LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Aug 29, 2010 17:08:57 GMT
You may have heard many of the politicians in this country referring to our country as a democracy, they are wrong. Take a look at the following video for a great explanation of what form of government we have in the United States of America: www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 17:53:38 GMT
Gosh, Louis. I found this so slanted and downright inaccurate. The part about the founding fathers and their dissing of democracy almost made me laugh, since all of them were landowners, in some cases slave owners, and in effect the landed aristocracy of the colonies. The definitions are wrong or misrepresented in almost every case. Hearing them presented on the video and harking back to the distant days of social studies, I was prompted to look up a couple: Oligarchy: An oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control. I've always found anarchism impossible to pin down, something borne out by the Wikipedia entry on it. However, I have to take issue with the narrow picture of it painted in the video. I never figured out what the video meant by a republic "leaving the people alone", a phrase used more than once. Also, its depiction of civilization only beginning with some kind of police force is completely incorrect. The video might be a great springboard to a discussion of how republics are supposed to function, but I would be loath to present it to students or to any group with no prior knowledge of forms of government. Did you not feel it contained many inaccuracies?
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Aug 29, 2010 20:11:49 GMT
bixaorellana: I just don’t understand how you feel this is slanted or downright inaccurate. I just don’t see that there was much difference between your definition of oligarchy and the one in the video were much different. I will say that the video make an attempt to lump other forms into the one category of oligarchy, but that is obvious and you can accept it or not. As to slanted, well most opinions are. We are not a democracy, maybe a representative form of democracy, but not a pure democracy and I have a problem with our President and past presidents portraying our country as a democracy and also saying that we should try to make other countries in this world democracies. Democracy seems to be the politically correct word to use at the moment.
This spring I read a book called “The 5000 Year Leap” that had to do with the writings and thoughts of our founding fathers at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. These people were educated people and had studied history and other forms of government, and as noted in the video, and had the concerns over the different forms of government and there was much debate on this. Much of what the video mentioned and much more was seriously debated.
Yes, Washington, Jefferson and many more had slaves. Was this right, no, and I think you will find that these two men felt it was wrong. At the time of the writing of these two important documents in our history the slavery issue came up many times. From what I have read it looks like they resorted to compromise in order to get the documents written. At that time, in particularly the southern states, the economy was built on slavery and they felt that could not come to an agreement at that time. Is this right, or course not, it was wrong and it took almost another hundred years before we faced the issue in a civil war. And to this day the problem has not been solved. I don’t feel the video portrayed our founding fathers as gods, they were like all humans on this earth, and they were sinners. But I will say that we had a great group of men at that time in our history and did one hell of a job considering the difficulty of their task.
We are a republic under the rule of law. We have our faults, but that is what we are.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 21:31:00 GMT
Louis, I agree that it's good to bring up the difference between a pure democracy and a republic since the strict definition of the word democracy has been blurred in common usage. The definition of oligarchy in my post above is not my personal definition -- it's simply the basic, original definition. That said, it could be argued that almost any form of government could be said to be ruled by an oligarchy, although I think saying that muddies the waters in terms of a basic, entry-level look at various governmental forms. Of course I am in agreement that the US is not a pure democracy. But as far as definitions go, the US government is in fact a form of democracy: encycl.opentopia.com/term/Democracy(the entry in that encyclopedia on republic is interesting, although rather exhausting) I have watched the video twice and came to the same conclusion both times -- that the presentation has some sort of agenda and is not an accurate teaching tool.
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Aug 29, 2010 22:29:45 GMT
Yes the video has some sort of agenda. The agenda is that our country has deviated considerably from the the thoughts and visions of our founding fathers over 200 years ago. At the moment there are many people in this country that feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 30, 2010 1:46:02 GMT
I do think it would benefit all Americans to do research into our history, which is generally surprising and also more complex that what we were told in school. Louis, you might very much enjoy The Hornet's Nest (#71). Check this out, too: www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec04/historians_07-05.htmlYou can watch it, listen to it, or read it. Even though it's from 2004, it's "about what the founding fathers might have thought of America today".
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Aug 30, 2010 2:44:58 GMT
"I do think it would benefit all Americans to do research into our history," I certainly agree with that. The average American has little knowledge of the huge effort and difficulties that our founders had to create this country. The schools cover just the surface. I have not read the book by Jimmy Charter, but i think I will put that on my list of things to do. A book like that written by a former president has to have a special incite on our history. I read the pbs link you provided and even though it was at a different time in history, I feel the founding fathers would have problems with much of what is done in government today, but I do feel that they would be impressed to see how far our country has grown in 200 years. One thing those people back them felt is that debt was not good but necessary at times. They also felt that all debt should be paid off within the life time to the people who incurred the debt. Our country is now over 14 trillion dollars in debt and is continuing to go up with no thought of maintaining a level or decreasing it. The average American has no idea how much a trillion dollars is. A trillion seconds is 31,000 years. Here is a video to help explain how big a trillion is, and we have 14 of them now: www.labnol.org/internet/visualize-numbers-how-big-is-trillion-dollars/7814/ The interest we are paying on this debt is about as much or more than we spend on national defense, and that is a big number also. Last week I have two college exchange students for dinner and during the dinner the topic of our national debt came up. The one German mentioned that our national debt and the Germans and many other countries was in a ratio to the GNP (Gross National Product, no the the ugliest thing we make :-)). It seems the masses and our politicians seem to feel if the debt is a certain ratio to how much your gross income then it is OK. Bankers quality people for a mortgage payment at an approximate ratio of 25% of their gross income. But people do not seem to see that if you have no debt it is not a worth while goal. When you have debt you have allowed yourself to be in bondage and that is not good. Using this GNP ratio is just a way of justifying the debt and the human mind can justify anything. That does not make it right.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2010 5:13:56 GMT
I finally got a moment to see the video, which raises some interesting points before getting completely bogged down in semantics (even though the whole point of the "exposé" is to "clarify" semantics).
It eludes some of the most important items, such as getting someone to write the laws of a republic. Oligarchs perhaps?
And of course, it pretends that all of these things do not overlap but are one or the other, which is plainly ridiculous.
I was reminded again of my constant peeve -- the outdated American constitution. The video refers to the "Founding Fathers" in the same way, as though anything they said is not subject to challenge and their preoccupations of 1776 are still valid 250 years later. When you think of it, the term 'Founding Fathers' immediately puts anyone else in a position of inferiority because 'Father Knows Best.'
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Aug 30, 2010 13:07:23 GMT
Kerouac2, and just how is the constitution outdated?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2010 20:09:02 GMT
It is full of amendments. A proper constitution doesn't have amendments, because most countries decide to rewrite their constitution every 30 or 40 years. That doesn't mean throwing the old one out, but just modernizing the language and including the new stuff appropriate to the current century.
I was reading the text of the original and wincing about all of the items that are costing American taxpayers a fortune in Supreme Court work due to all of the ambiguities. A lot of it is as vague as the bible about certain things and ten people can understand the meaning ten different ways. This is indicative of a document that needs to be tightened up and brought to the 21st century.
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Sept 2, 2010 15:32:30 GMT
There are really not that many amendments, only 27 in over 200 years. There is no need to rewrite the constitution every 30 or 40 years, the amendments can accomplish the necessary changes. I would also not like to see the constitution rewritten because that would allow the politicians to change things that many of the people would like to have left alone. And I do not trust any politician. The politicians tricked us into the 16th amendment, allowing the income tax.
Currently there is debate on the 14th amendment that allows people born in the USA automatic US citizenship. We have 12 million illegal people here from Mexico and their children born here are automatically US citizens. This creates a more complicated situation when the parents are deported, what do you do with the children, not ot mention the additional costs of the many social programs they are involved with.
The Supreme Court is absolutely necessary to insure the balance of powers. No matter what law, constitution or amendment that men write it will not be perfect and for that reason the Supreme Court will be necessary to resolve disputes. Yes there a lot of vague things in the bible, but "Thou shalt no kill or Thou shalt not steal" is not vague and there leaves little "wiggle room" for man to justify breaking the law.
We are also currently having a debate in this country of the right of the federal government to enact health care legislation. I am sure it will be up to the Supreme Court if the government can force people to buy health insurance and also if they can fine people through the IRS if they do not purchase the insurance.
Benjamen Franklin wrote: "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Our senators and congressmen vote for many of these benefits for the public to ensure that they are reelected with out any concern how these programs will be paid for. In the long run it is be a big problem for all of us. I also see debates on the excesses of power of the federal government and the executive branch or our government.
bixaorellana: I went to the library yesterday and I now have a copy of "The Hornet's Nest", now I have to find the time to read it. I highly recommend for you the "5000 Year Leap"
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 2, 2010 17:23:56 GMT
Kerouac already knows that I don't agree with him about the necessity of re-writing the constitution, although I do understand his logic in proposing such a thing. (see discussion here, starting at #14) I don't think anyone entirely trusts politicians, but quite often they're carrying out the will of the people. And the people can be pretty damned stupid, as the recent eviscerating of the US health reform bill because of caving in to ignorant misconception & special interests clearly showed. Louis, at some time I will probably look at The 5000 Year Leap, but to be quite honest I am automatically turned off by anything promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck. The polarization fanned by attention-grabbing media figures in the US is quite scary, based as it is on disgruntlement and vague prejudices. No one is completely satisfied, but the automatic obstruction of any program proposed by the opposite party, such as has been going on for many years now, is turning the US into a backward nation.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 2, 2010 23:14:20 GMT
Louis, the vast majority of those "illegals" from Mexico live in areas of the US stolen from Mexico. Moreover, their work is vital to the US economy.
In Europe, the EU means (in general) free circulation across borders within the Union (though I believe member states can demand citizenship for civil servants and some other workers). NAFTA has meant nothing of the like for workers in Canada, Mexico and the US.
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Sept 7, 2010 15:58:29 GMT
"Louis, the vast majority of those "illegals" from Mexico live in areas of the US stolen from Mexico. Moreover, their work is vital to the US economy. " I don't feel that justifies their illegal entry into the USA.
NAFTA was not intended to allow free circulation from country to country. I think Europe has found they they also have experienced a number of problems from the "free circulation" that the EU allows.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 16:56:09 GMT
But we have experienced far more benefits and a really pleasant feeling of total freedom in our zone. Living in fear of others causes the stomach to produce unpleasant gastric acids, leading to diarrhea. Also makes people foolishly buy guns. I guess it is inevitable when you have a constitution where the bill of rights is just tacked on as an afterthought instead of being part of the principal text.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Sept 9, 2010 8:09:30 GMT
Not a huge fan of EU bureaucracy though. Their new plan to have EU embassies overseas is purely designed for the nepotists in the EU commission.
7 EU staff to man their embassy in the Solomons? They've got to be joking! It's this kind of BS that is going to get their backsides kicked right back to Germany, Portugal or Lithuania.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Sept 16, 2010 8:01:07 GMT
Montana's state constitution was last re-written in the 1970's. Every 10 years the citizens vote on whether to call another constitutional convention for another rewrite. 2010 is one of those years.
I am always skeptical when people cite "the intent of the founding fathers" as an absolute guideline on how America should be run 230 some years later. They were men of their time, perhaps more insightful than the "common man", but they certainly couldn't have anticipated all the events and changes of the 21st century.
Rigid adherance to a 230 year old document seems foolish to me. Amendments are necessary, but exceedingly difficult to get passed. An occasional rewrite would seem to make sense. As long as they don't mess with the inspiring language (or change any of the parts that I like!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 8:08:34 GMT
Watching one of those American crime series yesterday (I don't even know what it is called in English*), the issue was gun control and of course much ado was made of 2nd amendment rights.
That got me to wondering why the 2nd amendment even exists. I don't know about the US constitution, but in France basic constitutional jurisprudence is "anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted." If it is the same in the US, why would there even be a need for an amendment for the right to bear arms? Are they forbidden in the original constitution?
*I looked it up. It's "Law & Order".
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Sept 28, 2010 16:20:00 GMT
Kimby: I just received my absentee ballot and see that there is a proposal for a constitutional convention here in Michigan and just under it there is a proposal for an amendment to the state constitution. I feel that the amendment process is all that is necessary to make the changes.
The founding fathers considered the flaws of human nature when they wrote the constitution. This is the reason for the checks and balances with the branches of the government and the limits of power of the Federal and State governments. These negative traits of men like greed, lust for power, etc. do not change over time and the founding fathers found that by limiting the power of government it would help minimize these problems. Yes in the past 230 years things have changed and they have changed a lot, but I feel that the amendment process is all that is necessary to accommodate the necessary changes and I am happy that it is not an easy process. Currently we have much debate on the new health care plan and it it going to the Supreme Court for a decision. Two areas of contention are the right of the Federal government to even have a health care program and the right of the Federal government to force people to purchase health insurance. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court uses the phrase in the preamble to the constitution to justify this law: "promote the general Welfare". Many people also don't like using the IRS as a penalty arm of the government to fine people who do not purchase the insurance. The new version of the Gestapo. The tenth amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Also comes into play with this health care plan. Much of the laws governing insurance companies are rights of the state, not the federal government.
(or change any of the parts that I like!) This is the reason I don't like the idea of giving our politicians the right to rewrite our constitution. I just do not trust any politician. I have heard it said that if all the people were angles we would not need governments or politicians, but in the reverse, if all the governments and politicians were angles we would not need elections or revolutions.
Kerouac2: The right to bear arms. The founding fathers felt that it is the duty of the citizens to make the changes necessary if the people in power were abusing their power and felt that the people take up arms if necessary to maintain their rights. This is the basis of our revolution.
The second amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I think this was added because it was not addressed in the constitution. What I don’t like is that it seems to give the people the right arm themselves to the teeth and I also don’t like all the unnecessary injuries and deaths in this country because of the lack of common sense of some of the people who own them. I personally like the Canadians way, rifles, shotguns but not pistols. The crime rate in our country with these weapons is ridiculous.
Kerouac2, I think it was Jefferson and Franklin and possibly others felt that when the people found that they could vote themselves money from the public treasury it would be the end our the country. This is evident in the current situation in Greece and now in France the debate of rising the retirement age. Once the people get use to the government taking care of them they become unhappy when these benefits are denied.
"anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted." I have a problem with that. I just feel that the devious minds of some politicians could definitely create some problems if this were the case here.
It seems that the way that laws get passed in the country is through compromise. But what people do not stop to think about is that in compromise, no one is truly happy.
bixaorellana: Just wanted to let you know that I finished the book, “The Hornets Nest” a couple weeks ago. Thank you for recommending it to me. It was very interesting and I had a hard time putting to book down. It gave me some insight as to the difficulties the people at that time of our history.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 30, 2010 6:37:55 GMT
Hey, Louis, good to see you back again. I feel strongly about the health bill because it's disgraceful that for so long the United States has not provided the kind of health care other wealthy developed nations have for their people. I am still fuming about how scare tactics and preying on people's uninformed prejudices ("socialism is bad!") were used to eviscerate the original proposals. There was so much shouting from people afraid to lose their "rights". These people seem unaware that one of the reasons they pay such high premiums is to help defray what hospitals spend on treating the indigent. And of course, the fact that insurance pay-outs exist means that medical costs are huge since they know they'll get paid. The consequence is that we still have the insurance system. "New version of the Gestapo"? No, the people got given what they wanted. "Much of the laws governing insurance companies are rights of the state, not the federal government." But the states cannot supersede the laws of the land. The quality and fairness of state insurance commissions can vary widely. Why should people in one state be more victimized by insurance companies than people in a neighboring state? About "anything not expressly forbidden is permitted" -- that is the case in the US also. You cannot be charged with a crime if whatever you're doing is not against the law. It's true that the way laws get passed is through compromise. But isn't that the essence of our form of government? We have representatives who are supposed to carry out the will of the people. We may not like the results -- you see my feelings about the health care bill, for instance -- but theoretically those results reflect the wishes of the majority of the public. I'm so glad you enjoyed that book. I found it really an eye-opener as to how the rebellion developed and how hard it was for loyalties to be clearly defined all the time. You might also enjoy Someone Knows My Name by Lawrence Hill. It covers part of the same time period, but not exactly the same historical ground. It really adds to our picture of that time.
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Sept 30, 2010 16:34:16 GMT
bixaorellana: I just finished another book you might find of interest. "Is Paris Burning", it is about the last couple weeks of the occupation of Paris by the Germans and the liberation of the city. It was a really hard one to put down.
In general we have different views on how we are to be governed. I beleive in mininal government. In the 67 years I have been on this earth I have found that when the government does anyting it is the expensive way and littered with fraud and bureatic nightmare. Our Social Security system is almost out of money. When Johnston was president they took the money for the program and put it in the general fund and the money was spent on everything else what it was ment to be spent on, hence we have the problem we have now. The government takes 15% of your wages for social security and the people deserve to get the benifets they paid for. France sees this problem and now they are trying to raise the retirement age in hopes they will have the money to pay in the future.
Look at Greece that can not pay the benifets they promised, Spain, Italy and Ireland are also not to far from a similar situation. The state of California has promised their people the dream life and now they are almost bankrupt.
Yes it would be nice to have a health care program, but not done by the government. There are some people that are wise with their money and some that are not. The ones that are not want the government to pay for their health car, retirement, etc., and are not responsible enough to take our of their paychecks for their future. Yes there are some people who just require help at some times in their lives and I feel that we should all try to help these people, but I really questions if the government is the best suited to do the job.
A few years ago Bill O'Rilley wrote a book called, "Who's Looking out for You?". In general, no one is. People have to take charge of their lives. Don't count of the government, your family, the lottery, etc to take care of you. A lot of people in this country are fools with their money. They have all the toys, but have no concern for the priority items in life. Do parents save for their childrens education, not many and their children come out of college with $50,000 to $100,000 debt. What a way to start your life.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 1, 2010 2:09:21 GMT
bixaorellana: I just finished another book you might find of interest. "Is Paris Burning", it is about the last couple weeks of the occupation of Paris by the Germans and the liberation of the city. It was a really hard one to put down. Thank you for that recommendation, Louis. I've never even seen the movie made from the book. I'll have to look it up.In general we have different views on how we are to be governed. I beleive in mininal government. In the 67 years I have been on this earth I have found that when the government does anyting it is the expensive way and littered with fraud and bureatic nightmare. I agree with you that any bureaucracy will have waste built into it, and there is sure to be some fraud wherever there is money to stick to fingers. But overall, I think the system merely needs more tightening and oversight. I don't think the entire system needs to be jettisoned, certainly not until there is a much more workable model that the public would like to see in its place.Our Social Security system is almost out of money. When Johnston was president they took the money for the program and put it in the general fund and the money was spent on everything else what it was ment to be spent on, hence we have the problem we have now. The government takes 15% of your wages for social security and the people deserve to get the benifets they paid for. Please read this article.France sees this problem and now they are trying to raise the retirement age in hopes they will have the money to pay in the future. The article linked above addresses that, calling such changes in the social security system "tweaks" that will keep it going.Look at Greece that can not pay the benifets they promised, Spain, Italy and Ireland are also not to far from a similar situation. The state of California has promised their people the dream life and now they are almost bankrupt. Yes it would be nice to have a health care program, but not done by the government. There are some people that are wise with their money and some that are not. The ones that are not want the government to pay for their health car, retirement, etc., and are not responsible enough to take our of their paychecks for their future. Not to be rude, but this is the kind of self-protective impulse in all of us that radio hosts play upon and twist. Of course we all want to reap the benefits for which we've worked. But moneys used to enhance the lives of all the people in the land make a country a better place. Many, many people in the United States work hard their whole lives, but are unable to accumulate enough to last them through retirement. Do we want to see them begging on the streets? Isn't that judgmental and selfish?Yes there are some people who just require help at some times in their lives and I feel that we should all try to help these people, but I really questions if the government is the best suited to do the job. If not the government, what private agency could possibly be entrusted with helping "these people"? The government collects taxes and has the means to do studies and run offices to review needs. Sure, some of the undeserving will get help, too, but even so, it makes for a healthier society.A few years ago Bill O'Rilley wrote a book called, "Who's Looking out for You?". In general, no one is. People have to take charge of their lives. Don't count of the government, your family, the lottery, etc to take care of you. A lot of people in this country are fools with their money. They have all the toys, but have no concern for the priority items in life. Do parents save for their childrens education, not many and their children come out of college with $50,000 to $100,000 debt. What a way to start your life. Whereas it's true we should all endeavor to be self-sufficient, it's also true that many people will not achieve that. Sure, it may be because some are grasshoppers and fiddle the summer away, but hard-working ants can have all kinds of set-backs or simply suffer from making an inadequate wage for their labors.
Bill O'Reilly and all of his ilk are playing on fears and disgruntlement. The money worries of the average American are probably based in reality, and there is fair ground for complaint against how our elected representatives serve us. But those worries and dissatisfactions shouldn't sour us against proposed solutions nor turn us against our fellow citizens.
One final word about "the government", please. The bottom line is that we are the government. We have an obligation not only to vote, but to fully educate ourselves about the issues. That means not taking anyone elses word about those issues, but finding out all we can from as many neutral sources as possible.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Oct 1, 2010 3:22:35 GMT
I'd like one of these radio hosts to change jobs with a home health aide for a week then come tell us about it. She could fake his job lots more easily than he could hers, and hers is unlikely to offer health insurance.
|
|
LouisXIV
member
Offline
L'estat c'est moi.
|
Post by LouisXIV on Oct 1, 2010 13:45:02 GMT
Obviously we have a different view on these subjects and all the talking is not going to change our views. I am just not comfortable in allowing others taking control of some of the important areas of my life and will strive to maintain my independence. I feel this will make a much stronger society in the long run. A quote from Dr. Schuller, " Tough times make tough people". We are currently going through tough times because the people, the government, the business, etc. have deviated from a sound plan for life and have allowed basically greed to take over. We are currently paying the price for that greed and mismanagement. You would think that in these tough times people would learn their lesson, but no, in five, ten twenty or fifty years from now they will do it all over again. We are all at fault. A year or so ago I heard Allen Greenspan make a comment on the current situation and he said that it was basically all based on greed and the problem is that in the future we will do it again.
I will put blind faith in God, but not in the masses that walk this earth.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Oct 1, 2010 14:25:24 GMT
As much as my health care is dictated by my supposedly excellent insurance plan, I'm always puzzled by the independence notion. I could pay more and get what I wanted, but so could anyone with enough money if there were guaranteed basic health care for all.
|
|
|
Post by betsie on Oct 1, 2010 15:09:50 GMT
I find it hard to believe that a civilised, wealthy western nation still has no universal health care programme and that there is so much opposition to it.
I've followed the debates on other forums, where Americans bang on about their freedom and independence, claim they don't need insurance because they are young and healthy, or wealthy enough to pay their own costs. I have heard some of them admit that they get prescription drugs from their own doctors in order to pass them on to others who are not insured, I have heard them asking for medical advice on forums because they haven't got the cash to see a doctor --I mean it's so damned stupid and so bad for the health of both individuals and the economy!
The whole point of compulsory universal insurance is that the healthy pay for the sick and the treatment is there for everyone whenever they need it. If only the sick and those at high risk were insured, the insurance premiums would be sky high and beyond the means of most people. That's why we all have to pay for insurance in Holland, except children, who are covered free. Even vagrants and those on welfare are insured, the premium is deducted from their welfare cheques.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Oct 1, 2010 20:14:49 GMT
Americans are brainwashed by the pseudopatriotic anti-socialist drivel covertly underwritten by obscenely profitable health insurance and pharma industries and just in case that tack fails they have also bought any politician willing to take their money (which would naturally be most) to ensure the gravy train keeps rolling on.
Wonder why the single payer concept was taken off the table early on in the game when health care reform proposals were being floated? Because it threatened the interests/profits of both industries. To achieve the savings in health care costs that potentially exist to be got, the insurance and pharma industries will have to badly hurt first and they aren't likely to allow that to happen when they have bought and framed both the public policy debate and the legislative processes.
And of course with stupid Americans who do their programmed Pavlovian response on cue when fed buzzwords like 'socialist' and 'government controlled', the multi-billion dollar scam rolls merrily on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2010 20:38:37 GMT
Even in France, I am still contributing more than 2000€ a month to pay for my mother Alzheimer's nursing home. (But everything is covered, from health care to diapers to laundry service to meals, etc.) How much would that cost in the U.S.? (I am paying that amount because children and grandchildren are legally obliged to pay within their means for such things. I had to provide my brother's financial statement in California as well as that of his two sons, one of whom is a lawyer and the other is the manager of a major Tiffany's jewelry store in a chic California city. None of them are hurting for revenue. But I myself am not asking them to pay anything, so I write the check myself every month. And additional 1000€ is provided through municipal subsidy.)
|
|
|
Post by betsie on Oct 2, 2010 7:32:00 GMT
Dutch nursing homes are paid for by the tax payer. We have a special fund called the AWBZ (the General Fund for Special Health Costs).The patient has to pay a contribution towards nursing home costs, depending on their annual income. Savings and property don't count and no family member other than a spouse is ever financially responsible for another in this country. The patient is always left with enough income to maintain financial independence and have spending money like the rest of us.
The AWBZ pays for things that the health insurance doesn't cover, like abortion, home nursing, special transport for the handicapped, etc. My partner has an eye disease and he got a reading machine (worth 3,000 euros) from this fund. Some seriously handicapped people have specialised help in their own homes every day for several hours, and at night if necessary. It all costs a great deal of money, but this is the will of the people in a civilised country--any of us might need this help at some stage in our lives.
In Holland it is against the law to give medical priority to people with the money to pay for it: no queue-jumping, as in the UK. All money can buy here is a private room in hospital. Other than this, we all have the same rights.
|
|
|
Post by betsie on Oct 2, 2010 7:37:10 GMT
Americans are brainwashed by the pseudopatriotic anti-socialist drivel covertly underwritten by obscenely profitable health insurance and pharma industries and just in case that tack fails they have also bought any politician willing to take their money (which would naturally be most) to ensure the gravy train keeps rolling on. Wonder why the single payer concept was taken off the table early on in the game when health care reform proposals were being floated? Because it threatened the interests/profits of both industries. To achieve the savings in health care costs that potentially exist to be got, the insurance and pharma industries will have to badly hurt first and they aren't likely to allow that to happen when they have bought and framed both the public policy debate and the legislative processes. And of course with stupid Americans who do their programmed Pavlovian response on cue when fed buzzwords like 'socialist' and 'government controlled', the multi-billion dollar scam rolls merrily on. An excellent post, Fumobici, which hits the nail right on the head.
|
|