For everyone
September 9, 2008Please, do tell.
Why do Republicans have so much issues with helping their fellow Americans? Why is it that they are not willing to share their wealth with their fellow countrymen, their fellow countrymen who probably need it more than they do? Why is it so difficult for Republicans - who are probably devout Christians - to actually practice what Jesus preached, namely to help your fellow man?
I live in a country where 45-50% of your income goes to the state. This sucks balls. Seriously. Paying taxes sucks ass. However, it makes me happy, and somewhat proud, that most of that money will go to making my country a better place to live for everyone. To make it prettier, healthier, cleaner.
But most of all, I’m happy that part of the money that I earn will go to my fellow Dutchmen and women who need it most, because they don’t have the means to take care of themselves and their families. It makes me happy that my money goes to that single mother down the street (I really have a single mom living down the street) who can use it to give her kids a decent education, or to buy a car so she can increase her opportunities for a job.
It makes me proud that my money goes to the sick and the ill, like my aunt, who was struck down by cancer ages ago, and who can now only work a few hours a week - I know that it is my money that makes her financial situation much, much better. I am thrilled that with my money, the mentally handicapped have the opportunity to contribute to society, so that they can feel dignified and a part of it. I am proud that with my money, we can build and fund schools so we can educate children with special needs who might otherwise end up in crime, poverty, or welfare.
It fills me with joy that my money is used to make sure that everyone has proper healthcare, that everyone, no matter how poor, rich, unemployed, or sick you are, you will always be treated, taken care of, and looked after. It makes me proud that because of my money, lives are saved. It makes me proud that with my money, the elderly, who have built this country, can live a relatively worry-free life.
Sure, this country isn’t perfect. Tax money is sometimes wasted, and it sucks that the people actually have little insight of where their tax Euros end up. But overall, I know that in a few years, when I’m done with university, and when I have a decent paying job, I won’t be working just for myself, or to make my own life better - but that I’ll be working for everyone, to make this country better for everyone.
What these Republicans don’t seem to understand is that if you spread the wealth, you end up with happier people. And happy people are more productive people. And more productive people are wealthier people. And wealthier people spend more money. And people who spend more money are good for the economy.
Everyone wins!
I really don’t get it. They say they’re Christian, but judging by their actions and beliefs, they’re about as far removed from Christianity as you can get.
It’s all just so confusing.
World, Politics, Social Life | 
As a Christian who has reluctantly voted Republican for many years, I cannot agree more. It nothing else, George Bush opened the eyes of many Christians that underneath all of the “family values” lurked a sin worse than many of the so-called “big sins” - namely, greed and selfishness. It IS time that Christians in the United States of America stop being deceived by those whose sole desire is to ensure prosperity for a few “good ol’ boys”. I don’t like taxes, but I am tired of not being able to afford health care. I am employed, make a good wage as a programmer, and I have insurance. And yet, even I cannot afford many basic healthcare items such as dental care. The deductibles are more than I can afford. I am tired of people workinig at McDonalds and Wal-mart for slave wages - they cannot afford food, clothing and shelter for themselves - let alone for a family. Thes things, as you have pointed out, are moral issues JUST AS MUCH if not more (see Jesus) than the traditional “moral issues” that are paraded around to keep the faithful in the Republican queue. Forget it! It is time we TRULY care for our fellow human being - in very practical and real ways, even if it costs us more of our checks. I, too, want to know that others around me are taken care of. In reality, most of us are one major illness away from joing those “other people” down the block. Let’s start caring for them NOW!
Comment by Tom Dison — September 9, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
I don’t know that it has much to do with Christianity as it is trusting the government to do responsible things with our tax dollars. I know that our money we give to our church goes directly back into the community to help those that you describe, but I surely can’t say that I know (with a reasonable level of confidence) where our 30% of our income went last year.
So ultimately I agree with you in that we are all called to help our fellow man, but I disagree that that assistance should be government funded.
Comment by Ben — September 9, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
I guess it depends on your view of the government. In America, many have come to view the government as basically Caesar (a dictatorship), and thus we must hope to give as little as possible to this evil entity, since it is certainly not to be trusted to do good. This is the view of many Christians today. It is the siege mentality.
On the other hand, there is this “radical” idea that government can be “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Some radical Republican once said that. In fact, this is one way of expressing the “great experiment” that is America. So, it just might be our great responsibility to ensure that the goverment is just that. We do this by participating in democracy, and in ensuring that our government remains “by us, of us, and for us”. I believe that part of a government being “for us” is that it look out for the good of people, even those who struggle, who are poor, or who are sick. Thus, these are part of the government’s responsibilty. To put it another way, if the government is just a representative of the will of the people, and God has given us the command to look out for our brother, then the Government IS tasked with looking out for our brother. Perhaps it is time to end the siege mentality.
Otherwise, we run the risk of saying like Scrooge, “Are there no orphanages, are there no work houses?”
Comment by Tom Dison — September 9, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
There is an old saying … “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day but teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime”
In general, Republicans are of this mindset. It is much better for a person to be self-sufficient and not rely on government to survive. It is harmful to the people to be totally dependent on government to provide for their needs.
By all means, those who cannot provide for themselves due to health or some other incapacitating reason should be taken care of but NOT by the government. These people should be ministered to by churches and other charities as it used to be.
The government should take care of security (military, fire depts, etc) and infrastructure (roads, etc) to provide the means for the people to innovate and excel on their own … Not hinder independent growth or create generations who do nothing but wait for the check to come in.
Comment by James Malanowski — September 9, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
Well said, James, and I agree with the no handouts for those that are able to work. Instead, work programs, training programs (teach to fish) are much better options.
But that diverts from the real issue. Is the government just primarily the security folks (military, fire dept, etc)? Again, I say the government is US - you and me. It is just what we (collectively) want it to be. And I for one WANT people to be taken care of. I want people to have access to healthcare. I want children to go to college. And if enough of us want this, and are willing to pay for this, then why not? Why can we not do these things? Thom’s country has decided they will. I agree that we should not just hand out money to people. But why can we not provide work programs? Why can we not provide healthcare and education? What great harm becomes us? I say none! In fact, I think the GREATEST security threat a society has is when it neglects the needs of the poor, the sick, and the widow. Read Isaiah. It doesn’t make God happy AT ALL. So, many of us want to find a way to provide these basic necessities for all. I do not believe it will anger God in the least!
Comment by Tom Dison — September 9, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Of course the end goal is to have people not dependent on the government. However, for a lot of people, that’s simply not possible. If you’re a single mother with two children, there’s no time to go fishing in the first place, to use that tired old saying.
The views put forward by you, James, are medieval. It doesn’t work. The minimalistic, liberal governmental model (yes, those ideas are actually what liberalism was all about) does not work - it has been shown time and time again. Why do you think the US’ mortgage world is completely destroyed? Exactly - the government refused to step in and protect its citizens. Now, the pile of shit is infinitely larger than it would have been had the government stepped up earlier.
The US is in a place where most European countries were in during the first 50 years of the last century: the ideas of the Enlightenment (liberalism, as little government influence as possible) were worn out, they didn’t work anymore, and led to poverty and unhappiness among the people. After the 2nd world war, we Europeans got our act together, and started working towards a future where people would not only look after themselves, but after their fellow man - through the government. This is one of the ultimate success stories of mankind: people in proper, modern, civilised welfare states like the Nordic countries and The Netherlands are happier, healthier, there’s less crime, less drug abuse, a cleaner environment, more democracy, more transparency, more freedom, less apartheid, and less corruption than in the US or in any other country, under any other governmental model.
I’m not advocating that the US become exactly like NL or the Nordic countries - that wouldn’t make sense, as the US and its people are a completely different country and people. But what the most powerful and “wealthiest” nation in the world does need to learn is to properly take care of its citizens, because it’s quite clear that right now - a lot of people are poor, hungry, overworked, and unhappy in the US. and we here in Europe have shown that the best way to do that is by redistributing wealth. And you know what, we still have lots of millionaires.
According to my standards of living, the US is NOT a first world country. No country without a proper welfare system is.
Comment by Administrator — September 9, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
It is a little more complicated than that. For decades, the US Congress has browbeat lenders with the message, “Why don’t you lend more to poor people. Oftentimes minorities are poor. If you aren’t lending to credit risks, you must be a racist.”
The banks, not being racists, complied. When the whole thing fell through, the same people that were pushing for “Affordable housing” now say, “How dare those profiteers lend to credit risks who couldn’t document their income!”
Are there predatory lenders? Yes. But that is not the whole story. By the way, Thom, have you visited the States?
Comment by John — September 9, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Of course, I know it’s not as simple as that, and I wasn’t being specific enough. what I meant is that government action, had it been done sooner, could have made the mess a whole lot less messy.
And yes, I’ve been to the States. Texas. Visiting a family of through-and-through Republicans. Great people, I totally loved it. Even went to church with them three Sundays in a row. Also awesome, much more fun than in NL.
Comment by Administrator — September 9, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
The thing is, Fannie and Freddie were created by government action, and were allowed to operate well outside the normal laws (I am talking about before nationalization last week, of course). The reason they were created, was, well, for the government to try to help regular people.
link
But I want to look more closely at your thesis. Did you know that 40% of US income tax revenue came from the top 1% of taxpayers last year, or that the bottom 50% of US taxpayers essentially contribute no income tax revenue? Clearly, just like in the Netherlands, rich people are contributing a bunch of money that “helps everybody”. But does it? In your own words, the US is still not a proper first world country.
I am a Republican but not a Christian, so I have no thoughts on the religious aspect of your argument. But I can tell you that most politically educated Republicans, through a combination of experience and historical observation, simply think socialism (redistributing wealth, in your words) is not a workable model for the US. Clearly it is a risky business, having killed more people under Stalin and Mao than the second world war killed. But the less hyperbolic explanation for why we distrust it is best summed up in an old Russian joke:
A Ukrainian peasant comes back from Moscow, and his friends ask, “what was it like?” He says, “Oh, it was wonderful, everything there is for the betterment of Man. I even met that Man myself.”
Anyway, glad to hear you had a good time here in the US.
Comment by John — September 9, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Based on what? What evidence? Research? What experience? What peer-reviewed studies?
…
I’m arguing delicate political matters with someone who brings up something like this? Do you have any idea what you’re saying? Even in a hyperbolic statement there’s no way you can equate a modern, democratic and free welfare state to the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Mao.
I’m sorry, but you just completely discredited whatever you had to say.
Comment by Administrator — September 9, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
I couldn’t agree more Thom, you’ve summed up my experience of “Republicanism” as well. Even as a centre-right voter in the UK I simply cannot relate to the selfishness, ignorance, greed, and general pig-headedness of the Republicans I see on TV and bump into on the ‘net.
Comment by Phil — September 10, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Respectfully, with your original charges (republicans being religious hypocrites and not caring about people, the US being a non-first world country) having been made without the benefit of such things, I assumed that we would not need such posturing. But you’ll notice that I did cite that the tax figures showing that the American rich do pay a hefty sum and, even though there are plenty in the US who favor and practice redistribution, it does not seem to work here.
I do know what I am saying. I mentioned it since you said that the European welfare state was due to the Europeans “getting their act together” after WWII. I wanted to point out that the track record of Socialism in the first half of the twentieth century was pretty bad, worse than WWII. This should make one at least skeptical of its track record in the second half. Of course, modern European socialism doesn’t kill people. But I think it is clear that collectivism / statism has turned out poorly in the past. The reason is the same reason that I distrust modern Socialism: If you are willing to sacrifice the interests of one person for “the people”, where should you logically stop? What restriction of liberty would be too much to allow, assuming that the one is so outnumbered by the interests of the many?
I know from reading OSnews that you enjoy English. I recommend the book “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers. It is beautifully written and explains the philosophical side of these matters with a lot of depth.
Comment by John — September 10, 2008 @ 1:16 am
To go back to the original post … Thom, it seems as though you have a sincere desire to help those who are worse off than you. This is a great thing and I admire those who do.
Now, let’s imagine that up to half of your paycheck is NOT taken from you by your government. Would happily go and write a check for half of your income and give it to the single mother down the street?
If so, you’re a better man than I. Or, your single and idealistic with little real-world experience of a mortgage, wife, kids, pets, utility bills, etc. It’s very common for high school and college-age folks to hold the beliefs that you do but when those kids grow up and start having to deal with bigger responsibilities that their views change and begin to lean more towards the “right.”
I stand by my original comment no matter how medieval you think it may be. The longer one is dependent on another the easier it is to be unmotivated to be self-sufficient. I believe that may be why our views differ … You have always lived in your socialist society so you know no other way. You’ve been brought up to think that not having control over your life is right. I’m sorry, but I live in a free country, and I will never agree.
There are many here (especially here in California) that agree with you and this state is leaning more and more towards Socialism all the time. It is sickening.
Don’t get me wrong - I believe in helping those in need. I volunteer my time and donate money towards many programs that support the needy. The difference between you and me is that I do it of my own free will.
The day my government steals half of my pay because someone out there thinks I have too much and the single mother doesn’t have enough will be the day I find another country to live in.
The beauty of the country is that you make your own destiny. Rich or poor, it’s your choice. For those that are incapable of caring for themselves there is plenty of help to be had here.
Comment by James Malanowski — September 10, 2008 @ 2:40 am
Yeah, right.
I live in Bergen, Norway.
For a (true) perspective on happiness here, see e.g. Daily Mail article. Heroin abuse here is rampant and growing. Our capital, Oslo, has the highest number of heroin addicts per capita of all European capitals. The government treats them as ill people not responsible for their actions and tolerates their suppliers. Yes, they commit less crime than their fellow heroin addicts in the rest of the world - because they don’t have to. They just have to fill out a form and we who work get to pay. For their dental care (which working Norwegians older than 19 have to pay in full), housing, methadone, everything. The government has raised heroin addiction to the level of f****ing career choice for losers.
Almost 40% (and growing) of all Norwegians of working age are outside the workforce. Not unemployed, mind you - outside workforce. And we are paying for them. And they get to vote for who should govern them. Once their number reaches 50% (and it will), working men and women will literally be under their power unhappily ever after. Or at least until the North Sea oil dries out.
Clean environment, you say. Yes, the air and water are OK - Scandinavia is big and sparsely populated. For human effect on our immediate environment - well, Bergen is easily one of the most littered, garbage laden European cities I have ever been to. The city government simply cannot find anywhere enough people who would want to do such kind of job rather than sit home and wait for the paycheck. They have to rely on unskilled immigrants. However, those Immigrants’ children grow up to be Norwegians, so importing their parents does not solve anything in the long run…
And don’t even get me started on Norwegian work ethics…
Comment by jrlah — September 10, 2008 @ 6:41 am
My post is evidence enough for the hypocrite issue. We, on the other side of the pond, when we look at America, see a country with marginal to no social security and hundreds of thousands of people unable to afford even the most basic of healthcare. How is that to be rhymed with being a Christian, and caring for your fellow man?
The second allegation about America not being a first world country was clearly my personal opinion, as I clearly stated.
All this means you’ve easily sidestepped the issue I put forward to you: what experience? What research? Why are Republicans so afraid of helping their fellow man in the only system that has been thoroughly proven to work in the fight against poverty?
No offense, but, uhm, don’t be an idiot. You’re equating totalitarian undemocratic communistic dictatorships with old, well rooted parliamentary democracies, whose people are free in every possible meaning of the word. Equating the two is completely out-of-this-world, and you know it. You’re just doing it because that’s what Republicans have been doing ever since the days of McCarthy.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2008 @ 9:16 am
We’re getting there.
No! Of course I wouldn’t! That’s the beauty of it all. That’s what this is all about. If the government doesn’t step up and take care of the weak, no one will. If the government doesn’t stand up and appeal to our sense of compassion, no one will.
Just like in America. And we see every day what that has led to: poverty, no healthcare, unhappiness, and probably, although that’s a bit of a stretch maybe, crime.
No control? We have more control than Americans have. Freedom in the US has become an empty shell. Thousands of innocent people are on no-fly lists, hundreds are being held and tortured without a trial at Guantanamo, the government decides what you can and can’t say on television, the government tells you who can and cannot get married, and so on, and so forth. And you’re claiming WE have no control?
I have a house, pets, utility bills, a car (insurance and gas prices are quite high here), and all that comes with it. I indeed don’t have a wife and kids, that much is true.
But it’s irrelevant. I know that whatever may happen to me, no matter how my life will turn out, I can be relatively sure that I can lead a reasonably happy life. Reasonably, because you really don’t want to be on welfare over here.
In The Netherlands, it’s not easy being on welfare. Welfare checks aren’t as high as they are in many other welfare states, and the government actively pushes people to get jobs and work to their fullest of abilities. If you’re out of a job and on social security, you won’t get your check unless you apply for jobs continuously. Which is good. In fact, I’m a strong proponent of the government actively seeking out and fining those that abuse the system. Because the more people abusing the system, the less money the people who really need it get. And it’s working: the number of people on welfare keeps on decreasing.
Many Americans have this distorted idea that you can just hold up your hand and that money will come falling out of the sky perpetually. Trust me - it’s anything but around here. You won’t just get a welfare check, you’ll have to “work” for it, and you’ll have to accept any fitting job that you’re offered. If you don’t, it’s bye bye welfare.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2008 @ 9:31 am
I will make you a deal. Your hypothesis is ambitious: you wish to show that Socialism in the US would solve the problems you have listed. If you show me research and (I guess) experience which proves that, I will do the reverse. Mind you, you have to show that it would work IN THE US, not in the Netherlands. Until then, I am not willing to invest time in an argument where the other side cites his unsupported post as evidence enough. Deal? Think about it–you made the charges and are asking for a radical change. The burden of proof is on you. For now, I stand by my assertion that we do spend a lot of money, and “as evidenced by your post”, it does not help.
I think it is naive to represent the Soviets as just totalitarian thugs. If there hadn’t been millions of true believers in the faith of Communism, they wouldn’t have been nearly as formidable. Ideas matter.
But I take no offense. Again, I think you are reacting to the hyperbolic without taking account of the actual meaning: I equate them because to large degree, the philosophical underpinnings are the same. You did not address my question of the logical limits of sacrificing the one for the many at all.
Now, perhaps you are arguing that ideas are less important than results. That’s a thorny question. If I thought it could be that simple, I’d be liable to agree. So far, the failure of large scale social programs in the US to fix your complaints could be because of (at least) three things:
1 - The idea itself is bad, or
2 - The people who implement it are doing it wrong, or
3 - We spend a lot but it is not enough.
What you are asking me to believe is that only #3 is the case. This takes more faith than I have.
Finally, I’d like to ask you another question. In the United States, anyone who wishes to pay more in taxes than he is assessed may do so, and yet (by the statistics), basically no one does, even though many think taxes are too low here and that accounts for the failures you charge.
Since your tax dollars are so well used and you are so glad of that, and since more money is clearly better, do you pay more than you are assessed? If not, why not?
Comment by John — September 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I just wanted to add that I have found this little forum to be an excellent discussion. For the most part (with a few exceptions), the comments have been about the issues, and not personal attacks. I think open discussions like this are very healthy. Cool!
Comment by Tom Dison — September 10, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
I guess I have more faith in people. Probably because of the youth programs, etc that I am personally involved in. There are many private groups who exist to take care of those who are in need, not counting the churches who do the same.
The problem with government intervention in anything is that it costs twice as much or more than it would cost for private enterprise to do the same thing. Take the welfare programs and privatize them and more of the dollars will get into the hands of the people that need them.
It seems all you hear about is the negative. Not surprising as the negative is about all that the news sources enjoy sharing. You paint a picture of the US that just isn’t the case. You say you’ve visited - did you spend your whole time on Skid Row? Poverty is relative … Poverty in the US means you’ve got 2 TV sets instead of 3 and only one car.
Okay, so I’m being a bit sarcastic, but I deal with this stuff every day … I am a real estate agent specializing in bank-owned property. When I go to a house that has been taken back by the bank because the borrower “couldn’t afford” to pay the mortgage 9 times out of 10 the people have two new cars in the driveway, a big screen TV, a boat, etc. They CHOSE to over extend themselves and PUT THEMSELVES in the situation that they are in.
The system you describe sounds like it is very similar to the system we have here. In the US up until a few years ago they didn’t have the work requirement - now we do and, surprise surprise, the number of folks on welfare started to decline here as well. Welfare should be a safety net, not a way of life. Unfortunately, many people learn how to game the system and become professional welfare collectors.
As far as health care goes, it is available to anyone who needs it whether they are insured or not. No one can get turned away for any reason.
Being self-employed for my entire life, I have never had insurance. Why? I can’t afford it. Why? Because doctors get paid way below their “normal fees” for insurance work so they find out ways to game the system and charge out for services they wouldn’t normally do so they can bill the insurance companies more. What do the insurance companies do? Raise the price of their policies to cover their costs.
Who’s the biggest victim of the game? The government-run insurance. Why? They pay the least and have the largest number of users.
How do I pay for medical care? I pay cash. I don’t go to the doctor for every runny nose like many people that have insurance do (another reason for increased insurance costs). My wife and I have two kids, and thankfully they have been reasonably healthy thus far. Do I wish that I could afford reasonable health coverage? Of course - It would be nice to have the extra safety net, but guess what … When my son broke his arm a few years ago we went to the county-run hospital and were taken care of for a minimal cost.
I probably have more to say but I need to get back to work and I’ve already made this too long … As a prior commenter said, it’s nice to have a civil debate. :)
Comment by James Malanowski — September 10, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Crap … someone please explain to me how to properly use the quoting feature. Sorry for the above formatting problem.
Comment by James Malanowski — September 10, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
@John:
If you equate our welfare system to “socialism” in Soviet Russia, I think you need to study the subject some more, because right now, I don’t get the idea you really know what you’re talking about (as opposed to James).
Then we can continue to discuss this matter in more detail.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
The problem I see with that is that I don’t trust individuals at all. At least when it comes to the NL government, I have the power to vote them out of office if they mess up. When it comes to privatised organisations - I have no control whatsoever, and the top of the organisation can enrich themselves in whatever way they deem fit.
I prefer that control.
As for the costs - can you imagine how much money and manpower it would cost to keep track of everyone who needs welfare? Why not just use the system that’s already in place: the government! They have all the data, the manpower, the organisational skills to pull this off.
Of course, this requires a certain trust in your government. I can see why Americans tend to distrust their government, as over the years, it has given them little reason to earn your trust. In NL (our country code, by the way), there’s a high degree of transparency when it comes to politicians, in that political parties (we have about 10 in parliament, so lots of choice) must be completely financially transparent.
In addition, politicians and their parties are not allowed to accept donations from companies and businesses, and personal donations are limited to only a small amount a year. All financial data must be open to the public, and every penny needs to be accounted for, and any irregularity will be picked up by the media - as has often happened already. They simply can’t afford to mess around, because the media WILL find out.
I think it’s this strict openness that allows Dutch people to have a little more confidence in our politicians. Of course, I still don’t trust them, but I am reasonably sure that they’re not in it for their personal gain (salaries for politicians are actually quite low here), but that they’re really trying to make this country a little bit better. They fail, too, of course, and I disagree with just about all of them (this country has a lack of “larger-than-life” statesmen and women), but somewhere, some place in my heart, I know they’re not “wrong” (exceptions exist on the fringes of our political landscape).
America, on the other hand, has had lots of scandals where large corporations and lobby groups heavily influence politics, and this has led to an even greater scepticism among the American public than they already had. This is understandable. I think that the next big challenge for the American government/politicians is to increase the trust its citizens have in it/them. This process will take years, but there will be a point where even enough will say, look, we trust these guys to distribute our wealth a little more evenly.
Is that time now? I don’t think so, which is why I said that I don’t advocate that America turn its welfare system into what we have - but a few first steps could be made already, to improve the living standards of at least the poorest of the poor.
As a final note, please note that I strictly separate an individual’s ideas and beliefs from that person’s personality. In other words, you can be the biggest right-wing nutjob, but that doesn’t change how I will judge you on a personal level.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Medicine in Los Angeles.
Friend John gets hit by a car in a parking lot. His foot is broken. He has no insurance. He doesn’t call an ambulance because he knows the score. He calls me.
I pick him up, take all of his identification, drop him off at the emergency room. We check him with my address but under a fake name. They give him a cast, some painkillers and release him 4 hours later. The bill comes a week later. It is over a month’s salary, or 40 hours of my wages for each hour he was in the hospital. It costs so much because they need to cover the uninsured that don’t pay their share. We don’t pay because it costs so much.
Because we used a fake name, they can’t destroy his credit rating or send collection agencies to garnish his wages. Because we used my address, they can’t find him. They send angry letters. I ignore them.
The cycle continues.
Comment by Mike — September 10, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
I guess this will be our fundamental disagreement. I have the completely opposite view.
We also have the power to vote our officials out of office. The problem here is that the people who want the free ride and live to take advantage of the system can vote as well.
You also have control of private enterprise. You can vote with your wallet. If they’re not doing what you want or don’t agree with, do not patronize them.
In the US, churches and charities are not-for-profit corporations. The laws governing them are different than for-profit corporations. They have to have open financials for all to examine. They are only allowed to pay a minimal salary to the executives of the business and have very strict rules on what they can and cannot do with the funds they collect.
There need not be a central database of everyone who needs welfare. Each charity can handle their own paperwork. Yes, the government may have the data and the manpower, but if you think they’re organized you must have never visited our Department of Motor Vehicles! :)
If this is true, this would be one facet of your government that I would support and agree with.
I refuse to believe that anyone knows how to run my life better than I do. I will never trust anyone to that extent - especially the government.
Your last sentence gets me every time. I work hard for what I get. No one and nothing has the right to tell me I’ve made too much or I have too much. Where is the motivation to achieve if one doesn’t get to keep what he has earned? I may as well work part-time flipping burgers if I’m going to end up getting as much as the corporate executive who works 80 hours per week. Why do more? The government’s going to hand me half his salary anyway.
Trust the government to redistribute our wealth? That phrase makes me physically sick. After my family is taken care of I will choose how and where to distribute my own wealth, thank you. Have you seen how our government spends money? Ask to see an invoice for a hammer next time you visit a government facility.
This is what I don’t understand … Why do you think there isn’t help for the poor here in the US? There are hundreds of programs and organizations that are state, federal, and privately run to give help to those in need. You make it seem that we all live on the streets and are starving. Is Sally Struthers coming here next? There is a much larger middle-class than there is the wealthy OR poor and I would be willing to bet that the people we consider to be poor here in the US would look like Bill Gates to the poor in other countries.
On this we agree. I may not like your politics, but I’d be more than happy to buy you a beer the next time you visit California.
Comment by James Malanowski — September 11, 2008 @ 4:44 am
Right,
Although the idea of having to carry a heavier burden if you earn more money is a great idea in principle, I have to comment on this blog. For example no country in the EU pays more money to the EU per inhabitant than the Netherlands. Also, I feel that some groups in our society are being targeted way out of proportion, for example car owners. Also, I feel that if our government really felt we all needed to stop smoking, they would ban it all together instead of raising the taxes for tobacco to ridiculous heights. And what about health care? Our gevernment is now allowing hospitals to determine their own prices, so the poor and needy are going to get put on a much longer waiting list than the rich. So this system, while basically fair, screws certain parts of the population more than it does others and does not offer a fair distribution of goods and services in return for it in my opinion. Just wanted to mention it.
Sjaak
Comment by Sjaak — September 12, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I’m from one of those socialist welfare states in europe (Denmark) and I really do not agree with Thom.
Denmark was actually recently found as the happiest country in the world, but what the story doesn’t tell is that Denmark was also the country where people expected the least from life. I do not completely agree with the way republicans see the world, but don’t believe the fairy tale version of social europe that Thom is trying to make up.
I also believe Thom should take another trip to the States, because obviously he didn’t do his homework while being there. Although I haven’t seen Texas, I’ve been to California 5 times and never seen anything that resembled the horror stories that socialist propaganda medias in europe display. And you know why? Because those stories take some horrible abandoned city out in some nowhere state and say This Is America. So Thom, would you like me to conclude Holland is a shithole because I can find some terrible town somewhere out in nowhere in eastern europe? I thought not. So don’t judge all of america the same way.
Also keep in mind that it is true they will try make you apply for jobs if you are unemployed around here, it is trivially easy to avoid getting that job. And while I do appreciate the fact that I can study on an university without paying for it in Denmark, it also has the side effect that people studying do not care as much for it, since they did not have to sacrifice anything in life to get it. And while I didn’t pay for my eye doctor appointment, waiting for 3 months and meeting a doctor that didn’t give a shit about it didn’t really improve my impression of the superiority of the socialist welfare state model.
While I’m at it, we can also mention the fact I cannot buy an environmental friendly car in Denmark because the 180% registration tax makes any hybrid car only for millionaires in this country. Oh and while we are so environmental friendly not to have nuclear power, we instead power everything with the coal powerplants - you know, everything for the environment!
I can understand if some people believe government is better at handling certain parts of society, but calling people that think a minimal government is better for nutjobs seems pretty childish to me.
It is sometimes healthy to take a critical look at your own country too for a change and while I’m not dutch I am sure I can ask some of my dutch friends to come up with a list of things not working well in your country. After all, political murders don’t happen if everything was perfect in your country, now would it?
Comment by Magnus — September 29, 2008 @ 4:49 am