Jim Dandy: Isn't it a bit misleading to say "everybody" pays when in fact everybody doesn't really?

Apparently it has advantages

By: Sheryl Ubelacker, Health Reporter, The Canadian Press

Date: Wednesday Apr. 28, 2010 5:24 PM PT

When it comes to differences between Canada and the U.S., there is one area at least where we can claim bragging rights: Canadians have the edge when it comes to life expectancy and health-related quality of life.

"Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans," said U.S. health economist David Feeny, lead author of a newly published analysis of a joint Canada-U.S. population health survey. "Mortality rates are lower in Canada and the health related quality of life -- the quality of those years -- is higher in Canada than in the United States."

In fact, the analysis of the 2002-2003 data shows that a 19-year-old in Canada, for instance, can expect to enjoy 2.7 years more of "perfect health" than an American the same age, said Feeny, an investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100428/bc_canadians_americans_longevity_100428/20100428?hub=BritishColumbia

Übergeek 바둑이: I wouldn't call for "doing away with " entitlement programs completely. Some people both need and deserve the help. I don't mind my taxes going to help the most needy among us. But we all know, or should know, that the US entitlement programs go too far. Pregnant teen? Not a problem. Apply for welfare. Need an apartment and can't afford it? No problem. Have a kid, or two, and then apply for State aid. On welfare but need more money? No problem, have more kids.

This is a reality. Instead of people having to deal with their failures in life (yes, having children before you are able to properly care for them is a failure) we bail them out. There are no consequences for such bad decisions.

We also know there is a lot of fraud. Money being wasted on programs that don't work and money being funneled to recipients that don't deserve a dime. And no one is doing anything to curb this waste.

It has to change. Governments cannot be held responsible for feeding and clothing and taking care of medical needs of all its citizens. When Obama became president, one black woman rejoiced that she'd now be getting a house (free of course). That's what she thought. Others thought that the money (in entitlements) would filter their way (thanks to Obama's never-ending pot of gold. This is a mentality of many. It's not, "What can I do to contribute?" but, "What is the government going to do for me???"

Bernice: totally familiar.

I suppose after some 70 years or so our western societies have forgotten where "welfare capitalism" came from. There was a time when we had no healthcare, no welfare payments for the poor, no employment insurance, etc. The State was not involved in those things. Taxes were low, governments were small and those in need had to fend for themselves.

We have to go back to the 1920s and 1930s. If you were poor, you had very little and you had to somehow survive. You would look at the rich and wonder why they had so much, while you had so little. The end result was massive social unrest. It became so bad that from 1917 to 1949 we went from a world that was entirely Capitalist to 1/3 of the people of the world going into revolution and falling under Communist rule. After all, the Communist promise sounded good. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Then we had millions of people returning home from WW II. Those people fought hard to protect their freedom. They would come home and find no work. They would ask themselves "Is this what I fought for?" So Communism was still sounding really good.

Capitalist governments faced a lot of pressure to change, or else have huge revolutions. So those in power figured that if they taxed the wealthy and the middle class, and used that money to provide services, then they could reduce hardship on people and put an end to the rising social unrest. It was pressure from Communists and Socialists that made things change. Just as the French Revolution had made western societies abandon aristocratic rule and give people democracy, so the Soviet revolution made western society give up some of its capitalist selfishness and greed and give people some relief from their poverty.

Now Capitalist countries wish they could do away with many of those programs. The question is: "Could they?" I think that without those social programs we would fall back into the anarchic days of social unrest. I think that if poverty were to increase massively, people would rethink their posture against Communism. Then they would look at China and say "look at their economic prosperity, maybe Communists got it right after all".

Welfare capitalism is there for one main reason, to stop Communism from gaining ground.

Artful Dodger: I agree with you wholeheartedly...and with regards to """become a reflection of Britain with their excessive entitlement programs """" we also are the same. Over here you get a book when you register for the DOLE...and you must have at ;east one signature each week saying that you have been looking for work...but of course you have the university professors (or those that think they are) who think they are so clever, all they do is go for jobs they would never qualify for in a million years.....full of gab and NO getgo. Sound familiar??

Bernice: If a person is capable of working, and they won't, they should be left to the consequences of such irresponsibility. It's my view that entitlements are largely responsible for the serious problem of generational poverty. I depended on me and what I could do to provide for my family. Even when I was single I would work more than one job. The only time in my life where I didn't work two jobs was when I became a teacher. But by then I had a savings to fall back on and while teaching full-time, I was also still going to school nights for my Master's degree. I grew up in a family of 9 so we were not well off. But I have two certificates from Vo-Tech schools and three university degrees. And I paid for all of it myself. I have little sympathy for those that say they had a "hard life" or that they didn't have opportunities. Neither did I. I made my own. And there are thousands like me - hard workers who take responsibility seriously. A bum can stand on a street corner for hours but he can't wash dishes for a living (I've done that as well as janitorial work and fast food work). Why can't they?

rod03801: Interestingly, the left has no adequate response to questions they are being asked regarding Obama's policies. Instead of answering the people's questions or responding to their concerns, the left simply vilifies the opposition.

I heard a caller on a radio program respond to the question about Republicans fixing things if they get into power. But the caller rightly said it's not Democrats or Republicans we need, we need public servants that honor the historical intentions of the constitution, and seek to do the will of the people. American's don't want to become a reflection of Britain with their excessive entitlement programs (which are failing). We need politicians who will seek to honor the rule of law, end the mad spending, reduce government control on our lives, and allow American taxpayers to keep more of their hard earned money. And we need to stop all recess appointments. It's been abused by too many administrations (and excessively abused by Obama. This country is about "We the People" and NOT "We the elite politicians."

Artful Dodger: yep....sounds as if you have lived in Australia......and probably the UK, and most other places as well that has welfare for bludgers to sponge off...

Artful Dodger: Beautifully said!
It is pathetic that so many people feel the need to be "taken care of" by the government. (Which means the rest of us) We need to get back to the times where we pulled ourselves up, and when help was needed, you turn to your family, if they are able. Not complete strangers who are busy taking care of THEMSELVES.

Bernice: A friend of mine has a step son. He lives off the State. He gets all his medical free AND gets a monthy paycheck (as does his daughter who is 3). The mother of the little girl is a meth head. So she can't care for her own kid. The father of the little girl has muscular dystrophy. But he is able to do many things. He drives, has parties, and seems capable of doing many tasks. Yet all he does is live off the State. He was into drugs when younger, conceived his daughter with his meth head lover, and now can't deal with the consequences of his actions and so people like me are supporting him via our taxes. That is not right. He stays up late and sleeps late into the day. His step-dad is forced to watch the grandkid because the dad is too out of it! He is one of thousands across America with little incentive to work. And the State has no problem taking my money out of my pocket and giving it to him so he can sit on his ass and do nothing.

And get this: His step-dad and mom take care of him (he lives with them). They are actually getting paid as he is a ward of the State and they have become his licensed caregivers. So, The mom and step-dad get a monthly check, his daughter gets a monthly State-aid check, and HE gets one too.

Paid by people like me. nice.

Artful Dodger: never a truer word spoken...it is the same here...you work hard to support the lowest forms of life....Kids who are spoiled by their parents and wont work and others who cry poor and get everything they ask for....Over here they join the forces...they take all in sundry.

Jim Dandy: I don't think this is the case at all. First, the costs can't be sustained. Eventually, something will give. Likely, that will be in the form of health care cuts, long waiting lists, and denial boards. That's exactly what's happening in other parts of the world.

There is no right to personal health care. It's not up to the government to force me to pay for your health care. I've spent my lifetime working hard in many jobs and I've always provided for my family. When we were without insurance (when the second child was born) we paid out of our pocket. We didn't beg the government to help us out. When I was laid off, I found whatever I could and I worked. I didn't sit on unemployment. And for a long time I worked three jobs. I wasn't rich or particularly smart, but I was a hard worker. I returned to school, received three degrees, and have worked for everything I now have. And my new reward for a lifetime of hard work and saving is that I get to help bail out failed businesses, support lazy welfare slobs, and help pay for the health care costs of those who didn't put in the work to support themselves and their family. That is NOT a deal to me.

Jim Dandy: australia has already changed its retirement age....it used to be 65 men and 60 women...now it depends on what year you were born as to how old you will be when you retire....we also have a compulsory superannuation scheme in which the EMPLOYER has to pay 9% of your current base wage, but this is going to increase shortly from what Ive read and the papers I get on "employment" There is also a scheme where if you donate $1000 per year the Govt will match it.....cheap savings for only a $20 pw. Also when you are of retiring age if you stay at work and dont collect a pension the Govt will give you so much extra per year towards your retirement. Can't remember the figures but it is something like $30,000 for an extra 5 years working, which is a damn site cheaper than the $12,000 to $14,000 per year you would collect on the pension.

Übergeek 바둑이: I didn't say it was a non issue, just that it is "overblown".60 is the new 40,65 is a very outdated retirement age.There will be an additional burden of course, but nothing like the hype suggests, due to many not seeking retirement for years or decades past 65..... IMO

Jim Dandy:

It is not a doomsday scenario. It is merely the government not having enough to pay for it. Then having to either raise taxes or cut elsewhere to pay for it all. People are now talking of changing the retirement age to 70 so people can work a few extra years. Still, if you live to be 85, and retire at 65. That is 20 years of pension to be paid. People are living longer and longer. The pension system can't keep up. The most wasteful are of most governments is the military. Eventually the money will have to come from there. Where else?

The baby boomer doomsday scenario is overblown, people rarely retire and sit on their asses at 65 anymore, many work until death,and willingly

I think that ultimately the United States will have to make some tough choices on "entitlements" and other government expenses.

This year 2010 represents the first year since "baby boomers" (those born after 1945) begin to retire. Over the next 10-20 years the American healthcare and pension sytems will face tremendous pressure to come up with the funds to continue to give people services.

As the population ages, those costs will continue to increase and the American government will have to either raise more funds or cut services. Since the funds come from taxation, it is quite likely that the US will have no choice other than raise taxes. The US already has the largest public debt in the World accounting for nearly 28% of the entire World's public debt.

Even without "Obamacare" the American healthcare and pension systems are already stretched to the maximum. The other option is to take money from somewhere else. That could mean less spending on infrastructure (e.g. tranportation infrastructure), a bad idea since that would slow down the economy too much. It could also mean a drastic reduction in military spending.

The Iraq War was payed in part through massive borrowing (never had the US borrowed so much money in its history) and in part through "reallocation of entitlements". The Bush administration took hundreds of billions of dollars that were sitting "idle" in the pension system, and through fiscal manouvering, reallocated them to the military. Alan Greenspan knew this and he was glad to be a part of it, but he warned that if something was not done the pension system would run out of money by 2017.

The only way the US will be able to restore those funds and pay for healthcare and old-age pensions will be with drastic cuts in the military. That will mean a massive recession and massive unemployment because the Cold War turned the US into a war economy. The US will have to take big steps backward in its global military presence, and scrap wasteful defense initiatives such as the ICBM Interception System, which at the research stage alone is costing over 1 trillion dollars.

So the priorities will be clear cut. Either healthcare and old age pensions, or continue to spend trillions in the military. A tough choice for a superpower!

Artful Dodger: Nobody is under the illusion that covering the whole nation with healthcare won't cost money, it will.It is simply a question of priorities.Most major nations of the world have decided it is worth the sacrifice of additional taxation,maybe Americans aren't as interested.The same goes for gays in the military, few other major nations feel it's a big deal, the USA does,you are what you are, and will make your own decisions on these issues.

Ferris Bueller: Health insurance rates have already gone up substantially nation wide. When taxes go up to pay for all these entitlements, you'll simply run out of excuses.

Jim Dandy: By getting her face seen. N' being 'blonde'

Tuesday: yes, that's her complete resume before the view

Tuesday: She's dumber than dirt generally,how she parlayed being on survivor to a career on tv mystifies

Snoopy: I can read the facts, just as I read about the reforms in the UK healthcare system re GP's and budget spending.

Snoopy: I've not said there are differences.. I've said our NHS works.

It's not down just to postcode. I've had problems with one service due to me complaining. But I got given the CEO's number...

Artful Dodger:  Re. FDR, we know what actually did happen.  Your sources can only talk about what might of happened in a reverse scenario.  Conservatives site these things as absolute fact, which they are not.

(V): stop twisting things
thats not what i meant at all

of course serious ill people get treated first geesh

im saying if you read correctly
that you seem to know an awful lot about a health care system in a country you dont even live in

(V): well there you go
exactly my point its all down to health care trusts and its a post code lottery

something ive been saying on here for months which you have always denied

Snoopy: You are saying the more seriously ill people get treated first... So?

Snoopy: NHS is decentralizing and cutting care. There is rationing and this is exactly what will happen in the US as well. The Federal government has no business getting involved in the health care business. More wasted money. Every time the government tries to fix something, they make it worse.

Snoopy: Strange... My x-ray was next day, my scan 2 weeks... bloods same day. Specialists sorted with an appointment for the next just 2 weeks after.

Jim Dandy: thats my point
V can tell everyone on here that our NHS is bloody brilliant and waiting lists have fallen etc etc
but in reality its so different


im on a waiting list and i can only assume that what ever is causing the pain im getting is nothing to serious hence the long wait

Snoopy: but wouldn't you not even be on a 6 week waiting list if it was too expensive, and you had to pay for it/

Artful Dodger: oh dont get me started on our so called NHS
its the pits for most people
ive been waiting over 6 weeks to be called to go for a scan
ive been back to my own docs twice and each time she says have i had the scan yet

now if had the money i could get it done in secs

Snoopy: Any new 'program' is going to have teething problems. That's normal.. It'd be unreal to think it won't!!

.. I mean Microsoft can't get it right first time can they!!

Snoopy: It's already a done deal that Obamacare will end up costing more than was promised, and the deficit will boom because of it. All one needs to do is look at Britain's health care to see just how bad an idea this all is. I should not be forced to pay through my taxes, for the health care of others. I provide for my family and that is enough.

It will be reversed. It's doomed to fail as it has elsewhere.

(V): yes but isnt that just theory
has everything else in life it dosnt mean it happen that way

Artful Dodger: The legislation was signed in March this year. If you'd read it you'll know it was designed to be enacted in stages...

Within one year of enactment (2010-2011)

* Insurance companies barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, ending the practice of rescission. Lifetime coverage limits eliminated and annual limits restricted.
* Young adults able to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
* Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
* Insurance companies cannot deny group or new (non-grandfathered) individual coverage to children under age 19, due to a pre-existing condition.[146]
* A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
* Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
* A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
* A 10% tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

Click here

edited to shorten link

Ferris Bueller: You prefer to speculate in the opposite direction. Either way, you have to speculate.

Ferris Bueller: Not so. Economists know clearly that Obamacare will do the opposite as was promised. Did you not read the link? It's a left wing websiite and in it the DEMOCRATS concede that the deficit will not go down and costs will not lower. Why are you denying your own party's report?

Artful Dodger:  Nobody promised that "ObamaCare" would result in cost savings or reduce the deficit miraculously overnight.  It is too early to pronounce it a failure.

Artful Dodger: Businesses don't collude today they say.....

Yeah right.. 1000's of firms in the UK were caught out price fixing.

Guess those economists don't get out much!!

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004 Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

full article here: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America
http://www.amazon.com/New-Deal-Raw-Economic-Damaged/dp/1416592229

Worth the read.

Artful Dodger: He led the USA till near the end of WWII.. His management of the USA economy helped the USA have the industrial strength to win it.

He's the only USA president to be elected for over 2 terms. He must have done pretty good.