By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 30 December 2012
Edit Thread
Aielyn said:
sc94597 said:

1. The thing is, most of the sorts of things we're talking about have nothing to do with individual liberties. The few exceptions, such as the "obamacare fine" thing, are a necessary evil. And what I find curious is that, in your response to my description of Australia's Medicare, you said it was a good idea and a solution to the Obamacare problem... and it has a Medicare Levy that is comparable to the Obamacare fine, except that everyone above a certain income has to pay it.

Of course they do, they give more power to the federal government over our lives. Particularly the health care, but also taxation exceeding that of the states by vast amounts. 

2. As I said, the big irony is that you like the sound of Australia's Medicare system, but dislike Obamacare's no-insurance fine, despite the fact that Australia's Medicare system goes beyond a fine to a full-fledged tax on all who can afford it. Is your problem the fact that only those who don't buy private insurance have to pay it? Also, given your big-L Liberal positioning, I'm surprised that you're strongly in favour of a single-payer public healthcare system (that's what Medicare is) - in Australia, we call it "Bulk Billing".

Did I, sorry this conversation is everywhere so I get lost a bit? :) I said I liked the social security system with the employer putting money in the bank instead of a tax by the government which is then rewarded later in their life. I say this, because then it adjusts for generation differences, such as the baby boomers.

I'm not sure if I feel that people who don't want healthcare should be forced to have it. But like you said, I dislike Obamacare even more because instead of taking a tax out and providing a service, in this case somebody is punished for not purchasing a service themselves. It might not seem much different fiscally, but it certainly is a bad position when you have a government telling you what to buy. But if it's something standalone, and it doesn't lead to other legislation of its kind I guess it is like you said, a necessary evil - much like the government itself (as Thomas Paine did say.) If he is going to go this path he might as well just go for ful universal healthcare.  As for Medicare, I realize that it's limited to a specific demographic with a greater propensity for health risks. I don't let my ideology choose my stance on all decisions. So I understand that there is a huge difference between enabling a single-payer public system to the elderly and giving it to an entire population, regardless of their health. 

Anyway, the point is that, for a proper public health option or universal healthcare to work, you must have a strong public health system - something that America doesn't have, right now. Hence why it's so hard when you're on Medicaid.

Understandable. So what's covered in Australia's basic universal healthcare package? What do private options add? What happeneds if the economy weakens and the government can't afford both the fewer taxes and the increased health risks caused by more poverty?

3. I think you misunderstood. Americans, like everyone else, want a strong education system, a strong health system, functional infrastructure (roads, rail, power lines, water pipes, etc), some sort of social safety net in case they lose their job, etc. But Americans don't want to pay for it. Research has shown that the people who most loudly condemn government benefits are also the ones who most use those benefits. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

The education and infrastructure (excluding interstates)  are mostly provided by state and local governments, but the federal government has increased its influence. The problem is that this gives the federal government more say in local matters and hence states have less autonomy if the federal government enables assistance. For the people, this isn't a good thing as it inhibits freedom. 

4. 40% of GDP isn't especially high. This site shows general government total expenditure for 2010 by country. The US is listed at US$6 trillion, which is 40% of US$15 trillion. Australia is listed at AU$500 billion, which is about 33% of GDP. Canada is at just over 40% of GDP. Norway is nearly at 45% of GDP - and you'll note that Norway leads the world in many measures. Of course, Norway isn't perfect - it has high debt (not as high as US debt, but 50% of GDP is still high) and was in recession during 2009 (GFC hit it hard enough to do that for one year, but they're back to just under 2% per year growth). But they're running surpluses, enabling them to pay off their debt - despite government expenditure at 45% of GDP. Their unemployment rate is remarkably low, around 3.2%.

Considering how one-hundred years ago the U.S government spend less than 10% it certainly is quite high. As for Norway, it is the closest thing to a socialist state a mixed economy can become. The public sector is very influential there. Contrastly, the public job sector in the U.S is measly, therefore less spending should occur.  I'm not sure how true this is for the others. 

5. Unemployment benefits having time limits aren't even remotely an incentive to work. It just punishes those who lack the skills necessary to get a job in a strained economy such as what America is currently experiencing. As I pointed out, despite Australia not having a time limit on unemployment benefits, we have lower unemployment than America. The fact of the matter is, if a person can show that they've been seeking work (in Australia, you have to apply for 5 jobs a week to get unemployment benefits), they should be supported by the government. Note that this doesn't mean that there aren't welfare cheats. There certainly are. But they're a minority.

Unemployment fraud and working the system is so common in very common here, because in certain state there are lenient systems in which the "proof" of looking for work is far from rigorous, the time limit  is absolutely necessary, at least in my state that's the case. I'm not sure about other states though. There is absolutely no excuse to not have a job, even if it is fast-food or factory work. Both of my parents have been on unemployment multiple times and even today in the hard economic situation they were able to find jobs, and my mom doesn't even have a high school diploma. Six months (with a possible extention of two more) is plenty of time to get things in order. The only reason I'd think an unlimited time span would be good is for the middle-class workers who don't want to do anything but their specific occupation. Unfortunately, the most unemployed are the working class who have no choice but to take any job that is available. 

Note that America's unemployment rate only covers people who are on unemployment benefits, which means that anyone who has passed the 99 week limit is seen to disappear from the unemployment rate. So when comparing America with Australia, you actually have to raise America's rate further to make it align with Australia's in terms of definition.

I'm not sure how many people last an entire six months, but I doubt it's vastly more than the numbers show. 

6. Oh, the big corporate bailouts were an idiotic move by your government. Had they been smart, rather than bailing out the banks, they'd have bailed out the people who were in impossible mortgages. The banks would have been saved anyway, but the ordinary people wouldn't have experienced all of the foreclosures, etc. And then, with strong regulations to prevent the situation from happening again, things would have worked out well. And with many people suddenly no longer facing bankruptcy, the economy would have been saved. But it happened the way it happened, and now America has the task of fixing the system (re-instating Glass-Steagall would be a good first step).

Having said that, please don't use the term "fascist" to refer to what they did. Terms like that have very specific meanings, and the bailouts were not fascist in any way. It's as bad as confusing communism with socialism, or confusing socialism with national socialism (Nazism is nothing like Socialism).

I said "fascist-like" which it is true that fascist governments use interventionalist policies to benefit one company over the others, and hence create monopolies. Most fascist governments also have mixed economies. Even the word refers to Roman magistrates. In this instance, the government acts as a magistrate to influence the economic outcomes. And if it was a standalone occurance I'd not use the word, but they do it quite frequently.