing to do. when he lost that job (due to outsourcing), he found this job with this school, which is a hugely important step for us financially because while it does not offer health benefits, it does pay him more than any job he’s ever had, and it’s also paying for his education outright so he can certify as a teacher and eventually REALLY have his dream job. it’s just dumb luck that it happens to be a job he loves. if it were not for this job he would have gone back to temping. he doesn’t have a degree and his experience is in either teaching or entry-level office stuff. this job IS what we have of financial security right now. if he were to lose it, he would go back to entry-level or, even worse, temping, and he wouldn’t make as much as he is now. i suppose it’s possible that he’d get health insurance, but we’d be back to not affording housing or food, which i think do take some immediate precedence over healthcare.
i actually agree with all of you entirely - it’s each family’s responsibility to take care of their own. we don’t “live on” the government and in fact we never did, even when we had no income. my point with this post was to say that sometimes we just can’t, even when we have the best intentions, or the best-laid plans; i think this is true of almost everyone during at least one point in our lives, and during those times i think it’s wrong to leave such people to suffer and possibly die because they don’t have the money.
the bottom line is that my husband didn’t take this job just to have job satisfaction at the expense of having a better-paying job with benefits. this IS his better paying job, and when he certifies, he’ll have benefits. when he got this job, you wouldn’t believe how we celebrated. we’ve never had this much money before. and AGAIN, we’re NOT on food stamps, we’re NOT on government assistance, because we are working and providing for ourselves. but those things were there for us when we needed it; being able to eat and survive made it possible for us to work so we could get OFF assistance.
i DO believe that everyone should have healthcare because a healthy population helps everyone. having healthcare is no guarantee of affordability. we actually had pretty great healthcare during my first pregnancy, and my unmedicated, unassisted hospital birth was still $8000 AFTER insurance, a crushing debt for newliweds making entry-level wages.
i’m not sure what exactly i’m asking the government to “compensate” me for, just because my husband happens to have a job he likes. we’re not using any form of government assistance right now because yes, we DID accept that we would struggle while my husband finishes certification and i finish school. we do struggle financially to make ends meet and we might even qualify for a bunch of stuff right now. but we’re providing for ourselves and not asking for anything because it’s okay to struggle sometimes. there’s a big difference, however, between struggling in a two-income household knowing that things are going to get better, and struggling because you have NO work - which sometimes DOES happen through no fault of one’s own - and during those periods my husband and i began temping the very day that our jobs were lost - which brings me to the second point that sometimes the work you have doesn’t cover your basic needs such as rent and food. and switching to a different profession is not always a viable option (though sometimes it is, as it was in the case of my husband).
when i refer to govenment assistance like food stamps and childcare, i’m not saying at all that i am asking for those things right now, or on a regular basis, or anything like that (though sometimes people need those things even when they are working). those things helped us immeasurably the three times we were in terrible jams, and when i think of the possibility of having that assistance removed from the people who depend on it, it makes my blood freeze. i don’t know what we would have done if we hadn’t had food stamps. we were even WORKING and we had nothing left after paying rent and keeping our electricity on; we lived without heat or hot water for the better part of a year, we didn’t have a car, we really didn’t have the money for anything beyond rent and electricity. we had nothing left for food even though both of us were working full time. it would be a terrible thing to have that safety net disappear for people like us - and i know plenty of people in even worse situations. at least we had each other.
i’m asking for everyone to have health insurance because i believe everyone deserves the right to be healthy specifically so they are able to work. it doesn’t actually have anything to do with our present level of income, which seems to be getting a lot of traction here. when and if we get good benefits in the future, i’ll still be shouting for universal healthcare, because for most of us, jobs that “roll in the dough” are pretty rare, and jobs that have good health insurance are also pretty rare.
this is a personal story, yes, but if i hadn’t had a life-threatening illness (which was NOT my choice, just as it was NOT my choice to be so sick i could not work, and it was NOT my choice to be only 18 at the time and have NOTHING i could depend on), and if my son hadn’t been at risk, and if i was wasn’t petrified every day of a medical emergency, i would still be asking for universal healthcare, for EVERYONE, not just for me. EVERYONE benefits from a healthy population.
i’m not asking for more than others because we make less than others. i’m asking for EVERYONE to have this benefit. and i’m mentioning how important it is that there is a safety net there for people who, despite their every attempt at rightness, fall through the cracks. i know that in the great and righteous US of A we’d like to believe that such a thing doesn’t happen, but IT DOES.
my comments about our income are related to the truth that for many of us, we don’t start out as a family with a great (or at least usable) education, benefits, and money to save for retirement, college, and so on. i think most of us can agree that these are all things that MOST of us have to work for, and sometimes they can take a long time in coming, and sometimes they don’t come at all. single mothers working two to three minimum-wage jobs (a regular requirement since so-called welfare reform) probably aren’t saving for the future and probably don’t have health insurance, but i don’t think anybody would point at them and say that they’re not working hard enough, they’re living off the system, so screw them! well, i’m not a single mom, but my husband works his ass off - he may be a preschool teacher, but he also directs the school he works at, so he’s there for a LOT more hours than the typical preschool runs, while still making less than the average utah teacher. and i work several hours a day as well. we have two young children and we work damn hard at raising them well. we are both going into professions that will ultimately pay us pretty well while leaving a lot of time for family because family is the center of our life. we are not slackers. we’re doing the best we can with the CHOICES we have made to live as well as we can, holding our family as the center of our life. again, this job that my husband has may be low-paying by even teacher standards, but it’s a stepping-stone to greater things. i’m NOT asking for universal healthcare because we are low income. i’m asking for it because i don’t think anybody should have to pay to be treated regardless of their income. i’m reflecting on my personal story as evidence that a) it’s not just lazy, stupid people who use the system to get on their feet, b) we all struggle sometimes and THANK GOD for the government, because during those months when we were in sheer hell, we ate, and that helped us to stay alive and find work, and c) no matter how hard some of us work or what we do to try to get ahead, insurance is still going to out of our reach, and it’s to NOBODY’S benefit to have a sick population who cannot work. and even WITH insurance many of us have serious financial problems, as we did after my unmedicated, unassisted hospital birth took up 3/4 of our yearly income (at the time). sicko had a lot of things wrong with it, but most of the people profiled in that movie HAD insurance and still ended up crippled by the system.
my husband loves his job and i am NOT going to apologize for that. but he also chose this profession because he knew he wanted to teach, he knew he wanted to teach in an alternative school, and certified waldorf teachers who work at established schools make more money than most teachers. that’s something to work for, but it doesn’t just fall in our laps. he also chose THIS job because it paid more than anything we’d ever had before and also paid for his certification - which would have set us back at least $20,000, thereby being impossible. it was a responsible decision that my husband made at the time to take this job. i was 20 weeks pregnant and didn’t have a midwife, his job (which did provide benefits) had just been outsourced, and before that almost half of our income had been garnished. i am not exaggerating when i say that this job saved our lives. a career change at this point would be stupid. we just have to push through and in a year things will improve immeasurably. but i will still ask for universal healthcare, because it’s not really about our income. in my post i was simply reflecting on the truth that even with a good income and benefits we can still hit major hardship from healthcare, and we ALL benefit from providing that service to everyone.
i’m bungling this up by talking about it too much; i’m not making sense anymore, so i’ll shut up and stop monopolizing the conversation. i will just this, again: it’s not about our income. it’s about a basic human right to be able to work and provide for our families and contribute to our societies, none of which are possible if we are too sick to work or if we are home with children who can’t be taken to a doctor. i reflected on our low level of income because i was stung by elise’s sweeping judgments about the poor and i felt inspired to point out that those of us who are low-income are not, as she indicated, lazy, whorish or any number of other slurs. i reflected on being low-income because families like ours are more at risk than other families, both for needing healthcare and for being unable to pay for it, and it’s not always so simple as to shout “get a job!” those of you who casually suggest a career change, or that my husband or i are deliberately putting our family at risk for “job satisfaction,” have really missed the point altogether.
i’m sorry. that was impossibly long and stupid. and elise, i’m very sorry if you were hurt by my post. i posted it in my own space, submitted it to mfranti and then immediately retracted it because i wasn’t prepared for being picked apart and smeared, as i knew i would be, and i’m really more fragile than i seem. it was picked up by another perma and posted here anyway. and i took personal pot-shots at you because i was horribly offended, and remain so, by what you said in that post. i don’t take back anything i said, but i am sorry because after an initial request, borne of self-righteous indignation, i didn’t intend for it to become so public. hardly anybody reads my blog. it was unfair of me to strike at you personally, and i hope you will accept my apology. i still believe that what you said was cruel and wrong, and i can’t really change my personal attack now, but i didn’t have to direct my comments at yours specifically, and i shouldn’t have.
Of course, the benefits of military service are at least somewhat offset by the potential for deployment, combat action, ptsd and other mental illness, crippling injury, and death…
There isn’t opportunity everywhere for those without college degrees. There isn’t opportunity everywhere for some skill sets and training. There isn’t opportunity everywhere for those with some disabilities. The bottom line is that there are some people for whom no employment opportunity will provide a living wage (let alone access to health care in cases like Chandelle’s), and I’m yet to be convinced that private outlets will provide the charitable aid for all of them–especially when the primary leaders encouraging private rather than public outlets do not make a concerted effort to get private outlets to provide them. We must value the working poor.
Elise, welcome back. Glad you can hold your feet to the fire.
Quimby, I disagree with these assertions: Private individuals do not step into the void. We are too selfish, too self-centered, to care . . . Corporations care only for the bottom line. They don’t care for the poor; they don’t care for the environment; they care for their shareholders. Individuals won’t solve the problem. They care only for themselves. So who is there to care for “the least of these”? In a Western-style liberal democracy, there is only the government.
Completely disagree. This doesn’t leave any room for individuals to become Christlike and charitable. There are a lot of people who choose not to, but there are a lot of people who choose to. And a lot of them are in corporations doing good things. I don’t really think this is a good argument to say that because noone cares for each other, we should go to socialism or rely solely on the government. Who is the government? People - just as selfish as everyone else.
Teachers make decent wages when you also combine their excellent healthcare benefits and pensions/retirements. (Here it starts at 40K and can go to 60K)
my husband makes $20,000 a year, after two years of work. no benefits. i’m not sure what it is now, but when he was in conventional education (3-5 years ago), teachers started at $19,000 a year.
That’s the only comment I found of yours, and since it’s directed at something I said . . .
Indviduals on an individual basis might be generous; but it is clearly not enough, and it is not directed properly (eg, it’s very random - You have taken in your relatives who need help, but what of the person who needs help who has no relatives?) Most people will do nothing unless they are persuaded by a guilty conscience; and when we write off the poor as being “lazy, incompetent whores” it’s very difficult to let the guilt in, isn’t it?
Of course not every government will help. The Egyptian government is terribly corrupt. If you give more taxes there, it will just make the president more wealthy. But that’s the thing about living in a dictatorship - dictators don’t care. Bush, for all of his multitude of flaws, is not a dictator; which isn’t to say he wouldn’t be if he was given the chance; but we have a system which will keep him from remaining in power indefinitely. That system means that we can have a say. It means that “the least of these” can band together and make their voices heard. And if there are enough of us, we will have to be listened to, because otherwise we will kick them out.
Quimby, okay, I agree with everything you said in #128. I think that most people want to solve the health care crisis and help other people - I just don’t think that all of those people see socialized medicine as the answer. (I sound like a broken record)
yes, SAP. it might be different now. my computer is being funky so i can’t look it up. i think i heard that there were improvements. but when my husband was in school a few years ago, studying to be a public junior high biology teacher, that’s what he had to look forward to.
stephanie, i’m aware that some people who don’t want universal healthcare still do believe the system to be corrupt and broken and want to improve it to make healthcare available to more, or possibly all, people. what are some of your ideas for doing so? i haven’t seen much that looks particularly viable. relying on personal charity, i believe, will not work at all, given, as i said before, that such a large segment of the population believes that people shouldn’t be given healthcare if they can’t afford it.
i hope that didn’t sound snotty. i really am interested in your ideas, stephanie. i’m willing to consider a true method of making healthcare available to all who need it without “socializing” it.
That’s terrible. I don’t know how they expect to get quality people in the education system when it pays that poorly. In British Columbia, a first year teacher makes $42,000 and that goes up to $60,000 after 11 years. It’s not dazzling, but it’s enough to live on comfortably and the benefits are really good.
chandelle, thanks for asking. I am still sorting through my thoughts. When I have them coherent (and if anyone still cares), I’ll share and see what the feedback is. My world is small, so I would like to see how it would affect different situations. It’s a complicated problem, and I think it will take a multi-faceted solution.
Socialised medicine isn’t perfect. I won’t claim it is. There is a certain amount of “playing the system” that you have to do, and if you don’t know how to do it, you’re at a disadvantage. (Having a good GP goes a long way. GPs know the system better than anyone, and can often cut corners to get you immediate care in non-emergency situations.) Any socialised heath system has to cater for the middle-of-the-road patient, just like any school has to cater for the middle-of-the-road student, so that yes, unfortunately, some people with some illnesses are worse-off than they would be if they had good insurance in the US (but still better off than they would be if they had no insurance in the US).
But it is a workable alternative for many if not most people. It does not make for an impossibly high tax burden. (And again, if you think taxes can stay low in the US, think again. Sooner or later you’ll have to pay for the war.)
Americans pay on average 50% more for health care than people in other developed nations. Having a universal system would save many people a lot of money. (So it becomes, not about giving a hand-out to the poor, but about protecting your own interests. That should appeal to the libertarians out there.) A universal health care system would encourage small businesses; if you don’t have to worry about either providing or having insurance, you have a great deal more flexibility in what you can do.
Having said that, you don’t have to copy another system. You have a great deal of flexibility now to come up with a system that will work for all Americans. But again, if not socialised, then what?
I was in a ward filled with Harvard Business School students, so I have heard the arguments for conservative-libertarianism ad naseum.
My favorite response to the argument of “don’t make me give via taxes and the government, so I can use my free agency to give” : a medical student who worked with the very poor simply said “it offends me that you think my uninsured TB patients should suffer [and possibly spread their illness] so that you can have the luxury of choosing whether or not to give.
Also, I was a teacher [with a master’s degree], but I couldn’t support myself, let alone a family, on it. And I lived very carefully [cheapest shared apartment, no clothes for years, etc]. It still wasn’t enough.
Now I am a lawyer and make a decent salary. You tell me, who do we need more of, good lawyers or good teachers? I know which one society values more.
I think arguing (and voting) against socialized health care when you have no viable alternative is depraved. There may not be a perfect system in existence right now, but what does exist is better than the current situation in the US. No one (especially not children) should have to suffer for lack of proper medical care in a nation that has so much wealth. It’s quite vain to hum and haw while people are suffering.
Natasha, I think the problem is that it seems all or nothing to both sides. The conservatives think the liberals are saying to take all their money, and the liberals think the conservatives are saying to give nothing.
Chandelle - I know you didn’t mean for me to see your post. It wasn’t that bad and I wasn’t offended by your post. I hope you don’t mind me pointing out what I see as choices in circumstances from your post. I didn’t mean to offend either. Also, I don’t live in Utah and the cost of living is more here, so teachers salary is different.
Thanks Stephanie… I’m trying to stay on an abstract level…
quimby, I don’t disagree that most governments are corrupt - I think our own has a lot of issues too. That stated… I do not believe the needs of the majority should ever infringe on the rights of the minority. The U.S. was founded on this principle and the thought that if I have something that a mass of people want, that they can ‘take’ it from me just by being loud enough and using force… well.. it really bothers me.
Anyway, I’m off for tonight… enjoy the conversation and I’m hoping that tomorrow there will be some fun Sex posts or something other than politics.
quimby, I don’t disagree that most governments are corrupt - I think our own has a lot of issues too.
I never said that most governments are corrupt. Please don’t put words into my mouth. There are some 200+ governments in this world and I simply don’t know enough about all of them to make that sort of judgement call. Some governments - yes, even in very poor countries - care deeply for the needs of their people. And some do not.
That stated… I do not believe the needs of the majority should ever infringe on the rights of the minority. The U.S. was founded on this principle
If we are talking life-and-death situations - and often health and social welfare falls into this category - than by all means I believe the needs of the majority should infringe upon the rights of the minority. It is interesting you would bring up the founding principles of the United States. By your logic, you should not have a vote. By your logic, you should not have a voice. It is only because majority needs infringed upon minority rights that you have the rights (and voice) you have today.
the thought that if I have something that a mass of people want, that they can ‘take’ it from me just by being loud enough and using force… well.. it really bothers me.
The US was also formed on the principle of taking things by force. Look at Westward Expansion and the genocide of the native peoples. That’s terra nullius for you . . . And the principle is still alive and well. That computer you’re at? Did you know it has components that came from African mines that were pretty much taken by force? I have an ex-bishop who used to work at those mines. He would tell me, “If there was ever a disturbance or a protest, I’d call up the president of the country and he’d send in the military and they’d take care of it for me.” In other words, Western corporations are directly responsible for the deaths of poor Africans who protest that their wealth is being taken from them. That isn’t socialism. That’s capitalism. That’s terra nullius for you.
i make it on the assertion that we do not currently have universal healthcare and at least half of the people in this country are conservative and/or republican and if they follow that basic platform, they don’t want it. obviously some cons/reps do want it, and some libs/dems don’t, and plenty of people don’t follow along party lines at all, or even have a party…but i think it’s fair to say that plenty of people do not want it. i think it’s bred right into the fabric of our country’s consciousness that people shouldn’t be given what they don’t work for, and plenty of people think that healthcare is just a service like that of a mechanic or a hair stylist and should not be given without paying for it (and not from taxes). other people, like me, don’t believe that healthcare is equatable to such a service, but i feel in the minority most of the time (though that’s just anecdotal). i would love to see some actual numbers on this, but my internet goes out every few minutes right now so a google search will not be successful. (posting here is hard enough and i’m not sure why i am torturing myself!) so if anybody has numbers, and especially if they can refute my dismal assumption, i’d like to see ‘em. admittedly, living in utah can make it seem like the whole world is cons/rep when this might not actually be true.
I just want to clarify that The Road Home is NOT a private charity. Unless the taxpayers of the United States are now considered a private charity. It is absolutely a government-funded program. And really, I live here, so I ought to know.
#147 - yeah I’ll agree with that. The liberals do not feel it is enough. I’m tired of the back and forth. Ya’ll are right - I need to put my money where my mouth is and put forth some ideas. I’m working on it.
Having said that, you don’t have to copy another system. You have a great deal of flexibility now to come up with a system that will work for all Americans. But again, if not socialised, then what?
I favor universal coverage, in the sense of everyone being covered. In California and Massachusetts, laws have been passed to require all residents to have health insurance, the way most states require drivers to have auto insurance. But just as the government isn’t in the business of providing auto insurance, people would buy their coverage the same way, from private firms.
The great thing about this is that it brings young adults (who are healthier and cheap to insure!) into the risk pool, making rates more affordable for the rest of us.
I also think that people should start paying taxes on the portion of their premiums provided by the employer. If a self-employed person or a person whose firm doesn’t offer coverage has to pay the whole thing themselves, then at least the part paid by an employer should be recognized as a taxable benefit. I’m not saying that the employer shouldn’t pay it; I’m just saying that we should all be on a more equal footing.
Most Americans have NO CLUE how much money their employer pays. They might know how much comes out of their paycheck for their part of the premium, but that is generally a small portion. At my university, the university pays $10,000 a year for family coverage, in addition to the premiums and copays that the employee pays.
I also think tort reform is necessary to keep malpractice from being a profitable business.
“Tort reform” has already been reformed to the point that the courts are pretty much unaccessible to normal people. A number of states have passed stringent malpractice court reform without a concomitant drop in insurance rates. You’ve been tricked. Tort reform = the middle class getting totally totally screwed.
Naismith, I agree with your post and the concept of mandatory (buy it yourself) insurance in the corporate sphere. But the elderly would suffer as their rates woudl be huge…
Djinn, I disagree with you. The minute attorneys found out about my son’s stroke in utero / labor… they totally begged me to sue the hospital and doc. They said I could make enough money to support him his whole life. They were willing to take us on for free and told us hospitals ’settle these cases’ just because courts always favor a handicapped baby.
WE DIDN”T SUE… we simply prayed and hoped for some good karma for our child in not suing. We got it.
I just wanted to address the issue of choice and tyranny and the forcible “taking” and “giving” of property that offends libertarians so.
It’s been repeated a lot here . . . I should have the choice to give, satan’s plan takes away choices so universal health care is satan’s plan and the ilk.
But we all know that society, that communities, that governments must curtail certain choices. No one argues that we should be able to choose to drive on the sidewalk because choice is so sacred that public or individual safety must be sacrificed at its alter.
So unless you really believe that all laws, all government, all taxation, all the collective redistribution of resources (such as roads, fire, schools) are wrong and must be destroyed, then I believe it is disingenuous for you to simply argue that you disagree with universal health care based on the curtailment of “choice” while we who are in favor are satan’s minions poised to snatch your sacred choices and your sacred cash.
I too believe that “choice” is a beautiful thing and should be curtailed as little possible while still maintaining a healthy community. The difference isn’t that you all believe in choice and we all don’t. It’s just that I believe that just as driving on the sidewalks is an unacceptable risk to society, so too are the uninsured and underinsured. Their deaths, their suffering, their pain, matters more than my choice (and your choice) to retain control over (a reasonable portion of) my income.
You too believe in limiting choices, we draw the lines in different places, but getting all self-righteous defender of freedom and choice is irksom.
Well, the idea of universal healthcare includes the smaller category of universal coverage. Perhaps the big argument is over a split hair? From what little I know of the Swiss program, it’s basically universal coverage through private companies with Medicaid-ish assistance for the poor AND a law that insurance companies cannot make a profit on primary care. They can on value-added services (like you getting your own hospital room or name-brand drugs, or whatever). So that keeps costs down for the consumer, profits acceptable to the insurers, the insurers are privatized (no socialism!), and everybody’s covered. It’s not as cheap as the UK or Japan, but it’s way cheaper than here and nobody goes bankrupt over medical bills. It’s not socialized, but it’s still universal.
I get irritated when people who don’t pay taxes talk about how they want “their” tax money spent.
Many people who get a tax refund for more than they paid into it, still have no idea that they paid no taxes. I try to tell my friends whose taxes I do that they didn’t pay anything in taxes….that they are making money off the government. But they just look at me weird like they don’t understand. But since they are liberals, I think they ought to know that they are benefiting from our system and that tax rates can only be for the “rich” because they are the only ones paying taxes!
Everybody pays taxes. Sales taxes. Corporate taxes rolled into the products you buy. Property taxes rolled into the rent you pay. Gas taxes. Taxes on bottles and cans. Taxes on the car you drive. Taxes for the license to drive that car. jks, perhaps you should rethink your irritation.
just wanted to address the issue of choice and tyranny and the forcible “taking” and “giving” of property that offends libertarians so.
It’s been repeated a lot here . . . I should have the choice to give, satan’s plan takes away choices so universal health care is satan’s plan and the ilk.
I don’t know that they are being disingenuous. Constitutionalists and libertarians will point out the proper role of government. Protection of life and property. The bare bones of civic needs. Certain things don’t fit into that view of government. The postal system barely squeaks by. Certainly all welfare programs don’t fit. The belief is that everything outside the government’s role should be provided by individuals within a market economy, including charitably providing for the needy.
Constitutionalists and libertarians will point out the proper role of government. Protection of life and property.
Yeah, this is what I don’t get: if everything but the military, police, and post office should be put into private hands, why not put the military, police, and post office into private hands too? After all if you really believe that the market economy is best, why should security/post office be exempt?
Artemis, you’re right. I think we are splitting hairs. I just looked up health care in the Netherlands. It is pretty much just as you described, and I really like it. Here is the link to wikipedia if anyone is interested.
The one thing I would change for the U.S. is to eliminate managed care and go to consumer driven care (combination of health savings accounts and high[er] deductible health insurance policies).
I really, really dislike managed care. As something that was supposed to reduce costs, it has really created a mess (IMO), not just for costs but for level of service, actually covering care, ticking off doctors, etc. When I think of “universal health care” in terms of a mass HMO run by the government, I want to run away screaming.
But, when I think of “universal health care” in terms of compulsory insurance where everyone qualifies regardless of risk, but where you still have personal accountability and responsibility for health care choices, I totally agree with that. I think it would bring down the costs and help the people who are currently in the “no insurance” gap. I also think it would preserve the free market forces that us conservatives hold so dear.
Of the two Presidential candidates, I strongly prefer McCain’s health care proposal. He supports consumer driven healthcare. He also speaks of a GAP coverage for the uninsured, but I think his plan could be made stronger by adopting the “universal” aspect of requiring everyone to purchase insurance from providers who are required to sell it to everyone regardless of risk.
Because that’s what we think the government is there /for/, Quimby. Jami already noted that. The government’s function is to protect life and property (you know, the whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing). Just ’cause libertarians believe in /limited/ government doesn’t mean we don’t think there should be no government at all.
To turn that around, you think the government should provide health care for everyone and social services to the poor. Why not those social services to everyone? Why shouldn’t we all just get everything from the government, from food to housing and everything in between? I imagine you think there should probably be limits on what the government provides, just like libertarians do. It’s just that we disagree on where those limits should be.
Some of your comments make me wonder if you mix up libertarianism with anarchism (though I guess given the number of anarchists finding shelter in the Libertarian party I can understand why you might make that mistake. Their presence is why I don’t associate with the official party, ’cause there’s a big difference between limited government and no government at all).
But Firebyrd, why is government for that? Seriously, it’s not a tough question. Why are you okay with accepting that part of the social contract and not expanding it? You can’t just answer “Because.” I’m not a 3 year old. I’m not going to accept that answer. It doesn’t make sense that libertarians are okay with accepting that part of the social contract, and nothing else. It’s just so arbitrary, particularly if the answer is “Because.”
And FWIW, Firebyrd, I’m a pretty big believer in what my government terms “middle class welfare”. If everyone is getting something from the system, everyone is much less likely to resent it. Family benefits are really, really cool. Chandelle could probably get an extra $150 to $200 a week if she lived over here for being a SAHM. For her family, that would make a world of difference.
And FWIW, I know the difference between anarchism and liberterianism. But neither one is theoretically sound. Again, go back and study your social contract theory. Libertarianism does not hold up.
And, even if you can make an argument in favor of the military (I can think of one, although I can also think of a rebuttal), why the post office? As Newman says, nobody needs the post office. We have e-mail, private courier systems, etc., why the post office? Why not roads? Education? Dams and levees? Environmental management? (We all know what a terrific job the “invisible hand” does managing the environment!) How in the world can you possibly justify including the post office as a job of the government?
But the elderly would suffer as their rates woudl be huge…
Why is it more moral for working-aged people to suffer than the elderly? RIght now, I know people with chronic illnesses who can finally return to work in their 60s. At last, they can get treatment through Medicare.
Of the two Presidential candidates, I strongly prefer McCain’s health care proposal. He supports consumer driven healthcare
The thing about McCain though, is that he has NO CLUE what it is like for most Americans to negotiate health care.
Although he condemns “government run” health care, he has been a beneficiary of that health care HIS ENTIRE LIFE. His dad was in the military, then he was in the military, and then served in the US government. Except for the years he was a prisoner of war, he had excellent health care provided by the government.
Which is a big reason why his recently reported health report was so glowing.
Naismith, re: 177, bank statements, cancelled checks, and credit card statements can do that too, and they are a function of the private system, not the government. So, libertarians can’t really make that argument.
Elise, Stephanie, and others who are not in favor of socialization of healthcare (or anything else!),
Thank you!!! I was so busy last night that I didn’t have the opportunity to jump into the foray but I am really glad that BOTH (or all) sides were brought up in discussion. It seems that there are definitely a lot more, than against, socialization commenting on this post and I’m glad that there could be a dialogue instead of nothing getting questioned or challenged. I am adamantly NOT in favor of the government running our healthcare system (I work for the government and it AMAZES me the wast and inefficiency that I see on a daily basis). There have been a couple of comments to the effect of “our system is broken right now, why not let the govt have a chance to run it?” I couldn’t disagree more! Healthcare is far too important to “take a stab” and see how it goes…We can’t afford that.
I like the last few comments of mandatory health insurance (subsidized by the govt as needed) through private health care companies.
Anyway, just wanted to thank you guys who supported another view point and helped contribute towards some good questions and discussion.
Regarding teacher salaries: One reason we left Utah was because my husband couldn’t support a family on the salary teachers are paid there. With an extremely high cost of living in Utah, what teachers are paid doesn’t come close to covering basic living expenses.
We now live in the Midwest and he makes decent money, but with the low cost of living here, we are doing ok. As for teachers being compensated in other ways such as insurance and benefits, you need to take into account that teachers have to take college courses to stay current with thier licenses. We are still taking out student loans just so my husband can keep his license current.
As for health care, even those making a good living with insurance sometimes find it impossible to pay medical bills. We have friends that make quite a bit of money but their insurance deductible was $10,000/year. They met the deductible last year on Dec 29, and co-pays didn’t count towards the deductible. And they wouldn’t cover thier baby daughters hearing aides. What kind of company won’t cover hearing aids for a baby with hearing loss?
My husband is a teacher in the deep south and we don’t make it every month. Now that my baby is a year old, I am getting a job to help support the family. The individual(s) who said that teachers make a decent living with benefits taken into account, don’t realize that a third of the paycheck goes to pay for said benefits and then you have to pay a copay and get to the deductible first to get the “great” benefits… We cannot even afford the dental insurance because it costs so much. My husband is from Canada and is grateful for the many freedoms this country affords, but the health care system is not one of them. I am proud to have a husband who is an educator. And I am grateful my children will see the importance of educators in this country. I just wish he were valued by the country as much as he is valued by me…
Stephanie, the problem with consumer-driven care is that how do you choose your health care, other than to simply not participate? It’s not a transparent system. When you get sick, your next series of steps is not like buying socks; don’t you, you know, go to a doctor, and rely on that opinion as to what to do next? Besides, lots of other countries pull it off, why not us? We’re number 37! Down below Costa Rica, when it comes to health care ranking, but we are right there at number 1 when it comes to health care costs. All those, uh, libertarian? Arguments seem to amount to the fear that somewhere, someone’s getting more chocolate chips in their cookie then you, ……. Our system costs way too much money and screws over way too many people.
Elise–my point was that insurance rates are not tied to malpractice claims all that closely–I can presume you live in a state without draconian award damage caps.
FMLisa, brilliant point. Participation in any community/society entails the sacrifice of some individual freedoms for the interests of the whole.
re: 171
Firebyrd, government does indeed have the role of protecting life, liberty, and property. But those are not exclusively its roles. Anything which protects the smooth functioning of society is within its purview. When the gap between the rich and the poor grow to great, or when the poor cannot provide for their own needs (because their honest labor is not compensated with an honest wage), or when health problems become rampant, society breaks down. Government has a role in preventing such scenarios.
Amanda,
I agree that government run systems can be, and often are, extremely inefficient, but I wonder about using that as a knee jerk argument about universal health care . . . when the Private US health care system is by far and away the most expensive and least effective health care system in the industrialized world . . . . when you could Easily make a list of twenty countries with “government health care systems” that are far more efficient and effective than ours . . . why not learn from countries who do a vastly better job than us? Why not try to take the best parts of these systems and emulate them? Why cling to this knee jerk reaction against something that everyone has done better than we have?
Jami, here’s why I am okay with compulsory insurance (requiring every person to have insurance). If a person decided they don’t want insurance because they are so healthy that it isn’t worth the cost, what happens when they have an accident or come down with some chronic condition? The government will step in, and they will get care. Or, they will try to do it on their own for a while, file for bankruptcy, the doctor/hospital loses money, and they pass that loss onto the rest of us by increasing the amount they charge for services. I read a statistic that said the gov’t pays 44% of health care costs in the U.S. 44%? The gov’t doesn’t come close to covering 44% of the people. That’s just crazy. Seems to me that with a compulsory system and HSA/HD plans, the government would end up paying less of the total health care costs because more people could afford to be on it.
I guess I think it is unfair for an individual to choose not to participate in insurance but then choose to use health care they can’t afford in an emergency. That costs too much to the taxpayer.
I’m a pretty big believer in what my government terms “middle class welfare”. If everyone is getting something from the system, everyone is much less likely to resent it.
Oh wow, Quimby. That is absolutely frightening to me. The epitome of entitlement.
Naismith, I don’t care if McCain got his health care from the military. What’s wrong with that?
djinn, who is making my health care decisions now? I go to a provider narrowed-down by my insurance company. When they refer me to a specialist, most of the time that person is not on my plan, so I have to find one myself. I would rather determine who decides my service than some HMO contract determining that. Granted, I could go outside my network and pay through my nose, but that would not be a wise use of my resources and certainly doesn’t argue for lowering health care costs.
No, it isn’t offensive. As Elise pointed out, every career choice has some trade-off.
Lets talk hypothetically for a sec. Say your family arrangement has mr. dad working at a job that pays the bills and has benefits. Mrs. mom either stays home with the kids, is in school or has a enjoyable job that pays but wouldn’t cover the household expenses. Mr. dad comes home on day and announces that his life long dream is to become a pro-bass fisherman, he has cashed in the 401K to pay for a fancy boat and rubber worms in every attractive color. Two months later Junior is diagnosed with chronic illness which will gut the already thin family income stream.
I know that is a little hyperbolic, but how is it different than *choosing* the later situation from the get go?
The size and make-up of the US population is not really comparable to any other country, making blanket statements comparing how healthcare works in other countries is silly. Calling the US healthcare system a private system is inaccurate, it is a blended public/private system.
fMhLisa
far and away the most expensive and least effective health care system in the industrialized world
That is simply untrue. What is your measure of expense and what is your measure of effectiveness?
I say, with a high level of confidence, that an Iraqi immigrant has much better access to much better healthcare (along with much better access to any part of the larger society) in Detroit than in Malmo.
djinn, I also like HSAs because you have more flexibility to utilize innovations the free market comes up with like minute clinics. My husband got a shot at a minute clinic. The total cost was cheaper than it would have been at the doctor, but our insurance company denied the claim (his work ended up paying for it since it was mandatory for his job). If people can make choices like going to a minute clinic or whatever else the market comes up with, and if those choices result in lower costs to them, which means more care for them, I think that is a good thing. They can stretch their own dollar further on the small stuff. That can translate to huge savings on a macro level.
I’m glad the debate is still raging, I missed it because I went to the library yesterday and checked out the Glass Castle. Fantastic! My family was nowhere near as flamboyant but shated a penchant for living in shitholes (Winnemucca, Golconda, Barstow and Gillette are just a sampling) and I saw the inside of a doctors office all of twice in my life. Barb wire, rusty nails and bicycle bolts all received hydrogen peroxide and a band-aid when they tore up my young flesh. I have complicated feelings about that. I think I am healthier and tougher because my parents did not give us medicine or take us to hospitals. Had they been able to afford it they would have taken us for the times we ought to have had stitches but probably not much else. I know I would have felt safer, more sheltered from concerns that probably shouldn’t be a childs concern when they’re lying in the road with a bicycle bolt sticking out of her thigh, “can we afford this?”
It makes me cringe to write this but I know my own son would say the same. It would take more than one hand to count the times I’ve told him, “we’ll keep an eye on this at home and if it gets worse we’ll go in.” Had money not been an obstacle I would have taken my son in. And that makes me profoundly sad.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 9:45 am
“shared” not “shated” which sounds like an interestingly scatalogical declension…
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am
i make it on the assertion that we do not currently have universal healthcare and at least half of the people in this country are conservative and/or republican and if they follow that basic platform, they don’t want it.
Well, this probably strikes you as nit-picky, then, but not wanting a government-sponsored health care system is not the same as wanting poor people to go without health care. Are you actually saying that anyone who thinks health care isn’t a government responsibility must also think that a person who can’t afford a doctor deserves to get sick and die?
It must be thoroughly depressing to think that 50 percent of the country is so cruel and heartless. Fortunately, you are wrong. The number of Americans who think the needy should be left to rot is vanishingly small. A “large percentage” of Americans think there are more than just two options when it comes to health care, and that there are several degrees of separation between socialized medicine and homicidal neglect.
Here is some of my thinking that got me to the solution in #168. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act guarantees everyone access to emergency care. So, if you go to a hospital, you will get care. Then, either you pay for it or you don’t. A lot of people don’t. These costs are absorbed somewhere. This is a system that just isn’t working. Waiting hours in an ER is just one symptom.
Essentially, the EMTA says that in the U.S. we believe that [emergency] health care is a human right. Either we need to repeal the law (not going to happen, and I don’t think it should), or we need to work within that framework to reduce costs.
Also, I read D&C 134:1 that says, “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society”.
It seems right to change things - not go straight to socialized medicine, but to make changes that both promote the safety of society and protect individual freedoms.
Do I think my solution has a chance of happening? No. For 1, HMOs and big companies are in bed with politicians. If politicians talked about aboloshing the managed care system, the HMOs would pay off enough to prevent it from happening. So, then what are those same politicians supposed to do? They want the money from the HMOs to fund their campaigns, but they also want people to vote for them, so they say to the people, “I will help you. I will vote for universal coverage so that all of your health care will be covered”. Then they make contracts with the big HMOs. The people are happy. The HMOs are happy. And, slowly, the HMOs bleed us dry. They complain they need more money from the government, the government raises our taxes, all in the name of “helping more people”, and it gets out of control.
Maybe it is the cynic in me, but this is what I see as the most likely scenario for what will happen.
‘Quimby, Can you really trust mercenaries? And Big Brown sounds an awful lot like Big Brother to me. Just sayin’.”
I agree, but I’m just sayin, if everything is made private, why not security?
I need to remember to toss in that winking smiley or preface my with “joke alert.”
Quimby, the serious answer to your question is that security is part of the proper role of government. Don’t go throwing ‘circular argument’ complaints my direction. It’s not my worldview.
MAC,
beyond the fact that I wasn’t thinking about Iraq as an industrialized nation, and that your example is too grossly over simplified to be meaningful, how about I clarify– If you were to take the 50 richest countries in the world (Iraq would not qualify), the US is at the top of the list in costs (we pay astronomically more per person for health care than any other country in the world) and we would be at the bottom of the list in outcome (we have more illness and sickness than almost all of those countries), that is what I meant. That is pretty much the definition of inefficiency, we pay (much, much) more, for less.
So to complain that “socialization” of health care is “inefficient” ignores the fact that our private system is in fact the most inefficient system currently in existence.
Yes, a person who has a job and insurance (yes even an immigrant from Iraq) Can get good health care in Detroit, But they, and we as a community, will pay a lot more for that care than is necessary. Because the private system we have now is incredibly wasteful, astoundingly inefficient, and astronomically expensive. That same quality of care is available in Canada or easily 20 other countries for a dramatically reduced cost to individuals and to the community.
Stephanie, I think there are hundreds of valid reasons for you to be cynical about government’s ability to help. Do you also see why many of us are cynical about “the market” and corporate ability to solve the health problems?
I would suggest that the scripture you quoted from D&C 134 does indeed justify government taking a role in health care and social justice (”…making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society”).
About a prior point of contention that I missed last night. We can certainly agree that liberals do not believe that we (the public, conservatives andliberals) don’t give enough to helping the naked, hungry, sick, and poor. What about you? Do you believe that we collectively give “enough”?
I think FmhLisa’s assertion can be backed by the JAMA article from a couple years back in which it was reported that the upper class in the U.S. were as healthy as the poor in many of the other developed nations with socialized health care–despite the fact that we spend twice as much per capita as those nations. So much for our efficiency…
(If you aren’t interested in slogging through the academic report, you can read the BBC analysis of the report)
There is a principle in rand’s work that seems completely lost here. Trends and the evolution of systems. Compassion aside, there is a general economic principle that if you subsidize something, it grows. My opposition to the welfare state has much more to do with marginal trends than a lack of compassion. Simply put, if you take aways (or minimize) the economic consequences of poor life decisions, more people will be prone to making poor decisions. For a society to work, there has to be rich and poor. Incentives and all that. You could do away with poverty, but the end product would be stagnant economic and technological development.
Do any of you even realize why the book was called Atlas Shrugged? because at a certain point, the philosophy that it is the responsibility of the collective to provide for under-performing individuals will lead to a world where a minority group of producers and acheivers are holding the rest of the world on their shoulders.
I firmly believe that if we hadn’t expanded the welfare state so much over the last 50 years, we would have far less people living below the poverty line today.
I tried to read this article, but the lack of proper capitalization made it impossible. So sad that someone who appears to have a talent for writing can’t be bothered to do it properly. Capital letters at the beginning of a sentence and periods at the end surely cannot be THAT difficult to do.
Just plain lazy.
Comment by EnglishTeacher — June 5, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Strangely enough, the expansion of the welfare state has resulted in less poverty since 1959.
Derek, yes, I do see why many would be cynical about the health care market - because it is not acting as a true free market. It is acting as more of an oligopy with laws that support the inefficiencies. But, I don’t think that equates to “throw out all the free market principles and go for government run care”.
That was my point - that government should take a role - but that doesn’t necessarily make a leap to control. It could mean passing proper laws and regulations.
Yes, Derek, I do believe that “we” collectively give enough. I believe our taxes are high enough to do what needs to be done. They just aren’t utilized effectively.
Way too many comments to respond to, but some random thoughts:
- LDS Church welfare programs advocate filing for food stamps, unemployment funds, etc. Even though we run the best welfare program around, we still advocate people taking government subsidies. Despite what our libertarian brethren might say about the legitimacy of said subsidies, the Church recommends we use what the government makes available.
- Liking your job and living in a “desirable” part of the country are luxuries. I didn’t have much sympathy after the dot-com crash for out-of-work Oracle developers in SFO, when there were plenty of good jobs available in KC. This is supposed to be the lone and dreary world (although, I would say that KC is heaven on earth). If you can’t make enough to live on doing what you love, then you to get a realistic view of work, or else a realistic life style.
- Never underestimate the generosity of the American people, who still give more per capita than any other country on earth (IIRC).
- Starting school teachers making $40K+ a year in Texas (and $50K+ in some districts), a state with no state income tax. And we’re always looking for more…
- School loans are an acceptable form of debt. The Church has consistently said that school, a mortgage, and perhaps a vehicle are acceptable.
- I’m OK with universal health coverage, as long as it doesn’t increase my cost or reduce the quality of my care. Yeah, I’m a jerk. I also work in outsourcing.
- Can’t find the source, but it’s been widely quoted before that most of the cost of healthcare is for caring for people in the last years of life. Anyone know if that’s true?
- Anyone who would come into my house and take food out my cupboard (b/c of my getting food stamps) would be shot (the principle of defending your castle in Texas).
- My parents qualified our family for reduced-cost school lunches. My senior year, I basically refused to do the program, and paid full price out of my paper route money. Pride is a terrible thing…
Elise - ever thought about starting a mormon-libertarian blog? - I’ll be happy to come up with some posts!
I’d hop on that wagon.
Comment by MoJo — June 5, 2008 @ 8:13 am
for all you interested in maybe starting a libertarian-ish blog, (or for those who’d be interested in knowing about it if something happens and maybe posting/debating on it -this of course goes to everyone no matter where they lie in the political spectrum)…. feel free to email me at: five_of_9@hotmail.com I might not be able to get back to you for a few days. (—very busy!)
I might not have the time to be the one to start the actual, but I’ll try to hook everyone up with each other.
Stephanie, what for you would be a “free market” in health care?
You truly believe that if all the money we currently give to taxes went instead to private charities, we would eliminate homeless, hunger, and poverty?
Americans pay on average 50% more for health care than people in other developed nations. Having a universal system would save many people a lot of money.
Can we get three volunteers who work in similar fields and have similar incomes and experience levels, who live outside and inside the US, post the costs and a summary of their coverage plans? I’d like to see how mine measures up.
(Because it’s kind of hard to believe generalized analysis. This is the sort of problem that begs for specific examples from people with specific circumstances…)
Hmm, I tried to respond to Casper, but I guess my post got caught in a filter. if you look at the US Census bureau website, they have poverty data from 1959 to 2006. In 1959, 31.1% of all families fell below 125% of poverty, while today that number is 16.8%. I’m sure there are some issues with the definition of poverty rolled up into those numbers; nevertheless, the big, bad welfare state seems to be decreasing the prevalence of poverty, not increasing it. Just looking at the numbers, anyway.
The census website is awesome–and way too addictive. This chart shows that the percent of poor people who are working full time has grown from 7.7% in 1978 to 11.7% in 2006. What great progress we’re making that more people can work full time for the privilege of living in poverty.
queuno–I’m a grad student (PhD program at Purdue), and I pay about $134 a month for my health insurance, which has a $350 deductable and I pay 20% of any costs above that. Going to the student clinic is almost free, but the estimated cost for having a baby was $2,000 when I asked (I’ll be able to give you a more concrete number in a couple of months ). My husband will cost the same when we add him, and I think the baby will be an additional $60-ish.
kristine,
you make an excellent point that is difficult to argue against.
I do believe that you cannot attribute a decrease (if there is one) in poverty to the welfare state.
I also believe trends will be astonishing over the next couple of decades. Upper class Americans are reproducing at lower and lower rates…
I’m a part-time PhD student, but I get my insurance through my full-time IT consultant position. I pay $400 a month for my entire family, which covers:
- eye care (free exam and basic contacts)
- dental care (preventative maintenance is covered, plus 90% of advanced care like crowns, fillings, extractions, and 80% of oral surgery)
- medical care (PPO plan, $20 co-pay on doctor visits, $10 prescriptions, $500 deductible on hospital stays with 90% paid; obviously, I’m generalizing here)
- specialized cancer care ($1M per person)
- life insurance - $250K on me, $50K for my wife, and $10K for each child (I can buy more if I want to pay more; these are the minimums)
- short-term and long-term disability pay options
I think we paid about $1500 for the C-section for our last child.
I also get a month of vacation and generous sick time (although, I haven’t taken sick time in over 5 years, mostly because they also let me work from home).
The devil is in the details, but those are the highlights.
Derek , did you read my comment #168? That is my solution for the health care problem: system similar to the Netherlands with compulsory insurance requirements but that uses Health Savings Accounts in combination with High Deductible insurance policies. I don’t think it will happen. But, if it did, it would provide free market options and would ensure coverage for everyone. I think it would be a pretty good bi-partisan solution.
IF this system of healthcare were adopted in the U.S., I would not be opposed to a small “tax” that goes into a fund to help lower income families cover the insurance costs. It would be paid directly from the fund to the insurance companies. This plan would require all companies to accept all levels of risk at the same premium. That is not exactly market-driven. But, IMO, that is where the “compassion” comes in. There are a lot of IFs in this scenario. Overall, I think the total amount of premiums, tax and out of pocket costs would be the same or less than what I am putting out now for total healthcare (between 5-7% of gross income). That’s not burdensome, and is a lot less than a lot of other people are paying.
But, I am not okay with a tax to fund “socialized” medicine (ie. government run and operated)
And Derek, you are running circles with me here: “You truly believe that if all the money we currently give to taxes went instead to private charities, we would eliminate homeless, hunger, and poverty?”
I never said that. I said I don’t think we need to pay more taxes. I think the taxes we pay to the government are enough. The government needs to be more responsible in using them.
My employee benefits are very similar. Except my life insurance is 1.5 million and our c-section last year cost us $100.
Irony is, we are constantly, constantly hiring people with no skills (we have internal training), starting them @ 45K annual with full benefits and still can’t find enough people who are willing to work. Locally we have an unemployment rate of
Where are you getting your info, about the US being on the bottom of any lists
One recent study, check out the last line of the abstract, is
Health Affairs, 26, no. 6 (2007): w717-w734
Toward higher-performance health systems: adults’ health care experiences in seven countries, 2007.
Schoen C, Osborn R, Doty MM, Bishop M, Peugh J, Murukutla N.
Commonwealth Fund in New York City, USA. cs@cmwf.org
This 2007 survey compares adults’ health care experiences in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In all countries, the study finds that having a “medical home” that is accessible and helps coordinate care is associated with significantly more positive experiences. There were wide country differences in access, after-hours care, and coordination but also areas of shared concern. Patient-reported errors were high for those seeing multiple doctors or having multiple chronic illnesses. The United States stands out for cost-related access barriers and less-efficient care.
But there have been 5-country and 7-country surveys every few years which have similar findings.
Mojo - Actually, I am not from KC nor have I ever lived there. I live in North Texas. I have never worked for Cerner, but I have worked with them (including a current project). Most of my experience with KC is having done work with Hallmark once upon a time and visiting KC several times.
I think that most of the big cities in the Central Time Zone are pretty darn cool, or anything in the Eastern Time Zone not in a coastal state.
“I’m a pretty big believer in what my government terms “middle class welfare”. If everyone is getting something from the system, everyone is much less likely to resent it.” - Quimby
“Oh wow, Quimby. That is absolutely frightening to me. The epitome of entitlement. ” - Stephanie
I don’t know if this has been brought up yet, but the United States has such “middle class welfare.” It’s the largest federal housing subsidy - mortgage interest deductions for homeowners. $69 billion a year in 2005. No other housing subsidy even comes close to that. I don’t get a tax deduction for my rent.
People don’t realize how much help they do get from the government. In the 1950s and 1960s, my grandparents’ generation bought homes using FHA loans. Those loans were essentially not available to black people, since FHA loans couldn’t be used on homes in “black” areas (redlining) and black people often couldn’t buy homes in white areas due to restrictive covenants. So my family has benefited from government housing assistance for over 60 years, all through private homeownership, and we’ve risen to upper middle class from my grandma living in an orphanage. But I’m not going to pretend we did it without government help, and it sure helped that we are white.
Just an example of how in the US the middle class is subsidized.
Do you have anyway of showing that poverty decreased because of welfare and not in spite of it?
Casper claimed fewer people would be in poverty if the welfare state hadn’t been expanded. The census doesn’t have data further back on their website, but my understanding is (and the implication of the available data is as well) that there are fewer people living in poverty today, after 50 years of “the expanding welfare state,” than there were in the decades before. Abject poverty really is far less common today than it was at the turn of the century, and a lot of that is traceable to welfare programs.
The ‘welfare queen’ in the original article herself pointed out that her life saving operations for cancerous tumors were paid for by the state. Many of her other arguments hinge on the immorality of our lack of universal healthcare. was anybody else bothered by this contradiction?
You can refer to your social contract theories all you want, but that doesn’t somehow legitimize your views over mine. There are no natural laws that govern governments. Governments are just things we’ve made up. There is no such thing as a true theory about them. There are not experiments to test them or controls to make or results that are repeatable. They’re a mass hallucination that we all agree to pretend is real.
And so, because they have no existence beyond that which we give them, the whole reason any of them exist is because people think that’s how it should be, logical or not. I don’t think I should be giving a mass hallucination control of my property beyond what I need to contribute to fund reasonable services that will enable me to protect that property. In the case of those services, I think having them run by the government is best because it helps standardize the system and makes it more likely that laws will be enforced without bias. Obviously it’s not perfect, but without that standardization, the chaos that would ensue would endanger my property more than our government currently does.
Your arguments against the post office don’t take into account the fact that when it was created and standardized, many of the things you’re talking about like email didn’t exist. Additionally, the US postal service actually was partially privatized back in the 90’s. It’s a strange, hybrid sort of thing at this point.
Furthermore, I consider myself quite moderate. I know we’ve moved far enough towards socialism that we’re not going to be able to reach the ideal of minimal government. I’m not a total jerk. I know it would be evil for us to, say, suddenly wave our hands and say, “No more social security. Screw all of you retirees. You’re not getting anymore checks.” However, as the post office itself shows once something is funded by the government, it’s almost impossible for it to stop being so. The government keeps getting bigger and more bloated, and so I work through the system I’ve agreed to pretend has some meaning by living in the U.S. to try to keep things from getting worse and protect what property rights I retain as best I can.
The healthcare system here in the U.S. is most definitely broken. I don’t have the answers because I really don’t understand why things have changed so much in the past 20 years. When I was growing up, we didn’t have insurance (and I think that was quite common), and it was no big deal. Now, obviously, costs have skyrocketed so that it /is/ a big deal, and I don’t know enough about what has changed to make those increases to propose a reasonable solution and I admit that. That doesn’t mean I can’t look at a proposed solution like universal healthcare and say that I don’t think that is the ideal way to correct the problem.
I notice you don’t seem to have any answers for the broken things in universal healthcare, either. Your responses to Spunky’s situation seem to me to amount to, “Oh, well, that sucks. Sorry,” which isn’t addressing those problems or how they could be solved either. And frankly, I’m not convinced those problems are as rare as you claim. I know someone who last year had to wait for about four months to get her gallbladder removed. This was in Australia. Making it so someone has to deal with months of agony so that someone else can take their little Johnny into the doctor to get antibiotics anytime he has the slightest of sniffles doesn’t seem like a good trade-off to me. While this dichotomy may or may not be related, long waits for procedures and diagnostics that are very quick to schedule here seem to be very common in Canada and the UK at least.
quail, I wouldn’t call a reduction in taxes due to a deduction a subsidy. That would assume that my tax money doesn’t belong to me. I just get to keep more of my own money.
There are tons of middle class entitlements in the US for families. The idea that only in Europe or Australia you get subsidised for having kids is simply not true. We start with the fact that close to half of all births are covered by medicaid.
Usually in the US they take the form of tax rebates and deductions.
Child tax rebate both the normal one and the one for poorer parents pour thousands of dollars into parents hands every year
etc.
Then there are all the other deductions like mortgage deductions, charity, insurance etc. You actually have to make quite a bit of money if you have 3-5 kids to start paying a signifigant amount of your income in Federal taxes
I have friends who while in Grad school with three kids would get checks for 6-9K every April. Oh wait holy threadjack batman.
correct, in the same fashion, most of the ‘corporate welfare’ that is denounced by socialists is actually just tax breaks, designed to keep companies doing business in the US.
That last one was a response to stephanie, not bbell
bbell,
there is a huge difference between normal deductions and tax rebates and tax CREDITS. Low income families receive ‘tax returns’ that are much larger than the amount they actually paid in payroll taxes.
How is it not a subsidy? That’s $69 billion a year that the federal government doesn’t get because homeowners can deduct from their taxes, and $69 billion in the pockets of homeowners. It doesn’t matter if you pay the government and then they give it back to you, or if they cut out the middleman and just let you keep it. It’s a subsidy. Homeowners can get a larger mortgage, earn more equity, pay less net for housing, etc than if it didn’t exist. The government has an interest in homeownership and has chosen to encourage it by using the mortgage interest deduction. Wonderful - but it’s still a subsidy.
Besides that, it’s commonly called “federal mortgage interest subsidy,” but like you say, it’s also called a mortgage interest deduction. I’m not the first one to call it a subsidy.
An interesting, but slanted, article is here:http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1341.html
It’s slanted my way, though
Jami/Firebyrd/etc – I can’t believe that’s the best you can do. “Your world view doesn’t affect me.” “Your social contract theory doesn’t make your opinion any better than mine.” (Um, not my social contract theory, you can look back as far as Socrates to find the basic idea.) Gee, it must be nice to live in a world where facts and logic don’t matter!
You know, I had dreams about this last night, and I woke up this morning ready to drive you all into the ground with a series of arguments and facts. Turns out, I don’t need any of them, because you can’t answer a really simple, straight-forward question – and how can you possibly continue to agree with a position you can’t even support? You really can’t even begin to believe how disappointing this is for me. But what’s the point arguing with someone who all but acknowledges they can’t defend their views?
Firebyrd, I have had a number of discussions with Spunky off-line. She doesn’t know how to best use the system and I am trying to help her get what she needs. All of her experiences are so vastly different to anyone else’s I have ever met. (And I work in the perepheries of health care, so I hear a lot of stories.) Her statements about taxation are just dead wrong (and I did point that out), but I didn’t feel like it was my place to give her guidance on-board. She has had some very disappointing experiences – but remember she is comparing having a good standard of health care in the US, which 15% of all Americans do not have. And as everyone on this side of the argument has said time and time again, if you can afford to pay for it, the medical system in the US is good. It’s just that it’s prohibitively expensive for far too many people.
Re: the post office - Prior to a public post office there were private courier systems. There is really no libertarian argument you can make to justify including the post office.
Stephanie, re: middle class welfare – If you lived here and got $250 to $300 for your boys per week, even though your taxes were no higher than in the US, I can see you changing your tune.
I’m just really sad I don’t get to use my arguments now . . .
Firebyrd, your “no natural laws” argument - I can think of many political philosophers who would disagree with you. In fact, just about every single one of them would disagree with you. Strongly.
“Low income families receive ‘tax returns’ that are much larger than the amount they actually paid in payroll taxes.” - Casper
Maybe some credits have this effect, but my gross income was just under $15,000 last year (as a single, childless person - three months of grad student stipend and nine months of being an Americorps VISTA) and I paid $700 in federal taxes and over $300 in state taxes. Remind me again how I am receiving all this money back? (Aside from my “stimulus package”.) And I think by most standards I’d be low income where I live. (East Coast city.)
I’m not in poverty by any means, but I was surprised at how much I owed considering my income. $700 is a lot for me, especially since my employers don’t withhold. Granted, I’m not eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit yet and won’t be anymore when I get married this August, but still. Don’t even get me started on how many poor people are eligible for EITC or tax refunds and don’t file because they don’t have the knowledge or resources to prepare their taxes to take advantage of these credits.
I seem to recall one poster in your neck of the woods completely contradicting your stance.
She said she’s paying MORE there (in AU) than in the U.S. She thought social medicine would be better and more cost effective, but it’s not. - so perhaps your viewpoint isn’t as universal as you think it is.
I seem to recall you blew her opinion off as saying that she wasn’t milking the system enough because she had private insurance on top of the socialized one. Entitlement at it’s finest…. and also, I wouldn’t want $300 a week if it wasn’t my money that I earned! If I knew that money was coming from other people’s pockets, whether better off than I or not, I would feel horrible taking it.
It’s like telling someone… hey, if you go to the local food bank you can get FREE FOOD… even when you don’t need it. It’s stealing.
quail, that notion seems convoluted to me. I’ve also never heard it referred to as a “federal mortgage interest subsidy”. In what circles is that term used?
“I have friends who while in Grad school with three kids would get checks for 6-9K every April”. This is called Earned Income Credit. It is a form of welfare, not a tax return.
Quimby, I wouldn’t change my tune just because someone gave me money. That’s called “buying” a vote, and Democrats do it all the time.
“you can’t answer a really simple, straight-forward question”
Elise, that’s Spunky - and like I said, she’s dead wrong when it comes to taxation. You can look up the actual taxation rates if you don’t believe me. ATO will give the Commonwealth taxation rates; IRS will give the US federal government taxation rates; and then you can look up the individual state taxes and sales taxes. The only tax we pay other than Commonwealth is a 10% GST. It’s pretty straight-forward to work it out if you want to do the math. I’d be very surprised if you wouldn’t be better off here.
My point about her not using the system effectively wasn’t “blowing her off.” There is a knack to using the system. Again, refer to my comments about helping her off-board to get what she needs. I’ve already been successful in saving her quite a bit of money, but hey, why bother with facts?
And again - how many times do I have to say this? - EVERYONE is saying the US system is better IF you have good insurance. The problem is the 15% of people who don’t have ANY Insurance AT ALL. It’s really not a difficult point to grasp.
You seem to think that because one person had a crap experience, it discounts the entire system. If you felt that way, than surely Chandelle’s experience - which is far from unique; I can easily find a dozen more horror stories - should totally and completely discount the American system.
Re: free food - You can get it. 50% of all food produced in the US is thrown away. If that doesn’t disgust you then you really are without compassion. Consider all the people starving in this world, and 50% of all food is just thrown away. There is a movement of people called “freegans” who get most if not all of their food from the trash - for free. Good food. Nothing wrong with it at all. Generally packaged up and not even remotely contaminated with anything icky. But it’s thrown away. Yours for the taking, just go to the dumpsters and get it out.
Really? The Dems do it all the time? Huh, I thought buying people off was Bush’s speciality. You know, the $300 to $600 you’re getting back this year, that’s Bush’s idea.
The question was: Why should the government be in charge of military and the post office? Why not put them in private hands if you really believe that private hands are better than public hands? There is really no reason to justify the post office; I can think of one argument for the military, but it’s fairly easy to argue against.
EVERYONE is saying the US system is better IF you have good insurance - Quimby…
So let me get this straight… everyone is acknowledging that the U.S. is better with good insurance, and that with socialized health care the care is ‘worse’ (obviously if the U.S. is better) and you would like me, with my good insurance, to get ‘less better’ care because 15% don’t have insurance?
That’s like saying… The U.S. has the best restaurants that most people can get into and enjoy, but since ’some’ can’t get in (for various reasons), they should close down the doors and make everyone only be able to have fast food instead.
You are asking me and my family to sacrifice better care for worse care… hmmmmm
I wouldn’t want $300 a week if it wasn’t my money that I earned! If I knew that money was coming from other people’s pockets, whether better off than I or not, I would feel horrible taking it.
Then don’t claim your children as dependents on your taxes. That way you won’t have to feel guilty taking money from the government. I don’t have kids, so when you deduct your children and pay less taxes, you are making me pay more - the money’s got to come from somewhere, right? You are taking money out of my pocket. Maybe children shouldn’t be a factor at all in how much an adult pays in taxes. That sounds fair to me!
Both governments are doing the same thing - making it financially easier for parents to have children. They are just doing it in different ways and in different amounts. I think everyone should get help, including middle-class parents, and I know my parents counted on using us as deductions to pay less in taxes. All I’m saying is that we should recognize that as government helping us out, even if it doesn’t work out to $300 a week.
Ok, I need to work on my research. Thanks for the lively debate!
quail,
you still don’t understand the difference between a subsidy and a deduction do you? it’s not difficult.
‘the money has to come from somewhere’ argument only works if you accept that gov spending is fixed and always necessary, and that the government and its beneficiaries are morally entitled to MY money.
It’s simple Stephanie, I pay less in taxes because I have three children than someone who makes the same as I do but has no children.
So if you feel this is unfair, you need to not claim your children on your taxes to assure yourself that you are paying just as much as everyone else. It’s simple. The only difference from Quimby’s situation is the form it takes and the amount of money it is.
I’m all in favor of you refusing to take those child tax credits by the way. Please do live up to your moral standards and do so.
Stephanie, surely your memory isn’t that short. Remember Bush’s first action when he got in? Giving everyone money? Any of that coming back?
Elise, Spunky has some unique health challenges and was denied some help that she should have recieved. It really isn’t my place to broach her privacy more than that. For me, my spouse, our child, my parents, my sisters, their spouses, their children - I am and they would all be much better off under the Australian system, and pay less.
And your argument is gobsmacki,ngly selfish. Shall we put a price on human life? Oh I guess you already have - 0.
fmhlisa,
what about the guy with no children? You pay less in taxes and you and your children cost more money in services (health care, education, etc.) it stands to reason that you should pay MORE in taxes, since you have more heads in your household.
and again, you are missing the difference between a tax deduction and a CREDIT. one is a subsidy and welfare, the other is simply allowing someone to keep more of their own money.
I think YOUR argument is selfish. You are asking others to reduce their quality care to cover a small portion of people. That is selfish. If there was a way I can KEEP my quality of care and still cover those 15% - but even you admit… THERE ISNT! so you are being selfish asking all of us to reduce our quality of care for the needs of a minority… Wow, talk about flip flop.
Whew. I don’t know if I can put it any better than this:
If you really believe that families are the building block of society, you should be in favor of supporting families as much as you can. That includes ensuring that no child is raised in abject poverty.
A number of studies have shown that poverty can lead to a decreased level of academic achievement. A decreased level of academic achievement can lead to decreased earning power. Decreased earning power leads to poverty. If you repeat that cycle on a national level, it leads to a poor nation. Therefore, the best investment you can make in the future is in children - and the best way to make sure their needs are being met is to help their parents meet their needs.
And before you say, “But there are parents who don’t care” - Well, I could easily use that as justification for not letting you claim your kids as deductions too. How do I know you’re spending the money set aside for that deduction on them and not on cigarettes and alcohol?
on one hand they complain that medicaid isn’t enough, then they argue that we should ALL be on a system that is essentially medicaid without the income restriction.
casper, That’s making the huge false assumption that 85% will suffer. But most people don’t have insurance like that. I have insurance and I just payed well over $4000 to have my gallbladder out. I payed those bills yesterday. That’s a HUGE portion of my income, huge, huge, well over ten percent. I’ve felt like crying all day. I’ll live, We won’t have to declare bankruptcy, but I certainly wouldn’t “suffer” if the system was changed.
correlation is not causation. poverty correlates with low academic achievements, but that does not prove that the low academic achievement is caused by the low poverty. It could be that those predisposed to poverty are also predisposed to raise children in a culture that breeds low academic achievers.
Sheesh, Elise, do you actually read anything I write before you respond?
Naismith says it best (I love that woman): Saying the US has the best health care because it has the Mayo clinic is like saying the US has the best public transportation because it has a space program.
fhmlisa, i am sorry to hear about your health problems and large medical bills. Please don’t rob me of my hard earned income to pay for YOUR bills, as i would like to be able to save my money in order to pay for MY medical expenses that may arise in the future.
Once more with feeling: Spunky is the ONLY person I have EVER met in my ENTIRE life who is worse off under the Australian system. And a lot of that is because she doesn’t know how to use the system. Everyone else I can think of would be or is MUCH better off here
quimby, do you do a lot of business in australia. I have to assume that the Australians you personally know do not amount to a statistically significant sampling.
Quimby, not just a ‘few’ hospitals, but the U.S. has the BEST of the BEST specialists, the Best of the best children’s hospitals, and the Best of the Best Cancer institutes.. and guess what? I can go to any of them, as can most people who need expertise. People from TX travel to AZ for a ‘new gene therapy’… People from ID travel to UT for their premier Primary’s Childrens Hosp.
My friend in Canada is having to travel down to NYC for operations for her son because Canada won’t do it. They say an autistic boy doesn’t need cosmetic surgery to fix the fact he doesn’t have a lip from a Hemangioma. Canada has refused every attempt she’s made to help her son… and the waiting list just to see someone is years!
BOttom line, People from around the world come to the U.S. for treatment. Not for colds, or immunizations - but that can be done for $10 at Walmart with NO INSURANCE anyway.
Quimby, do you understand that basic care IS AVAILABLE CHEAPLY here in the U.S.? And we also have the best advanced care int eh world… I don’t want anything but the best for my kids thanks… I’ll pass on ‘worse care’.
Casper, you have no idea what your talking about, “medicaid without income restrictions” have you even read the previous comments? No one has advocated that. Please stop commenting until you actually know what your talking about and who your talking to.
Elise,
there are options for the high tier of fortunate rich people like yourself to improve your quality of care under other types of systems. Why cling to a system that is great for you, and greatly harmful to those not as fortunate, when another system could be great for you without having the inconvenience of watching all those miserable poor people dying and suffering as well. But maybe preserving things just the way they are, so that you don’t have to risk any of your comfort is really what is best for the world. How could I have been so selfish as to hope that people don’t have to suffer and die and lose everything when they get sick, if there is the slightest risk that you might have to give up a little something yourself.
casper,
please, take some of my hard earned money to help pay your possible medical bills and those of other people who may be in difficult situations in the future. Because I am my sister’s keeper.
If we all moved there for medical car the Australian budget surplus would disappear overnight.
Australia’s natural resource based economy is not limitless, nor is coal, its largest export particularly environmentally friendly. Maybe if Australia stopped selling so much coal the resulting reduction in pollution will reduce the need for as much medical care!
In other words, for every *free* shot you receive there are ten little Filipino kids, downwind from Japan, coughing up black mucus.
casper, univerial health care can look like hundreds of different things, very few of which look anything like Medicaid at all. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. Please stop spreading it around and expecting me to take it seriously.
that’s great fmhlisa, I am proud of your charitable heart. But you want to impose your personal values onto the rest of society through legislation. We live in a secular society. You want the government to FORCE everyone to be their sisters keeper.
You know what, Elise? I take back my word “best”. The US has a fine medical system IF you can afford it.
And if you think the US is the only place people go for health care, think again! Every Western country does its charity work (taking disadvantaged children in for surgeries). Lots of Americans go to India or Thailand or other places for surgeries they can’t afford in the US. Do a bit of research first, please.
Because as EVERYONE (as Quimby says) admits that the U.S. is BETTER when you have good insurance.
So you aren’t asking my family to exchange an apple for an apple, you are asking my family and children to give my apple and get back an apple core.
Also, you are assuming that people who would take Casper’s money for their surgeries actually make back that money and contribute. Most who are on the subsidy cycle never reach a point of being able to give back equally. That’s just not how it works.
Casper and A, B, C would be giving to X, Y and Z (to subsidize them)… and when Casper needed the funds… guess who would be contributing? Casper and A, B, C again… X, Y and Z don’t contribute equally!
MAC, I’m not disagreeing, and I would be horrified if you all moved to Australia. There are enough damn seppos here already. So I think I’ll stop making my argument because it might inspire more to move over. Thanks for point that out to me.
wow, you assume a lot by calling me ignorant. And three times at that.
My comment was hyperbole sure. so tell me why medicaid does not cover poor people well enough, and I will explain to you why universal healthcare will have those same problems.
Well, I’m off to pick up my children from their evil government run educational opportunities. Stupid evil government, destroying everything it touches.
Quimby, If “Your world view doesn’t affect me.” is a paraphrase of my “Don’t go throwing ‘circular argument’ complaints my direction. It’s not my worldview,” then you’ve misunderstood me. When I say that it’s not my worldview, I mean that I don’t look at the government that way.
My husband does and I’ve got about four years of bitter fighting under my belt on the subject. I’ve also got twelve years of peaceful co-existence. I prefer the peace. You asked why security qualifies as the proper role of government and I answered. The answer has a circular logic problem, but since it’s not my world view, it’s not my problem.
this conversation is moving so fast I can’t keep up with it.
So Casper, you’re going to pull out social darwinism as an explanation for poverty? Nice. Glad that misbegotten, sorry excuse for social theory has reared its ugly head. Here’s the problem–take a poor kid out of poverty (as is routinely done when rich parents adopt) and the child ends up…wealthy. Kinda funny how it works. Sorry, but poor people are as often as not victims of circumstance, not there because they somehow genetically “deserve” to be poor.
Yeah… nobody can refute what I said about XYZ…. So it’s settled… Casper and A,B ,and C will pay for all of X , Y, And Z… and they don’t get to complain.. EVER… because they are forced to being their siblings keeper…
And then I’m going to the diabolical government run book distribution depot.
Damn Library, letting me read all these horrible books for NOTHING. Stealing all those millions of dollars from innocent citizens to pay publishers and writers and let me read stuff I haven’t earned the right to read with the sweat of my own brow. It’s horrifying. How do we stop it.
I would differentiate between Stephanie’s view, which seems to be in line with my father’s, “why throw good money after bad?” which I don’t happen to agree is the whole problem, but is relevant, I think since whatever system we end up with would still suffer from corruption and need addressing and Elise’s position which is grounded in the belief that people end up with the healthcare that they deserve and she’ll share what she’s earned when they pry it from her cold dead fingers a la Heston, Rand, Leona Helmsley and whatever other demigods of selfishness she’s got lined up. On a side note, as a former Objectivist, I do object to your pejorative use of “selfish,” Elise. Why not revel in it? It is, after all, the highest good.
I believe you can not see U healthcare as the best option but still care deeply about abating suffering. I happen to think that u healthcare is the best way we’ve come up with.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
I guess, I should at least find it refreshing that elise doesn’t try to hide her selfishness behind complex economic theories like some people. I’ll work on admiring that at least. Honesty is good.
The optimium word is ‘take care of EACHOTHER”… as I mentioned… with the system you are advocating… A, B and C are taking care of X, Y, Z.. but never vice versa…. X, Y and Z take from the system - but don’t return their equal share, while because A, B and C sacrificed much to get where they are, they are expected to fund everyone.
Quimby had an excellent example of this when she said:
If someone owns a fruit tree and doesn’t pick the fruit it’s the “masses’ moral obligation to TAKE the fruit tree from it’s rightful owner.
That mentality…. that what is yours is MINE… is the actually the very thing you say you hate… Selfishness.
Elise, who says X, Y, and Z will never return what’s been given to them? That’s an awfully big assumption there. A, B, and C may have sacrificed a lot to get where they are, but are their sacrifices really that much bigger or more meaningful than those X, Y, and Z made?
Kristine, I didn’t pull out social Darwinism at all. I pointed out a clear logical fallacy in a previous argument, then i suggested another possible explanation. and my suggested explanation clearly pointed to the REARING of the children, not their genetic makeup.
Are all cultures equal in their ability to bring up successful offspring?
Actually you are wrong Crazy Creek. I do not believe in THEFT by the masses, no… but I do believe in Charity and FREE AGENCY… You have no idea what my family is involved in and how we contribute to society. I do pro-bono work all the time for various charities.
I’m not selfish at all with my money.. I donate as the Spirit prompts. Indeed, my familiy doesn’t have the luxuries people who make may have. They see their husbands more, they don’t have the 12 years of schooling to get said income, or the debt. etc. etc.
For every job there are sacrifices, some may be money for happiness, some may be happiness for money, others may be being a ‘widow mom’ for a few years never seeing their husband, etc. etc.
But to say that because I don’t advocate FORCED redistrubution of people’s labor and earnings is Selfish.. that is wrong and very hurtful.
guess, I should at least find it refreshing that elise doesn’t try to hide her selfishness behind complex economic theories like some people. I’ll work on admiring that at least. Honesty is good.
Wow, Lisa. You really don’t get it that some people can think differently than you and still be good people, do you? Or that some solutions need to come from stepping outside of the box and realizing that maybe there is something to be said for the other side? Beyond that, I think I’ll bite my tongue. Personal attacks aren’t my style.
People, can we cool it down a bit? All this tearing apart each other’s arguments is getting out of hand and making the issues more confusing, not less.
If the majority of the philosophies expressed here is where this country is headed, anyone want to come and crash a plane in the ‘uninhabited’ hills of Colorado?
FHMlisa sarcastically says god hates it when we take care of each other. I know this is a mormon board, but we are discussing social policy and political philosophy. Do you believe that the law should require young men to serve missions? no, i doubt you do. yet you are asking the law to force YOUR moral view of charity on others.
I completely agree with the virtue of charity. I just think that those who feel obligated to help their fellow man should go out and, you know, help their fellow man with their own money and time.
You are essentially accusing me of being against charity. I’m not, I’m against FORCED charity.
Kristine, the sacrifices are DIFFERENT to get where they are.
For one group to say.. I chose my life - I made sacrifices, and now you need to support me in the life I chose.
For the other group to have said to them: You chose your life, You made sacrifices to get where you are at, and now you need to Support the other group in the life that THEY chose…
And yes, those who end up paying most of the costs of support in the higher income group are penalized for pushing themselves all those years and sacrificing all those years to get where they are. The lower tier never pays it back and helps the higher tier.. it’s a one-way flow and makes one not want to try and excel financially if it’s all going to be taken from them anyway. (I personally want to excel financially so we can retire early and go on a mission and do charity work - my hubby and I have sacrificed huge time and energy and me NOT being a SAHM to accomplish this)
she’ll share what she’s earned when they pry it from her cold dead fingers a la … Rand,
Actually, that’s not an accurate representation of Rand’s views on charity, which is to say:
“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.” [From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”]
This is a vastly different proposition from “when they pry it from her cold dead fingers.” It’s also open to personal philosophies of philanthropy and, considering Rand was an atheist, is in line with agency and not in any way contradictory to James’s admonition to take care of the widowed and fatherless.
The great divide on this thread is choice. Am I offered the opportunity to help the masses when money is taken out of my earnings? No. It’s compulsory. Forced, by threat of imprisonment if I do not comply.
Stephanie, I am not being at all sarcastic when I say that a follower of Rand should have NO problem with being called selfish. Check this out or this. If I call Tom Cruise gay, he may demure. Not so Lance Bass. The absurdity of a Rand follower taking umbrage over being called selfish makes my head explode.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
mojo,
I would submit that mainstream libertarians have long argued that private charity is extremely valuable and actually has the ability to provide for societies most needy.
Forced, by threat of imprisonment if I do not comply.
This is the antithesis of the gospel.
That’s just about the lamest antithesis to the gospel. Social darwinism and seflishness are much better antitheses to the gospel than taxation, especially if the taxation is going toward genuinely helping people.
The only thing everyone is debating is whether we should be FORCED to support others, or if it should be by FREE AGENCY.
It’s funny how the Free Agency folks get called Selfish.
I think that the people demanding, insisting, forcing support from others are the selfish ones. If my family and others planned, sweated, sacrified and saved to get red shoes and suddenly another family that didn’t have the same choices DEMANDED to have red shoes too, and that my family fund them with such… Who’s the selfish ones?
We all pick our directions in life and we pick our professions. We know what the pros/cons benefits of each is. If you want red shoes, work towards them through schooling, studying, hard work ( Asian Immigrants are excellent as demonstrating success after just 2 generations here) to get them. Don’t try and take my red shoes just because you suddenly want them but didn’t work for them.
crazy woman,
you are assuming that those who generally agree with Rand on liberterian and free market philosophies must agree dogmatically with each and every one of the woman’s personal philosophies. that is ridiculous.
I for one, am extremely insulted by being accused of selfishness. many here don’t seem to understand the moral difference between personal choices and the use of violent government force.
Yes, Stephanie, I did read 168. I’m glad you are admitting that your solution is not truly a free market one either.
I’m not trying to play games with you. I was trying to clarify. It was previously said, and you agreed that, liberals don’t think conservatives give enough. I interpreted “give enough” in the original statement to mean giving of any sort: taxes (which for the purpose of argument we’ll assume are going to social welfare) and private charitable giving. When I asked if you agreed, that is the interpretation I meant. Since that is now how you interpreted it, I’ll ask the question again so that there is no confusion: Do you believe that we, the public (society as a whole, regardless of political ideology), give enough of our substance to help the disadvantaged (the homeless, the naked, the hungry, the sick and afflicted), irrespective of whether that giving is through private donations or government required taxes?
re: 228
Excellent points, Quail. I wonder if libertarian types really know how much they would be giving up if we switched to a libertarian-style government.
re: 229
Very true, Kristine. Those who blame the “welfare-state” for poverty should probably investigate the state of the poor during the Gilded Age. There is a reason government began seriously implementing social welfare programs: private giving was doing an absolutely miserable job of taking care of people. Government programs are never sterling, but it beats nothing at all.
re: 296
FmhLisa, that is priceless!
Generally:
I’m having a hard times seeing how people can make the case that the U.S. has world-class health care cheaply available in light of the Jama report I referenced.
The way the debate has turned is the classic example of my big beef with the “free market” ideology. Much of it does indeed sound rational and make sense. But when you peel back the top layers, it always ends up coming down to social Darwinism and the complaint that those with much shouldn’t be asked to take care of those with little, despite the fact that this is exactly what our Savior has asked of us. Yeah, sure I know there are superficial efforts to make a distinction between public and private (coerced vs. Voluntary) giving. But in my experience, as the argument continues, that distinction always disappears from the free marketers’ arguments. And thus their argument becomes morally bankrupt and loses all appeal.
M - My mother and scholarships were my ticket - and she was a single mom with no help who was a secretary for 20 years (we lived off D.I. and cockroach ridden apts NEVER getting a hand out from the governemnt, she scrimpt and saved to help me have a better life than her)… My husband however put himself through his mission on his own, and worked and got loans for his schooling (which we just paid off). He picked a profession he knew he could support a family with - Engineering. He studied hard and now we are looking long term and what we want to do with our lives. Engineers without Borders is a big to do… We want to do a Service Mission too.
Casper, indeed. Private is the key word here. Voluntary. Not compelled by a government and enforced by withholding taxes. I totally agree.
With regard to the use of the word “selfish” in this thread. It’s been used on both sides of the argument, with both finding it distasteful in their own definitions.
“Selfish” as Elise has used it as an accusation might be better defined as people who feel entitled to what I have.
“Selfish” as CrazyWomanCreek has used it (and others have referenced why we don’t revel in being called selfish) might be better defined as people who want to keep what we’ve earned and not be compelled to hand it over to someone else.
That’s just about the lamest antithesis to the gospel. Social darwinism and seflishness are much better antitheses to the gospel than taxation, especially if the taxation is going toward genuinely helping people.
I believe it was Satan who wanted everyone to be compelled to be obedient because it genuinely helped people to all be saved.
ouch derek, that last paragraph smarts. you will never see a libertarian drop the coerced vs voluntary distinction (your emphasis on the word ‘always’ was especially silly). And i am sick of being told 1, don’t know what I’m talking about. 2, am selfish, 3 am morally bankrupt.
yeah, MoJo, that’s not quite my reading of it. Somewhere in that story there was something about the glory going to Satan instead of to God, and I’m pretty sure that was a significant point, too.
[…] made the point over at Feminist Mormon Housewives that compulsory taxation for the purpose of giving it to other individuals in our society was […]
[…] made the point over at Feminist Mormon Housewives that compulsory taxation for the purpose of giving it to other individuals in our society was […]
[…] on Not Ophelia’s pointer to Chandelle’s post and now, a few words from the resident welfare queen at FMH (Chandelle’s post was at her personal blog, now accessible only by […]
Amen, sister. We’ve spent years fluctuating between barely making and barely not making it. We have had the immense pleasure of receiving free or reduced meals for our son in public school and the proud joy of applying for unemployment benefits after a lay off or job relocation.
The judgement people express over “welfare queens” is astonishingly ignorant, and often expressed to people whom they have no idea are actually receiving those services (talk about a foot in the mouth!). Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could experience the “luxury” of cashing a government assistance check or paying for groceries with food stamps?
Comment by Eris — June 3, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
I can see both side of this. I absolutely think the welfare/food stamp program is there for people who need it, and I am so glad that it’s there to help people who run into rough times.
But on the flip-side, I believe the teachings of the LDS church does NOT help:
1) Get married - do not delay
2) Have children, as many as the Lord will allow - and do not delay
3) Be educated
4) Stay out of debt
There are very, VERY few 21-22 year olds who can accomplish all of these things and not be living in poverty when the DH (usually) is at his first job (and first salary), and the DW is home with 2 or more children. It’s not a recipe for success.
But if someone needs help, by ALL MEANS, take the assistance. But if that’s a lifestyle, and not simply a means to help, then that makes me crazy. I have seen more and more Mormon families who are living 100% off the government and trying to have another child.
Help yes. Entitlement, no.
Comment by Observer — June 3, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Standing as witnesses in all things:
“For I was anhungered, and you shook your head indulgently at me and clucked your tongue. I was thirsty, and you offered to sell me water from a bottle if I would pay you. I was naked, and you had me arrested for indecency; I was in prison, and you executed me.”
Also:
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men conservatively, because liberal is something God would NEVER be.”
Comment by hero — June 3, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Chandelle, I am sorry if my comments made you feel belittled. For the record, I am not opposed to medicaid, welfare, food stamps, student grants, etc. - programs that help people when they need a hand, or that help people who are unable to help themselves (mentally or physically).
I also am not rich and did not grow up rich. It got even worse when my dad walked out on us when I was 14. The church paid our mortgage and utilities for a time, we received food from the Bishop’s storehouse, we qualified for free lunches from the school cafeteria. One Thanksgiving our youth drove Thanksgiving dinners around to “poor” families in the ward. I was mortified when the driver of my car turned and asked me how to get to my house so we could take my family a turkey. I moved out at 18 and got myself through college. I feel like I’ve literally crawled my way out of poverty and have been trying to help my family members do the same. I am grateful for the assistance we received to help get us through.
And, I also don’t support universal healthcare as outlined by either of the two major Democratic nominees (well, now just one). On the other thread, I was trying to convey that yes, I can still be Christ-like and charitable without supporting universal socialized programs. I recognize there are problems with our healthcare system. I recognize there are people without insurance (about half my family included). But, I also don’t think socialized medicine is the answer. A HUGE part of the healthcare problem is runaway costs, and I don’t think it addresses the heart of those costs. And I don’t think my position on this makes me un-Christian.
Obviously I didn’t convey that message very well, and I apologize.
Comment by Stephanie — June 3, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Chandelle–
Please know if you ever need a western-type doctor again, DH will do what he can. We don’t have an x-ray machine at our house of course, but he’d still do what he could to help and I’m betting we have other doctor friends who would help for free as well. CALL us if you need us. I’m glad your kiddo turned out to be OK though!
Your comment about giving money to people on the street caused some much needed reflection for me, for which I thank you. When I lived well below the poverty line, I carried an extra sack lunch with me every day as well as bus fare and a map to the closest shelter from my house (in the winter those shelters can be great, even though a lot of the homeless people I talked with hate them in general). And we very often had someone even poorer than us sleeping on our couch (retrieved, of course, from the curb on garbage day and cleaned meticulously by us).
At my very poorest, when I could not really afford even an apple and a sandwich a day (I usually had an apple for breakfast and half a pbj for dinner, and still felt spendy), I still managed to give that apple away to street people because I knew I could have the pbj at night. Now I sometimes consign apples to the compost pile because I’ve forgotten and left them on the counter too long. I am, quite frankly, ashamed.
Now that my family and I live just under the mean income for this country, I no longer remember to carry the sack lunch. We don’t have people living with us as often, though on occasion. I donate more money to charity now than I used to, but it’s probably a statistically smaller proportion of the money that passes into my hands than I gave away when I had so much less to give. financial cushion has made me less soft, and that is not good. Thanks for the reminder: i need to be better.
Comment by Janet — June 3, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
mfranti is SO-O-O-O-O dead…
Comment by chandelle — June 3, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
observer, your comment is an important one and addresses a few issues that i left out in my post. we DID get married ASAP. getting married was good for us because we were living stupidly, financially, and as soon as we got married we straightened out our act. we cut up our credit cards, stored food, simplified our diet, generally started living way below our means. but we did a) get married right away, b) have children right away, and c) not have a good job right away - we were both still in school and had entry-level jobs and it’s hard to move above that when you have kids right away. i’m not blaming the church because those were OUR choices. and plenty of very good church members interpret things very differently, but we felt called by the spirit to live that way, so we did. as a now-former member, i’m not too sure what to think about that anymore…but i don’t have regrets. if not for our children, we’d probably be sitting much prettier financially, but everything else would be much uglier.
stephanie, you and i have disagreed on almost everything to this point, but on this one i think we can see eye-to-eye. i also am not impressed by either D nominee’s healthcare plan (haven’t checked the primaries yet, so i’m not sure which one it is now!). i’m not a democrat - they’re not liberal enough for me :), and i’m not sure who i’d vote for. but anything that gets us a little closer to equality is good by me - i’m not looking for perfection here, just progress.
janet, curb furniture is the BEST! i can’t believe what some people will throw out! we actually don’t own any of our furniture right now, not even our bed; it all came with the rental and it will stay when we leave. and you’re such an incredibly beautiful person; i love to hear about your commie life.
thanks for the kind comments so far. i actually didn’t know that i’d been linked here until i got a flood of comments into my inbox. i shot an email to mfranti wondering what was going on, because i’d considered posting it here before realizing that i probably couldn’t actually handle the personal attacks on my character or assumptions about my choices. ani difranco said it best: “i have to act just as strong as i can/just to preserve a place where i can be who i am.” i’m not very strong. but i got suspicious from all the unfamiliar commenters, and here i am.
naughty naughty, mfranti.
Comment by chandelle — June 3, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Too bad, Chandelle: Not Ophelia picked it up, not mfranti. And none of us know where N.O. lives
Anyhow, it’s a good post. Most of us don’t really know how food stamps and stuff work. It’s good for people to know!
Comment by Janet — June 3, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
Almost all of us need some help at some stage. Many of us are lucky enough to get it from our parents/other family members. Some of us are not. Thank goodness governments exist to provide a safety net for those who need it.
I am so, so tired of people who don’t know poverty making judgements about people who are living in poverty. There but for the grace of God . . .
Comment by Quimby — June 3, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
i submitted the post to mfranti last night and then immediately retracted it. i also almost took it off my blog because, ya know, sometimes you write things in a fit and then you come back later a little bit ashamed (though that IS how i feel, i CAN have a bit of temperance about it). she said that she was going to talk to the other permas about posting it without allowing comments, which i thought would be lame. so i thought she might have conspired with NO. thanks for finding it worthy of being posted either way. passion, i got, but sometimes, not foresight.
Comment by chandelle — June 3, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
Already knowing I am one of the least popular people around, I’ll make one more comment.
I have a good friend who comes from an EXTREMELY wealthy family. When her husband was in graduate school, her parents (who lived in a Mcmansion) bought them a house in the same neighborhood. All of her daughter’s clothes came from a boutique. She was in dance lessons and a top-notch preschool - all paid for by the grandparents. She was also on WIC because “technically” they didn’t have an income. I know that the house, clothes, preschool, vacations, etc. were all “gifts” and grandparents can give what they choose, and I know it is not my place to judge, but it just doesn’t seem right to me.
I also have a good friend who comes from an upper-middle class family, has an MBA, and is divorced with a child. She lives with her parents in ONE of their homes and chooses to work just enough so that she can earn spending money but still get state sponsored health insurance. She has a private trainer, etc. We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have discussed health insurance several times. Her position is that we need univeral health insurance for people like her who “need” it. Huh?
I hear about stories like this where, IMO, the system is abused. And then I hear stories like chandelle’s (which I really appreciate, so thank you for posting, and please forgive my comments), and it just feels wrong. There are people who need help, and they should get help. I am not even sure exactly how to solve the problem of abuses of the system, but it really kind of makes me angry because it contributes to mistrust, out of control costs, people judging ALL people in the system, etc. - all of which hurt the people who really need help.
Comment by Stephanie — June 3, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
stephanie, i know people who have abused the system too. well, actually, just one person, one family, who abused the system so wildly and with such corruption that it was hard for me to be around them - and they abused not only the system but their families and friends and anyone else with cash in their wallets or money in the bank. that was rough, and sometimes i just wanted to shake them and shout about how hard they were making it for the rest of us. i DO believe such stories are few and far between, but they exist, sure.
Comment by chandelle — June 3, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Stephanie- I like your comments. It sounds like you’re struggling to figure this out. Nothing wrong with that.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 3, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
Honestly, I think that part of my problem is that there are a lot of people in both my husband’s and my families (not just the two living with me), along with several friends, who are comfortable living off of others (not just me, but the church, the government, etc.) It probably warps my sense of reality a bit because it feels like “a lot” of people want other people to take care of them. Guess I need to get out a bit more.
Comment by Stephanie — June 3, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
I do love chandelle. You write very well.
Comment by Observer — June 3, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
CrazyWomanCreek, thank you. I appreciate that.
Comment by Stephanie — June 3, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
Stephanie, you apologize for hurting someone and for misreading their text and intent. That makes you admirable in my book, even if I don’t agree with you on a variety of things. I imagine a lot of people would say the same.
Comment by Janet — June 3, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
Thank you, Janet. I’m blushing. I appreciate that we can disagree with respect for one another.
Comment by Stephanie — June 3, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
i agree, stephanie. it’s a skill i am nowhere near mastering myself. thank you for your example.
Comment by chandelle — June 3, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Stephanie, there will always be people who will exploit the system. I am sure, when there was no life on earth except single-cell aomebas, there were still some aomebas who exploited the system. That in and of itself should not be enough to delegitimize the system, because there is still geniune need.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 12:17 am
This is a perplexing situation- you are in need, your family is in need and perhaps a government-based medical program would be of help. I get perplexed over the whole thing- probably because I fantasized about socialized medicine before I lived in a country with socialized medicine- and realized that I still didn’t qualify for coverage the bulk of medical expenses that my body seems to like to incur. It was cheaper – read that again CHEAPER- for me to have private insurance in the US than it is here (taxes and co-pays). In Chantelle’s situation, you would likely have all of your expenses covered for your son- but I am not so sure about the issue when you were 18- it might have been up to the government to decide your need. Keep in mind, my FIL had prostate cancer, and the government decided that he was in dire need- so he went on the 2 year waiting list for our state to have it treated. In the meantime, he paid out of pocket to have the cancer removed – I don’t think he would have lasted for the 2 year waiting period. To me, socialized medicine is just the government as a single fat-ass HMO, telling me what it thinks I need, rather than listening to me or my doctor. At least with private insurance, I got to choose my own HMO coverage based on my own needs….
…and Stephanie, I always love the underdog best.
Comment by Spunky — June 4, 2008 @ 12:40 am
Indeed. Americans seem to be able to accept in principle a criminal justice system that goes to great lengths to avoid type I errors (innocent is pronounced guilty) at the expense of committing a few type II errors (guilty is pronounced not guilty).
Against this backdrop, the hue and cry against welfare when someone is discovered to be abusing what little there is to be had is bewildering–rather than suffer a small margin of error in the service of the greater good, many seem willing to throw the baby out with the bath water and cut welfare entirely in a zealous effort to stamp out abuse.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 4, 2008 @ 1:54 am
That could be, but in the socialized western European country where I live the health insurance component is lumped in with the unemployment insurance, pension (by far the biggest chunk), housing tax and so on. The overall social security tax is probably more than private health insurance in the US (about 19% of gross salary), but the actual health insurance portion is exceptionally reasonable and much less than the equivalent coverage in the US; there’s just no way to pick and choose whether you will subsidize housing or save for retirement and separate health insurance from those costs.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 4, 2008 @ 1:58 am
Peter, that’s an excellent point. I’ve heard some Americans argue that it doesn’t matter that innocent people die via the death penalty - I’ve actually heard one American say that he would rather die wrongly than due away with the death penalty. That’s a life, not just a bit of money.
It’s worth remembering (re: taxes in Australia) that we don’t pay state income taxes or property taxes; just Commonwealth taxes and GST; so that means that my tax burden is considerably less here. It’s also worth remembering that Australia has had record surpluses for the past several years (eg, we aren’t billions of dollars in debt - sooner or later the US taxpayers are going to have to pay for this war). As I recall the only part of my taxes that are identified as going straight to Medicare is the Medicare Levy, which has just been drastically reduced this year; there is no other breakdown on the tax form to say what goes where. As Peter says you don’t pick and choose what goes to housing or to retirement or to family payments, etc.
(Having said all of that it is kind of sucky to be childless in Australia since there are really good family benefits, which you only get if you’ve got kids.)
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 4:04 am
Me and my mife and my baby are all covered with a health insurance provided by my company. If i end my contract here, and go back to the Philippines, we will be paying for all the bills except of course if you can work to a company who will shoulder the insurance of you and your family. What’s the difference? Why is it in other countries health or medicare is so important while others don’t mind that people are dying? in here, abundance of money, and care for people, in my country, corruption and self service.
Comment by Kenji and Shiela Solis — June 4, 2008 @ 4:05 am
Very interesting read–you’ve certainly faced some difficult challenges and I appreciate your willingness to share them.
I get a little confused about the notion that taxes are “gifts” from us to the needy. The government provides a safety net of sorts, but it isn’t a gift and I don’t think Jesus (for those who would bring him into the conversation) ever advocated political solutions to these temporal challenges. I’m the first to agree that giving to your fellow humans in their time of need is a great good , I don’t see the government as doing that particularly well. And it certainly isn’t a “gift” if you go to jail for not “giving” it. How do you equate taxes and gifts?
Comment by ujlapana — June 4, 2008 @ 4:39 am
I’m curious–do you believe that government is inherently incapable of providing for its citizens for structural reasons, or are you simply noting inefficiencies where the rubber hits the road? What do you imagine the role of government to be if not to intervene on a large scale when its citizens need help? Surely any government can do more to enhance the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of its organization, but to dismiss one of its most important functions out of hand?
Anyway, I agree that taxes are hardly a gift, though I do believe that they are an obligation.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 4, 2008 @ 5:58 am
A few years ago, DH was between jobs and we had food stamps for a couple of months to make sure we had food on the table for our 4 children. I had a “friend” that would come into my home and help herself to the food in my cupboards. Her reasoning was that her husband was employed and was paying taxes, therefore the food I bought on Food Stamps was hers to take whenever she pleased. (we are not friends anymore)
I also believe any system that is set up to help those in need will be abused, including Relief Society. We have a family in our ward that is planning on moving out of state but can’t sell thier house. The RS has stepped into help since the husband has gone ahead to work. It has been 4 months now, they recieve 2 meals a week with babysitters provided 3 days a week so the mother can get away from thier kids. The YW are also going over to clean her house every week. She is also recieving help from her in-laws, so she has babysitters 5 days a week. Now it is great that the ward wants to help out, but there are not the only family in need. She is not working, why can’t she prepare her own meals and clean her own house and who wouldn’t love free babysitting 5 days a week? Their house is overpriced for the market here and nobody sees any hope of it selling. She is planning on being here for at least another year, including having the ward take care of her when she has her baby in a few months. I don’t see any difference between her and a “welfare queen”. She is abusing the system, taking time and resources that could be used elsewhere. And yes, she is asking for all this help.
Sorry if this came off as a rant, but it annoys me when people that could take resposibility for themselves expect others to take care of them and the consequenses of thier bad choices.
Comment by Cindy — June 4, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Here’s a good song my gal Jolie sings about being a poor girl. I love the line, “I’ve got a couple of foodstamps/ and a caffeine buzz…/Oh maybe I’m a poor girl/But I don’t worry about it none/Maybe I’m a poor girl/But I don’t worry about it none/When this world comes crashing down/I know that I’ll be standing in the sun/I’ll be standing in the sun.”
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 4, 2008 @ 7:26 am
This is the last post I will be making at FMH.
I am saddened by the fact that so many of you jumped on the bully wagon concerning socialism vs. libertarianism. I have stated over and over that there is a huge difference between Christ asking us to be charitable and the government TAKING funds with force.
I thought this was a forum where various beliefs could be discussed evenly, but when 3 posts come out with one stance and ‘bully’ the other viewpoint to the point that only one defender is left having to backtrack from all the angry permas - it shows it has a political motivation and that’s not what being LDS is about. - (to push one political agenda).
I do not believe FEMINISM = SOCIALISM and am troubled by how many of you attack those who feel as I do (including me).
I do not believe Christ has anything to do with taxes and forced socialism.
I do not believe that my ideas are any less valid than yours and to have 3 posts aimed at stomping on them is very disheartening as a feminist who tries to simply be another side of the ‘clear majority’ here.
I do not come from a priviledged life… I grew up with a single mom who didn’t have anything. We lived in an apt with roaches and never took anything from the government. (she worked 2 jobs to support us). We did go to the Church and family, and that is how it should be. That stated, I’ve seen so many abuses in ‘the system’ including the FLDS that I stand by the notion that the government shouldn’t ‘take from one’ to ‘give to another’. It should be up to the individual.
I also do not feel infastructure needs (and the taxes that go with them) are the same as a socialist agenda and to imply that I don’t want roads is non-sequitor.
Anyway, clearly my voice is not wanted here and I will leave. If the permas feel they can bully all those who disagree by using this platform for their ’socialist’ stance.. then so be it… take care
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Whoops. Just got a comment stuck in moderation. Some of those links stick and some don’t! Can someone fish it out? Thanks!
Comment by Researcher — June 4, 2008 @ 7:55 am
I felt sorry as i read what Chandelle has written. Honestly I never thought that it is happening there in U.S. I grew up in the Philippines, had seen how many Filipinos lived in poverty and I never seen or heard that our government has helped anyone. Its worse to see that most of the corrupt government officials are enjoying the money that’s supposed to be used to help those who are in poverty. Still you guys were blessed because somehow, someone- if not all, are given help by your government.
Anyway I’d like to comment on what observer has said regarding what was taught in the church. Me and my husband got married very early, my husband is working here in Saudi Arabia but he is not making that much money. We started renting a small room back in the Philippines. We just had a box for our table, no chair, not even a bed. We moved here in KSA after 3 months and I got pregnant. I wonder how we are able to make it with his salary, he never got an increase yet we were able to get the things we needed. One way or another there are blessings coming from members and friends- for which we are grateful for. still we are renting a small room- not a house. We have no savings, but not in debt. I wonder how when we have a baby now yet nothing has changed. I would agree He will always prepare a way for us if we follow his commandment.
I could have waited few more years and pursue my career in accounting.But I don’t think I will be as happy as I am now with my daughter and husband.
Comment by Shiela — June 4, 2008 @ 7:59 am
ujilapani, i understand your question and i don’t have a great answer, except that i believe that everyone should have healthcare and right now the government can fulfill such a need better than i can as an individual. again, not lookin’ for perfection here. i don’t believe that individuals can fulfill such a great need - especially in this country, where such an enormous segment of the population believes that people deserve what they get if they suffer, and even die, because they are poor.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 8:10 am
In Utah 100,000 of the 300,000 uninsured are children, the great majority of whom qualify for SCHIP but whose parents have not had them enrollled. From what Chandelle says about her husband’s income, it sure sounds like her kid(s) qualify. Also, if you show up at the emergency room uninsured they will immediately enroll you in Medicaid, if you qualify–I know Medicaid is for very low income, so you might not qualify. Sounds like you live on the west side fairly close to the 4th S free clinic where you could also have taken your son.
I worked for the Utah Dept Of Workforce Services as an insane intake worker for a while and don’t remember all the qualifications necessary but Chandelle is right, qualifying is not easy–not true for SCHIPS though. Adults without children get practically no help unless there’s mental illness.
Having grown up in a Western European country with universal health care, I’m firmly opposed to it. Yes, there are people who need assitance and those should get it from society and all of us thru govt, but govt is far less efficient as delivering any service and should be used when only absolutely necessary. One of several reasons for high health care inflation is the inadequate govt reimbursements rates to providers and hospitals which means they charge all of us thru our insurance to cover the underpayments. Another reason is over-utilization as when we demand the newest, expensive allergy med advertised on TV when a Sudafed tablet costing a few pennies a pill would do or an M.R.I. when a X-ray would suffice.
Massachusetts’s attempt at universal health care is NOT the way to go, They did nothing to reduce the cost of care, only mandated “affordable insurance’ and are now facing costs several times greater than anticiapated with no way to pay for it.
Having worked with at risk populations in the Salt Lake area, I will say that there were some wonderful, hard-working folks I was so happy to be able to assist with state and federal programs but I left because of the others, and because I was in great danger of becoming a cynic.
I’m a moderate Republican, living on Salt Lake’s East side with 2 SUVs in the garage, but walking and biking everywhere I can–that’s the European in me still alive after 35 years in the U.S.
Comment by Martie — June 4, 2008 @ 8:35 am
chandelle, glad we can agree on something.
I am sorry if my comments ever feel like an assault on your character. We have different ideas on a lot of things, but I do respect you and where you are coming from. (And I think I come across more harshly in text).
Quimby and Peter, I think you misread my intent in sharing the stories of abuse (and actually, I thought of another. From what I understand, the FLDS intentionally commit welfare fraud). My point is that here is how someone like me perceives the situation: I pay taxes and they support programs. I have no problem with that. My current tax rate is manageable (although Quimby had a good point - federal income tax is practically nominal compared to state taxes, FICA taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, sales taxes. One of my complaints with current Republicans in office is that they say “I’ll keep your taxes low” *wink* *wink* and just add a “tax” in another area). Anyways, back to story. But, knowing that there are abuses in the system, when someone comes and says, “Give a little more. You need to pay more in taxes to help more”, I step back and say, “Okay, have we controlled all the costs? Are there loopholes in the system that are wasteful?” And there are. Not just with abuses (and the situations of fraud on the part of individuals is probably just a small, small part of the abuse in comparison with the fraud on the part of some health care providers and insurance companies), but with our whole U.S. healthcare system of HMOs. There are so many inflated costs. The major HMOs are operating more like oligopies. I’d like to look at where we can be more efficient before just throwing more money at the problem. That doesn’t mean I am against the programs themselves - I just don’t think the proposed solutions solve the problems or really help. My point is: let’s make sure the people who need help are getting it. Part of that is being efficient. If we controlled the costs, we could actually help more people on the same amount.
ujlapana, is your “gift” comment directed at me? I wasn’t referring to taxes as gifts. I was saying that when a parent buys a home, preschool, clothes, etc. for their children, that is a gift.
Peter, I agree that taxes are essential. But, we are out of control with our spending in the U.S. Our government is wasteful and inefficient - on both sides. There is as much corruption and self-serving in the Republicans as the Democrats in congress. Both are complicit. Considering that, I personally prefer the presidential candidate who is saying “Let’s get this out-of-control spending under control and keep our taxes down” to the one who is saying, “More government, more government, more taxes”. Of course, promises don’t always translate to results (our current administration is a pretty good example of that. Has probably hurt the conservative cause more than anyone else I can think of), but I still agree with the ideas more on the right.
Cindy, that is a really disappointing story. People like that hurt conservative causes as much as people committing welfare fraud hurt liberal causes. It’s really too bad we all can’t be more considerate and thoughtful of each other.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 9:03 am
IMO, this healthcare problem is going to have to be solved in a bipartisan fashion. We don’t really help by standing in a box and demonizing the other side (not saying that anyone here is doing that - just talking in generalities). I read over both McCain’s and Obama’s health care proposals again last night. I prefer McCain’s, but honestly, there are parts of Obama’s that I agree with too. That’s kind of been my point throughout (again, probably not made well) - neither party has a monopoly on all the best ideas, and if either side “wins”, there will be a lot of angry people leftover. Both sides think they are “right”. I think we need a lot more working together and discussing the problems than calling names.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 9:10 am
My comment is not showing up, so here it is again. Sorry if it is a repeat:
A utopian society would be ideal. Theoretically, I prefer the United Order. The problem is human weakness: greed, pride, dishonesty, lack of integrity. Ironically, IMO, these are the same human weaknesses that are causing the existing health care system in the U.S. to fail. It is too bad we can’t solve the human weakness problem. In the Book of Mormon, when the people are living Zionist principles, they have all in common, no poor among them, and EVERYONE becomes more prosperous. It’s an interesting phenomenon that doesn’t seem to make sense from a self-preservation point of view.
However, we can’t solve the human weakness problem because of this free agency thing, so IMO, a capitalist system (with proper regulations to provide protections) does a better job of protecting individual liberties and providing the opportunity for prosperity (both on a micro and a macro level) than socialism.
And that said, our current health care system is something that I think can be solved by navigating more to the principles from the right, but definitely not without input, ideas and insight from the left. I guess that’s where I stand, so I’ll stop thinking outloud.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 9:58 am
elise, what are the 3 posts? i’m pretty sure my biking post has nothing to do with bullying capitalists (or maybe it does, hmmm……)
anyways, Not Ophelia merely put a link to an opposing viewpoint of one of our readers, who, if you didn’t notice, didn’t argue with your opinion. she thought to post her response to your views on her own personal space and fMh thought it was lovely and linked to it.
your views are welcome here, it’s when you speak of the poor as “them” and “they” and lump the poor into a leaching, lazy, government teet sucking group that we (the permas) get frustrated.
nobody said you couldn’t express your opinion here. you’ve done it on other threads and the permas never chided you (or did they)
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Yup.
I tried to apply for foodstamps when I was a single, working, college-student parent and got turned down because I had too much. Let me tell you… the people on food stamps actually NEED them. I needed them, and even I could not get them.
Comment by sare — June 4, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Elise, I understand where you are coming from. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to stand up for what you believe and not back down. I’ve agreed with you on some things and disagreed on others, but I have appreciated that you are a strong, opinionated woman.
After my first few days on FMH, I vowed to never come back, but it is just too addicting (ask my husband - he tried to change the filter so I couldn’t access it. To be fair, I have asked for help for my “addiction” LOL). Then, I was publicly [almost] asked to leave. But, a kind permablogger (who may want to remain anon - I’m not sure) convinced me to come back and give it a try. It is sometimes hard because I have to both: 1. seek not to offend and 2. seek not to be offended. I admit that I am learning a lot. Considering that my objective in life is to “find truth”, and I really don’t have an agenda to push (besides just trying to share what I have learned if I think it might help someone else), I have learned a lot from this site. It’s not always comfortable, but I like interacting with people who have different views. Not to say that I really have made any friends here (I was honestly astonished at the kind words directed my way earlier in this thread), but I do enjoy being here.
I would give you a suggestion to take a step back (or a break for a few days to cool off) and try again, really being careful to 1. seek not to offend, and 2. seek not to be offended. It is HARD. I seem to offend people easily. But, your opinions do have value and are legitimate. You just have to be careful in the delivery. And put yourself in the shoes of the people you are speaking to. It may even sometimes change your views. (I’m learning the hard way - but I am still a Republican
and I still tick people off when I bring up politics).
And, if I agree with you, I’ll back you up!
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 10:53 am
aw shucks…
and stephanie, that’s mighty kind and good advice. to anyone reading any blog.
this is not personal. these threads would not be nearly as interesiting or thought provoking if we all kept our mouths shut and said, “yes, that’s nice”
many of us have done that for way too long, wouldn’t you say?
elise, check your email. i responded to you.
m
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 11:05 am
#40 That’s you?! I wondered initially if it was the same “Stephanie” who had posted before but concluded that it couldn’t possibly be because the other Stephanie was so self-righteous and defensive and the new Stephanie was so earnest and inquisitive, although the two did seem to share a political bent…I am ridiculously impressed with you, Stephanie. I don’t agree with some of your opinions but I’ve never seen anyone apply themselves to being open to divergent views as rapidly as you have. It’s a skill I wish I had. When I’m wounded or defensive I comfort myself by thinking terribly unkind things about the offending person. Cold comfort. Oh, who am I kidding, sometimes it can be very comforting. Yours is infinitely better, though. Good on you.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 4, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Thank you, CWC. I have been working on my humility.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 11:24 am
i’m pretty sure that’s about the nicest compliment one could ever receive.
i’ve got tears in my eyes. man. i love you guys.
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 11:26 am
In fact, I thought about using a new moniker, but then what kind of integrity would that show? (Besides, the permabloggers would be on to me . . . )
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Yes, it is an extremely nice compliment. Thank you, again.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Has Mr. Chandelle considered a career change? Something with a higher salary and good insurance?
The company I work for recruits all over the mountain west, provides very good insurance, prorated based on salary level. Starting salary well into the 1% range of the global rich list.
Comment by MAC — June 4, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Stephanie, you’ve inspired me to submit my first ever guest post, “Learning From the Other Side,” which I will finish and submit as soon as my little 6 month old tires of having his tummy bitten. As long as he’s squealing delightedly, I am captive to his cuteness…maybe we can work on a joint post in the future?
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 4, 2008 @ 11:51 am
CWC
fmhmfranti at gmail dot com
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Sounds good to me. I would love it!
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 11:56 am
I for one am a big Ayn Rand fan. (*ducks to avoid swooping blows*
). My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged, and I would recommend it to anyone whether they subscribe to Rand’s objectivism or not just ‘cause it’s a fantastic story and an American Classic.
I do not find that liking and even mostly subscribing to the philosophy presented in Atlas Shrugged contradicts my beliefs in the gospel. The United Order will work when Christ is in charge of it, and I don’t believe before that. Until then, it’s up to individual people to choose to be Christ-like. I don’t see how forcing people to pay for Universal Healthcare is Christ-like. It eliminates personal choice as to what we do with our money. And in fact, I feel that any form of government socialism in our current mortal state is closer to following Satan’s plan due to the elimination of choices.
I do believe that there is and should be a safety net for those people who for whatever reason fall on hard times and need some help getting back on their feet. We currently have a program in place for that, and while yes, it needs improvement, is much better than forcing everyone under a universal program.
Last year, a close relative of mine died due to Amyloidosis. He was blessed enough to have good health care insurance from his employer after an early retirement (early only because of his illness), and so was able to undergo the expensive treatments and experimental medications necessary to prolong his life for two years. Now, that wasn’t long, but who can measure the value of two years? He was able to spend time with his children and his wife, time he wouldn’t have had under a universal healthcare system, because if the US had socialized medicine during that time, those treatments wouldn’t have been made available to him.
Comment by nb — June 4, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Uh oh. I think there’s another observer now.
Comment by Observer — June 4, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
34:
Martie,
Are you talking about the government of any particular country? Or are you talking about government in general? If so, what is it about government that makes it inherently worse than any other human endeavor at providing services on a large scale? What would be better–well-meaning but incompetent volunteers? Profit-driven corporations who consult actuarial tables before weighing the cost/benefit of treating your illness? What third way would you recommend?
35:
Stephanie,
True, but what’s the alternative? Government is here to stay–why not work to improve its effectiveness and enhance its efficiency as an alternative to paying the taxes it demands but running away screaming when it plows that income back into the health of its taxpayers?
Comment by Peter LLC — June 4, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Peter, you’re kind of making my point for me, but I don’t necessarily feel that the government would plow the income back into the health of the taxpayers. I think it sounds good, but that a lot of it would be wasted in the same inefficiences and fraud if that isn’t fixed first.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Stephanie–I’ll agree with you that the government is inefficient. However, I’d like to point out that companies aren’t better–in fact, when it comes to health insurance companies, the government is more efficient. In this article it’s suggested that nationalized health care would save enough to cover all the currently uninsured–without asking anyone to spend more. They also note (speaking of the medicare drug bill),
So, yeah, in terms of efficiency I’d rather give money to the government, which seems to spend more of the money we give it on actually covering people. If the insurance industry were actually more efficient (as so many economists say they should be) I’d have no problem just staying with the current system. As it stands, we Americans spend more than any other industrialized nation in order to not insure more than 10% of our population. Seems less than efficient to me.
nb–Why will the United Order suddenly work once Christ is in charge?
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
I’m sorry-just not getting you good people.
Both graduates,married a man with good prospects and did the right thing for us,went ahead and had the babies.Took out the mortgage.Next month the job ends-not redundancy so no pay out.and so it goes-25 years and counting both been out of work too many times to count,and yet he worked days and I worked nights when the work was there.My point is we tried to do the right thing,but it’s the economy dummy.We are at the mercy of forces bigger than ourselves and i am so grateful to live in a state that gives basic maintenance and here in the UK hooray for socialised health care with all of it’s inadequacies and inefficiencies.I challenge you to find me the woman with diabetes who thinks otherwise.I just don’t care if I pay more into the system than I get out,because I am my brothers keeper and I don’t know any doctors!These things happen to real people,not just losers,and we’re all just a day away from a crisis.You heard it first here.
Comment by wayfarer — June 4, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
I’m going to try and post one last time and see how ‘hammered’ I get. I’ve never gotten personal with any post, yet Chandelle’s post was a direct reference to my comments I made. That stated, what I’m about to say I do it in the spirit of peace and not trying to attack.. I speak the word “you” generally and am simply using the posters story as the situationaly example since it was put out there for the sake of argument. so take it for what’s it worth…
1) In every single profession there are trade offs. For Mr. Chandelle, I’m sure there are aspects about his career that he loves - otherwise he wouldn’t be doing it. Loving one’s work is a luxury and the trade off could be earning potential. I’m also quite sure he is home more often than others in a profession that makes more, but expects 80+ hours a week in work.
That said, it was a choice to pick a profession and the pros and cons that go with it. If you aren’t happy, then leave the profession and go to a higher paying one (they are out there as another posted listed). I’m a little put out that when someone has a lower income profession - but has other benefits I listed above, they expect to be floated financially by others who picked professions that make more but have other negatives that go with it (time, stress, etc etc).
For me, the thought some feel entitled to help just because they are in low paying professions bother me. Get a 2nd job, or switch jobs… yes, you may love what you do but again.. that’s a trade off right? But to expect my family to be FORCED to help your family through social taxes really bothers me. We make sacrifices, albiet different ones, but we do too… and so in the end, our sacrifices mean less since the point of them was to earn more for various objectives and it is taken from us to help out your family due to your decisions.
2) Yes we need preschool workers… but I believe that the markets will fuel a higher wage if people refused to work there based on the low salary. Demand would increase wages and in the end, I would pay more to put my kid in it (which I would gladly do as that is my CHOICE)… Just like when fast food couldn’t find workers, they had to increase the wage so too does the market play out when supply and demand are leveled.
3) I believe no one should feel ‘entitled’ to support from the ‘whole’ because they are “down and out”. Just because you are barely making it, doesn’t mean society should jump in to help. I’ve known many people who were very poor and chose not to use entitlements… they DID move themselves by their boot straps and were better people for it. They worked sometimes 3 jobs at a time, and mainly taught their children how important education is. Their children learned from the parents and became financially successful due to the parents ethic.
4) I do believe in helping others, as does the Church. I believe it should be done freely, without force from the Government and by way of the Spirit. If that means someone is stingy with their income, they will reap the consequences eternally, but I do not believe Jesus ever wanted a nation to become that of coercion and force.
Well.. that’s it. It’s very hard to feel that all the permas are on one side of the issue (and subsequently posted blog links favoring that side) but not posting any well thought out arguments on the side. There are points on both sides and to only showcase one side doesn’t make those who feel different feel very welcome when they know they will get attacked immediately by everybody. Anyway, I got an email saying someone liked me… so I”m hoping that’s the case. I enjoy FMH and was really hurt that permas are only ’showcasing’ the side they agree with.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Yay Elise for coming back! I don’t have time to read your comment yet (got to pick up kids), but I’m glad you did.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
“Taxation is the price you pay for civilisation”!?
Comment by wayfarer — June 4, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Wayfarer.. tell that to the Founding Fathers / Mothers.
Infastructure taxation is very different from ’social programs’
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Elise–Maybe we look at putting money into social programs differently. I’m all for putting money into social programs because I see them as an investment in human capital. The money the government spends on educating its populace and creating a healthy, productive workforce comes back many times in terms of increased taxes and a better quality of life for everyone. I get the impression that’s not how you see government welfare–is that right?
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
kristine N,
Because Christ is a perfect person with a perfect understanding of each of our needs/feelings/desires. He is just and fair. He will know how to execute the United Order in such a way that is totally fair to all those who choose to enter into it. I also have faith that he will be able to do this without hindering our individual choices, after all, in the pre-existence, he was the one who was all for personal agency and choices!
Comment by nb — June 4, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Elise,i enjoy having an opportunity to hear how this works for you.But here’s the thing.Changed profession several times and worked the multiple jobs.Refused to go to the state and educated ourselves several times over.Have no family.Several bereavements and long term sickness in several family members concurrently,limiting time available for work.Now too old to be interns.Thank God for the NHS.This stuff happens to the self reliant and educated too.I wonder if there is some way we have brought our ill-health on our selves?Perhaps we overworked.
Comment by wayfarer — June 4, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Elise,
Thanks for your comments.
-sorry forgot to post that on my last comment!
Comment by nb — June 4, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
You are correct Kristine, I do not view government welfare in the same way you do. I can understand the government getting involved in the event of a catastrophe / short term emergency, but when people feel the government or rather society “owes” them something because they don’t make as much as others… for whatever reason, that’s where I take issue, and like nb said, I too believe that the law of consecration is just because Christ is at the head. We will be FREE to decide to participate, it will be fair to all, everyone will do their share, and no one will be able to ‘abuse’ the system like happens often now.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
thanks you guys… With how the other post was abruptly stopped and then this new post put in… (and since I was the Ayn Rand person)… I felt pretty low this morning…
I’ve never tried to be offense and the funny thing is my ward thinks I’m too liberal for them.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
One of my children is extremely successful in her field.I believe it is her responsibilty to help her brothers and sisters.Are we not all brothers and sisters?Whilst we must always address waste and fraud,I would far rather err on the side of safety in knowing that my brethren and sisters were provided for than hold onto my hard earned cash.In fact I consider it my privelege to contribute to the commonwealth as I am able.Our family motto has become-’it is the job of the strong to help the weak’ I’ts been a hard lesson to learn.
Comment by wayfarer — June 4, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Wayfarer,
I see your point, and I agree that it is very important to help our fellow human-beings out when they need it. Like the hymn says: Because I have been given much I too must give.
The point is to where and how much should be up to our own choice. (Hopefully with prayer and inspiration from above involved!) However, the government forcing our wealth away from us is not a choice, it’s tyranny. I want to choose where my money goes and how much. I have been blessed with a paycheck, that money is now under my jurisdiction and I am responsible for where it goes. I am grateful for that responsibility and that blessing. It should be up to the individual to be their brother’s and sister’s keepers. We should be allowed those blessings, not robbed from it by the government!
Elise - ever thought about starting a mormon-libertarian blog? - I’ll be happy to come up with some posts!
Comment by nb — June 4, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Wayfarer…
For me, it’s about CHOICE - tithing is a CHOICE and no child should be forced into it. I believe your daughter should be able to learn and decide for herself how to handle her wages and labors. If she sees and feels prompted to help her siblings, then so be it. But if said siblings EXPECT help from her… then really, who needs the lesson in humility? What of brothers and sisters that are ‘idle’? Should we support them in their idleness? I know some who rather than attempt to save themselves.. wait and wait for assistance.
D&C 42:42, “Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.”
For me, one should never be FORCED to help others, it should be by the spirit. And those receiving help should never wait around expecting it either. They should be working diligently in finding solutions for themselves and for their future generations -education. The Church, when it attempted the law of consecration was very particular about how much work/tithe each family was putting in. They wanted fairness and were rather strict about work ethic.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Elise - ever thought about starting a mormon-libertarian blog? - I’ll be happy to come up with some posts! —- nb
I’d be so there.
And welcome all the Repubs, Democrats, Socialists, Communists too! 
There’s so many sides of the same coin… to me it ALL falls down to agency and Freedom.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Elsie, 57
Very well put.
Comment by MAC — June 4, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
I’m not a big hitter in the health care debate (I’m still learning about a lot of it) (so be easy on me), but I would like to know, honestly, what is the difference between using government money to provide things like universal fire and police protection and using government money to provide universal health care? And I don’t think that “emergency” status argument cuts it–police and fire depts. are called for a range of situations and help us in day-to-day situations. I don’t see health care as being all that different–you have emergencies and you have day-to-day stuff.
I’m interested in learning more about the Swiss system. I watched the Frontline report ‘Sick Around the World‘ when somebody linked to it here on fMh (I think it was Lisa), and while they spent the least amount of time on Switzerland, it seemed like the most promising system, with the closest conditions to our own–including the opposition to it before it got voted in (barely). Now many former critics & naysayers are quite supportive of it.
Comment by Artemis — June 4, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
MAC–it may be a luxury, but it’s a luxury that benefits us all. If people are happy at work, they tend to be more productive, both producing and earning more. There really is benefit to making sure people are doing things they enjoy and are good at.
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Kristine,
The problem with that is not every job or title could be enjoyable - but it must get done. How many of us want the title of Trash Collector or Cattle Culler
I think the joy is that you know you did an honest days work for an honest days pay… To me, you don’t have to ‘like’ the job to be happy in life - and if you have a choice between making more or liking your profession.. that will be a choice up to you.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Elise-of course it is essential that she choose to help her brethren and sisters.It is essential for her progression for her to get her head around her responsibilty for her brethren and sisters.Would it be right for her to choose to do otherwise with the time talents and abilities that have been provided for her from our resources?As parents we would be distressed were she to choose otherwise,especially knowing as we do how generous her siblings are with what they have to give her,and would give her more had they more to give.
Comment by wayfarer — June 4, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
To add to the question put forward by Artemis -
Can people in Australia, Canada, or Switzerland sue their health care providers? Malpractice insurance premiums for Ob-Gyns in the U.S. now exceed $100,000 per annum. In order to bring costs down, it would seem to me that we need to fix that, but I don’t know how. When the government is directly involved, can people sue the government if there are problems? I hope somebody who knows can tell us.
Comment by Mark IV — June 4, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Artemis,
Police and fire services are generally very localized, and are funded for the most part from taxes that are collected locally.
There is nothing to keep a community from instituting a local health care scheme. There would be local accountability and there the cost would be visible to the payers in the form of property and excise taxes. The market drivers would be similar to those which motivate communities to improve their school systems in order to attract the right kind of residents.
The analogy is actually pretty strong, you want to see what health care would look like? Think US public schools, some very good, some very, very bad.
Comment by MAC — June 4, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Granted, not all jobs are fun, but to be honest, the best paying ones are the ones that require much effort be expended in prepping for them. The choice isn’t usually between well-paying and enjoyable–it’s between expedient now and moderately well paying, or poorly compensated now with the promise of greater compensation later.
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Wow, Robert, if your comment wasn’t so funny, I might actually be offended.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
The idea of finding joy in “an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” is theoretically fine. Real life is, of course, much more complicated than that. Many of the sorts of less desirable jobs out there are not only less stimulating, but don’t provide compensation adequate to meet our needs. In other words, the worker is providing an honest day’s work, but they are not receiving an honest day’s pay.
Further, I think there are many careers out there for which the term “honest day’s work” is a misnomer. Oh, they may be perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the world. But our standards should be higher. For example, when I got my degree in graphic design, there were many jobs available working for firms doing marketing for Ford, or Frito Lay, or various console gaming companies. But is it really an honest day’s work to essentially be involved in selling things people don’t need (and which are actually unhealthy for them), for money they don’t really have, in order to make enormous profits for people who are already loaded? I don’t really consider that an honest day’s work. Is day trading really a noble profession? Or all those who sucked people into loans they couldn’t really afford, and caused this housing fiasco? What many of them did was perfectly legal, and even industry standard. But was it really an honest days work?
So I really do believe there is more to just liking whatever job you happen to find available, or to get whatever you can find to make money.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
There may be a benefit, but not a net benefit.
I would love to not have to work the hours that I do and make the sacrifices that I do so that my family is financially secure, has good insurance and a pension.
If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.
Comment by MAC — June 4, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
So, MAC, how would you characterize the net effect of the GI bill on our national economy, since that was a government subsidized program that allowed an unprecedented number of people to go to college and work at previously unobtainable white collar jobs? ‘Cause everything I’ve ever seen says investing in the earning power of WWII veterans was an incredible plus for this country economically.
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Kristine,
I will agree with you about the now/later thing.
Many kids drop out of school to help their parents in the short term, only find it would have been better to let said parents struggle and help them and themselves better through education.
There’s a book (true story) - “THE GLASS CASTLE” I really loved which had parents doing EVERYTHING to undermine their kids yet the kids ended up successful on their own while the parents ENJOYED staying homeless. They enjoyed the lifestyle.
Derek,
I too am a designer and nothing we market is ‘needed’… We don’t sale water, nor the Gospel, nor veggies etc. etc. I choose my clients and turn down some (like annoying MLM companies - usually in Provo) because I disagree with the premise. That is a LUXURY I have because my husband supplies the majority of income. If I had to feed my family, I would be less discerning.
Unless you are in the service industry, you will find that most jobs aren’t ‘needed’ so you can’t look at it like this. Like anyone needs a couch from RCWilleys… etc.
I am proud of earning a wage for my efforts… but graphic design is not my love.. it is a means (money) to be able to do my love… sculpture.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
kristine - that article is put forth by a group with a liberal agenda, so I have to take it with a grain of salt. Honestly, I just don’t believe the numbers. I think that government is inefficient because it doesn’t have an incentive to be efficient. Need more money? Tax the people some more and print more paper money. Private companies have an incentive to reduce waste because they have the goal of profit. Whether you want to argue that profit is “waste” is debatable.
I learned a lot from deregulation of electricity in Texas. Supposedly deregulation was supposed to bring in this free market that would bring down costs. Actually, what happened is that the company that controls all the infrastructure is now a monopoly that is not regulated. So, they charge as much as they want to the “free market companies” and we get to shop from those. What a joke. Some industries aren’t meant to be completely free market.
In the case of health care, I don’t know. It’s not a single commodity like electricity. But, currently, the insurance companies are acting like an oligopy. I think regulation to control that would be effective - one place to start.
Mark, tort reform would also be a great place to start.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Elise,
Jeanette Wall’s book literally changed my life. It kind of gave me a road map about how to make sense of my own childhood. I love that book! (ps: i nearly named my daughter elise…instead it’s her middle name) ♥
Comment by Blue — June 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Yes, Elise little that we market is needed. But far to much of the marketing industry simply promotes conspicuous consumption and wealth redistribution to those who already have. Not a very moral system. And I don’t buy the typical libertarian/objectivist line that they’re “just filling a need.” No more than pimps or drug dealers. We need to set our sights higher. “In the world but not of the world” should mean more than just low hemlines, high necklines, and silly expletives.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Stephanie–I don’t buy the argument that private companies have more incentive to reduce waste than the government does. Private companies spend quite a bit more on administrative costs than medicare and medicaid do (12% vs. 4% of budget) because they habitually deny claims. It’s not more efficient to do things that way, but it’s the way the business works–deny everything and make customers jump through as many hoops as possible to have a claim paid.
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Kristine,
Have you read about Walmart lately? They are getting into the health care field and making ‘basic’ things very affordable with little overhead. I get my prescriptions there without insurance and pay $4. They also do childhood vaccienes and asthma care etc etc… NOw that they are doing it, others are following and all are hell bent to lower the costs… King Soopers and walgreens offer $4 prescriptions now too.
This is an example of how if you allow a competition in a free market society to happen, it will be quicker, more agile, and less red tape than any governmental dept - PLUS we don’t have to pay for it… Walmart front it’s own profits into the clinics. I posted a link on the c-section post describing some really cool things going on in the private sector that Bush promised years ago for gov health care and still isn’t being done.
My grandpa was in the legislature and he always said any change in the Government is like trying to make a sandstone arch with wind and water.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Blue,
That book was amazing I recommend it to everyone.
I like my name too.. although I just noticed someone else used it in another thread… hmmmmmm
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Of course, for a true libertarian, Wal-Mart and its incredible reliance on corporate welfare should raise all sorts of hackles. Too few supposedly free-market advocates realize that corporatism has little to do with a free-market.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Elise, I think you might be assuming a lot about chandelle’s husband. I don’t know him personally, so I don’t know why he is a preschool teacher. There could be a multitude of reasons. I think it is dangerous to jump to conclusions about his choice of profession (it might not even be his profession - it might be a temp job to get them through). Here are a couple of other things I have learned on this blog:
1. Be sure to try to clarify the intent, assumptions, implications of anything before making a judgement call.
2. Better yet, withhold judgement, particularly with regard to a specific person.
3. Be sure to read any comment several times before responding. A lot of the time I will find that I misread it the first time.
Elise, I like you. I want you to stay. I, too, am [almost] libertarian. If I were chandelle, I would jump all over you right now for making assumptions about my husband and his current job (for example, and let me reiterate that I don’t know chandelle’s husband, but I have a brother-in-law who will probably only ever make minimum wage. He just doesn’t have the capacity to do more. If he gets married and decides to have a family, his wife will likely have to support them). In fact, I kind of want to jump all over you on chandelle’s behalf. But, I’m going to refrain and just suggest that you carefully read your comments before posting them to see if they could be hurtful.
Your opinions on choosing a profession are very valid. I agree with them. But, the assumptions with regard to his particular job are what get me.
Also, IMO, there is a more liberal bias here on FMH. And I get jumped on a lot. But, it’s still fun.
But far to much of the marketing industry simply promotes conspicuous consumption and wealth redistribution to those who already have.
TRUE TRUE TRUE
kristine, okay, I am going to agree to disagree on this one. Yes, private companies can waste, but I think the government is a huge, wasteful mess, and I am not crazy about the idea of throwing more money at it.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Too few supposedly free-market advocates realize that corporatism has little to do with a free-market.
Another true story.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Kristine, 82
Not quite sure why you are asking me this question, but since you did, I will respond.
If you are talking about the educational benefits of the current Montgomery GI bill, it all depends on which degrees are selected by the recipients.
Though the GI bill does not exist as an entitlement program. Participants choose to contribute to be eligible and the legislation is written so that it is considered compensation.
That said, to suggest that the renumeration that our servicemen and women receive for their service is some sort of welfare may raise a few hackles.
Comment by MAC — June 4, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
MAC–you’re the one who said,
“If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.”
which I think completely misses the point of subsidizing educational opportunities. Allowing people to pursue education, and paying for basic necessities while they do it, is an investment in the future earning potential of those involved–both for the individual and the government in terms of tax receipts. It’s not just about having a more enjoyable job, it’s also about having a better-paying job, and, especially in Chandelle’s husband’s case, performing a job that is needed in our society.
Comment by kristine N — June 4, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Stephanie,
The only reason I used one person’s profession as the starting point of my argument is because it was put forth as such. They posted their very personal story as an attempt to illustrate a concept and persuade readers to understand their side. Indeed, the opening sentence of was “It is a thing of persuasion and clarity and heart-rending reality.” I’m simply showing the other side of the story given the facts listed that’s all.
We do the same every post when someone posts their story and issue - remember Eric and his “should my daughter get baptized?” post. People used Eric’s situation/story to either debate against it or promote. Eric put it out there and thus it became a stance in the posts. We all speak from personal experience… I think everyone does and a lot post their personal experiences here. That doesn’t mean they are off limits to point out differences or contradictions you see.
It is very true I know nothing but what was posted. I don’t know the history, nor do I claim to know it of any particular person. To post a personal story for a motivation on why ‘Ayn Rand’ posters are wrong, then expect all the (or just me) Ayn Rand posters to stay mum out of respect is, I hope not what was intended. otherwise it’s like… “Here’s my personal feelings about why welfare is important but no one can say anything contrary or if you find holes in my argument.”
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Dang, I can’t link to the post (work firewall prevention– grrr). Can someone tell me if Chandelle works? Certainly living on one low-paying income (it appears her DH is a pre school teacher) would be a really tough road. But did Chandelle know his choice of profession beforehand? And if she did, certainly she was prepared and accepting of the hardship? And if not, there are ways to ease that burden, correct? Since I can’t link to the post, it may be addressed in the article.
Comment by Lulubelle — June 4, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Stephanie,
What did Elise say that was so offensive? What post #? I tried to re-read some of hers and all i saw was an observation that if a person chooses a profession that is lower paying and has no benifits, that is their choice and they shouldn’t feel entitled to other’s in this country to support them. —That’s an opinion, how is that offensive? Was there another post I just missed?
Comment by nb — June 4, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Nb,
I’m assuming she meant #57. My long winded stance about jobs.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
I don’t understand how anybody who has witnessed true poverty could possibly believe in libertarianism.
Several years ago, I was a student at a prominent Egyptian university that catered for very wealthy Egyptians and ex-pats. I was not wealthy; I was having to stretch my limited college funds to afford the tuition, room and board. Almost immediately, I formed a friendship with a small group of American students, who in turn formed a friendship with a small group of Egyptian students. The Egyptian students were the elite of their society: they drove Mercedes, had unlimited pocket money, frequented expensive nightclubs and five-star restaurants. They were also nice, funny people. I liked them. I wanted to hang out with them.
Almost every evening, they would pick us up in a fleet of brand-new vehicles, and we would go out on the town. They would debate where to go - This nightclub is terrific, or, That restaurant has the best lamb, or, Why don’t we do this instead? And I would sit quietly in the back seat, furtively counting my pounds and figuring out how best to spend them: Well, if we go to the nightclub, there’ll be a cover charge, but cokes are cheap so I should be able to cover the cover charge and a coke. Well, if we go to the restaurant, I’ll take advantage of being white - they won’t kick me out if I only order a drink and I’m white - I’ll just order a thalib and nurse it, and I’ll say I’m not hungry, and I’m sure Jill won’t mind if I take a bite off her plate. I was, without a doubt, the poorest person in the car.
And then, inevitably, as I was worrying about my lack of money, I would look out into the street and see a man crossing the street on his hands because he had no legs; or a child digging through a pile of rubbish, the tell-tale pot-belly belying the fact that he hadn’t eaten in far too long; and suddenly I would be ashamed: I was rich. I was the richest person in the world.
When I tried to point out the legless man, or the starving child, my Egyptian friends would shrug and say, “Yeah, someone should do something.” Someone - but not them. Private individuals do not step into the void. We are too selfish, too self-centered, to care. When Reagan turned the mentally ill into the streets, who stepped in? When the housing market took a dive and working poor had to vacate, who stepped in? Nobody cares about the poor; it is much easier to say, “Well, they brought it on themselves; they should have made better choices.” But the boy who is digging through trash to find something to eat - he did not bring it on himself. The man who got in a car accident and lost his legs and with it, his livelihood - he did not bring it on himself. They are victims of circumstance.
The free market won’t solve the problem. Corporations care only for the bottom line. They don’t care for the poor; they don’t care for the environment; they care for their shareholders. Individuals won’t solve the problem. They care only for themselves. So who is there to care for “the least of these”? In a Western-style liberal democracy, there is only the government.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
That was the one I re-read. Thanks!
Comment by nb — June 4, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Kristine, 94
“If you want to love your job and chase your dreams go for it, just don’t complain because others don’t want to subsidize your selfish self-fulfillment.”
Comment by MAC — June 4, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
The free market won’t solve the problem. Corporations care only for the bottom line. They don’t care for the poor; they don’t care for the environment; they care for their shareholders. Individuals won’t solve the problem. They care only for themselves. So who is there to care for “the least of these”? In a Western-style liberal democracy, there is only the government. ——————Quimby
Wow… tell that to the Charities around the world doing good. My husband is joining Engineers without Borders to build wells (out of our own pocket)… Tell that to the Churches… did you know Christian Charities helped more Katrina victims (and still are) than Government? P.S. The mississippi gov is diverting Gov funds to build roads for Casinos instead of housing…
Government is a slow moving, potentially corrupt agency that TAKES peoples money and doesn’t use it the best. Have you not read about all the ‘insider contracts’ with Katrina and how much was wasting was going on?
I believe it’s the individuals that DO make the most difference, whether Mother Teresa, or Bill Gates. Through the Spirit of God they are prompted to give ‘Freely’.
I couldn’t disagree more with your assertion.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Elise, you are, frankly, living in a dream world. Go back and read your social contract theory.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Quimby, you make a very crucial point. I don’t believe government is the only, or the entire, solution for social injustice. But I absolutely believe that it has a role to play. On my own blog, I wrote a trilogy of essays regarding social justice and the conservative and libertarian critiques of social justice. One of my primary points about the libertarian critique is that while it (libertarianism) on one hand is based on the very important principle of freedom, its argument is substantially weakened by the fact that few if any libertarian voices are actively promoting a comprehensive, sustained, effort to act compassionately and promote social justice through voluntary methods. Instead, they choose to focus on self-reliance, and individual enterprise. Ultimately, they either covertly (in the case of Friedman) or overtly (in the case of Rand) promote greed and selfishness. Libertarians, Objectivists, and others of the Friedman/Rand ilk need to remember that the Savior never promoted those values.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Dead wrong about the charities and Katrina, Elise. The Road Home $$ being used to help people rebuild their homes in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast has a budget of $7.5 billion. Charity can’t touch that.
Comment by Ann — June 4, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I wonder if anyone else sees the irony in Elise complaining that Bush didn’t do enough for Katrina, when Bush espouses the closest thing to liberatarianism we have seen in a president in a very long time . . . .
Derek, thank you for your excellent critique.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Huh? I’m not talking about Bush… I’m saying that Government is a potentially corrupt system of ’scratch your back, you’ll scratch mine.” Here’s a link… BILLIONS of dollars were diverted in Miss.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/25/katrina/main3754365.shtml
Anyway, it is ordinary people who do the most good. and the Road Home Charity is a PRIVATE organization. According to Quimby private Orgs do nothing.
Sigh. Christ was in favor of Charity and Service, but not Governmental Force and coercion.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
To be fair, Quimby, Bush doesn’t espouse anything like libertarianism. He promotes corporatism: do whatever it takes to promote business and wealthy elites (who happen to be his buddies), even when it means sacrificing market principles. Corporate welfare for Wal-Mart and Exxon, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, allowing Enron to come in and craft the federal energy policy…Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of libertarianism because of the selfishness/self-centeredness/lack of compassion at the root of the arguments of so many of its advocates. But if we are going to be honest, we should distinguish between the intellectually consistent and fairly honorable political perspective of libertarianism and the completely morally bankrupt corporatist ideology.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Elise, I never said that private organisations do nothing. I said that private individuals fall far short. There is a distinction.
As a theory, libertarianism collapses very easy upon itself. It is not a stable, sustainable political theory, and it is certainly not practical. Again, go back and read your social contract theory.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Derek, that’s a very fair point. But even so, Bush would like to see a social contract that is reduced to nothing more than post office and military - which is very much your classical libertarianism - although I’m pretty sure if push came to shove he’d also include “money for his cronies”. And I would still argue that libertarianism is not intellectually consistent; it is a very weak political system.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
I’d actually say that money for his corporate cronies has always been near the top of his agenda, Quimby. But at this point, I’m quibbling. I do indeed have strong reservations about libertarian ideology.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Derek, I’m not disagreeing. I should have been clearer: Publically he likes to play at being a libertarianism. He would only come out and admit to money for his cronies being near or at the top of his agenda if push came to shove. Privately, it’s all about more money, more money, more money.
Although, to be fair, when I was studying politics - way back in the good ol’ days of Clinton I - Jimmy Carter was always brought up as an example of politicians helping themselves; apparantly he pushed for quite a few bits of legislation that were incredibly beneficial to peanut farmers.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
someone has to be a teacher, a fire(wo)man, police. someone has to be the phlebotomist?who takes your blood to test for cancer and someone has to be the nurse who cares for your child after she’s broken her arm. again, not high paying careers but the individuals who do those “selfish self-fulfillment” occupations are very necessary people.
and don’t get me started on our men and women who serve in the military and what they make for a living…
and for the record, those careers i mentioned (just a few of so many) used to be decent family supporting occupations until those greedy bastards at the top decided to do all they can to do away with the (a real- bona fide , you know, the group of people that made this country so strong) middle-class.
so to tell someone to just go out and get a better, higher paying job is insulting.
in fact,let me try it.
quit your current job and go find a career that will pay you double.
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Ah, the importance of middle class . . .
There is a theory that a middle class is the hallmark of a developed society, and that it is only through the emersion of a middle class that a society can advance from developing to developed.
If we work within that theory, does that mean that the disappearance of a middle class will mark a regression from developed to developing?
And don’t forget the importance of the troisieme etat - they were responsible for the French Revolution, after all.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
which is perhaps a very relevant point if we’re going to be talking about military income - in recent coups, almost all of them have the hallmark of the military overthrowing the government, often because of lack of income . . .
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Teachers make decent wages when you also combine their excellent healthcare benefits and pensions/retirements. (Here it starts at 40K and can go to 60K)
Same with Police/Fire
If you are in the Armed Force you get premium health care too and retirement if you stay in for just 20 years. - no other program offers such benefits at a 20 year point.
You may not make 80K, but with benefits it is a nice profession - even still Mfranti. There are costs and benefits to everything.
My hubby makes more earnings, but there are many costs along with it.
The point is… not one profession you described will keep you in poverty and needing welfare… (the point of the argument) so what exactly is your point?
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
ahhh… quimby
if i liked to type as much as you i would have put all that in my post.
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
I’m not sure where it became about making lots of money. I don’t think anyone on any post says that is the goal.
If you are happy in your job and can feed your kids (as any of the professions you listed can) great.
If you aren’t happy, move to something else. There’s opportunity everywhere…
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
i wasn’t responding to you, elise, but to mac and his comment about careers.
and i thought i was pretty damn clear.
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
If it weren’t for the final three words I’d think perhaps you had read your Socrates after all . . . But then I can’t imagine a libertarian agreeing to something as radical as free borders so that we can all move to find the state that best suits our desires.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
i’d like to address a few questions here.
1. yes, i work. i work part- to full-time from home transcribing psychological evaluations. the work and pay are both erratic, but i can stay home with my daughter, who is 18 months old, too young to be in school.
2. my education costs $100 a month. yes, it is a luxury. but in a year, willow will be old enough to be in her father’s class and i will be finished with my degree and ready to open a practice. that will improve our financial system immeasurably.
3. for this one big issue, i will repost a couple of comments from my blog.
it’s not just about job satisfaction, as to why my husband is at his “dream job” (not really, just a step in that direction) versus more financial security. the truth is that this job has provided us with more financial security than we’ve ever had. for the first time in our marriage we have enough money to fulfill our basic needs such as rent, food and utilities. and the reason that that is so is because when we had kids, and the strain of full-time work and full-time school being 80 miles apart became too much, my husband dropped out of school to take a higher-paying job that had benefits, which most people were of the opinion was the responsible thing to do. when he lost that job (due to outsourcing), he found this job with this school, which is a hugely important step for us financially because while it does not offer health benefits, it does pay him more than any job he’s ever had, and it’s also paying for his education outright so he can certify as a teacher and eventually REALLY have his dream job. it’s just dumb luck that it happens to be a job he loves. if it were not for this job he would have gone back to temping. he doesn’t have a degree and his experience is in either teaching or entry-level office stuff. this job IS what we have of financial security right now. if he were to lose it, he would go back to entry-level or, even worse, temping, and he wouldn’t make as much as he is now. i suppose it’s possible that he’d get health insurance, but we’d be back to not affording housing or food, which i think do take some immediate precedence over healthcare.
i actually agree with all of you entirely - it’s each family’s responsibility to take care of their own. we don’t “live on” the government and in fact we never did, even when we had no income. my point with this post was to say that sometimes we just can’t, even when we have the best intentions, or the best-laid plans; i think this is true of almost everyone during at least one point in our lives, and during those times i think it’s wrong to leave such people to suffer and possibly die because they don’t have the money.
the bottom line is that my husband didn’t take this job just to have job satisfaction at the expense of having a better-paying job with benefits. this IS his better paying job, and when he certifies, he’ll have benefits. when he got this job, you wouldn’t believe how we celebrated. we’ve never had this much money before. and AGAIN, we’re NOT on food stamps, we’re NOT on government assistance, because we are working and providing for ourselves. but those things were there for us when we needed it; being able to eat and survive made it possible for us to work so we could get OFF assistance.
i DO believe that everyone should have healthcare because a healthy population helps everyone. having healthcare is no guarantee of affordability. we actually had pretty great healthcare during my first pregnancy, and my unmedicated, unassisted hospital birth was still $8000 AFTER insurance, a crushing debt for newliweds making entry-level wages.
i’m not sure what exactly i’m asking the government to “compensate” me for, just because my husband happens to have a job he likes. we’re not using any form of government assistance right now because yes, we DID accept that we would struggle while my husband finishes certification and i finish school. we do struggle financially to make ends meet and we might even qualify for a bunch of stuff right now. but we’re providing for ourselves and not asking for anything because it’s okay to struggle sometimes. there’s a big difference, however, between struggling in a two-income household knowing that things are going to get better, and struggling because you have NO work - which sometimes DOES happen through no fault of one’s own - and during those periods my husband and i began temping the very day that our jobs were lost - which brings me to the second point that sometimes the work you have doesn’t cover your basic needs such as rent and food. and switching to a different profession is not always a viable option (though sometimes it is, as it was in the case of my husband).
when i refer to govenment assistance like food stamps and childcare, i’m not saying at all that i am asking for those things right now, or on a regular basis, or anything like that (though sometimes people need those things even when they are working). those things helped us immeasurably the three times we were in terrible jams, and when i think of the possibility of having that assistance removed from the people who depend on it, it makes my blood freeze. i don’t know what we would have done if we hadn’t had food stamps. we were even WORKING and we had nothing left after paying rent and keeping our electricity on; we lived without heat or hot water for the better part of a year, we didn’t have a car, we really didn’t have the money for anything beyond rent and electricity. we had nothing left for food even though both of us were working full time. it would be a terrible thing to have that safety net disappear for people like us - and i know plenty of people in even worse situations. at least we had each other.
i’m asking for everyone to have health insurance because i believe everyone deserves the right to be healthy specifically so they are able to work. it doesn’t actually have anything to do with our present level of income, which seems to be getting a lot of traction here. when and if we get good benefits in the future, i’ll still be shouting for universal healthcare, because for most of us, jobs that “roll in the dough” are pretty rare, and jobs that have good health insurance are also pretty rare.
this is a personal story, yes, but if i hadn’t had a life-threatening illness (which was NOT my choice, just as it was NOT my choice to be so sick i could not work, and it was NOT my choice to be only 18 at the time and have NOTHING i could depend on), and if my son hadn’t been at risk, and if i was wasn’t petrified every day of a medical emergency, i would still be asking for universal healthcare, for EVERYONE, not just for me. EVERYONE benefits from a healthy population.
i’m not asking for more than others because we make less than others. i’m asking for EVERYONE to have this benefit. and i’m mentioning how important it is that there is a safety net there for people who, despite their every attempt at rightness, fall through the cracks. i know that in the great and righteous US of A we’d like to believe that such a thing doesn’t happen, but IT DOES.
my comments about our income are related to the truth that for many of us, we don’t start out as a family with a great (or at least usable) education, benefits, and money to save for retirement, college, and so on. i think most of us can agree that these are all things that MOST of us have to work for, and sometimes they can take a long time in coming, and sometimes they don’t come at all. single mothers working two to three minimum-wage jobs (a regular requirement since so-called welfare reform) probably aren’t saving for the future and probably don’t have health insurance, but i don’t think anybody would point at them and say that they’re not working hard enough, they’re living off the system, so screw them! well, i’m not a single mom, but my husband works his ass off - he may be a preschool teacher, but he also directs the school he works at, so he’s there for a LOT more hours than the typical preschool runs, while still making less than the average utah teacher. and i work several hours a day as well. we have two young children and we work damn hard at raising them well. we are both going into professions that will ultimately pay us pretty well while leaving a lot of time for family because family is the center of our life. we are not slackers. we’re doing the best we can with the CHOICES we have made to live as well as we can, holding our family as the center of our life. again, this job that my husband has may be low-paying by even teacher standards, but it’s a stepping-stone to greater things. i’m NOT asking for universal healthcare because we are low income. i’m asking for it because i don’t think anybody should have to pay to be treated regardless of their income. i’m reflecting on my personal story as evidence that a) it’s not just lazy, stupid people who use the system to get on their feet, b) we all struggle sometimes and THANK GOD for the government, because during those months when we were in sheer hell, we ate, and that helped us to stay alive and find work, and c) no matter how hard some of us work or what we do to try to get ahead, insurance is still going to out of our reach, and it’s to NOBODY’S benefit to have a sick population who cannot work. and even WITH insurance many of us have serious financial problems, as we did after my unmedicated, unassisted hospital birth took up 3/4 of our yearly income (at the time). sicko had a lot of things wrong with it, but most of the people profiled in that movie HAD insurance and still ended up crippled by the system.
my husband loves his job and i am NOT going to apologize for that. but he also chose this profession because he knew he wanted to teach, he knew he wanted to teach in an alternative school, and certified waldorf teachers who work at established schools make more money than most teachers. that’s something to work for, but it doesn’t just fall in our laps. he also chose THIS job because it paid more than anything we’d ever had before and also paid for his certification - which would have set us back at least $20,000, thereby being impossible. it was a responsible decision that my husband made at the time to take this job. i was 20 weeks pregnant and didn’t have a midwife, his job (which did provide benefits) had just been outsourced, and before that almost half of our income had been garnished. i am not exaggerating when i say that this job saved our lives. a career change at this point would be stupid. we just have to push through and in a year things will improve immeasurably. but i will still ask for universal healthcare, because it’s not really about our income. in my post i was simply reflecting on the truth that even with a good income and benefits we can still hit major hardship from healthcare, and we ALL benefit from providing that service to everyone.
i’m bungling this up by talking about it too much; i’m not making sense anymore, so i’ll shut up and stop monopolizing the conversation. i will just this, again: it’s not about our income. it’s about a basic human right to be able to work and provide for our families and contribute to our societies, none of which are possible if we are too sick to work or if we are home with children who can’t be taken to a doctor. i reflected on our low level of income because i was stung by elise’s sweeping judgments about the poor and i felt inspired to point out that those of us who are low-income are not, as she indicated, lazy, whorish or any number of other slurs. i reflected on being low-income because families like ours are more at risk than other families, both for needing healthcare and for being unable to pay for it, and it’s not always so simple as to shout “get a job!” those of you who casually suggest a career change, or that my husband or i are deliberately putting our family at risk for “job satisfaction,” have really missed the point altogether.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
i’m sorry. that was impossibly long and stupid. and elise, i’m very sorry if you were hurt by my post. i posted it in my own space, submitted it to mfranti and then immediately retracted it because i wasn’t prepared for being picked apart and smeared, as i knew i would be, and i’m really more fragile than i seem.
it was picked up by another perma and posted here anyway. and i took personal pot-shots at you because i was horribly offended, and remain so, by what you said in that post. i don’t take back anything i said, but i am sorry because after an initial request, borne of self-righteous indignation, i didn’t intend for it to become so public. hardly anybody reads my blog. it was unfair of me to strike at you personally, and i hope you will accept my apology. i still believe that what you said was cruel and wrong, and i can’t really change my personal attack now, but i didn’t have to direct my comments at yours specifically, and i shouldn’t have.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Of course, the benefits of military service are at least somewhat offset by the potential for deployment, combat action, ptsd and other mental illness, crippling injury, and death…
There isn’t opportunity everywhere for those without college degrees. There isn’t opportunity everywhere for some skill sets and training. There isn’t opportunity everywhere for those with some disabilities. The bottom line is that there are some people for whom no employment opportunity will provide a living wage (let alone access to health care in cases like Chandelle’s), and I’m yet to be convinced that private outlets will provide the charitable aid for all of them–especially when the primary leaders encouraging private rather than public outlets do not make a concerted effort to get private outlets to provide them. We must value the working poor.
Comment by Derek — June 4, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Elise, welcome back. Glad you can hold your feet to the fire.
Quimby, I disagree with these assertions: Private individuals do not step into the void. We are too selfish, too self-centered, to care . . . Corporations care only for the bottom line. They don’t care for the poor; they don’t care for the environment; they care for their shareholders. Individuals won’t solve the problem. They care only for themselves. So who is there to care for “the least of these”? In a Western-style liberal democracy, there is only the government.
Completely disagree. This doesn’t leave any room for individuals to become Christlike and charitable. There are a lot of people who choose not to, but there are a lot of people who choose to. And a lot of them are in corporations doing good things. I don’t really think this is a good argument to say that because noone cares for each other, we should go to socialism or rely solely on the government. Who is the government? People - just as selfish as everyone else.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
permabloggers, help! What am I doing that keeps getting my comments caught up?!?
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Stephanie, I’ll go check the Spam filter. Are you being naughty?
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Teachers make decent wages when you also combine their excellent healthcare benefits and pensions/retirements. (Here it starts at 40K and can go to 60K)
my husband makes $20,000 a year, after two years of work. no benefits. i’m not sure what it is now, but when he was in conventional education (3-5 years ago), teachers started at $19,000 a year.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
That’s the only comment I found of yours, and since it’s directed at something I said . . .
Indviduals on an individual basis might be generous; but it is clearly not enough, and it is not directed properly (eg, it’s very random - You have taken in your relatives who need help, but what of the person who needs help who has no relatives?) Most people will do nothing unless they are persuaded by a guilty conscience; and when we write off the poor as being “lazy, incompetent whores” it’s very difficult to let the guilt in, isn’t it?
Of course not every government will help. The Egyptian government is terribly corrupt. If you give more taxes there, it will just make the president more wealthy. But that’s the thing about living in a dictatorship - dictators don’t care. Bush, for all of his multitude of flaws, is not a dictator; which isn’t to say he wouldn’t be if he was given the chance; but we have a system which will keep him from remaining in power indefinitely. That system means that we can have a say. It means that “the least of these” can band together and make their voices heard. And if there are enough of us, we will have to be listened to, because otherwise we will kick them out.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Stephanie– I know I’ve released a few of your comments today. I’ve had filter issues lately myself. Apparently the filter thinks I’m spam.
Comment by Shelah — June 4, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
i’m not sure what it is now, but when he was in conventional education (3-5 years ago), teachers started at $19,000 a year.
Are we talking actual public school teachers here? If so, that it horrifying!
Comment by SAP — June 4, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
Quimby, okay, I agree with everything you said in #128. I think that most people want to solve the health care crisis and help other people - I just don’t think that all of those people see socialized medicine as the answer. (I sound like a broken record)
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
I knew it - it’s a conspiracy!
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
yes, SAP. it might be different now. my computer is being funky so i can’t look it up. i think i heard that there were improvements. but when my husband was in school a few years ago, studying to be a public junior high biology teacher, that’s what he had to look forward to.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
stephanie, i’m aware that some people who don’t want universal healthcare still do believe the system to be corrupt and broken and want to improve it to make healthcare available to more, or possibly all, people. what are some of your ideas for doing so? i haven’t seen much that looks particularly viable. relying on personal charity, i believe, will not work at all, given, as i said before, that such a large segment of the population believes that people shouldn’t be given healthcare if they can’t afford it.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
i hope that didn’t sound snotty. i really am interested in your ideas, stephanie. i’m willing to consider a true method of making healthcare available to all who need it without “socializing” it.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
That’s terrible. I don’t know how they expect to get quality people in the education system when it pays that poorly. In British Columbia, a first year teacher makes $42,000 and that goes up to $60,000 after 11 years. It’s not dazzling, but it’s enough to live on comfortably and the benefits are really good.
Comment by SAP — June 4, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
chandelle, thanks for asking. I am still sorting through my thoughts. When I have them coherent (and if anyone still cares), I’ll share and see what the feedback is. My world is small, so I would like to see how it would affect different situations. It’s a complicated problem, and I think it will take a multi-faceted solution.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
ECS, it seems that way, and he talks that way, but when you get into it, government is involved and controlling at seemingly every level.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Wow, Stephanie, you’re fast! After I wrote my comment, I had second thoughts about entering the debate, so I deleted it. Sorry.
Comment by ECS — June 4, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Stephanie, if not socialised medicine, what?
Socialised medicine isn’t perfect. I won’t claim it is. There is a certain amount of “playing the system” that you have to do, and if you don’t know how to do it, you’re at a disadvantage. (Having a good GP goes a long way. GPs know the system better than anyone, and can often cut corners to get you immediate care in non-emergency situations.) Any socialised heath system has to cater for the middle-of-the-road patient, just like any school has to cater for the middle-of-the-road student, so that yes, unfortunately, some people with some illnesses are worse-off than they would be if they had good insurance in the US (but still better off than they would be if they had no insurance in the US).
But it is a workable alternative for many if not most people. It does not make for an impossibly high tax burden. (And again, if you think taxes can stay low in the US, think again. Sooner or later you’ll have to pay for the war.)
Americans pay on average 50% more for health care than people in other developed nations. Having a universal system would save many people a lot of money. (So it becomes, not about giving a hand-out to the poor, but about protecting your own interests. That should appeal to the libertarians out there.) A universal health care system would encourage small businesses; if you don’t have to worry about either providing or having insurance, you have a great deal more flexibility in what you can do.
Having said that, you don’t have to copy another system. You have a great deal of flexibility now to come up with a system that will work for all Americans. But again, if not socialised, then what?
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
(whoops, we cross-posted, sorry if I come across pushy)
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
I [heart] quimby.
I was in a ward filled with Harvard Business School students, so I have heard the arguments for conservative-libertarianism ad naseum.
My favorite response to the argument of “don’t make me give via taxes and the government, so I can use my free agency to give” : a medical student who worked with the very poor simply said “it offends me that you think my uninsured TB patients should suffer [and possibly spread their illness] so that you can have the luxury of choosing whether or not to give.
Comment by Natasha — June 4, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Also, I was a teacher [with a master’s degree], but I couldn’t support myself, let alone a family, on it. And I lived very carefully [cheapest shared apartment, no clothes for years, etc]. It still wasn’t enough.
Now I am a lawyer and make a decent salary. You tell me, who do we need more of, good lawyers or good teachers? I know which one society values more.
Comment by Natasha — June 4, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
I think arguing (and voting) against socialized health care when you have no viable alternative is depraved. There may not be a perfect system in existence right now, but what does exist is better than the current situation in the US. No one (especially not children) should have to suffer for lack of proper medical care in a nation that has so much wealth. It’s quite vain to hum and haw while people are suffering.
Comment by SAP — June 4, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
#143: That’s a very sad truth.
Comment by SAP — June 4, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Natasha, I think the problem is that it seems all or nothing to both sides. The conservatives think the liberals are saying to take all their money, and the liberals think the conservatives are saying to give nothing.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
#146, I don’t think that’s accurate. The “liberals” can already see what conservatives are willing to give and obviously it’s not enough.
Comment by SAP — June 4, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Chandelle - I know you didn’t mean for me to see your post.
It wasn’t that bad and I wasn’t offended by your post. I hope you don’t mind me pointing out what I see as choices in circumstances from your post. I didn’t mean to offend either. Also, I don’t live in Utah and the cost of living is more here, so teachers salary is different.
Thanks Stephanie… I’m trying to stay on an abstract level…
quimby, I don’t disagree that most governments are corrupt - I think our own has a lot of issues too. That stated… I do not believe the needs of the majority should ever infringe on the rights of the minority. The U.S. was founded on this principle and the thought that if I have something that a mass of people want, that they can ‘take’ it from me just by being loud enough and using force… well.. it really bothers me.
Anyway, I’m off for tonight… enjoy the conversation and I’m hoping that tomorrow there will be some fun Sex posts or something other than politics.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
you know, elise we had a really fun post on commuting yesterday. there was la lot of links to sexy bikes
how come you didn’t join us?
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
How large? And on what basis do you make this assertion?
Comment by madhousewife — June 4, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
I never said that most governments are corrupt. Please don’t put words into my mouth. There are some 200+ governments in this world and I simply don’t know enough about all of them to make that sort of judgement call. Some governments - yes, even in very poor countries - care deeply for the needs of their people. And some do not.
If we are talking life-and-death situations - and often health and social welfare falls into this category - than by all means I believe the needs of the majority should infringe upon the rights of the minority. It is interesting you would bring up the founding principles of the United States. By your logic, you should not have a vote. By your logic, you should not have a voice. It is only because majority needs infringed upon minority rights that you have the rights (and voice) you have today.
The US was also formed on the principle of taking things by force. Look at Westward Expansion and the genocide of the native peoples. That’s terra nullius for you . . . And the principle is still alive and well. That computer you’re at? Did you know it has components that came from African mines that were pretty much taken by force? I have an ex-bishop who used to work at those mines. He would tell me, “If there was ever a disturbance or a protest, I’d call up the president of the country and he’d send in the military and they’d take care of it for me.” In other words, Western corporations are directly responsible for the deaths of poor Africans who protest that their wealth is being taken from them. That isn’t socialism. That’s capitalism. That’s terra nullius for you.
Comment by Quimby — June 4, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
i make it on the assertion that we do not currently have universal healthcare and at least half of the people in this country are conservative and/or republican and if they follow that basic platform, they don’t want it. obviously some cons/reps do want it, and some libs/dems don’t, and plenty of people don’t follow along party lines at all, or even have a party…but i think it’s fair to say that plenty of people do not want it. i think it’s bred right into the fabric of our country’s consciousness that people shouldn’t be given what they don’t work for, and plenty of people think that healthcare is just a service like that of a mechanic or a hair stylist and should not be given without paying for it (and not from taxes). other people, like me, don’t believe that healthcare is equatable to such a service, but i feel in the minority most of the time (though that’s just anecdotal). i would love to see some actual numbers on this, but my internet goes out every few minutes right now so a google search will not be successful. (posting here is hard enough and i’m not sure why i am torturing myself!) so if anybody has numbers, and especially if they can refute my dismal assumption, i’d like to see ‘em. admittedly, living in utah can make it seem like the whole world is cons/rep when this might not actually be true.
Comment by chandelle — June 4, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
I just want to clarify that The Road Home is NOT a private charity. Unless the taxpayers of the United States are now considered a private charity. It is absolutely a government-funded program. And really, I live here, so I ought to know.
Comment by Ann — June 4, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
….we interrupt this broadcast to bring you a special announcement…
the detroit red wings just won the stanley cup.
woooot!!!
we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate…
Comment by mfranti — June 4, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
#147 - yeah I’ll agree with that. The liberals do not feel it is enough. I’m tired of the back and forth. Ya’ll are right - I need to put my money where my mouth is and put forth some ideas. I’m working on it.
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
I favor universal coverage, in the sense of everyone being covered. In California and Massachusetts, laws have been passed to require all residents to have health insurance, the way most states require drivers to have auto insurance. But just as the government isn’t in the business of providing auto insurance, people would buy their coverage the same way, from private firms.
The great thing about this is that it brings young adults (who are healthier and cheap to insure!) into the risk pool, making rates more affordable for the rest of us.
I also think that people should start paying taxes on the portion of their premiums provided by the employer. If a self-employed person or a person whose firm doesn’t offer coverage has to pay the whole thing themselves, then at least the part paid by an employer should be recognized as a taxable benefit. I’m not saying that the employer shouldn’t pay it; I’m just saying that we should all be on a more equal footing.
Most Americans have NO CLUE how much money their employer pays. They might know how much comes out of their paycheck for their part of the premium, but that is generally a small portion. At my university, the university pays $10,000 a year for family coverage, in addition to the premiums and copays that the employee pays.
I also think tort reform is necessary to keep malpractice from being a profitable business.
Comment by Naismith — June 4, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
“Tort reform” has already been reformed to the point that the courts are pretty much unaccessible to normal people. A number of states have passed stringent malpractice court reform without a concomitant drop in insurance rates. You’ve been tricked. Tort reform = the middle class getting totally totally screwed.
Comment by djinn — June 4, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
What am I thinking even mentioning anything to do with the legal system when I am talking to a bunch of lawyers?
Comment by Stephanie — June 4, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Naismith, I agree with your post and the concept of mandatory (buy it yourself) insurance in the corporate sphere. But the elderly would suffer as their rates woudl be huge…
Djinn, I disagree with you. The minute attorneys found out about my son’s stroke in utero / labor… they totally begged me to sue the hospital and doc. They said I could make enough money to support him his whole life. They were willing to take us on for free and told us hospitals ’settle these cases’ just because courts always favor a handicapped baby.
WE DIDN”T SUE… we simply prayed and hoped for some good karma for our child in not suing.
We got it.
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Ok.. now I”m really off to bed… can someone please post a fun sex post next? PLEASE????
Comment by Elise — June 4, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
I just wanted to address the issue of choice and tyranny and the forcible “taking” and “giving” of property that offends libertarians so.
It’s been repeated a lot here . . . I should have the choice to give, satan’s plan takes away choices so universal health care is satan’s plan and the ilk.
But we all know that society, that communities, that governments must curtail certain choices. No one argues that we should be able to choose to drive on the sidewalk because choice is so sacred that public or individual safety must be sacrificed at its alter.
So unless you really believe that all laws, all government, all taxation, all the collective redistribution of resources (such as roads, fire, schools) are wrong and must be destroyed, then I believe it is disingenuous for you to simply argue that you disagree with universal health care based on the curtailment of “choice” while we who are in favor are satan’s minions poised to snatch your sacred choices and your sacred cash.
I too believe that “choice” is a beautiful thing and should be curtailed as little possible while still maintaining a healthy community. The difference isn’t that you all believe in choice and we all don’t. It’s just that I believe that just as driving on the sidewalks is an unacceptable risk to society, so too are the uninsured and underinsured. Their deaths, their suffering, their pain, matters more than my choice (and your choice) to retain control over (a reasonable portion of) my income.
You too believe in limiting choices, we draw the lines in different places, but getting all self-righteous defender of freedom and choice is irksom.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 4, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Well, the idea of universal healthcare includes the smaller category of universal coverage. Perhaps the big argument is over a split hair? From what little I know of the Swiss program, it’s basically universal coverage through private companies with Medicaid-ish assistance for the poor AND a law that insurance companies cannot make a profit on primary care. They can on value-added services (like you getting your own hospital room or name-brand drugs, or whatever). So that keeps costs down for the consumer, profits acceptable to the insurers, the insurers are privatized (no socialism!), and everybody’s covered. It’s not as cheap as the UK or Japan, but it’s way cheaper than here and nobody goes bankrupt over medical bills. It’s not socialized, but it’s still universal.
Comment by Artemis — June 4, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
I get irritated when people who don’t pay taxes talk about how they want “their” tax money spent.
Many people who get a tax refund for more than they paid into it, still have no idea that they paid no taxes. I try to tell my friends whose taxes I do that they didn’t pay anything in taxes….that they are making money off the government. But they just look at me weird like they don’t understand. But since they are liberals, I think they ought to know that they are benefiting from our system and that tax rates can only be for the “rich” because they are the only ones paying taxes!
Comment by jks — June 4, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Everybody pays taxes. Sales taxes. Corporate taxes rolled into the products you buy. Property taxes rolled into the rent you pay. Gas taxes. Taxes on bottles and cans. Taxes on the car you drive. Taxes for the license to drive that car. jks, perhaps you should rethink your irritation.
Comment by Jami — June 4, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
I don’t know that they are being disingenuous. Constitutionalists and libertarians will point out the proper role of government. Protection of life and property. The bare bones of civic needs. Certain things don’t fit into that view of government. The postal system barely squeaks by. Certainly all welfare programs don’t fit. The belief is that everything outside the government’s role should be provided by individuals within a market economy, including charitably providing for the needy.
Comment by Jami — June 4, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
Chandelle, really an amazing post. Thank you for sharing it.
Comment by Jami — June 4, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
Yeah, this is what I don’t get: if everything but the military, police, and post office should be put into private hands, why not put the military, police, and post office into private hands too? After all if you really believe that the market economy is best, why should security/post office be exempt?
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 12:04 am
Artemis, you’re right. I think we are splitting hairs. I just looked up health care in the Netherlands. It is pretty much just as you described, and I really like it. Here is the link to wikipedia if anyone is interested.
The one thing I would change for the U.S. is to eliminate managed care and go to consumer driven care (combination of health savings accounts and high[er] deductible health insurance policies).
I really, really dislike managed care. As something that was supposed to reduce costs, it has really created a mess (IMO), not just for costs but for level of service, actually covering care, ticking off doctors, etc. When I think of “universal health care” in terms of a mass HMO run by the government, I want to run away screaming.
But, when I think of “universal health care” in terms of compulsory insurance where everyone qualifies regardless of risk, but where you still have personal accountability and responsibility for health care choices, I totally agree with that. I think it would bring down the costs and help the people who are currently in the “no insurance” gap. I also think it would preserve the free market forces that us conservatives hold so dear.
Of the two Presidential candidates, I strongly prefer McCain’s health care proposal. He supports consumer driven healthcare. He also speaks of a GAP coverage for the uninsured, but I think his plan could be made stronger by adopting the “universal” aspect of requiring everyone to purchase insurance from providers who are required to sell it to everyone regardless of risk.
Thanks, Artemis, for that insight.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
Quimby, Can you really trust mercenaries? And Big Brown sounds an awful lot like Big Brother to me. Just sayin’.
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 12:26 am
“compulsory insurance” That makes me want to run away screaming. Where am I supposed to come up with money for that?
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 12:28 am
I agree, but I’m just sayin, if everything is made private, why not security?
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 1:01 am
Because that’s what we think the government is there /for/, Quimby. Jami already noted that. The government’s function is to protect life and property (you know, the whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing). Just ’cause libertarians believe in /limited/ government doesn’t mean we don’t think there should be no government at all.
To turn that around, you think the government should provide health care for everyone and social services to the poor. Why not those social services to everyone? Why shouldn’t we all just get everything from the government, from food to housing and everything in between? I imagine you think there should probably be limits on what the government provides, just like libertarians do. It’s just that we disagree on where those limits should be.
Some of your comments make me wonder if you mix up libertarianism with anarchism (though I guess given the number of anarchists finding shelter in the Libertarian party I can understand why you might make that mistake. Their presence is why I don’t associate with the official party, ’cause there’s a big difference between limited government and no government at all).
Comment by Firebyrd — June 5, 2008 @ 2:13 am
But Firebyrd, why is government for that? Seriously, it’s not a tough question. Why are you okay with accepting that part of the social contract and not expanding it? You can’t just answer “Because.” I’m not a 3 year old. I’m not going to accept that answer. It doesn’t make sense that libertarians are okay with accepting that part of the social contract, and nothing else. It’s just so arbitrary, particularly if the answer is “Because.”
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 4:18 am
And FWIW, Firebyrd, I’m a pretty big believer in what my government terms “middle class welfare”. If everyone is getting something from the system, everyone is much less likely to resent it. Family benefits are really, really cool. Chandelle could probably get an extra $150 to $200 a week if she lived over here for being a SAHM. For her family, that would make a world of difference.
And FWIW, I know the difference between anarchism and liberterianism. But neither one is theoretically sound. Again, go back and study your social contract theory. Libertarianism does not hold up.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 4:35 am
And, even if you can make an argument in favor of the military (I can think of one, although I can also think of a rebuttal), why the post office? As Newman says, nobody needs the post office. We have e-mail, private courier systems, etc., why the post office? Why not roads? Education? Dams and levees? Environmental management? (We all know what a terrific job the “invisible hand” does managing the environment!) How in the world can you possibly justify including the post office as a job of the government?
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 5:02 am
Why is it more moral for working-aged people to suffer than the elderly? RIght now, I know people with chronic illnesses who can finally return to work in their 60s. At last, they can get treatment through Medicare.
Kinda hints that something is wrong.
Comment by Naismith — June 5, 2008 @ 5:41 am
Because the post office performs a legal function in establishing the date a bill was paid, etc.
Comment by Naismith — June 5, 2008 @ 5:43 am
The thing about McCain though, is that he has NO CLUE what it is like for most Americans to negotiate health care.
Although he condemns “government run” health care, he has been a beneficiary of that health care HIS ENTIRE LIFE. His dad was in the military, then he was in the military, and then served in the US government. Except for the years he was a prisoner of war, he had excellent health care provided by the government.
Which is a big reason why his recently reported health report was so glowing.
Comment by Naismith — June 5, 2008 @ 5:46 am
Naismith, re: 177, bank statements, cancelled checks, and credit card statements can do that too, and they are a function of the private system, not the government. So, libertarians can’t really make that argument.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 6:02 am
Elise, Stephanie, and others who are not in favor of socialization of healthcare (or anything else!),
Thank you!!! I was so busy last night that I didn’t have the opportunity to jump into the foray but I am really glad that BOTH (or all) sides were brought up in discussion. It seems that there are definitely a lot more, than against, socialization commenting on this post and I’m glad that there could be a dialogue instead of nothing getting questioned or challenged. I am adamantly NOT in favor of the government running our healthcare system (I work for the government and it AMAZES me the wast and inefficiency that I see on a daily basis). There have been a couple of comments to the effect of “our system is broken right now, why not let the govt have a chance to run it?” I couldn’t disagree more! Healthcare is far too important to “take a stab” and see how it goes…We can’t afford that.
I like the last few comments of mandatory health insurance (subsidized by the govt as needed) through private health care companies.
Anyway, just wanted to thank you guys who supported another view point and helped contribute towards some good questions and discussion.
Comment by Amanda — June 5, 2008 @ 6:54 am
Regarding teacher salaries: One reason we left Utah was because my husband couldn’t support a family on the salary teachers are paid there. With an extremely high cost of living in Utah, what teachers are paid doesn’t come close to covering basic living expenses.
We now live in the Midwest and he makes decent money, but with the low cost of living here, we are doing ok. As for teachers being compensated in other ways such as insurance and benefits, you need to take into account that teachers have to take college courses to stay current with thier licenses. We are still taking out student loans just so my husband can keep his license current.
As for health care, even those making a good living with insurance sometimes find it impossible to pay medical bills. We have friends that make quite a bit of money but their insurance deductible was $10,000/year. They met the deductible last year on Dec 29, and co-pays didn’t count towards the deductible. And they wouldn’t cover thier baby daughters hearing aides. What kind of company won’t cover hearing aids for a baby with hearing loss?
Comment by Cindy — June 5, 2008 @ 6:58 am
My husband is a teacher in the deep south and we don’t make it every month. Now that my baby is a year old, I am getting a job to help support the family. The individual(s) who said that teachers make a decent living with benefits taken into account, don’t realize that a third of the paycheck goes to pay for said benefits and then you have to pay a copay and get to the deductible first to get the “great” benefits… We cannot even afford the dental insurance because it costs so much. My husband is from Canada and is grateful for the many freedoms this country affords, but the health care system is not one of them. I am proud to have a husband who is an educator. And I am grateful my children will see the importance of educators in this country. I just wish he were valued by the country as much as he is valued by me…
Comment by jjbates26 — June 5, 2008 @ 7:20 am
Stephanie, the problem with consumer-driven care is that how do you choose your health care, other than to simply not participate? It’s not a transparent system. When you get sick, your next series of steps is not like buying socks; don’t you, you know, go to a doctor, and rely on that opinion as to what to do next? Besides, lots of other countries pull it off, why not us? We’re number 37! Down below Costa Rica, when it comes to health care ranking, but we are right there at number 1 when it comes to health care costs. All those, uh, libertarian? Arguments seem to amount to the fear that somewhere, someone’s getting more chocolate chips in their cookie then you, ……. Our system costs way too much money and screws over way too many people.
Elise–my point was that insurance rates are not tied to malpractice claims all that closely–I can presume you live in a state without draconian award damage caps.
Comment by djinn — June 5, 2008 @ 7:31 am
re: 161
FMLisa, brilliant point. Participation in any community/society entails the sacrifice of some individual freedoms for the interests of the whole.
re: 171
Firebyrd, government does indeed have the role of protecting life, liberty, and property. But those are not exclusively its roles. Anything which protects the smooth functioning of society is within its purview. When the gap between the rich and the poor grow to great, or when the poor cannot provide for their own needs (because their honest labor is not compensated with an honest wage), or when health problems become rampant, society breaks down. Government has a role in preventing such scenarios.
Comment by Derek — June 5, 2008 @ 7:47 am
Amanda,
I agree that government run systems can be, and often are, extremely inefficient, but I wonder about using that as a knee jerk argument about universal health care . . . when the Private US health care system is by far and away the most expensive and least effective health care system in the industrialized world . . . . when you could Easily make a list of twenty countries with “government health care systems” that are far more efficient and effective than ours . . . why not learn from countries who do a vastly better job than us? Why not try to take the best parts of these systems and emulate them? Why cling to this knee jerk reaction against something that everyone has done better than we have?
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 8:06 am
I’d hop on that wagon.
Comment by MoJo — June 5, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Jami, here’s why I am okay with compulsory insurance (requiring every person to have insurance). If a person decided they don’t want insurance because they are so healthy that it isn’t worth the cost, what happens when they have an accident or come down with some chronic condition? The government will step in, and they will get care. Or, they will try to do it on their own for a while, file for bankruptcy, the doctor/hospital loses money, and they pass that loss onto the rest of us by increasing the amount they charge for services. I read a statistic that said the gov’t pays 44% of health care costs in the U.S. 44%? The gov’t doesn’t come close to covering 44% of the people. That’s just crazy. Seems to me that with a compulsory system and HSA/HD plans, the government would end up paying less of the total health care costs because more people could afford to be on it.
I guess I think it is unfair for an individual to choose not to participate in insurance but then choose to use health care they can’t afford in an emergency. That costs too much to the taxpayer.
I’m a pretty big believer in what my government terms “middle class welfare”. If everyone is getting something from the system, everyone is much less likely to resent it.
Oh wow, Quimby. That is absolutely frightening to me. The epitome of entitlement.
Naismith, I don’t care if McCain got his health care from the military. What’s wrong with that?
djinn, who is making my health care decisions now? I go to a provider narrowed-down by my insurance company. When they refer me to a specialist, most of the time that person is not on my plan, so I have to find one myself. I would rather determine who decides my service than some HMO contract determining that. Granted, I could go outside my network and pay through my nose, but that would not be a wise use of my resources and certainly doesn’t argue for lowering health care costs.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 8:33 am
mfranti, 113
No, it isn’t offensive. As Elise pointed out, every career choice has some trade-off.
Lets talk hypothetically for a sec. Say your family arrangement has mr. dad working at a job that pays the bills and has benefits. Mrs. mom either stays home with the kids, is in school or has a enjoyable job that pays but wouldn’t cover the household expenses. Mr. dad comes home on day and announces that his life long dream is to become a pro-bass fisherman, he has cashed in the 401K to pay for a fancy boat and rubber worms in every attractive color. Two months later Junior is diagnosed with chronic illness which will gut the already thin family income stream.
I know that is a little hyperbolic, but how is it different than *choosing* the later situation from the get go?
The size and make-up of the US population is not really comparable to any other country, making blanket statements comparing how healthcare works in other countries is silly. Calling the US healthcare system a private system is inaccurate, it is a blended public/private system.
fMhLisa
That is simply untrue. What is your measure of expense and what is your measure of effectiveness?
I say, with a high level of confidence, that an Iraqi immigrant has much better access to much better healthcare (along with much better access to any part of the larger society) in Detroit than in Malmo.
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 8:41 am
djinn, I also like HSAs because you have more flexibility to utilize innovations the free market comes up with like minute clinics. My husband got a shot at a minute clinic. The total cost was cheaper than it would have been at the doctor, but our insurance company denied the claim (his work ended up paying for it since it was mandatory for his job). If people can make choices like going to a minute clinic or whatever else the market comes up with, and if those choices result in lower costs to them, which means more care for them, I think that is a good thing. They can stretch their own dollar further on the small stuff. That can translate to huge savings on a macro level.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 9:28 am
I’m glad the debate is still raging, I missed it because I went to the library yesterday and checked out the Glass Castle. Fantastic! My family was nowhere near as flamboyant but shated a penchant for living in shitholes (Winnemucca, Golconda, Barstow and Gillette are just a sampling) and I saw the inside of a doctors office all of twice in my life. Barb wire, rusty nails and bicycle bolts all received hydrogen peroxide and a band-aid when they tore up my young flesh. I have complicated feelings about that. I think I am healthier and tougher because my parents did not give us medicine or take us to hospitals. Had they been able to afford it they would have taken us for the times we ought to have had stitches but probably not much else. I know I would have felt safer, more sheltered from concerns that probably shouldn’t be a childs concern when they’re lying in the road with a bicycle bolt sticking out of her thigh, “can we afford this?”
It makes me cringe to write this but I know my own son would say the same. It would take more than one hand to count the times I’ve told him, “we’ll keep an eye on this at home and if it gets worse we’ll go in.” Had money not been an obstacle I would have taken my son in. And that makes me profoundly sad.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 9:45 am
“shared” not “shated” which sounds like an interestingly scatalogical declension…
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Well, this probably strikes you as nit-picky, then, but not wanting a government-sponsored health care system is not the same as wanting poor people to go without health care. Are you actually saying that anyone who thinks health care isn’t a government responsibility must also think that a person who can’t afford a doctor deserves to get sick and die?
It must be thoroughly depressing to think that 50 percent of the country is so cruel and heartless. Fortunately, you are wrong. The number of Americans who think the needy should be left to rot is vanishingly small. A “large percentage” of Americans think there are more than just two options when it comes to health care, and that there are several degrees of separation between socialized medicine and homicidal neglect.
Comment by madhousewife — June 5, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Here is some of my thinking that got me to the solution in #168. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act guarantees everyone access to emergency care. So, if you go to a hospital, you will get care. Then, either you pay for it or you don’t. A lot of people don’t. These costs are absorbed somewhere. This is a system that just isn’t working. Waiting hours in an ER is just one symptom.
Essentially, the EMTA says that in the U.S. we believe that [emergency] health care is a human right. Either we need to repeal the law (not going to happen, and I don’t think it should), or we need to work within that framework to reduce costs.
Also, I read D&C 134:1 that says, “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society”.
It seems right to change things - not go straight to socialized medicine, but to make changes that both promote the safety of society and protect individual freedoms.
Do I think my solution has a chance of happening? No. For 1, HMOs and big companies are in bed with politicians. If politicians talked about aboloshing the managed care system, the HMOs would pay off enough to prevent it from happening. So, then what are those same politicians supposed to do? They want the money from the HMOs to fund their campaigns, but they also want people to vote for them, so they say to the people, “I will help you. I will vote for universal coverage so that all of your health care will be covered”. Then they make contracts with the big HMOs. The people are happy. The HMOs are happy. And, slowly, the HMOs bleed us dry. They complain they need more money from the government, the government raises our taxes, all in the name of “helping more people”, and it gets out of control.
Maybe it is the cynic in me, but this is what I see as the most likely scenario for what will happen.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 10:51 am
I need to remember to toss in that winking smiley or preface my with “joke alert.”
Quimby, the serious answer to your question is that security is part of the proper role of government. Don’t go throwing ‘circular argument’ complaints my direction. It’s not my worldview.
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Basiat is the go-to man on the proper role of government.
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 11:07 am
MAC,
beyond the fact that I wasn’t thinking about Iraq as an industrialized nation, and that your example is too grossly over simplified to be meaningful, how about I clarify– If you were to take the 50 richest countries in the world (Iraq would not qualify), the US is at the top of the list in costs (we pay astronomically more per person for health care than any other country in the world) and we would be at the bottom of the list in outcome (we have more illness and sickness than almost all of those countries), that is what I meant. That is pretty much the definition of inefficiency, we pay (much, much) more, for less.
So to complain that “socialization” of health care is “inefficient” ignores the fact that our private system is in fact the most inefficient system currently in existence.
Yes, a person who has a job and insurance (yes even an immigrant from Iraq) Can get good health care in Detroit, But they, and we as a community, will pay a lot more for that care than is necessary. Because the private system we have now is incredibly wasteful, astoundingly inefficient, and astronomically expensive. That same quality of care is available in Canada or easily 20 other countries for a dramatically reduced cost to individuals and to the community.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Here are some links to support fmhLisa:
The United States spends the most money on healtcare of any country in the world (as a percent of GDP), yet we rank only 37th in the world as to the quality of our health care system.
Comment by djinn — June 5, 2008 @ 11:41 am
re: 193
Stephanie, I think there are hundreds of valid reasons for you to be cynical about government’s ability to help. Do you also see why many of us are cynical about “the market” and corporate ability to solve the health problems?
I would suggest that the scripture you quoted from D&C 134 does indeed justify government taking a role in health care and social justice (”…making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society”).
About a prior point of contention that I missed last night. We can certainly agree that liberals do not believe that we (the public, conservatives andliberals) don’t give enough to helping the naked, hungry, sick, and poor. What about you? Do you believe that we collectively give “enough”?
re:195
Jami, are you talking about Alexander Basiat?
Comment by Derek — June 5, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Claude Frédéric Bastiat (June 30, 1801 – December 24, 1850) was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 11:55 am
fMhLisa,
Malmo is the 3rd largest city in Sweden. Also one of the most segregated and ghettoized areas in Europe.
Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War
Where are you getting your info, about the US being on the bottom of any lists>
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 11:56 am
re: 197
I think FmhLisa’s assertion can be backed by the JAMA article from a couple years back in which it was reported that the upper class in the U.S. were as healthy as the poor in many of the other developed nations with socialized health care–despite the fact that we spend twice as much per capita as those nations. So much for our efficiency…
(If you aren’t interested in slogging through the academic report, you can read the BBC analysis of the report)
Comment by Derek — June 5, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Ah, the typo would explain why I wasn’t finding anything on “Basiat.” Thanks, Jami.
Comment by Derek — June 5, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
There is a principle in rand’s work that seems completely lost here. Trends and the evolution of systems. Compassion aside, there is a general economic principle that if you subsidize something, it grows. My opposition to the welfare state has much more to do with marginal trends than a lack of compassion. Simply put, if you take aways (or minimize) the economic consequences of poor life decisions, more people will be prone to making poor decisions. For a society to work, there has to be rich and poor. Incentives and all that. You could do away with poverty, but the end product would be stagnant economic and technological development.
Do any of you even realize why the book was called Atlas Shrugged? because at a certain point, the philosophy that it is the responsibility of the collective to provide for under-performing individuals will lead to a world where a minority group of producers and acheivers are holding the rest of the world on their shoulders.
I firmly believe that if we hadn’t expanded the welfare state so much over the last 50 years, we would have far less people living below the poverty line today.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
I tried to read this article, but the lack of proper capitalization made it impossible. So sad that someone who appears to have a talent for writing can’t be bothered to do it properly. Capital letters at the beginning of a sentence and periods at the end surely cannot be THAT difficult to do.
Just plain lazy.
Comment by EnglishTeacher — June 5, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Strangely enough, the expansion of the welfare state has resulted in less poverty since 1959.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Derek, yes, I do see why many would be cynical about the health care market - because it is not acting as a true free market. It is acting as more of an oligopy with laws that support the inefficiencies. But, I don’t think that equates to “throw out all the free market principles and go for government run care”.
That was my point - that government should take a role - but that doesn’t necessarily make a leap to control. It could mean passing proper laws and regulations.
Yes, Derek, I do believe that “we” collectively give enough. I believe our taxes are high enough to do what needs to be done. They just aren’t utilized effectively.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Way too many comments to respond to, but some random thoughts:
- LDS Church welfare programs advocate filing for food stamps, unemployment funds, etc. Even though we run the best welfare program around, we still advocate people taking government subsidies. Despite what our libertarian brethren might say about the legitimacy of said subsidies, the Church recommends we use what the government makes available.
- Liking your job and living in a “desirable” part of the country are luxuries. I didn’t have much sympathy after the dot-com crash for out-of-work Oracle developers in SFO, when there were plenty of good jobs available in KC. This is supposed to be the lone and dreary world (although, I would say that KC is heaven on earth). If you can’t make enough to live on doing what you love, then you to get a realistic view of work, or else a realistic life style.
- Never underestimate the generosity of the American people, who still give more per capita than any other country on earth (IIRC).
- Starting school teachers making $40K+ a year in Texas (and $50K+ in some districts), a state with no state income tax. And we’re always looking for more…
- School loans are an acceptable form of debt. The Church has consistently said that school, a mortgage, and perhaps a vehicle are acceptable.
- I’m OK with universal health coverage, as long as it doesn’t increase my cost or reduce the quality of my care. Yeah, I’m a jerk. I also work in outsourcing.
- Can’t find the source, but it’s been widely quoted before that most of the cost of healthcare is for caring for people in the last years of life. Anyone know if that’s true?
- Anyone who would come into my house and take food out my cupboard (b/c of my getting food stamps) would be shot (the principle of defending your castle in Texas).
- My parents qualified our family for reduced-cost school lunches. My senior year, I basically refused to do the program, and paid full price out of my paper route money. Pride is a terrible thing…
Comment by queuno — June 5, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
for all you interested in maybe starting a libertarian-ish blog, (or for those who’d be interested in knowing about it if something happens and maybe posting/debating on it -this of course goes to everyone no matter where they lie in the political spectrum)…. feel free to email me at: five_of_9@hotmail.com I might not be able to get back to you for a few days. (—very busy!)
I might not have the time to be the one to start the actual, but I’ll try to hook everyone up with each other.
Comment by nb — June 5, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
nb, 205
I would LOVE to see a mormon libertarian-ish blog, as long as FMH was given credit for inspiring it!
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Stephanie, what for you would be a “free market” in health care?
You truly believe that if all the money we currently give to taxes went instead to private charities, we would eliminate homeless, hunger, and poverty?
Comment by Derek — June 5, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Americans pay on average 50% more for health care than people in other developed nations. Having a universal system would save many people a lot of money.
Can we get three volunteers who work in similar fields and have similar incomes and experience levels, who live outside and inside the US, post the costs and a summary of their coverage plans? I’d like to see how mine measures up.
(Because it’s kind of hard to believe generalized analysis. This is the sort of problem that begs for specific examples from people with specific circumstances…)
Comment by queuno — June 5, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Hmm, I tried to respond to Casper, but I guess my post got caught in a filter. if you look at the US Census bureau website, they have poverty data from 1959 to 2006. In 1959, 31.1% of all families fell below 125% of poverty, while today that number is 16.8%. I’m sure there are some issues with the definition of poverty rolled up into those numbers; nevertheless, the big, bad welfare state seems to be decreasing the prevalence of poverty, not increasing it. Just looking at the numbers, anyway.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
nb, 205
I would LOVE to see a mormon libertarian-ish blog, as long as FMH was given credit for inspiring it!
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Comment by nb — June 5, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
The census website is awesome–and way too addictive. This chart shows that the percent of poor people who are working full time has grown from 7.7% in 1978 to 11.7% in 2006. What great progress we’re making that more people can work full time for the privilege of living in poverty.
queuno–I’m a grad student (PhD program at Purdue), and I pay about $134 a month for my health insurance, which has a $350 deductable and I pay 20% of any costs above that. Going to the student clinic is almost free, but the estimated cost for having a baby was $2,000 when I asked (I’ll be able to give you a more concrete number in a couple of months
). My husband will cost the same when we add him, and I think the baby will be an additional $60-ish.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
D*rek-I hate it when I leave letters out of people’s names. Sorry.
-Ja*i
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
kristine,
you make an excellent point that is difficult to argue against.
I do believe that you cannot attribute a decrease (if there is one) in poverty to the welfare state.
I also believe trends will be astonishing over the next couple of decades. Upper class Americans are reproducing at lower and lower rates…
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Kristine N, 210
Do you have anyway of showing that poverty decreased because of welfare and not in spite of it?
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
I’m a part-time PhD student, but I get my insurance through my full-time IT consultant position. I pay $400 a month for my entire family, which covers:
- eye care (free exam and basic contacts)
- dental care (preventative maintenance is covered, plus 90% of advanced care like crowns, fillings, extractions, and 80% of oral surgery)
- medical care (PPO plan, $20 co-pay on doctor visits, $10 prescriptions, $500 deductible on hospital stays with 90% paid; obviously, I’m generalizing here)
- specialized cancer care ($1M per person)
- life insurance - $250K on me, $50K for my wife, and $10K for each child (I can buy more if I want to pay more; these are the minimums)
- short-term and long-term disability pay options
I think we paid about $1500 for the C-section for our last child.
I also get a month of vacation and generous sick time (although, I haven’t taken sick time in over 5 years, mostly because they also let me work from home).
The devil is in the details, but those are the highlights.
Comment by queuno — June 5, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
(I should point out, my company had cheaper options, but I don’t scrimp on insurance; I go with the most coverage available. Just in case.)
Comment by queuno — June 5, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Derek , did you read my comment #168? That is my solution for the health care problem: system similar to the Netherlands with compulsory insurance requirements but that uses Health Savings Accounts in combination with High Deductible insurance policies. I don’t think it will happen. But, if it did, it would provide free market options and would ensure coverage for everyone. I think it would be a pretty good bi-partisan solution.
IF this system of healthcare were adopted in the U.S., I would not be opposed to a small “tax” that goes into a fund to help lower income families cover the insurance costs. It would be paid directly from the fund to the insurance companies. This plan would require all companies to accept all levels of risk at the same premium. That is not exactly market-driven. But, IMO, that is where the “compassion” comes in. There are a lot of IFs in this scenario. Overall, I think the total amount of premiums, tax and out of pocket costs would be the same or less than what I am putting out now for total healthcare (between 5-7% of gross income). That’s not burdensome, and is a lot less than a lot of other people are paying.
But, I am not okay with a tax to fund “socialized” medicine (ie. government run and operated)
And Derek, you are running circles with me here: “You truly believe that if all the money we currently give to taxes went instead to private charities, we would eliminate homeless, hunger, and poverty?”
I never said that. I said I don’t think we need to pay more taxes. I think the taxes we pay to the government are enough. The government needs to be more responsible in using them.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Krtisine N, 212
To quote from the Census Bureau website itself, referring to this poverty index …
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
#211 - me too!
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
queno, 216
My employee benefits are very similar. Except my life insurance is 1.5 million and our c-section last year cost us $100.
Irony is, we are constantly, constantly hiring people with no skills (we have internal training), starting them @ 45K annual with full benefits and still can’t find enough people who are willing to work. Locally we have an unemployment rate of
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
One recent study, check out the last line of the abstract, is
But there have been 5-country and 7-country surveys every few years which have similar findings.
Comment by Naismith — June 5, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Queuno, A FELLOW KANSAS CITIAN and one who shares my opinion of the place. Lemme guess…Cerner?
^5
Comment by MoJo — June 5, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Mojo - Actually, I am not from KC nor have I ever lived there. I live in North Texas. I have never worked for Cerner, but I have worked with them (including a current project). Most of my experience with KC is having done work with Hallmark once upon a time and visiting KC several times.
I think that most of the big cities in the Central Time Zone are pretty darn cool, or anything in the Eastern Time Zone not in a coastal state.
Comment by queuno — June 5, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
MAC - Where do you live and in what profession do you work? Just curious. Those are great insurance options.
Comment by queuno — June 5, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
“I’m a pretty big believer in what my government terms “middle class welfare”. If everyone is getting something from the system, everyone is much less likely to resent it.” - Quimby
“Oh wow, Quimby. That is absolutely frightening to me. The epitome of entitlement. ” - Stephanie
I don’t know if this has been brought up yet, but the United States has such “middle class welfare.” It’s the largest federal housing subsidy - mortgage interest deductions for homeowners. $69 billion a year in 2005. No other housing subsidy even comes close to that. I don’t get a tax deduction for my rent.
People don’t realize how much help they do get from the government. In the 1950s and 1960s, my grandparents’ generation bought homes using FHA loans. Those loans were essentially not available to black people, since FHA loans couldn’t be used on homes in “black” areas (redlining) and black people often couldn’t buy homes in white areas due to restrictive covenants. So my family has benefited from government housing assistance for over 60 years, all through private homeownership, and we’ve risen to upper middle class from my grandma living in an orphanage. But I’m not going to pretend we did it without government help, and it sure helped that we are white.
Just an example of how in the US the middle class is subsidized.
Comment by quail — June 5, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Casper claimed fewer people would be in poverty if the welfare state hadn’t been expanded. The census doesn’t have data further back on their website, but my understanding is (and the implication of the available data is as well) that there are fewer people living in poverty today, after 50 years of “the expanding welfare state,” than there were in the decades before. Abject poverty really is far less common today than it was at the turn of the century, and a lot of that is traceable to welfare programs.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
The ‘welfare queen’ in the original article herself pointed out that her life saving operations for cancerous tumors were paid for by the state. Many of her other arguments hinge on the immorality of our lack of universal healthcare. was anybody else bothered by this contradiction?
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Kristine,
Abject poverty is a general term not to be conflated with income levels as measured by the census.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Do you think food stamps are measured as income by the census?
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Quimby,
You can refer to your social contract theories all you want, but that doesn’t somehow legitimize your views over mine. There are no natural laws that govern governments. Governments are just things we’ve made up. There is no such thing as a true theory about them. There are not experiments to test them or controls to make or results that are repeatable. They’re a mass hallucination that we all agree to pretend is real.
And so, because they have no existence beyond that which we give them, the whole reason any of them exist is because people think that’s how it should be, logical or not. I don’t think I should be giving a mass hallucination control of my property beyond what I need to contribute to fund reasonable services that will enable me to protect that property. In the case of those services, I think having them run by the government is best because it helps standardize the system and makes it more likely that laws will be enforced without bias. Obviously it’s not perfect, but without that standardization, the chaos that would ensue would endanger my property more than our government currently does.
Your arguments against the post office don’t take into account the fact that when it was created and standardized, many of the things you’re talking about like email didn’t exist. Additionally, the US postal service actually was partially privatized back in the 90’s. It’s a strange, hybrid sort of thing at this point.
Furthermore, I consider myself quite moderate. I know we’ve moved far enough towards socialism that we’re not going to be able to reach the ideal of minimal government. I’m not a total jerk. I know it would be evil for us to, say, suddenly wave our hands and say, “No more social security. Screw all of you retirees. You’re not getting anymore checks.” However, as the post office itself shows once something is funded by the government, it’s almost impossible for it to stop being so. The government keeps getting bigger and more bloated, and so I work through the system I’ve agreed to pretend has some meaning by living in the U.S. to try to keep things from getting worse and protect what property rights I retain as best I can.
The healthcare system here in the U.S. is most definitely broken. I don’t have the answers because I really don’t understand why things have changed so much in the past 20 years. When I was growing up, we didn’t have insurance (and I think that was quite common), and it was no big deal. Now, obviously, costs have skyrocketed so that it /is/ a big deal, and I don’t know enough about what has changed to make those increases to propose a reasonable solution and I admit that. That doesn’t mean I can’t look at a proposed solution like universal healthcare and say that I don’t think that is the ideal way to correct the problem.
I notice you don’t seem to have any answers for the broken things in universal healthcare, either. Your responses to Spunky’s situation seem to me to amount to, “Oh, well, that sucks. Sorry,” which isn’t addressing those problems or how they could be solved either. And frankly, I’m not convinced those problems are as rare as you claim. I know someone who last year had to wait for about four months to get her gallbladder removed. This was in Australia. Making it so someone has to deal with months of agony so that someone else can take their little Johnny into the doctor to get antibiotics anytime he has the slightest of sniffles doesn’t seem like a good trade-off to me. While this dichotomy may or may not be related, long waits for procedures and diagnostics that are very quick to schedule here seem to be very common in Canada and the UK at least.
Comment by Firebyrd — June 5, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
quail, I wouldn’t call a reduction in taxes due to a deduction a subsidy. That would assume that my tax money doesn’t belong to me. I just get to keep more of my own money.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
There are tons of middle class entitlements in the US for families. The idea that only in Europe or Australia you get subsidised for having kids is simply not true. We start with the fact that close to half of all births are covered by medicaid.
Usually in the US they take the form of tax rebates and deductions.
Child tax rebate both the normal one and the one for poorer parents pour thousands of dollars into parents hands every year
etc.
Then there are all the other deductions like mortgage deductions, charity, insurance etc. You actually have to make quite a bit of money if you have 3-5 kids to start paying a signifigant amount of your income in Federal taxes
I have friends who while in Grad school with three kids would get checks for 6-9K every April. Oh wait holy threadjack batman.
Comment by bbell — June 5, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
correct, in the same fashion, most of the ‘corporate welfare’ that is denounced by socialists is actually just tax breaks, designed to keep companies doing business in the US.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
That last one was a response to stephanie, not bbell
bbell,
there is a huge difference between normal deductions and tax rebates and tax CREDITS. Low income families receive ‘tax returns’ that are much larger than the amount they actually paid in payroll taxes.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
NB,
I just sent you an email. I hope all the others who feel that more government = bad idea, respond too.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
queuno, 225
Energy. Mountain West currently, though I could say the same about our operations in ~20 states.
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Stephanie,
How is it not a subsidy? That’s $69 billion a year that the federal government doesn’t get because homeowners can deduct from their taxes, and $69 billion in the pockets of homeowners. It doesn’t matter if you pay the government and then they give it back to you, or if they cut out the middleman and just let you keep it. It’s a subsidy. Homeowners can get a larger mortgage, earn more equity, pay less net for housing, etc than if it didn’t exist. The government has an interest in homeownership and has chosen to encourage it by using the mortgage interest deduction. Wonderful - but it’s still a subsidy.
Besides that, it’s commonly called “federal mortgage interest subsidy,” but like you say, it’s also called a mortgage interest deduction. I’m not the first one to call it a subsidy.
An interesting, but slanted, article is here:http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1341.html
It’s slanted my way, though
Comment by quail — June 5, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Jami/Firebyrd/etc – I can’t believe that’s the best you can do. “Your world view doesn’t affect me.” “Your social contract theory doesn’t make your opinion any better than mine.” (Um, not my social contract theory, you can look back as far as Socrates to find the basic idea.) Gee, it must be nice to live in a world where facts and logic don’t matter!
You know, I had dreams about this last night, and I woke up this morning ready to drive you all into the ground with a series of arguments and facts. Turns out, I don’t need any of them, because you can’t answer a really simple, straight-forward question – and how can you possibly continue to agree with a position you can’t even support? You really can’t even begin to believe how disappointing this is for me. But what’s the point arguing with someone who all but acknowledges they can’t defend their views?
Firebyrd, I have had a number of discussions with Spunky off-line. She doesn’t know how to best use the system and I am trying to help her get what she needs. All of her experiences are so vastly different to anyone else’s I have ever met. (And I work in the perepheries of health care, so I hear a lot of stories.) Her statements about taxation are just dead wrong (and I did point that out), but I didn’t feel like it was my place to give her guidance on-board. She has had some very disappointing experiences – but remember she is comparing having a good standard of health care in the US, which 15% of all Americans do not have. And as everyone on this side of the argument has said time and time again, if you can afford to pay for it, the medical system in the US is good. It’s just that it’s prohibitively expensive for far too many people.
Re: the post office - Prior to a public post office there were private courier systems. There is really no libertarian argument you can make to justify including the post office.
Stephanie, re: middle class welfare – If you lived here and got $250 to $300 for your boys per week, even though your taxes were no higher than in the US, I can see you changing your tune.
I’m just really sad I don’t get to use my arguments now . . .
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Firebyrd, your “no natural laws” argument - I can think of many political philosophers who would disagree with you. In fact, just about every single one of them would disagree with you. Strongly.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
“Low income families receive ‘tax returns’ that are much larger than the amount they actually paid in payroll taxes.” - Casper
Maybe some credits have this effect, but my gross income was just under $15,000 last year (as a single, childless person - three months of grad student stipend and nine months of being an Americorps VISTA) and I paid $700 in federal taxes and over $300 in state taxes. Remind me again how I am receiving all this money back? (Aside from my “stimulus package”.) And I think by most standards I’d be low income where I live. (East Coast city.)
I’m not in poverty by any means, but I was surprised at how much I owed considering my income. $700 is a lot for me, especially since my employers don’t withhold. Granted, I’m not eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit yet and won’t be anymore when I get married this August, but still. Don’t even get me started on how many poor people are eligible for EITC or tax refunds and don’t file because they don’t have the knowledge or resources to prepare their taxes to take advantage of these credits.
Comment by quail — June 5, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Quimby,
I seem to recall one poster in your neck of the woods completely contradicting your stance.
She said she’s paying MORE there (in AU) than in the U.S. She thought social medicine would be better and more cost effective, but it’s not. - so perhaps your viewpoint isn’t as universal as you think it is.
I seem to recall you blew her opinion off as saying that she wasn’t milking the system enough because she had private insurance on top of the socialized one. Entitlement at it’s finest…. and also, I wouldn’t want $300 a week if it wasn’t my money that I earned! If I knew that money was coming from other people’s pockets, whether better off than I or not, I would feel horrible taking it.
It’s like telling someone… hey, if you go to the local food bank you can get FREE FOOD… even when you don’t need it. It’s stealing.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Oh my goodness MAC, I think you were seriously serious about that Swedish article. If it weren’t so sad I’d be tempted to giggle.
Sweden is on the brink of civil war! Joy joy, the liberals are burning!
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
quail, that notion seems convoluted to me. I’ve also never heard it referred to as a “federal mortgage interest subsidy”. In what circles is that term used?
“I have friends who while in Grad school with three kids would get checks for 6-9K every April”. This is called Earned Income Credit. It is a form of welfare, not a tax return.
Quimby, I wouldn’t change my tune just because someone gave me money. That’s called “buying” a vote, and Democrats do it all the time.
“you can’t answer a really simple, straight-forward question”
Which question was this?
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Elise, that’s Spunky - and like I said, she’s dead wrong when it comes to taxation. You can look up the actual taxation rates if you don’t believe me. ATO will give the Commonwealth taxation rates; IRS will give the US federal government taxation rates; and then you can look up the individual state taxes and sales taxes. The only tax we pay other than Commonwealth is a 10% GST. It’s pretty straight-forward to work it out if you want to do the math. I’d be very surprised if you wouldn’t be better off here.
My point about her not using the system effectively wasn’t “blowing her off.” There is a knack to using the system. Again, refer to my comments about helping her off-board to get what she needs. I’ve already been successful in saving her quite a bit of money, but hey, why bother with facts?
And again - how many times do I have to say this? - EVERYONE is saying the US system is better IF you have good insurance. The problem is the 15% of people who don’t have ANY Insurance AT ALL. It’s really not a difficult point to grasp.
You seem to think that because one person had a crap experience, it discounts the entire system. If you felt that way, than surely Chandelle’s experience - which is far from unique; I can easily find a dozen more horror stories - should totally and completely discount the American system.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Re: free food - You can get it. 50% of all food produced in the US is thrown away. If that doesn’t disgust you then you really are without compassion. Consider all the people starving in this world, and 50% of all food is just thrown away. There is a movement of people called “freegans” who get most if not all of their food from the trash - for free. Good food. Nothing wrong with it at all. Generally packaged up and not even remotely contaminated with anything icky. But it’s thrown away. Yours for the taking, just go to the dumpsters and get it out.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Really? The Dems do it all the time? Huh, I thought buying people off was Bush’s speciality. You know, the $300 to $600 you’re getting back this year, that’s Bush’s idea.
The question was: Why should the government be in charge of military and the post office? Why not put them in private hands if you really believe that private hands are better than public hands? There is really no reason to justify the post office; I can think of one argument for the military, but it’s fairly easy to argue against.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Quimby,
We both read msn!
Comment by nb — June 5, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Quimby, I agree - that’s Bush acting like a Democrat. One of the huge reasons his approval rating is so low.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
EVERYONE is saying the US system is better IF you have good insurance - Quimby…
So let me get this straight… everyone is acknowledging that the U.S. is better with good insurance, and that with socialized health care the care is ‘worse’ (obviously if the U.S. is better) and you would like me, with my good insurance, to get ‘less better’ care because 15% don’t have insurance?
That’s like saying… The U.S. has the best restaurants that most people can get into and enjoy, but since ’some’ can’t get in (for various reasons), they should close down the doors and make everyone only be able to have fast food instead.
You are asking me and my family to sacrifice better care for worse care… hmmmmm
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Calling a tax deduction a subsidy can only be done if you redefine the word subsidy. It’s simply not a subsidy to let me keep more of my own money.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
I wouldn’t want $300 a week if it wasn’t my money that I earned! If I knew that money was coming from other people’s pockets, whether better off than I or not, I would feel horrible taking it.
Then don’t claim your children as dependents on your taxes. That way you won’t have to feel guilty taking money from the government. I don’t have kids, so when you deduct your children and pay less taxes, you are making me pay more - the money’s got to come from somewhere, right? You are taking money out of my pocket. Maybe children shouldn’t be a factor at all in how much an adult pays in taxes. That sounds fair to me!
Both governments are doing the same thing - making it financially easier for parents to have children. They are just doing it in different ways and in different amounts. I think everyone should get help, including middle-class parents, and I know my parents counted on using us as deductions to pay less in taxes. All I’m saying is that we should recognize that as government helping us out, even if it doesn’t work out to $300 a week.
Ok, I need to work on my research. Thanks for the lively debate!
Comment by quail — June 5, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Well elsie, as long as your family is okay, then I guess we’ll just stop worrying about everyone else . . . . hmmmmm. . . .
I’m sure you’ll never lose those jobs or that insurance and get sick, because that never happens.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
That way you won’t have to feel guilty taking money from the government.
Quail, you have totally lost me with these arguments.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
quail,
you still don’t understand the difference between a subsidy and a deduction do you? it’s not difficult.
‘the money has to come from somewhere’ argument only works if you accept that gov spending is fixed and always necessary, and that the government and its beneficiaries are morally entitled to MY money.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
It’s simple Stephanie, I pay less in taxes because I have three children than someone who makes the same as I do but has no children.
So if you feel this is unfair, you need to not claim your children on your taxes to assure yourself that you are paying just as much as everyone else. It’s simple. The only difference from Quimby’s situation is the form it takes and the amount of money it is.
I’m all in favor of you refusing to take those child tax credits by the way. Please do live up to your moral standards and do so.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Stephanie, surely your memory isn’t that short. Remember Bush’s first action when he got in? Giving everyone money? Any of that coming back?
Elise, Spunky has some unique health challenges and was denied some help that she should have recieved. It really isn’t my place to broach her privacy more than that. For me, my spouse, our child, my parents, my sisters, their spouses, their children - I am and they would all be much better off under the Australian system, and pay less.
And your argument is gobsmacki,ngly selfish. Shall we put a price on human life? Oh I guess you already have - 0.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
casper i don’t think you understand the difference between a real argument and useless semantic one.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
I’m all in favor of you refusing to take those child tax credits by the way. Please do live up to your moral standards and do so.
This is moral judgement if I ever heard it.
BTW - I am not concerned that I “pay as much as everyone else”. I don’t think that would have the effect of doing much good at all.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
In response to 254 (and 251)
Therefore, 85% of the people should suffer in order to accommodate the 15%? (Who get government help w/ healthcare already…)
I thought liberals were all “Spock-ish” earlier saying that the needs of the many outweigh the few.
Comment by nb — June 5, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Quimby, the first time around, it was an advance of a future tax return.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
fmhlisa,
what about the guy with no children? You pay less in taxes and you and your children cost more money in services (health care, education, etc.) it stands to reason that you should pay MORE in taxes, since you have more heads in your household.
and again, you are missing the difference between a tax deduction and a CREDIT. one is a subsidy and welfare, the other is simply allowing someone to keep more of their own money.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Stephanie, you can dress it up however you want. It’s still him handing out money to get votes.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
A tax return is not handing out money. It is money returned to the person who earned it.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Quimby,
I think YOUR argument is selfish. You are asking others to reduce their quality care to cover a small portion of people. That is selfish. If there was a way I can KEEP my quality of care and still cover those 15% - but even you admit… THERE ISNT! so you are being selfish asking all of us to reduce our quality of care for the needs of a minority… Wow, talk about flip flop.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
And just in case you forget.. you said…
“EVERYONE is saying the US system is better IF you have good insurance”
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Whew. I don’t know if I can put it any better than this:
If you really believe that families are the building block of society, you should be in favor of supporting families as much as you can. That includes ensuring that no child is raised in abject poverty.
A number of studies have shown that poverty can lead to a decreased level of academic achievement. A decreased level of academic achievement can lead to decreased earning power. Decreased earning power leads to poverty. If you repeat that cycle on a national level, it leads to a poor nation. Therefore, the best investment you can make in the future is in children - and the best way to make sure their needs are being met is to help their parents meet their needs.
And before you say, “But there are parents who don’t care” - Well, I could easily use that as justification for not letting you claim your kids as deductions too. How do I know you’re spending the money set aside for that deduction on them and not on cigarettes and alcohol?
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
on one hand they complain that medicaid isn’t enough, then they argue that we should ALL be on a system that is essentially medicaid without the income restriction.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
casper, That’s making the huge false assumption that 85% will suffer. But most people don’t have insurance like that. I have insurance and I just payed well over $4000 to have my gallbladder out. I payed those bills yesterday. That’s a HUGE portion of my income, huge, huge, well over ten percent. I’ve felt like crying all day. I’ll live, We won’t have to declare bankruptcy, but I certainly wouldn’t “suffer” if the system was changed.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
correlation is not causation. poverty correlates with low academic achievements, but that does not prove that the low academic achievement is caused by the low poverty. It could be that those predisposed to poverty are also predisposed to raise children in a culture that breeds low academic achievers.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Please release my comment.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Sheesh, Elise, do you actually read anything I write before you respond?
Naismith says it best (I love that woman): Saying the US has the best health care because it has the Mayo clinic is like saying the US has the best public transportation because it has a space program.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
fhmlisa, i am sorry to hear about your health problems and large medical bills. Please don’t rob me of my hard earned income to pay for YOUR bills, as i would like to be able to save my money in order to pay for MY medical expenses that may arise in the future.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Once more with feeling: Spunky is the ONLY person I have EVER met in my ENTIRE life who is worse off under the Australian system. And a lot of that is because she doesn’t know how to use the system. Everyone else I can think of would be or is MUCH better off here
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
quimby, do you do a lot of business in australia. I have to assume that the Australians you personally know do not amount to a statistically significant sampling.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Very Good point Casper…
Quimby, not just a ‘few’ hospitals, but the U.S. has the BEST of the BEST specialists, the Best of the best children’s hospitals, and the Best of the Best Cancer institutes.. and guess what? I can go to any of them, as can most people who need expertise. People from TX travel to AZ for a ‘new gene therapy’… People from ID travel to UT for their premier Primary’s Childrens Hosp.
My friend in Canada is having to travel down to NYC for operations for her son because Canada won’t do it. They say an autistic boy doesn’t need cosmetic surgery to fix the fact he doesn’t have a lip from a Hemangioma. Canada has refused every attempt she’s made to help her son… and the waiting list just to see someone is years!
BOttom line, People from around the world come to the U.S. for treatment. Not for colds, or immunizations - but that can be done for $10 at Walmart with NO INSURANCE anyway.
Quimby, do you understand that basic care IS AVAILABLE CHEAPLY here in the U.S.? And we also have the best advanced care int eh world… I don’t want anything but the best for my kids thanks… I’ll pass on ‘worse care’.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
i meant americans
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Casper, you have no idea what your talking about, “medicaid without income restrictions” have you even read the previous comments? No one has advocated that. Please stop commenting until you actually know what your talking about and who your talking to.
Elise,
there are options for the high tier of fortunate rich people like yourself to improve your quality of care under other types of systems. Why cling to a system that is great for you, and greatly harmful to those not as fortunate, when another system could be great for you without having the inconvenience of watching all those miserable poor people dying and suffering as well. But maybe preserving things just the way they are, so that you don’t have to risk any of your comfort is really what is best for the world. How could I have been so selfish as to hope that people don’t have to suffer and die and lose everything when they get sick, if there is the slightest risk that you might have to give up a little something yourself.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
oh, we’re not talking about universal healthcare? sorry
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
when another system could be great for you without having the inconvenience of watching all those miserable poor people dying and suffering as well.
Does that system have to be socialized health care?
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
casper,
please, take some of my hard earned money to help pay your possible medical bills and those of other people who may be in difficult situations in the future. Because I am my sister’s keeper.
That really is what it comes down to, isn’t it?
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Quimby, 274
If we all moved there for medical car the Australian budget surplus would disappear overnight.
Australia’s natural resource based economy is not limitless, nor is coal, its largest export particularly environmentally friendly. Maybe if Australia stopped selling so much coal the resulting reduction in pollution will reduce the need for as much medical care!
In other words, for every *free* shot you receive there are ten little Filipino kids, downwind from Japan, coughing up black mucus.
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
casper, univerial health care can look like hundreds of different things, very few of which look anything like Medicaid at all. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. Please stop spreading it around and expecting me to take it seriously.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
that’s great fmhlisa, I am proud of your charitable heart. But you want to impose your personal values onto the rest of society through legislation. We live in a secular society. You want the government to FORCE everyone to be their sisters keeper.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
You know what, Elise? I take back my word “best”. The US has a fine medical system IF you can afford it.
And if you think the US is the only place people go for health care, think again! Every Western country does its charity work (taking disadvantaged children in for surgeries). Lots of Americans go to India or Thailand or other places for surgeries they can’t afford in the US. Do a bit of research first, please.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Lisa,
Because as EVERYONE (as Quimby says) admits that the U.S. is BETTER when you have good insurance.
So you aren’t asking my family to exchange an apple for an apple, you are asking my family and children to give my apple and get back an apple core.
Also, you are assuming that people who would take Casper’s money for their surgeries actually make back that money and contribute. Most who are on the subsidy cycle never reach a point of being able to give back equally. That’s just not how it works.
Casper and A, B, C would be giving to X, Y and Z (to subsidize them)… and when Casper needed the funds… guess who would be contributing? Casper and A, B, C again… X, Y and Z don’t contribute equally!
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
MAC, I’m not disagreeing, and I would be horrified if you all moved to Australia. There are enough damn seppos here already. So I think I’ll stop making my argument because it might inspire more to move over. Thanks for point that out to me.
Comment by Quimby — June 5, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
wow, you assume a lot by calling me ignorant. And three times at that.
My comment was hyperbole sure. so tell me why medicaid does not cover poor people well enough, and I will explain to you why universal healthcare will have those same problems.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Well, I’m off to pick up my children from their evil government run educational opportunities. Stupid evil government, destroying everything it touches.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Still can’t figure out why my kids are so smart and happy at school.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Quimby, If “Your world view doesn’t affect me.” is a paraphrase of my “Don’t go throwing ‘circular argument’ complaints my direction. It’s not my worldview,” then you’ve misunderstood me. When I say that it’s not my worldview, I mean that I don’t look at the government that way.
My husband does and I’ve got about four years of bitter fighting under my belt on the subject. I’ve also got twelve years of peaceful co-existence. I prefer the peace. You asked why security qualifies as the proper role of government and I answered. The answer has a circular logic problem, but since it’s not my world view, it’s not my problem.
Comment by Jami — June 5, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
this conversation is moving so fast I can’t keep up with it.
So Casper, you’re going to pull out social darwinism as an explanation for poverty? Nice. Glad that misbegotten, sorry excuse for social theory has reared its ugly head. Here’s the problem–take a poor kid out of poverty (as is routinely done when rich parents adopt) and the child ends up…wealthy. Kinda funny how it works. Sorry, but poor people are as often as not victims of circumstance, not there because they somehow genetically “deserve” to be poor.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Yeah… nobody can refute what I said about XYZ…. So it’s settled… Casper and A,B ,and C will pay for all of X , Y, And Z… and they don’t get to complain.. EVER… because they are forced to being their siblings keeper…
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
And then I’m going to the diabolical government run book distribution depot.
Damn Library, letting me read all these horrible books for NOTHING. Stealing all those millions of dollars from innocent citizens to pay publishers and writers and let me read stuff I haven’t earned the right to read with the sweat of my own brow. It’s horrifying. How do we stop it.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
yeah, and god hates it when we take care of each other! Just ask Cain.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
I would differentiate between Stephanie’s view, which seems to be in line with my father’s, “why throw good money after bad?” which I don’t happen to agree is the whole problem, but is relevant, I think since whatever system we end up with would still suffer from corruption and need addressing and Elise’s position which is grounded in the belief that people end up with the healthcare that they deserve and she’ll share what she’s earned when they pry it from her cold dead fingers a la Heston, Rand, Leona Helmsley and whatever other demigods of selfishness she’s got lined up. On a side note, as a former Objectivist, I do object to your pejorative use of “selfish,” Elise. Why not revel in it? It is, after all, the highest good.
I believe you can not see U healthcare as the best option but still care deeply about abating suffering. I happen to think that u healthcare is the best way we’ve come up with.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
I guess, I should at least find it refreshing that elise doesn’t try to hide her selfishness behind complex economic theories like some people. I’ll work on admiring that at least. Honesty is good.
Comment by fMhLisa — June 5, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
The optimium word is ‘take care of EACHOTHER”… as I mentioned… with the system you are advocating… A, B and C are taking care of X, Y, Z.. but never vice versa…. X, Y and Z take from the system - but don’t return their equal share, while because A, B and C sacrificed much to get where they are, they are expected to fund everyone.
Quimby had an excellent example of this when she said:
If someone owns a fruit tree and doesn’t pick the fruit it’s the “masses’ moral obligation to TAKE the fruit tree from it’s rightful owner.
That mentality…. that what is yours is MINE… is the actually the very thing you say you hate… Selfishness.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Elise, who says X, Y, and Z will never return what’s been given to them? That’s an awfully big assumption there. A, B, and C may have sacrificed a lot to get where they are, but are their sacrifices really that much bigger or more meaningful than those X, Y, and Z made?
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Kristine, I didn’t pull out social Darwinism at all. I pointed out a clear logical fallacy in a previous argument, then i suggested another possible explanation. and my suggested explanation clearly pointed to the REARING of the children, not their genetic makeup.
Are all cultures equal in their ability to bring up successful offspring?
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Actually you are wrong Crazy Creek. I do not believe in THEFT by the masses, no… but I do believe in Charity and FREE AGENCY… You have no idea what my family is involved in and how we contribute to society. I do pro-bono work all the time for various charities.
I’m not selfish at all with my money.. I donate as the Spirit prompts. Indeed, my familiy doesn’t have the luxuries people who make may have. They see their husbands more, they don’t have the 12 years of schooling to get said income, or the debt. etc. etc.
For every job there are sacrifices, some may be money for happiness, some may be happiness for money, others may be being a ‘widow mom’ for a few years never seeing their husband, etc. etc.
But to say that because I don’t advocate FORCED redistrubution of people’s labor and earnings is Selfish.. that is wrong and very hurtful.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
guess, I should at least find it refreshing that elise doesn’t try to hide her selfishness behind complex economic theories like some people. I’ll work on admiring that at least. Honesty is good.
Wow, Lisa. You really don’t get it that some people can think differently than you and still be good people, do you? Or that some solutions need to come from stepping outside of the box and realizing that maybe there is something to be said for the other side? Beyond that, I think I’ll bite my tongue. Personal attacks aren’t my style.
Comment by Stephanie — June 5, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
People, can we cool it down a bit? All this tearing apart each other’s arguments is getting out of hand and making the issues more confusing, not less.
Comment by Artemis — June 5, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
If the majority of the philosophies expressed here is where this country is headed, anyone want to come and crash a plane in the ‘uninhabited’ hills of Colorado?
We’ll stop the world on it’s axis yet!
*sigh* Still searching for my John Galt….
Comment by nb — June 5, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
FHMlisa sarcastically says god hates it when we take care of each other. I know this is a mormon board, but we are discussing social policy and political philosophy. Do you believe that the law should require young men to serve missions? no, i doubt you do. yet you are asking the law to force YOUR moral view of charity on others.
I completely agree with the virtue of charity. I just think that those who feel obligated to help their fellow man should go out and, you know, help their fellow man with their own money and time.
You are essentially accusing me of being against charity. I’m not, I’m against FORCED charity.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Kristine, the sacrifices are DIFFERENT to get where they are.
For one group to say.. I chose my life - I made sacrifices, and now you need to support me in the life I chose.
For the other group to have said to them: You chose your life, You made sacrifices to get where you are at, and now you need to Support the other group in the life that THEY chose…
And yes, those who end up paying most of the costs of support in the higher income group are penalized for pushing themselves all those years and sacrificing all those years to get where they are. The lower tier never pays it back and helps the higher tier.. it’s a one-way flow and makes one not want to try and excel financially if it’s all going to be taken from them anyway. (I personally want to excel financially so we can retire early and go on a mission and do charity work - my hubby and I have sacrificed huge time and energy and me NOT being a SAHM to accomplish this)
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Quimby,
Seppos. You learn something new everyday … I thought that the Aussies just hated Kiwis, Asians and Aborigines.
Comment by MAC — June 5, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Actually, that’s not an accurate representation of Rand’s views on charity, which is to say:
“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.” [From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”]
This is a vastly different proposition from “when they pry it from her cold dead fingers.” It’s also open to personal philosophies of philanthropy and, considering Rand was an atheist, is in line with agency and not in any way contradictory to James’s admonition to take care of the widowed and fatherless.
The great divide on this thread is choice. Am I offered the opportunity to help the masses when money is taken out of my earnings? No. It’s compulsory. Forced, by threat of imprisonment if I do not comply.
This is the antithesis of the gospel.
Comment by MoJo — June 5, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Two links is all it takes to get thrown into moderation? Bah.
Comment by Firebyrd — June 5, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Stephanie, I am not being at all sarcastic when I say that a follower of Rand should have NO problem with being called selfish. Check this out or this. If I call Tom Cruise gay, he may demure. Not so Lance Bass. The absurdity of a Rand follower taking umbrage over being called selfish makes my head explode.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — June 5, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
mojo,
I would submit that mainstream libertarians have long argued that private charity is extremely valuable and actually has the ability to provide for societies most needy.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Firebyrd–it only took me one earlier
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
elise, you use a pell grant for your education?
Comment by mfranti — June 5, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
That’s just about the lamest antithesis to the gospel. Social darwinism and seflishness are much better antitheses to the gospel than taxation, especially if the taxation is going toward genuinely helping people.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
MoJo…
The only thing everyone is debating is whether we should be FORCED to support others, or if it should be by FREE AGENCY.
It’s funny how the Free Agency folks get called Selfish.
I think that the people demanding, insisting, forcing support from others are the selfish ones. If my family and others planned, sweated, sacrified and saved to get red shoes and suddenly another family that didn’t have the same choices DEMANDED to have red shoes too, and that my family fund them with such… Who’s the selfish ones?
We all pick our directions in life and we pick our professions. We know what the pros/cons benefits of each is. If you want red shoes, work towards them through schooling, studying, hard work ( Asian Immigrants are excellent as demonstrating success after just 2 generations here) to get them. Don’t try and take my red shoes just because you suddenly want them but didn’t work for them.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
crazy woman,
you are assuming that those who generally agree with Rand on liberterian and free market philosophies must agree dogmatically with each and every one of the woman’s personal philosophies. that is ridiculous.
I for one, am extremely insulted by being accused of selfishness. many here don’t seem to understand the moral difference between personal choices and the use of violent government force.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
re: 220
Yes, Stephanie, I did read 168. I’m glad you are admitting that your solution is not truly a free market one either.
I’m not trying to play games with you. I was trying to clarify. It was previously said, and you agreed that, liberals don’t think conservatives give enough. I interpreted “give enough” in the original statement to mean giving of any sort: taxes (which for the purpose of argument we’ll assume are going to social welfare) and private charitable giving. When I asked if you agreed, that is the interpretation I meant. Since that is now how you interpreted it, I’ll ask the question again so that there is no confusion: Do you believe that we, the public (society as a whole, regardless of political ideology), give enough of our substance to help the disadvantaged (the homeless, the naked, the hungry, the sick and afflicted), irrespective of whether that giving is through private donations or government required taxes?
re: 228
Excellent points, Quail. I wonder if libertarian types really know how much they would be giving up if we switched to a libertarian-style government.
re: 229
Very true, Kristine. Those who blame the “welfare-state” for poverty should probably investigate the state of the poor during the Gilded Age. There is a reason government began seriously implementing social welfare programs: private giving was doing an absolutely miserable job of taking care of people. Government programs are never sterling, but it beats nothing at all.
re: 296
FmhLisa, that is priceless!
Generally:
I’m having a hard times seeing how people can make the case that the U.S. has world-class health care cheaply available in light of the Jama report I referenced.
The way the debate has turned is the classic example of my big beef with the “free market” ideology. Much of it does indeed sound rational and make sense. But when you peel back the top layers, it always ends up coming down to social Darwinism and the complaint that those with much shouldn’t be asked to take care of those with little, despite the fact that this is exactly what our Savior has asked of us. Yeah, sure I know there are superficial efforts to make a distinction between public and private (coerced vs. Voluntary) giving. But in my experience, as the argument continues, that distinction always disappears from the free marketers’ arguments. And thus their argument becomes morally bankrupt and loses all appeal.
Comment by Derek — June 5, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
M - My mother and scholarships were my ticket - and she was a single mom with no help who was a secretary for 20 years (we lived off D.I. and cockroach ridden apts NEVER getting a hand out from the governemnt, she scrimpt and saved to help me have a better life than her)… My husband however put himself through his mission on his own, and worked and got loans for his schooling (which we just paid off). He picked a profession he knew he could support a family with - Engineering. He studied hard and now we are looking long term and what we want to do with our lives. Engineers without Borders is a big to do… We want to do a Service Mission too.
Comment by Elise — June 5, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Casper, indeed. Private is the key word here. Voluntary. Not compelled by a government and enforced by withholding taxes. I totally agree.
With regard to the use of the word “selfish” in this thread. It’s been used on both sides of the argument, with both finding it distasteful in their own definitions.
“Selfish” as Elise has used it as an accusation might be better defined as people who feel entitled to what I have.
“Selfish” as CrazyWomanCreek has used it (and others have referenced why we don’t revel in being called selfish) might be better defined as people who want to keep what we’ve earned and not be compelled to hand it over to someone else.
Comment by MoJo — June 5, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Kristine N
I believe it was Satan who wanted everyone to be compelled to be obedient because it genuinely helped people to all be saved.
Comment by MoJo — June 5, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
ouch derek, that last paragraph smarts. you will never see a libertarian drop the coerced vs voluntary distinction (your emphasis on the word ‘always’ was especially silly). And i am sick of being told 1, don’t know what I’m talking about. 2, am selfish, 3 am morally bankrupt.
Comment by casper — June 5, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
…you are a better person than i am.
hey, those student loans, they’re subsidized aren’t they?
Comment by mfranti — June 5, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
yeah, MoJo, that’s not quite my reading of it. Somewhere in that story there was something about the glory going to Satan instead of to God, and I’m pretty sure that was a significant point, too.
Comment by kristine N — June 5, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
[…] made the point over at Feminist Mormon Housewives that compulsory taxation for the purpose of giving it to other individuals in our society was […]
Pingback by Hatchet, Ax, and Saw : Moriah Jovan — June 8, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
[…] made the point over at Feminist Mormon Housewives that compulsory taxation for the purpose of giving it to other individuals in our society was […]
Pingback by Hatchet, ax, and saw : moriahjovan.com — June 8, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
[…] on Not Ophelia’s pointer to Chandelle’s post and now, a few words from the resident welfare queen at FMH (Chandelle’s post was at her personal blog, now accessible only by […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | My Nacle Notebook 2008: Interesting Comments — September 8, 2009 @ 6:50 pm